Counterspelling a counterspell

[Lanced Crescent]

so, my bazillonth thread on counterspell.

I see a lot of references to counterspelling a counterspell, but is this even possible? A counterspell is a reaction to you as you're already casting a spell, so unless you can cast another spell *while* you are in the middle of casting the first one, this shouldn't be possible. A counterspell from a third party obviously doesn't suffer from this theoretical restriction.

Anyway, thoughts?

[MrStabby]

I believe it is even given in the PHB as an example of using your reaction on your own turn.

[ThirdProgenitor]

I'm thinking it depends on how long the spell takes to cast and whether or not the spell requires concentration. If it requires concentration, the answer I think is no.
Same thing if the same is a full round action.
If it's a standard action spell then I'd leave it up to dm discression.
I get kind of a yugioh spell speed rules vibe when thinking about it

[Corran]

Agree with what the op suggests. Using your reaction on your turn is possibly a thing, but casting counterspell while you are in the middle of casting another spell cannot be possible without having to stop the initial casting. My question is (if what I think is correct ofc, I may be wrong), would it be possible to counterspell a counterspell without stopping the initial casting, if you used subtle spell for the counterspell?

[HarrisonF]

Sage advice ruled that you can indeed counterspell a counterspell on your spell:

http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/SA_Compendium_1.0.pdf

Can you also cast a reaction spell on your turn?

You sure can! Here’s a common way for it to happen: Cornelius
the wizard is casting fireball on his turn, and his foe casts
counterspell on him. Cornelius has counterspell prepared,
so he uses his reaction to cast it and break his foe’s counterspell
before it can stop fireball.

[Bobbybobby99]

I just think of it as a magical battle of wills, perhaps with the orb of light representing the spell moving back and forth a bit, if that helps.

[Corran]

Hmmmm, looking again at the counterspell section, it requires only somatic components, so I would say that as long as you have 2 free hands (or warcaster for that matter), then it would be possible to counterspell without disrupting the spell you are casting with your action.

I see the sage advice, but I am not sure it sits well with me. By the way, is that considered RAW?

[Safety Sword]

Hmmmm, looking again at the counterspell section, it requires only somatic components, so I would say that as long as you have 2 free hands (or warcaster for that matter), then it would be possible to counterspell without disrupting the spell you are casting with your action.

I see the sage advice, but I am not sure it sits well with me. By the way, is that considered RAW?

It's RAW. If you have a reaction available you can use it to react to anything, even another reaction.

My second point is: If you haven't completed the first spell then you're not required to concentrate on it yet and you haven't used the spell slot, so weaving another spell into the middle seems OK to me because you haven't taken an action yet.

[HarrisonF]

I see the sage advice, but I am not sure it sits well with me. By the way, is that considered RAW?I consider it both RAW and RAI. For RAW, there is nothing anywhere that says you can't do other things while casting a 1 action spell. People think of counterspell as Magic: The Gathering, but there is no stack or anything.

[Dimolyth]

That is RAW, RAI, Sage Advice example AND logic.

We do have step-by-step combat - but each round each creature has move, action, bonus action & reaction. Reaction can be used on others creature`s turn, but it is still in that 6 seconds while you are taking everything else. Re-action is a way to react on others` actions regardless which turn they are made during the same round.
In summary - the round is counting as time, not the turn. During that time, you can react once. In real time prospective - technically, reaction will always the interrupt your own action.

Then again, you can concentrate on a spell and cast another one. Counterspell doesn`t require concentration, so you can use it while casting, concentrating, dancing etc... You cannot cast Counterspell only if
a) you don`t know/have prepeared it or you don`t have available slots
b) you cannot take reaction (incapacitated, surprised, sleeping)
c) you can`t cast spells (some polymorphs, wild shape, rage)
You can totaly cast counterspell while casting fireball or performing detect magic ritual. A mage caught at mellee with mage-slayer can also cast shield against attack of opportunity against him.

[Lanced Crescent]

Thanks for the replies guys.

I'm aware of the rules and rulings for reactions, and I wouldn't have brought it up if it was just a matter of fluff, but it seems to be a rules issue: specifically the rule that a spell requires the right components to be provided.

Counterspell requires a somatic component. Can you provide this component at the same time as another spell which requires a somatic component as well? If not, then the rule saying you can't do something should trump the rule saying you can.

I personally like the suggestion that a caster with two free hands can use the second hand for the counterspell, as long as you assume somatic components require only one hand. I think that assumption is at least implied in the PHB. The Warcaster feat could also sensibly facilitate this, I suppose.

Edit: Subtle Spell also works, I think.

[Corran]

The counterspell occurs in the middle of casting a spell. So at the time you are being counterspell'd you have started but not finished casting your spell. Hence for the whole duration of that round you will have to be able to comply with the verbal and somatic components of the spell you are casting, that means they will have to not be interupted. Now say we use counterspell against the counterspell that targets us. We are casting counterspell as a reaction at the same time that we are casting our main action spell (the one that the enemy attempts to counterspell). Since the counterspell has no verbal components, there is no issue regarding the verbal components of our main action spell. Since the counterspell requires somatic components thhough, we will have to be able to accomodate somatic components for two spells during this round, meaning the somatic components of our main action spell (assuming this spells requires somatic components), and the components of the counterspell. It is specified that in order for the character to be able to perform the somatic components of a spell, he must have at least one free hand. Now comes in the logic about exactly when do we counterspell. And I repeat, we counterspell exactly between starting to cast our main action spell and finihing casting it. So we must perform the somatic components of the counterspell at the same time as performing the somatic components of our main action spell. And for that to happen, without interupting at all the somatic components (and hence the casting) of our main action spell, the character must have 2 free hands, so that he will be able to perfrom a somatic component per hand (that is unless warcaster or subtle spell comes into play). Opinions?

ps: Btw, does casting a spell using the metamagic subtle spell render it immune to counterspelling?

[Mellack]

The counterspell occurs in the middle of casting a spell. So at the time you are being counterspell'd you have started but not finished casting your spell. Hence for the whole duration of that round you will have to be able to comply with the verbal and somatic components of the spell you are casting, that means they will have to not be interupted.

I cut you off there because I do not agree with this. First, turns are not discrete time units during the round where only you are acting. We run them that way for ease of gameplay, but everyone is acting during the same six seconds. So consider this. A caster might get stabbed, electrically shocked, and knocked down during a round, and none of those stops him from casting that fireball. They don't even require a check. So where are you coming up with the idea that they can't be interrupted? It is just as valid to say they can stop casting, take a hit, and then continue. Or throw out a fast counterspell, and then return to casting. I think people are keeping a mental holdover from old editions where you could disrupt casting. 5e is different and that is not the same anymore.

