D&D 5E Do you allow a spell to be identified before counterspelling?

[jmartkdr2]

Lots and lots of cardboard boxes. Hide your wizard in them. It worked for Snake Plissken. So much they made 7 to 100 video games of this.

7 video games and 93 movies, achtually.

 

[Istbor]

Not really no. I like to think most wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, and other casters each put their own spin and style on casting over time. Similar to how arcane glyphs, spell scrolls/books, would all be slightly different. Like understanding a dialect. You can probably guess at the intent but if you want to be sure this does what you think, it requires understanding the unique hand it is written in by whatever particular author.

I do say allow better knowledge of such things if the spell has pretty obvious intent, or the caster's body language gives any clues. As well, in some of my worlds, you would more easily tell what is being cast if you say, went to the same academy/enclave/college whatever you want to call that magical center of learning, as the caster.

This seems to work. The players accept the risk that they could be counter spelling something less dangerous as a fireball (which I find is their base assumption for every spell), and they like that when the tables are turned, the enemy won't know what they are countering either necessarily.

Generally its pretty easy. Enemy spell caster = bad. Let's make sure they can cast as little as possible.

 

[Gadget]

IDK, I think the wizard duel is a bit iconic and, IMO, counterspell is part of that. I don't remember who it was, but if your familiar with Harry Potter someone on these boards described counterspells like the duel between Dumbledore and Voldemort in Order of the Phoenix.

But that's just it, this ends up being nothing like the Dumbledore/Voldemort duel in Order of the Phoenix. Or the Merlin/Mim duel in the Sword in the Stone. It just ends up being an interrupt driven, grind the game to a halt type of non sequitur.

 

[turnip_farmer]

It creates situations where the players are discussing who's willing to spend the reaction so that the character with the counterspell could maybe try countering...

The easiest way to get rid of that is not to allow it. I am very tight on time allowed even when it's the player's turn (unless they're new). If it's a reaction - say it now or lose the chance! 5e combat isn't complicated enough that players should be allowed to think.

"What do you think, Dave? Should we try and identify th-" "TOO LATE! BOOM! Make a Dex save".

 

[Arial Black]

Actually I think your idea makes less sense than also including a reaction as in Xanthar's. To me it is all about time. In roughly 6 seconds you get your turn + reaction. If I am taking the time to study a caster's spell, when would I also have the time then cast my own spell (on top of everything I am doing on my turn).

The Arcana check isn't about studying the spell being cast, it's about recognising the verbal/somatic components.

The roll is to see if you recognise it or not. This is similar to other checks which are about resolving if your PC already knows that particular piece of information.

If you ready, say, an attack with a bow & arrow, and the trigger is "When an enemy comes around the corner into view", and then an enemy comes into view and you tell the DM that since the trigger occurred then you are using your reaction to take the readied attack....

....and the DM tells you that you can't because you used your reaction to study the creature coming round the corner to work out if it's a friend or an enemy....

....then the whole Readied Action/Trigger/Reaction cannot be used if you are required to use your reaction to recognise the trigger!

 

[dave2008]

But that's just it, this ends up being nothing like the Dumbledore/Voldemort duel in Order of the Phoenix. Or the Merlin/Mim duel in the Sword in the Stone. It just ends up being an interrupt driven, grind the game to a halt type of non sequitur.

That depends on how you describe and imagine it. It is not something I have experienced, but the person I was referencing said they describe spell / counterspell like that. Who am I to argue.

 

[dave2008]

The Arcana check isn't about studying the spell being cast, it's about recognising the verbal/somatic components.

The roll is to see if you recognise it or not. This is similar to other checks which are about resolving if your PC already knows that particular piece of information.

If you ready, say, an attack with a bow & arrow, and the trigger is "When an enemy comes around the corner into view", and then an enemy comes into view and you tell the DM that since the trigger occurred then you are using your reaction to take the readied attack....

....and the DM tells you that you can't because you used your reaction to study the creature coming round the corner to work out if it's a friend or an enemy....

....then the whole Readied Action/Trigger/Reaction cannot be used if you are required to use your reaction to recognise the trigger!

I guess I think spells are more complicated and require some study to recognize what is being cast. However, I can see an argument for waiving the requirement if you already know the spell (it is on your spell list).

There is not a right or wrong, just a difference in how we perceive fantasy magic.

 

[jgsugden]

In my game:

• If you know or have cast the spell, you recognize it. (Paladins, Clerics and Druids know all spells from the spell lists in the books, generally)
• If the spell is on your spell list, but you do not know it (for the other classes), you can make an arcana, religion or nature check to identify it for no action.
• If it is not on your lists, you can make the same check, but it costs your reaction.

 

[MNblockhead]

I use Xanathar's with a twist of handwaving.

First, in general, I don't like stating "the evil wizard is casting fireball", I rather describe the wizard casting and the results of the spell if perceptible. My players are I like more tactical play and this encourages cooperation if you have multiple spell casters, and add more risk and suspense to counter-spell. Xanathar's identify-as-a-reaction rule makes the iconic wizard battle a team sports.

BUT all that is more fun with big bads and gets sloggy when used for EVERY encounter with an enemy spell caster.

As the players become more familiar with certain types of enemies and their spells, I'll just start stating that the Acolyte of Orcus is cast bless. Similarly, a generally figure that a higher level wizard will be able to know what lower-level, common spells are being cast, esp, if in their spell book. Unless, there is a good in-story explanation for an enemy wizard having a very different way of casting the spell.

What is fun with this, is that if the party finds themselves in very foreign lands, they may find that they can no longer instantly know what spells are being cast, even if very common, low level spells. It is another way to make to create that sense of unease and uncertainty when in foreign areas.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If the enemy throws a tiny tarte at me. I don't need to use a reaction. Same goes for sulfur and bat guano.
It is a lot more difficult if a focus is used instead.