Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mort" data-source="post: 8669592" data-attributes="member: 762">Why is Counterspell different? Because the spell says so. One of the conditions of regular Counterepell (not Vecna's version) is that the caster see the spell being cast.PS. it's been requested we stop this rules discussion in this thread and open a new one if we wish to pursue it further. Personally, I think the discussion is played out, but if we do want to pursue it further, it shouldn't be in this thread.Edit: [USER=6788736]@Flamestrike[/USER] , I'll reply to your below post here, since I've already used the space but I will not clutter the thread further because of the request not to.You'll note in your link, Crawford EXPRESSLY says "here's how I'd rule..." That seems an admission (by him) that, that's not what it actually says but he wants to be logical and that's how he'd do it. Regardless, I have already said (probably two or three times) it seems clear that the writers intended Vecna's ability TO BE SPECIAL and that he just KNOWS a spell is being cast regardless of outward indications. So IMO even IF the trigger must be perceived, Vecna meets that condition. and, IN THIS CASE, I don't care if the interpretation is "RAW" (that Vecna just knows a spell is being cast). I'm perfectly happy having it be a special case just for Vecna.</blockquote>