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

[Charlaquin]

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

Right, so I was aware of that text, it was what moved me from “convinced it doesn’t work” to “on the fence.” Because that does seem to indicate that he is meant to have special awareness of magic that other creatures lack. However, it doesn’t say he’s aware that the target is casting a spell, only that he doesn’t need to make an ability check to identify what spell it is. This could be meant only to circumvent the optional spell identification rule from Xanathar’s Guide, not to allow him to detect a spell being cast subtly. Hence my current fence-sitting position.

 

[Parmandur]

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?

Yes, it is hard, that's why Metamagic is awesome. Most Spellcasters can only see the exterior epipheomen of the Components. That makes Vecna's Dread Cointerspell extremely spooky.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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.

I'm sorry, I am just an unfrozen caveman D&D player. Your grammar rules frighten and confuse me. I do not understand your Multiple Direct Objects and Diagramming.

But I'll tell you one thing I do know, "casting a spell" describes what the creature is doing in all the phrases mentioned previously.

 

[Charlaquin]

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).

No, I am trying to build bricks from clay, to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes; to discard assumptions and build an understanding from the base facts. I can always rule contrary to RAI if I want to, but first I want to understand what RAI is.

 

[cbwjm]

I'd rule that subtle spell works just as well against dread counterspell as it does against regular counterspell.

 

[LadyElect]

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.

I think your end read here is correct, but not quite explained accurately. A creature is the direct object there, but it is being modified by both a dependent clause and the action verb of casting. So really the original Counterspell is dual conditional "when you see":

1. A creature within 60 feet of you.
   -and-
2. A creature casting a spell.

Where "a creature" refers to the same entity. So you certainly need to see both per the writing, but it's perhaps worth clarifying this (assuming I am correct).

 

[dave2008]

No, I am trying to build bricks from clay, to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes; to discard assumptions and build an understanding from the base facts. I can always rule contrary to RAI if I want to, but first I want to understand what RAI is.

First, do agree what the RAW is? I means at least two people have diagramed the sentence to show what is RAW. To get RAI, we would need the designer's to speak, so I guess someone could send a tweet?

 

[Parmandur]

I'm sorry, I am just an unfrozen caveman D&D player. Your grammar rules frighten and confuse me. I do not understand your Multiple Direct Objects and Diagramming.

But I'll tell you one thing I do know, "casting a spell" describes what the creature is doing in all the phrases mentioned previously.

Well, I myself have a degree in English Language and Literature, and diagramming sentences is pretty important for stuff such as this. In one the casting is a seperate Direct Object, and in the other it is an Adjectival modifier to the sole Direct Object ("that is casting..." "that" is key for indicating that the phrase is not a seperate object) that is not a seperate Direct Object. Normal Counterspell, grammatically, says that the caster needs to see both the other creature and the spellcasting. Dread Counterspell specifically says that Vecna just need to see the creature. That's just what the words say when you look at the sentences, which are very deliberately written.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

No, I am trying to build bricks from clay, to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes; to discard assumptions and build an understanding from the base facts. I can always rule contrary to RAI if I want to, but first I want to understand what RAI is.

No, I understand that. It's still a choice in the end, even if you no longer feel like it is (because you have a clear picture that informs your choice).

I applaud your method, I just disagree with the assertion that choice it taken out of it in the end.

 

[Parmandur]

I think your end read here is correct, but not quite explained accurately. A creature is the direct object there, but it is being modified by both a dependent clause and the action verb of casting. So really the original Counterspell is dual conditional "when you see":

1. A creature within 60 feet of you.
   -and-
2. A creature casting a spell.

Where "a creature" refers to the same entity. So you certainly need to see both per the writing, but it's perhaps worth clarifying this (assuming I am correct).

You phrased it better, but that's the ticket. Vounterspell requires both, and Dread counterspell.specigically only requires seeing the Creature.