If you cast a spell and it gets Counterspelled, did you still "cast a spell"? [Archive]

uraniumrooster

2016-08-18, 05:01 PM

I read it as essentially wasting their action, and their attempt to cast a spell failed. Thus, they haven't successfully cast a spell, and they CAN cast a bonus action spell.

This is how I've been interpreting it as well, but it just occurred to me to ask if there was an "official" rule/ruling.

But the spell slot is used up. You use it as soon as you start to cast a spell whether you succeed or not just as if you ready a spell for a certain condition and that condition doesn't happen before your next turn.

Not true. Spells that have a casting time of greater than one round do not expend the slot if the casting is interrupted.

With this as precedent, I think that if I were playing strict RAW, a spell that was countered would not expend a spell slot, though the action would still be wasted. As such, any abilities that triggered off of casting a spell, such as an Abjurers Arcane Ward, would not apply. Spell not cast = no trigger = no boon.

However, I would be very tempted to rule that even if a spell is countered, the slot is still expended (as well as the action) and that triggered abilities do go off, if only because having your spell countered is bad enough without your killer combo being entirely smacked back into touch.

Interesting. I've actually been ruling it a bit harsher than this - the spell slot is consumed, but no secondary abilities get triggered. My rationale is that they still have to expend the energy on casting the spell, then the Counterspell prevents it from taking effect. But, I realize now that's not really consistent with also allowing a Bonus Action spell, so maybe that's what caused me to question my ruling in the first place.

I think I'd rule:

- Obviously the action and spell slot are wasted, and the spell does not take effect.
- The caster still took the Cast a Spell action, and thus can't cast a non-cantrip spell as a bonus action if the original spell was not a cantrip.
- There would be no roll for a wild surge, since the spell didn't really get cast.

It feels like it's pretty open to DM interpretation though.

I think I might adopt this ruling instead.

Waffle_Iron

2016-08-18, 07:38 PM

I think I'd rule:

- Obviously the action and spell slot are wasted, and the spell does not take effect.
- The caster still took the Cast a Spell action, and thus can't cast a non-cantrip spell as a bonus action if the original spell was not a cantrip.
- There would be no roll for a wild surge, since the spell didn't really get cast.

It feels like it's pretty open to DM interpretation though.

That's pretty much the most restrictive interpretation available. As a DM with a wizard, sorc, and bard at my table, I've come to believe that Sorcs really don't have much going for them. With that in mind, and the fact that only Sorcs can quicken, I'd rule in favor of action spent, slot spent, but a spell has not been cast and therefore a bonus action quickened spell is still possible.

It's one trick a sorc actually does get, and I'll allow it.

Gastronomie

2016-08-18, 07:43 PM

I think I'd rule:

- Obviously the action and spell slot are wasted, and the spell does not take effect.
- The caster still took the Cast a Spell action, and thus can't cast a non-cantrip spell as a bonus action if the original spell was not a cantrip.
- There would be no roll for a wild surge, since the spell didn't really get cast.

It feels like it's pretty open to DM interpretation though.Being a former Yu-Gi-Oh player, I have a similar take-on to this (even if your normal summon is Solemn Judgment'ed, you've already used up your normal summon for the turn, and if the summoning required a tribute, you don't get it back).

That said, I give Counterspell to only my strongest enemy casters.

Also, I often forget the "only one spell per turn" thing, which results in my caster using Counterspell upon the enemy's Counterspell. But honestly, I think it's fine to ignore...

NNescio

2016-08-18, 07:51 PM

Being a former Yu-Gi-Oh player, I have a similar take-on to this (even if your normal summon is Solemn Judgment'ed, you've already used up your normal summon for the turn, and if the summoning required a tribute, you don't get it back).

That said, I give Counterspell to only my strongest enemy casters.

Also, I often forget the "only one spell per turn" thing, which results in my caster using Counterspell upon the enemy's Counterspell. But honestly, I think it's fine to ignore...

Eh, the restriction on using only cantrips is only there if you cast a bonus action spell (Quickened or otherwise). You still get to use your reaction for Counterspell if your other spell requires an action instead of a bonus action. This does raise other questions though (since you can't Counterspell a Counterspell on a bonus action spell).

(Another thing to worry about is that you can't reaction Shield on the same turn when you cast a bonus action spell, so be careful if you intend to draw any OAs [or if you suspect the enemies have readied actions to hit you] after casting your spell. Same goes for Absorb Elements, in case you want to drop an AoE at your feet.)

Some DMs might rule that you can't cast a reaction spell in the middle of casting another spell, but strictly speaking there's no rule against that.

bid

2016-08-18, 09:50 PM

SRD quotes:
Longer casting time : "If your concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don’t expend a spell slot."
Animal friendship : "If the beast's Intelligence is 4 or higher, the spell fails."
Astral projection : "the spell fails and the casting is wasted if you are already on that plane"
Bink : idem
Call lightning : "The spell fails if you can’t see a point in the air where the storm cloud could appear"
Counterspell : "its spell fails and has no effect."
Creation : "Using any material created by this spell as another spell’s material component causes that spell to fail."
Find the path : "the spell fails"
Hallow : "the spell fails if the radius includes an area already under the effect a hallow spell."
Raise dead : "the spell automatically fails"
Reincarnate : "the spell fails."
Speak with the dead : "The spell fails"
Tiny hut : "The spell fails"

Only 2 spells explicitly call for the slot to be lost. Maybe counterspell is a limited form the "lost concentration" we see in longer casting time.

