D&D 5E Do you allow a spell to be identified before counterspelling?

[Mort]

I've only experienced this on the player side, but usually neither I as DM nor the DMs I have had speak in spell names when describing the action. It might be "It gestures and three bolts of force fly out striking Gumar in the chest." but generally not "it casts magic missile, three bolts, all at Gumar." But that would be completely normal on the PC end to communicate to the DM your action "I cast magic missile, three bolts all at the hag."

In my last game I had it and once I got used to using it I would just fling it the first time an enemy caster started to cast. The first couple games after my wizard got it I kept cursing myself as only remembering I could use it after the fight was over and we had been pummeled with spells.

So once I got the rhythm of it the games would usually go "The hag casts a spe-" "Counterspell!"

If this became common - or was known to be common - it would lead to interesting fake-outs.

A mage encountering another mage would know that that mage would counterspell immediately so would throw out a 1st level spell to make that mage waste a higher level slot.

Of course the counterspelling mage would know that the other mage would know and might cast a lower level slot so might wait.

Of course the casting mage would know that the counterspelling mage would know... and my head is starting to hurt.

Realistically though - an action is generally worth more than a reaction. So counterspelling the mages first spell, even if it's lower level is worth it - due to the action economy. Of course it's then also worth the casting mage countering the counterspell (which he suspects is a counterspell because it's unlikely to be anything else, though it could be) with his own reaction to preserve his action economy - and my head is starting to hurt again.

 

[Voadam]

and my head is starting to hurt again.

It gets more meta too.

PC "I get these resources back with a long rest, lets blow through everything in my MTG deck that I can."

NPC "If its combat, I'm not expecting to live out this fight. So yeah, lets use those slots to make it interesting."

 

[Umbran]

Do you also tell the player that they failed the Arcana check?

Nope. They ask. A check is made. They get an answer.

If they rolled like crap, then they can guess they failed. My players are generally good enough to roll with that information, and separate the in-character decision from the out-of-character knowledge.

Plus, knowing what spell it isn't usually doesn't help all that much, since they don't generally know the spell load-out of the enemy.

 

[CleverNickName]

In theory, I run it RAW: you only know that a spell is being cast and need to decide form that alone (and the broader context) whether to counterspell.

In practice, I will sometimes say "The lich casts fireball..." and allow the players to interrupt with a counterspell even though they have more knowledge than they "should." This has never felt like a big deal to me.

Same here. The only time I can see this being a big deal is when the DM is trying to do a bit of metagaming. "Okay, the lich is going to cast power word stun on the Fighter. Rats, the the Wizard just counterspelled it. Never mind. He was actually casting magic missile. I need to save that higher-level spell slot for the next round..."

No judgment; we're all guilty of metagaming at one time or another. I'm just sayin'.

 

[iserith]

Countering or hampering counterspell is actually fairly easy in the encounter design itself and there's no need of using optional or house rules that may slow the game down. Some options:

Have more than one caster. Both casters also have counterspell. Or have a single caster with multiple heads that can act as multiple casters - that's both effective and gross.

Put the caster in an advantageous position, such as on top of a platform more than 60 feet above the PCs. This limits some spell options for the spellcaster, but puts them out of reach for counterspell. Cover the platform's sides in razorvine or spiders or flammable oil for extra fun.

Areas of darkness that obscure the caster from the PCs can also help, depending on how that is set up. Blinding hazards can also be neat - ground-up glass blowing in the wind or bright flashing lights. As well, greater invisibility.

Put pressure on the PC caster so they cast shield or absorb elements or the like to eat their reaction.

And if you want to have some arguments at the table, give the caster innate spellcasting that removes all components. If the spell can't be perceived, it can't be counterspelled. Retain a lawyer before trying this.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I play a wizard with counterspell but haven’t had a lot of chance to use it. And, on a couple occasions failed to make the check. Then, one encounter, the dm decided to have many casters, all of whom had counterspell. There were huge chains of counterspells happening. As someone would cast, I’d counterspell and another mage would Counterspell that and then someone in my party who had counterspell in a magic item counterspelled that counterspell. It was interesting. Wizard battles.

 

[Quartz]

Would you allow a spellcaster to cast deceptively so as to obfuscate the arcana check?

 

[Voadam]

Would you allow a spellcaster to cast deceptively so as to obfuscate the arcana check?

Use their move say to use deception to impose disadvantage on the ID check?

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Would you allow a spellcaster to cast deceptively so as to obfuscate the arcana check?

Subtle spell

 

[Shiroiken]

I require an Int/Arcana check to determine the spell, as per XGtE, but allow Counterspell to be part of the same reaction.