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

[Charlaquin]

I laid out the diagramming above: Dread Counterspell has one Direct Object ("a creature he can see that is casting a spell"), Counterspell has two Direct Objects ("you see (1) a creature within 60 feet of you (2) casting a spell"). Counterspell specifies that the Subject need sto see both the creature and the casting, which is why SubtleSpell and other tricks can pass it by. Dread Counterspell says that the Subject simply needs to see the creature, and Subtle Spell and other tricks are themselves bypassed. That this is intentional is verified by the accompanying adventure where this is assumed.

Where? What text provides this verification?

 

[dave2008]

Woah, hang on, don’t just brush over that, this is exactly the sort of information I’ve been asking for. What in the text of the adventure provides this verification?

That would work. If the text said it. Does it?

Here you go, form the adventure:

Vecna’s Combat Tactics
Vecna can ascertain the capabilities of spellcasters and identify the spells they cast without making an ability check. He will try to disable or kill characters in the group he suspects has magic that can restore hit points or revive others. Additionally, if a character is missing a left eye or left hand, Vecna will target them with spells he casts, suspecting the missing parts were offered to the Cruel Gate

 

[Charlaquin]

I think tat this is clearly an assumption that the Stat block is making that they failed to fully draw out.

Great. Is this thought based on anything in the text?

 

[Parmandur]

Woah, hang on, don’t just brush over that, this is exactly the sort of information I’ve been asking for. What in the text of the adventure provides this verification?

That would work. If the text said it. Does it?

The Adventure states that Becna knows that someone is casting, and what they are casting, automatically,, no check needed.

The text days that based on diagramming the sentence, yes. WotC would need to specifically come out and errata it to say that it works like normal Counterspell by changing the wording for.me to buy that. though clarifying that it works as written would be nice.

 

[Parmandur]

Great. Is this thought based on anything in the text?

Yes, the words as written can really only mean what they say.

 

[Charlaquin]

However, the adventure that came with Vecna further explained the he does in fact simply know when someone is casting a spell, whether or not he sees the cast.

Does it? Where?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

My goal is specifically to not choose how to read it, but to understand how it is intended to be read. Arguing “well he’s more powerful if you read him this way” therefore makes the reading less appealing to me because it seems to be coming ftom
a place of wanting to choose how to read it rather than wanting to understand how it was meant to be read.

I'm sorry, but ultimately you ARE choosing either way. I understand fully what you mean. You want to get to a place where you feel like you have no choice, but you still will be choosing. The choice is just easier when you have a better understanding (which I am all for).

 

[Parmandur]

This just reads like a justification for how you want to read it, rather than evidence it’s how it was intended to be read.

Nah, just a narrative explanation for what is clear in the text.

 

[dave2008]

Does it? Where?

I just posted the text here

 

[FitzTheRuke]

That Subtle Spell and a few other similar abilities short circuits stuff like Counterspell is pretty clear from the text of both Suvtle Spell and Counterspell: someone can't react.to something they don't know is there.

It also strikes me yhst something like how I am reading Dread Counterspell would be an excellent high level end cap for a Subclass...

The key is "don't know is there". ALL Subtle Spell says is "No VSM" and all Counterspell says is "sees casting". I agree that it has been explained that it is the intent, but I question WHY with all the ways spellcasting could be fluffed, does "No VSM" automatically equal "Can't tell casting is happening".

Again, I get that it is the common consensus. I just think that spellcasting should take more effort. Subtle Spell should be subtle, sure. MOST of the time, it should be "hard" to tell (all the obvious stuff is gone) but IMPOSSIBLE to tell someone is manipulating reality with their mind? No, I don't agree with that. People can tell if you're BLUFFING in poker from you twitching your eyelid (or whatever). Spellcasting should at least be harder to hide than LYING, shouldn't it?