D&D (2024) Playtest 8 Spell Discussion

[James Gasik]

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.

Going to put this here, since this was brought up when I was talking about Counterspell earlier:

Counterspell vs. No Components

 

[Maxperson]

I don't care what the point is

Clearly.

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.

Since you and @Yaarel refuse to answer this and keep avoiding. And since it is a fact that the spell doesn't cause you to see everyone casting a spell, and it's also a fact that the spell doesn't allow you to know when someone's lips are casting a spell or when they are asking for gramma, I'm going to ask you directly.......again.

How does someone who cannot automatically know if someone is casting a verbal only spell if he can't hear it know a verbal only spell is being cast? Is the DM supposed to say, "Hey Bob. You see someone's lips moving and they might be casting a spell or asking for gramma, you can't tell the difference because you didn't invest in a feat. Do you want to waste counterspell on it?"

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?

I wouldn't call the few optional rules in the DM's toolbox "a ton of 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.

Silly me for assuming you were actually talking about being able to RUN the game. I thought you meant use 100% of RAW in the PHB. It seems you meant only using rules and nothing else. Well, that's impossible. The game has to be set somewhere and settings aren't rules. The monsters are not rules. Items are not rules. And so on. You cannot run a game with only RAW and nothing else. The game has to have both RAW and non-RAW in it so that the game can function.

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

Er, no. It was accurate to how I figured it out from your objections later. My original response was accurate to how you stated it. English matters.

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.

Not me, WotC. They decided what was and was not a rule for 5e.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

No. You were misapplying that statement to make an erroneous assumption that somehow counterspell gives the caster perfect knowledge of anyone in sight casting a spell. It doesn't.

You have to be able to see the person casting the spell, yes. You also have to KNOW the person is casting a spell and the counterspell language does not provide that knowledge. So if you see someone whispering a spell, for all the caster knows that person is whispering for gramma. The caster can guess at it being a spell, but if he guesses wrong and the person was whispering for gramma, he loses the counterspell.

Someone who is invisible can be heard, but is not visible, so even if heard cannot be countered.

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.

This is false. If a spell is cast silently and has no somatic or material component, the caster cannot see someone cast a spell. That spellcasting itself is invisible.

 

[Stalker0]

Going to put this here, since this was brought up when I was talking about Counterspell earlier:

Counterspell vs. No Components

So here's what we know:

The new counterspell requires the target to be seen, and they must be casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components within 60 feet.

Now the key is this. A reaction has a specific trigger....but there is no clause that says that trigger has to be "identified" or "discerned". If the trigger occurs, the reaction can occur. This interpretation is the crux of the debate.

If you go with my interpretation for the trigger....than it doesn't matter if the counterspeller can discern anything about the target's casting. there is no identification of spellcasting whatsoever. Its a simple checklist:

• Are they casting a spell a verbal, somatic, or material components?
• Are they within 60 feet?
• Can I see the target?

If the answer to those 3 is yes....than you counterspell. Its that simple.


What MaxPerson is really digging in is the notion that a reaction trigger has to be "figured out". That its meer happening is not enough, that the person with the reaction has to be able to "discern" that trigger through some method in order for the reaction to occur. That's a reasonable interpretation but I don't know if you could call it RAW.

 

[Maxperson]

So here's what we know:

The new counterspell requires the target to be seen, and they must be casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components within 60 feet.

Now the key is this. A reaction has a specific trigger....but there is no clause that says that trigger has to be "identified" or "discerned". If the trigger occurs, the reaction can occur. This interpretation is the crux of the debate.

If you go with my interpretation for the trigger....than it doesn't matter if the counterspeller can discern anything about the target's casting. there is no identification of spellcasting whatsoever. Its a simple checklist:

• Are they casting a spell a verbal, somatic, or material components?
• Are they within 60 feet?
• Can I see the target?

If the answer to those 3 is yes....than you counterspell. Its that simple.


What MaxPerson is really digging in is the notion that a reaction trigger has to be "figured out". That its meer happening is not enough, that the person with the reaction has to be able to "discern" that trigger through some method in order for the reaction to occur. That's a reasonable interpretation but I don't know if you could call it RAW.

Trigger doesn't say you have to discern it, but it also doesn't say that you can react if you don't discern it. It's silent there. That leaves us with one of 5e's mantras. Natural language. When you talk to someone about reacting to a trigger(not just D&D but throughout life), they are going to think that you need to discern that trigger to be triggered by it. Because that's how it is naturally used.

