D&D 5E Counterspell proof and Verbal components

[Nebulous]

If you're curious, this is how Dispel Magic works in Dungeon World:

⃞ Dispel Magic 3rd Level Choose a spell or magic effect in your presence: this spell rips it apart. Lesser spells are ended, powerful magic is just reduced or dampened so long as you are nearby.

Like the D&D dispel magic, the effect is immediate, but the DM decides what constitutes "lesser magic" and with all spells in DW, there is a chance of spell failure. And there's a chance you roll well and casts spells all day long too. It's a far more narrative game than D&D where the story is pushed in front of the rules, so how you (the player and GM) describe the action dictates the results.

 

[Blue]

The issue I would have with some sort of deception would that pretending to cast a spell would likely take the same amount of time as casting a spell. So the character would use an action to pretend to cast. There are bonus action spells, but I wouldn't let a character 'pretend' to cast as a bonus action. That means the only spell they could cast (short of action surge or wild magic surge) would be a bonus action spell.

And at times, spending an action to get the foe to waste a 3rd level slot is just the right move. Or even just to waste their Reaction so they can't Counterspell a different character later in the same round.

The "this isn't efficient so I don't think we should allow it" seems odd. We let wizards attack with a quarterstaff with their strength, which is a massively inefficient use of an action. Why not let the chance that someone could be clever?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Official stand (listed in the Sage Advice Compendium) is that the Subtle metamagic prevents Counterspelling because you can not tell a spell is being cast.



This is backed up by the Perceiving a Caster at Work section of Xanathar's Guide to Everything (pg 85).

So it would follow that a spell without Verbal components would not be eligible to be counterspells if the caster was Invisible or hidden during the casting for the same reason - the Counterspeller would not be able to perceive the spell being cast.

Which leads me to the question of recognizing Verbal components to determine if a spell is being cast. If the Counterspeller is in Silence they would not be able to detect the Verbal components even assuming they could cast (such as with Subtle). Same if the Counterspeller was Deafened.

Just as a creature may not be seen, and can hide in order to improve those chances, what is the equivalent for hearing Verbal components.

The PHB gives no guidance about how loud Verbal components are:



Now, all that is needed is to recognize a spell is being cast, which seems like a lower bar than making out the actual words or identifying the spell. But is always a given that Verbal components are heard, or could either environmental conditions (loud, windy, etc.) and/or a character attempting to hide the Verbal components (speaking softly, etc.) that could potentially cause the Counterspeller not to perceive the casting?

And the flip side - is it possible to use an action to mimic casting such that a Counterspeller perceives a spell is being cast. As per Xanathar's it is possible to cast a spell without a valid target - to no effect and the slot is lost. Such as using an action to mimic casting and if the Counterspeller is deceived and uses their reaction to cast a Counterspell, then casting a Bonus Action spell.

Could also trick them into a Counterspell because they keep using Shield, so you make them think that you’re gonna Fireball their ass.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Official stand (listed in the Sage Advice Compendium) is that the Subtle metamagic prevents Counterspelling because you can not tell a spell is being cast.



This is backed up by the Perceiving a Caster at Work section of Xanathar's Guide to Everything (pg 85).

So it would follow that a spell without Verbal components would not be eligible to be counterspells if the caster was Invisible or hidden during the casting for the same reason - the Counterspeller would not be able to perceive the spell being cast.

Counterspell requires you to see the target, so an invisible or hidden caster cannot be counterspelled even if he's shouting "LIGHTNING BOLT!" at the top of his lungs.

Which leads me to the question of recognizing Verbal components to determine if a spell is being cast. If the Counterspeller is in Silence they would not be able to detect the Verbal components even assuming they could cast (such as with Subtle). Same if the Counterspeller was Deafened.

The counterspeller could still detect any Somatic or Material components to the spell being cast. Counterspell itself only has a Somatic component, so it can be cast perfectly fine in Silence.

