Spellcraft howto

[Dalebert]

So Counterspell is a thing now. How are folks handling whether someone can recognize a spell being cast? I'll show my first stab at it. Tell me what you think.

DC = 10 + level of spell

For arcane spells, you use arcana.

For divine spells, you use religion.

If it's a spell from your class list, you roll with advantage.

If you actually know the spell, you don't have to roll.

[jkat718]

Sounds good, but I have a slight problem with this part:

If it's a spell from your class list, you roll with advantage.

If you actually know the spell, you don't have to roll.

Most arcane casters don't cast their spells the same way, and therefore the spell wouldn't necessarily be easier to recognize. I might grant advantage for knowing the spell, and nothing for having it on your spell list. Maybe allow double proficiency in certain situations?

[Theodoxus]

What's the purpose of knowing the spell? You're either in range (60') or not to Counterspell. Does it matter if the bad guy is casting some kind of healing spell or fireball?

[jaydubs]

What's the purpose of knowing the spell? You're either in range (60') or not to Counterspell. Does it matter if the bad guy is casting some kind of healing spell or fireball?

I can think of a few reasons.

1. Figure out what level of slot you should use on counterspell.
2. Figure out if you want to counter it, or if this is a feint. I.e., some might use a cantrip to trigger your counterspell and then cast a more powerful one (bonus action spell, metamagic, whatever).
3. Figure out if you want to use your reaction on this particular caster, in cases where you're facing off against more than one. If the enemy cleric is just casting sacred flame, and you think the second caster has something nastier up his sleave, you might hold off.

[Sidmen]

What's the purpose of knowing the spell? You're either in range (60') or not to Counterspell. Does it matter if the bad guy is casting some kind of healing spell or fireball?

To me, yes. If the caster is casting some kind of healing spell - I don't particularly care, I trust in the party's ability to beat down whatever HP he just regenerated. If he's casting a fireball and my party is grouped in a clump - yes, yes I do very much want to stop that spell being cast.

[Dalebert]

What's the purpose of knowing the spell? You're either in range (60') or not to Counterspell. Does it matter if the bad guy is casting some kind of healing spell or fireball?

What people already said. Short answer? Because I may not consider it worth blowing a slot and an action on.

[Theodoxus]

So are these passive checks, or are you blowing your action on knowing what the spell is? Or is it a reaction, and thus you can't then cast Counterspell?

Is it free to just know what spell a guy is casting? Having a partial round to get your bearings is pretty darn quick. Facing a sorcerer who's using Quicken to get off a fireball in as a bonus action, you think you're gonna know fast enough the three words of the spell and the flick of his finger?

There's gamist attributes that are being used in favor of simulationist attributes that completely destroy verisimilitude.

I mean, I'm glad you're pulling things from 3.P to help with your game, but I'm still not seeing how it works with 5.0 RAW.

[archaeo]

Use this rule of thumb: follow whatever timing is specified in the reaction's description...If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action.


Counterspell
Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell...
You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell.

It seems like the game just expects that the Counterspeller knows the spell being cast. The fact that it allows you to spend a higher slot to counter a spell of a certain level means that, by casting it, you must at least know the level of the spell being cast. I would argue that, if the system expected you to make a check to figure out what spell is being cast on any given turn, it would give you a mechanic for adjudicating it.

[Dalebert]

So are these passive checks, or are you blowing your action on knowing what the spell is? Or is it a reaction, and thus you can't then cast Counterspell?

It's good feedback. Obviously it would have to be passive to be of any value. That doesn't seem to me like it should make it impossible. There are other things that you can just figure out in combat from sensing them. You could decide to have a modifier for it happening in combat, maybe +5.


Facing a sorcerer who's using Quicken to get off a fireball in as a bonus action, you think you're gonna know fast enough the three words of the spell and the flick of his finger?

I agree. I would think Quicken would also make it more difficult, maybe give disadvantage or apply a DC modifier. Subtle spell should make it nigh impossible unless you can judge it from the effect, and some spells have no obvious effect, like Bane, for instance. People can react to something as quick as swinging a sword at them and make a decision as to whether to use their reaction based on it. It's not without precedent. Some fire is coming toward you. Do you react? In that moment, it's certainly possible that you recognize the difference between Fire Bolt and Sacred Flame. Maybe you have fire resistance and don't care about the Fire Bolt so you don't want to waste your reaction and your slot on it. Maybe you have a low AC but an excellent DEX save and fear the Fire Bolt but don't care about the Sacred Flame.


