D&D 5E Counterspell nerfed!

[Maxperson]

No. I’m not adding anything. There is an ability that lets you cancel spells you can see being cast. The rules don’t specify what can or can’t be seen. Therefor it’s up to the DM what can and cannot be seen, outside of stuff like no line of sight or invisibility.

If the bolded is true, there is no visual unless you rule that there is. That is ADDING a visual where the writing doesn't have one. If it ain't there, it has to be added before it can be there. It's really easy.

Here's an extreme example of what I'm talking about. The eye ray rules also don't specify whether or not when a ray kills something, a nuclear explosion happens. Therefore it's up to the DM whether or not a nuclear explosion happens. Are you really going to argue that a DM who rules a nuclear explosion happens isn't adding anything to the ray?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If the bolded is true, there is no visual unless you rule that there is. That is ADDING a visual where the writing doesn't have one. If it ain't there, it has to be added before it can be there. It's really easy.

Here's an extreme example of what I'm talking about. The eye ray rules also don't specify whether or not when a ray kills something, a nuclear explosion happens. Therefore it's up to the DM whether or not a nuclear explosion happens. Are you really going to argue that a DM who rules a nuclear explosion happens isn't adding anything to the ray?

Extreme example? More like absurd false equivalence.

The two are not like cases. What things look like as they happen is up to the DM. The DM isn’t home brewing when they say, “the knight salutes with his sword before lunging at you, [XYZ mechanics]”. Likewise, they aren’t home brewing when they describe a flash of light as the beholder starts to shoot a death ray at someone, or hell even just “the beholder’s eye stalk focuses on you, locking onto you to attack”, or whatever else they want to describe things as.

I mean, surely you don’t think the beam comes out at an oblique angle from an eye that isn’t even looking at the target.

The DM frames the scene, and describes the world and NPCs and what they do. That is actual rules.

 

[Maxperson]

What things look like as they happen is up to the DM. The DM isn’t home brewing when they say, “the knight salutes with his sword before lunging at you, [XYZ mechanics]”. Likewise, they aren’t home brewing when they describe a flash of light as the beholder starts to shoot a death ray at someone, or hell even just “the beholder’s eye stalk focuses on you, locking onto you to attack”, or whatever else they want to describe things as.

This is a nice False Equivalence as well. In one case you have a knight doing something that has nothing to do with an attack and has no effect on mechanics whatsoever, and on the other side you have a situation where you are setting up mechanics to allow Counterspell. They are not the same. One is fluff(knight example) and the other is adding to the eye ray rules to change Beholder eye rays in order to allow Counterspell to work.

Edit: and the Xanathar's has nothing to do with what I have been saying. This is from the Sage Advice.

"If a sorcerer casts a spell with only verbal or somatic components using Subtle Spell, can an opponent use counterspell against it? If a spell that’s altered by Subtle Spell has no material component, then it’s impossible for anyone to perceive the spell being cast. So, since you can’t see the casting, counterspell is of no use."

So you can see from PHB only, if you can't see components being used, it's not perceivable. You are adding flashes of light and such that don't exist.

 

[robus]

Extreme example? More like absurd false equivalence.

The two are not like cases. What things look like as they happen is up to the DM. The DM isn’t home brewing when they say, “the knight salutes with his sword before lunging at you, [XYZ mechanics]”. Likewise, they aren’t home brewing when they describe a flash of light as the beholder starts to shoot a death ray at someone, or hell even just “the beholder’s eye stalk focuses on you, locking onto you to attack”, or whatever else they want to describe things as.

I mean, surely you don’t think the beam comes out at an oblique angle from an eye that isn’t even looking at the target.

The DM frames the scene, and describes the world and NPCs and what they do. That is actual rules.

This seems simple to resolve, just quote from the beholder MM entry the description of its spellcasting such that counterspell can be adjudicated?

 

[ad_hoc]

The thing about arguing RAW is...

If it's arguable, it's not RAW. That's why it's useless as a concept. It's only real use is when someone doesn't know a rule. They you can point them to page XX and they can be enlightened (But no one calls this RAW; it's just called 'rules'). But if you're both looking at the same rule and no one can agree whose interpretation is correct then it's of no use. It's just laying claim to an authority which doesn't exist - because if it did there would be no need to lay claim to it.

I'd agree with you but people will argue about everything.

Apparently "Druids will not wear metal armour" is something people find to be vague and unclear.

 

[Rabulias]

I believe we can infer from other aspects of the rules that you cannot counterspell magical abilities.

I think there is a reason why creature abilities are named "Spellcasting" or "Innate Spellcasting," namely to indicate they are casting a spell. If a creature is not casting a spell, you cannot use counterspell against it.

Notably, let's look at a creature like the arcanaloth (MM p.313). The arcanaloth has both Innate Spellcasting and Spellcasting traits, with a number of spells listed. One of its at-will innate spells is invisibility, but it is noted that it is (self only). In the arcanaloth's Actions, there is Teleport, which says "The arcanaloth magically teleports, along with any equipment it is wearing or carrying, up to 60 feet to an unoccupied space it can see."

