D&D 5E Counterspell nerfed!

[Maxperson]

Thats fine, if my NPC Cleric example doesnt make it clear what I'm focusing on, I cannot do better at explaining.

You're conflating a spellcaster(NPC cleric) with a monster(Devil). They aren't the same thing, so the logic that applies to the spellcaster does not apply to the monster, unless the monster is also a spellcaster(Devil Mage).

 

[Scribe]

You're conflating a spellcaster(NPC cleric) with a monster(Devil). They aren't the same thing, so the logic that applies to the spellcaster does not apply to the monster, unless the monster is also a spellcaster(Devil Mage).

Yep, fair point. As I mentioned if the NCP example doesnt clarify what I'm concerned about, thats fine.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It can take no longer than 6 seconds, since the eye rays are 1 action. Further, it doesn't matter if the DM says 1 second or 6. Once the eye ray comes out it's too late to counter it, and before that you can't see any "casting," so it's uncounterable. Counterspell requires visual confirmation of a spell being cast and Beholder eye rays have none. No verbal. No somatic. And no material.

You are conflating "what makes sense to you" with "what the rules say".

While I disagree with your conclusions, anyway, it doesn't matter because the rules do not speak on this. The idea that components are needed to see a spell being cast is introduced in Xanathar's as part of the additional optional rules for running spellcasting, they are not in the core books. Therefor, it is up to the DM, depending on if they want to use those optional supplemental rules, in whole or in part.

What the houserule in question is doing, is replacing "spell" with "spell or magical ability which replicates a spell". Since the eye rays are not spells, they never could have had components, so when introducing such a houserule, it is up to the DM to determine how the spellcasting rules apply to magical abilities which replicate spells.

It's easy to imagine that a spellcaster knows when a beholder is using an eyebeam, before the action is completed, so it isn't even a weird conclusion to say that the caster can know in time to react to it. Hell, we don't even know when the casting is done. You assume it's done as soon as any visible sign exists, but I wouldn't. If the ray fizzles due to some other ability that can stop a special ability as a reaction, my description would naturally be that the group sees the light up, the first hint of a beam like a black lense flare appears, and then fades impotently into nothing. But even if my inclination was just to describe the eye lighting up for a moment as it focuses on Bren the Artificer, that is a visible sign of the ray attack being made.

This is especially true when we consider that counterspell works regardless of what action is used to cast the spell, so the game assumes that everyone is paying close enough attention to everyone else that they see the wizard start to cast Shield as a reaction, and have time to make the decision to cast counterspell and perform the movements to do so before the shield spell goes off.

And we know the eye ray isn't instantaneous, because reactions in general work against it. There is a hair's breadth of a moment for the rogue to uncanny dodge, or for various characters to reduce damage or give a bonus to a save or whatever.

 

[Maxperson]

You are conflating "what makes sense to you" with "what the rules say".

While I disagree with your conclusions, anyway, it doesn't matter because the rules do not speak on this. The idea that components are needed to see a spell being cast is introduced in Xanathar's as part of the additional optional rules for running spellcasting, they are not in the core books. Therefor, it is up to the DM, depending on if they want to use those optional supplemental rules, in whole or in part.

It has nothing to do with Xanathar's. If there is no motion, sound or object involved with the casting, what pray tell is the wizard looking at in order to see a spell being cast?

What the houserule in question is doing, is replacing "spell" with "spell or magical ability which replicates a spell". Since the eye rays are not spells, they never could have had components, so when introducing such a houserule, it is up to the DM to determine how the spellcasting rules apply to magical abilities which replicate spells.

This I agree with, if you houserule these magical actions to be spells, then they would require the components to use. Though I think it's silly to expect a beholder to somehow be able to cast 3 spells simultaneously with no hands and one mouth.

It's easy to imagine that a spellcaster knows when a beholder is using an eyebeam, before the action is completed, so it isn't even a weird conclusion to say that the caster can know in time to react to it. Hell, we don't even know when the casting is done. You assume it's done as soon as any visible sign exists, but I wouldn't.

It's done when the effect happens. You must cast it before the effect occurs. When a beam emerges from the Beholder's eyes, that's the effect. Action/spell done. Too late to counter.

If the ray fizzles due to some other ability that can stop a special ability as a reaction, my description would naturally be that the group sees the light up, the first hint of a beam like a black lense flare appears, and then fades impotently into nothing. But even if my inclination was just to describe the eye lighting up for a moment as it focuses on Bren the Artificer, that is a visible sign of the ray attack being made.

Sure, but this is homebrew. Pretty cool as a descriptive, but not a part of the Beholder lore or abilities.

This is especially true when we consider that counterspell works regardless of what action is used to cast the spell, so the game assumes that everyone is paying close enough attention to everyone else that they see the wizard start to cast Shield as a reaction, and have time to make the decision to cast counterspell and perform the movements to do so before the shield spell goes off.

Sure, but again, Counterspell also assumes that the Shield spell involves Verbal and Somatic components, which give the Counterspeller a visual that a spell is being cast. If the caster is psionic then there would be no components and therefore no visual to go off of.

And we know the eye ray isn't instantaneous, because reactions in general work against it. There is a hair's breadth of a moment for the rogue to uncanny dodge, or for various characters to reduce damage or give a bonus to a save or whatever.

