D&D 5E Xanathar's and Counterspell

[Caliban]

Have it your way. I cast fireball.

Do you? I haven't made an Arcana check yet. I can't be certain...

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Have it your way. I cast fireball.

And the flame wars have begun!

 

[Fanaelialae]

Do you? I haven't made an Arcana check yet. I can't be certain...

Wait, what? I said we were doing it your way. If your way is my way, then what the heck have we been discussing for this many pages!?

 

[Charlaquin1]

I agree with this. A player writing down a spell name so they won't cheat? Why do we need this rule again? Oh, to ensure that combat didn't devolve into identifying every spell. Instead combat will devolve into writing them down, apparently.

And the potential risk of combat devolving into identifying every spell is itself a problem created by making spell identification something you have to declare intent and roll dice to do. We’ve gotten along just fine with everyone saying what spell they’re casting when they cast it for the past 3 years. This goes beyond fixing what isn’t broken and actually breaks things so it can fix them.

 

[FullCaster]

Case 3 is hands down the best way to do things. The other two cases are so damn unfair.

 

[Caliburn101]

Rereading with that in mind, I can see it, but it's not super clear which way you were going there.

Ok well as it's clear now, that's all's well that ends well.

 

[Tanin Wulf]

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."

If only the DM was in some sort of a position of authority and trust where he or she could act with metagame knowledge and be trusted not to abuse it. If only that were the case. If only such a position existed at the gaming table. Some sort of a master of dungeons that the players agree, by virtue of being there, to trust to handle these sorts of scenarios with fairness and judiciousness... some sort of position that explicitly isn't bound by the same rules they are but has to know when to bind himself or herself and when not to for smooth and exciting play which gives the appearance of being fair. If only there were a guide for this master of dungeons that laid out such powers and explained this position in detail!

 

[5ekyu]

What about players/DMs using Counterspell in reaction to another Counterspell? I mean, one side casts a spell and the other side uses a reaction to immediately cast another spell. That second spell is going to be, in nearly all cases, Counterspell. So deciding to cast Counterspell against that is purely done from out-of-character knowledge of how spellcasting works in D&D. AKA, Metagaming.

i would submit this is the opposite of metagaming...

if the character has knowledge of spellcasting, the world, etc and the whys and hows of magic, if the character has the experience with said events, if the character ha seen "nearly all the time" ABC is how things happen in this world... then it is not metagaming for them to go "that is going to be a counterspell" but roleplaying.

Juts like when they see someone grab a maul as a weapon they think - lets stay out of range and he likely cant hurt me with that.

Both the "reaction spells work like this" and the "maul is a melee weapon with melee range" are written in the books, yes, but that does not make having your experienced character make reasonable decisions based on their experience in any way metagaming.

Counterspell at 5th means you are into tier-2 basically so no reason to presume novice at knowledge of "the way the world works".

can't you imagine your dan teaching you counterspell saying to his rookie "as this is a very good counter, it is used a lot and nearly every time you see someone react to a spell being cast in this way, it is a counter spell."

Not a fan of the counter-counter-counter merry go round but.,. maybe a better approach would have been a design core decision of "cannot react to a reaction" and make the core game rules across the board consistent with and balanced for that.

 

[5ekyu]

If only the DM was in some sort of a position of authority and trust where he or she could act with metagame knowledge and be trusted not to abuse it. If only that were the case. If only such a position existed at the gaming table. Some sort of a master of dungeons that the players agree, by virtue of being there, to trust to handle these sorts of scenarios with fairness and judiciousness... some sort of position that explicitly isn't bound by the same rules they are but has to know when to bind himself or herself and when not to for smooth and exciting play which gives the appearance of being fair. If only there were a guide for this master of dungeons that laid out such powers and explained this position in detail!

Nah... hogwash... bollocks.. etc



Did you notice that in the example given the GM did not trust the player **first**?

The GM asked the player, pretty much straight up was he acting in bad faith.

Based off nothing more than a direct use of the mechanics allowed in the game and a fortunate series of events.

THE GM does not deserve any more trust than any other player at the table.

I am NOT in competition with the GM, i am not playing against them. I am playing with them and with all the other players even if the characters we run may sometimes be competitors - most often our PCs competing with the GMs NPCs.

I the GM setup in his game that exact sequence of "how spell-counter-ID" works they should be fine with my using it as they do. Did we question the GM about cheating when his NPCs threw spells and the good one got through? Not shown in that example.

What we saw in that example was a player playing by the rules (since the gm did not stop it the first time) and a GM actually asking the player were they cheating by changing their choice after knowing the counter spell.

All the players at the table should trust each other... period... and the idea that one of them deserves trust any differently because of the hat they happen to be wearing is way off base - IMO.

Obviously, if players (including GMs0 find this mystery shuffle thing helps make their games more fun, great, but to me its not anything close to something i would be adding.

 

[Tanin Wulf]

I did notice. That's why I was calling the example hogwash.

The DM absolutely is in a position that requires more trust than any given player. Precisely because you are not in competition with the DM and he or she is the only "player" who has the ability to not be bound by any rules and yet still be operating within the rules. That power alone means you must have more trust in that person than is required for any other player in order to ensure a smooth game.

That example was hogwash because if it's player-questioning-DM... then you have a deeper issue than this ruling. If it was DM-questioning-player, then the DM handled it wrong anyway (the DM does know what spell the player was going to cast, if he or she so chooses; the player has no such reciprocal expectation of the DM, hence why the DM is in a position of trust) AND YOU HAVE A DEEPER ISSUE THAN THIS RULING.