D&D 5E Counterspell - Do I know my foes' spell before I counter?

[Harzel]

At best, I would say the rules typically state when the player is not privy to certain information regarding a class ability modifying or interacting with another feature.

I think that I don't understand what you mean by the bolded phrase because a) outside of this context, I never would have imagined that that phrase covered knowing what spell an NPC is casting; and b) I cannot think of any rules that make a statement such as you have described. Perhaps citing one or two examples of such rules would clarify it for me.

Otherwise, it generally assumes the player knows the relevant information. Not RAW, but consistent with established design within 5e, IMO, YMMV, etc.

The way you say this implies that there is a clear definition of relevant information that a) is reasonably bounded and b) should be obvious to everyone. To me, this seems clearly untrue. Which spell an NPC is casting is clearly relevant to the potential counterspeller. But so it the level at which the spell is being cast. So is the number and level of spell slots that the NPC has left. So is what spell(s) the NPC is intending to cast next round. So is what spell(s) other NPC casters (if any) are preparing to cast. Etc. I see no obvious reasonable bounds to what information is relevant.

Furthermore, the situation is not some unique oddity of casting counterspell. It is quite common that when a character uses a limited resource, there is a multitude of information that they do not have, which, if they had it, would allow them to use the resource more efficiently.

None of that is to say that it is not ok to decide that characters (or maybe just casters or maybe just casters who know counterspell) always know what spell an opponent is casting. And it's fine* for the reason to be that, in your judgement, that information is necessary to make counterspell useful/fun/effective/whatever. I just disagree with casting that decision as the application of an objectively-rooted general principle.

For myself, deciding how to adjudicate what characters know is a bit of a dance between how I imagine the world should work, and how I think the game should play. (Both of which one can reason about to some extent, but are in the end subjective.) In general, that characters would always or never know what spell another character was casting both clash with how I imagine the world working, and I don't like how either of those extremes affect how counterspell plays - 'always' making it a bit too useful, and 'never' leaving it a bit too chancy. So that leaves the middle ground - uncertainty** - which, fortuitously, seems ok to me both in terms how the world works and how counterspell plays.

* And, no, I'm not implying that you need my blessing to do this. In this context, "it's fine" is shorthand for "I am not claiming that I have proved that it is unreasonable".

** Though in particular circumstances there could be success or perhaps even failure without a roll.

 

[Harzel]

Maybe we need a better definition of when to use knowledge skills? The PHB guides to call for checks when something has a chance of failure. That's circular because - when we make something a check - it has a chance of failure.

Um, no it is not circular. You are conflating the fiction with the mechanics. The mechanical uncertainty of using a dice roll flows from the judgement that something is uncertain in the fiction.

 

[clearstream]

Um, no it is not circular. You are conflating the fiction with the mechanics. The mechanical uncertainty of using a dice roll flows from the judgement that something is uncertain in the fiction.

As an interesting digression, I would argue that fiction doesn't contain certainty and uncertainty: what the author deems happens, happens. That is because fiction presents only an illusion of systems and causality. So the only events in fiction that are uncertain are those the author deems uncertain. Or in a game, those assigned die rolls.

Of course, we tend to apply a plausibility bar - did this crazy thing happen that we felt was totally improbable? - but that varies from person to person. I feel like I have learned that it often rests on the framing each person has in place. Say with judging a spell as it is being cast? The PHB seems to me clear that all casters use the weave, but that each applies their own technique. So my framing says that there could be enough differences and enough similarities, that a check based on Arcana or Religion (i.e. relevant knowledge) makes sense. But what if I thought that each spell was strictly rote? Then I'd probably say that a check was out of place - a fireball is cast the same way, no matter who does the casting.

 

[DwynnsPlace]

Fireballs See the weave - Be the weave

Counter spelling is not actually knowing the spell you are countering, it is more of blocking the spell effect (Whatever that may be) by applying magic force to magic force to interfere with the opposing casters intended spell. Yes if you know the school the spell is from maybe you recognize it as your blocking or interrupting, If you have the spell and it is identical to the casters version of the spell even better,
but if the caster is a goblin hedge wizard and you don't speak goblin, = disadvantage. So higher DC

Balancing the Weave and attributing an approximate level of counter force to interrupt, negate or reinforce a fellow spellcasters spell is a Skill that must be treated as a developmental skill, thereby creating the need for DC checks, especially at low levels.

Not all Fireballs are the same, some are spell effects, some are alchemical effects, some are Accidents, Some are abilities.
Not all casters cast the same way, they just weave diferently so ID of a spell being cast should be hard.