There's gamist attributes that are being used in favor of simulationist attributes that completely destroy verisimilitude.

If you go that route, consistency requires that people be forced to declare their reactions to possible events before they happen and be forced to use them. You MUST riposte the first time thereby allowing enemies to coordinate and hit you with the second one. People should be allowed a reasonable amount of information from which to make decisions about their actions, and generally the game allows this, even with reactions.

[edvdwal]

I have house ruled:

A) Passive Int (Arcana) check vs DC12 + Spell level (no action)

I was on the fence for a bit vs:

B) Passive Int (Arcane) check vs 8 + Prof bonus + Caster Ability Score

[Alucard2099]

This argument is Mute anyway because making those arcana and religion checks can only done as an action... on your own turn. You can't do it as a reaction unless you ready it on your own turn.

[Alucard2099]

And that, my friends, is how you end a thread with logic...

[Symphony]

This argument is Mute anyway because making those arcana and religion checks can only done as an action... on your own turn. You can't do it as a reaction unless you ready it on your own turn.


And that, my friends, is how you end a thread with logic...

No, no it's not. Passive checks exist.

[Alucard2099]

No, no it's not. Passive checks exist.

Your right... but you can't tell what a spell is by using a passive check. You would need to roll it, study it for a second. That is an action.

[Symphony]

Your right... but you can't tell what a spell is by using a passive check. You would need to roll it, study it for a second. That is an action.

Not necessarily. There are no guidelines that I know of for identifying a spell (much less as it's being cast). It's entirely possible that someone with proficiency in the appropriate skill can passively glean information about a spell being cast with enough time left to reactively counterspell it if they want.

[Alucard2099]

I understand fully what you are talking about... here is my argument...

Let's break down the turn into seconds it takes to do things...

Movement is roughly 2.5 seconds
Action is roughly 2.5 seconds
Bonus action about 1 second

That takes up the full turn of 6 seconds.
Now, if a reaction is happening, then it would likely be during the action step. That means you would have less then 3 seconds to look at the person, figure out the spell, and cast your own spell.
I don't believe that 2.5 seconds is enough time to ascertain the spell being cast with a passive check. You would need more time. Yes, you can tell that A spell is being cast, but I do not believe you have the time to tell what spell.

Thus, passive checks should not be used to tell what spell is being cast...

[Dalebert]

That's not logic. That's just like... your opinion, man.

[Alucard2099]

That's not logic. That's just like... your opinion, man.

Your not wrong, however, does it not make sense?

[Naanomi]

In most fiction, counterspell type stuff happens after the spell is cast but before it takes effect... The fireball flies towards the wizard and he sees it and waves it away. Don't see any reason to not mirror the common fictional conventions.

[Alucard2099]

In most fiction, counterspell type stuff happens after the spell is cast but before it takes effect... The fireball flies towards the wizard and he sees it and waves it away. Don't see any reason to not mirror the common fictional conventions.

I wholeheartedly agree. But I read it as saying that you stop the spell from being cast in the first place. Make sense?

"You attempt to interrupt the creature in the process of casting the spell" -Counterspell

[Theodoxus]

I'm siding with archaeo on this one - the rules seem to imply that one simply knows what spell is being cast. Adding granularity is fine - if that's what you like - but I think it's adding a layer that isn't necessary. When I DM, I tell my players what spell is being cast, just like my NPCs know what spell is being cast at them, because the player has to tell me what it is!

Splitting hairs and removing metagame data from my subconscious is something I have trouble with - so I remove the problem. its not like there aren't ways (Subtle spell, etc) to make it mysterious. But that's the exception, not the rule.

But hey, IF I were to make a Spellcraft check for 5th Ed - I'd probably go with something like the OP; Add it onto the Counterspell description itself so it's part of the reaction phase (I really can't think of another need for Spellcraft to be used outside of Counterspell, but I guess if someone wanted to know what a caster was casting - having it use the whole reaction wouldn't be justified; and splitting a reaction into 'pre and post' action reaction becomes minutia... I would just add a Spellcraft check to any reaction ala Counterspell that is created in the future.

