D&D 5E Xanathar's and Counterspell

[Caliban]

As long as we're on the subject, I had a DM prevent me from using a Rod of Absorption to negate a Counterspell recently. He insisted that Counterspell targets a spell and not the caster. I said that it says you attempt to interrupt a creature, which has a very specific meaning in D&D, casting a spell, which suggests you are targetting the caster and not the spell.

"You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. If the creature is casting a spell of 3rd level or lower, its spell fails and has no effect."

In any case I found a Crawford tweet saying that I was right, Counterspell targets a creature casting the spell and not the spell itself.

Yup. That's why you can't counterspell a caster under the effects of Greater Invisibility, or a sorcerer using Subtle spell - you can't see them casting the spell.

(I will admit that this seems a bit counter-intuitive to me - I feel like you should be targeting the spell and not the caster. It also makes for a better visual - seeing the spell rushing toward you only to be visibly disrupted by the Counterspell. It just doesn't work that way in 5e. )

 

[GarrettKP]

I prefer the way it is presented in Xanathar's for identifying spells being cast, but would rule that once you have seen the caster cast the spell once you know if he is casting it again.

So first time the enemy is casting a disintegrate spell you use a reaction to identify the casting. The second time he cast that spell, you know it already and can counter it.

 

[LapBandit]

Okay. Do you have NPCs use Counterspell? Do you know what the player has said they're casting before you have the NPC do theirs?

I often do have NPCs use counterspell, my players know this and we've worked a short pause in after they announce their intent to avoid exactly this problem.

PC "I'm going to cast a spell."
DM(me) "I counterspell it." or silence
PC "Disintegrate."

 

[CapnZapp]

If you want to play up the team aspect (which 5e most certainly is about) then requiring a spotter is arguably a good thing. If not, then not so much.

The first question to ask yourself, long before attempting to justify the rule with dodgy RL comparisons, is:

Why?

As in Why should we require a separate identification reaction before a Counterspell?

If your answer is you think Counterspell is too powerful and needs the nerf-bat, then okay, go ahead and use the suggestion.

If not, don't.

In no scenario do I think the RL sniper comparison is bringing anything useful to the table. In fact I definitely do not recommend anyone to use the suggested Counterspell because RL snipers use spotters.

There's simply no relevant connection between the two cases.

Again: "don't apply real life logic to fantasy". Cheers

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[jaelis]

I have to say, requiring a reaction to ID a spell seems a bit ridiculous to me. Actions of any kind should be required when you actually _do_ something, and you're not doing anything here.

The PHB lists uses for all the Int skills to recognize or recall lore about creatures, places and phenomena. There's no hint or implication that doing so requires any type of action. Why should that be different for a spell?

Obviously it is easy enough to ignore this, but it is a little disappointing if such a rule made it in.

 

[CapnZapp]

So first time the enemy is casting a disintegrate spell you use a reaction to identify the casting. The second time he cast that spell, you know it already and can counter it.

This is not practical.

That caster needs to be dead before he can cast his second Disintegrate, since he's obviously powerful enough... to cast two Disintegrate!

Either that or he simply casts another powerful spell in round #2.

Or you're dead since nobody countered that first Disintegrate...

The cases where a NPC lives long enough to repeat a casting... That spell being powerful enough that you need to Counterspell it... And yet you haven't lost the combat when he's casting it for the second time (so that your Counterspell makes an actual difference!)...

...no, I don't see it happening. Not often enough in actual play to make for a practical rule. Sorry.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Blue]

I've had some DMs who just say, "This NPC is casting a spell", to which you then have to decide with no other info about whether your spellcaster will react with Counterspell. Interestingly enough those same DMs seem to cast Counterspell from the NPC's end after I had announced what I was casting.

Have you actually give the DM a chacne to announce counterspell prior to naming your spell? If not that's not a really fair comparison.

Try it the DM's way. Announce "I'm casting a spell, are they counterspelling". If he complains, then ask that it's consistent. If not, he's made his wish known - you don't know the spell at that time.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The first question to ask yourself, long before attempting to justify the rule with dodgy RL comparisons, is:

Why?

As in Why should we require a separate identification reaction before a Counterspell?

If your answer is you think Counterspell is too powerful and needs the nerf-bat, then okay, go ahead and use the suggestion.

If not, don't.

In no scenario do I think the RL sniper comparison is bringing anything useful to the table. In fact I definitely do not recommend anyone to use the suggested Counterspell because RL snipers use spotters.

There's simply no relevant connection between the two cases.

Again: "don't apply real life logic to fantasy". Cheers

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Well, the spotter doesn't work anyway. Reactions occurs after their trigger unless the specify otherwise. To use your reaction to ID the spell, the spell will be completely cast before you can ID it. Clearly pointless in the case of fireball, but perhaps useful for less obvious spells. Also useless for counterspelling, as the 'spotting' reaction would be entirely separate from the casting so you couldn't wait for the reaction and still be able to counterspell.

Unless, of course, the actual rule suggestion is written differently.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Have you actually give the DM a chacne to announce counterspell prior to naming your spell? If not that's not a really fair comparison.

Try it the DM's way. Announce "I'm casting a spell, are they counterspelling". If he complains, then ask that it's consistent. If not, he's made his wish known - you don't know the spell at that time.

Perhaps. I still think that the initial Counterspell caster is at a significant disadvantage because they have no ability to make an informed decision regarding the expense of a useful resource (that Counterspell could be a Fireball) but anyone else who wants to Counterspell them, including the initial caster, all but knows that they're casting Counterspell. It seems like a cheap way to attrit player resources and makes the whole thing a wheel of fortune guessing game.

 

[Fanaelialae]

When I said "the beginning of the game" I was referring to 5e, not previous editions. You know, since we were talking about counterspelling in 5e...

Fair enough. In that case, identifying the spell has been in rules limbo since the beginning of the game. Hence, unless the DM allowed you to know, you were counterspelling blindly.

The first question to ask yourself, long before attempting to justify the rule with dodgy RL comparisons, is:

Why?

As in Why should we require a separate identification reaction before a Counterspell?

If your answer is you think Counterspell is too powerful and needs the nerf-bat, then okay, go ahead and use the suggestion.

If not, don't.

In no scenario do I think the RL sniper comparison is bringing anything useful to the table. In fact I definitely do not recommend anyone to use the suggested Counterspell because RL snipers use spotters.

There's simply no relevant connection between the two cases.

Again: "don't apply real life logic to fantasy". Cheers

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

If you've been keeping up with the thread, you'll see that even earlier I did offer an in-game explanation. Spells are complicated, spellcasters can't possibly know all spells, there are different types of spellcasting (a druid casting Flaming Sphere isn't necessarily going to look the same as a sorcerer casting Flaming Sphere).

My RL example was in response to someone questioning my use of "a bit" when I said that this mechanic is "a bit clunky". So I said, yeah, a bit clunky just like snipers using spotters in RL is a bit clunky.

Use whatever logic works for your table. Unless I'm at that table, I'm not terribly concerned about how you rule or why (unless perhaps you're making your players miserable, but I think we can agree that's its own thing).