[Corran]

I cut you off there because I do not agree with this. First, turns are not discrete time units during the round where only you are acting. We run them that way for ease of gameplay, but everyone is acting during the same six seconds. So consider this. A caster might get stabbed, electrically shocked, and knocked down during a round, and none of those stops him from casting that fireball. They don't even require a check. So where are you coming up with the idea that they can't be interrupted? It is just as valid to say they can stop casting, take a hit, and then continue. Or throw out a fast counterspell, and then return to casting. I think people are keeping a mental holdover from old editions where you could disrupt casting. 5e is different and that is not the same anymore.
Turns are not discrete time units, but they are treated as such as you correctly say, and the rules are based on turns being discrete in order to make sense. To put it simply, during those six seconds of your turn, let x<6 seconds be the time you need to cast a spell that takes one action to cast and has somatic components. For the whole duration of those x seconds you need to uninteruptably use a free hand for the somatic components of the spell you cast with your action. Now assume that you are being counterspell'd by an enemy. This counterspell occurs somewhere inside those x seconds. You use your reaction to counterspell the counterspell. Your casting of counterspell hence occurs somewhere inside the same x seconds. The counterspell requires somatic components. Hence, you see, there is a time interval y, with y<x<6 seconds, for which y seconds you need to comply with the somatic components of 2 spells at the same time. Since you need 1 free hand for satisfying the somatic components of a spell with somatic components, it follows logically that you need 2 free hands to pull off casting a counterspell on your turn without interapting the somatic components of the spell you cast with your action.

Unless I made a silly mistake, this is how the rules apply. Everything else regarding how realisticly the rules of the game capture reality itself, is another discussion entirely.

[Mellack]

Again, you are adding in the requirement of "uninterrupted" in there where it is not listed. There is nothing to say you have to cast a spell uninterrupted. There in nothing in the rules that say I cannot use my free object interaction to pull a dagger and then drop it in the middle of a casting. Since I can do so anytime in my turn, why not stop and do it in the middle of casting? Again, I see nothing in the rules that say you cannot break up spellcasting during your turn as long as you keep concentration. Since the rules and Devs both say reaction spells are allowed, it would seem that this is expected.

[Alerad]

The game mechanics should not have impact on real life logic, they're just mechanics. Characters don't freeze mid-air when it's not their turn, it's just a convenient approximation to think about it this way. Since the mechanics permit counter a counterspell you can think of how to *describe* this outside the mechanics.

Several examples:
- Spells do not necessarily have to be uninterrupted. That's just the mechanic. But you can say the wizard momentarily "hangs" the spell in the air, counters the enemies' attempt, and resumes casting. Even when countering not on his turn, it takes a few seconds to actually cast a spell, I find this a valid explanation for all kind of counterspells.
- In The Wheel of Time channelers were able to split their power into several strings. You just redirect part of the magic flow to block your opponent.
- In The Name of the Wind characters knew a technique for splitting their mind into several pieces and tasking each piece with a specific spell.
- You could say the counterspell I a battle of wills and happens over few seconds time.

*Mechanically* you can make somatic components with the hand used for materials, so even though it's the same hand and the same spell those two actions probably occur in succession. So your free hand is probably not frozen in one gesture for the entire casting of your main spell.

As per subtle spell, *mechanically* you can react to an opponent you can see casting, so I guess you can't counter it.

Edit: Sorry for the many typos, my original post was from my phone.

[Capac Amaru]

RAW imply that:

You cast Fireball as an action.

They cast Counterspell with their reaction.

The previous instance of Fireball is voided.

You cast Counterspell with your reaction.

Their previous instance of Counterspell is voided.

Your Counterspell succeeds, expending your reaction and appropriate spell slot.

They cast Counterspell with their reaction, which fails, but consumes their reaction and appropriate spell slot.

You continue your turn, casting Fireball as an action.



"If the reaction interrupts another creatures turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction."

How Counterspell can be countered by Counterspell or provoke an attack from a Mage Slayer when it takes 'a fraction of a second' to cast a reaction is beyond me though. But then the whole reaction business is confounded by actions being treated as discrete units, even though they may have multiple unigue 'parts' and wildly varying time scales (fractions of a second to hours) and many of the reaction abilities haven't been tested in all reasonable use cases.

[Lanced Crescent]

A caster might get stabbed, electrically shocked, and knocked down during a round, and none of those stops him from casting that fireball...

That just means none of those things by RAW actually interrupts the casting, not that spells can be interrupted and continue to be cast.

What you seem to be saying: caster casts fireball, is interrupted by sword, continues casting.

How I interpret what you're saying: caster casts fireball, rules don't say he is interrupted by sword swing.

So those examples at least don't set any precedent for spells being left hanging in the air, so to speak. The rules just let you continue casting through most interruptions. A DM might very well rule being bowed over or falling through a collapsing floor interrupts the spell if such things interrupt the somatic component.

The key issue as I see it is the somatic component. So long as there is a way to supply it, I see no issue counterspelling a counterspell. People have suggested ways where it might be possible. I just feel counterspelling suffers from a lack of harmony within the rules themselves. If this doesn't bother you, then fair enough :)

[Mellack]

There is a precedent for spells being left hanging in the air; readied action spells. We already have rules that say you can take any spell, start to cast it on your turn, and then hold the spell paused waiting for something to happen before you finish and release it. Why is it so different to think a caster could also pause a spell for the moment it takes to throw out a counterspell. We already know that casters can hold concentration on one spell while casting another.

[JoeJ]

There's also nothing that tells us exactly what the somatic components consist of. Maybe casting Counterspell while in the middle of casting another spell simply requires a modification of the original spell's somatic component. Instead of finishing off your Fireball by pointing one finger, you point with two to get Fireball and Counterspell together.

[Dimolyth]

There is a precedent for spells being left hanging in the air; readied action spells. We already have rules that say you can take any spell, start to cast it on your turn, and then hold the spell paused waiting for something to happen before you finish and release it. Why is it so different to think a caster could also pause a spell for the moment it takes to throw out a counterspell. We already know that casters can hold concentration on one spell while casting another.

This.
That means you can hold your uncast spell to ready action or take your reaction before finishing the spell without spoiling it.

You can interrupt yourself for performing counterspell vs enemy mage`s counterspell.

You can interrupt yourself for performing shield vs attack of opportunity from enemy mage slayer (or readied action from enemy swordsman).

You can interrupt yourself for ready an action to finish your spell by certain condition you want.

Then, that`s up to your DM to consider how many hands free you ought to have. As for me, that is surely "ask your DM question".

