D&D 5E Counterspell nerfed!

[Maxperson]

That's because arguing about counterpell is an ability, not a spell, and therefore can't be counterspelled.

Unless you are in @pming's game. Some of the ideas being put forth here are certainly.............magical.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Actually, here's a thought....

If innate magical abilities can't be counterspelled, might they be temporarily suppressed with dispel magic?

I kind of like that different tactics would be needed for different foes.

 

[Maxperson]

Actually, here's a thought....

If innate magical abilities can't be counterspelled, might they be temporarily suppressed with dispel magic?

I kind of like that different tactics would be needed for different foes.

That's an interesting idea. It wouldn't work RAW since Dispel Magic only works on spells, but if you homebrew it like I do to work on magical effects that are not spells, then it's only a short step further to allowing to work on innate abilities.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That's an interesting idea. It wouldn't work RAW since Dispel Magic only works on spells, but if you homebrew it like I do to work on magical effects that are not spells, then it's only a short step further to allowing to work on innate abilities.

I'd make it random which ability it suppressed. Could be fun.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What part of you need to SEE THE SPELL BEING CAST are you not getting?

The part where nothing in the rules tells us that you can't see a beholder using it's eyebeams until it's already been used, and that's a dynamic that you're making up and calling a rule.

No components to casting = no visual to casting. There are no other RAW things to go on visually. From Counterspell...

"1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell.'

There are no other RAW visuals to casting a spell other than components. None. If you homebrew in lights and/or other things to show visual casting, that's a table rule and not RAW.

No, it's a description that explains why the mechanics work the way they do, after the DM makes the DM ruling that you can see when a Beholder isn't starting to use an eyebeam.

Absence is not proof of existence. When discussing RAW, you can only go with what is written and nothing else. That's what the W means. If you add in a visual sign, that's homebrew.

It would have to be a rule or mechanic to be homebrew, in this context.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This seems like a LOT of arguing for something that I can't imagine won't be clarified by WotC.

I can definitely imagine them not clarifying it, tbh. I don't expect it, but I can definitely imagine it happening.

 

[Maxperson]

The part where nothing in the rules tells us that you can't see a beholder using it's eyebeams until it's already been used, and that's a dynamic that you're making up and calling a rule.

Again. The important part of RAW is the W. If it's not written, it is not RAW. You can add that in as homebrew, but any sign of casting other than V, S, M is invented by the DM and not a part of RAW.

It would have to be a rule or mechanic to be homebrew, in this context.

Not so. In this context you are using it for mechanical means. Without it there can be no counterspell. With it there is. The mechanics depend on it, so it's homebrew. Regardless of what you want to call it, though, it's not RAW.

 

[Mordhau]

The thing about arguing RAW is...

If it's arguable, it's not RAW. That's why it's useless as a concept. It's only real use is when someone doesn't know a rule. They you can point them to page XX and they can be enlightened (But no one calls this RAW; it's just called 'rules'). But if you're both looking at the same rule and no one can agree whose interpretation is correct then it's of no use. It's just laying claim to an authority which doesn't exist - because if it did there would be no need to lay claim to it.

 

[Maxperson]

The thing about arguing RAW is...

If it's arguable, it's not RAW. That's why it's useless as a concept. It's only real use is when someone doesn't know a rule. They you can point them to page XX and they can be enlightened (But no one calls this RAW; it's just called 'rules'). But if you're both looking at the same rule and no one can agree whose interpretation is correct then it's of no use. It's just laying claim to an authority which doesn't exist - because if it did there would be no need to lay claim to it.

I can say which one is correct in this case, though. It's the one that doesn't depend on something that is literally not written or implied anywhere. If you have to invent it, it's not a part of the rule or an interpretation of the rule.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

@Maxperson I honestly do get where you are coming from. I can completely see your argument for what you are saying. What I'm saying is that I simply interpret "magic" and "spells" more...hmmm... "broadly" than you do.

A monster still uses an Action to use a special ability. How is that any different than swinging a sword in regards to D&D's "Action Economy"? It's not. So having stuff listed elsewhere doesn't mean it's somehow "not an Action". It's just a means to make it easier to read for the DM during an encounter...it doesn't infer any special meaning or consideration.

As I said...I think our differences are simply in the interpretation of what "magic" is in a D&D game. You like things more specifically laid out, I like things more broadly spread around.

^_^

Paul L. Ming