D&D 5E Can counter spell be counter spelled?

[The Crimson Binome]

Don't you mean 'change the rules to reflect the model the game itself is using in all other cases except this'?

It's an exception-based system, as they say. The whole game is built around exceptions. Counterspell might be the only spell that requires a different ritual* depending on the target, but things like Barkskin also exist.


*I don't think it actually is. I'm certain that I recall some other spells requiring you to incorporate different material components specific to your target, though I can't recall which ones.

 

[Caliban]

Except that in D&D Counterspell is itself defined as a spell, which by extension means it should use the same rules, mechanics and framework that all the other spells use...

Not really. Spells create special mechanics for themselves all the time, since 1st edition. It's almost like magic or something.

Shield and Absorb Elements happen before the effects of the spell or attack they are a reaction too. Simulacrum creates a copy of a sentient creature, complete with any spells it might have. Wish can literally rewrite reality.

A spell specifically designed to be cast so quickly and efficiently that not only disrupts an enemy spell, but doesn't disrupt your own spell while you cast it? Child's play.

 

[Werebat]

Why does a Counterspell have to be faster than the spell it is countering?

It's not a silly question. Why can't the Counterspell automatically slow down the casting of the spell it is countering -- just a tiny, tiny bit? Just long enough for it to have time to unweave the spell being woven?

Someone left a link a while back to an nice article describing how Counterspell can be made exciting by simply describing what it does to counter the spell it targets -- like Dumbledore saving Harry from thousands of shards of glass hurled by one of Voldemort's spells by countering with a shield that turned them to sand. If you're thinking cinematically, it's easy to imagine a sort of push vs. push resistance going on as one caster tries to counter the other and finds his counter countered. All of this would result in a slight delay in the casting of the original spell, as well as the counters -- but maybe not by an entire turn.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It's an exception-based system, as they say. The whole game is built around exceptions. Counterspell might be the only spell that requires a different ritual* depending on the target, but things like Barkskin also exist.


*I don't think it actually is. I'm certain that I recall some other spells requiring you to incorporate different material components specific to your target, though I can't recall which ones.

One example is Banishment, which requires "an item distasteful to the target".

 

[Caliban]

One example is Banishment, which requires "an item distasteful to the target".

I once had my Warlock use her Lawful Evil Imp familiar as the material component to Banish a Chaotic Evil Blue Slaadi, on the theory that the Chaotic Slaadi from Limbo would find the Lawful Imp from Hell distasteful.

I'm not sure if the DM actually accepted my reasoning, or just thought the image of my warlock shaking the Imp at the Slaadi and shouting "Boo!" to scare it back to it's home plane was too good to pass up.

 

[FrogReaver]

You can't use a reaction on your turn can you?

 

[Fanaelialae]

You can't use a reaction on your turn can you?

You can indeed.

A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or someone else's.

 

[Arnwolf666]

Um that would interrupt the spell and stop it. Someone else could counterspell it, but not the person he is counterspelling. Not sure about RAW and don't care.

 

[ThePolarBear]

So?

So it's a "bad" unique, as Freedom of Movemement is a "bad" unique. A hole in rules. Why? Because there ARE other spells that lets you cast while you are casting: Glyph of Warding and Contingency for example. Those spells directly state that you cast spells while you are casting. While these two do not address component handling there's to say that casting another spell IS part of the spellcasting proper and it can be assumed to work in some way. Counterspell does neither.

Put this into a ruleset that seems to be firm into the mindset of interruptions of actions being a very specific and specifically handled exception on a case by case basis and this strucks twice as wierd. Why do i assume the lack of interruptions to be deliberate? Because, contrary to what other editions and systems do, there's not a trace on how to handle Action (and spellcasting in particular) interruption. Not even "deal with it as a DM".

If "So?" is about me having a specific feeling... then i don't know what to reply. Never meant to make a case for "It must not be that way since it gives weirdness feeling to me", just me sharing.

If "So?" is about "Well there are other examples out there" then i'm unimpressed. I'm looking at 5e only and the weirdness is given by Counterspell being in 5e. Can't really say that any other edition or game is on my plate when i compare 5e to 5e.

Not really. Or at least no weirder than any other other quirky bits of the rules. Maybe I'm just used to similar things from previous editions or other games. It just doesn't strike me as all that weird. It's not like it's the first time a piece of a sub-system has had a further unique ruling associated with it. I mean, yes, reaction spells are unique compared to the rest of the possible actions and Counterspell could be considered even more unique in that instead of coming before or after the trigger it interrupts the triggering action itself.

I have no problems with Counterspell interrupting a spell. It's more about Counterspell from the person that has started the chain interrupting the very thing that started the chain itself with no repercussion that's weird. And it's weird because all that's there on RAI is a single tweet, no context, and no rule anywhere with every other piece of text apparently assuming no interruption ever except a very specific case.

But D&D has always had unique sub-systems for certain things. In 3e initiating a Grapple pulled both characters into a strange world that ignored all the normal rules of combat. In 3e readied actions could come before, during, or after the triggering event (that's one way you could interrupt spellcasting).

And the system handled that - no matter how well it did. At least, it recognised the possibility.

In 5e, Grappling and Shoving are still weird - they replace an individual attack, but only when you are taking the attack action (not an attack made as a bonus action or opportunity attack, unless a feat or ability specifically grants the ability to do them as a bonus action). Yet they are not an attack, they are an opposed skill check.

Not really. Grappling and Shoving are special melee attacks that require an Attack action to perform. If the character has Extra Attacks there are some extra rules attached. I see no problems or weirdness here, considering the system as a whole. The fact that as an attack they do not roll an attack roll does mean nothing. Those are attacks because are defined as attacks. They use skill contests and not attack rolls.

I have more problems with shoving grappled creatures prone without breaking the grapple than anything else.

 

[Caliban]

I'm sorry you have a problem with how the system works. I don't think it's a "bad unique", but if you do...house rule it for your own game, if it bothers you enough.

I'm sure what else to tell you. We both agree on how the rule actually works, we are now just discussing why you just don't like it, and I don't really care much one way or the other.