Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8670202" data-attributes="member: 6779196">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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8670202, member: 6779196"] 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 [I]counterspell[/I] that, because while they can see the creature, they can’t see it [I]casting a spell[/I]. 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 [I]know[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification