D&D 5E Xanathar's Guide: How does identifying a spell + Counterspell work?

[5ekyu]

INT/WIS/CHA-Deception - Disguise Spell Type
A caster can try and hide the nature of the spell they are casting. this is not avoiding components or hiding that a spell is being cast but trying to confuse others as to what the spell may be before it is too late to counterspell. The caster must use BOTH its action and bonus action for the spell (depending on which it required normally) and then anyone attempting a counterspell may try an insight vs deception opposed check to know the specific spell before deciding to counterspell. The roll uses Deception proficiency but with the caster's spell modifier used instead of the normal default CHA.

 

[Tormyr]

I finally just went with allowing anybody to recognize a spell they have seen before. So new spells can catch creatures by surprise once. Anyone can use a reaction to identify a new spell, and those who have counterspell can use it as part of the reaction.

I have a similar issue to what @Bacon Bits brought up in one of the feats I am putting together for War of the Burning Sky:

Spellduelist
Prerequisite: The ability to cast at least one spell.
Thanks to extensive practice with dueling other spellcasters, you gain the following benefits:

* You can pretend to cast a spell as a bonus action. The spell must be on your spell list, and any onlooker who would use a reaction to you casting a spell - such as by attempting to counterspell, taking an attack of opportunity, or performing a readied action - must make a Wisdom (Insight) check contested by your Charisma (Deception) check to realize the deception, or their reaction is used upon a failure as if you had actually cast the spell. Opportunity attacks and readied actions are taken, and the reaction for counterspell is used but the spell slot is not as there is not a valid target. You have advantage on the Charisma (Deception) check. You cannot cast any other spell on this turn other than the spell you were pretending to cast or a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action. If you actually cast a spell this turn, anyone who wants to use a reaction must have decided to contest your deception and succeeded.
* You have advantage on Wisdom (Insight) checks to determine if another spellduelist is pretending to cast a spell and Intelligence (Arcana) checks to identify a spell being cast.

This allows a spell duelist to fake out enemies. Going up against a Mage Slayer, they could pretend to cast a defensive spell, get hit, and then actually cast the spell so they do not have to worry about losing concentration. They can get someone to waste a counterspell or use their prepared action.

The difficulty has been figuring out how to have things out in the open at the table without allowing the bait and switch that @Bacon Bits described beyond what the Spellduelist should be able to do. These are the scenarios I have considered when a Spellduelist pretends to cast a spell as a bonus action:
1. Pretend to cast a spell.
2. If no one reacts, you can actually cast the spell quickly, before anyone has a chance to react.
3. If creatures react because you faked them out, they burn their reaction early. Attacks of opportunity and readied actions are used. The spell slot for counterspell is not used, but the reaction is. The spellduelist can then cast the faked spell or a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.
4. Any creatures who were willing to risk losing/using their reaction at the "wrong" time but figure out the deception do not have to use their reaction. These are the only creatures who are then able to use their reaction when the Spellduelist actually casts a spell that turn.

I think this works because everything is out in the open and the risk is distributed among the players and the DM regardless of who controls the Spellduelist. What I cannot figure out is how to take this kind of scenario to the identifying / counterspell scenario that Xanathar's Guide is setting up. How do you lock in what spell you are going to cast so that the bait and switch does not happen?

I suppose the player / DM could write the spell being cast on a piece of paper. That is annoying, but I think it would work to lock in the spellcaster.

 

[Oofta]

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I like the rule. Deciding to cast counterspell (and at what level) should be a snap decision.

I'm also hoping it cuts down on the counterspell wars where A casts a spell, B counterspells, A counterspells B's counterspell so C counters A' counterspell of B's counterspell ... uggh.

 

[Leatherhead]

The long and the short of it is they don't work together

It's not necessarily random, it's a team sport. You need a spotter and a counter speller. If you want to be sure about what you're counter spelling, it takes 2 reactions.

Spotters don't work either: You can't perform a communication flourish unless it is on your own personal turn.


My thoughts?

This ruling is the worst one since the ruling on hand crossbows.

 

[5ekyu]

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I like the rule. Deciding to cast counterspell (and at what level) should be a snap decision.

I'm also hoping it cuts down on the counterspell wars where A casts a spell, B counterspells, A counterspells B's counterspell so C counters A' counterspell of B's counterspell ... uggh.

Actually its the reverse. There are so few reaction spells that the counter counter chain is likely to survive but the use of counterspell itself will drop

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[Li Shenron]

It's a dumb optional rule and shouldn't be used.

Amen!

It's not necessarily random, it's a team sport. You need a spotter and a counter speller.

If you want to use the XGtE new Counterspell rules as RAW, why not using also the PHB rules as RAW? The PHB says under Other Activity on Your Turn, that "you can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn". When you take a reaction to identify a spell, it's not your turn (except in the very specific case when the spell was cast on your turn), so by the RAW you cannot communicate during a reaction.

