D&D (2024) Playtest 8 Spell Discussion

[Chaosmancer]

19th! 20th! And 21st!

Holy cow you twisted that more than a contortionist making a pretzel! Had to count that sucker as 3!

You never responded to the point, just made a sarcastic comment. So, if you weren't going to move the conversation forward. I was.

That's the result of you ignoring both logic and natural language. If you don't like it because it's "naughty DM", that should tell you something.

No it's not how it works. You can quote nothing in counterspell that gives you magical knowledge of all spellcasting within 60 feet as it happens. You're inventing abilities for counterspell and trying to call it RAW.

I never claimed counterspell gave you any magical knowledge. I said it allows you to counter a spell cast by a creature you can see within 60 ft. You insist that I must be able to hear creatures who cast certain spells, which is making up rules that do not exist. Unless you can point to anything that says that deaf creatures cannot counterspell certain spells, or that blind creatures CAN counter certain spells.

Does logic dictate that you must be able to hear a spell to counter it? Well, logic dictates that you can't kill someone just by making a "yo momma" joke, but Vicious Mockery does it anyways. So, logic fails you on counterspell, because of something that you as a person who cannot cast magic does not understand.

I was being kind. A small fraction of the DMG =/= a ton of rules.

I don't care if you want to frame it as being kind or not.

Sure, I've conceded that they are "RAW," but not inherently part of anyone's game. That means you cannot use any rule from any splatbook in a discussion about how the game works by default. None of the splat book options can be assumed to be in use.

I'll take small miracles where I can. Not like I was referencing any splatbooks anyways.

 

[Maxperson]

You never responded to the point, just made a sarcastic comment. So, if you weren't going to move the conversation forward. I was.

By inventing fiction? How does that move anything forward?

I never claimed counterspell gave you any magical knowledge. I said it allows you to counter a spell cast by a creature you can see within 60 ft. You insist that I must be able to hear creatures who cast certain spells, which is making up rules that do not exist. Unless you can point to anything that says that deaf creatures cannot counterspell certain spells, or that blind creatures CAN counter certain spells.

If you don't have magical knowledge, then you need to determine spellcasting another way. Knowledge that someone casting is not automatic. You cannot tell if a psionic sorcerer is casting when he uses his psionic sorcery, even if he is within 60 feet.

That means that if there are no somatic components which would show a spell being cast, and there are no material components which would indicate a spell being cast, you have to be able to hear the spell being cast. Otherwise you aren't going to be able to tell the difference between that spell and every other verbal communication you can't hear. The DM will be forced to ask you if you want to counterspell an enemy saying something to someone close by if you can't hear that person. To do otherwise is to be woefully inconsistent in a way that would destroy the integrity of the game.

Does logic dictate that you must be able to hear a spell to counter it? Well, logic dictates that you can't kill someone just by making a "yo momma" joke, but Vicious Mockery does it anyways.

False Equivalences are, you guessed it, false!! Vicious mockery very explicitly does damage if the target can hear you. It's the sound insult carries, not the insult itself that does the damage. This is not even remotely close to what is being discussed here.

So, logic fails you on counterspell

Nope! My logic is still sound.

because of something that you as a person who cannot cast magic does not understand.

ROFL And you who cannot cast magic does understand? Sorry bud, it doesn't work that way. I can understand logic and reasoning whether I can cast magic or not.

I don't care if you want to frame it as being kind or not.

Then let me be blunt. A small fraction of the DMG is not a ton of rules. You have 10 pages out of 322, and those rules have quite a bit of fluff thinning them out.

I'll take small miracles where I can. Not like I was referencing any splatbooks anyways.

I can't remember who it was that was bringing up the DMG, Xanathar's and Tasha's, but nothing in those books or the MM count. The PHB has all the rules to play the game.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean to be fair, your premise for shield is that its a time travel spell...so I think we all are stretching things a bit here

That's how it works. You are hit. The attack has already hit you. Then you cast shield AFTER you are hit. Then the hit retroactively misses you. That backs up the attack in time. They wrote the spell stupidly if they expected it not to rewind time by about a second.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Okay I am departing from this very silly interaction. Nevermind lol

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

It definitely isn’t RAW. It’s extrapolation from RAW.

 

[Chaosmancer]

By inventing fiction? How does that move anything forward?

Because it is a simple binary. You either agree that talking and not talking are different things, or you do not. From your reaction you see to have taken the position that talking is the same as not talking. Which I find to be a rather indefensible position, but we have now made your stance clear.

If I hadn't done what I did, you'd just still be making ad hominem attacks, and nothing would be getting accomplished.