BTW, @Alucard, the reaction of Couterspell goes outside the Action/Move/Bonus 6 second economy... though the quantum mechanics of all that really gets nuts if you try to figure out what everyone is doing in the same 6 seconds.

[Shadow]

I can think of a few reasons.

1. Figure out what level of slot you should use on counterspell.
2. Figure out if you want to counter it, or if this is a feint. I.e., some might use a cantrip to trigger your counterspell and then cast a more powerful one (bonus action spell, metamagic, whatever).
3. Figure out if you want to use your reaction on this particular caster, in cases where you're facing off against more than one. If the enemy cleric is just casting sacred flame, and you think the second caster has something nastier up his sleave, you might hold off.

In your point of view you have just listed the reasons that you might want to identify the spell being cast.
In my point of view you just listed the exact reasons that there is no way in the rules to do so.
Risk vs reward. That's what counterspell is all about. If you add knowledge of the spell being cast, you remove the risk portion.
Furthermore, a reaction is specifically spelled out as "an instant response to a trigger of some kind."
Taking time to figure something out before doing it doesn't strike me as particularly instantaneous, it strikes me as something deliberate, which is basically the exact opposite of instant, and therefore by definition cannot be used or done as a reaction.

[Alucard2099]

IF I were to make a Spellcraft check for 5th Ed - I'd probably go with something like the OP; Add it onto the Counterspell description itself so it's part of the reaction phase (I really can't think of another need for Spellcraft to be used outside of Counterspell, but I guess if someone wanted to know what a caster was casting - having it use the whole reaction wouldn't be justified; and splitting a reaction into 'pre and post' action reaction becomes minutia... I would just add a Spellcraft check to any reaction ala Counterspell that is created in the future.

To my knowledge, there is no more spellcraft skill. Thus you cannot make a spell craft check. And the PHB clearly states that making a roll for a skill check is a standard action.


@Alucard, the reaction of Couterspell goes outside the Action/Move/Bonus 6 second economy... though the quantum mechanics of all that really gets nuts if you try to figure out what everyone is doing in the same 6 seconds.

I can easily determine what is going on in the 6 seconds. It's as simple as following the path of the turn order.

Also using a reaction still happens within the time limit of the acting players turn. This cannot be disputed. To say that it happens outside the turn time, is to imply that this happens in another timeline or plane?


@Theodoxus, I am in no means trying to tell you your wrong. I am simply trying to help those who need it, as opposed to those who don't.

[Alucard2099]

In your point of view you have just listed the reasons that you might want to identify the spell being cast.
In my point of view you just listed the exact reasons that there is no way in the rules to do so.
Risk vs reward. That's what counterspell is all about. If you add knowledge of the spell being cast, you remove the risk portion.
Furthermore, a reaction is specifically spelled out as "an instant response to a trigger of some kind."
Taking time to figure something out before doing it doesn't strike me as particularly instantaneous, it strikes me as something deliberate, which is basically the exact opposite of instant, and therefore by definition cannot be used or done as a reaction.

*Applauds*

[Theodoxus]

Why discount my effort, yet completely ignore the OP, who's question this is. Obviously there isn't a Spellcraft check in 5th - hence the question 'if you could create one, what would you do' and hence my answering of what I would do, were I to implement a spellcraft check that doesn't currently exist in 5th Ed.

In your accounting of time, you grant 2.5 seconds to move, 2.5 seconds to act and 1 second to a bonus action.

You also claim that it's very easy to track, because everyone's action takes place is a discrete quantum of time, in order. Yet that's not how it actually plays out - it's just how the game is set up.

If I attack someone, and they cast Shield to defend against it - their reaction is on my turn, not in their 2.5 Action time, as you decreed. It's in my 2.5 Action time. If you're wanting to say that we act simultaneously, that's fine, except then you do have quantum time issues to work out - and Reactions never can work right - it becomes as recursive as anything in 3.5 again. I react to the reaction of the reaction that triggered the reaction, undoing all of it to the point that the original triggering event never happened and all those reactions likewise didn't happen, which allowed the original event to in fact happen, triggering reactions, ad nauseum.