I mean, suppose a wizard is hiding and there are 200 goblins within 150 feet. If he readies a fireball to cast at a goblin if it releases a silent fart, are you going to allow him to cast it if goblin #167 lets a silent one go 145 feet away? Do you think the average person would think that was what was meant by trigger? Or do you think the natural language would cause this non-D&D player to think that you'd have to at least hear or smell the fart to be triggered by it?

 

[Yaarel]

It 5e, the RAW is unhelpfully vague about whether a character knows if they are under the influence of a hostile spell effect.

By extension, there can be cases where someone is casting a spell and the target is unaware of it.

In these cases where the target is unaware, the target would also be unlikely or unable to cast Counterspell.


That said. Normally, a caster immediately knows if an other caster is spellcasting, simply by looking. Even an innate spell is normally obvious because of the focus of attention. Similarly, anyone who grows up in an imaginary world would recognize the intent of spellcasting.

 

[Stalker0]

I mean, suppose a wizard is hiding and there are 200 goblins within 150 feet. If he readies a fireball to cast at a goblin if it releases a silent fart, are you going to allow him to cast it if goblin #167 lets a silent one go 145 feet away? Do you think the average person would think that was what was meant by trigger? Or do you think the natural language would cause this non-D&D player to think that you'd have to at least hear or smell the fart to be triggered by it?

A fair counterpoint. However, the rub is that the Ready action actually has some extra language here. It specifically says that

"First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction".

This notion of a "perceivable circumstance" is only ever mentioned in response to the readied action, not in the broader context of reactions as a whole.


And this is a broader discussion than just counterspell. Take shield for example. Its trigger is "you are hit by an attack or targetted by the magic missile spell". Ok so magic missile....do I need to know I'm targetted, do I need to actually identify the spell to know its magic missile? Is a dumb barbarian with a ring of spell storing not able to use it for magic missile because they don't know what the spell is?

And then of course hit by an attack. Well what does a hit mean? If its a dark room and I'm blind, how do I know I got hit? In theory when you take damage....but the whole point of shield is to block the hit so you don't take damage. So is shield not usable when you can't see? And against some creatures with really weird attacks, how do I actually know they are attacking me?

There are many questions that this discussion can bring up.

 

[Maxperson]

A fair counterpoint. However, the rub is that the Ready action actually has some extra language here. It specifically says that

"First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction".

This notion of a "perceivable circumstance" is only ever mentioned in response to the readied action, not in the broader context of reactions as a whole.

The fact that the only instance where it says one way or the other requires perception is a much stronger indication that I am correct than you are. It's far more likely that whoever wrote that just happened to put that in naturally than for the rest of the reactions to ignore natural language even when they don't say that they ignore it.

And this is a broader discussion than just counterspell. Take shield for example. Its trigger is "you are hit by an attack or targetted by the magic missile spell". Ok so magic missile....do I need to know I'm targetted, do I need to actually identify the spell to know its magic missile? Is a dumb barbarian with a ring of spell storing not able to use it for magic missile because they don't know what the spell is?

Shield is a weird exception to the rules in that it unwinds time. You are hit, then you cast shield, then you are not hit.

And then of course hit by an attack. Well what does a hit mean? If its a dark room and I'm blind, how do I know I got hit? In theory when you take damage....but the whole point of shield is to block the hit so you don't take damage. So is shield not usable when you can't see? And against some creatures with really weird attacks, how do I actually know they are attacking me?

Because it unwinds time. You are hit, then after you are hit and before you take damage, you react. So in darkness or blind you'd feel the hit and cast it then.

 

[Stalker0]

Shield is a weird exception to the rules in that it unwinds time. You are hit, then you cast shield, then you are not hit.

Hardly an exception. Absorb elements requires that I take damage of specific types. How do I know that the damage I took is cold damage?

Or heck Silvery Barbs. How do I perceive that a person passed their saving throw? If a person passed their fireball save but still died from the half damage....do I know they passed? If I hit a creature but do no damage due to a damage threshold, do I know I actually hit?

There are very few reaction spells in the game, and I would argue a good portion of them get really hard to use if you truly require the caster to understand and perceive the trigger.

 

[Maxperson]

Hardly an exception. Absorb elements requires that I take damage of specific types. How do I know that the damage I took is cold damage?

D&D is an exceptions based game. I didn't say shield was the only such exception, but it is an exception. There are a few other rewind time exceptions as well, but that doesn't change my point.

Edit: Looking at it the absorb elements spell isn't doing what shield is doing. It's not unwinding time. What absorb elements is doing is absorbing some of the damage as it happens. Time isn't undone. What shield does is unwind time and potentially(often) negating it's own trigger in the process. You are hit(trigger), then shield, and then you are missed(no trigger to cast shield).