D&D 5E Xanathar's and Counterspell

[Fanaelialae]

Sure it can be a thing IRL. But having one person burning a reaction to make a difficult Arcana check (DC 15+spell level) and shout out info to another who then might cast Counterspell seems inorganic to the game. Why can't a trained caster with sufficient Arcana (the study of spells and spell casting) make this observation and react to it? People make Passive Perception checks to detect invisible foes to a given 5' square all the time (don't get me started on that...) in this game, after all.

Like I said, I prefer them combined as well.

However, keep in mind that making a non-passive perception check requires an action. You don't make a passive perception check; it's just the DC your opponent uses to see whether they are able to hide from you.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

...

I mean if you rule this otherwise and say it is Party caster vs mob caster:

Mob: i cast
Partycaster: I counterspell
Mob: ahm PC did cast something, was that a counterspell? <---------- SEE this is why it is absolute crap.

...

Exactly. The initial Counterspell caster pretty much has to attempt the spell in the blind - no info as to what the spell is or what level it is cast at. Do they burn a 9th level slot negating Magic Missile because they think it might be Teleport? Even worse a Counter-Counterspeller (and so on) has the innate knowledge that a spell cast in reaction to the first spell MUST be Counterspell and while they may not know what level it is cast at they can decide for themselves what level their Counterspell will be based on the importance of the first spell going off.

 

[Fanaelialae]

IT still is clunky, i would go with the free arcana check not using up your reaction. I think you cannot use your reaction for this sort of stuff anyway.
Reactions are time segments listed for very specific actions like casting shield or opportunity attack or counterspell.

I mean if you rule this otherwise and say it is Party caster vs mob caster:

Mob: i cast
Partycaster: I counterspell
Mob: ahm PC did cast something, was that a counterspell? <---------- SEE this is why it is absolute crap.

You cannot even say your spell has been counterspelled w/o arcana check if you use this absurd rule!

One good thing about it interpreted like i just did it would prevent counterspell battles.

Another: Some spells which are not initially harmful, like a charm state that the victim is aware of the spell and what it does, so how are these resolved now if the victim wants to react with a counterspell?

In fairness, you could easily infer that your spell was counterspelled when it fizzles, much the same as you could tell that fireball had been cast when a big ball of flame explodes around you. It's too late to do anything about it at that point, but you know.

As I see it, the Arcana check is similar to a computer programmer reading through the code to determine the result. It isn't always easy, even for senior programmers. That's as opposed to running the code and seeing what it does (which is akin to waiting for the fireball to explode).

 

[mattkorz]

One way I see that this could be used would be for the DM to state that the spells listed in the PHB are "well known" spells that any spellcaster could identify as a free action due to their studies/familiarity with magic over the years. Being able to cast them is matter of power and practice, but you know of them all.

However, the DM can always give scrolls/spells to NPC's that aren't in the PHB (e.g., pulled and modified from an older resource such as the 3.5e Spell Compendium). Those spells could be "unknown" spells that take effort to figure out.

I could see this playing out as the DM simply saying "The lich casts Finger of Death" or "The demon makes some gestures and a symbol wreathed in flame appears on the ground around him" depending on the scenario.

 

[CapnZapp]

A good point. The trouble is that now that it is a 'suggestion', much like 'no magic shops', everyone will take it as official anyway, which will lead to all kinds of snarly talk at the table when counterspell comes up.

I have magic shops.

I think I'll manage the Counterspell snarls talk too...

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

I suppose some people might feel that a sniper having a spotter is a bit clunky too. Doesn't mean it's not a thing. A person can only do so many things in the space of a second or two.

Requiring a sniper to have a spotter would definitely be too clunky - in a D&D game.

I guess my point is "don't apply real life logic to fantasy"

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Fanaelialae]

Requiring a sniper to have a spotter would definitely be too clunky - in a D&D game.

I guess my point is "don't apply real life logic to fantasy"

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

As with most things, RL logic has its place in the game so long as it's used judiciously.

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.

It isn't as though you CAN'T counterspell a spell you haven't identified. In fact, I would think that would make magical duels more interesting and challenging. It's one thing to counterspell when the DM tells you he's casting a 5th level fireball, and quite another when the DM simply says he is casting a spell. Is it something you want to counter, or merely a feint to make you waste a counterspell?

 

[Warmaster Horus]

...

It isn't as though you CAN'T counterspell a spell you haven't identified. In fact, I would think that would make magical duels more interesting and challenging. It's one thing to counterspell when the DM tells you he's casting a 5th level fireball, and quite another when the DM simply says he is casting a spell. Is it something you want to counter, or merely a feint to make you waste a counterspell?

I disagree. There has to be a way for a caster to determine what they're utilizing their limited resource for. The initial caster certainly knows what they're casting. Everyone who witnesses the Counterspeller - including the provoking spell caster - knows what they're casting and can make an informed reaction. It's only the initial person who casts Counterspell who is left spitting into the wind without a clue. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a chance of not knowing the spell (like missing a Passive Perception check before an ambush is sprung), but there should a method by which the player deciding to spend a spell slot can make an informed decision. Otherwise it's too unbalanced.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I disagree. There has to be a way for a caster to determine what they're utilizing their limited resource for. The initial caster certainly knows what they're casting. Everyone who witnesses the Counterspeller - including the provoking spell caster - knows what they're casting and can make an informed reaction. It's only the initial person who casts Counterspell who is left spitting into the wind without a clue. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a chance of not knowing the spell (like missing a Passive Perception check before an ambush is sprung), but there should a method by which the player deciding to spend a spell slot can make an informed decision. Otherwise it's too unbalanced.

Which is fine too. You don't have to use this mechanic if you don't want to (unless perhaps your DM insists on using the rule, but even in that case you can simply opt not to take counterspell if you think it isn't worth it).

 

[JPicasso]

Just like one can cast shield to foil an attack after one is hit by an attack (but before damage is rolled), I would let the mage PC spend a reaction to counterspell after the DM calls for a save.

DM: "The NPC casts a spell. A sickly green ray flashes from the Witch King's hand toward the cleric, roll a dex save or take xdy damage.
wizard PC: "I counterspell the Witch King's spell".

He may not know that the NPC just cast Disintegrate, but he's pretty sure its bad, whatever it is, and the NPC is not trying to clear off a smudge on the Cleric's cloak. If you want to spend time trying to figure out exactly what spell the NPC is casting, well, that's another thing. Usually description and the call for a save is enough to give the PCs enough of a clue.

DM: "A small red bead proceeds from Ugash the Unliving's hand and flashes toward the party. Roll a dex save for halve of 6d6 damage."
PC: "I Couterspell" <dice rolls>
DM: "The bead simply fluffs out with no effect about half-way to your position."

This way keeps it more 'real' in my mind, while still allowing the PC's to metagame a little and make a decision to Counterspell.

All of this. Especially since my BBEGs usually have access to spells and abilities that the PCs do not. It's up to the DM to describe the intensity of the spell and what's going on... or, just tell them the spell, for free!