If you don't have magical knowledge, then you need to determine spellcasting another way. Knowledge that someone casting is not automatic. You cannot tell if a psionic sorcerer is casting when he uses his psionic sorcery, even if he is within 60 feet.

That is because psionic sorcery is a specific that beats a general.

Knowledge of spellcasting is assumed. Otherwise, how do you tell that a bard singing while swinging their sword is casting or not? Bardic magic is music, and sword Bards can cast through weapons. Would a wizard who has never held a sword be able to tell a normal sword dance from a magical one? Doesn't matter, the assumed answer of Counterspell is yes.

And counterspell does not state "a creature you can see or hear" which many spells do. It states you must see them. Deaf wizards can counterspell. This is a fact.

False Equivalences are, you guessed it, false!! Vicious mockery very explicitly does damage if the target can hear you. It's the sound insult carries, not the insult itself that does the damage. This is not even remotely close to what is being discussed here.

Nope! My logic is still sound.

ROFL And you who cannot cast magic does understand? Sorry bud, it doesn't work that way. I can understand logic and reasoning whether I can cast magic or not.

And yet IRL logic fails against the facts of magic. The sound of my insult can kill someone? That doesn't make sense in a myriad of ways. Someone who doesn't know what a bec de Corbin is can identify a magical dance with the weapon compared to a non-magical performance? Doesn't make sense.

But these things are true, and therfore our only recourse is to assume there is a factor of magic we do not understand, coming from a non-magical world.

Then let me be blunt. A small fraction of the DMG is not a ton of rules. You have 10 pages out of 322, and those rules have quite a bit of fluff thinning them out.

Im afb at the moment, but I am certain there are more than 10 pages.

I can't remember who it was that was bringing up the DMG, Xanathar's and Tasha's, but nothing in those books or the MM count. The PHB has all the rules to play the game.

The DMG and the MM are not splatbooks. They are Core Rule Books.

You are wrong that the MM does not contain rules.

It doesn't really matter, since I'm not arguing anything based on the MM or DMG at the moment.

 

[Maxperson]

Because it is a simple binary. You either agree that talking and not talking are different things, or you do not. From your reaction you see to have taken the position that talking is the same as not talking. Which I find to be a rather indefensible position, but we have now made your stance clear.

While talking or not talking is binary, you are engaging in a False Dichotomy there by trying to limit it to those two. In the true range we have shouting, talking loudly, talking, talking quietly, whispering and not talking. There are probably some others in there as well. I'm not sure how many distinct sound levels of talking there are.

When I pointed out that whispering and not talking, you know, the subject of this discussion, were both designed to avoid detection of spellcasting, you didn't care what the point was. Probably because it destroys your position.

You the engaged in grossly(I mean it wasn't even your typical very clear perversion) perverting what I said so I called you out on it.

If I hadn't done what I did, you'd just still be making ad hominem attacks, and nothing would be getting accomplished.

There's no ad hominem in calling you out on your Strawmen. Sorry bud.

That is because psionic sorcery is a specific that beats a general.

The general loud enough to be heard verbals, yes.

Knowledge of spellcasting is assumed. Otherwise, how do you tell that a bard singing while swinging their sword is casting or not? Bardic magic is music, and sword Bards can cast through weapons. Would a wizard who has never held a sword be able to tell a normal sword dance from a magical one? Doesn't matter, the assumed answer of Counterspell is yes.

You are aware that when bards sing spells are not just singing Pearl Jam, right. They sing the literal mystical words of creation mixed in with Pearl Jam. Others can hear those mystical words of creation.

"Bards say that the multiverse was spoken into existence, that the words of the gods gave it shape, and that echoes of these primordial Words of Creation still resound throughout the cosmos. The music of bards is an attempt to snatch and harness those echoes, subtly woven into their spells and powers."

The game is designed around verbals being heard over the din of combat.

And counterspell does not state "a creature you can see or hear" which many spells do. It states you must see them. Deaf wizards can counterspell. This is a fact.

Is it? Show me where it explicitly says anywhere in any book that deaf wizards can counterspell a verbal only spell from someone 60 feet behind them that they don't see because they didn't hear that caster. Counterspell gives no magical knowledge of spells being cast.

You have to know that the person you are seeing is casting a spell, which short of a feat is impossible if you can't hear the verbal only spell being cast. Otherwise you aren't seeing someone cast a spell. You are only seeing someone whisper something.

And yet IRL logic fails against the facts of magic.

You haven't shown the explicit language in Counterspell that gives universally perfect knowledge of everyone within 60 feet who is casting a spell. You can't infer anything and have it be RAW. You have to have explicitly written language for it to be RAW.

