D&D 5E Counterspell nerfed!

[Charlaquin]

No, because that is not a fireball, that is something that is part of their anatomy/biological function.

I realize the point you are trying to make, but its different.

A monster having an ability 'Ball of Fire' that they conjure out of the air, but its not a spell because its not 'Spell: Fireball' is just an unnecessary breakdown of the world building/system of magic and how PC's and NPC's should interact with it.

Time will tell, but if an NPC Cleric Human, has an ability which is 'Hand of Healing' that is essentially Cure Wounds, but its not a spell?

To me personally that's a grotesque failure of design.

But casting fireball involves chabting an incantation, waving your hands around, and either brandishing a magic wand (or equivalent) or doing unspecified things with bat guano and sulfur. If a devil points their finger and makes something explode, casting fireball is not what they’ve done.

 

[Scribe]

But casting fireball involves chabting an incantation, waving your hands around, and either brandishing a magic wand (or equivalent) or doing unspecified things with bat guano and sulfur. If a devil points their finger and makes something explode, casting fireball is not what they’ve done.

Perhaps, but we could split hairs all day on this.

My point remains, if things which are clearly just spells, are not tagged as such, this breaks the logical consistency of the game world, and the various systems which PC's engage with.

I absolutely loathe that kind of thing, and that certainly appears to be something which Wizards has overlooked.

 

[Charlaquin]

Perhaps, but we could split hairs all day on this.

My point remains, if things which are clearly just spells, are not tagged as such, this breaks the logical consistency of the game world, and the various systems which PC's engage with.

I absolutely loathe that kind of thing, and that certainly appears to be something which Wizards has overlooked.

I don’t see how it breaks the consistency of the game world. There can be more than one way to (magically) make fiery explosions happen in an internally consistent fantasy world.

 

[Scribe]

I don’t see how it breaks the consistency of the game world. There can be more than one way to (magically) make fiery explosions happen in an internally consistent fantasy world.

Thats fine, if my NPC Cleric example doesnt make it clear what I'm focusing on, I cannot do better at explaining.

 

[Xetheral]

Also, the more NPC casters deviate from the PC spellcasting systen, the harder it is to make effective use of standard anti-spellcaster tactics, like attacking them when they're low on slots. An NPC that can effectively cast an uncounterable Fireball at-will (and many of their other spells exactly once each, Mystic-Arcanum-style) is a very different type of opponent than an NPC caster with PC-style casting. So even if the counterspell issue can be avoided with judicious houseruling, the new statblock format has a practical impact, and isn't just a matter of presentation.

 

[Bill Zebub]

But casting fireball involves chabting an incantation, waving your hands around, and either brandishing a magic wand (or equivalent) or doing unspecified things with bat guano and sulfur. If a devil points their finger and makes something explode, casting fireball is not what they’ve done.

In my mind there needs to be a "casting" for it to be counterspellable, logically.

In fact, maybe I'll start doing something like this:
a) You have to declare counterspell before knowing what spell they are casting (with some possibility of recognizing what is being cast...I gotta work on that). So I'll have to change my DMing style to first declare that a spell is being cast, wait for input from players, then declare result.
b) Spells that are cast as reactions (including Counterspell) are especially difficult to counter. Fairly high DC arcana check, and if you fail then you were too slow but you still used your spell slot. That will prevent Counterspell chain reactions.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

It doesn't matter if it's semantics or not. It's a fact of the game and a house rule to do differently. If you rule that the beholder rays can be counterspelled when they are not spells, you've changed the rules of the game.

This is where we are butting heads. I don't believe I've changed any of the "rules of the game". I'm simply interpreting "spells" and "magic" differently than you are.

Spells are listed as spells and have spell levels assigned to them. Spells are also in the MM are listed under spellcasting and innate spellcasting. The MM explicitly says that spells are under those two categories. Anything outside is not a spell. I reject the obviously wrong argument that the beholder rays are spells. There would be no point to naming anything a spell if you are correct, but I suspect you know that you are not.

Again...we just are interpreting what is written differently. I already pointed out that under "What is a Spell?" in the PHB pg 201, the first sentence supports my interpretation. Just because Spells in the PHB have levels doesn't mean that is the "only interpretation of what a spell is".

Causing a magical effect is a "spell"...it just hasn't been assigned any sort of 'level' specifically. The magical effects caused by the Beholders eyestalks are magical. That's why I classify them as "spells" that can be messed with during and/or after their use.

