D&D (2024) Playtest 8 Spell Discussion

[Mirrorrorrim]

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.

I don't buy that. Otherwise, I can just say "I squint at, and focus on the wizard, to make it look like I am casting a spell in a subtle fashion." Heck, I can make it look like I am starting to perform somatic components. What, are they going to try to Counterspell me?

What it comes down to is there is a heated debate about a rule that is not complete or clear, and both sides are claiming that their interpretation is the obvious one. It isn't obvious, or they'd agree. The circular argument is annoying because the thread keeps getting updated, drawing me in to seek new takes, and I see the same flawed, circular arguments from both sides. And again. And again.

I know one thing is true. How Perception of the battlefield is determined, and of the actions attempted on the battlefield, could benefit from clearer language.

 

[Yaarel]

I don't buy that. Otherwise, I can just say "I squint at, and focus on the wizard, to make it look like I am casting a spell in a subtle fashion." Heck, I can make it look like I am starting to perform somatic components. What, are they going to try to Counterspell me?

It seems plausible to "pretend" to cast a spell. A DM might require a successful Deception check to pull it off, and any Detect Magic effect would expose the bluff. Possibly, a successful Arcana check − or even a passive check? − might recognize the bluff.

What it comes down to is there is a heated debate about a rule that is not complete or clear, and both sides are claiming that their interpretation is the obvious one.

One thing that is obvious is − the loudness of a Verbal component never matters for Counterspell.

It isn't obvious, or they'd agree. The circular argument is annoying because the thread keeps getting updated, drawing me in to seek new takes, and I see the same flawed, circular arguments from both sides. And again. And again.

The flaws in arguments happen when claiming houserules are official Rules-As-Written.

I know one thing is true. How Perception of the battlefield is determined, and of the actions attempted on the battlefield, could benefit from clearer language.

Perhaps the Perception skill generally requires a rethink before 2024 crystallizes.

 

[Leatherhead]

Its more fundamental than that. One side is arguing that a Verbal component can be done in a way that is virtually imperceptible, which defeats the purpose of using components to trace spells back to their origin. It has far greater reach than just Counterspelling, it also effects mundane tracing of spells, which is the other important feature of the Subtle Spell metamagic.

 

[Maxperson]

It seems plausible to "pretend" to cast a spell. A DM might require a successful Deception check to pull it off, and any Detect Magic effect would expose the bluff. Possibly, a successful Arcana check − or even a passive check? − might recognize the bluff.

The last two can't be done and still counterspell, and the point of the fake out is to make the enemy waste 3rd level or higher spell slots. Detect magic isn't a reaction so it would have to wait for the PC's next turn, and arcana checks out of turn are intended to take your reaction.

As for the first, I'd certainly require a check, but I'd probably ask for perform since it's more akin to a performance than deception. Both are valid, though.

One thing that is obvious is − the loudness of a Verbal component never matters for Counterspell.

Loudness only fails to matter if you throw logic out of the window AND ignore the natural language of 5e, the latter of which is of prime importance since it is one of the main mantras of 5e. Logic is only of importance if you want the game to make sense.

Perhaps the Perception skill generally requires a rethink before 2024 crystallizes.

Perception is fine. What needs some reworking are the reaction rules which apparently can't rely on natural language, and so needs to spell out for folks that you need to be able to perceive(outside of the spell) the trigger. Otherwise folks just toss that logical understanding of triggers and natural language out the window(along with the baby).

 

[Yaarel]

The last two can't be done and still counterspell, and the point of the fake out is to make the enemy waste 3rd level or higher spell slots. Detect magic isn't a reaction so it would have to wait for the PC's next turn, and arcana checks out of turn are intended to take your reaction.

Yeah. It seems Counterspell wont be cast unless the reallife player is aware of the spellcasting. Thus the scenario requires the DM to make the spellcasting known. Sometimes, a DM may even try to obscure the casting from the players.

It isnt a thing, but perhaps an "Arcana passive check" could allow the DM to normally inform the players when lower slot spells are in play. Maybe arcanists can "sense a disruption in the Force", sotospeak.

As for the first, I'd certainly require a check, but I'd probably ask for perform since it's more akin to a performance than deception. Both are valid, though.

Yup. Performance sounds plausible too. I tend to use Performance for esthetic appeal, but of course using it for actually acting, applies.

Loudness only fails to matter if you throw logic out of the window AND ignore the natural language of 5e, the latter of which is of prime importance since it is one of the main mantras of 5e. Logic is only of importance if you want the game to make sense.

According to RAW, players might well be unable to cast Counterspell on occasion, because the DM intentionally prevents the characters from seeing the casting happen.