The sound of my insult can kill someone?

The magical echo of the words of creation that deal psychic damage yes. That echo is woven into the insult. The insult does no damage. The echo does the damage. Perhaps read bards so you know how their magic works.

But these things are true, and therfore our only recourse is to assume there is a factor of magic we do not understand, coming from a non-magical world.

This is just plain false. I don't have to know how motorcycles work in order to know that one can't fly.

Im afb at the moment, but I am certain there are more than 10 pages.

I counted. After 10 pages it goes into the guidelines on creating monsters, classes, etc. Those are not optional rules.

The DMG and the MM are not splatbooks. They are Core Rule Books.

With no core rules, yes. The DMG has a few pages of optional rules in it and the MM has no rules in it.

You are wrong that the MM does not contain rules.

Show me one real rule. Not something that interacts with real rules from the PHB, but a real rule.

It doesn't really matter, since I'm not arguing anything based on the MM or DMG at the moment.

You're not arguing anything based on any rule at the moment. You are as you admit above, just making assumptions about magic that don't hold up.

 

[Stalker0]

I'm not sure what the point of further debate is at this point.

The crux of the argument remains....does a reaction trigger require "discernment", or is its mere Prescence enough?

That's it in very simple terms, its what we keep circling around. And the rules are not clear on this subject. Now personally I think going with the discernment angle creates more problems than it solves, as a number of spells I think become notably weaker if you push on the discernment requirement....but I also think its a reasonable interpretation, and I haven't found any rules that openly dispute it.

So....pick a side, neither seems to be wrong.

 

[Stalker0]

I'm not sure what the point of further debate is at this point.

The crux of the argument remains....does a reaction trigger require "discernment", or is its mere Prescence enough?

That's it in very simple terms, its what we keep circling around. And the rules are not clear on this subject. Now personally I think going with the discernment angle creates more problems than it solves, as a number of spells I think become notably weaker if you push on the discernment requirement....but I also think its a reasonable interpretation, and I haven't found any rules that openly dispute it.

So....pick a side, neither seems to be wrong.

Actually thinking about it more, there is a possible middle option.

For spell based reactions, we could agree that discernment is "required"....however, nothing states that it must be the caster that is doing the discernment. Perhaps it is the spell itself that comes equipped with this ability....which in part might explain how a spell reaction can happen "so quickly". Based on combat rounds, a reaction spell is maybe a second at most, but more likely some fraction of a second. So the idea that a person can detect a trigger and then conjure the magical energies needed in such a short time is pretty implausible. But if the magic itself is doing the detection, and then goes "use me now use me now!!!!" that could explain the heightened speed. Almost like an AI assistance doing some of the work for you

Looking at counterspell, you could make the argument that the spell is identifying the spellcasting. But if that's true....why do I need to see the caster? We could envision a few ideas, maybe the spell colors your vision when the casting happens. Or perhaps the only way the spell is quick enough to stop the casting is if you are already seeing the target when you get the "ping" and then can direct the energies.

Obviously, this is all speculation, again the rules give us no clue into how spells truly perform their effects. But it does allow for the argument of discernment while still allowing spells to work "without a lot of interpretation".

 

[Maxperson]

Actually thinking about it more, there is a possible middle option.

For spell based reactions, we could agree that discernment is "required"....however, nothing states that it must be the caster that is doing the discernment. Perhaps it is the spell itself that comes equipped with this ability....which in part might explain how a spell reaction can happen "so quickly". Based on combat rounds, a reaction spell is maybe a second at most, but more likely some fraction of a second. So the idea that a person can detect a trigger and then conjure the magical energies needed in such a short time is pretty implausible. But if the magic itself is doing the detection, and then goes "use me now use me now!!!!" that could explain the heightened speed. Almost like an AI assistance doing some of the work for you

Spells absolutely can be the discerning factor. Look at spells like contingency. Once the caster is done setting the terms, he has nothing to do with the trigger. The magic looks out for that. This is completely unlike counterspell. See below.

Looking at counterspell, you could make the argument that the spell is identifying the spellcasting.

I don't think so. For the spell to be discerning the trigger, it has to have been cast prior to the trigger like contingency. You can't cast counterspell after the trigger and then expect it after the fact to have done the discerning before it was cast. It's not an active spell at that point.

Now if you alter counterspell to be cast in advance and it hangs around waiting to sense spellcasting and counter it, you could build in that sort of magic sense. You'd lose control over the spell at that point, though, and it would just counter the first thing it senses that meets the trigger.