No. You argued it, but it wasn't semantics. For instance you completely ignored the section at the beginning of the MM that lays out what spellcasting, innate spellcasting and actions are. The beholder eye ray actions are not spellcasting or innate spellcasting, and are therefore not spells.

I'm not exactly sure where/what you are referring to. If MM pg10, under "Special Traits", it simply defines "Innate Spellcasting" and "Spellcasting".

Looking at Beholder, under it's Actions...

"Eye Rays: The beholder shoots three of following magical eye rays..."

So...magic. Magic as defined in the PHB page 201. Meaning that my interpretation does stand up. As I said...I think this is simply a matter of you thinking "naaa..." and me thinking "yaaaa....".

Nope! You must house rule your game to make them spells in order to counterspell them. This is not a ruling. It's a house rule that changes the nature of the game. It's cool that you've made a house rule like that. I certainly wouldn't, but every table is different.

This is not a 'house rule'. That term is also used as a container for meaning "something in the game that we created our selves or we interpret differently than others". I'm simply interpreting some stuff differently than you. Doesn't make me, or you, any more "right" in the grand scheme of things.

A house rule would be "Casting Dispel Magic on a creature will temporarily nullify any and all of it's non-mundane abilities". That would be a house rule.

Man. I hate to think about what you do about the magic that is not only not able to be counterspelled, but works in antimagic areas.

Care to elaborate? I can't think of any, but you did...so maybe this can help us understand each other's stance a bit more?

Dispel Magic doesn't actually dispel magic. It only dispels spells.

Huh. You are correct, from what I read. The reason I agree is that is specifically is giving a Level. And, as we all know, "specific trumps general". I guess my "old grognard" ways kicked in and made the assumption DisMag would be handled 'the same' as in older editions. A lot of the times in old games or modules a monsters abilities or some areas magical effect would have a notation of "...as if a 4th level spell cast at 10th level" or something (for those not in the know, in older editions the success of a Dispel Magic, or Antimagic area, etc...wasn't a single flat number; it was a base chance then modified by the difference between the caster and the target).

Thanks for pointing it out! I'll have to keep that in mind if I ever see a PC get high enough level to cast Dispel Magic I guess!

Edit: Even if you house rule that beholder actions are spells, they still couldn't be counterspelled since they have no components to them and so you cannot see them being "cast.". By the time you see the eye ray streaking towards you, it's too late to counter it.

Again, I think we are just interpreting differently. Counterspell makes no mention of VSM...only stating "casting a spell". Because it's using the term "spell" we are having our difference of opinion. I see "spell" as a catchall for "something magical", not ONLY the spells listed as Spells under Divine or Arcane Spells...because of PHB pg201 ("What is a Spell?").

By your logic, any spell would also be impossible to Counterspell because you use a Reaction to cast it...to someone "casting a spell". They've already cast it and taken their Action. I guess the only way to do it is if the person uses a Ready action to "use Counterspell if someone tries to cast a spell". Which is fine...but then why is the spell using Reaction and not Action? A Reaction is something you do after something has happened; like, someone 'has cast a spell'. Same with the spell Shield. And we all know THAT bugaboo!

So, again, my interpretation is simple: "A magical effect is being created...you can Counterspell it". Once it is created...then you need Dispel Magic (which I may have to ACTUALLY house rule out of 'specific' and back into 'general'; I like the idea of being able to Dispel a magical effect that wasn't "created by an actual spellcaster/wizard/cleric/etc"...but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it).

Bottom line: We're just arguing about how we interpret what is written in the rules. Either way is fine with me, I just prefer my interpretation.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Maxperson]

This is where we are butting heads. I don't believe I've changed any of the "rules of the game". I'm simply interpreting "spells" and "magic" differently than you are.

You've changed actions into spells when both are defined differently in the MM. That's a rule change, not an interpretation.

Again...we just are interpreting what is written differently. I already pointed out that under "What is a Spell?" in the PHB pg 201, the first sentence supports my interpretation. Just because Spells in the PHB have levels doesn't mean that is the "only interpretation of what a spell is"

Here's an analogy for what you are doing.

Fish(spell): has scales, eyes, a head and a tail.

You're looking at that and saying that Counterfish will counter snakes since snakes have scales, eyes, a head and a tail, even though snakes(action) are defined differently from fish(spells) in the Animal Guide(MM).