[Corran]

There is a precedent for spells being left hanging in the air; readied action spells. We already have rules that say you can take any spell, start to cast it on your turn, and then hold the spell paused waiting for something to happen before you finish and release it.
I think that casting a spell as a readied action does not involve any casting in your actual turn, but instead you get to cast the spell as a reaction, meaning that the whole casting of the readied spell takes place during your readied reaction. Can you provide a refference to the rules for what you claim? (I am not trying to antagonize you, I just want to figure out how RAW work in this case.)

[Mellack]

Here is what the PHB says when you ready a spell. "When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but hold its energy, which you release with your reaction when the trigger occurs." You are casting it on your turn, you are just holding it without letting it take effect until you want it to.

(Note: I never mind being asked for references. No antagonism felt here, but thanks for asking so politely. :smallsmile: )

[Corran]

Here is what the PHB says when you ready a spell. "When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but hold its energy, which you release with your reaction when the trigger occurs." You are casting it on your turn, you are just holding it without letting it take effect until you want it to.

(Note: I never mind being asked for references. No antagonism felt here, but thanks for asking so politely. :smallsmile: )
Hmmm, I read that section a couple of times and this is how I think it is meant to work by RAW. I present an example hoping that trying to visualise the situation will be of help.

My mage wants to ready a fireball to throw at the enemy mage if the specified condition X is triggered. So my mage uses his action to ready a fireball. Reading how readying a spell works, I think that my mage will cast fireball on his turn as an action (so using the somatic and verbal components of the spell during his action), with the difference that the fireball is not thrown to the enemy, but rather lingering in his grasp (while my mage uses his concentration to hold onto it). And then when/if the specified condition is triggered, my mage uses his reaction to throw the already casted fireball to his enemy. That means that as I previously said, all the somatic and verbal components of the fireball take place during my mage's turn and not at all during his reaction, so you cannot split them or disrupt them, at least according to the rules under readying a spell (as the text in the phb says that you cast the spell normally during your action, so that means that the reaction to unleash the readied spell does not require any additional casting - hence verbal or somatic components). That in turn means that the enemy mage can only use counterspell on my fireball only while I cast it during my turn, to hold onto it, and he cannot counterspell it when I throw the fireball as a ready action after I have successfully managed to cast it during my turn. If there were any kind of casting (and hence components) involved during my reaction, the enemies could get 2 chances at counterspelling a spell I would choose to ready, which feels a bit wrong. But again, I think the important detail to look at, is that phb says that readying a spell means you cast it normally during your turn, so bottom line, that is why I believe that there is no casting going on with your reaction to unleash it, hence there are no verbal somatic components involved in that reaction, hence readying a spell does not provide a case where you can interupt verbal and somatic components (assuming discrete time intervals) and still cast a spell.

[Mellack]

A readied spell does show that not all of the parts of a spell have to be completed at the same time, IMO. You have done most of the casting during your own action, but the spell has not been released. You are somehow containing it. That is a new pause that can be added to any spell. I am just expanding on that pause to say I can easily picture putting in such a momentary pause into any point of the casting.

The rules are clear, you can perform a reaction during the casting of a spell. What I believe was being asked was a way this could be considered possible. Since there is no rule stating that spells have to be performed uninterrupted, why do people insist they must be? I have tried to show an example of how wizards can hold a spell, even one that is normally instant effect or non-concentration. We know that they can cast one spell while holding concentration on another. Why is it outside the realm of possibility that they could momentarily hold the casting of one to throw a counterspell? I ask, why do you assume it is not possible to pause casting? Can you point out a rule saying this?

[JoeJ]

My mage wants to ready a fireball to throw at the enemy mage if the specified condition X is triggered. So my mage uses his action to ready a fireball. Reading how readying a spell works, I think that my mage will cast fireball on his turn as an action (so using the somatic and verbal components of the spell during his action), with the difference that the fireball is not thrown to the enemy, but rather lingering in his grasp (while my mage uses his concentration to hold onto it). And then when/if the specified condition is triggered, my mage uses his reaction to throw the already casted fireball to his enemy. That means that as I previously said, all the somatic and verbal components of the fireball take place during my mage's turn and not at all during his reaction, so you cannot split them or disrupt them, at least according to the rules under readying a spell (as the text in the phb says that you cast the spell normally during your action, so that means that the reaction to unleash the readied spell does not require any additional casting - hence verbal or somatic components). That in turn means that the enemy mage can only use counterspell on my fireball only while I cast it during my turn, to hold onto it, and he cannot counterspell it when I throw the fireball as a ready action after I have successfully managed to cast it during my turn. If there were any kind of casting (and hence components) involved during my reaction, the enemies could get 2 chances at counterspelling a spell I would choose to ready, which feels a bit wrong. But again, I think the important detail to look at, is that phb says that readying a spell means you cast it normally during your turn, so bottom line, that is why I believe that there is no casting going on with your reaction to unleash it, hence there are no verbal somatic components involved in that reaction, hence readying a spell does not provide a case where you can interupt verbal and somatic components (assuming discrete time intervals) and still cast a spell.

Combat doesn't actually occur in discrete six-second intervals with each character taking their actions in turn. That's just an abstraction that makes it possible to play out a whole bunch of things that are going on all at once.

In game terms, using a reaction to cast Counterspell is modeled as a brief interruption in casting the original spell. But you can just as easily think of it as modifying the casting of the original spell so that both it and Counterspell go off at the same time with Counterspell clearing a path, as it were, for the main spell.

As for the enemy having two opportunities to Counterspell when you're taking a ready action to cast, I don't see a problem with that. They still only get one reaction, regardless of when they take it.

[Lanced Crescent]

There is a precedent for spells being left hanging in the air; readied action spells. We already have rules that say you can take any spell, start to cast it on your turn, and then hold the spell paused waiting for something to happen before you finish and release it. Why is it so different to think a caster could also pause a spell for the moment it takes to throw out a counterspell. We already know that casters can hold concentration on one spell while casting another.

Ooh, interesting, I hadn't considered that.

I always thought that particular rule meant you finished supplying the components, you just held off on actually releasing it.

The key part is "you cast it as normal". To me, that means you've already cast the spell. You don't interrupt yourself.

To illustrate, it's like recording yourself singing a song but holding off on pushing the playback button. Interrupting a spell is like someone playing a tuba in the background, and the magic is ruined.

As for concentration, that's not interrupting the *casting* of a spell, just maintaining an already cast spell while casting another.

[Gwendol]

A readied spell does show that not all of the parts of a spell have to be completed at the same time, IMO. You have done most of the casting during your own action, but the spell has not been released. You are somehow containing it. That is a new pause that can be added to any spell. I am just expanding on that pause to say I can easily picture putting in such a momentary pause into any point of the casting.

