D&D 5E Counterspell check ?

[DaveDash]

You sure can interrupt a reaction. I can pop a shield if I move out of your threat range and you OA me.

 

[Paraxis]

There really is no grey area. You cannot cast Counterspell a Counterspell because you are concentrating on casting the first spell. To cast any spell, you must concentrate long enough to cast it. Even a spell that only requires a bonus action to cast, still requires enough concentration to get it cast. The Counterspell reaction interrupts that concentration. It's too late to counter at that point because the interruption has already happened. It's over. You were Counterspelled.

The key here is the trigger. Counterspell's trigger is, "you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell." The trigger is not that someone HAS CAST a spell on you, but rather they are IN THE ACT of casting. You can't react to a reaction because you are concentrating on casting the original spell. By the time you get countered, it's over and done. There is nothing to react to. The trigger for the possible second Counterspell has already happened. You were interrupted, but you can't interrupt a reaction if you are concentrating on casting. This is the reason why you can't have two concentration spells gong at the same time. You can only concentrate on one at a time. Casting a spell requires that minimum concentration to get it off, albeit only one action or bonus action's worth of concentration.

Even if you were watching two casters, you could not counterspell a counterspell because the reaction cast happens too fast. It's the same with Shield. You can't Counterspell a Shield spell because it's a reaction. By the time you see the spell being cast, it's over.

There are no rules to support any of your statements here. You use the concentration multiple times in ways that don't apply to spellcasting in 5th edition. There is no such rule as not being able to react to a reaction in the books.

It is fine for you to rule this way in your game, but to make a three paragraph statement trying to convince others when you have nothing RAW to back up your claims seems odd.

 

[Spykes]

You sure can interrupt a reaction. I can pop a shield if I move out of your threat range and you OA me.

That is a melee attack reaction. Of coarse you can do that. I'm talking about a reaction spell.

 

[guachi]

There really is no grey area. You cannot cast Counterspell a Counterspell because you are concentrating on casting the first spell. To cast any spell, you must concentrate long enough to cast it. Even a spell that only requires a bonus action to cast, still requires enough concentration to get it cast. The Counterspell reaction interrupts that concentration. It's too late to counter at that point because the interruption has already happened. It's over. You were Counterspelled.

The key here is the trigger. Counterspell's trigger is, "you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell." The trigger is not that someone HAS CAST a spell on you, but rather they are IN THE ACT of casting. You can't react to a reaction because you are concentrating on casting the original spell. By the time you get countered, it's over and done. There is nothing to react to. The trigger for the possible second Counterspell has already happened. You were interrupted, but you can't interrupt a reaction if you are concentrating on casting. This is the reason why you can't have two concentration spells gong at the same time. You can only concentrate on one at a time. Casting a spell requires that minimum concentration to get it off, albeit only one action or bonus action's worth of concentration.

Even if you were watching two casters, you could not counterspell a counterspell because the reaction cast happens too fast. It's the same with Shield. You can't Counterspell a Shield spell because it's a reaction. By the time you see the spell being cast, it's over.

There is nothing in the rules anywhere that supports your interpretation of needing to concentrate when you cast a spell. There is nothing anywhere in the rules that says you can't counterspell a Shield spell or any other reaction spell. If you wish to house rule that you can't, feel free to do so. If you really think there is no gray area then you should have no problems pointing directly to rules that support your position.

 

[Spykes]

There is nothing in the rules anywhere that supports your interpretation of needing to concentrate when you cast a spell. There is nothing anywhere in the rules that says you can't counterspell a Shield spell or any other reaction spell. If you wish to house rule that you can't, feel free to do so. If you really think there is no gray area then you should have no problems pointing directly to rules that support your position.

There are no rules to support any of your statements here. You use the concentration multiple times in ways that don't apply to spellcasting in 5th edition. There is no such rule as not being able to react to a reaction in the books.

It is fine for you to rule this way in your game, but to make a three paragraph statement trying to convince others when you have nothing RAW to back up your claims seems odd.

Actually, I quoted the supporting rule.. that being the trigger required to cast Counterspell. You're right about there being no rule that says you can't react to a reaction. I'll clarify. You can't cast a Counterspell as a reaction to Counterspell because the required trigger doesn't exist. How can you react to someone reacting to something your doing and have your reaction occur before his reaction? It makes no sense in the timeline of events. We're not playing Yugioh here. There is a linear sequence of events that have to transpire. You are doing something. Someone reacts to what you are doing. You are then trying to react to his reaction and argue that it can occur first? The reason a reaction spell can work is because normal spells require a bonus action or a full action to cast. Others see you trying to do this and there is time to react. Reaction spells do not possess that property. They happen too fast, hence the name. They interrupt. If someone interrupts you talking, you can attempt to then interrupt them in return, but it's a fool's errand because you have already been interrupted.

 

[Paraxis]

There is no difference between a third party casting counterspell as a reaction to a counterspell being cast, and the original caster using his reaction. It is just like a card game, you can use a reaction as a response to another reaction.

To expand on the other example with shield and attacks of opportunity.

