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

[LadyElect]

Because you don't see verbal components, you hear them. Which means you can't see the caster casting the spell, you hear the caster casting the spell, even when you can see the caster.

Surely you can see someone speaking in addition to hearing them. Unless every spellcaster is taking power words for their ventriloquism act, I'd have trouble with that reading of it. Though maybe the time to react is the difference in your power word being "kill" vs "snuffleupagus".

 

[Reynard]

Didn't we go through this already?

 

[Stalker0]

Why do you need to see components to identify a spell is being cast anyway, couldn’t you perceive from the crazy magical energies that erupt as the spell begins to form?

 

[Weiley31]

All Vecna needs to do is see you and he can pretty much No Sell your spell while also doing damage to you.
Meanwhile, your wimpy Scanlan-knock off Counter Spell antics can't damage you at the same time and has a range limit. Although, if your lucky, you can probably send Vecna beyond the Divine Gate or something to face his greatest foes: Children.

 

[MarkB]

Why do you need to see components to identify a spell is being cast anyway, couldn’t you perceive from the crazy magical energies that erupt as the spell begins to form?

In which case, why doesn't regular Counterspell work against subtle spells?

As much as we might imagine normal spellcasting to have nice flashy special effects, at least part of the point of Subtle Spell is to be more subtle than that.

 

[ECMO3]

From the Vecna Battle Thread, here we go:

View attachment 251484

and....

View attachment 251485

Frankly, other than the fact Dread Counterspell doesn't seem to actually be a spell, I don't really see the difference.

Anyone want to continue chiming in?

The damage for one.

Also Vecna must "utter a dread word" which implies it will not work in silence. That is a huge debuff compared to the original counterspell.

 

[Stalker0]

In which case, why doesn't regular Counterspell work against subtle spells?

Technically, only Sage Advice has said it doesn't (as far as I know), and some people don't always agree with Mr JC. Nothing explicit in subtle spell prevents counterspelling.

 

[bedir than]

To get very diagramming sentences here, the only thing that Vecna needs to see is the creature. The phrase "casting a spell" modifies the creature, not Vecna's sight.

 

[Mort]

To get very diagramming sentences here, the only thing that Vecna needs to see is the creature. The phrase "casting a spell" modifies the creature, not Vecna's sight.

That's been my position the whole time. It's quite different from regular Counterepell.

The next argument is that a reaction must have a perceivable trigger. But only readying an action says that, not the reaction entry itself, which just says you need SOME KIND of trigger.

Those two things combined with Vecna being extra sensitive to casters? I'd rule subtle spell wouldn't avoid the Dread Counterspell.

 

[Charlaquin]

To get very diagramming sentences here, the only thing that Vecna needs to see is the creature. The phrase "casting a spell" modifies the creature, not Vecna's sight.

But he also needs to utter a dread word, which seems difficult to do in response to a spell you don’t know is being cast. The question in my mind is, does he know a spell is being cast if it’s subtle and has no components? I’m on the fence about that.