D&D 5E The Gloves Are Off?

[Mort]

His reply relies on it taking longer than the fraction of a second that RAW says it takes. He relied on recognizing that a reaction was happening before it happened, which isn't possible if you aren't fully ready for it the way fencers are. The entire reaction from start to finish takes a fraction of a second.

And in the same reply, I stated that a trained caster will know what a reaction spell is an be ready for them, just as a trained fencer is ready.

 

[Maxperson]

So here you're saying there's a way that counterspelling a counterspell could work, in the fiction?

A way that I've never seen done. But yes, if a spellcaster wanted to give up his action to read an action to counterspell specific individual who casts counterspell, they could possibly react, and since it's a game I'd just let it happen.

First, we're talking about magic... which can work however we want it to work.

Maybe you are, but I'm not. I'm talking about the ability to not only perceive an event happening in a fraction of a second, but perceive it in time to react yourself and then beat that fraction of a second with your own spell that has to end before the first fraction of a second is over. None of that is magic. It's physical perception and reaction. The magic is what happens after you do those things.

There's no real life correlary.

There is. Let's get a group of people together in a mosh pit. Then during the moshing you have to not only see someone raise a fist at you(takes a fraction of a second), you then have to react by raising your fist first. That's what you are saying can be done.

 

[Maxperson]

And in the same reply, I stated that a trained caster will know what a reaction spell is an be ready for them, just as a trained fencer is ready.

You literally cannot be ready for them short of readying an action for a specific individual to cast counterspell. In combat the caster has to be looking at all of his friends and all of his enemies. He has to be alert for danger and possible new threats. And he has to be strategizing what he's going to be doing in the combat. There's no way he can do all of that AND be focused enough on one individual to perceive, react and beat something that is happening in a fraction of a second.

 

[Mort]

If a spellcaster wanted to give up his round to ready an action to counter a specific individual if he counterspells, that would make sense and by possibly the way it happens with fencing. In the middle combat when you aren't expecting a counterspell to even happen and aren't ready for it, you simply won't have time to recognize it is happening and respond. Not in the narrative anyway. The narrative has to twist itself to accommodate the rules.

This was the 3e way, and I never saw counterspelling used, not once.

Further, OF COURSE the casting mage is expecting a possible counterspell! If counterspelling is a thing, it would be REALLY stupid not to.

The actual recourse is to recognize counterspell's limitations (must be within 60', must be seen casting a spell) and circumvent THOSE.

 

[Maxperson]

This was the 3e way, and I never saw counterspelling used, not once.

I didn't, either. But I would have if that was truly the way 3e did it. In 3e not only did you have to give up your turn, but you also had to have memorized the specific spell(among thousands) that was being cast, or use dispel magic which was unreliable.

The vast majority of the time you would be giving up your turn to fail to have a chance to even stop the spell. It was utter trash. Now if there had been a spell like counterspell, I'd bet I would have seen it sometimes, because a caster could lock down a dangerous spellcaster that way and let the rest of the party take it down.

 

[Mort]

You literally cannot be ready for them short of readying an action for a specific individual to cast counterspell. In combat the caster has to be looking at all of his friends and all of his enemies. He has to be alert for danger and possible new threats. There's no way he can do all of that AND be focused enough on one individual to perceive, react and beat something that is happening in a fraction of a second.

You're REALLY allowing your perception of realty and real world limitations dictate your response..

Maybe mages are trained to recognize fluctuations in the weave regardless of events around them?

Maybe mages are trained to recognize certain gestures on instinct and can do so regardless of the chaos around them. This could, of course, lead to the DM messing with the PC "the baddie is reacting..", "ok, counterspell at 3rd level" "whoops his reaction turns into a rude gesture, mark off a 3rd level slot please." Saw a DM actually pull something like this after he got sick of all the counterspells flying around.

 

[Voadam]

Fencing is apples to counterspell's oranges. 1) Fencing uses an extremely light weapon that can be moved very quickly, 2) they aren't using enough force to really hurt much. It's not a real combat weapon. 3) the person is right there and READY for attacks and counters.

