Questions about counterspell

[BurgerBeast]

Apologies if this has come up before. I did some quick searches and didn't see them.

1. Can a PC use counterspell to counter a spell attack (which is not, to my understanding, actually a spell)?

The particular attack in question is the Flameskull's Fire Ray (MM 134). My first instinct as DM was to think, "well, it's really not that different than counterspelling a cantrip," and it's certainly not an issue in terms of power, so I allowed it. But the question is, RAW and RAI, should it work? My instincts are that it is not RAW, but either is [edit: allowed by] RAI or is hardly significant to RAI.

2. Can you comment on or give insight into this understanding of the "PC counterspelling an NPC counterspell of the (same) PC's fireball" question?

My initial instinct was that you can, RAW, counterspell a counterspell, and, thematically, you should be able to counterspell a counterspell.

But then this: what is actually happening?

A. I think of counterspelling as interrupting the spell casting process before the spell is successfully cast. In this case, when the NPC interrupts the fireball, he is interrupting the casting using a reaction. Now, as a reaction, the PC can interrupt the NPC counterspell, before it goes off, allowing the fireball to be cast.

The problem I have is: how does a PC, in mid-cast of the spell fireball, stop casting it to use a reaction, and then return to casting it? And further, is this consistent with other reaction-to-reaction combinations?

B. A player in the group thinks of counter spelling as effectively dispelling the spell after it has been cast. So the fireball is cast, but the NPC counterspells it before it takes effect. This poses the problem of how does the PC counterspell manage to intercept the NPC counterspell before it intercepts the fireball.

So both A & B present narrative problems that appear insurmountable. So should it just simply be C (which follows)?

C. PC prepares to cast fireball (but doesn't start casting). NPC prepares to counterspell (but doesn't start). PC counterspells NPC counterspell. PC loses counterspell slot, NPC loses counterspell slot, PC casts fireball.

My problem with C is (purely fluff based): why would you lose the slots if you never even started casting?

My suggested solution is D (which follows; because I think that RAW and RAI it should be possible but can't otherwise resolve the fluff):

D. when counterspell is used against counterspell, narratively it is not a "counterspell" so much as an attempt by the PC to "power through" the counterspell attempt. A sort of mid-air battle of wills. This meets the established fantasy tropes well and plays out well enough for me. It also means that based on the mechanics of counterspell in 5e, there are still interesting options, for example a lower level caster could burn a higher level slot than the higher level caster (resource management), and it is possible to still be successful when using less powerful magic against more powerful magic (fairness/uncertainty).

Thoughts?

[Specter]

1. Counterspell can only be used for spells, not magical abilities. You can counter a Tiefling's Hellish Rebuke because it says specifically that it's cast, but not a dragon's fire breath since it's not a spell.

2. By RAW and according to the developers, you can counterspell counterspell.

[BurgerBeast]

1. Counterspell can only be used for spells, not magical abilities. You can counter a Tiefling's Hellish Rebuke because it says specifically that it's cast, but not a dragon's fire breath since it's not a spell.

Cool.

edit: Wait a minute. Dragon's breath is not a spell attack by the rules. The Flameskull's fire ray is a spell attack. The question is about spell attacks.


2. By RAW and according to the developers, you can counterspell counterspell.

I think I indicated that I understood this in the question. The question is: how do you explain it fluff-wise? What's happening? A, B, C, D, or something else?

[Specter]

Well, you need a free hand for casting, right? The way I see it, the Wizard is casting Fireball with one hand and when the Sorcerer tries to stop it, the Wizard just uses the other hand to stop that process with disruptive energy.

[Dr. Cliché]

To be honest, having a Counterspell in the D&D Vancian magic system is a bit weird.

Fluffwise, I'd expect each spell to require an individual counterspell.

[Toadkiller]

Just used it for the first time in a game, it was pretty fun actually. Bad guy was casting a spell at the barbarian..."nope".