Crawford has also said that he would allow another character to use their reaction to identify the spell and then tell another character who could then counterspell the spell. Why he thinks introducing another person into the mix would take less time I'm not sure, but there you go. It's a mechanics over narrative answer if ever there was one, which is exactly what I expect from Crawford.

I would just call it a "cover-up" attempt.

And I am sorry to say but this makes me wonder how much they playtest their own game at WotC. Saying he "would allow" is not the same as saying he "allows". So is he or is he not using his own rule in his games?

I don't think the rule is utter garbage to be honest, there is room to make it work reasonably, but calling for another PC's to use her reaction just to enforce the RAW of this very optional rule from an optional book at any cost and doing so clashing with the RAW of the PHB is not a good way to make it work. I think it's better to just say that sometimes you need to use your reaction to identify a spell (e.g. a spell you've never seen before) and thus you cannot counterspell it, and some other times you already know the spell and can counterspell it directly.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

BTW if the XGtE rule for ID spells was in place, anybody think there would not have been developed some low level or cantrip for "google spell" that would identify spell being cast quicker than that?

Well, casting time is the issue there. If you're a mathematician and you see someone writing down a formula, you have a chance of solving it before them. Stopping to input the parameters into google probably takes longer than 6 seconds, even if google itself is pretty instantaneous.

At worst what i would have done is... free "passive arcana vs deception" to answer "do i know whats being cast" s the Gm can narrate the NPCs actions and give the player time to react.

I'd allow someone that learned magic at the same place, or follows the same religion to identify the spell automatically. Or if they'd seen that caster cast it before.
Also probably if they happened to have a Detect Thoughts or similar up, since they could read the intention to cast that spell rather than having to work it out through analysing the components.

Hey, what is the process for identifying who the archer is about to shoot? ready an action and use your phone a friend lifeline?

See which way they're pointing the bow (assuming that they're not hidden) and shout a warning.
Its not like you have to work out the function of a bow from the base principles of spring theory and Newton's laws of motion, then nock, draw, and shoot your own before the archer gets their shot off.

 

[5ekyu]

Well, casting time is the issue there. If you're a mathematician and you see someone writing down a formula, you have a chance of solving it before them. Stopping to input the parameters into google probably takes longer than 6 seconds, even if google itself is pretty instantaneous.

I'd allow someone that learned magic at the same place, or follows the same religion to identify the spell automatically. Or if they'd seen that caster cast it before.
Also probably if they happened to have a Detect Thoughts or similar up, since they could read the intention to cast that spell rather than having to work it out through analysing the components.

See which way they're pointing the bow (assuming that they're not hidden) and shout a warning.
Its not like you have to work out the function of a bow from the base principles of spring theory and Newton's laws of motion, then nock, draw, and shoot your own before the archer gets their shot off.

That was why i described it as a spell, not the guy actually googling spell descriptions.

"Ask Thoth" Cantrip 10m duration V components
While active, the caster is attuned to the workings of raw mystical energies, the key mystic elements of a spell or effect that is being cast are highlighted, spotlighted and easily identified - allowing the user to easily identify a spell being cast that they can see (or hear if verbal

if you wanted a more dynamic sort of effect, instead of self, make it an AOE exposure, so that anyone seeing into the area can identify (or even get a sense) of what the spell is about to be by casters in the area.

I mean, for love of Merlin's saggy bottom, if someone took the time to invent a JUMP spell, don't you think someone would have taken the time to make "counterspelling other mage's" work without a buddy system?

 

[OB1]

If you want to use the XGtE new Counterspell rules as RAW, why not using also the PHB rules as RAW? The PHB says under Other Activity on Your Turn, that "you can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn". When you take a reaction to identify a spell, it's not your turn (except in the very specific case when the spell was cast on your turn), so by the RAW you cannot communicate during a reaction.

If you really want to go RAW, it only says that you can communicate as you take your turn, but doesn't say you can't communicate any other time. As a DM would you seriously rule that someone using their reaction to identify a spell being cast wouldn't be allowed to yell that out to her teammates?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

That was why i described it as a spell, not the guy actually googling spell descriptions.

"Ask Thoth" Cantrip 10m duration V components
While active, the caster is attuned to the workings of raw mystical energies, the key mystic elements of a spell or effect that is being cast are highlighted, spotlighted and easily identified - allowing the user to easily identify a spell being cast that they can see (or hear if verbal

if you wanted a more dynamic sort of effect, instead of self, make it an AOE exposure, so that anyone seeing into the area can identify (or even get a sense) of what the spell is about to be by casters in the area.

I mean, for love of Merlin's saggy bottom, if someone took the time to invent a JUMP spell, don't you think someone would have taken the time to make "counterspelling other mage's" work without a buddy system?

That's certainly not a bad idea, although at 10 minutes duration and no concentration requirement, I definitely wouldn't put that at cantrip-level myself though.

Unless I'm reading the section wrong, it doesn't look like it introduces the need for a buddy system or suchlike in order to counterspell. It doesn't affect whether counterspell works: no part of that spell is changed using this optional rule. The only difference is whether you know what spell your opponent is about to throw.