Kane0

2016-08-18, 11:57 PM

Well based on how reactions work (after the triggering event) I would rule:

You spend your action and spell slot to cast fireball
Enemy mage sees you casting a spell within 60' and uses his reaction to cast counterspell, also expending the required spell slot
Your fireball gets countered before it lands. You have cast the spell but it had no effect, so you cannot follow up with a bonus action spell.

Though it'd be easy to rule that the counterspell interrupts you from finishing your spell rather than the spell from taking effect once formed, thus it would deprive you of your action but not your spell slot and leave you free to use a bonus action spell (that cannot be countered since the enemy used his reaction already). It would vary depending on DM and the kind of game you're playing.

Belac93

2016-08-19, 12:23 AM

JellyPooga

2016-08-19, 06:25 AM

I would say this depends on how you view it.

If you see counterspell as negating the spell before it happens (e.g, stopping the spell from ever occurring in the first place), then you never cast the spell at all.

If you see counterspell as stopping the effects of the spell (e.g, they cast the spell, and you destroy it in the air), then you did cast the spell.

Let's take a look at Counterspell then, shall we?

Casting Time: 1 Reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60ft of you cast a spell

Not a lot of help here. Could go either way. Let's look at the text...

You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell.

Emphasis mine. You can't interrupt the process of something that's already been done. Counterspell stops the spell from being cast at all.

Dalebert

2016-08-19, 09:07 AM

Actually, "in the process" means they've started casting and "interrupts" means you stop them from completing the casting. So they don't complete the casting of the spell.

This is very interesting because I'm not sure whether or where it's addressed when a spell slot actually gets expended. It feels like a nerf of counterspell that it prevents them from using a spell slot but maybe that's how it's supposed to go. You're blowing a spell slot to cast CS after all. You usually expect enemies to blow their higher level slots first. The idea of CSing the first round or two is in hopes of them having wasted those slots. If this interpretation is more correct, then all your doing is making them waste an action for the cost of a potentially high level slot (if you up-cast it which many would).

Barring a specific case somewhere, the closest I have to compare it to is readying a spell. In that case, you start casting but don't complete the casting. If the trigger doesn't happen before your turn, the slot is wasted. Seems similar with Counterspell.

smcmike

2016-08-19, 09:29 AM

I don't think the answer is at all clear in the rules, but am inclined to agree that the spell slot is wasted for balance reasons. I'd probably allow bonus action casting, though.

JellyPooga

2016-08-19, 09:38 AM

Actually, "in the process" means they've started casting and "interrupts" means you stop them from completing the casting. So they don't complete the casting of the spell.

...and as demonstrated by the rules for interrupted spells (see my previous post of the subject), a spell that does not have its casting time completed does not expend a spell slot. Counterspell interrupts that casting time, so the spell is never completed and thus the slot is not expended (though the action is).

Arguably.

As you say, such an interpretation nerfs Counterspell into almost being useless. If all it does is delay a spell being cast, then it's a high price to pay for so little return.

I'd rule, in the interest of RAI (I suspect), that the countered spell slot is expended.

dickerson76

2016-08-19, 09:55 AM

SRD quotes:
Longer casting time : "If your concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don’t expend a spell slot."

I think the answer is in here. The "longer casting time" section specifically call out that "the spell fails, but you don’t expend a spell slot". I think that's there to differentiate it from an implied general rule that a failed spell does expend a spell slot.

KorvinStarmast

2016-08-19, 10:44 AM

I think the answer is in here. The "longer casting time" section specifically call out that "the spell fails, but you don’t expend a spell slot". I think that's there to differentiate it from an implied general rule that a failed spell does expend a spell slot.
Yes. (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/86783/22566) the issue about spell slots and spells cast without using slots seems to be the crux of the biscuit.

If the countered spell was not expended, then someone burned a 3d level spell, but the opponent didn't burn anything ... and gets to use it next turn. That does not seem to be the intention of the spell's function. The spell can't fail if it hasn't been cast.

Counterspell (Casting time is 1 reaction)

If the creature is casting a spell of 3rd level or lower, its spell fails and has no effect. If it is casting a spell of 4th level or higher, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10 + the
spell's level. On a success, the creature's spell fails and has no effect.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the interrupted spell has no effect if its level is less than or equal to the level of the spell slot you used.

Ultimate_Coffee

2016-08-19, 10:51 AM

I propose that, by strict RAW, the spell slot is not used, and a bonus action spell can still be cast.

In order to come to this conclusion, first we have to determine whether counterspell is interrupting the casting of the spell before it is cast, or destroying the spell after it is cast.

Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spellEmphasis mine...

From this, we can conclude that the spell is being interrupted while the caster is still casting it, so it is never actually cast. This also fits the requirement that you have to be within 60 feet of the caster, not the target of the spell.

Now that we know what the spell is doing, we need to determine what happens to a spell that was started, but not finished. For this, we can start by looking at when a spell slot is expended.

When a character casts a spell, he or she expends a slotEmphasis mine...

So the slot is used when a spell is cast, not when you begin casting it. More evidence can be found under Longer Casting Times.

If your concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don't expend a spell slot.Emphasis mine...

Counterspell uses similar wording here...

its spell fails and has no effect

All of this is vastly different that the wording used for a spell cast with the ready action, which, as we all know, does waste the spell.

When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but hold its energyEmphasis mine...

So a ready action casts the spell on your turn, but doesn't use its effect until later, which is why the slot is used. A spell that is interrupted does not mirror this in any way.

Finally, the question at hand, "Can you cast a Bonus action spell after you spell is countered?"

You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.Emphasis mine...

As your countered spell was never cast, you still meet the requirements to cast a bonus action spell...

Obviously, any DM can rule as they see fit, but the RAW is clearly written if you know where to look, and I personally think that this is the best approach. I know everybody wants to kill their opponents strongest spell slots by countering them, but I feel that using your bonus action to stop their action is a worthwhile use of a 3rd level spell slot.

JellyPooga

2016-08-19, 11:02 AM

Hmmm....this thread reminds me of a thought I had once to rejig Counterspell. It always bugged me that it was a 3rd lvl spell; isn't it one of the first parts of any training to learn how to protect or avoid hurting yourself? You learn how to take a fall in wrestling or judo, you learn where the safety switch is on a firearm and you would surely learn how to protect yourself from other spellcasters when learning magic. Not everyone would ascribe to such a "safe" working practice but if you were trained formally, such as at a college or under a by-the-book tutor, then Counterspells would surely be a priority (or at least a "core" module to learn alongside your cantrips).

With that in mind, I propose an alternative Counterspell;
Counterspell
1st-level abjuration

Casting Time: 1 Reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell
Range: 60ft
Components: S
Duration: Instantaneous or Concentration, up to 1 minute

You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. If the creature is casting a cantrip, the spell fails and has no effect. If it is casting a spell of 1st level or higher, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10+the spells level.

On a success, the creatures spell fails and has no effect. The spell slot used to cast that spell is expended, but any material components that would be consumed by the spell are not.

On a failure, the spell is interrupted and does not take effect so long as you maintain concentration on this Counterspell. The target may also maintain concentration on their spell, as if casting a spell with a casting time longer than 1 action (see pg.202 PHB). If you lose concentration, the spell effect takes place. If the target loses concentration, the spell fails and has no effect (as above).

As an action on their turn, you or the target may make a spellcasting ability check. The DC equals 10+the target spells level (for you) or 10+the level of the slot used to Counterspell (for the target). If you succeed, the target spell fails and has no effect (as above). If the target succeeds, their spell takes effect as normal and the Counterspell ends.

At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the interrupted spell has no effect if its level is less than the level of the spell slot you used.

Dalebert

2016-08-19, 11:09 AM

I just re-read Counterspell and now I feel like we're over-thinking this. There is nothing to say that it prevents the spell from being completed. You do "interrupt" the casting which means you're doing it during the casting but it doesn't ever say the spell doesn't get cast. It says the spell "fails and has no effect". Flavor--you DID cast the spell but the CS made you fumble it and bungle it causing the energies to dissipate ineffectively. It's important to note that the spell itself fails and not the caster failed to cast the spell. There WAS a spell, an ineffective one.

Vogonjeltz

2016-08-19, 03:56 PM

Not true. Spells that have a casting time of greater than one round do not expend the slot if the casting is interrupted.

With this as precedent, I think that if I were playing strict RAW, a spell that was countered would not expend a spell slot, though the action would still be wasted. As such, any abilities that triggered off of casting a spell, such as an Abjurers Arcane Ward, would not apply. Spell not cast = no trigger = no boon.

However, I would be very tempted to rule that even if a spell is countered, the slot is still expended (as well as the action) and that triggered abilities do go off, if only because having your spell countered is bad enough without your killer combo being entirely smacked back into touch.

Retaining the spell slot only applies when casting a spell with a time longer than a single action or reaction and concentration is broken. "If your concentration is broken, the spell fails but you don't expend a spell slot." (PHB 202)

This is unrelated to Counterspell however, as that does not interrupt concentration, but instead simply causes the spell to have no effect:

"On a success, the creature's spell fails and has no effect." (PHB 228)

This being the case, the spell slot is definitely expended and it would not be possible to cast a bonus action spell (unless the counterspelled spell was a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action), under Bonus Action casting time: "A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action." (PHB 202)

Interesting. I've actually been ruling it a bit harsher than this - the spell slot is consumed, but no secondary abilities get triggered. My rationale is that they still have to expend the energy on casting the spell, then the Counterspell prevents it from taking effect. But, I realize now that's not really consistent with also allowing a Bonus Action spell, so maybe that's what caused me to question my ruling in the first place.