So no, you have to leave some part of that 6 seconds out to allow for things to happen discretely within time to not foul up everything. Your premise is incorrect, sir.

[Alucard2099]

If I attack someone, and they cast Shield to defend against it - their reaction is on my turn, not in their 2.5 Action time, as you decreed. It's in my 2.5 Action time

I did, in fact, say that if player A is casting, and player B is reacting, then the time is simultaneously happening on player A's turn.

I also didn't say that the turns happened one at a time. I meant that if you take a battle, I can imagine everything going on at the same time.

[Shadow]

If I attack someone, and they cast Shield to defend against it - their reaction is on my turn, not in their 2.5 Action time, as you decreed. It's in my 2.5 Action time. If you're wanting to say that we act simultaneously, that's fine, except then you do have quantum time issues to work out

The actions happen simultaneously. That 6 seconds isn't 6 seconds for you, and then 6 seconds for me, and then 6 seconds for the enemies, and then 6 seconds for the barbarian, etc.
It's just 6 seconds.

I'm not defending his timeline junk. Just pointing out that an entire round takes approximately 6 seconds and that everyone acts simultaneously. The turn order is just to give that chaos a bit of.... well.... order.

[Alucard2099]

an entire round takes approximately 6 seconds and that everyone acts simultaneously. The turn order is just to give that chaos a bit of.... well.... order.

That is all I was trying to say.

[Kane0]

So Counterspell is a thing now. How are folks handling whether someone can recognize a spell being cast? I'll show my first stab at it. Tell me what you think.

DC = 10 + level of spell

For arcane spells, you use arcana.

For divine spells, you use religion.

If it's a spell from your class list, you roll with advantage.

If you actually know the spell, you don't have to roll.

I would make it a straight Int check, with proficiency bonus if you can cast spells or have the ritual caster feat and with advantage if you have the spell known or prepped. That way everyone gets a chance, casters have a better chance and clerics/druids dont automatically ID too many spells.
And that check would be the first part of the counterspell, before you decide to spend your reaction to cast it.
DC 10 + spell slot used might also be more accurate than spell level, so it would be harder to spot ant counter a level 6 fireball as opposed to a standard one.

/2cp

[Shadow]

DC 10 + spell slot used might also be more accurate than spell level, so it would be harder to spot ant counter a level 6 fireball as opposed to a standard one.

Spell slot used is the same thing as spell level. A fireball in a 6th level slot is not a 3rd level spell in a 6th level slot, it is actually a 6th level spell. Spell slot and spell level are one and the same.

[Kane0]

I stand corrected

[jaydubs]

In your point of view you have just listed the reasons that you might want to identify the spell being cast.
In my point of view you just listed the exact reasons that there is no way in the rules to do so.
Risk vs reward. That's what counterspell is all about. If you add knowledge of the spell being cast, you remove the risk portion.
Furthermore, a reaction is specifically spelled out as "an instant response to a trigger of some kind."
Taking time to figure something out before doing it doesn't strike me as particularly instantaneous, it strikes me as something deliberate, which is basically the exact opposite of instant, and therefore by definition cannot be used or done as a reaction.

Who are you even arguing with? I have no opinion on whether or not there should be a way to make spellcraft checks. Someone seemed honestly confused on why anyone would want to know what spell was being cast before deciding whether or not to counterspell. I listed clear reasons why it would be tactically advantageous.

[Dalebert]

It's funny that folks would declare this impossible in an edition that has failed to clearly define skills and left SO much to DM fiat, particularly in the realm of what skills can do and the relevant DCs. This is such a common complaint and inspiration for questions on this forum.

As for all skill rolls taking an action, that just doesn't make sense for a knowledge roll, i.e. do I know a certain piece of factual information? I see something happening. Do I recognize it? Is it familiar based on my knowledge set? You can try to get nit-picky and ultra-realistic and say everything is hectic and you don't know what's going on around you, but I don't know anyone who plays like that. Generally, the information you have to go off of when you decide what you're going to do with your actions (and reactions) is defined by two simple factors:

1) Is it within the range of my senses? Is it happening either within the light source's range or within range of my darkvision or was it loud enough to hear?
2) Has it happened yet chronologically before I have to decide what I'm going to do?