The rules are clear, you can perform a reaction during the casting of a spell. What I believe was being asked was a way this could be considered possible. Since there is no rule stating that spells have to be performed uninterrupted, why do people insist they must be? I have tried to show an example of how wizards can hold a spell, even one that is normally instant effect or non-concentration. We know that they can cast one spell while holding concentration on another. Why is it outside the realm of possibility that they could momentarily hold the casting of one to throw a counterspell? I ask, why do you assume it is not possible to pause casting? Can you point out a rule saying this?

A readied spell is being contained through the concentration of the wizard casting it.

To be readied, a spell must have a casting time of 1 action, and holding onto the spell’s magic requires concentration (explained in chapter 10). If your concentration is broken, the spell dissipates without taking effect.

However, only a spell that requires concentration breaks concentration on another spell (be it held or otherwise). Therefore, there is nothing in the rules preventing using a reaction while casting a spell, including casting a spell as a reaction.

[Corran]

The rules are clear, you can perform a reaction during the casting of a spell. What I believe was being asked was a way this could be considered possible. Since there is no rule stating that spells have to be performed uninterrupted, why do people insist they must be? I have tried to show an example of how wizards can hold a spell, even one that is normally instant effect or non-concentration. We know that they can cast one spell while holding concentration on another. Why is it outside the realm of possibility that they could momentarily hold the casting of one to throw a counterspell? I ask, why do you assume it is not possible to pause casting? Can you point out a rule saying this?
It's the exact way around. You need to find a rule or a case where interupting the components of a spell is not affecting your casting. And the rules about readying a spell do not indicate any such thing.


A readied spell does show that not all of the parts of a spell have to be completed at the same time, IMO. You have done most of the casting during your own action, but the spell has not been released. You are somehow containing it. That is a new pause that can be added to any spell. I am just expanding on that pause to say I can easily picture putting in such a momentary pause into any point of the casting.
A readie spell does indeed show that all parts of a spell are completed during the mage's normal turn, save the part of the spell attack roll or the enemy's saving throw. All other parts are completed during the same turn, so no interupting components is indicated in the case of readying a spell, as the components occur only during the mage's normal turn, and as the components are a completely different thing than the spell attack roll for, say, a scorching ray, or the enemys' saves against say a fireball.


ps: Moving your hand saying abracadabra (somatic and verbal components) causes the fireball to take form in your hand and occurs during the normal turn of the mage. Hurling the fireball at the enemy (with your reaction in the case of a readied fireball) does not involve any kind of somatic somponent, as the spell has already been cast in your normal rounds per RAW, and hurling the spell is essentially integrated in the enemy's saving throw against the fireball (or in the attack roll if the readied spell was a spell that involved an attack roll). Bottom line, components occur during the normal turn, so readying a spell does not indicate that interupting components and still cast a spell is a thing.

[Gwendol]

It's the exact way around. You need to find a rule or a case where interupting the components of a spell is not affecting your casting. And the rules about readying a spell do not indicate any such thing.


That's not really true. The rules for providing the components of a spell says:
A spell’s components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it. Each spell’s description indicates whether it requires verbal (V), somatic (S), or material (M) components. If you can’t provide one or more of a spell’s components, you are unable to cast the spell.

Only if you are unable to provide the component, such as not having a free hand for the somatic component, are you unable to cast the spell. In 5e there are pratically speaking no ways of interrupting spellcasting for those spells having a casting time of an action or less. Even with counterspell it is debatable if the casting is truly interrupted since the spell description describes the outcome as the spell failing and having no effect.

Unless the hands are tied there appears to be no hindrance to casting counterspell, even if another spell is being cast.

[Corran]

That's not really true. The rules for providing the components of a spell says:
...........

Only if you are unable to provide the component, such as not having a free hand for the somatic component, are you unable to cast the spell. In 5e there are pratically speaking no ways of interrupting spellcasting for those spells having a casting time of an action or less. Even with counterspell it is debatable if the casting is truly interrupted since the spell description describes the outcome as the spell failing and having no effect.

Unless the hands are tied there appears to be no hindrance to casting counterspell, even if another spell is being cast.
Can you use the same hand to fullfill the somatic components of two spells cast at the same time? Rules say that in order to meet the somatic components of one spell you need at least one free hand. Logic says that using a hand to perform X movement (which is somatic component for spell 1) and using the same hand to perform Y movement (which is somatic component for spell 2), at the same time, is not possible.

Can you cast a spell as reaction during a turn you cast another spell? Yes. Clearly.
Does it mess up with the somatic and verbal components, thus probably causing the normal action spell to fail? To answer that you must answer the following question.

Can I (briefly?) interupt the verbal and somatic components of a spell being cast, then pick up again from the point where I stopped, and still cast a spell?
Rules doesn't explicitely say yes or nor, but imo they dont need to. And there is no case or precedent indicating that something like that could be the case, in fact the rules of readying a spell admit to the opposite direction, that you cannot interupt the components, that is why it is explicitely said that when readying a spell casting occurs normally during the same turn.

Suppose you can assume that it is legal to interupt briefly (for a second or two) the somatic components of a spell, so that you can cast counterspell with your reaction during that turn (assuming one free hand in this case, hence the need to interupt briefly the soatic components of the first spelll, so that we can satisfy the somatic components of counterspell). As I said, there are no rules covering that part (only rules that imply it is not possible - ready an action), but assume you can do it. Assume that you can interupt components briefly during one's turn and after the split of a second or two, you cotinue from where you left of and cast the spell normally. What is to stop you from assuming that this pause cannot be as long as you want it to be? Minutes, days, months? There are no rules covering that part, so making an assumption that one can willingly interupt his casting of a spell and then be able to continue it from where from where he had stopped, is open to all kind of cheese.

[Mad_Saulot]

In a 1 v 1 fight if the villain cast fireball then the hero cast counterspell, the villain couldnt then use his reaction to cast his own counterspell because you can only cast one spell per turn.

But if the villain had an ally then that ally could cast counterspell at the hero's counterspell, no problem.

[Corran]

In a 1 v 1 fight if the villain cast fireball then the hero cast counterspell, the villain couldnt then use his reaction to cast his own counterspell because you can only cast one spell per turn.

But if the villain had an ally then that ally could cast counterspell at the hero's counterspell, no problem.
trololololo

[Gwendol]

Can you use the same hand to fullfill the somatic components of two spells cast at the same time? Rules say that in order to meet the somatic components of one spell you need at least one free hand. Logic says that using a hand to perform X movement (which is somatic component for spell 1) and using the same hand to perform Y movement (which is somatic component for spell 2), at the same time, is not possible.