You were correct in the first place. The spell slot is used, the spell is "cast" but the spell fails and has no effect. If it were a cantrip then a bonus action spell could be cast.

Only 2 spells explicitly call for the slot to be lost. Maybe counterspell is a limited form the "lost concentration" we see in longer casting time.

In, most of, the examples you gave, a full context reading indicates that those are conditions under which the spell automatically fails as opposed to possibly succeeding via a saving throw. The spells have definitely been cast and used their spell slots.

Emphasis mine. You can't interrupt the process of something that's already been done. Counterspell stops the spell from being cast at all.

When a spell fails its spell slot is expended. The failure of a longer casting time spell due to lost concentration provides a specific exception to this baseline, where the spell fails but the spell slot is not expended. (PHB 202)

And casting a spell always expends the spell slot by default: See class entries:

Wizard: "To cast one of these spells, you must expend a slot of the spell's level or higher." (PHB 114)
Warlock: "To cast one of your warlock spells 1st level or higher, you must expend a spell slot." (PHB 107)
Sorcerer: "To cast one of these sorcerer spells, you must expend a slot of the spell's level or higher." (PHB 101)
Arcane Trickster: "To cast one of these spells, you must expend a slot of the spell's level or higher." (PHB 98)
Ranger: "To cast one of these spells, you must expend a slot of the spell's level or higher." (PHB 91)
Paladin: "To cast one of your paladin spells of 1st level or higher, you must expend a slot of the spell's level or higher." (PHB 84)
Way of the Four Elements: "A discipline requires you to spend ki points each time you use it." (PHB 80)
Eldritch Knight: "To cast one of these spells, you must expend a slot of the spell's level or higher." (PHB 75)
Druid: "To cast one of these druid spells, you must expend a slot of the spell's level or higher." (PHB 66)
Cleric: "To cast one of these spells, you must expend a slot of the spell's level or higher." (PHB 58)
Bard: "To cast one of these spells, you must expend a slot of the spell's level or higher." (PHB 53)

Given that there is a slight difference in spell slot expenditure based on the class (Warlock, Way of the four Elements) it makes sense that the cost is addressed in each individual class section instead of trying to create a general rule that applies to all classes with spellcasting.

Anyway, if there's a spell slot involved, or ki, or whatever, those costs are paid up front. The lone exception being long cast spells that are lost from concentration.

Barring a specific case somewhere, the closest I have to compare it to is readying a spell. In that case, you start casting but don't complete the casting. If the trigger doesn't happen before your turn, the slot is wasted. Seems similar with Counterspell.

Agreed.

Erys

2016-08-19, 04:08 PM

I realize any rules lawyer can creatively interpret this any number of ways, but in the end of the day Occam's razor suggest KorvinStarmast and Dalebert (and others) are on the right track.

From a balance perspective if you spending a resource and your enemy isn't, that is unfair.

More to the point the defining sentence in Counterspell reads:

On a success, the creature's spell fails and has no effect.

The most honest way to play it, and likely the intent of the spell, is: you did cast it, it failed (because it was countered), and you cannot cast a bonus action spell (unless it was a cantrip to begin with).

DivisibleByZero

2016-08-19, 04:16 PM

Yes, you cast a spell.
Yes, the slot is used.
No, you cannot cast any other spells that turn as a bonus action unless the countered spell was a cantrip.

bid

2016-08-19, 04:32 PM

In, most of, the examples you gave, a full context reading indicates that those are conditions under which the spell automatically fails as opposed to possibly succeeding via a saving throw. The spells have definitely been cast and used their spell slots.
None of those example have anything to do with saving throws. So your argument is irrelevant.

Saving throws do not make a spell fail, it still succeeds but has "no effect". It seems clear that the slot is expended on success, but that doesn't say anything about failure.

It comes down to this:
- Why does being on the astral plane will make you explicitely lose your slot?
- Why is it not explicit when you speak with dead a second time within 10 days?

Another point of approach is readying a spell: in that case, the slot is explicitely lost. The question becomes: Can you counterspell a readied spell?

bid

2016-08-19, 04:35 PM

Yes, you cast a spell.
Yes, the slot is used.
No, you cannot cast any other spells that turn as a bonus action unless the countered spell was a cantrip.
An opinion unsupported by facts wont help anyone reach a conclusion.

Erys

2016-08-19, 04:58 PM

Another point of approach is readying a spell: in that case, the slot is explicitely lost. The question becomes: Can you counterspell a readied spell?

Yes, if you have a reaction available you can Counterspell a readied spell. The caster will lose their spell slot in either scenario. There is no reason that I can see to assume otherwise.

R.Shackleford

2016-08-19, 05:09 PM

I'm getting rid of counter spell, dispel magic, and anti-magic zone. I don't think they actually do anything good for the game.