Trying to decide whether you were too distracted to be aware of a particular event is just not something that people generally worry about. Maybe there's a perception check if the DM feels that it's a subtle event and you are distracted by combat. Seems like that's possible. But generally, you are pointedly paying attention to the actions of your opponents unless they are doing a very good job of hiding or casting subtle spells or whatever. You obviously know about someone casting a spell in order to be able to counterspell. It's just a matter of determining what the likelihood is that you will recognize what they're casting. And if something is even possible, and it absolutely should be, there should be a DC for it. I'm just looking for some kind of consistent methodology for determining what that is. Is it possible they are the same class but cast a different version than you? Absolutely. It's also possible they apprenticed to the same teacher or went to the same bard school or that the casting techniques incorporate similar core components enough to be recongizable. It's possible that bards have a tendency to sing upbeat tunes for charm spells and funeral-like tunes for fear-inducing or debuffing effects so you hazard a guess to what they're casting and maybe get it right, or maybe they buck the trends and throw you off. That's why there should be an element of randomness. You don't automatically know and you aren't automatically clueless.

Stop being a no-you-can't DM and start saying "YES YOU CAN! Maybe... if you've really hit the study books... and are a bit lucky."

[Xetheral]

It seems like the game just expects that the Counterspeller knows the spell being cast. The fact that it allows you to spend a higher slot to counter a spell of a certain level means that, by casting it, you must at least know the level of the spell being cast. I would argue that, if the system expected you to make a check to figure out what spell is being cast on any given turn, it would give you a mechanic for adjudicating it.

I find this argument convincing. The would-be-counterspeller should automatically know what spell is being cast, with a possible exception for unusual circumstances.

[Demonic Spoon]

I find this argument convincing. The would-be-counterspeller should automatically know what spell is being cast, with a possible exception for unusual circumstances.

I disagree. Few spells are auto-succeed with no element of chance, and I don't think counterspell should give you the choice of automatically shutting down the opposing spellcaster without risking "wasting" a slot.

[Xetheral]

I disagree. Few spells are auto-succeed with no element of chance, and I don't think counterspell should give you the choice of automatically shutting down the opposing spellcaster without risking "wasting" a slot.

So, under your interpretation, not only do you have to guess whether the spell is worth counterspelling, you also have to guess what level slot to use for the counterspell?

[1of3]

I probably wouldn't base the DC on spell level. A spell that is difficult to cast, does not have to difficult to identify. I imagine, it's easier to determine a Fireball than a Charm Person.

I'd do:

DC = 8 + caster's proficiency bonus + caster's Cha mod
Advantage, if the spell is on your list.
Disadvantage, if the spell does not create a clearly discernible effect, for example charms, divinations, illusions.

[Demonic Spoon]

So, under your interpretation, not only do you have to guess whether the spell is worth counterspelling, you also have to guess what level slot to use for the counterspell?


What spell is a hostile creature going to be casting during combat that isn't worth counterspelling?

[Theodoxus]

Flip that around and reverse it. What spells are your players going to be casting that aren't worth counterspelling?

I think part of the obfuscation that adding the layer of spellcraft check does is create an ablative protection for players. Goose, Gander, Good - and all that.

If you as a DM, designed an encounter in which the BBEG was surrounded by spellcasting lackeys - whose sole purpose was either to heal him or counterspell the players - essentially shutting down any caster in the party, do you think your players wouldn't be clamoring for a system where there was a chance the enemy casters couldn't auto-succeed on counterspell?

I just want to clarify that I don't think adding a spellcraft check adds anything to the game; its just another roll to slow down combat and relive 3.P for the sake of reliving 3.P.

[Dalebert]

I just want to clarify that I don't think adding a spellcraft check adds anything to the game; its just another roll to slow down combat and relive 3.P for the sake of reliving 3.P.

Since skills, what they can do, and their DCS, are about 80% DM fiat, that's a perfectly reasonably take. There are a lot of optional rules in the DMG that you can include or not depending on if you prefer more simplicity or more detail. The same applies here.

For folks who decide they do want the additional potential of trying to ascertain the nature of a spell, you can also include the possibility of being misled about what is being cast instead of just saying you don't know.

"You think perhaps he's casting some kind of charm" (at the Great Old Ones warlock who's immune)

"Oh. Pfft. Not counter-spelling."