 

[prabe]

The counterspeller could still detect any Somatic or Material components to the spell being cast. Counterspell itself only has a Somatic component, so it can be cast perfectly fine in Silence.

Which might make it harder to recognize that someone is fake-casting.

 

[Blue]

Counterspell requires you to see the target, so an invisible or hidden caster cannot be counterspelled even if he's shouting "LIGHTNING BOLT!" at the top of his lungs.

Interesting. Counterspell lists no target, but does mention creature.

Everyone, what's your feel on this? Does invisibilty/hidden prevent counterspelling even if Verbal components are heard because there is no line of sight?

The counterspeller could still detect any Somatic or Material components to the spell being cast. Counterspell itself only has a Somatic component, so it can be cast perfectly fine in Silence.

That was in context of invisibility/hidden.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Interesting. Counterspell lists no target, but does mention creature.

Everyone, what's your feel on this? Does invisibilty/hidden prevent counterspelling even if Verbal components are heard because there is no line of sight?

It's unambiguous. Counterspell doesn't list a target, but as it is a reaction it has a clearly defined trigger: "when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell."

If you don't see a creature casting a spell, you cannot cast counterspell.

 

[AriochQ]

The "this isn't efficient so I don't think we should allow it" seems odd. We let wizards attack with a quarterstaff with their strength, which is a massively inefficient use of an action. Why not let the chance that someone could be clever?

I wasn't saying I wouldn't allow it, but you can get the same result by casting a cantrip first, drawing the counterspell, and then casting your bonus action spell (or vice versa). Of course, RAW you would be unable to then use your reaction on your turn to counter another spell since you cast a BA spell. So, the deception method does have that advantage.

 

[TwoSix]

It's unambiguous. Counterspell doesn't list a target, but as it is a reaction it has a clearly defined trigger: "when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell."

If you don't see a creature casting a spell, you cannot cast counterspell.

Good thing to keep in mind, thanks.

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

I concur with the comments about counterspell being clearly defined about someone needing to see the spell being cast. So yes, in the event you can cast a spell without a verbal component and the would be counterspeller is unaware of your presence I do in fact rule that they can't counterspell. For me it's all about mechanical costs vs. benefits, if a player spends the time and effect hiding or spends a spell slot (i.e. invisibility, or counterspelling a counterspell to ensure their original spell gets off, so be it). In regards to the double counterspell thing, I often find in actual play what tends to happen far more often is it is the monsters doing the second counterspell to ensure a big aoe spell goes off on the party, in which case I look to the player and say, "look on the bright side, you've prevented the enemy from casting another fireball or worse". Quite valuable in a game where action economy is key.

As for the age old arguement about doing stuff like deception checks or the like to hide spell components/gestures/etc. I bring up that my main concern is not making subtle spell worthless or stepping on the toes of the sorcerer. The ENTIRE point of it is to cast your spells without getting caught. Yes, it does still allow them to be cast in silence but that is something one should keep in mind.

To help mitigate this issue I rule at my table that any spell with a verbal component has a supernatural quality to it. The component itself isn't merely just saying a word, it is speaking it with intent. One can't whisper spellwords. They have a supernatural quality to them that is obvious to even a layman that something magical is happening. The average commoner may not know the difference between a healing spell or a fireball, but that something is happening. That's where an arcana check comes in to learn more.

Not obviously rules as written, but I'd argue this was their intent with the game. You are more than welcome to allow casters to do stuff like hide spells or feint casting a spell. The latter is less problematic, though I'd allow either an Insight or Arcana check to see through their deception attempt either way, and in any world where hiding magic is common any town worth their salt would have guards or mages specifically trained to be vigilant watching for such spellcaster deceptions. Like every town would have an apprentice mage at minimum accompanying a ruler at all times. ..worldbuilding implications aside, it's mainly a concern with what is more fun at your table and not screwing over a player who decides to pick sorcerer with subtle spell by letting every bard or wizard do it for free.