Hope this helps...kinda old school but I think it works.

 

[KahlessNestor]

Except you don't cast in Goblin, so knowing Goblin or not should have no effect on spell identification or recognition. You cast in Magic.

 

[Harzel]

no sarcasm intended in previous post. Apologies if it came out that way.

No problem.

The other option can be misapplied and might taste (to the players) of unfair DM knowledge should he counterspell it.

You keep saying things like this, but I still don't understand why players would be less trusting about the DM knowing what spell a PC is casting than about the many other things that the DM knows that an opponent could use against the PCs.

You see why should the DM know the spells because he can be trusted to be objective but the players cannot be trusted to play their characters correctly/fairly and therefore are not allowed to know the spell?

I view having to compartmentalize knowledge as a burden. The DM has to be adept at it because there is so much that she knows that NPCs should not know, and she has to run a myriad of NPCs each with a different knowledge base. If knowledge starts leaking across those boundaries, it seems to me the game pretty much goes sideways.

Players on the other hand generally are running only one character, and generally know (comparatively) little more than their character does. If a little information does leak through, the impact is probably pretty limited, so they can be pretty relaxed about it. I think that is a benefit. In the case of an NPC casting a spell that the PC should not know about (regardless of how that is determined), giving that information to the player anyway a) has no benefit and b) has the downside of increasing player vs. character knowledge gap, thereby increasing the amount of attention the player has to pay to compartmentalizing his knowledge. Why do something that has only a downside?

Now, based on the above, you could beat me over the head with my own argument and say that not knowing the spell that a PC is going to cast when the NPC(s) should not would reduce the burden on the DM. And I would agree with that much. However, it appears to me that there is a cost/benefit problem with doing so. First, the relative amount that this reduces the DM's need to attend to knowledge compartmentalization is very small - a nit really. Second, on the cost side, you need to find a smooth way to implement it. For instance, if there is mid-combat crosstalk between players about tactics, what do you do? Have the DM leave the room? Have her put on headphones blaring loud music? It seem like it will entail a lot of awkwardness.

If it happens that the player can conveniently not identify the spell he is casting, and the DM determines that the NPC should not know it, then sure, fine, keep it a secret until the DM has decided whether the NPC will counterspell or not. But it still kind of feels like a weird little one-off that treats a molehill like a mountain.

As a more general note, arguments based on positing symmetry between the DM and the players are rarely going to work; the relationship is generally highly​ asymmetric.

 

[Satyrn]

Maybe we need a better definition of when to use knowledge skills?

I like to leave it up to the players to find ways to use their skills.

That is, when they are trying to deal with some issue in the game, I expect them to look at their character sheet, notice they have a high Arcana check and then go on to find some excuse to apply that skill to the situation at hand. I generally just accept that what they're trying is a reasonable use of the skill. Although, of course it might be a use without a chance of success.

But they still use their Arcana, and it reinforces the idea that their character is knowledgeable about the arcane arts.

 

[DwynnsPlace]

Need to reply here:

"Your point is well taken. However, I do believe that the "bounded accuracy" built into 5th edition helps mitigate this problem. Even a non-proficient character has a decent (not fantastic) chance to succeed on an Arcana check if they have a high intelligence (as most wizards should). Of course sorcerers and other Charisma-based casters are going to find it difficult."

I have to touch on this statement. Non-proficient or classes that purchase arcane may have the skill,
proficiency or odball feat that would allow them knowledge in some form of the Arcane. It by no means
gives them full access to All Arcane. A DM knowing the PC background can come up with reasonable
Arcane knowledge that character may have. Info outside the history and background or scope of
knowledge a PC would most likely increase DC rolls with a resulting increase in failures due to "real
worldly lack of specific arcane knowledge".

As a DM/GM, it is never a good idea to arbitrarily give away secret knowledge, make them earn it.
And not with an arbitrary DC check...WOW

Food for thought
~DWYNN~

 

[Harzel]

That depends. Back up the thread I think we reached a point where the proposal was

1. Passive Arcana or Religion DC 12+ spell level (or should this be slot level) to know the name
2. Active Arcana or Religion Dc 12 + spell level (or should this be spell level?) to know the level of spell slot it was cast with and any metamagic

Intelligence (Arcana) for arcane spells
Intelligence (Religion) for divine spells

A possible variation that just occurred to me: instead of Intelligence, use the ability that is the spell casting ability of the caster casting the spell. So, for instance Charisma(Arcana) to identify a spell being cast by a sorcerer. I have no idea if this has any merit; it just popped into my head.