Counter spell and calling out spell levels

[ValdDrakul]

That sounds like the 3e version.

I'm dm'ing a 5e game.

 

[mikebr99]

I'm dm'ing a 5e game.

You tell your players that the bad guy starts casting a spell. They can then use their reaction to try and figure out what spell is about to be cast (ZGtE p.85)... or they can cast Counterspell at whatever level they choose (with no info as to which spell the caster is casting).

Mike

 

[Mr. Wilson]

What is this? Is this non-5E stuff? Am I experiencing the forum merge madness already? *sigh*

Yeah, this is the 3.5 edition counterspell rules. Counterspelling was less effective back then.

 

[Myzzrym]

Note: I heavily lean towards the RP side as a DM on the RP-Combat balance

How I usually handle the question is that I consider trying to counterspell to be a very immediate action (as in, there is extremely little time to think before deciding to do it or not). Therefore I don't give much information to my players (if any), unless they are deliberately doing something like spending their full attention on the spellcaster and forfeiting doing anything else during the round in which case I would give them hints.

 

[Inchoroi]

Our DM doesn't tell us (or me, I should say, since I am the only caster with Counterspell ), but we also changed it so it won't automatically stop spells no matter what level they are: you ALWAYS have to roll at our table. I'm fine with it, personally, and prefer it since it works both ways.

I might steal this for my future campaigns.

 

[Gadget]

Counterpoint: counterspell is overpowered and leads to boring game-play. Often the best tactical option is to just counterspell everything; it's an easy decision to make, and by eliminating enemy spells before they happen, counterspell also eliminates future interesting decisions. So maybe taking a hard line on spell identification and spell level identification would balance counterspell better and make casting it more of a gamble.

This. So much this. Counterspell is amazingly powerful RAW; no need to give the players free information to make it even more of a sure thing. As is, bards (with magical secrets), and abjurers don't really have to worry about upcasting it much at all due to the bonus they get on the check anyway. The spell is meant to have some level of risk associated with it, no need to eliminate that entirely.

Can the DM be a jerk and metagame to change the spell being cast to firebolt or some such after the PC announces the intention to Counterspell? Sure. But then you've got a DM problem. If it really is a worry, the DM can write down the spell on a folded piece of paper ahead of time, but that becomes tedious.

 

[iserith]

What is this? Is this non-5E stuff? Am I experiencing the forum merge madness already? *sigh*

Yeah, we should probably start making it a habit to tag the thread as 5e. Or the forum gods should add more tags for the other versions of the game.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Regarding 5e counterspell:

I haven't read Xanathar's Guide well enough to know what they say there but I do the following:

-A spell gets cast
-Player declares his reaction to counter-spell
-I allow them an arcana check to discover what spell is being cast. Difficulty depends on whether it's subtle or has components (components makes it easier to identify) or has a focus etc...
-If they succeed, I tell them which spell is being cast and they can use an appropriate slot, if they wish
-If they fail, they just have to guess.
-Resolve counterspell as normal

 

[mikebr99]

Regarding 5e counterspell:

I haven't read Xanathar's Guide well enough to know what they say there but I do the following:

-A spell gets cast
-Player declares his reaction to counter-spell
-I allow them an arcana check to discover what spell is being cast. Difficulty depends on whether it's subtle or has components (components makes it easier to identify) or has a focus etc...
-If they succeed, I tell them which spell is being cast and they can use an appropriate slot, if they wish
-If they fail, they just have to guess.
-Resolve counterspell as normal

Well it's a reaction action to try to figure out what spell is being cast with an Arcana check. It's also a reaction action to cast Counterspell... so you're effectively giving spell-casters two reactions there... it's not RAW... but if that works at your table then more power to you!

Mike

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Well it's a reaction action to try to figure out what spell is being cast with an Arcana check. It's also a reaction action to cast Counterspell... so you're effectively giving spell-casters two reactions there... it's not RAW... but if that works at your table then more power to you!

Mike

I just make it all part of the same reaction instead of '2' reactions. Also, on a side note, is there a place (other than Xanathar's) that says making skill checks in combat is a reaction or an action?

My impression was that Xanathar's Guide has a whole bunch of 'optional' rules.

I'm just curious.