Two basic scenarios

A: You are a player using counter-spell but the DM really needs to get this spell off to make the fight challenging or to make an escape for the BBEG. Your counter-spell is then counter-spelled by the another creatures. You wasted a slot and slowed down the game. (Mostly bad for players)

B: You are a player using counter-spell but the DM really needs to get this spell off to make the fight challenging or to make an escape. Your counter-spell goes off without a hitch but now the DM needs to extend the fight or fudge some stuff. The game is extended when it doesn't need to be and you waste a slot because the BBEG will be getting away.

Then we have the question. If I can interrupt a magic spell, why can't I interrupt a normal attack? I don't just mean riposte or protection style where they have very specific limitations but, why can't I at any time either ready or as a reaction, just stop an attack from being made? Are spell actions slower than other actions? Why can't I use my reaction or action to stop something like the dodge action?

There are so many issues with this.

Erys

2016-08-19, 05:18 PM

Then we have the question. If I can interrupt a magic spell, why can't I interrupt a normal attack? I don't just mean riposte or protection style where they have very specific limitations but, why can't I at any time either ready or as a reaction, just stop an attack from being made? Are spell actions slower than other actions? Why can't I use my reaction or action to stop something like the dodge action?

I can feel you in a lot of that. But, on this point; aren't feats like Defensive Duelist essentially a melee version of counterspell? You are using you reaction to (hopefully) void an attack against you.

R.Shackleford

2016-08-19, 05:31 PM

I can feel you in a lot of that. But, on this point; aren't feats like Defensive Duelist essentially a melee version of counterspell? You are using you reaction to (hopefully) void an attack against you.

No, because they don't automatically work like counterspell does.

"You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. If the creature is casting a spell of 3rd level or lower, its spell fails and has no effect. If it is casting a spell of 4th level or higher, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell’s level. On a success, the creature’s spell fails and has no effect.

At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the interrupted spell has no effect if its level is less than or equal to the level of the spell slot you used."

Defensive duelist doesn't stop the attack from happening, it just helps you defend against it. There is still a chance for a critical hit. The same thing with other abilities like protection fighting style.

JellyPooga

2016-08-19, 05:46 PM

Erys

2016-08-19, 06:55 PM

No, because they don't automatically work like counterspell does.

Some work; the half damage as a Reaction that Uncanny Dodge grants is an infallible defence against damage taken. It doesn't avoid or negate an attack altogether, but it's a solid counter (if you will) to a melee attack, used as a Reaction.

I'm sure there are others, I'm AFB.

Which is kind of my point. If there are counters to melee attacks outside the need to hit AC, there probably should be some kind of counter to spell attacks outside the need to (usually) make a save.

That said, I do feel both Counterspell and Dispel Magic are a little too favorable to the one removing the magic; but the basic idea of effect/counter effect is there. I suspect the heavy handedness in Counterspell/Dispel Magic is the fact that you have to use a finite resource to use it, where as the rogues ability is every round, as is Defensive duelist. Neither can 'run out'.

DivisibleByZero

2016-08-19, 08:15 PM

An opinion unsupported by facts wont help anyone reach a conclusion.

It's not opinion unsupported by facts, it's a fact supported by the rules.
Your (and others') attempts to ignore the rules in favor of finding loopholes for lawyering things that you know full friggin well is against both RAW and RAI is what isn't helping anyone.

R.Shackleford

2016-08-19, 08:26 PM

Some work; the half damage as a Reaction that Uncanny Dodge grants is an infallible defence against damage taken. It doesn't avoid or negate an attack altogether, but it's a solid counter (if you will) to a melee attack, used as a Reaction.

I'm sure there are others, I'm AFB.

They don't stop the attack outright.

The creature could still crit or allow other features to trigger. A Paladin could still smite as long as they hit you. Uncanny dodge is nice, love it, but it still doesn't stop the attack at its source. Plus, uncanny dodge only would work against one attack from a multiattack or extra attack feature.

It isn't about the one attack, it is the action behind the attack. Stopping a spell is a kin to stopping the attack action (extra attack, multiattack).

bid

2016-08-20, 01:06 AM

It's not opinion unsupported by facts, it's a fact supported by the rules.
Could you present how you reached that conclusion? Your statement still sounds like DM fiat.

I will form my own opinion once the facts have been clearly spelled out. The readied spell scenario is prolly the best argument as of now. I wish you could add at least one useful reason.

Ultimate_Coffee

2016-08-20, 02:53 AM

Another point of approach is readying a spell: in that case, the slot is explicitely lost. The question becomes: Can you counterspell a readied spell?
Kinda, you can counter a spell when someone readies it, but not when they release it. This is supported by the text for the Ready action.

When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but hold its energy, which you release with your reaction
Counterspell interrupts a spell while the caster is still casting it, so it couldn't be used after the spell has been cast.

1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell

The readied spell scenario is prolly the best argument as of now.
The "redied spell scenario" has no bearing on this argument by the rules. A readied spell is cast when you ready it, that is why it is lost if you are interrupted before you release the energy. A spell that is countered is not cast yet, so it is not affected by the rules in any similar way.

