D&D 5E Vecna's Dread Counterspell vs. Counterspell -- What's the Diff?

[dave2008]

Because he doesn’t know anything is happening to which he can react.

He’s obviously not sleeping in combat.

The point is: it is not unreasonable to react or speak unconsciously. People do it all the time and he are powerful magic users who have trained this ability for 100,000 years!

And like I said, you just need the awareness to be unconscious, he could still speak the power consciously.

 

[Charlaquin]

I say things as an unconscious reaction all the time, particularly whenI stubborn my toe.

But that’s still in response to stimuli, which is absent in the hypothetical case where he has no knowledge of the spell being cast.

His may be better trained and more effective. It doesn't matter to the RAW, there is no requirement suggesting anything other than he has a free Reaction and can see a creature that is casting. No other limiters, other than DM supplied roleplaying. And I can think of a number of adequate explanations for the RAW in game, all of them suitably Lichy.

The explanations are irrelevant. I’m trying to understand if the RAW gives him the ability to know a spell is being cast even if he can’t see or hear it. If the answer is yes, then a narrative explanation of how would be useful, but giving a narrative explanation before establishing the RAW is not convincing to me.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

He’s obviously not sleeping in combat.

I think you just revealed why people are finding him so easy to beat!

 

[Charlaquin]

Saying "naughty word" in front of my toddler when I walk into a table is neither conscious nor an act of will.

You’re aware of the table when you walk into it.

 

[dave2008]

So, if it just happens, regardless of whether he knows or not, if it's totally instinctive and beyond his conscious control, does he react this way every time someone he can see casts a spell, whether he wants to or not?

You could narrate it that way if you want. I wouldn't though. I would say he knows if a spell is being cast unconsciously (like an aura of spell detection), but he consciously decides to cast the spell. That fulfills the RAW.

 

[Mort]

So, if it just happens, regardless of whether he knows or not, if it's totally instinctive and beyond his conscious control, does he react this way every time someone he can see casts a spell, whether he wants to or not?

Clearly not - since he's got another reaction he can also do.

Much easier to just rule he knows a spell is being cast and can choose to dread counterspell or not.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

So, if it just happens, regardless of whether he knows or not, if it's totally instinctive and beyond his conscious control, does he react this way every time someone he can see casts a spell, whether he wants to or not?

Nah, only when the DM wants him to!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

You’re aware of the table when you walk into it.

I think he wouldn't walk into it if that were the case.

 

[Charlaquin]

He could do that passively as well. However, it could just be the sensual trigger that is passive and he has to actively speak the word if that is more comfortable to you. In game, the DM has to chose to use the ability after all, even though I (DM) know a spell is being cast. So it could be he simply knows spells are being cast, but has to choose to cast dread spell.

Yes. Yes it could be. I’m trying to figure out whether or not the text actually says that it is!

That fits the RAW perfectly fine.

It can fit the RAW. It can also fit the RAW for him not to. I want to twist theories to suit facts, not facts to suit theories.

The point is the narrative fluff should be fashioned to fit RAW, not the other way around (unless the dev say the RAI is something else and errata should be issued).

I agree. And the RAW isn’t clear.

 

[dave2008]

But that’s still in response to stimuli, which is absent in the hypothetical case where he has no knowledge of the spell being cast.

Vecna's stimuli is a spell being cast.

The explanations are irrelevant. I’m trying to understand if the RAW gives him the ability to know a spell is being cast even if he can’t see or hear it. If the answer is yes, then a narrative explanation of how would be useful, but giving a narrative explanation before establishing the RAW is not convincing to me.

Raw is clear, you are trying to come up with an explanation that goes against RAW, we are giving explanations that are inclusive to RAW.

To be clear, RAW doesn't need any explanation at all. It just is what it is.