D&D 5E Xanathar's and Counterspell

[Caliban]

My mistake then.

Saying that this is only a problem if you have a cheater at your table is not the same thing as saying, "that's only a problem if you or your players are morally inferior".

So you think cheating is morally OK then. Gotcha.

And I already gave you an effortless fix to the 'exploit' (player writes the spell down between turns).

Yeah, adding even more bookkeeping during combat is the opposite of "effortless".

I've got an even more effortless fix - don't use this optional rule.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

...

Yeah, adding even more bookkeeping during combat is the opposite of "effortless".

I've got an even more effortless fix - don't use this optional rule.

I agree with this. A player writing down a spell name so they won't cheat? Why do we need this rule again? Oh, to ensure that combat didn't devolve into identifying every spell. Instead combat will devolve into writing them down, apparently.

 

[Fanaelialae]

So you think cheating is morally OK then. Gotcha.

Not making any moral judgement either way, just calling a spade a spade. In the example you posited, the player was clearly cheating and metagaming, IMO. Hence, I'd name that player a cheater.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Not making any moral judgement either way, just calling a spade a spade. In the example you posited, the player was clearly cheating and metagaming, IMO. Hence, I'd name that player a cheater.

But how do you know they're cheating? You don't. So instead you will make an assumption that someone who is skilled at pitching various spell 'looks' at their opponent are in fact cheating. And maybe as the DM you'll insinuate that and the other players will begin to think that. And the player will get a bad rep they don't deserve. Or maybe they are a cheat and this rule lets them get away with it because of how it's set up. Or maybe everyone has to write down spells, slowing down the game. Or maybe the PCs team up to form a Spell Identification Plan to enable their casters to Counterspell. Or some other ingenious method players might come up with to gain an advantage (because that's what they do).

This improves the game how, again?

 

[Caliban]

Not making any moral judgement either way, just calling a spade a spade.

So you think cheating is morally neutral then?

In the example you posited, the player was clearly cheating and metagaming, IMO. Hence, I'd name that player a cheater.

If they are cheating, what rule are they breaking?

 

[Ovinomancer]

You think I'm offended? You have much too high an opinion of yourself.

You are the one who is saying that "sure the rule adds a new exploit, but that's only a problem if you or your players are morally inferior".

I'm not offended - I find this highly amusing.

Pretty sure that any exploit that involves lying falls into that category, yeah. If the player isn't lying, it's not an exploit -- everything works as intended and honestly. If you have to lie to exploit (and not in character lying to fit a narrative, but to another player lie about the mechanics of the game), then it's not an exploit, it's outright cheating. So covering up intentional lying as an exploit and then diving into the passive aggressive routine of 'your players are morally inferior' is bogus as hell. Don't buy it for a minute.

If you're going to argue there's an exploit here, it's only if players lie to other players to achieve it. Please continue to defend calling out lying as a bad thing as somehow doing something wrong. I'll short circuit that and clearly say that lying to other players about mechanics to 'win' at D&D is wrong, and players that do that are cheating. And that's morally inferior to not cheating in most moral frameworks you'd care to posit*. If I had a player or players that felt this was something they'd do, they'd be out or I'd be out. Bad gaming is worse than no gaming.


*except utilitarianism, but then you've already brushed up close to the repugnant conclusion.

 

[Caliban]

Pretty sure that any exploit that involves lying falls into that category, yeah. If the player isn't lying, it's not an exploit -- everything works as intended and honestly. If you have to lie to exploit (and not in character lying to fit a narrative, but to another player lie about the mechanics of the game), then it's not an exploit, it's outright cheating. So covering up intentional lying as an exploit and then diving into the passive aggressive routine of 'your players are morally inferior' is bogus as hell. Don't buy it for a minute.

If you're going to argue there's an exploit here, it's only if players lie to other players to achieve it. Please continue to defend calling out lying as a bad thing as somehow doing something wrong. I'll short circuit that and clearly say that lying to other players about mechanics to 'win' at D&D is wrong, and players that do that are cheating. And that's morally inferior to not cheating in most moral frameworks you'd care to posit*. If I had a player or players that felt this was something they'd do, they'd be out or I'd be out. Bad gaming is worse than no gaming.


*except utilitarianism, but then you've already brushed up close to the repugnant conclusion.

Who said anything about lying? Perhaps they are simply changing their minds about what spell they cast. They haven't actually cast anything when they ask the DM if he is going to ID or counterspell. It's not against the rules to change your mind before you cast the spell.

Also, I'm not defending anything. I do think it's funny to call someone a cheater, but deny you are making a moral judgement about them.

I also think this is a bad rule and will lead to problems if you use it. Which is what I've been pointing out.

 

[Fanaelialae]

But how do you know they're cheating? You don't. So instead you will make an assumption that someone who is skilled at pitching various spell 'looks' at their opponent are in fact cheating. And maybe as the DM you'll insinuate that and the other players will begin to think that. And the player will get a bad rep they don't deserve. Or maybe they are a cheat and this rule lets them get away with it because of how it's set up. Or maybe everyone has to write down spells, slowing down the game. Or maybe the PCs team up to form a Spell Identification Plan to enable their casters to Counterspell. Or some other ingenious method players might come up with to gain an advantage (because that's what they do).

This improves the game how, again?

You might not know the first time, or the second time, it becomes pretty obvious sooner than later.

Besides, how often do you have enemy spellcasters who can cast counterspell? Because that's the only time you would need to do this, even if you do have a cheater at the table. It's not like you have to do this every encounter.

I already went over how this improves the game (page 11 I think). You're welcome to disagree, and I'm fairly certain that the WOTC ninjas won't show up at your house even if you so.

So you think cheating is morally neutral then?

No, please read what I wrote. I said I wasn't making a judgement about the morality of cheating (it isn't pertinent to my point). I have a moral stance on cheating, it simply isn't relevant to this discussion.

If they are cheating, what rule are they breaking?

Metagaming.

Admittedly, some tables don't take issue with metagaming, but in those groups the behavior you described shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Caliban]

Metagaming.

Where is this "metagaming" rule you speak of?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Who said anything about lying? Perhaps they are simply changing their minds about what spell they cast. They haven't actually cast anything when they ask the DM if he is going to ID or counterspell. It's not against the rules to change your mind before you cast the spell.

Also, I'm not defending anything. I do think it's funny to call someone a cheater, but deny you are making a moral judgement about them.

I also think this is a bad rule and will lead to problems if you use it. Which is what I've been pointing out.

Shifting the goalposts to a slightly different but no less dishonest method? You're actually positing that there is no choice of which spell is being cast before asking if the DM (or other player) is going to identify or counterspell it, and that this isn't equally as dishonest? The Cast a Spell action isn't independant of the spell being cast -- the very choice of spell dictates the action necessary to cast and the parameters of the spell. Arguing that you declare you're casting a spell, wait to see what everyone else is going to do about it, and then pick the spell being cast is a perverse reading of the rules that you'd only ever do to try to justify dishonesty in a player as okay. It's not, and you're defending dishonesty in some perverse attempt to not have your argument be shown as only a problem if dishonesty is involved.

I think the rule is stupid - it adds little to no value and significantly increases complexity and questions of timing and also allows opportunity (and incentive) for dishonesty. We don't disagree there. We apparently disagree that exploiting the rule in the manner you suggest is anything other than rank dishonesty. We also disagree that it's valuable to defend this and accuse others of poor behavior for pointing it out.