Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FitzTheRuke" data-source="post: 8670432" data-attributes="member: 59816">I don't think anyone has argued that it's clear. It is clearly NOT clear. Without further clarification, the only thing you can do is make a ruling.The only facts we have is RAW says he can counter a spell that is being cast by a caster he can see. It strongly suggests (by use of the word &quot;that&quot;) that he doesn't need to know that the caster is casting.RAW, as far as I know, is silent on the subject of how to tell if a character knows something or not. This can lead you to conclude that he doesn't know, or that he does know.Heck, Subtle Spell doesn't say anything RAW about anyone knowing if you're casting a spell or not, just because it removes components. People have inferred that, and it's been confirmed as RAI by Crawford, but it's not implicit.Ultimately, like many 5e discussions, it's up to your DM to rule.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FitzTheRuke, post: 8670432, member: 59816"] I don't think anyone has argued that it's clear. It is clearly NOT clear. Without further clarification, the only thing you can do is make a ruling. The only facts we have is RAW says he can counter a spell that is being cast by a caster he can see. It strongly suggests (by use of the word "that") that he doesn't need to know that the caster is casting. RAW, as far as I know, is silent on the subject of how to tell if a character knows something or not. This can lead you to conclude that he doesn't know, or that he does know. Heck, Subtle Spell doesn't say anything RAW about anyone knowing if you're casting a spell or not, just because it removes components. People have inferred that, and it's been confirmed as RAI by Crawford, but it's not implicit. Ultimately, like many 5e discussions, it's up to your DM to rule. [/QUOTE]

Verification