Wizard decides to leave a threatened area and provokes an attack of opportunity (a reaction) in response in the middle of his movement he uses his reaction to cast shield, an enemy spell caster can then cast counterspell as their reaction.

A reaction, responding to another's reaction, and a third reaction then being used.

The key rules bits

Counterspell - Casting Time: I reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell.

Under Casting Time
REACTIONS
Some spells can be cast as reactions. These spells take a fraction of a second to bring about and are cast in response to some event. If a spell can be cast as a reaction, the spell description tells you exactly when
you can do so.

And Reactions in general

REACTIONS
Certain special abilities, spells, and situations allow you to take a special action called a reaction. A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's. When you take a reaction, you can't take another one until the start of your next turn. If the reaction interrupts another creature's turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction.


The trigger for counterspell is seeing another creature casting a spell, counterspell is a spell, you can take reactions on your turn. All of that adds up to yes a Wizard casting a spell, is counterspelled by a sorcerer can in turn use his own reaction to counterspell the counterspell.

In your games you may rule differently, but by the rules of the game it is perfectly acceptable.

 

[Spykes]

There is no difference between a third party casting counterspell as a reaction to a counterspell being cast, and the original caster using his reaction. It is just like a card game, you can use a reaction as a response to another reaction.

To expand on the other example with shield and attacks of opportunity.

Wizard decides to leave a threatened area and provokes an attack of opportunity (a reaction) in response in the middle of his movement he uses his reaction to cast shield, an enemy spell caster can then cast counterspell as their reaction.

A reaction, responding to another's reaction, and a third reaction then being used.

The key rules bits

Counterspell - Casting Time: I reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell.

Under Casting Time
REACTIONS
Some spells can be cast as reactions. These spells take a fraction of a second to bring about and are cast in response to some event. If a spell can be cast as a reaction, the spell description tells you exactly when
you can do so.

And Reactions in general

REACTIONS
Certain special abilities, spells, and situations allow you to take a special action called a reaction. A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's. When you take a reaction, you can't take another one until the start of your next turn. If the reaction interrupts another creature's turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction.


The trigger for counterspell is seeing another creature casting a spell, counterspell is a spell, you can take reactions on your turn. All of that adds up to yes a Wizard casting a spell, is counterspelled by a sorcerer can in turn use his own reaction to counterspell the counterspell.

In your games you may rule differently, but by the rules of the game it is perfectly acceptable.

Actually.. no this cannot occur under the rules. The first spell is interrupted, either by the Counterspell or the caster stopping his cast to then cast to counter the counterspell.. which is stupid to do. Why would you counterspell a counterspell? You have to stop casting your spell to do it. At that point in time, there is no point to doing it. If you succeed in countering the counter, you have effectively countered yourself because you stopped casting to counter.

Also.. this is not a card game. There is an actual timeline of events that must occur. Read my previous post.

I'm really not sure why this is so hard to understand. A Counterspell can't be countered mainly because you can't see it being cast. It's a reaction to something you are doing. You can't react to someone reacting to something you are doing and expect your reaction to win in the sequence of those three events. You are proposing time travel.

 

[DaveDash]

Actually.. no this cannot occur under the rules. The first spell is interrupted, either by the Counterspell or the caster stopping his cast to then cast to counter the counterspell.. which is stupid to do. Why would you counterspell a counterspell? You have to stop casting your spell to do it. At that point in time, there is no point to doing it. If you succeed in countering the counter, you have effectively countered yourself because you stopped casting to counter.

Also.. this is not a card game. There is an actual timeline of events that must occur. Read my previous post.

I'm really not sure why this is so hard to understand. A Counterspell can't be countered mainly because you can't see it being cast. It's a reaction to something you are doing. You can't react to someone reacting to something you are doing and expect your reaction to win in the sequence of those three events. You are proposing time travel.

There is nothing in the rules that state any of this. You're just applying your own assumptions on top of the rules.

These are the conditions to counterspell.

60ft (and must be able to see the caster).
They must be casting a spell.
You must be able to do a somatic component.
You must have a reaction available.

That's it. RAW a counterspell can counterspell a counterspell. Now whether it makes sense to you or not is completely different.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Actually.. no this cannot occur under the rules. The first spell is interrupted, ... or the caster stopping his cast to then cast to counter the counterspell..

(emphasis mine)

This is the part that people are disagreeing with you on - there is nothing in the rules that says that the act of casting Counterspell would "interrupt", "inhibt", or "prevent" the caster from casting whatever spell s/he was trying to cast originally, as long as they had a hand free to fulfill the Somatic component requirement.

 

[Paraxis]

It is not time travel it is a sequence of events.

1. Wizard casts scorching ray (his action)
2. Sorcerer casts counterspell (her reaction)
3. Wizard casts counterspell (his reaction) to stop the sorcerer's counterspell
4. End result scorching ray is cast.

There is no rule in the book saying you can't use your reaction in the middle of another action. It would be like saying you couldn't cast Shield in the middle of a dash action, or a warlock attacking a black budding and using hellish rebuke when he takes the acid damage in the middle of making his attacks.

There is nothing special about a spell being cast that makes it different than swinging a sword multiple times or running through a line of enemies.