No. Most of those rays are instantaneous. They just go off. For an example, Disintegration is an instantaneous spell that requires 1 action to cast. The eye ray would be the same, whether you use it as an action like RAW or a spell as a house rule. Rogues can use their Uncanny Dodge on instant spells like Fireball or instant magical actions like eye rays.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It has nothing to do with Xanathar's. If there is no motion, sound or object involved with the casting, what pray tell is the wizard looking at in order to see a spell being cast?

That's up to the DM. I even gave an example in the post you're quoting.

This I agree with, if you houserule these magical actions to be spells, then they would require the components to use. Though I think it's silly to expect a beholder to somehow be able to cast 3 spells simultaneously with no hands and one mouth.

Well, no. You can also just assume that magical creatures are often able to cast spells without material components.

It's done when the effect happens. You must cast it before the effect occurs. When a beam emerges from the Beholder's eyes, that's the effect. Action/spell done. Too late to counter.

Sure, but this is homebrew. Pretty cool as a descriptive, but not a part of the Beholder lore or abilities.

Irrelevant. It isn't homebrew, it's just how a given DM describes what something looks like.

Sure, but again, Counterspell also assumes that the Shield spell involves Verbal and Somatic components, which give the Counterspeller a visual that a spell is being cast. If the caster is psionic then there would be no components and therefore no visual to go off of.

And again you're just...making stuff up and pretending it's rules, for some reason. Absolutely nothing in 5e suggests that what you're saying is true of psionics.

No. Most of those rays are instantaneous. They just go off. For an example, Disintegration is an instantaneous spell that requires 1 action to cast. The eye ray would be the same, whether you use it as an action like RAW or a spell as a house rule. Rogues can use their Uncanny Dodge on instant spells like Fireball or instant magical actions like eye rays.

Here, you're just blatantly ignoring everything I said and replying as if I'd said...I don't even know what.

To be instantaneous, the eye ray (a colloquial term I'm using to refer to all of the beholder's eye attacks in general) would have to have a clause stating that reaction abilities cannot be used to mitigate or negate it. A thing cannot be both instantaneous, and capable of interruption, barring chronomancy. I doubt you think rogues are all chronomancers.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, no. You can also just assume that magical creatures are often able to cast spells without material components.

They still need verbal and somatic for spells.

And again you're just...making stuff up and pretending it's rules, for some reason. Absolutely nothing in 5e suggests that what you're saying is true of psionics.

PSIONICS
A monster that casts spells using only the power of its mind has the psionics tag added to its Spellcasting or Innate Spellcasting special trait. This tag carries no special rules of its own, but other parts of the game might refer to it. A monster that has this tag typically doesn't require any components to cast its spells."

To be instantaneous, the eye ray (a colloquial term I'm using to refer to all of the beholder's eye attacks in general) would have to have a clause stating that reaction abilities cannot be used to mitigate or negate it.

Why? You can react to and negate instant spells. Why would Beholder rays be any different if you turn them into spells?

A thing cannot be both instantaneous, and capable of interruption, barring chronomancy. I doubt you think rogues are all chronomancers.

The EFFECT is instantaneous. Once the ray comes out, it's too late to counter. There are no instant to cast spells or magical abilities that I'm aware of.

 

[Bill Zebub]

This seems like a LOT of arguing for something that I can't imagine won't be clarified by WotC.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

They still need verbal and somatic for spells.

Okay? What part of what I said do you think this rebuts?

PSIONICS
A monster that casts spells using only the power of its mind has the psionics tag added to its Spellcasting or Innate Spellcasting special trait. This tag carries no special rules of its own, but other parts of the game might refer to it. A monster that has this tag typically doesn't require any components to cast its spells."

Which...doesn't mean it can't be counter spelled.

Why? You can react to and negate instant spells. Why would Beholder rays be any different if you turn them into spells?

The EFFECT is instantaneous. Once the ray comes out, it's too late to counter. There are no instant to cast spells or magical abilities that I'm aware of.

The game term instantaneous is misnamed. it isn't instantaneous.

And again, nothing in the game tells us that there is no visible sign of a beholder use an eye attack. If treating them as spells, it's up to the DM to then decide whether that is the case or not.

This is such a weird hill to die on. I'm done. Feel free to have the last word, if you must, but you're completely in left field, pretending your preferred ruling is RAW.

 

[J.Quondam]

This seems like a LOT of arguing for something that I can't imagine won't be clarified by WotC.

That's because arguing about counterpell is an ability, not a spell, and therefore can't be counterspelled.

 

[Maxperson]

Okay? What part of what I said do you think this rebuts?

Which...doesn't mean it can't be counter spelled.

What part of you need to SEE THE SPELL BEING CAST are you not getting? No components to casting = no visual to casting. There are no other RAW things to go on visually. From Counterspell...

"1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell.'

There are no other RAW visuals to casting a spell other than components. None. If you homebrew in lights and/or other things to show visual casting, that's a table rule and not RAW.

And again, nothing in the game tells us that there is no visible sign of a beholder use an eye attack. If treating them as spells, it's up to the DM to then decide whether that is the case or not.

Absence is not proof of existence. When discussing RAW, you can only go with what is written and nothing else. That's what the W means. If you add in a visual sign, that's homebrew.