Suppose you can assume that it is legal to interupt briefly (for a second or two) the somatic components of a spell, so that you can cast counterspell with your reaction during that turn (assuming one free hand in this case, hence the need to interupt briefly the soatic components of the first spelll, so that we can satisfy the somatic components of counterspell). As I said, there are no rules covering that part (only rules that imply it is not possible - ready an action), but assume you can do it. Assume that you can interupt components briefly during one's turn and after the split of a second or two, you cotinue from where you left of and cast the spell normally. What is to stop you from assuming that this pause cannot be as long as you want it to be? Minutes, days, months? There are no rules covering that part, so making an assumption that one can interupt his components and catch up from where he finished, is open to all kind of cheese.

What you think logic says in this case is irrelevant since we have actual rules, and those rules clearly state that if you have free use of at least one hand you can provide the somatic component of the spell. Remember that casting cannot be interrupted in this edition (only counterspelled). The rules do not say anything else about the somatic component, thus there is nothing contridicting casting counterspell as a reaction to a counterspell while still casting the original spell.

Your second paragraph is a rambling account that has nothing to do with the rules as written. What is "interrupting components"? You put forth a number of restrictions and rules alterations that have no basis in the rules.

[Mad_Saulot]

trololololo

You can cast 1 spell and 1 cantrip per turn, you can never cast 2 spells per turn.

[Corran]

What you think logic says in this case is irrelevant since we have actual rules, and those rules clearly state that if you have free use of at least one hand you can provide the somatic component of the spell. Remember that casting cannot be interrupted in this edition (only counterspelled). The rules do not say anything else about the somatic component, thus there is nothing contridicting casting counterspell as a reaction to a counterspell while still casting the original spell. Do the rules specifically say anything about if it is possible to use only one free hand to meet the somatic components of 2 spells at the same time? No! Do they strongly imply and is very logical to deduce that you cannot do such a thing? Yes!

The only way to use only one free hand to meet the somatic components of two spells, is for you to not cast them at the same time. Counterspelling while casting a spell, and using the same one hand for the somatic components of both those spells, is a go-go only if you can stop casting the spell for a moment so that you can counterspell, and then continue with the casting of the first spell. Do the rules explicitely say if that is possible? No! You know why? Because it is obvious that it is NOT possible. Consider all the cheese that would be possible with such a houserule.

Your second paragraph is a rambling account that has nothing to do with the rules as written. What is "interrupting components"? You put forth a number of restrictions and rules alterations that have no basis in the rules. Presentation was never my strong suit so I wont hold it against you if you cant understand what I was babbling about, as it is almost certainly my fault for not presenting clearly my thoughts. But if I couldn't get you to understand what I was saying the first time, I am not sure a cecond attempt will be of much help.

Edit: Actually, reading again what I wrote it didnt make sense. I meant: '' willingly interupt his casting (and hence interupt the fullfillment of his spell's components) and catch up after the interuption from where he had stopped. Thanks for that, I will make the correction in my previous post.

[Corran]

You can cast 1 spell and 1 cantrip per turn, you can never cast 2 spells per turn.
Not true.

If you cast a spell as a bonus action, then you are limited in casting cantrips during the same turn (possibly including spells that are cast as a reaction, though I am not sure if that is the case).
Anyway, nothing forbids casting more than one spell during the same turn, either if that is accomplished by action surge, or simply by using a reaction to cast a spell in your own turn.

[Gwendol]

Do the rules specifically say anything about if it is possible to use only one free hand to meet the somatic components of 2 spells at the same time? No! Do they strongly imply and is very logical to deduce that you cannot do such a thing? Yes!

The only way to use only one free hand to meet the somatic components of two spells, is for you to not cast them at the same time. Counterspelling while casting a spell, and using the same one hand for the somatic components of both those spells, is a go-go only if you can stop casting the spell for a moment so that you can counterspell, and then continue with the casting of the first spell. Do the rules explicitely say if that is possible? No! You know why? Because it is obvious that it is NOT possible. Consider all the cheese that would be possible with such a houserule.
Presentation was never my strong suit so I wont hold it against you if you cant understand what I was babbling about, as it is almost certainly my fault for not presenting clearly my thoughts. But if I couldn't get you to understand what I was saying the first time, I am not sure a cecond attempt will be of much help.

The bolded part is your opinion. You need to find support for this, and repeating it with more words in the next paragraph is not enough. An example or rules quote will do fine.

[Corran]

The bolded part is your opinion. You need to find support for this, and repeating it with more words in the next paragraph is not enough. An example or rules quote will do fine.
It is a very logical thing to assume, but if you want this most logical conclusion to derrive from a specific wording, I will try my best to oblige.

If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures. (dont know how to put a spoiler tag)

That means that using your hand to perform these gestures (ie the somatic components of a spell), engages said hand in doing so, and thus you have no free use of that hand during that casting, to perhaps use it for the somatic components of a second spell that you want to cast at the same time you are already casting a spell.

[Tanarii]

Reactions don't interrupt the action. They are reactions to the action. They interrupt the result, not the action.

Normal cast:
Cast spell (action)
Resolve spell (result)

Counter spell:
Cast spell (action)
Cast counterspell (reaction)
Resolve counterspell (reaction result)
Resolve spell (result failed)

Counter counter spell:
Cast spell (action)
Cast counter spell (reaction)
Cast counter counter spell (reaction to reaction)
Resolve counter counter spell (resction to reaction result)
Resolve counter spell (reaction result fails)
Resolve spell (result)

The original spell caster is only casting one spell at a time.

[Mellack]

If it is impossible to pause our spellcasting, do you not find it odd that there are no rules about what happens if a spell is interrupted? There is no way in 5e to stop a spell being cast other than using counterspell to magically disrupt it. It is easy by the rules to ready an attack for when someone starts casting. Why do you suppose that there is no rules for what happens if you get hit while casting? It would seem to suggest to me that there is no effect for having a caster get stabbed or blasted right in the middle of their casting. There is not even a concentration check at that point to see if it caused you to make a mistake. Are all wizards somehow superhuman enough to cast without pause no matter what, or does it make more sense to think that maybe a brief interruption doesn't end casting?

[MarkTriumphant]

The only way to use only one free hand to meet the somatic components of two spells, is for you to not cast them at the same time. Counterspelling while casting a spell, and using the same one hand for the somatic components of both those spells, is a go-go only if you can stop casting the spell for a moment so that you can counterspell, and then continue with the casting of the first spell.

This all assumes that Counterspell has to be cast while your original spell is being cast. I see it as two separate times - first you cast your spell, then your opponent casts Counterspell (trying to stop the spell leaving your control), then you cast your own Counterspell to push your spell forward. No overlap at all.