I fluffed it with a relevant fx, the goal of which was to make the whole think a little more like the Dumbledore vs Riddle fight at the Ministry. That's how I see counter spell working, you redirect or otherwise counter it rather than simply shutting it down. Same impact mechanically, just higher budget for the theater of the mind.

[BurgerBeast]

Well, you need a free hand for casting, right? The way I see it, the Wizard is casting Fireball with one hand and when the Sorcerer tries to stop it, the Wizard just uses the other hand to stop that process with disruptive energy.

So, would you rule that the second hand must be free in order to do it?


To be honest, having a Counterspell in the D&D Vancian magic system is a bit weird.

Fluffwise, I'd expect each spell to require an individual counterspell.

It's not clear to me if you mean "require an individual [casting of] counterspell" (which is already RAW) or "each [specific] spell require an individual [specific spell to] counterspell [it]" (which seems to be going back to 3.5, and is not the way it is designed in 5e).

What I meant to ask, specifically, is: which of A, B, C, or D seems best, or do you think something else is better?


I fluffed it with...

I'm asking specifically about counterspelling counterspell. I'm not asking about counterspelling generally.

[Dr. Cliché]

It's not clear to me if you mean "require an individual [casting of] counterspell" (which is already RAW) or "each [specific] spell require an individual [specific spell to] counterspell [it]" (which seems to be going back to 3.5, and is not the way it is designed in 5e).


I meant the second one.



I'm asking specifically about counterspelling counterspell. I'm not asking about counterspelling generally.

That's why I brought it up. I started to think about what counterspelling would involve, and it was hard to envisage a method that wouldn't need to be specific to the spell you're trying to stop (as in 3.5).

[BurgerBeast]

I meant the second one.

Cool. So you suggest going back to 3.5. [edit: in this context, I meant. So specifically for the counter spelling process]


That's why I brought it up. I started to think about what counterspelling would involve, and it was hard to envisage a method that wouldn't need to be specific to the spell you're trying to stop (as in 3.5).

You're replying to something I said to Toadkiller, I think. It wasn't directed at you.

[Flashy]

I'm asking specifically about counterspelling counterspell. I'm not asking about counterspelling generally.

Since Counterspell only has a somatic component I see it as one swift dismissing gesture. So wizard A begins casting Fireball and wizard B counterspells it with his swift dismissing gesture. Wizard A, still muttering the incantation for fireball, breaks the encroaching counterspell with her own swift dismissing gesture. Wizard A then finishes making the somatic gestures for fireball and completes the spell.

[Mellack]

Since it is fluff, each table can describe it how they desire. I prefer something similar to your "D" choice. Some examples:
Wiz is casting fireball. Baddie casts counterspell, trying to pull apart the gathering energies. Wiz uses counterspell to reinforce his casting, allowing it to function rather than be disrupted.
Wiz is casting fireball. Baddie casts counterspell, pumping energy into your spell to disrupt it. Wiz channels that energy into a counterspell, drawing it away harmlessly so he can finish his fireball.
I don't think you even need to use the same fluff description each time. Alter it to create a more interesting mental image for your group at the time.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

My group fluffs it very much like option D, with the minor caveat that you still have to do the components of Counterspell to achieve the effect (which in this case means modifying the fireball with additional components on the fly to make it Counterspell-proof). It feels far more awesome, and makes the inevitable caster stalemate a bit more interesting to describe and at least a little less frustrating. NPCs with Counterspell are really annoying.

[Dr. Cliché]

Cool. So you suggest going back to 3.5.

Well, it's more that the 3.5 version of counterspelling just made more sense to me in a Vancian magic system.

Like, using Fireball to counter Fireball makes sense. Possibly the wizard is using it to create something akin to an anti-fireball that will cancel out the 'real' fireball of his enemy.

There's just something about a universal counterspell that seems... out of place to me. Like, if that spell can literally counter any spell, it seems way more flexible than anything else (especially of that level). I mean, couldn't you have the reverse and have a lv3 spell that can just become any other spell?

[Gwendol]

The answers are

1: yes
2: the situation is as described in A

[BurgerBeast]

There's just something about a universal counterspell that seems... out of place to me.

I get what you're saying, but I don't have the same problem with it. I just think of it as something like a rapid dispel magic effect. I guess this one just comes down to the individual.


The answers are

1: yes
2: the situation is as described in A

Thanks. In combination with Flashy's suggestions, this seems perfectly fine.

[tieren]

Since Counterspell only has a somatic component I see it as one swift dismissing gesture. So wizard A begins casting Fireball and wizard B counterspells it with his swift dismissing gesture. Wizard A, still muttering the incantation for fireball, breaks the encroaching counterspell with her own swift dismissing gesture. Wizard A then finishes making the somatic gestures for fireball and completes the spell.

This is the way we treated it. The fireball caster just holds the weave for a fraction of a second to wave off the counter spell attempt then finishes the fireball.

[Mellack]

There's just something about a universal counterspell that seems... out of place to me. Like, if that spell can literally counter any spell, it seems way more flexible than anything else (especially of that level). I mean, couldn't you have the reverse and have a lv3 spell that can just become any other spell?

I understand what you are saying, but let me counter :smallsmile: with this: destruction is much simpler than construction. You can destroy a bookcase using nothing but a hammer, building that same bookcase using only a hammer would be near impossible.
Also, do you have the same feeling about Dispel Magic? It can also end almost any spell effect.

[Dr. Cliché]

I understand what you are saying, but let me counter :smallsmile: with this: destruction is much simpler than construction. You can destroy a bookcase using nothing but a hammer, building that same bookcase using only a hammer would be near impossible.

I get what you're saying, but it just doesn't feel right in terms of how magic works.


Also, do you have the same feeling about Dispel Magic? It can also end almost any spell effect.

It can end ongoing effects. It can't stop every spell. it doesn't bother me as much, put it that way.

In your example, dispel magic would be destroying the bookcase after it was complete, counterspell would be atomising every piece at the moment of construction. :smallwink:


But then, I think I just see things differently from other people. :/

[Keko]

It happened at our table and we let the wizard counterspell the counterspell on his scorching rays.

But later I realized that doing so you are casting 2 spells is a turn and one is not a cantrip, so not possible by general rules of casting (And invalidating point 2 I gues)

Well, it remains the corner case of someone countering your cantrip but is unlikely to happen, and you may simply decide that you have time to cast it again as it is a very simple spell.

[Mellack]

The rule on casting is if you cast a spell as a bonus action, you cannot cast another spell unless it is a cantrip. It does not apply to reaction spells. Counterspell is allowed since it is a reaction.

[Saeviomage]

In your example, dispel magic would be destroying the bookcase after it was complete, counterspell would be atomising every piece at the moment of construction. :smallwink:

Why can't counterspell be "taking away a needed screw", or "turning the instructions upside-down at a crucial moment" or "saying that you've done it wrong and now you need to start over when actually it was right the first time" or "swapping the 'a' and 'b' identifying stickers on two pieces".

All of those are pretty catastrophic to getting a bookshelf right, and all are far, far easier than making a bookshelf.

[Zalabim]

Well, it's more that the 3.5 version of counterspelling just made more sense to me in a Vancian magic system.

Like, using Fireball to counter Fireball makes sense. Possibly the wizard is using it to create something akin to an anti-fireball that will cancel out the 'real' fireball of his enemy.

There's just something about a universal counterspell that seems... out of place to me. Like, if that spell can literally counter any spell, it seems way more flexible than anything else (especially of that level). I mean, couldn't you have the reverse and have a lv3 spell that can just become any other spell?

Globe of Invulnerability and Antimagic Field will also block a wide variety of spells. The reverse is probably Major Image which can become just about any thing, but doesn't actually do anything.