D&D 5E The Gloves Are Off?

[Clint_L]

The reason counterspell can counter a spell is because it's an instantaneous reaction.

Says you.

This is absurd. Most folks have no problem but a few are insisting that their imaginary metaphysics of magic must be the way things are. It's ridiculous!

Have you ever seen a boxing match, or an MMA fight? Have you never seen two skilled combatants constantly countering each other? This is not a mind-blowing concept. We're all perfectly comfortable with attacks, counter-attacks and so on, but now when it comes to magic, which isn't real and is left with intentionally vague casting times in 5e, suddenly folks are experts in how it has to work, and everyone else is being illogical.

It's obnoxious! If it doesn't work for you, that is fine. Why are you trying to insist that your imaginary rules for magic have to apply to everyone else?

Oh, and there's an official ruling on this, so RAW is you're wrong. It's your prerogative to ignore RAW, but it is absurd to keep carrying on that everyone who disagrees with you, including WotC, is wrong.

Edit: There is a ruling. Most folks seem perfectly content with the ruling and agree that it makes sense. It is fine to disagree with the ruling, but when your disagreement is only rooted in your personal taste for how magic should work, can you not just accept that apparently most folks see it differently? You are allowed to have your subjective opinion, of course you are, but not to insist that your subjective opinion makes everyone else wrong.

Every single one of these arguments against the WotC ruling amounts to "that's not how magic works in my imagination." They have nothing to do with logic, because clearly your premises are not valid for everyone.

 

[Maxperson]

Says you.

This is absurd. Most folks have no problem but a few are insisting that their imaginary metaphysics of magic must be the way things are. It's ridiculous!

Have you ever seen a boxing match, or an MMA fight? Have you never seen two skilled combatants constantly countering each other?

Constantly countering each others punches? Yes. Countering counters? No. I've never seen a boxer go to block a punch and his opponents blocks the block so that the punch lands. Have you? If so, I'd love to see it. Please link.

 

[Irlo]

Strictly non-simultaneous turn-based resolution allows far more precise tactical choices than would ever be possible in reality.

Full agreement from me. Not sure that observation is in conflict with what I was saying though.

Why should the second counterspell always be faster than the first, though?

As I said, I would treat the 2nd counterspell as faster than the first because (in our fiction) counterspell is more quickly and easily disrupted than other spells. I've seen a countered counterspell maybe twice in my life, though, and I've never seen a 3rd counterspell in play.

 

[iserith]

No, no, I get that. But there is no "it" that is "truly" not simultaneous. There's the gameplay, which is clearly not simultaneous, and there is the imagined fiction, which can be. You say that imagination is unable to overcome that. I disagree strongly, but there's no grounds to argue it here.

Cheers!

What often happens in these discussions is someone's objection actually points directly to a failure of imagination. Which is okay, I suppose, as nobody's perfect, but at the same time nobody has ever explained why it's a good strategy to bring a heavy dose of incredulity into an activity based on childhood games of make-believe. It is an approach that simply does not serve the goal.

 

[Clint_L]

Constantly countering each others punches? Yes. Countering counters? No. I've never seen a boxer go to block a punch and his opponents blocks the block so that the punch lands. Have you? If so, I'd love to see it. Please link.

Do you think that it is possible that there is another way to counter something? Have you ever actually seen a fight? Or a sporting match? Or a movie?

Boxer throws such. Opponent blocks. Boxer pivots off block to throw a hook. Opponent ducks hook and follows with uppercut...do I need to keep going?

 

[Maxperson]

Boxer throws such.

This is an attack.

Opponent blocks.

This is a counter.

Boxer pivots off block to throw a hook.

This is a new attack.

Opponent ducks hook

This is a counter.

and follows with uppercut.

This is a new attack.

..do I need to keep going?

No. You've already demonstrated my point sufficiently. No need to continue on. At no point was any of the above a boxer countering a counter.

 

[Clint_L]

What often happens in these discussions is someone's objection actually points directly to a failure of imagination.

Exactly. All of these arguments are people attempting to prove that their imaginary rules are the only logical way to imagine magic working. It's ridiculous. I have no problem accepting that someone else's imaginary rules are A-okay in their game world, but it is annoying to be told that my imaginary rules make no sense in my game world.

 

[Clint_L]

This is an attack.

This is a counter.

This is a new attack.

This is a counter.

This is a new attack.

No. You've already demonstrated my point sufficiently. No need to continue on. At no point was any of the above a boxer countering a counter.

Oh, okay. So this is about semantics. Well, that is super convincing.

Edit: Let's try this one, then:

Player A goes to throw pass. Player B tries to block pass. Player C sees Player B doing this and blocks him instead. Pass happens. That work for you?

Or, if you want to do it with just two players:

Player A goes to throw pass. Player B tries to block pass. Player A sees it coming and dodges or otherwise blocks him while completing pass. Although not a huge football fan, I'm pretty sure that you can see this sequence play out on any given Sunday.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh, okay. So this is about semantics. Well, that is super convincing.

No. The difference between an attack and a block is not semantics. They are very distinctly different things.

 

[Lanefan]

Player A goes to throw pass. Player B tries to block pass. Player C sees Player B doing this and blocks him instead. Pass happens. That work for you?

OK, that works for the timing - but I have to assume that maps to the full-round's action for each of those players, rather then their reaction.

Gridiron football is a pretty good example here, as most plays are fairly short (mapping to rounds) with each player on the field mostly doing just one thing (mapping to their main action for the round) but occasionally also reacting to what's going on.

Or, if you want to do it with just two players:

Player A goes to throw pass. Player B tries to block pass. Player A sees it coming and dodges or otherwise blocks him while completing pass. Although not a huge football fan, I'm pretty sure that you can see this sequence play out on any given Sunday.

This maps fairly well to D&D with casting times for spells and a version of "combat casting": Player A starts casting a spell, Player B tries to interrupt it, Player A makes the requisite save and is able to complete the spell. Again, though, the attempt to interrupt might be the round's action for B (i.e. a full attack sequence or similar) rather than a reaction.

Another example might be this. For this "round" (play):
Player A's action is to throw a pass.
Player B's action is to protect Player A by blocking
Player C's action is to rush Player A and disrupt the pass.

So where can reactions come in here?

Player A launches a pass while being protected by Player B who is in the act of blocking Player C. As the pass goes over their heads Player C - while being blocked - quickly sticks up a hand to try to bat or deflect the ball. This maps to a reaction, I think.

My point is that by the time Player B realizes what Player C is trying to do (deflect the pass) it's too late for him to react because by the time he does, the ball will have already gone by (or been deflected). More broadly, there's no time to react to a reaction.