D&D 5E Xanathar's and Counterspell

[Leatherhead]

Because you observe glowing darts of magical force heading towards you

Look at it this way: suppose someone in the darkness cast magic missile at you. Jeremy's rule aside, would you really say you couldn't cast shield because you couldn't see the caster and identify the spell?

According to the ruling, "it's not automatic". The Ruling is the problem.

 

[Fanaelialae]

According to the ruling, "it's not automatic". The Ruling is the problem.

Counterspell is cast while the spell is being cast.

Shield is cast once magic missile is cast.

In other words, if you wait until the caster finishes casting magic missile, it's too late to counterspell it, but it isn't to late to shield yourself. You haven't figured out that magic missile was being cast from its components, but rather from the effect it produces.

 

[jaelis]

According to the ruling, "it's not automatic". The Ruling is the problem.

Xanathar's says that identifying a spell being cast is not automatic. That has no bearing on identifying an active spell.

Of course a DM could rule that you can't automatically identify active spells. That might break shield. But you can't blame Xanathar for it.

 

[Charlaquin1]

Counterspell is cast while the spell is being cast.

Shield is cast once magic missile is cast.

In other words, if you wait until the caster finishes casting magic missile, it's too late to counterspell it, but it isn't to late to shield yourself. You haven't figured out that magic missile was being cast from its components, but rather from the effect it produces.

Herein lies the problem. Prior to this ruling, there was no need to distinguish between these two. The rules do not account for separate windows of opportunity to use a Reaction before a spell has finished being cast and after it has finished being cast but before its effects have finished resolving. But they need to in order for this ruling not to break the Shield spell. This serves to create a lot of unneeded ambiguity and is bound to spark arguments at the table about when certain reactions take place.

 

[Caliban]

I think the real problem with using this rule is that it will lead to people (either player or DM) gaming the system.

"My wizard is casting a spell...is the lich going to counterspell it?"

"...Yes."

"OK, he countered my level 1 Magic Missile Spell."

Next Round.

"My wizard is casting a spell...does he counter it?"

"...No."

"OK...guess I'm casting my lvl 6 Disintegrate spell then."

"Did you change what you were going to cast based on whether I counterspelled it or not?"

"You didn't identify it first. You'll never know."

 

[Li Shenron]

Ignoring all of the hypothetical realism of spell identification, this rule seems like it would slow down play since every spell casting must now be a two step reveal on the DM's side and the players' side (eg "I am casting a spell." <pause for decision point to identify or counter> "The spell is ______________.")

I'd be curious to hear from playtesters as to how this affected their games.

I have the feeling that even with 300 playtesting groups, not everything in XGE was necessarily playtested (some stuff might have been last-minute additions).

 

[Caliburn101]

Sorry - Jeremy doesn't seem to have thought about this - not from a fairness perspective.

In a 6 second round, how does it take so long to identify what is being cast that you cannot stop it?

To say combat is going to be bogged down by constant rolls to identify is rubbish - Counterspell doesn't get THAT much play.

The idea that someone skilled enough in magic needs to either identify the attack OR stop it instead of both is rubbish.

Counterspelling was much better in 3rd edition - it is one of the very few things far worse in this edition.

Playing a caster wise enough to have Counterspell available in a fight against a powerful caster, who then has to GUESS when the 9th level spell is being cast is ridiculous - ESPECIALLY as you have to decide what level you cast your Counterspell at.

The idea that a full caster would blow a 9th level spell slot to prevent nothing more than a Magic Missile Spell, and then get Meteor Swarmed the next round because they didn't guess right is complete crapola.

 

[Caliburn101]

I think the real problem with using this rule is that it will lead to people (either player or DM) gaming the system.

"My wizard is casting a spell...is the lich going to counterspell it?"

"...Yes."

"OK, he countered my level 1 Magic Missile Spell."

Next Round.

"My wizard is casting a spell...does he counter it?"

"...No."

"OK...guess I'm casting my lvl 6 Disintegrate spell then."

"Did you change what you were going to cast based on whether I counterspelled it or not?"

"You didn't identify it first. You'll never know."

Another very good point - and the reason this ridiculous 'ruling' will be completely ignored by the vast number of DMs.

 

[Mathilda]

I don't know if this has been mentioned...

When I DM, this is how I handle counterspell..

As DM and my creature is casting a spell... I also include the level of spell that is being cast....

For players at my table... I ask them to do the same...

This is done for several reasons...

1. No time wasted going back and forth about what spell being cast
2. No douchbag moves like a player casting high level then switching it to a cantrip when it is being counterspelled
3. Gives both the player and DM time to decide whether they will counterspell and what level will be used to counterspell

In my interpretation of counterspell, you only need to know the level of the spell, not the exact spell

In my experience, this mechanic works very well for me.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Herein lies the problem. Prior to this ruling, there was no need to distinguish between these two. The rules do not account for separate windows of opportunity to use a Reaction before a spell has finished being cast and after it has finished being cast but before its effects have finished resolving. But they need to in order for this ruling not to break the Shield spell. This serves to create a lot of unneeded ambiguity and is bound to spark arguments at the table about when certain reactions take place.

There was always a difference between the two (in 5e). All you need to do to see that is read the description for those spells. I can't see how this creates any ambiguity where it did not exist before (and it seems pretty clear to me).

I think the real problem with using this rule is that it will lead to people (either player or DM) gaming the system.

"My wizard is casting a spell...is the lich going to counterspell it?"

"...Yes."

"OK, he countered my level 1 Magic Missile Spell."

Next Round.

"My wizard is casting a spell...does he counter it?"

"...No."

"OK...guess I'm casting my lvl 6 Disintegrate spell then."

"Did you change what you were going to cast based on whether I counterspelled it or not?"

"You didn't identify it first. You'll never know."

No offense, but if you have shenanigans like these going on at your table, you have bigger problems than this rule.

Worst case scenario, if dealing with a cheater, is have them write it down on a piece of paper and then reveal it after counterspelling is declared. Since they ought to be choosing a spell between turns anyway, it shouldn't take significantly more time to do so.

Edit:
As a bonus, you now have a list of what spells this player cast. Because, in my limited experience with such a player, they also tend to conveniently 'forget' to mark off used spell slots.