DivisibleByZero

2016-08-20, 04:01 AM

I wish you could add at least one useful reason.

Just one? OK.
If the original spell was never cast, then there was nothing to counter in the first place, which means neither slot (the OG caster's nor the counterspeller's) gets used.

You can try to twist the words to lawyerize it any way that you like, but logically it's very simple.
If the spell wasn't cast, then there is nothing to counter.
This follows the RAW for spellcasting, it follows the RAW for counterspell, it follows the OBVIOUS RAI for both, and it simply makes sense.
Yes, the spell was cast.
Yes, it uses a slot.
Feel free to lawyerize it all you want, just admit that's what you're doing.

And for flavor, imagine a wizard duel with two casters blasting a different color magical blasts. If the red one gets through, the spell is cast. If the blue one gets through, the spell was a countered.
He concentrates all his focus on getting that spell to work. There's no time or energy left for another spell that turn, no matter how fast or easy it may be too cast. Thus, no bonus spell.

Dalebert

2016-08-20, 10:08 AM

Just one? OK.
If the original spell was never cast, then there was nothing to counter in the first place, which means neither slot (the OG caster's nor the counterspeller's) gets used.

This has been addressed. It was cast and it failed. Read the spell again. That's what changed my opinion. Much of this thread has been based on the assumption that CS prevents the spell from finishing but it doesn't. It causes the spell to fail.

That's what the spell says it does. If you want some fluff to go with that, imagine Cutting Words that causes an attack to fail by disrupting the attention of the attackers. He still swings but he swings wildly and ineffectively from the distraction. Counterspell could be seen as interfering with the casting and causing it to get bungled so the energy dissipates ineffectively.

DivisibleByZero

2016-08-20, 11:11 AM

Much of this thread has been based on the assumption that CS prevents the spell from finishing but it doesn't. It causes the spell to fail.

That's what the spell says it does.

You don't need to convince me... We're in agreement. The spell is cast and the slot is used.

bid

2016-08-20, 11:18 AM

If the original spell was never cast, then there was nothing to counter in the first place, which means neither slot (the OG caster's nor the counterspeller's) gets used.
Thank you.

I'm not sure this is all that good.
If I aim with a gun and someone pushes the barrel away, I have failed to shoot the target. But that doesn't mean you've spent a bullet.

Using this analogy to match your interpretation, longer casting time should be using a tripod and other non-aiming setup. All this part before aiming can be interrupted without losing the bullet. That way the quick aim of a normal spell is pulling the trigger, and you counter by blocking the barrel.

I seriously don't see anything in RAW to break this ambiguity. If there's a killing argument, it's how mecanically silly it'd be to waste a slot on counterspell just to delay it by 1 round.

Dalebert

2016-08-20, 11:25 AM

You don't need to convince me... We're in agreement. The spell is cast and the slot is used.

My bad--major reading comprehension fail on my part.

DivisibleByZero

2016-08-20, 11:35 AM

I seriously don't see anything in RAW to break this ambiguity. If there's a killing argument, it's how mecanically silly it'd be to waste a slot on counterspell just to delay it by 1 round.

Common friggin sense breaks the ambiguity. Unfortunately common sense isn't so common any longer.
You have just explained (as have I) exactly why the slot is used.
You (and/or others?) have gone on about the book stating when the slot is used. But the fact is that the slot is *ALWAYS* used unless it says otherwise. You just happen to be using those examples to prove your point, when in fact they prove the opposite. The slot is used because the spell casting rules say that the slot is used when they cast the spell, and the Counterspell description does not state otherwise.
When you apply common sense to the problem, if the spell wasn't actually cast, then there is nothing to counterspell, is there?
So the slot is used and the spell was cast.

It's seriously not that hard to understand. Just stop trying to lawyerize it and follow a combination of what is (and is not) written in conjunction with common friggin sense.

JellyPooga

2016-08-20, 11:58 AM

The slot is used because the spell casting rules say that the slot is used when they cast the spell

You're absolutely right; a slot is used when a spell is cast.

The trigger for Counterspell, however, is someone casting a spell within 60ft and in your LoS. Not, "when a spell is cast" or "upon completion of casting", but in the process.

Counterspell interrupts the casting process. It even says so in the description; the very first sentence. If Counterspell is successful, the spell never gets cast because the casting process was interrupted.

The only other instance of such an occurrence mentioned in the rules, to my knowledge, is under Longer Casting Times (pg.202), which spells out the circumstance in which should a spells casting time be interrupted, the slot is not expended. This is not an exception, but a precedent in the absence of a specific ruling. Note the similarity in vocabulary used;

If your concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you do not expend a spell slot

...the creature's spell fails and has no effect.
(emphasis mine)

From the Longer Casting Time ruling, we can establish that a spell is not "cast" until it's casting time is completed and further that a spell can begin being cast and not be completed. Interrupt the casting time and the spell fails because the casting was never complete. No spell cast = no slot expended.

