D&D 5E A tweak for Counterspell

[Paul Farquhar]

What problem does this solve? It reduces complexity by limiting competing Counterspells.

On the complexity scale, than racks just below trivial.

 

[DND_Reborn]

In 5e you can counter-counterspell a spell you are casting. What if that were not possible?

I.e. You cannot Counterspell the Counterspell that targets you or a spell that you are casting. You may still Counterspell a Counterspell targetted at another spellcaster or their spell.

Or, more generally, you cannot take a Reaction while you are executing an Action or Bonus Action when said Action is casting a spell.

To theory-justify this, it would be because you are currently casting the original spell and cannot be casting two spells at the same time.

What problem does this solve? It reduces complexity by limiting competing Counterspells.

Ok, I have NO clue what people seem to be complaining about this OP. So, you can't counter a counterspell because you can't take a reaction while taking your action. Seems pretty simple and logical to me.

Now, you bring in the argument of additional casters and having an ally use their counterspell to stop an enemy counterspell from countering your spell. Ok, if they want to use a 3rd-level slot to ensure your spell works, doesn't seem like an impossible trade-off.

However, if you want to stop the madness and the potential counterspell chain, consider Antimagic Field. Two of them will not nullify each other. In the same reasoning, the antimagical-like nullifying ability of counterspell prevents another counterspell from nullifying it.

Simple. Another reason why counterspell will not work on counterspell. This should have been part of the description in the first place IMO. It would have avoided a lot of issues.

 

[Garthanos]

Simple. Another reason why counterspell will not work on counterspell. This should have been part of the description in the first place IMO. It would have avoided a lot of issues.

Treat counterspell as a skill... not a spell. Perhaps one every caster has even.(for their type of magic).

 

[Blue]

One DM I played with ruled that you can't take a reaction in the middle of another action you are taking. So if you are casting, you can't counterspell. It worked fine at the table. But we didn't have a lot of counterspell wars going on, so YMMV.

As a side note, if you use the XGtE rules for identifying a spell while it's being cast, you either ID it and don't have a reaction left, or you counterspell blind. So you could be counterspelling a cantrip, or using a counterspell with too low of a slot and need to roll off. Or cast with a higher level slot when it wasn't needed.

 

[Blue]

Ok, I have NO clue what people seem to be complaining about this OP. So, you can't counter a counterspell because you can't take a reaction while taking your action. Seems pretty simple and logical to me.

You can take a reaction during your turn. PHB 190: " A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's." So RAW and by a whole bunch of people's games, you can counterspell a counterspell to your casting a spell.

The OP is suggesting a limited version of what you are saying - you can't cast a reaction while casting your own spell.

It makes sense - simple and logical as you say. But that's not currently what the rules say. All the rules say is that you can take a reaction during your turn. There is nothing talking about not using a reaction during an action. The part about reactions and about casting spells as reactions (PHB 202), just talks about being able to use them in reaction to a trigger.

 

[Oofta]

Ok, I have NO clue what people seem to be complaining about this OP. So, you can't counter a counterspell because you can't take a reaction while taking your action. Seems pretty simple and logical to me.

Now, you bring in the argument of additional casters and having an ally use their counterspell to stop an enemy counterspell from countering your spell. Ok, if they want to use a 3rd-level slot to ensure your spell works, doesn't seem like an impossible trade-off.

However, if you want to stop the madness and the potential counterspell chain, consider Antimagic Field. Two of them will not nullify each other. In the same reasoning, the antimagical-like nullifying ability of counterspell prevents another counterspell from nullifying it.

Simple. Another reason why counterspell will not work on counterspell. This should have been part of the description in the first place IMO. It would have avoided a lot of issues.

You can normally use a reaction on your turn, but I don't like the OP's option for a simple reason. In games I've seen, there would be no possibility of an enemy spellcaster getting off a spell if they are seen/in range. Ever.

That will vary based on party and campaign of course, I can only relate what I've experienced.