And it fits with RAW and RAI.

[Corran]

Reactions don't interrupt the action. They are reactions to the action. They interrupt the result, not the action.

Normal cast:
Cast spell (action)
Resolve spell (result)

Counter spell:
Cast spell (action)
Cast counterspell (reaction)
Resolve counterspell (reaction result)
Resolve spell (result failed)

Counter counter spell:
Cast spell (action)
Cast counter spell (reaction)
Cast counter counter spell (reaction to reaction)
Resolve counter counter spell (resction to reaction result)
Resolve counter spell (reaction result fails)
Resolve spell (result)

The original spell caster is only casting one spell at a time.
Generally true, not true for the specific case of the counterspell. According to the counterspell description, you use your reaction to interrupt a creature who is in the process of casting a spell. Hence this specific rule trumps the general rule, so counterspell is not a reaction to the action of casting a spell, but rather a reaction that interrupts the action of casting a spell.

[Tanarii]

Generally true, not true for the specific case of the counterspell. According to the counterspell description, you use your reaction to interrupt a creature who is in the process of casting a spell. Hence this specific rule trumps the general rule, so counterspell is not a reaction to the action of casting a spell, but rather a reaction that interrupts the action of casting a spell.
Right you are. So the only real question is if you can use the same free hand for the initial spells S component and counter spells S component.

IMO that's not going to have a clear ruling one way or the other. I say tweet JC and see what he thinks.

[Mellack]

I think Tanarii is right. We have all been focusing on the text of counterspeel which says it is cast when you see somebody casting a spell. But reactions happen after the trigger. They can invalidate their own trigger when specified such as shield. If they are after the trigger, then you are never actually interrupting.

[Tanarii]

The text specifically says you interrupt in the process of being cast. I hadn't seen that. IMO that's clear enough in the case of counterspell.

[Corran]

If it is impossible to pause our spellcasting, do you not find it odd that there are no rules about what happens if a spell is interrupted? There is no way in 5e to stop a spell being cast other than using counterspell to magically disrupt it. I completelly agree.


Why do you suppose that there is no rules for what happens if you get hit while casting? It would seem to suggest to me that there is no effect for having a caster get stabbed or blasted right in the middle of their casting. There is not even a concentration check at that point to see if it caused you to make a mistake. There are rules about that, but they only concern concentration checks I ll admit.


Are all wizards somehow superhuman enough to cast without pause no matter what, or does it make more sense to think that maybe a brief interruption doesn't end casting? If we examine it realistically perhaps the 3e approach was the best.
For simplified play, and taking into account that turns are treated as discrete time units it makes sense to understand why the rules are structured the way they are. I agree that thinking that the wizard can cast spells that dont require oncentraion with small interruptions during the flow of combat makes more sense from a realistic perspective. But it makes no sense from a perspective of the mechanics and can be exploited too easily and to a great extent. But we dont examine realism here, we examine what the RAW suggests.

[Corran]

This all assumes that Counterspell has to be cast while your original spell is being cast. I see it as two separate times - first you cast your spell, then your opponent casts Counterspell (trying to stop the spell leaving your control), then you cast your own Counterspell to push your spell forward. No overlap at all.

And it fits with RAW and RAI.
It goes against the description of how counterspell works.

[Corran]

Right you are. So the only real question is if you can use the same free hand for the initial spells S component and counter spells S component.

IMO that's not going to have a clear ruling one way or the other. I say tweet JC and see what he thinks.

I think there is a clear ruling. Somatic components engage a free hand into performing the rquired gestures. A hand performing gestures necessary to cast a spell is not considered to be a hand of which you have a free use, while you are casting thee spell.

[Corran]

I think Tanarii is right. We have all been focusing on the text of counterspeel which says it is cast when you see somebody casting a spell. But reactions happen after the trigger. They can invalidate their own trigger when specified such as shield. If they are after the trigger, then you are never actually interrupting.
Text says that you interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell, so that clearly means that a counterspell interrupts the action of an enemy casting a spell. It doesnt go along with the general rules about reactions and how they interact with actions, but it is a specific rule, and specific rules dominate over general rules.

[Mellack]

I completelly agree.

But it makes no sense from a perspective of the mechanics and can be exploited too easily and to a great extent. But we dont examine realism here, we examine what the RAW suggests.

Can you explain what exploits you can see with this? As far as I can see it is nothing that is not already covered in readying a spell.

[Tanarii]

Text says that you interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell, so that clearly means that a counterspell interrupts the action of an enemy casting a spell. It doesnt go along with the general rules about reactions and how they interact with actions, but it is a specific rule, and specific rules dominate over general rules.

Nothing says a free hand being used for a component is not a free hand that can be used for a component. In fact, if you start ruling that way, you run into a weird retroactive 'hand isn't free' situation when you pick up an arcane focus to use in place of a material component. Depending on how you interpret the material component section.

I agree it seems like a common sense interpretation, but it's based on a huge assumption on your part. That's why I suggested the tweet.

[Corran]

Can you explain what exploits you can see with this? As far as I can see it is nothing that is not already covered in readying a spell.
Assuming you can willingly interrupt the casting of your spell and be able to continue casting it from the point you left off, allows great cheese with spells with casting time of minutes or even hours. I know you meant brief interruptions, but since there is no general rule covering that I dont see why this should be the case (other than common logic, but again we dont examine common logic and realism here, we examine the rules first and foremost). Granted, it would be a good houserule, but a houserule none the less.

[Corran]

Nothing says a free hand being used for a component is not a free hand that can be used for a component. In fact, if you start ruling that way, you run into a weird retroactive 'hand isn't free' situation when you pick up an arcane focus to use in place of a material component. Depending on how you interpret the material component section.

I agree it seems like a common sense interpretation, but it's based on a huge assumption on your part. That's why I suggested the tweet.
Using a hand to provide a material component or an arcane focus (reach for it in your pocket to pull it out), is explicitely stated that it maintains its property of being considered a free hand with which you can provide somatic components. However that is not the general case for using the same hand for components in general. Meaning you can use the same hand for a combination MATERIAL(or focus)+SOMATIC, because the rules specifically state that you can do that, but using the same hand to provide SOMATIC+SOMATIC components is not possible, as explained in the description of the somatic components.

Does that answer what you said, or am I going in a completelly different direction because I possibly missed your point?

[Tanarii]

Using a hand to provide a material component or an arcane focus (reach for it in your pocket to pull it out), is explicitely stated that it maintains its property of being considered a free hand with which you can provide somatic components.personally I agree, but last time I got into this with some folks on this forum, turns out that several interpreted the focus and component pouch not to be covered by the 'these components' in the 'same free hand' sentence. I.e. That it only applies to M components specifically, not the things that replace it in the previous paragraph.