In the case of Counterspell, the casting time of "1 Action" (or whatever it may be) is interrupted by the Counterspell, which is a Reaction taken in response to the casting time being started, just as losing concentration interrupts the longer casting time of spells that take more than a single action to cast.

NB - I'm only playing devil's advocate here; I totally agree that the slot should be expended. If my best argument (i.e. what I've presented here) can be shot down in flames, I'd take it as a favour!

DivisibleByZero

2016-08-20, 12:01 PM

Then answer me a simple question, Mr Devil's Advocate.
If the spell was never cast, then what, exactly, are you Counterspelling?

And once again, you are using that quote to prove their point, when in fact it proves the opposite.
Longer Casting Times specifically call out that the slot is not expended. Where is that line in Counterspell? It doesn't exist.
One says that the spell fails and you do not expend the slot. The other says that the spell fails and has no effect. Those are two different situations with two different ends.

Xetheral

2016-08-20, 12:13 PM

So what happens if you counterspell an enemy in the middle of casting a lengthy spell? (And by the text of counterspell, you absolutely can.)

The enemy's concentration wasn't broken, which would suggest that the exceptional "but you do not expend a spell slot" would never come into play, implying that the slot is indeed expended. But at the same time it seems somewhat silly that a counterspell can make an enemy lose a slot they haven't expended yet.

Which rule should control here? Counterspell or Longer Casting Times?

Ultimate_Coffee

2016-08-20, 12:13 PM

Then answer me a simple question, Mr Devil's Advocate.
If the spell was never cast, then what, exactly, are you Counterspelling?

I think you are focusing too much on the name of the spell... 5e is notorious for poor naming of things, and counterspell may fall into this same problem.
Maybe it should be called interrupt spellcaster, but counterspell sounds better...

Either way, counterspell activates when a spellcaster is Casting a spell, and it interrupts the casting. So the casting never happened...

JellyPooga

2016-08-20, 12:14 PM

Then answer me a simple question, Mr Devil's Advocate.
If the spell was never cast, then what, exactly, are you Counterspelling?

The process of a spell being cast. I'll refer you to the first line of the spells description again.

And once again, you are using that quote to prove their point, when in fact it proves the opposite.
Longer Casting Times specifically call out that the slot is not expended. Where is that line in Counterspell? It doesn't exist.

No, it doesn't. Just as no spell description explicitly calls out that a spell slot is expended when that spell is cast because that particular rule is already spelled out under Spell Slots (pg.201), which explicitly says (and I quote);

When a character casts a spell, he or she expends a slot of that spells level or higher
(emphasis mine)

The only mention in the Spellcasting rules (not spell descriptions) of a spell starting being cast and that process being interrupted is under Longer Casting Times, which implies that a spell is not actually cast until the entire casting time is complete. If the casting time of 1 action is interrupted, as with Counterspell, then the spell is not cast.

Similarly, as someone else pointed out, you cannot Counterspell a spell being held with a Ready action because that spell has already been cast, it's slot expended and Counterspell only interrupts the casting process.

DivisibleByZero

2016-08-20, 12:16 PM

I think you are focusing too much on the name of the spell... 5e is notorious for poor naming of things, and counterspell may fall into this same problem.
Maybe it should be called interrupt spellcaster, but counterspell sounds better...

Either way, counterspell activates when a spellcaster is Casting a spell, and it interrupts the casting. So the casting never happened...

....which then creates a paradox wherein the trigger for your reaction never occured, so you couldn't have cast Counterspell in the first place.
Use common sense here, people. Don't use legalese.

JellyPooga

2016-08-20, 12:19 PM

....which then creates a paradox wherein the trigger for your reaction never occured, so you couldn't have cast Counterspell in the first place.
Use common sense here, people. Don't use legalese.

There's no paradox; the trigger is a spell in the process of being cast, NOT a spell that has been cast. The effect of Counterspell is to interrupt that process of casting a spell, not to cancel a spell that's in effect; that's the jurisdiction of Dispel Magic.

DivisibleByZero

2016-08-20, 12:20 PM

https://mobile.twitter.com/calebrus44/status/767048267062386688

There's no paradox; the trigger is a spell in the process of being cast, NOT a spell that has been cast. The effect of Counterspell is to interrupt that process of casting a spell, not to cancel a spell that's in effect; that's the jurisdiction of Dispel Magic.

That's exactly the legalese I was referring to.

Ultimate_Coffee

2016-08-20, 12:21 PM

....which then creates a paradox wherein the trigger for your reaction never occured, so you couldn't have cast Counterspell in the first place.
Use common sense here, people. Don't use legalese.

No paradox is created. To interrupt is not to undo...
The trigger occurs when a spellcaster is Casting a spell. You interrupt that spell before it is complete. They are no longer Casting a spell, but they still were Casting a spell when the trigger occurred... That isn't undone, and no paradox occurs...

edit. shadow monk'd

DivisibleByZero

2016-08-20, 12:25 PM

I'll ask again, and this time I won't post anything else for you to nitpick instead of answering the question.

