D&D 5E Counterspell vs Counterspell

[matskralc]

As much as I want to envision a roomful of wizards engaging in a pelvic thrust battle, the definition of somatic components heavily implies they are hand-based: "Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate series of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures." There's no need to require a free hand if a pelvic thrust would suffice.

I don't like the idea of Wizard 1 being able to pause the casting of his fireball in order to counterspell a counterspell so that his fireball isn't interrupted. I agree that it's totally RAW, though.

On the other hand, there really isn't a whole lot that is materially different between that and using the Ready action to cast a spell. Doing that involves almost casting the entire spell but holding onto the last little bit until your trigger occurs, which can be one turn or ten turns.

So I'm not sure. Maybe Wizard 1 can only counterspell a counterspell if his original spell didn't have an S component. That's not a whole lot of spells, though. Maybe Wizard 1 needs to make a concentration save in order to hold onto his original spell once he's cast counterspell. I don't know, there's just something that doesn't feel right about counterspelling a counterspell when you're already in the middle of casting another spell.

 

[matskralc]

I'd certainly allow it, it would mean they'd be burning through a fair amount of slots which means less fireballs available to the party during a later encounter.

You know, that's a good point. Not to beat the dead horse du jour, but I think part of what makes it feel weird to me is that I've never really been run through adventuring days that are as long as they're supposed to be during the high level one shots or short campaigns I've played. It's never really caused a resource problem for my wizards to counterspell a counterspell. If it's the second encounter after getting up in the morning and I know that I'm probably getting 4-6 more before I can crash again, I'll be a lot more hesitant to burn two slots on making sure my haste goes off.

 

[Psikerlord#]

IMO Sage Advice is clearly wrong - for one thing this is letting the caster cast 2 spells on his own turn, which is supposed to be a no-no*. And he shouldn't be allowed to stop casting his fireball, cast a different spell, then restart & complete his original spell.

But you can do it the Sage Advice way if you want.

*Barring a specific exception in the text of Counterspell, which there isn't.

Completely agree - if you're part way through casting one spell, you cant cast another one - or should not be able to.

In any event, counterspell is an awful idea, "fun" wise. It's super effective and super boring; a very bad combo indeed. I think most games would be better off removing it from the spell list .. along with raise dead magic, and frankly all 7th - 9th level spells

 

[feartheminotaur]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all reactions "immediate reactions" not "immediate interrupts" (to co-opt the 4E lingo)? Hence the reaction is not to the process of casting fireball, but the completed casting of fireball. Which makes sense, because how do you know what spell is being cast and what level it is just from the initial verbal/somatic components?

But...the text of counterspell says "interrupt" with a a trigger of "when you see a creature withing 60 feet of you casting a spell", so that means the instant they start, the opposing spell caster can identify the spell being cast, determine the level at which it is cast, and fire off their own spell, all before the original spell is completed in the fraction of a 6 second span (that also includes moving 30 feet, and two other actions - bonus and re)?

So...yeah, it works both ways, I guess. That's magic for ya.

I think I'll go with Sage Advice - that way anyone who doesn't like it can take it up with him.

 

[jgsugden]

If you don't like the pelvic thrust explanation (which makes you crazy - it is gold), you can explain how the interaction works in a dozen other ways. If you can't imagine a way for a counterspell to be cast during a counterspell curing a fireball, you need to feed your imagination.

Regardless, the rules (and Sage Advice) are clear. You're free to change the ruling in your home games to not allow it, but that would be a house rule.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Why are we assuming that you cannot interrupt casting your spell to cast another quick spell? There's already a precedent for putting a spell on "pause". If you ready an action with regard to spellcasting you cast the spell and then hold it until you are ready to release it. Feel free to ask the player for a concentration check in the unlikely event that someone interrupts the player's casting of Counterspell with their own damaging reaction. Perfectly within "rulings not rules". I don't see this sage advice running counter to either RAW or RAI in this case.

 

[Azzy]

Can you use you action to cast a spell? Yes.
Can you use your reaction to cast a spell in which you use your action to cast a spell? Yes.
Is fireball a spell? Yes.
Is counterspell a spell? Yes.

Ergo, you can cast fireball with your action, and then cast counterspell with your reaction (reacting to an opponent's reaction in which he casts counterspell).

 

[jaelis]

But I guess that if some tried to counterspell your expeditious retreat spell, you be out of luck due to the bonus action rule.

 

[Caliban]

But I guess that if some tried to counterspell your expeditious retreat spell, you be out of luck due to the bonus action rule.

Incorrect, for reasons previously discussed on the first page of this thread.

 

[Caliban]

Dupe.