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

[clearstream]

For those who can't see how stupid it is to demand checks from players just to identify spells, here's how it would go at the table...

DM: I cast a spell.

Player: What spell?

DM: Roll Arcana

Player: Ouch. Nat 1.

DM: You don't know what spell it is.

Player: I don't care. I was going to Counterspell anyway.

DM: What? That's not fair. You wouldn't do that if you knew I was casting a cantrip.

Honestly, what the heck?

DM: The drow sorcerer starts to cast
Player: I want to know what spell
DM: He's using gestures and his orb, Arcana check please (DC 15, it's a 3rd level spell - Hypnotic Pattern)
Player: Ouch. Nat 1.
DM: Okay, you can't tell right now what the exact spell is.
Player: I don't care. I was going to Counterspell anyway.
DM: Fair enough, it's your call. His spell fails, countered by your Counterspell. He's spitting with frustration!
Player: Haha! That felt good. Glad it wasn't a cantrip. (Crosses off a spell slot.)

 

[clearstream]

Okay for this, I might request them to make a roll (arcana/religion) depending on how familiar or unfamiliar the characters are with the spell being cast. You're not playing gotcha at this point (hopefully), the cards are on the table - they recognise the spell, they just might not realise its potency.

Chances are they will be able to identify that the spell is being cast at a higher level, there will be certain inflections and what not in the casting. I wouldn't make it too difficult for them to identify, but it is combat, with many distractions, they might not know if the Sleep spell is being cast as a 3rd or 4th level spell slot, only that it is higher than 1st (until they make the roll and identify the exact slot).

For me if they make the check they get the spell name and the level it is being cast at. That's all one check.

I'm not sure why some DMs like to miss a chance to reward the crunch choices players make... works for them I guess. Me, I'd like to see the Knowledge Cleric recognising everything and shining that way.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Related question: if a companion recognises the spell, can they alert the counterspeller? Or assist?
(I'd say this is reasonable by fluff but potentially unfair by crunch).

I generally ruled that during combat you can communicate any time as long as you don't communicate for significantly longer than 6 seconds per round.

It would be problematic to not allow it, because let's say Player A checks for the spell, he succeeds the Arcana roll. Now as DM you tell this player, but since the others are around, they will hear the reply too and know the spell anyway.

If you wanted to limit the communication during combat then you'd need to constantly tell a player something in private and tell him he can't tell this to the other players. That would just be annoying.

 

[Sadras]

For me if they make the check they get the spell name and the level it is being cast at. That's all one check.

I'm not sure why some DMs like to miss a chance to reward the crunch choices players make... works for them I guess. Me, I'd like to see the Knowledge Cleric recognising everything and shining that way.

I don't know if you misunderstood, but I'm not a fan of having PCs roll to identify a spell before counterspelling because as a DM when your NPCs counterspell you have full knowledge of the spell before you decide to counterspell.

So I'm only asking for a check to identify the spell level with a low DC and if the spell is very familiar, I'd throw in advantage

 

[clearstream]

Nah, that's pretty standard, as far as I can tell. Fifth edition doesn't really go for hiding relevant information from the players.

5e also doesn't really go with blanket statements that are assumed to be valid for every group.

This edition broadened the applicability of the knowledge skills (compared with 3rd) so that they can be used in more circumstances to reveal additional information. Rewarding players who invest in those skills, instead of only those who put their points into the narrow range of "important to this adventure" skills that a DM has decided should be useful.

I like to give full value for each mechanical choice a player makes in shaping their character. If Arcana doesn't give them an edge in magical duels, it's value drops a notch.

DM: Finally, the long awaited duel between Xarilyn and Holmwood (our PC)! Xarilyn loses initiative.
Player: Right, I know we both have Counterspell so I open with a cantrip!
DM: Xarilyn thinks about countering. Rolls (no proficiency in Arcana). Dammit! She knew she should have paid attention in class! She can't afford to let this through - casts Counterspell... on a cantrip. Now she casts her own spell.
Player: Haha! And in contrast, I studied attentively. Rolls with proficiency - 17 - what's her spell?!
DM: Its... a cantrip. Blast it again.
Player: I save the Counterspell. Now then...

etc

 

[clearstream]

Okay, you absolutely convinced me. Thanks for all your comments!

From now on, I am going to tell my players which spell is being cast.

Just one last question: Do you also tell them, what level the spell has, so the players can decide whether or not they want to use a higher spell slot for Counterspell? Or do you keep this information from the players, so they don't know if they need to make a check (if the initial spell level is higher than the counterspell?

Honestly, when assessing how you allow a skill to function, think of it this way

If a player wants to make a potentially life-or-death jump, do you call for an Athletics check?

If a player wants to deceive a dragon, do you call for a Deception check?

If the answer is yes, you should also call for Arcana checks when they matter, such as to identify a spell as it is being cast.

Otherwise, as a player, why do I bother with Arcana in your game? If I can, I should put the point into Athletics. Golly it vexes me, the willingness of some DMs to devalue the knowledge skills.

 

[clearstream]

I don't know if you misunderstood, but I'm not a fan of having PCs roll to identify a spell before counterspelling because as a DM when your NPCs counterspell you have full knowledge of the spell before you decide to counterspell.

Huh? As a DM, don't you play to the knowledge of the creature you're running. Xarilyn doesn't know what Holmwood (our PC) is casting, therefore if she doesn't make her Arcana check, I run her as if she doesn't know. That makes the game more fun. DM NPCs aren't omniscient: they make mistakes consistent with their knowledge, means and motives.

 

[Sadras]

Otherwise, as a player, why do I bother with Arcana in your game? If I can, I should put the point into Athletics. Golly it vexes me, the willingness of some DMs to devalue the knowledge skills.

@vonklaude that is a little overboard, it is not about devaluing knowledge skills. Without arcana or religion you wouldn't be able to identify the spell at all. Why MUST there be a roll?

On the DM's side of the screen how do you handle Counterspell fairly, because I never got a response from you? EDIT: Answered this question. Thanks.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Counterspell should be torn from the spell lists and hurled in the bog of eternal stench, never to be seen again.

 

[Sadras]

Huh? As a DM, don't you play to the knowledge of the creature you're running. Xarilyn doesn't know what Holmwood (our PC) is casting, therefore if she doesn't make her Arcana check, I run her as if she doesn't know. That makes the game more fun. DM NPCs aren't omniscient: they make mistakes consistent with their knowledge, means and motives.

So Holmwood begins casting Hold Person on Xarilyn, you as DM decide to roll a knowledge check to identify it in order to Counterspell it.

So Holmwood begins casting Magic Missile on Xarilyn, you as DM decide not to roll a knowledge check because you have enough hit points to stomach it and you know the character has a Hold Person spell pending. So you save the Counterspell and don't bother making a knowledge check to identify the spell being cast. This seems like a lame way to go about it.