So why is Teleport an action and not an at-will innate spell? They could have added "teleport (self-only, 60 feet)" to the Innate Spellcasting list and saved some space.

Also, if it was intended that you could counterspell magical abilities, some of them do not clearly match up to spells, so the DM would be left to assign the spell level. What level counterspell do I need to cast to counter a demi-lich's LIfe Drain?

And if I can counterspell a beholder's eye rays, could an enemy spellcaster counterspell a Light Domain cleric's Channel Divinity: Radiance of the Dawn? A paladin's Lay on Hands? A way of shadow monk's Shadow Step? A druid's Wildshape? What level counterspell do they need to cast to counter them?

How about magical Legendary Actions or Lair Actions? Can they be countered? What level are they? WotC can make mistakes, but I think this would have come up in errata and they would have assigned effective spell levels to these abilities by now if it was intended that they were subject to counterspell.

 

[Lyxen]

If the bolded is true, there is no visual unless you rule that there is.

And indeed, on this point, there is no other rule than "The DM determines the results of the adventurers’ actions and narrates what they experience." There is no rule, nothing needs to be added there, just the local rulings of what the DM decides to narrate to the players.

It's exactly that level of detail with spellcasting: "Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature's thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise."

It's totally up to the DM to determine whether each spell has a perceptible effect, how perceptible that is, at which range, by whom, etc.

 

[Maxperson]

And indeed, on this point, there is no other rule than "The DM determines the results of the adventurers’ actions and narrates what they experience." There is no rule, nothing needs to be added there, just the local rulings of what the DM decides to narrate to the players.

It's exactly that level of detail with spellcasting: "Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature's thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise."

It's totally up to the DM to determine whether each spell has a perceptible effect, how perceptible that is, at which range, by whom, etc.

Read the Sage Advice on the topic. It's quite clear that without components, casting is not perceptible and cannot be countered.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This is a nice False Equivalence as well. In one case you have a knight doing something that has nothing to do with an attack and has no effect on mechanics whatsoever, and on the other side you have a situation where you are setting up mechanics to allow Counterspell. They are not the same. One is fluff(knight example) and the other is adding to the eye ray rules to change Beholder eye rays in order to allow Counterspell to work.

So did you intentionally make a false equivalence, are you recognizing that I was right in describing it as such, or is the “as well” in your reply just imprecise language?

Anyway, describing what a monsters abilities look like isn’t adding mechanics, regardless.

Edit: and the Xanathar's has nothing to do with what I have been saying. This is from the Sage Advice.

"If a sorcerer casts a spell with only verbal or somatic components using Subtle Spell, can an opponent use counterspell against it? If a spell that’s altered by Subtle Spell has no material component, then it’s impossible for anyone to perceive the spell being cast. So, since you can’t see the casting, counterspell is of no use."

So you can see from PHB only, if you can't see components being used, it's not perceivable. You are adding flashes of light and such that don't exist.

Its odd to have to say this, but…a beholder, unless homebrewed, isn’t a sorcerer casting a spell with subtle spell.

Deciding whether the eyestalk moves, or focuses on a creature in a noticeable way, or any other indicator of what it’s about to do, is entirely, 100%, unequivocally, up to the DM.

This seems simple to resolve, just quote from the beholder MM entry the description of its spellcasting such that counterspell can be adjudicated?

Could do, sure. But what a monsters abilities look like is…inarguably up to the DM.


It’s also just very strange to see a “DM has unlimited authority” poster arguing that it’s against the rules to…rule a way they don’t agree with as part of adjudicating a houserule.

If one houserules that Counterspell can counter any ability which replicates a spell effect, then one is going to have to make some best judgment calls about how a given ability would be written if the houserule were the RAW, so even if I were wrong about the rules in this case (and I’m not), it wouldn’t even matter!

It was weird as hell for max to even try to tell another poster their houserule doesn’t work because RAW says XYZ in the first place.

 

[Maxperson]

So did you intentionally make a false equivalence, are you recognizing that I was right in describing it as such, or is the “as well” in your reply just imprecise language?

No. I just didn't want to argue with you about my supposed False Equivalence, especially when you followed up with one.

Its odd to have to say this, but…a beholder, unless homebrewed, isn’t a sorcerer casting a spell with subtle spell.

It's functionally the equivalent. The rays have no components, so if you treat them as spells they are imperceptible and cannot be countered. The logic is pretty easy.

Deciding whether the eyestalk moves, or focuses on a creature in a noticeable way, or any other indicator of what it’s about to do, is entirely, 100%, unequivocally, up to the DM.

Sure, but that doesn't make the casting of the spell perceptible. Eyes focus all the time, even when rays aren't firing. Again, if a spell has no components, it is imperceptible.

It was weird as hell for max to even try to tell another poster their houserule doesn’t work because RAW says XYZ in the first place.

Er, I'm not actually doing that. The house rule was only that they treat magic actions as spells. Nothing more. So now you and I are discussing whether the new "spell" can be countered, and since it does not have any components, it cannot be. Not without another house rule.