Does that answer what you said, or am I going in a completelly different direction because I possibly missed your point?I agree with your interpretation. You're still making an assumption not explicit in the rules that a single free hand already being used for an S component can't be used for another S component. Especially if there's still nothing in it (ie no M component or focus). It's possible it's still a free hand, because it is empty.

[Mellack]

Assuming you can willingly interrupt the casting of your spell and be able to continue casting it from the point you left off, allows great cheese with spells with casting time of minutes or even hours. I know you meant brief interruptions, but since there is no general rule covering that I dont see why this should be the case (other than common logic, but again we dont examine common logic and realism here, we examine the rules first and foremost). Granted, it would be a good houserule, but a houserule none the less.

Here are the rules already written.

"When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so."

So given that it requires your action to be spent casting each turn as well as concentration, how do you see this being exploited? Seems a pretty high cost.

[Gwendol]

Text says that you interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell, so that clearly means that a counterspell interrupts the action of an enemy casting a spell. It doesnt go along with the general rules about reactions and how they interact with actions, but it is a specific rule, and specific rules dominate over general rules.

I believe text says you attempt to interrupt the spellcasting. It then goes on to say the spell fails and has no effect. The spell is cast, counterspell triggers on the casting but doesn't specify further the timing, only the effect. Thus, looking at the general rules for reaction timing counterspell goes after the triggering action (cast a spell), but before the effect is resolved.

[Corran]

I believe text says you attempt to interrupt the spellcasting. It then goes on to say the spell fails and has no effect. The spell is cast, counterspell triggers on the casting but doesn't specify further the timing, only the effect. Thus, looking at the general rules for reaction timing counterspell goes after the triggering action (cast a spell), but before the effect is resolved.
It does specify the timing. It says you attempt (due to the possibility of failing if a check is required) to interrupt a creature who is in the proccess of casting a spell. Thus counterspell interrupts the action of a spell being cast.

[Corran]

Here are the rules already written.

"When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so."

So given that it requires your action to be spent casting each turn as well as concentration, how do you see this being exploited? Seems a pretty high cost.
True. I started typing some mumbo jumbo, detailing possible ways to exploit it, but I got really tired and perhaps it is not even possible, unless perhaps if someone gives it some serious thought.

[Corran]

I agree with your interpretation. You're still making an assumption not explicit in the rules that a single free hand already being used for an S component can't be used for another S component. Especially if there's still nothing in it (ie no M component or focus). It's possible it's still a free hand, because it is empty.
Yes, but note that the rules for somatic components require for you to have free usage of a hand, not a free hand.
To have free usage of a hand means: 1) that the hand is empty (althought I can see arguments here, regarding the material components, as you said) and most importantly 2) that the hand is not engaged in any other form of activity (usning it to hold onto a rope, to climb, to point the middle finger -pardon-, or even to perform gestures for casting a spell, etc...).
Free usage of a hand means more than this hand being free, as it also means that you are not using it for anything else. And using it to perfrom somatic components means that the hand is engaged in an activity, hence it is not a hand you have free usage of.

Moreover, using the same hand for more than one component can only be true in the case of a material and somatic combination (and that as you said falls under some interpretation), but it is stated that it can be the case only for such a combination of components, leaving the rules for somatic components free to dictate (and it is clear, gestures negate the ''having free usage of the hand'') that no two somatic components can be performed by the same hand at the same time.

[Gwendol]

It does specify the timing. It says you attempt (due to the possibility of failing if a check is required) to interrupt a creature who is in the proccess of casting a spell. Thus counterspell interrupts the action of a spell being cast.

That's a specified trigger, not a point in time when neither the counterspell is cast, nor the resolution of the spell.
If the counterspell succeeds the enemy caster loses that spell (if it's a spell slot to lose). If the check fails, the spell effect is not disrupted. None of this actually specifies timing to the level of detail your reasoning assumes.

[Corran]

That's a specified trigger, not a point in time when neither the counterspell is cast, nor the resolution of the spell.
If the counterspell succeeds the enemy caster loses that spell (if it's a spell slot to lose). If the check fails, the spell effect is not disrupted. None of this actually specifies timing to the level of detail your reasoning assumes.
Ok, then I guess the key phrase is attempt to interrupt. How can you interrupt a spell being casted after it was successfully casted?

[JoeJ]

Ok, then I guess the key phrase is attempt to interrupt. How can you interrupt a spell being casted after it was successfully casted?

By intercepting or negating the effect of the spell before it can accomplish anything.

[Gwendol]

Ok, then I guess the key phrase is attempt to interrupt. How can you interrupt a spell being casted after it was successfully casted?

As JoeJ correctly points out: by disrupting the effect. Or causing the spell to fail as I think the description goes.

[HoarsHalberd]

The rules do not give any indication that interruption of the somatic components is enough to prevent the spell. Nor is it necessary in the order of spells cast, to interrupt the somatic components of the original spell. In order for someone to tactically use counterspell instead of just spam it until you no longer have requisite slots, you must wait until after the spell is cast, not during the casting time of the spell. Once the spell is cast, you then counterspell, not negating the spell itself, the action and slot are still used after all, but preventing the effect from happening, then whilst the now neutered spell is still in the air, counter spell can be used by the original caster or anyone else to undo the neutering effect of the original counter spell.

This explains why according to the rules as written, as intended, as explained in sage advice and as listed as an example of using a reaction on your own turn you can use counterspell to counter counterspell. If you wish to alter how counterspell works in your universe as a DM then you are welcome to, but there is no serious debate as to how counterspell works

[Corran]

Coming back here to present this: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/10/30/verbal-subtle-spell-vs-counterspell/

That implies that counterspell cannot occur after that spell is cast, but only while it is being cast. So, knowing that, going backwards all the way to the starting point of argument of this thread, we conclude that to counter a counterspell that targets a S-spell you are casting, you need to be able to cast the counterspell whithout interupting the casting of your original spell, hence you need 2 free hands, using one to perform the somatic components of your original spell, and the other one to perform the components of the counterspell.

[HoarsHalberd]

Coming back here to present this: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/10/30/verbal-subtle-spell-vs-counterspell/

That implies that counterspell cannot occur after that spell is cast, but only while it is being cast. So, knowing that, going backwards all the way to the starting point of argument of this thread, we conclude that to counter a counterspell that targets a S-spell you are casting, you need to be able to cast the counterspell whithout interupting the casting of your original spell, hence you need 2 free hands, using one to perform the somatic components of your original spell, and the other one to perform the components of the counterspell.

