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

[Swarmkeeper]

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.

Alright, let's lean on your expertise... Are these phrases equivalent?

a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell
a creature within 60 feet of you that is casting a spell

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Basically, the wording of Dread Counterapell suggests that Vecna needs to be able to see a creature, and the creature needs to be casting a spell. Whereas the wording of normal Counterspell suggests that the caster needs to see a creature casting a spell. The act of casting is a necessary part of what the caster of counterspell needs to see, but not a necessary part of what Vecna needs to see. It is a subtle difference, and one I could imagine being a mistake, but it is a meaningful one.

For example, imagine a creature is casting a spell with only verbal components, and they have some sort of illusion active that makes it look like they aren’t moving their mouth - the verbal components are audible, but not visible. Technically, a wizard shouldn’t be able to counterspell that, because while they can see the creature, they can’t see it casting a spell. On the other hand, Vecna could dread counterspell it because he can see the creature, and the creature is casting a spell.

Now, this is a weird and contrived example, but it illustrates the distinction. Vecna doesn’t need to see you casting, he just needs to see you, and you need to be casting. I don’t object to any of this, I merely object to the idea that he could use this ability if he doesn’t know you’re casting. Does he have some ability know you’re casting if the spell has no components? That’s what I’m trying to get to the bottom of.

 

[Parmandur]

Alright, let's lean on your expertise... Are these phrases equivalent?

a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell
a creature within 60 feet of you that is casting a spell

No, they are not. The "that is..." phrase marker changes the structure and hence the meaning of the sentence. This would be much more clear in a language with proper declension, such as Latin or Greek, but here we are stuck in a world where D&D gamebooks have to be written in a Barbarian tongue.

 

[Parmandur]

Basically, the wording of Dread Counterapell suggests that Vecna needs to be able to see a creature, and the creature needs to be casting a spell. Whereas the wording of normal Counterspell suggests that the caster needs to see a creature casting a spell. The act of casting is a necessary part of what the caster of counterspell needs to see. It is a subtle difference, and one I could imagine being a mistake, but it is a meaningful one.

For example, imagine a creature is casting a spell with only verbal components, and they have some sort of illusion active that makes it look like they aren’t moving their mouth - the verbal components are audible, but not visible. Technically, a wizard shouldn’t be able to counterspell that, because while they can see the creature, they can’t see it casting a spell. On the other hand, Vecna could dread counterspell it because he can see the creature, and the creature is casting a spell.

Now, this is a weird and contrived example, but it illustrates the distinction. Vecna doesn’t need to see you casting, he just needs to see you, and you need to be casting. I don’t object to any of this, I merely object to the idea that he could use this ability if he doesn’t know you’re casting. Does he have some ability know you’re casting if the spell has no components? That’s what I’m trying to get to the bottom of.

I do agree that this needs to be more clear in the block, but the working of the ability is clear as written.

 

[Mort]

Just to throw a REAL twist on this, and forgetting the "needs to know you are casting..." disagreement for just a moment:

Vecna just needs to see the caster, so per the wording (and the fact that Dread Counterspell is not a spell so does not necessarily follow the rules of line of effect etc.) Vecna can counterspell a caster he is scrying on!

Which means he can mess with the party from a long distance off and they will have a very difficult time figuring out what the heck is going on!

 

[Parmandur]

Just to throw a REAL twist on this, and forgetting the needs to know you are casting for just a moment:

Vecna just needs to see the caster, so per the wording (and the fact that Dread Counterspell is not a spell so does not necessarily follow the rules of line of effect etc.) Vecna can counterspell a caster he is scrying on!

Which means he can mess with the party from a long distance off and they will have a very difficult time figuring out what the heck is going on!

Whoa, that's true: no like of sight or distance requirements. Good BBEG material. Gotta say, though, while a neat trick to pull out when the Sorcerer tries Suvtle Spell in a fight, might be a bit of a nasty power play done with Scrying...

 

[Charlaquin]

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?

I agree that by the rules as written, Vecna doesn’t need to see the target casting to use Dread Counterspell. My contention is that he still needs to be aware that a spell is being cast in some way. I have so far not been shown any text that clearly indicates he has some special ability to determine that a spell is being cast if it has no visible or audible components. I have seen some text that, taken in conjunction with the wording of Dread Counterspell, I could reasonably imagine is meant to indicate he has such a capability, but does not do so clearly. If anyone has additional information that might help further clarify, be it from the text or from the developers, that would help convince me one way or the other.

 

[LadyElect]

Alright, let's lean on your expertise... Are these phrases equivalent?

a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell
a creature within 60 feet of you that is casting a spell

I'll contrast @Parmandur in my response to this and say, yes, as far as breakdown of the conditionals here they are equivalent and the "that is" isn't relevant to the ruling of this were you to change it. The reason Dreadful Counterspell is being treated separately is that "sight" is written within one of the conditionals. So if you break up "a creature he can see that is casting a spell" the same way you end up with the conditions of having:

1. A creature he can see.
   -and-
2. A creature that is casting a spell.

Again, where "a creature" refers to the same entity. And in this case you can cut "that is" from the second conditional without causing any confusion, but doing so doesn't change the fact that sight is not modifying that conditional as written. And that's where some are getting hung up on the specifics.

Now, that's all separate from the knowledge-of-the-conditionals argument, which is likely more vital to how you choose to rule it.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

If course I’m making a choice in the end; either to rule in accordance with RAI or not. But first I want to understand what the RAI is.

 

[Charlaquin]

I do agree that this needs to be more clear in the block, but the working of the ability is clear as written.

It is clear as written that he doesn’t need to see the spell being cast. It is not clear as written that he can activate the ability (which requires him to speak) without conscious awareness that it has a valid target.