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

[Parmandur]

No, not satisfied really. They are the same as I see it. I see no difference as far as Subtle Spell is concerned.

View attachment 251563

For example:

View attachment 251564

By using a Sorcery Point for Subtle Spell, you aren't visibly doing anything until three glowing darts are willed into existence. So, how would Vecna (or anyone) know you are casting a spell, because you aren't actually SEEN casting a spell IMO. Both require you actually SEE the target casting a spell.

(From the other thread...)

Both have identical phrases: to interrupt a creature + (he/you) see + casting a spell.

View attachment 251561
View attachment 251562

Even phrases such as "in the process of" and "that is" are equivalent, even if not identical. I am sure people will argue they aren't, but you could even just remove these phrases and they are virtual identical.

NOW, if a spell has a material component, and you don't already have it (or a spell focus) in hand, but get one out as part of your turn, Venca (or another enemy) might think you are casting and try to counterspell it...

Anyway, IMO ultimately if Subtle Spell stops Counterspell, it stops Dread Counterspell. But, then again, there are 9 more pages of responses since I last check the thread so perhaps someone will convince me yet...

It isn't equivalent. As explained carefully throughout the thread, in Counterspell the
Subject needs to see both the caster and the casting, grammatically, whereas Vecna simply needs to see the caster.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It isn't equivalent. As explained carefully throughout the thread, in Counterspell the
Subject needs to see both the caster and the casting, grammatically, whereas Vecna simply needs to see the caster.

You're analyzing "natural" language, not technical. The rules were written for the lay person to (hopefully) understand.

And as I said:

I see a man that is going to the market.
I see a man in the process of going to the market.

What the f*#$ is the difference?

all "that is" and "in the process of" means is someone is doing something, in this case a man going to market.

I could take both phrases out and it means the same thing.

Now, you can stop trying to convince me. You won't.

 

[Parmandur]

I see a man that is going to the market.
I see a man in the process of going to the market.

What the f*#$ is the difference?

FWIW, I created this thread to get the conversation AWAY from the other thread, not to be convinced that my view is correct or incorrect.

I know it's correct. (j/k)

There is a significant grammatical difference, as such:

In order to stop a man going to the market normally, you need to see a man going to the market. That is you need to see the man, and you need to see him going to the market.

To stop a man going to the market preternaturally, you need to see a man that is going to the market. That is, you see the man alone, and going to the market is just an aspect t of that man that you know...because you are Vecna.

 

[Parmandur]

You're analyzing "natural" language, not technical. The rules were written for the lay person to (hopefully) understand.

And as I said:



all "that is" and "in the process of" means is someone is doing something, in this case a man going to market.

I could take both phrases out and it means the same thing.

Now, you can stop trying to convince me. You won't.

Yes, I am analyzing this on the level of natural language, because in English usage those have different meanings. And I don't really care if you realize that or not, because it is just how the grammar works.

 

[Peter BOSCO'S]

Does "see" mean "see in person"? If not than Vecna can cancel spells anywhere in the Multiverse, as long as he's Scrying on the caster at the time.

Player "Why did my spell fail for no reason?"
DM "Good question...."

 

[LadyElect]

I see a man that is going to the market.
I see a man in the process of going to the market.

What the f*#$ is the difference?

Nothing. Because in these two examples “I see” are the core noun and verb of the sentence and “going to the market” is a clause relying on “man” as a noun. It can be simplified to “I see a man.” to exclude any descriptive language, but sight is integral to the core sentence structure and any clauses added to modify it. However, if you add in this example:

There is a man I can see that is going to the market.

In this example, the core noun and verb is “there is”. Both “I can see” (or “that I can see” if you also want to include a freestanding pronoun) and “that is going to the market” are the clauses relying on “man” as a noun. You can remove either or both in order to change or retain sight within the sentence since it exists as a separate clause. These are the examples where a difference exists:

There is a man I can see. / There is a man that I can see.

There is a man going to the market. / There is a man that is going to the market.

There is a man. / Vecna interrupts a creature.

 

[Peter BOSCO'S]

You are assuming Dread Counterspell works like counterspell, where the caster has to know the spell is happening BEFORE it affects him.

What if, instead, it works like shield - where the player decides AFTER he's been hit that, no, maybe he hasn't:

DM: The baddie hit's your AC of 15...

Player: Wait, Shield, does he hit an AC of 20?

DM: Nope, that's a miss.

Maybe Vecna, unlike EVERY other spellcaster can counter AFTER the spell manifests and/or even affects him, so him knowing it's being cast DOESN'T EVEN MATTER. as it doesn't seem to matter by the RAW of the ability.

How do you justify shield in your game?

The DM should only say "hits your AC of 15" in a party where no one can change it. In a party with "Shield" or "Silvery Barbs" the DM should instead say "Y is attacking Player Z. They have an X on the d20. Do you have any Reaction to that attack?" It is up to the players to guess Y's bonus to hit, decide if the attack will hit Z, and chose to cast "Shield" or "Silvery Barbs" or another similar spell.
This also applies when PC's are attacking Monsters with these spells, except when the monsters are smart enough, and Vecna more than qualifies, to know anyway.

 

[LadyElect]

Of course, while “he can see” and “that is casting a spell” are separate clauses within Dread Counterspell, removing the latter just makes him conversationally rude.

 

[dave2008]

No, not satisfied really. They are the same as I see it. I see no difference as far as Subtle Spell is concerned.

View attachment 251563

For example:

View attachment 251564

By using a Sorcery Point for Subtle Spell, you aren't visibly doing anything until three glowing darts are willed into existence. So, how would Vecna (or anyone) know you are casting a spell, because you aren't actually SEEN casting a spell IMO. Both require you actually SEE the target casting a spell.

(From the other thread...)

Both have identical phrases: to interrupt a creature + (he/you) see + casting a spell.

View attachment 251561
View attachment 251562

Even phrases such as "in the process of" and "that is" are equivalent, even if not identical. I am sure people will argue they aren't, but you could even just remove these phrases and they are virtual identical.

NOW, if a spell has a material component, and you don't already have it (or a spell focus) in hand, but get one out as part of your turn, Venca (or another enemy) might think you are casting and try to counterspell it...

Anyway, IMO ultimately if Subtle Spell stops Counterspell, it stops Dread Counterspell. But, then again, there are 9 more pages of responses since I last check the thread so perhaps someone will convince me yet...

OK, so you think the fact the dread spell was written different was a mistake? For, as noted in the sentence diagraming, by RAW it doesn't require Vecna to see the target casting, just to see the target.

 

[dave2008]

I know it's correct. (j/k)

Except of course your wrong according to the English language.