Sure fish(spells) and snakes(magic actions) have similarities, but one does not equal the other and that's very obvious if you look at the rules.

Causing a magical effect is a "spell"...it just hasn't been assigned any sort of 'level' specifically. The magical effects caused by the Beholders eyestalks are magical. That's why I classify them as "spells" that can be messed with during and/or after their use.

A magical effect that isn't explicitly a spell in the PHB and given in the MM as Innate Spellcasting or Spellcasting is not a spell by any rule of the game.

I'm not exactly sure where/what you are referring to. If MM pg10, under "Special Traits", it simply defines "Innate Spellcasting" and "Spellcasting".

Under that are actions, which are explicitly not spells since they are not in the spell section. Those actions include Beholder eye rays and any other magical effect that is not a spell.

A house rule would be "Casting Dispel Magic on a creature will temporarily nullify any and all of it's non-mundane abilities". That would be a house rule.

And countering non-spell magical abilities like Beholder eye rays.

Care to elaborate? I can't think of any, but you did...so maybe this can help us understand each other's stance a bit more?

The designers have said that there is background magic, such as Dragons use to fly, that is not overtly magical in the way that antimagic and the like will affect.

Huh. You are correct, from what I read. The reason I agree is that is specifically is giving a Level. And, as we all know, "specific trumps general". I guess my "old grognard" ways kicked in and made the assumption DisMag would be handled 'the same' as in older editions. A lot of the times in old games or modules a monsters abilities or some areas magical effect would have a notation of "...as if a 4th level spell cast at 10th level" or something (for those not in the know, in older editions the success of a Dispel Magic, or Antimagic area, etc...wasn't a single flat number; it was a base chance then modified by the difference between the caster and the target).

Personally, I let it work on non-spell magic in my game.

Thanks for pointing it out! I'll have to keep that in mind if I ever see a PC get high enough level to cast Dispel Magic I guess!

Nobody hits 5th level? If they can't dispel, they can't counterspell either, and probably shouldn't be encountering Beholders, so this is all moot.

Again, I think we are just interpreting differently. Counterspell makes no mention of VSM...only stating "casting a spell". Because it's using the term "spell" we are having our difference of opinion. I see "spell" as a catchall for "something magical", not ONLY the spells listed as Spells under Divine or Arcane Spells...because of PHB pg201 ("What is a Spell?").

Counterspell can only dispel that which is seen being cast. No components means no visual on casting, so it's impossible to counterspell. The effect simply takes place with no casting involved, at which point it's too late.

By your logic, any spell would also be impossible to Counterspell because you use a Reaction to cast it...to someone "casting a spell". They've already cast it and taken their Action.

That is not correct by my logic. Counterspell explicitly(specific beats general if you need it to) interrupts the casting of the spell and stops it. It doesn't wait until the spell takes effect. Basically, you see someone waving his hands, chanting, and/or holding up bat poo and that clues you in that a spell is in the process of being cast. You declare then that you are counterspelling, which is why you don't get to know what the spell is before you counter it. There's not time to watch and see before you act.

 

[Maxperson]

And when the process of casting a spell is done, as well as how long it takes the eye beam to go from decision to shooting out of an eye, is up to the DM.

It can take no longer than 6 seconds, since the eye rays are 1 action. Further, it doesn't matter if the DM says 1 second or 6. Once the eye ray comes out it's too late to counter it, and before that you can't see any "casting," so it's uncounterable. Counterspell requires visual confirmation of a spell being cast and Beholder eye rays have none. No verbal. No somatic. And no material.

 

[Maxperson]

No, because that is not a fireball, that is something that is part of their anatomy/biological function.

So is a fire elemental hurling a blob of fire that explode in a 20 foot radius for 8d6 damage. Purely a function of the living fire(biology).

A monster having an ability 'Ball of Fire' that they conjure out of the air, but its not a spell because its not 'Spell: Fireball' is just an unnecessary breakdown of the world building/system of magic and how PC's and NPC's should interact with it.

Spells aren't necessary, either, so necessity isn't a reason for or against this. It's also unnecessary for them to use the same system when it makes more sense for a fire monster to just lob fire as a special action.

Time will tell, but if an NPC Cleric Human, has an ability which is 'Hand of Healing' that is essentially Cure Wounds, but its not a spell?

A cleric yes. Clerical healing should be spells. I would point out that Paladin lay on hands is essentially Cure Wounds and/or Lesser Restoration, without it being a spell.