"Psyche! It was a fireball."

Of course that's an extra layer of detail that you may feel over-complicates.

[Theodoxus]

That would work, but probably best if the DM was rolling the Arcane/Religion checks for the player - else it's really easy to metagame 'hmm, I got a 14 total, so I know if it's a 4th level spell or less, and he called it a charm. So it can't be a fireball...'

I mean, unless you have no problems with metagaming at the table - I don't typically; I tend to incorporate player tossed ideas into the game because they're sometimes better than my own, or fully thought out - plus they enjoy when they're proved 'right' because I swapped something out without their prior knowledge.

[Dalebert]

That would work, but probably best if the DM was rolling the Arcane/Religion checks for the player...

Yes, of course. If you have the potential for being misled, the DM has to do the rolling. The player merely asks, if he wants, whether he thinks he knows what the enemy is casting. The DM rolls and then decides based on the roll whether he knows, doesn't know, or whether he is misled. For instance, if they miss the DC by 5 or more, they're misled. You need a DM who doesn't mind being creative and spontaneous on the fly and looks at such things as an opportunity to make the game a little more fun instead of feeling like that's just extra complication and work. My style tends to be like the former.

And that's some extra risk and disincentive for trying to speculate about what's being cast instead of just going ahead and counter-spelling.

[Xetheral]

What spell is a hostile creature going to be casting during combat that isn't worth counterspelling?

Any situation where the opportunity cost of being down a 3rd level slot is higher than the benefit from stopping the spell, counterspelling isn't worth it.

For example, with a few exceptions (e.g. Repelling Eldritch Blast in some terrains), most cantrips are going to be unlikely to be worth countering. Similarly, depending on the tactical situation, stopping a first or second level spell might be worth far less than, for example, an extra fireball. Even stopping higher-level inbound spells might at times be less valuable than having more available offensive punch.

In another vein, if the enemies have greater available spellcasting actions than the party (e.g. a horde of mook casters), then the relative value of each of the party's spell slots increases, and the value of counterspelling any particular inbound spell decreases. (And if you can't know what each inbound spell is, your odds of countering at random the ones worth countering drops rapidly.)

All of these factors are potentially true at any level, but they are particularly relevant at 5th to 8th level where your available 3rd-level and higher slots are sharply limited.

The only time it's always worthwhile to counter every inbound spell is the rare situation when your available spellcasting is limited only by your available actions to cast them, and not by the number of spell slots remaining. Short of a high-level party knowing they are facing their only encounter for the day and who also has greater available spellcasting actions than the enemy, I'm hard-pressed to think of a situation where this will apply.

[archaeo]

Yes, of course. If you have the potential for being misled, the DM has to do the rolling. The player merely asks, if he wants, whether he thinks he knows what the enemy is casting. The DM rolls and then decides based on the roll whether he knows, doesn't know, or whether he is misled. For instance, if they miss the DC by 5 or more, they're misled. You need a DM who doesn't mind being creative and spontaneous on the fly and looks at such things as an opportunity to make the game a little more fun instead of feeling like that's just extra complication and work. My style tends to be like the former.

And that's some extra risk and disincentive for trying to speculate about what's being cast instead of just going ahead and counter-spelling.

See, to me, this all sounds like it just leads inevitably to a DM deciding for the player when they can counterspell. It adds a big load of complexity to basically every encounter involving spellcasting whenever a PC learns counterspell, and, to me at least, it feels like it would create this entire time-consuming minigame that nobody except the counterspeller and the DM play every time spells get cast by the bad guys.

Obviously, YMMV; it's pretty clear that some people really want this kind of mechanic. But I think it tends to create a lot of complexity for relatively little additional tactical/strategic interest.

[Person_Man]

I think many people apply a 3.X/PF mentality to 5E. (Which is perfectly understandable, since those are the editions most current players have previously played the most). In those editions there was a strong emphasis on world building and simulation. Lots of rules existed just to explain how other rules worked. And you had to understand the network of different rules in order to play and adjudicate the game correctly. In addition, magic was an all powerful reality altering force that basically determined the outcome of the world (and most combats in which it was used).

