Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 8414273" data-attributes="member: 23751">It doesn't matter if it's semantics or not.&nbsp; It's a fact of the game and a house rule to do differently. If you rule that the beholder rays can be counterspelled when they are not spells, you've changed the rules of the game.Spells are listed as spells and have spell levels assigned to them.&nbsp; Spells are also in the MM are listed under spellcasting and innate spellcasting.&nbsp; The MM explicitly says that spells are under those two categories.&nbsp; Anything outside is not a spell.&nbsp; I reject the obviously wrong argument that the beholder rays are spells. There would be no point to naming anything a spell if you are correct, but I suspect you know that you are not.No.&nbsp; You argued it, but it wasn't semantics.&nbsp; For instance you completely ignored the section at the beginning of the MM that lays out what spellcasting, innate spellcasting and actions are.&nbsp; The beholder eye ray actions are not spellcasting or innate spellcasting, and are therefore not spells.Nope! You must house rule your game to make them spells in order to counterspell them.&nbsp; This is not a ruling.&nbsp; It's a house rule that changes the nature of the game.&nbsp; It's cool that you've made a house rule like that.&nbsp; I certainly wouldn't, but every table is different.Man. I hate to think about what you do about the magic that is not only not able to be counterspelled, but works in antimagic areas.Dispel Magic doesn't actually dispel magic.&nbsp; It only dispels spells.Edit: Even if you house rule that beholder actions are spells, they still couldn't be counterspelled since they have no components to them and so you cannot see them being &quot;cast.&quot;.&nbsp; By the time you see the eye ray streaking towards you, it's too late to counter it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 8414273, member: 23751"] It doesn't matter if it's semantics or not. It's a fact of the game and a house rule to do differently. If you rule that the beholder rays can be counterspelled when they are not spells, you've changed the rules of the game. Spells are listed as spells and have spell levels assigned to them. Spells are also in the MM are listed under spellcasting and innate spellcasting. The MM explicitly says that spells are under those two categories. Anything outside is not a spell. I reject the obviously wrong argument that the beholder rays are spells. There would be no point to naming anything a spell if you are correct, but I suspect you know that you are not. No. You argued it, but it wasn't semantics. For instance you completely ignored the section at the beginning of the MM that lays out what spellcasting, innate spellcasting and actions are. The beholder eye ray actions are not spellcasting or innate spellcasting, and are therefore not spells. Nope! You must house rule your game to make them spells in order to counterspell them. This is not a ruling. It's a house rule that changes the nature of the game. It's cool that you've made a house rule like that. I certainly wouldn't, but every table is different. Man. I hate to think about what you do about the magic that is not only not able to be counterspelled, but works in antimagic areas. Dispel Magic doesn't actually dispel magic. It only dispels spells. Edit: Even if you house rule that beholder actions are spells, they still couldn't be counterspelled since they have no components to them and so you cannot see them being "cast.". By the time you see the eye ray streaking towards you, it's too late to counter it. [/QUOTE]

Verification