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

[Krachek]

Does Paul the Fighter 2.0 know that he has a thing called Action Surge, or is that only a mechanic that the Player knows?

Does he even know he has hit points!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It doesn’t say that though.

You don't hear his voice whispering in your head?!

 

[Charlaquin]

Does Paul the Fighter 2.0 know that he has a thing called Action Surge, or is that only a mechanic that the Player knows?

That analogy doesn’t track. I’m not asking if Vecna knows the mechanics, I’m asking if he’s aware that a spell is being cast, and if he’s not, how does he know to utter the dread word that will negate it?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

"Vecna utters a dread word to interrupt a creature he can see that is casting a spell."

On the one hand, I believe RAI is to be much the same as Counterspell. Vecna needs to see the creature and see that the creature is casting a spell. The language of Dread Counterspell regarding spell level being countered is the same as Counterspell (albeit upcast one level). The problem here is that the designers could have also just used the exact same language as Counterspell for the Reaction trigger but chose not to... or... were careless in not doing so... we may never know.

On the other hand, this ability is decidely not Counterspell. It is not a spell, has no range restriction, and also causes damage. Further, Vecna is a very powerful archlich who has ages of experience with spellcasting and can sense the weave (or whatever) being manipulated. The problem here is that nowhere in Vecna's statblock does it say Vecna has some extraordinary senses when it comes to spells being cast.

TL;DR: I'm definitely, pretty sure that Subtle Spell would probably foil Vecna's Dread Counterspell. Probably maybe.

 

[NotAYakk]

Yeah, which was pointed out in the others thread and moved me from “convinced he wouldn’t know” to “on the fence.”

This argument is not convincing to me, and in fact makes me less inclined to agree because it seems like the people on the “he knows and can use it” side are motivated as much by wanting Vecna to be a strong opponent as by trying to interpret what’s actually there.

If you want a playable game with exciting fights, you'll want to interpret rules in ways that produce playable games and exciting fights.

How does that argument make you less likely to agree?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Also, @Mort where is this adventure that is being invoked that states Vecna perceives magic easily?
Can you (or someone) post a link or provide the title or even post a snippet of the text that states such? Thanks!

 

[Mort]

Also, @Mort where is this adventure that is being invoked that states Vecna perceives magic easily?
Can you (or someone) post a link or provide the title or even post a snippet of the text that states such? Thanks!

The Vecna adventure.

The relevant text:

Vecna can ascertain the capabilities of spellcasters and identify the spells they cast without making an ability check.

 

[MarkB]

The Vecna adventure.

The relevant text:

Vecna can ascertain the capabilities of spellcasters and identify the spells they cast without making an ability check.

Which doesn't say anything about having a supernatural ability to perceive that they're being cast - only that, when he does see them, he knows exactly what they are.

 

[Charlaquin]

I've never been much for:

What is the absolute "right" answer for everyone?

I'm much more concerned for what is the right answer for me and my campaign and what makes sense for that. And is the monster effective, with the interpretation presented - absolutely played a part (because if the answer was no it's not effective, I'd change it anyway).

I don’t care about finding a right answer for everyone either. But part of finding the right answer for me is understanding what the rules actually say, and what the developers intended that to mean, so if I decide to run it differently I can do so with conscious intent.

 

[Charlaquin]

If you want a playable game with exciting fights, you'll want to interpret rules in ways that produce playable games and exciting fights.

I don’t need to interpret the rules in a way to make exciting fights when I can change the rules if I don’t think they’ll make for exciting fights. I’d rather interpret them for what they say and what they were intended to mean, and make intentional changes as I deem necessary.

How does that argument make you less likely to agree?

Because it makes me question the motivations of the people making it. I don’t care what would make him stronger, I care what the rules say. If I want to make him stronger I can do that myself, but I want to understand how he was intended to play before I go making changes to it.