D&D (2024) Playtest 8 Spell Discussion

[Leatherhead]

Quote from Jeremy Crawford: Subtle Spell is meant to protect a spell w/o material components from counterspell, since you can't see the casting.

Right, So:

Spell components are used for the purposes of tracing spells back to their caster, and determining what can be Counterspelled; If there are no components to the spell, or if you cannot perceive the components, you cannot Counterspell. And indeed you cannot trace a spell back to it's caster (assuming you can otherwise pinpoint said caster in the situations that would obstruct your senses).
From that we can infer; Spells with only a Verbal component must be detectable through their Verbal component.
Which in turn means that Verbal components must be detectible in a standard combat encounter, which assumes a fight of some kind, to at least a range of 60' (the range of Counterspell).

And that's the entire argument. Verbal components must be significantly audible (to at least this exact metric of 60') in order to facilitate gameplay via counterplay.

 

[James Gasik]

I'll concede that in order to counterspell a spell with only a verbal component, you need to hear that verbal component, despite the fact that counterspell has a sight-based trigger, and can even be cast in an area of silence (due to only having a somatic component).

However, the odds of being able to do so seem fairly remote unless you're familiar with the spell in question- any random thing someone says could be a verbal component, and a character trained in Perform could likely mimic a word of power being said in an attempt to fool an enemy spellcaster.

Which would require an Arcana check....say, does identifying a spell as it's being cast still require a reaction?

 

[Frozen_Heart]

One big thing to consider is that the spells:
Summon Aberration
Summon Beast
Summon Celestial
Summon Construct
Summon Elemental
Summon Fey
Summon Fiend
Summon Shadowspawn
Summon Undead

All seem to be going into the new PHB, Summon Aberration is already quite essential to the Great Old One Warlock.

(Hopefully summon draconic spirit too)

 

[Maxperson]

So are you saying that a deafened character cannot use Counterspell?

Not a verbal only spell, no. The DM needs to be able to take circumstances into account that the books didn't. A deaf character would have no way of knowing if someone is casting a verbal only spell or calling him a buffoon.

 

[Maxperson]

I'll concede that in order to counterspell a spell with only a verbal component, you need to hear that verbal component, despite the fact that counterspell has a sight-based trigger, and can even be cast in an area of silence (due to only having a somatic component).

And this is enough to say that characters aren't whispering their spells so as to be unheard.
DM: "Have you decided how your wizard is going to cast spells?"

Player: "Yes. He's a quiet individual so he is going to quietly incant his spells. Well, except for the verbal only spells. Those he is going to chant loud enough to be heard over the noise of combat for some reason that makes no sense."

If verbal only spells need to be loud enough to be heard over combat with no roll on the part of the counterspeller, then all of the spells with verbal components are also that loud.

However, the odds of being able to do so seem fairly remote unless you're familiar with the spell in question- any random thing someone says could be a verbal component, and a character trained in Perform could likely mimic a word of power being said in an attempt to fool an enemy spellcaster.

The odds are 100%. If it is within 60 feet you can counterspell it when you hear the "Most spells require the chanting of mystic words." You don't have to be familiar with the spell to recognize mystic words being used.

Edit: I missed this by hitting submit by accident.

Which would require an Arcana check....say, does identifying a spell as it's being cast still require a reaction?

That would also apply to gestures and components. If you are going to require an arcana spell in order to counterspell, then counterspell can't ever be used as it and the arcana check are both reactions.

 

[Leatherhead]

Which would require an Arcana check....say, does identifying a spell as it's being cast still require a reaction?

No, thankfully that's an optional rule. That rule is so poorly written that it's borderline useless. It doesn't take into account the fact you can't even say "Look out, they are casting Fireball!" when it isn't your turn, so your party can use their reactions accordingly.

 

[Weiley31]

Personally, I think a "Conjure Undead" is missing. Outside of that, still like the new Conjure spells.

 

[James Gasik]

And this is enough to say that characters aren't whispering their spells so as to be unheard.
DM: "Have you decided how your wizard is going to cast spells?"

Player: "Yes. He's a quiet individual so he is going to quietly incant his spells. Well, except for the verbal only spells. Those he is going to chant loud enough to be heard over the noise of combat for some reason that makes no sense."

If verbal only spells need to be loud enough to be heard over combat with no roll on the part of the counterspeller, then all of the spells with verbal components are also that loud.

The odds are 100%. If it is within 60 feet you can counterspell it when you hear the "Most spells require the chanting of mystic words." You don't have to be familiar with the spell to recognize mystic words being used.

Edit: I missed this by hitting submit by accident.


That would also apply to gestures and components. If you are going to require an arcana spell in order to counterspell, then counterspell can't ever be used as it and the arcana check are both reactions.

So every spellcaster automatically recognizes the "mystic words" of any spell, whether they know it or not? And nothing, not even, say, a magic mouth, could utter verbal components to fool an enemy into thinking a spell is being cast?

Seems like a stretch to ensure that counterspell remains a viable spell.

 

[Weiley31]

Sometimes the need to narratively describe something means the player decides.

Here the only mechanic is the letter "V". What that means, and how loud it is, the player decides when describing the actions of the character.

In my head canon, the Verbal component is typically about the volume of someone humming, people alongside verbalizer can hear it clearly, but people in an other room wont.

The volume of V can be loud enough for a large audience to hear, especially during a ceremony while performing a group Ritual.

But it can also be very low volume, expressly for the purpose of focusing ones own personal intention in an urgent situation.

and in this case neither does PHB or DMG, so it's about DM's best guess vs. players best guess and that leads to argument which would all be avoided if it simply was written:
I.E: Perception DC for spellcasting is 5. You get -1 penalty for every 10ft that you are away from caster

That is wrong. The mechanic is not V. The V represents the mechanic which is very explicitly chanting or singing.

There is no guessing. The verbal mechanic is chanting or singing. The DM can change it, but the players cannot.

To "chant" can be very low volume.

In reallife, I use the word "chant" to refer to a Jewish context reading from a Tora scroll and to a Sámi context of a joik (juoigat).

In both cases, the chant can be loud for an audience, or very quiet for personal meditation.

I don't know,Snape wasn't really singing or chanting loud at all.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

So every spellcaster automatically recognizes the "mystic words" of any spell, whether they know it or not? And nothing, not even, say, a magic mouth, could utter verbal components to fool an enemy into thinking a spell is being cast?

Seems like a stretch to ensure that counterspell remains a viable spell.

Considering that they are thinking of changing counterspell to trigger a con save by the caster I think that the new counterspell cam be viewed as a magical attack on the caster to distract them. The magical or psychical equivalent of throwing snuff/pepper in their face or tickling their nose with a feather or some other attack on the caster to stop them getting off their spell.
Which I think is a better version. It is far more reasonable that a caster will recognise the act of casting and have a ready means of distraction at hand than that they will divine the details of a specific spell from another caster than may come from another tradition or magical technique and know at once how to disrupt that specific spell.