In 5E spells/feats/abilities/etc just do what they say they do, and not what you think they might do. There's pretty minimal interaction between the rules. And whenever Jeremy Crawford and Mike Mearls have been presented with a simulationist and/or consistency issue (can Fast Hands be used on magic items, does Sneak Attack apply to attacks natural attacks or Martial Arts attacks that use Dexterity, is the extra damage from poison multiplied on a critical hit, etc) the answer is almost always no. And they made a real effort to try to put a limit on magic, keep it in the Tier 3ish range of uses, meaningfully limit it with the Concentration rules, give fewer uses of high level magic, and make it fairly easy to Counter, Resist, cancel with Legendary actions, or otherwise prevent or mitigate with various abilities.

In this specific case, I think intent is that Counterspell just works as written. The DM will just tell you what spell is being cast, or at least tell you what level spell slot you'll need to use in order to Counterspell it, and when you use Counterspell it just works. Does it make sense if you extrapolate the implications of that rule to the larger game world? Probably not. But its a roleplaying game, not Code of Magical Regulations adjudication game.

[archaeo]

I think many people apply a 3.X/PF mentality to 5E. (Which is perfectly understandable, since those are the editions most current players have previously played the most). In those editions there was a strong emphasis on world building and simulation. Lots of rules existed just to explain how other rules worked. And you had to understand the network of different rules in order to play and adjudicate the game correctly. In addition, magic was an all powerful reality altering force that basically determined the outcome of the world (and most combats in which it was used).

In 5E spells/feats/abilities/etc just do what they say they do, and not what you think they might do. There's pretty minimal interaction between the rules. And whenever Jeremy Crawford and Mike Mearls have been presented with a simulationist and/or consistency issue (can Fast Hands be used on magic items, does Sneak Attack apply to attacks natural attacks or Martial Arts attacks that use Dexterity, is the extra damage from poison multiplied on a critical hit, etc) the answer is almost always no. And they made a real effort to try to put a limit on magic, keep it in the Tier 3ish range of uses, meaningfully limit it with the Concentration rules, give fewer uses of high level magic, and make it fairly easy to Counter, Resist, cancel with Legendary actions, or otherwise prevent or mitigate with various abilities.

In this specific case, I think intent is that Counterspell just works as written. The DM will just tell you what spell is being cast, or at least tell you what level spell slot you'll need to use in order to Counterspell it, and when you use Counterspell it just works. Does it make sense if you extrapolate the implications of that rule to the larger game world? Probably not. But its a roleplaying game, not Code of Magical Regulations adjudication game.

Well said.

[Demonic Spoon]

It's worth considering the implication on non-full-casters. Paladins, EKs, and Rangers get shafted with this rule because they can be shut down without too much of a spell slot expenditure by opposing casters

[archaeo]

It's worth considering the implication on non-full-casters. Paladins, EKs, and Rangers get shafted with this rule because they can be shut down without too much of a spell slot expenditure by opposing casters

On the other hand, counterspell is not a very effective defense against a sword in the face. Little column a, little column b.

[Demonic Spoon]

On the other hand, counterspell is not a very effective defense against a sword in the face. Little column a, little column b.

It doesn't need to be; a single one of your many spells prepared is not a high cost given the incredible flexibility

[Vogonjeltz]

It seems like the game just expects that the Counterspeller knows the spell being cast. The fact that it allows you to spend a higher slot to counter a spell of a certain level means that, by casting it, you must at least know the level of the spell being cast. I would argue that, if the system expected you to make a check to figure out what spell is being cast on any given turn, it would give you a mechanic for adjudicating it.

I don't see that there. The game just assumes the character sees a creature within 60 feet who is casting a spell. Not any specific spell. You see a guy doing magic gestures and what not? You can use your reaction to counterspell. It's up to the character to pick how powerful a counterspell they want to use (they might guess low, or they might do overkill, that's really up to them).


So, under your interpretation, not only do you have to guess whether the spell is worth counterspelling, you also have to guess what level slot to use for the counterspell?

I don't see how this is anything but reading the spell. I mean, is there a rule somewhere else that a viewer knows what spell an enemy casts or at what level? If not, then Counterspelling works exactly as you just said: The PC guesses.

That being said, if a PC caster asked me what spell the opponent was casting, and it was on their spell list, and they knew it, I'd probably tell them, maybe.