That's not what it says. The counterspell takes time to cast, so your opponent sees you casting a spell and starts to cast, you in turn see the opponent casting and can then cast counterspell. You are making assumptions and presenting them as fact to lead to a conclusion. There is no reason to assume you need two free hands to counterspell a counter spell. The trigger, I.e. when you start casting, is when you see an opponent casting. That need not be the time you finish casting. So there is an overlap of time with which to counter counterspell. Lets play this out:

Wizard 1: Throws his palm forward to cast a spell.
Wizard 2: Sees the palm being thrust and starts to move his fingers in a swiping motion to counter the spell, however by the time he has finished processing what he is seeing the first wizard will obviously have finished movement.
Wizard 1: Sees the second wizard moving and in turn can react by swiping his fingers to negate the spell.

There is no RAW here, so if you'd like to ask for sage advice actually pertaining to the situation instead of trying to work backwards and engaging in an ad hoc argument feel free.

[Corran]

That's not what it says. The counterspell takes time to cast, so your opponent sees you casting a spell and starts to cast, you in turn see the opponent casting and can then cast counterspell. You are making assumptions and presenting them as fact to lead to a conclusion. There is no reason to assume you need two free hands to counterspell a counter spell. The trigger, I.e. when you start casting, is when you see an opponent casting. That need not be the time you finish casting. So there is an overlap of time with which to counter counterspell. Lets play this out:

Wizard 1: Throws his palm forward to cast a spell.
Wizard 2: Sees the palm being thrust and starts to move his fingers in a swiping motion to counter the spell, however by the time he has finished processing what he is seeing the first wizard will obviously have finished movement.
Wizard 1: Sees the second wizard moving and in turn can react by swiping his fingers to negate the spell.

There is no RAW here, so if you'd like to ask for sage advice actually pertaining to the situation instead of trying to work backwards and engaging in an ad hoc argument feel free.
I just saw this reply from a post in another thread and thought it is relevant. You may be right though, that RAW are not crystal clear, so assumptions are bound to be made. For example, Wizard 2: Sees the palm being thrust and starts to move his fingers in a swiping motion to counter the spell, however by the time he has finished processing what he is seeing the first wizard will obviously have finished movement, this is a big assumption, and I tend to think it goes against RAI, if not RAW. If this indeed is not allowed by RAW (or at least does not make sense and is against RAI), then my argument stands correct and the only way for this situation to play out. Here is why I think what you supported (the bold part) is not RAW. If you need enough time to proccess a spell being cast so that you can counterspell it, namely if you need that much time to proccess it so that your casting of counterspell starts while the enemy's spell is being cast and finishes just after the enemy's spell has finished, then it would not be possible to counterspell any spell that has a casting action of time interval less than 1 action, as you wouldn't have enough time to proccess and thus counter such a spell. RAW dont explicitaly say that reactions take less time than actions (unless I missed it), but I think it is very obvious to assume that is logical and RAI. So if your assumption is true, then you wouldn't be able to counter a counterspell in the first place.

[JackPhoenix]

So? Maybe counter-counterspell works by modifying the original spell to have enough power/different frequency/your technomagicbabble of choice to ignore the first counterspell.

We don't know, it's as good answer as any.

[Rusvul]

There is a Sage Answer about this.


Can you also cast a reaction spell on your turn? You sure can! Here’s a common way for it to happen: Cornelius the wizard is casting fireball on his turn, and his foe casts counterspell on him. Cornelius has counterspell prepared, so he uses his reaction to cast it and break his foe’s counterspell before it can stop fireball.

While it doesn't address Somatic components specifically, the spell in the example given (Fireball) has a somatic component. There is no clear statement on timing or pausing a spell, however given that the above example is rules legal I don't think it really makes any difference.

[techsamurai5000]

There is a Sage Answer about this.



While it doesn't address Somatic components specifically, the spell in the example given (Fireball) has a somatic component. There is no clear statement on timing or pausing a spell, however given that the above example is rules legal I don't think it really makes any difference.

Seriously.. this argument should have ended back on page one when someone posted this Sage answer. If Jeremy Crawford says something in DnD 5e is RAW or RAI, there isn't a soul on this Earth that can argue with that since, you know, he wrote it.

[gfishfunk]

That's a specified trigger, not a point in time when neither the counterspell is cast, nor the resolution of the spell.
If the counterspell succeeds the enemy caster loses that spell (if it's a spell slot to lose). If the check fails, the spell effect is not disrupted. None of this actually specifies timing to the level of detail your reasoning assumes.

The trigger is not 'casting a spell', its 'when you see someone casting a spell'. It is during the action, prior to completion but after the casting begins.

Also, its relatively easy. Flavor-wise, it is sensing what is happening on an arcane level and injecting random bits of magic to destroy the intended effect. Its easy to do this with the same or lower level. With a higher level spell, you don't know what the spell is doing or you are not familiar with that level of magic.

So, flavor-wise, counter spelling a counter spell could work while casting a spell (its already confirmed possible in RAI) by possibly throwing 'a spare thread of magic that would otherwise go unusued' into the weaving of the opposition's counter spell while continuing to craft your spell.

[Corran]

There is a Sage Answer about this.



While it doesn't address Somatic components specifically, the spell in the example given (Fireball) has a somatic component. There is no clear statement on timing or pausing a spell, however given that the above example is rules legal I don't think it really makes any difference.
It is easy to assume that Cornelius the wizard wont be holding anything else than his arcane focus, and that he will have 2 hands.

[Corran]

Seriously.. this argument should have ended back on page one when someone posted this Sage answer. If Jeremy Crawford says something in DnD 5e is RAW or RAI, there isn't a soul on this Earth that can argue with that since, you know, he wrote it.
You missed something regarding what is actually being argued here.

[techsamurai5000]

You missed something regarding what is actually being argued here.

There was this and people arguing with you about making up your own house rules and calling them RAW and not much else.

[Rusvul]

It is easy to assume that Cornelius the wizard wont be holding anything else than his arcane focus, and that he will have 2 hands.

This is a little more ambiguous, however I think that if that was required for him to have two free hands, it would have been specified. Sage Advice generally errs on the side of precision.

[Corran]

This is a little more ambiguous, however I think that if that was required for him to have two free hands, it would have been specified. Sage Advice generally errs on the side of precision.
The assumption is not that he has 2 free hands, rather that this wizard has two hands which may or may not hold his arcane focus, but nothing else (such as a weapon and/or a shield).

[Gwendol]

The assumption is not that he has 2 free hands, rather that this wizard has two hands which may or may not hold his arcane focus, but nothing else (such as a weapon and/or a shield).

There are no such assumptions given in the text.