Psikerlord#
Explorer
The best fix for counterspell is toremove it from the game 
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E Xanathar's and Counterspell
- Thread starter Warmaster Horus
- Start date
Charlaquin1
First Post
Personally, I give brief descriptions of what an NPC spellcaster is doing when they cast a spell. Let’s say I’ve got a cultist casting Burning Hands.
“The cultist holds up his hands, thumbs touching and fingers spread as he utters a few arcane syllables under his breath. What do you do?”
This is gives them all the information they need to make an informed decision about how to react, and the opportunity to do so. Many players, being familiar with this description, might cast Counterspell right away, or they might describe a brief action like raising their shield or trying to duck out of the way, which if the Reaction would reasonably help, I might give a small bonus for, like Advantage on the save. If, however, they don’t recognize the spell by its description, they are free to ask.
“As a Sorcerer, am I familiar with this gesture?”
If the character is capable of casting the spell (a Sorcerer, Warlock, Ranger, or Bard has it on their Known Spells list; a Wizard has it in their Spellbook; a Cleric, Druid, or Paladin has it on their Class spell list at a level they can cast) I tell them.
“Having cast this spell yourself many times, you recognize it as Burning Hands. Do you have a Reaction?”
Alternatively, If tthe character is not able to cast the spell, I usually say they don’t know what it is, but still provide them the opportunity to do something.
”This gesture isn’t used for any of the spells you know. Would you like to use a Reaction anyway?”
What this rule will do for me is set a standard DC for a passive check to see if the character recognizes the spell despite not having the ability to cast it. I wouldn’t require a Reaction for that, nor would I call for a dice roll; as a rule, I only call for rolls when the character is actively doing something, and I don’t make players use actions/reactions for passive checks. That said, if a player asked, “Can I try to figure out what the spell might do based on its verbal and somatic components?” or something similarly active, then I would require a reaction and call for a rolled check.
”If you would like to use a Reaction to compare what he’s doing to similar spells you’ve seen, you can make a DC (insert number here) Intelligence Arcana check to figure out what it most likely does.”
“The cultist holds up his hands, thumbs touching and fingers spread as he utters a few arcane syllables under his breath. What do you do?”
This is gives them all the information they need to make an informed decision about how to react, and the opportunity to do so. Many players, being familiar with this description, might cast Counterspell right away, or they might describe a brief action like raising their shield or trying to duck out of the way, which if the Reaction would reasonably help, I might give a small bonus for, like Advantage on the save. If, however, they don’t recognize the spell by its description, they are free to ask.
“As a Sorcerer, am I familiar with this gesture?”
If the character is capable of casting the spell (a Sorcerer, Warlock, Ranger, or Bard has it on their Known Spells list; a Wizard has it in their Spellbook; a Cleric, Druid, or Paladin has it on their Class spell list at a level they can cast) I tell them.
“Having cast this spell yourself many times, you recognize it as Burning Hands. Do you have a Reaction?”
Alternatively, If tthe character is not able to cast the spell, I usually say they don’t know what it is, but still provide them the opportunity to do something.
”This gesture isn’t used for any of the spells you know. Would you like to use a Reaction anyway?”
What this rule will do for me is set a standard DC for a passive check to see if the character recognizes the spell despite not having the ability to cast it. I wouldn’t require a Reaction for that, nor would I call for a dice roll; as a rule, I only call for rolls when the character is actively doing something, and I don’t make players use actions/reactions for passive checks. That said, if a player asked, “Can I try to figure out what the spell might do based on its verbal and somatic components?” or something similarly active, then I would require a reaction and call for a rolled check.
”If you would like to use a Reaction to compare what he’s doing to similar spells you’ve seen, you can make a DC (insert number here) Intelligence Arcana check to figure out what it most likely does.”
Last edited:
MechaPilot
Explorer
This rule also screws with people who take certain feats, such as Shield Mastery (I think that's the one. I'm packing to move and don't have my books out).
I've been making the identification of the spell part of casting counterspell. Which seems logical to me: after all, if you can't counter a spell without knowing which one it is, then identifying it should be an inherent part of the counterspell spell.
I've been making the identification of the spell part of casting counterspell. Which seems logical to me: after all, if you can't counter a spell without knowing which one it is, then identifying it should be an inherent part of the counterspell spell.
CapnZapp
Legend
I think I'm going with the simplest resolution:
To ignore what XGE says.
Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app
To ignore what XGE says.
Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app
Fanaelialae
Legend
And if you've been keeping up, you would know that I do in fact allow it when I am the DM.
Also, every DM I've played under has either just told us the spell they were casting or allowed an Arcana check. It's quick and easy and doesn't bog down play. I don't see any need to change it.
That's great! Have you seen me arguing that you ought to change it if you're happy with it as is? If so, you misconstrued my intent as I have been discussing what's in the books, not what goes on at your particular table. I've stated on multiple occasions that you ought to use whatever works for you.
They might, however not everyone who can cast counterspell is necessarily a master of the arcane arts. For example, both bards and eldritch knights have access to counterspell. Moreover, one might expect that even a caster without access to counterspell, such as a cleric, might want to identify a spell. As such, a high intelligence cannot be assumed. For all we know, the character may have used intelligence as their dump stat. Furthermore, at 5th level (the earliest you gain access to counterspell) you're probably not a master of the arcane arts quite yet (at best, you are a rising star).
I daresay that a master of their craft might have difficulty if they were only shown their chosen craft for a few moments, on a noisy and chaotic battlefield from some distance, while trying to avoid the death knight determined to separate their head from their body. Even the greatest masters in the world might have difficulty under those conditions. I would argue that those stressful and challenging conditions are the default for D&D characters (most of the time when you try to identify a spell in the average campaign, it will be in the middle of combat).
This isn't about being patronizing to the 'primitive intellects' of D&D characters, but rather about recognizing that even a genius intellect would be stretched to its limits under such circumstances. Obviously, if you want to make it automatic, I'm not stopping you. However, I think I've demonstrated a reasonable argument for making it not effortless.
[MENTION=53980]Fanaelialae[/MENTION] dispel Magic was the way to do counterspell in 2e
on your reply to my post: You asume that a fizzling of the own spell indicates the Opponent has used counterspell, but that is not fair game, otherwise you should also be able to asume the nature / Level of other spells by the casters arm movement or whatever.
I wanted say if you apply the (imho stupid) rule "either Counterspell or Arcana check but not both as a reaction " then a counterspell can NOT be identified for free.
There is now exception in this RAW variant mentioning counterspell being idd for free.
on your reply to my post: You asume that a fizzling of the own spell indicates the Opponent has used counterspell, but that is not fair game, otherwise you should also be able to asume the nature / Level of other spells by the casters arm movement or whatever.
I wanted say if you apply the (imho stupid) rule "either Counterspell or Arcana check but not both as a reaction " then a counterspell can NOT be identified for free.
There is now exception in this RAW variant mentioning counterspell being idd for free.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
Oh. A reminder: have npcs use material components.
Also remember that an npc uses the dame spell more than once.
If you use a reaction or action, I woul assume you learn the gestures or words so next time you can counterspell properly. Might make the game more interesting.
Also remember that an npc uses the dame spell more than once.
If you use a reaction or action, I woul assume you learn the gestures or words so next time you can counterspell properly. Might make the game more interesting.
Last edited:
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'd be curious to hear from playtesters as to how this affected their games.
Last edited:
How will you execute the passive check for an NPC or monster identifying a PC's spell when you don't know the spell the player is casting? Or are you just going to ask your players to trust you and have them tell you the spell before you make a decision?
Similar Threads