 

[DragonBelow]

I just wanted to point out that this is an FAQ addressed by WotC, counter-counter is specifically allowed.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You can take a reaction during your turn. PHB 190: " A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's." So RAW and by a whole bunch of people's games, you can counterspell a counterspell to your casting a spell.

The OP is suggesting a limited version of what you are saying - you can't cast a reaction while casting your own spell.

It makes sense - simple and logical as you say. But that's not currently what the rules say. All the rules say is that you can take a reaction during your turn. There is nothing talking about not using a reaction during an action. The part about reactions and about casting spells as reactions (PHB 202), just talks about being able to use them in reaction to a trigger.

I don't mind the idea you can't use your reaction while you are doing something else. Of course, the funny thing about reactions to triggers, is the reaction is supposed to happen AFTER the triggering event IIRC. In that case, the spell would already be cast when you do your counterspell. I know this opens a whole other can of worms, and I am well aware of what the rules actually are, I just don't agree with them in this instance.

You can normally use a reaction on your turn, but I don't like the OP's option for a simple reason. In games I've seen, there would be no possibility of an enemy spellcaster getting off a spell if they are seen/in range. Ever.

That will vary based on party and campaign of course, I can only relate what I've experienced.

Really? (to the bolded part) I am sure you feel that way, but can you elaborate why? I just haven't seen counterspell in use THAT much IME.

I just wanted to point out that this is an FAQ addressed by WotC, counter-counter is specifically allowed.

Yep. I think most of us are aware of that, the OP and myself simply don't like it and think it over-complicates things.

 

[Oofta]

[MENTION=6987520]dnd4vr[/MENTION], my wife ran a campaign where we had 3 people (half the party) that could counterspell. We had counterspell conga lines where all the PCs counterspell either the original spell or a counterspell of the counterspell of the counterspell of the ... wait I lost count.

But you get the idea. Unless the number of enemy spellcasters outnumbered the PC spellcasters, the NPC spellcasters never got a spell off. Part of this was because she was purposely running a high-powered gonzo campaign where we went nova all the time, but after a while it just became perfunctory. She could always throw multiple spellcasters, but that made balancing encounters difficult. If the encounter happened to fall after a lot of people were drained, it became a super tough fight. PCs have spell slots? It's a cake walk.

Maybe you've been lucky enough to never see this.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

As a side note, if you use the XGtE rules for identifying a spell while it's being cast, you either ID it and don't have a reaction left, or you counterspell blind. So you could be counterspelling a cantrip, or using a counterspell with too low of a slot and need to roll off. Or cast with a higher level slot when it wasn't needed.

Very much this.

Furthermore, Counterspell indicates: "Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell". And: "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell."

Note that it is not "which you take after a creature casts a spell" nor is it "You attempt to interrupt a spell that was just cast". The strict RAW reading is that a caster must decide to Counterspell BEFORE the spell goes off. The idea is that Counterspell is a guess as to what is coming.

Now, I'd like to see the table who actually plays this way. I have yet to see anyone not announce the spell they are casting (or at least don't ever remember seeing anyone) in 5 years of DMing and playing 5e over many campaigns. It's pretty much been Will Byers style: "I cast Fireball!" As DM, I would say I've announced the spell 98% of the time, too. Of course, I've only had one Counterspell "duel" during that time. Methinks I will be changing this starting with my next session tonight after noodling about this thread. The players can do what they want but it would behoove them to indicate they are casting a spell rather than telling me the spell when faced with a 5th level+ enemy caster...

So... Counterspelling a Counterspell maybe becomes slightly weird if RAW is followed but I believe that it is the only Reaction spell that works this way so it is quite obvious. Shield and Absorb Elements are somewhat retcon-y in their implementation.

DM: The enemy spellcaster starts moving her arcance focus around and muttering an incantation.
PC Wizard: I mutter a spell... er... in reaction to that...
DM: huh... so does the enemy spellcaster! Anyone else? Looking at you PC Sorcerer... No? ok... the enemy spellcaster finishes casting Tongues so she can talk to you...