Because the RAW is unhelpfully vague, characters might not even know they under the effect of a hostile spell.

Perception is fine. What needs some reworking are the reaction rules which apparently can't rely on natural language, and so needs to spell out for folks that you need to be able to perceive(outside of the spell) the trigger. Otherwise folks just toss that logical understanding of triggers and natural language out the window(along with the baby).

I probably agree. At the same time, "you can see it plainly with your own eyes", tends to work in most situation.

 

[Yaarel]

Its more fundamental than that. One side is arguing that a Verbal component can be done in a way that is virtually imperceptible, which defeats the purpose of using components to trace spells back to their origin. It has far greater reach than just Counterspelling, it also effects mundane tracing of spells, which is the other important feature of the Subtle Spell metamagic.

The spell components lack a mechanical "purpose". They are a tradition from 1e. Today the components are useless for game balance, and are mainly for flavor. The problem is, in 1e there was only one "magic-user". Today in 5e, there are many different kinds magic users, each with its own methods and flavors for spellcasting. D&D has outgrown the spell components in the spell description. Spell components get in the way.

 

[Maxperson]

The spell components lack a mechanical "purpose".

That's not true. "You cannot cast the spell if you don't perform X, Y and/or Z components" is a mechanical purpose.

They are a tradition from 1e. Today the components are useless for game balance, and are mainly for flavor. The problem is, in 1e there was only one "magic-user". Today in 5e, there are many different kinds magic users, each with its own methods and flavors for spellcasting. D&D has outgrown the spell components in the spell description. Spell components get in the way.

That's a valid opinion, but so is going the opposite way. I happen to like the flavor and the mechanical aspects of components. Even if it's not a balancing mechanic any longer, you can deprive casters of their ability to cast certain spells by taking away their components and/or foci. That adds to the game in my opinion.

BBEGs and legitimate authorities can use it against the PCs, "Strip the cretins of their stuff and throw them in the dungeon!" or "I'm sorry sir, but to attend this party you will have to leave the wands, holy symbols and component pouches here at the door. We will safeguard them and you may retrieve them when you leave."

 

[Yaarel]

That's not true. "You cannot cast the spell if you don't perform X, Y and/or Z components" is a mechanical purpose.

Spell components are purposeless mechanics. They serve no game engine purpose. They are unreliable for balance, for example.

I happen to like the flavor and the mechanical aspects of components.

To be fair, in 5e, the spell components are more relevant for the Wizard class flavor. (Even then, the Wizard is likelier to use a wand than a specific material component.) The components are irrelevant to a Bard playing a flute.

Even if it's not a balancing mechanic any longer, you can deprive casters of their ability to cast certain spells by taking away their components and/or foci. That adds to the game in my opinion.

Deprivation is extremely rare. Moreover, waking up from unconsciousness with all of ones equipment gone, or spellcasting gone, is rarely fun.

Moreover, each class has its own method of spell casting, thus its own ways to disrupt its casting.

Plus, in settings where psionic is more common, especially the gp component is highly problematic.

 

[Maxperson]

Spell components are purposeless mechanics. They serve no game engine purpose. They are unreliable for balance, for example.

You don't get to say that as a general statement. That I find them to have purpose makes you wrong if you do that. The best you can say is that for you they don't serve a purpose.

To be fair, in 5e, the spell components are more relevant for the Wizard class flavor. (Even then, the Wizard is likelier to use a wand than a specific material component.) The components are irrelevant to a Bard playing a flute.

Why are they irrelevant to a bard playing a flute? The bard only gets to use the flute to ignore the material component if it's cheap. The somatic and verbal are still there.

Deprivation is extremely rare. Moreover, waking up from unconsciousness with all of ones equipment gone, or spellcasting gone, is rarely fun.

This is also something you cannot say as a general statement.

Plus, in settings where psionic is more common, especially the gp component is highly problematic.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Clearly.

So you agree that talking quietly and not talking at all are clearly different things. Thank you for your agreement.

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?"

Sure, if you want to be an naughty word DM you can ask that. I don't tend to play with that sort of DM. How do they know? The same way that they know the person waving their hands and speaking is casting a spell and not doing an interpretative dance of the birth of the swallow.

Because the rules say that is how it works. That can be an unsatisfying answer for you, but a deaf creature can counterspell a Verbal only spell. A blind creature cannot. How precisely does that work? Once I figure out how to make words and gestures change quantum mechanics, I'll tell you precisely why the visual matters more than the auditory.

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

And why do I care what you would call it?

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.

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.

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

You know, I'd find this interesting. Except for one little detail

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.

You've already conceded the point I was making. The rules in the other books are RAW. You agree. So there really isn't any reason to keep this conversation going.