D&D 5E Vecna's Dread Counterspell vs. Counterspell -- What's the Diff?

[Charlaquin]

Why is it so problematic that Vecna, one of the supposed greatest practitioners of magic in D&D, and many millennia old even in this non-god form, is able to always know that a spell is being cast in his presence?

It isn’t. The problem is that it is not clear to me that the text indicates that he is. If it indicated so clearly, it would not be a problem.

And why the massive focus on what is the ability REALLY saying?

Shouldn't the focus be on what would you have it do, IN YOUR GAME, if you were to ever use this version of Vecna?

I already answered this. Because for me, part of the process of deciding how I want to rule in my game is understanding what the rule actually says and what that was actually intended to mean, so that if I want to rule otherwise I can do so with conscious intent. I am not asking “how would you rule this?” because that’s irrelevant to me. I am not asking “how should I rule this?” because I can decide that for my self. I am asking “how did the people who designed this intend for it to work?” understanding that will help me decide how I want to rule it.

 

[Charlaquin]

My point exactly. The only reason we have that ruling is based on Sage Advice....and though I use SA on some things I don't think anyone 100% agrees with JCs rulings. There is nothing that says subtle spell stops counterspell from working, people just do because it "feels right", not because of any RAW.

So you’re arguing that, however you rule Counterspell works, Dread Counterspell should work the same way? I mean, ok, but that seems like the opposite of the tac the people focusing on the difference in wiring are taking.

 

[Parmandur]

It’s a significant stretch for me to assume that this very minor difference of wording was a conscious attempt to indicate that he can use the ability on a spell that has no visible indication and not a simple product of inconsistent templating due to the “natural language” approach. But even if I swallow that horse-sized pill, there’s still the problem of Vecna somehow consciously responding to something he isn’t consciously aware of.

If you want a narrative: Vecna is metagaming, he is literally cheating the normal rules of the universe by knowing what the DM knows. This seems to me to be what the designers intended, since the grammatical difference is neither small nor sloppy. They very carefully worded it so that casting a Spell is not a Direct Object of Vecna's sight, but a modifier of the durect object, the creature. In normal Counterspell, seeing the creature and seeing the casting are both Direct Objects. And this construction makes no indication f being slapdash or unconsidered on my read, it is a very carefully constructed sentence.

 

[James Gasik]

It would be in character for Vecna to metagame.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I mean, there are still two episodes left in this season of Stranger Things and perhaps therein will be a clue how to rule Vecna's abilities. After all, that's what started all this. So there's that.

 

[Parmandur]

My point exactly. The only reason we have that ruling is based on Sage Advice....and though I use SA on some things I don't think anyone 100% agrees with JCs rulings. There is nothing that says subtle spell stops counterspell from working, people just do because it "feels right", not because of any RAW.

No, because the grammar of how Counterspell is written indicates two Direct Objects [the Creature and the Casting] for the Subject [the Counterspeller] verb [seeing]. Dread Counterspell has a single Durect Object [a creature] with an adjectival construction indicating that creature needs to be casting...not that Vecna needs to see the casting, as with the clear grammatical construction of the standard Counterspell.

 

[Charlaquin]

If you want a barrative: Vecna is metagaming, he is literally cheating the normal rules of the universe by knowing what the DM knows. This seems to me to be what the designers intended, since the grammatical difference is neither small nor sloppy. They very carefully worded it so that casting a Spell is not a Direct Object of Vecna's sight, but a modifier of the durect object, the creature. In normal Counterspell, seeing the creature and seeing the casting are both Direct Objects. And this construction makes no indication f being slapdash or unconsidered on my read, it is a very carefully constructed sentence.

I don’t disagree that the sentence is carefully constructed, but it looks to me like it’s constructed to avoid describing the effect as magical or reproducing the effect of the counterspell spell, so as to insure it remains immune to counterspell and Antimagic Field by the Sage Advice guidelines. And I definitely don’t find the idea that the intent is for Vecna to be able to meragame, as if he has Deadpool-like awareness of being a character in an RPG compelling. I think if the intent is for him to be able to counter a spell with no components, it must also be intended for him to know it’s being cast, perhaps via the same ability that allows him to know what spell is being cast by looking at the caster. Still think that information belonged in the stat block or at least the dossier though.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I mean, there are still two episodes left in this season of Stranger Things and perhaps therein will be a clue how to rule Vecna's abilities. After all, that's what started all this. So there's that.

I hope that's a joke, because Stranger Things villains are NOT their D&D counterpart. Dustin just names them after them.

This argument is not convincing to me, and in fact makes me less inclined to agree because it seems like the people on the “he knows and can use it” side are motivated as much by wanting Vecna to be a strong opponent as by trying to interpret what’s actually there.

I think you have it backwards - it's not that "we" want Vecna to be more powerful and so are reading it that way. We are reading it that way, and then wondering why anyone would chose to read it the other way and make him less powerful. That's AFAICT the only reason "power" was ever brought up. (That and to try to make you understand that Vecna, in all the lore that's ever been written about him, ALWAYS Knows Stuff He Should Not Know.) This is part of why many of us think that it could probably have been intentional (obviously know one knows for sure.)

 

[Parmandur]

I don’t disagree that the sentence is carefully constructed, but it looks to me like it’s constructed to avoid describing the effect as magical or reproducing the effect of the counterspell spell, so as to insure it remains immune to counterspell and Antimagic Field by the Sage Advice guidelines. And I definitely don’t find the idea that the intent is for Vecna to be able to meragame, as if he has Deadpool-like awareness of being a character in an RPG compelling. I think if the intent is for him to be able to counter a spell with no components, it must also be intended for him to know it’s being cast, perhaps via the same ability that allows him to know what spell is being cast by looking at the caster. Still think that information belonged in the stat block or at least the dossier though.

I agree that it should be more clear, but Dread Counterspell RAW suggests that I'd he simply sees a creature that is casting a Spell, he k ows and can react...period. RAI is verifiable based on the small Adventure built by people in communication with the designer making that more clear.

I like the Deadpool approach because first, that fits my style of game, and I love Xyckon from the Order of the Stick and his metashennanigans. But a less tongue in cheek "Vecna is a ridancuent and powerful Archmage who can see the working of the Weave beneath the epiphenomen that mortals are limited to, and can see and identify any Spell being cast irregardless of cpkne ts" would work.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

since the grammatical difference is neither small nor sloppy.

Can't quite agree with this.

Here are phrases about the target from Dread Counterspell and Counterspell:

DCs: "a creature he can see that is casting a spell"
Cs: "you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell"
Cs: "a creature in the process of casting a spell"

Sorry, perhaps I'm no grammar wizard (College of Scribes?) but, to me, this difference does seem either small or sloppy or both.... or, another take is: there is no difference. If it were super clear, this discussion wouldn't be happening.


That said, please explain the difference, if there is one, between:

"a creature... that is casting a spell"

and either:

"a creature in the process of casting a spell"
or
"a creature... casting a spell"


(and, FWIW, I honestly still don't know 100% how I'd rule a Subtle Spell vs Dread Counterspell)