D&D (2024) Playtest 8 Spell Discussion

[Maxperson]

I can answer this. It's magic. Q.E.D.

That's not an answer, though.

 

[Yaarel]

That's not an answer, though.

The Counterspell spell grants the magical ability to detect and deflect.

 

[Maxperson]

The Counterspell spell grants the magical ability to detect and deflect.

No it doesn't. There is no wording in there to allow it. You have to see and detect through normal means, because the spell doesn't explicitly say it has magical means built in.

 

[Yaarel]

No it doesn't. There is no wording in there to allow it. You have to see and detect through normal means, because the spell doesn't explicitly say it has magical means built in.

In the spell description of Counterspell, the Casting Time of the magic spell explicitly says when it can be used.

The caster KNOWS a hostile spell is happening VISUALLY.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

RAW are the core default rules to the game, so optional rules are not RAW and can't be assumed to be in place.

This is perhaps the most ibviously preposterous position I’ve ever seen you take.

All the rules are part of RAW. Indeed, all the rules are optional, as well.

If someone asks how the Artificer works by RAW, telling them that the Artificer isn’t RAW will just get you laughed at. Because it’s obviously false.

 

[Maxperson]

In the spell description of Counterspell, the Casting Time of the magic spell explicitly says when it can be used.

The caster KNOWS a hostile spell is happening VISUALLY.

Um. Again, it does not say that you get to magically know, so you don't. That's how spells work. The lead designer has said that see invisibility only lets you see the invisibility and not the invisible person, because the spell doesn't say so. Spells only do exactly what they say that they do, and Counterspell does not allow you to see the caster. You have to see the caster via normal/other means. It's the same with knowing if the caster is casting a spell. The spell does not allow that, so you have to determine it another way.

 

[Maxperson]

This is perhaps the most ibviously preposterous position I’ve ever seen you take.

All the rules are part of RAW. Indeed, all the rules are optional, as well.

If someone asks how the Artificer works by RAW, telling them that the Artificer isn’t RAW will just get you laughed at. Because it’s obviously false.

Equally false is the idea that all rules are optional. They aren't or there wouldn't be any labeled optional. Default rules are part of the game. Optional rules are not a part of the game at any given table. Not until they are optioned in. Default rules are not out unless the DM house rules them out. Not options them out. House rules them out. There is a distinction there that's rather significant.

But you're right. The optional rules are RAW. They just aren't a part of any table's game unless optioned in, unlike default RAW. Nothing in Tasha's or Xanathar's is in my game unless I say they are. Everything in the PHB is in my game unless I say it isn't. That's a major difference in how it works. Players can assume PHB rules are accessible if the DM hasn't said otherwise. They should assume the opposite with a splatbook.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Same difference. You're playing semantical games here. The entire point of "quiet" casting is to keep it secret.

It is not a semantic game. I don't care what the point is, there is a clear and obvious difference between talking softly and not talking at all.

I assume nothing. You can't see verbal spellcasting because it looks no different from any other talking. The only way to tell, since a lip reading feat isn't in the game that I can remember, is to hear it and by sound have your eyed drawn to a caster.

1) Lip Reading is in a feat.

2) The sound has to cause you to look at them is just your own made up requirement.

You need to learn what a rule is. Stat blocks are not rules, as the DMG tells you. You're in a bit of a quandry here. If you argue that the DMG consists of rules, then you have to accept that the DMG and MM are not rules. If you accept what the DMG says about all the rules being in the PHB, then the DMG and MM are not rules. You have to literally argue that the DMG is lying to you in order to be correct here.

No? What are you even talking about? The DMG has a ton of rules in it. And statblocks are rule elements. Where did you even get the line that "statblocks are not rules and why should I not assume you are just misinterpreting what it says?

By running a game with elements that aren't RAW. It's that easy. An orc doesn't have to be a rule in order to be in the game. I mean, orcs are OAW(orcs as written), but are not RAW(rules as written). Orcs are not rules.

So you have no idea what I said.

Because to run a 100% RAW game... I have to have non-RAW elements. Which means it is not 100% RAW.

Okay, but this was your claim.

"And I don't expect many rules in the PHB to be used, so what gives them special privileges?"

What "I don't expect many..." means is that you expect few. If I say that I don't expect many kids to show up at my son's birthday party, it means few kids are expected to show up. If you say that you don't expect many cards in the new MTG set to be worth anything, it means you expect few to be worth something. That's how English works.

Perhaps you meant, "I expect that there are many rules in the PHB that won't be used." That leave open that many will be used. Words mean something. I'll leave it to you to explain which of those two things(assuming you didn't have a third thing that I can't even begin to see) you meant.

Meaning can be gained through emphasis and tone. The second example you provided is still accurate to how I stated it.

It's not a rule if it isn't in the game. Optional rules are not rules until and unless they are optioned in.

Yes it does. The rules of the game are the ones that I must abide by unless I house rule them out or change them.

Literally nothing is a rule unless it is in the game that I run, and no optional rule is unless I decide to option it in. This is a fact that you cannot avoid.

Explain to me how my game is expanded if I don't buy it.

This is false and demonstrated that you don't understand what an optional rule is. Your False Equivalence with contracts is noted and rejected since it has no bearing on RPG rules. The game rules are not a contract. There is no punishment involved.

You do not get to define rules as "the rules are only the things followed at my table". You cannot add an optional rule that is not a rule. Even if it is not a rule you choose to use, it is a rule that exists.

RAW speaks to how WOTC wrote the rule, not whether or not you bought a product that contains that rule.

Yep! They are not rules, exactly like class tables and equipment lists. You have this mistaken belief that interacting with rules makes something a rule. It doesn't.

If I have changed the damage die of a longsword, I have changed the rules of longswords. If I remove versatile from longswords, I have changed the rules of longswords

Now, you can make a pointless semantic argument that "longsword" is just a collection of rules and not a rule itself, but that is splitting hairs to an absurd degree.

 

[Yaarel]

Um. Again, it does not say that you get to magically know, so you don't. That's how spells work. The lead designer has said that see invisibility only lets you see the invisibility and not the invisible person, because the spell doesn't say so. Spells only do exactly what they say that they do, and Counterspell does not allow you to see the caster. You have to see the caster via normal/other means. It's the same with knowing if the caster is casting a spell. The spell does not allow that, so you have to determine it another way.

When referring to the rules as written, it is the case:

If a hostile caster is invisible, then Counterspell is unable to work even if the invisible caster is screaming the Verbal component at the top of ones lungs.

Oppositely, even if a visible caster is casting a spell silently, without a Verbal component, or even casting innately without any component, Counterspell will work.

 

[Chaosmancer]

On the counterspell, I realize this got lost in the discussion, but it is important.

You cannot counterspell an invisible creature. They could be screaming into a megaphone, precisely describing their entire casting process, and if they are invisible, you have no option to counterspell.

So hearing the spell is not a factor. That can be weird, but it is flatly true.