1) Right, counterspell is also an extremely fast spell that can be cast in an instant as a reaction so can be done very quickly.

2) You are just making this up and wrong on every statement here. Besides the point is fast reaction on reaction activity in a combat type activity. Fencing duels, martial arts bouts etc. seem the most relevant type of comparison.

3) counterpelling seems like the two casters are right there mage dueling. In D&D this comes up in combat where the two are READY for attacks and counters just as much as the parrying monsters or the intercept fighting style paladin/fighters. I see that readied action as more the sniper type of scene in a movie where they are waiting for their one shot, or waiting to jump out of the tree as an ambush.

If a spellcaster wanted to give up his round to ready an action to counter a specific individual if he counterspells, that would make sense and by possibly the way it happens with fencing. In the middle combat when you aren't expecting a counterspell to even happen and aren't ready for it, you simply won't have time to recognize it is happening and respond. Not in the narrative anyway. The narrative has to twist itself to accommodate the rules.

Fencing it is fast paced action reaction reaction back and forth. Watching a fencing match or a sword fight in the middle of a multi-person combat in the Princess Bride or an Errol Flynn movie and thinking of it in D&D terms I generally think of multiple attacks and reactions more than a 3e style hold for one single strike as a readied action in a round.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Maybe not, but a gamist argument isn't any better or any worse than a realism one.

Exactly! I don't need to convince you that my gamist reasons are universally valid in order for my own preferences to be personally valid.

 

[hawkeyefan]

A way that I've never seen done. But yes, if a spellcaster wanted to give up his action to read an action to counterspell specific individual who casts counterspell, they could possibly react, and since it's a game I'd just let it happen.

Maybe you are, but I'm not. I'm talking about the ability to not only perceive an event happening in a fraction of a second, but perceive it in time to react yourself and then beat that fraction of a second with your own spell that has to end before the first fraction of a second is over. None of that is magic. It's physical perception and reaction. The magic is what happens after you do those things.

There is. Let's get a group of people together in a mosh pit. Then during the moshing you have to not only see someone raise a fist at you(takes a fraction of a second), you then have to react by raising your fist first. That's what you are saying can be done.

Again, that's an interpretation. And like I said, you're entitled to it, but it seems so dissatisfying to you that I'm not sure why you won't consider others.

There's nothing that says that casting counterspell is always done exactly the same way by everyone who uses it.
There's nothing that says that the counterspell cannot be interrupted. In fact, we've been told the opposite.
There's nothing that says that magic spells cannot interact with each other in mysterious and unexpected ways.
There's nothing that says that the person casting the second counterspell didn't intuit what the other was doing and beat them to the punch... that the order of events for the characters MUST match that of the players. A lot happens in a round, and expecting that every participant is just standing around in stasis except on their turn is bonkers.

 

[Maxperson]

You're REALLY allowing your perception of realty and real world limitations dictate your response..

Maybe mages are trained to recognize fluctuations in the weave regardless of events around them?

If they were, it would say so. Even with that it still would not be possible to recognize/feel such a fluctuation and respond in time to beat something that happens in a fraction of a second. Especially since the thing you are responding with takes an equal amount of time.

Time to perceive + Reaction > Reaction alone. For you to be right, the second caster has to see the future and begin casting his counterspell so that it can go off before the first counterspell and counter it.

Maybe mages are trained to recognize certain gestures on instinct and can do so regardless of the chaos around them.

This is still perception + reaction > than reaction. You're arguing that perception(positive amount of time) + reaction(positive amount of time) < reaction(same positive time as first reaction) alone. That's not how math works.

This could, of course, lead to the DM messing with the PC "the baddie is reacting..", "ok, counterspell at 3rd level" "whoops his reaction turns into a rude gesture, mark off a 3rd level slot please." Saw a DM actually pull something like this after he got sick of all the counterspells flying around.

Now THAT is adversarial DMing.