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

[Parmandur]

Another possibility: the fluff specifically calls out Vecna as a time traveller. Maybe he loves out of sync with time, and knows the possible actions that may be happening from any creature interaction from him (another narrative gloss on "he can metagame," I feel).

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Yep, the wording is pretty inarguably such that he doesn’t need to see the casting. But that doesn’t indicate that he can use the ability if he doesn’t know that the target he’s looking at is casting a spell. If it was clear that by seeing a creature that is casting a spell, he knew that it was casting a spell even if he didn’t see the spell being cast, I think this would be an open and shut thing. So, does he have such a capability? That’s what I want to get to the bottom of. Is there support for that in the text? The passage in the adventure that says he knows what spell is being cast by looking at the caster has been pointed out, and I find that fairly persuasive. Is there any other support for that in the text, or comments from the developers that might indicate as much?

 

[Parmandur]

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)

I laid out the diagramming above: Dread Counterspell has one Direct Object ("a creature he can see that is casting a spell"), Counterspell has two Direct Objects ("you see (1) a creature within 60 feet of you (2) casting a spell"). Counterspell specifies that the Subject need sto see both the creature and the casting, which is why SubtleSpell and other tricks can pass it by. Dread Counterspell says that the Subject simply needs to see the creature, and Subtle Spell and other tricks are themselves bypassed. That this is intentional is verified by the accompanying adventure where this is assumed.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Still think that information belonged in the stat block or at least the dossier though.

I agree. Of course, I also think that if "Subtle Spell" was meant to work against counterspell, it should have been more clear. Personally, I don't think that "No VSM" means "No one can tell that you're casting a spell" (Certainly not VECNA of all people).

I mean, let's take most visual representations of "psychic powers" that we have in many media. Even if ALL you're doing is "willing" reality to break (IE Casting A Spell), you usually still show some effort on your face. Psylocke's face has a purple butterfly! There's virtually LIMITLESS fluff for it. Sure, no VSM would make it fairly easy for you to hide that you're casting. Fools that know very little about magic probably wouldn't see it. But VECNA? (Or any significant spellcaster? - Personally I think anyone who's good enough to know counterspell could probably do it.)

A DM could easily have a case to rule any of these:

1) Subtle spell is so subtle that no one (at all ever) can tell you're casting (very generous to SS)
2) Subtle spell gets rid of VSM so most people can't tell. To know, they need to roll Insight vs your passive Deception or Spellcasting dc
3) You need to hide it or they know. You need to roll Deception vs their Insight
4) It just gets rid of VSM, so you can cast while tied to a chair and gagged, but everyone can tell you're casting a spell. (Cruel to Subtle Spell)

Personally I think 1 is as unreasonable as 4. Certainly Vecna (of all people) can probably tell. Again, I think manipulating reality/tugging on the weave/whatever should take more effort than just wandering around while stuff happens without anyone knowing where it came from/who did that. Even if you're subtle about it.

(Though I would definitely let a player with Subtle Spell get away with it 9/10 times. Only with particularly awesome spellcasters would I probably make them roll-off.)

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

My goal is specifically to not choose how to read it, but to understand how it is intended to be read. Arguing “well he’s more powerful if you read him this way” therefore makes the reading less appealing to me because it seems to be coming from a place of wanting to choose how to read it rather than wanting to understand how it was meant to be read.

 

[Parmandur]

Yep, the wording is pretty inarguably such that he doesn’t need to see the casting. But that doesn’t indicate that he can use the ability if he doesn’t know that the target he’s looking at is casting a spell. If it was clear that by seeing a creature that is casting a spell, he knew that it was casting a spell even if he didn’t see the spell being cast, I think this would be an open and shut thing. So, does he have such a capability? That’s what I want to get to the bottom of. Is there support for that in the text? The passage in the adventure that says he knows what spell is being cast by looking at the caster has been pointed out, and I find that fairly persuasive. Is there any other support for that in the text, or comments from the developers that might indicate as much?

I think tat this is clearly an assumption that the Stat block is making that they failed to fully draw out.

 

[Parmandur]

I agree. Of course, I also think that if "Subtle Spell" was meant to work against counterspell, it should have been more clear. Personally, I don't think that "No VSM" means "No one can tell that you're casting a spell" (Certainly not VECNA of all people).

I mean, let's take most visual representations of "psychic powers" that we have in many media. Even if ALL you're doing is "willing" reality to break (IE Casting A Spell), you usually still show some effort on your face. Psylocke's face has a purple butterfly! There's virtually LIMITLESS fluff for it. Sure, no VSM would make it fairly easy for you to hide that you're casting. Fools that know very little about magic probably wouldn't see it. But VECNA? (Or any significant spellcaster? - Personally I think anyone who's good enough to know counterspell could probably do it.)

A DM could easily have a case to rule any of these:

1) Subtle spell is so subtle that no one (at all ever) can tell you're casting (very generous to SS)
2) Subtle spell gets rid of VSM so most people can't tell. To know, they need to roll Insight vs your passive Deception or Spellcasting dc
3) You need to hide it or they know. You need to roll Deception vs their Insight
4) It just gets rid of VSM, so you can cast while tied to a chair and gagged, but everyone can tell you're casting a spell. (Cruel to Subtle Spell)

Personally I think 1 is as unreasonable as 4. Certainly Vecna (of all people) can probably tell. Again, I think manipulating reality/tugging on the weave/whatever should take more effort than just wandering around while stuff happens without anyone knowing where it came from/who did that. Even if you're subtle about it.

(Though I would definitely let a player with Subtle Spell get away with it 9/10 times. Only with particularly awesome spellcasters would I probably make them roll-off.)

That Subtle Spell and a few other similar abilities short circuits stuff like Counterspell is pretty clear from the text of both Suvtle Spell and Counterspell: someone can't react.to something they don't know is there.

It also strikes me yhst something like how I am reading Dread Counterspell would be an excellent high level end cap for a Subclass...

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Woah, hang on, don’t just brush over that, this is exactly the sort of information I’ve been asking for. What in the text of the adventure provides this verification?

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.

That would work. If the text said it. Does it?

 

[dave2008]

Yeah but Vecna doesnt know the creature is casting a spell (if it's cast Subtly).

As someone else pointed out up thread, if you diagram the sentence, Venca just needs to see the caster, not that they are casting. However, it obviously only works if someone is casting. Think of like an always on effect. His spell sense is triggered when someone is casting (whether or not their are any components to be sensed), if he can see the caster he can then counter their spell.

However, the adventure that came with Vecna further explained the he does in fact simply know when someone is casting a spell, whether or not he sees the cast.

Take a look at Mage Slayer reaction. You just need a creature within 5' casting a spell (you dont even need to be able to see them).

Are you saying that you would allow a Fighter with MS a MS reaction attack against a Subtle spell being cast within 5' of that Fighter, that the Fighter has no idea is being cast?

If so, JC ruled the exact opposite (Subtle works against Mage Slayer, and denies the attack).

It's literally worded the same as Dread Counterspell, and doesnt ever require sight.

By RAW, yes that is how I would rule, but by RAI, I would not rule that way. I always lean on RAI myself. I am not one to be overly worried about RAW.

As I clarified above, the adventure already provided the "sage advice" clarification on Venca's ability.

 

[Charlaquin]

Another possibility: the fluff specifically calls out Vecna as a time traveller. Maybe he loves out of sync with time, and knows the possible actions that may be happening from any creature interaction from him (another narrative gloss on "he can metagame," I feel).

This just reads like a justification for how you want to read it, rather than evidence it’s how it was intended to be read.