D&D 5E Xanathar's and Counterspell

[Bishop_]

So, Jeremy Crawford clarified some intentions about Identifying spells and Counterspell on his Twitter:



From here

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Well there it is. Looks like Crawford is firmly in the shoot first and ask questions later camp.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I plan to play it as written, but I could see alowing a person to roll a check to identify the spell... and then rolling the check again if they decide they want to counterspell.

The first check identifies the spell. The second allows you to counterspell. Either or both could fail.

Succeed then fail? You know what the spell is but identified it too late to counterspell it.
Fail then succeed? You can counterspell it, but do not know what it is.

You could simplify this to a single check. If they meet the DC, they identify the spell. If they beat the DC by 5, they not only identify it, but do so quickly enough to cast counterspell in response. (Depending on how generous you feel like being, you might reduce the DC to 10 + spell level, since beating 15 + spell level by 5 would be a challenge for most characters who don't have expertise).

 

[Leatherhead]

So, Jeremy Crawford clarified some intentions about Identifying spells and Counterspell on his Twitter:

This is just like that ruling on hand crossbows needing a free hand: Functionally useless for it's core intention, and damaging to other related things that should have been left alone.

Lets say you want to figure out what spell the BBEG is casting, maybe you can help your party somehow if you know what it is.
Wrong. If you spend your reaction to figure out what spell is being cast, not only can you not use your reaction to do something useful, like cast Counterspell, you can't even tell your party members what is going on, because the only time you can use a Communication Flourish (what 5e calls a Free Action) is on your own turn. So there isn't going to be any help from you until after it's too late.

Furthermore, this broadside nerfs spells like Shield, and Absorb Elements, which require knowing what kind of spell is being cast upon you. Can you imagine a D&D where Shield can't be used to reliably counter Magic Missle? Cause that's the D&D this kind of ruling supports.

 

[Caliban]

So, Jeremy Crawford clarified some intentions about Identifying spells and Counterspell on his Twitter:

And yet, my opinion is unchanged. I don't agree with the reasoning he gives, it just seems like it would make the game less fun. I plan on ignoring it and continuing to play it as I have been doing.

Fortunately, Xanathar's Guide is a supplement, everything in there is optional.

 

[jaelis]

Furthermore, this broadside nerfs spells like Shield, and Absorb Elements, which require knowing what kind of spell is being cast upon you. Can you imagine a D&D where Shield can't be used to reliably counter Magic Missle? Cause that's the D&D this kind of ruling supports.

Actually shield and AE still work, because you cast them after the attacking spell goes off. IE, they already finished casting magic missile, then you cast shield to block it. That is different from counterspell which interrupts before you get to see the effects.

 

[Fanaelialae]

This is just like that ruling on hand crossbows needing a free hand: Functionally useless for it's core intention, and damaging to other related things that should have been left alone.

Lets say you want to figure out what spell the BBEG is casting, maybe you can help your party somehow if you know what it is.
Wrong. If you spend your reaction to figure out what spell is being cast, not only can you not use your reaction to do something useful, like cast Counterspell, you can't even tell your party members what is going on, because the only time you can use a Communication Flourish (what 5e calls a Free Action) is on your own turn. So there isn't going to be any help from you until after it's too late.

Furthermore, this broadside nerfs spells like Shield, and Absorb Elements, which require knowing what kind of spell is being cast upon you. Can you imagine a D&D where Shield can't be used to reliably counter Magic Missle? Cause that's the D&D this kind of ruling supports.

Actually, there's nothing saying you can't speak off turn (although it is open to ruling). I would be a bit perturbed if I asked an enemy to surrender and the DM forced us to cycle through the initiative order until we reached its turn before it could respond. I would find that silly in the extreme. While you shouldn't be interrupting other people's turns to monologue, I see no issue with yelling "Fireball!" off turn.

That's of course aside from the other benefits of identifying what spell your enemy cast, such as in the case of a mislead spell. Other useful scenarios would include charm effects where (outside of metagaming) you probably wouldn't know what was happening until it's potentially too late (such as the dominated rogue stabbing you in the back).

 

[Leatherhead]

Actually shield and AE still work, because you cast them after the attacking spell goes off. IE, they already finished casting magic missile, then you cast shield to block it. That is different from counterspell which interrupts before you get to see the effects.

And how would you know that they hit you with Magic Missile?

 

[jaelis]

And how would you know that they hit you with Magic Missile?

Because you observe glowing darts of magical force heading towards you

Look at it this way: suppose someone in the darkness cast magic missile at you. Jeremy's rule aside, would you really say you couldn't cast shield because you couldn't see the caster and identify the spell?

 

[Fanaelialae]

And how would you know that they hit you with Magic Missile?

Unless you are somehow blinded, you would see the missiles flying towards you. In the same way that you know a fireball was cast (assuming it's not an illusion) when you see the exploding ball of fire. Just because you can't necessarily suss out a spell from its components, doesn't mean you can't reason what it was by seeing what effect it produces.