If the spell was never cast, then what, exactly, are you counterspelling?

JellyPooga

2016-08-20, 12:28 PM

If the spell was never cast, then what, exactly, are you counterspelling?

The spell casting process.

R.Shackleford

2016-08-20, 12:30 PM

The spell casting process.

Which is the "Cast a spell action" which means a spell was cast but was just interrupted.

The spell slot is used up.

DivisibleByZero

2016-08-20, 12:31 PM

The spell casting process.

OK. I completely disagree, but whatever.
So in that vein, let us compare to previous editions. If your spell was interrupted, did you still lose the slot?
Hint: The answer is yes.

For the record, I disagree because you can't counterspell the spell casting *process*. You need to counter a spell. The process is not the spell.
You aren't interrupting his somatic components. You aren't interrupting his material components. You aren't interrupting his verbal components. Those three things encompass and complete the spell casting process. You are manipulating or interrupting none of those.

You are interrupting the spell itself. Your magic against his.
How can you do that if no spell was cast?

Ultimate_Coffee

2016-08-20, 12:46 PM

OK. I completely disagree, but whatever.
So in that vein, let us compare to previous editions. If your spell was interrupted, did you still lose the slot?
Hint: The answer is yes.
I cannot speak for 4th edition, because I didn't really play it. But yes, in 3.x, a countered spell was lost. The counterspelling process was also harder to accomplish back then, requiring you to identify their spell and counter with the same spell (or spell of equal school and level with a feat). Now, you can counter a 9th level spell with a 3rd level spell, and it only takes an okay die roll... Doesn't it make some sense that when they made counterspelling easier, they also made it less effective in this edition?

For the record, I disagree because you can't counterspell the spell casting *process*. You need to counter a spell. The process is not the spell.

You don't touch a spell with counterspell, you interrupt the spellcaster. As stated in the spell description...
"you interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell"
Google defines interrupt as "stop the continuous progress of".
So you stop the progress of a creature Casting a spell... They never cast a spell...

Dalebert

2016-08-20, 12:47 PM

This feels like yet another case of someone reading extra effect into the fluff description of a spell vs. interpreting what the spell says it does in mechanical terms. Almost every effect in the game starts with a fluff description and then follows with the specific mechanical effect. My favorite example is Divine Sense that starts with a fluff description that talks about sensing "strong" good or evil and then goes on to explain the mechanics, i.e. you can sense certain creature types. If you get stuck on the fluff description, you might interpret it to be a know alignment ability which it is not (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/06/03/does-divine-sense-let-them-sense-alignment/).

That said, I acknowledge that the fluff description here creates some ambiguity because it uses the word "interrupt". So just run it that way if you feel strongly. Heck, run Divine Sense as a know alignment ability if you want. I think it's a misinterpretation but in the end, that's just my opinion. I would encourage folks not to get too deeply invested in other people's interpretations of the text for their own games.

Now if you're IN that person's game and you're feeling cheated by an interpretation for your character's abilities or what-not, then that might warrant a lengthy argument over interpretations.

RickAllison

2016-08-20, 12:48 PM

For those complaining that a Countered spell can still be cast the next turn by the ruling that it doesn't take a spell slot, remember that action economy is one of the most important parts of the game. Without that spell in play, it is entirely possible the caster will not make it to the next turn to cast it again. The Counterspell is exchanging a reaction, what is by default one of the weakest action slots since it isn't reliable, for the main action of the enemy. That's a major effect.

Ultimate_Coffee

2016-08-20, 12:52 PM

DivisibleByZero

2016-08-20, 01:01 PM

Now, you can counter a 9th level spell with a 3rd level spell, and it only takes an okay die roll... Doesn't it make some sense that when they made counterspelling easier, they also made it less effective in this edition?

If you have a 20 in your spellcasting stat, you need to roll a 14 to counterspell a 9th level spell unless you use a 9th level slot to counterspell it with.
14 on the die is only an "OK" roll? That's a 65% chace of failure. I'd call that more than an "OK" roll.
When we were talking about DCs for skill checks, everyone was in an uproar about needing a 14 to succeed.
So is it a big deal, or is it an "OK" roll?

JellyPooga

2016-08-20, 01:17 PM

If you have a 20 in your spellcasting stat, you need to roll a 14 to counterspell a 9th level spell unless you use a 9th level slot to counterspell it with.
14 on the die is only an "OK" roll? That's a 65% chace of failure. I'd call that more than an "OK" roll.

Unless you're a Bard or an Abjurer, in which case your chance is greatly improved (Bards being the ones that really excel with the option of both half their prof bonus from JoaT and Advantage from Glibness).

A level 17, 20 Int Abjurer gets +11 to his Counterspell rolls. That's only an 8+ on the dice.

A level 17, 20 Cha Bard with Glibness up has +8 with advantage. That's two chances of 11+ on the dice.

Seems like pretty good odds to me.

For the record, I disagree because you can't counterspell the spell casting *process*. You need to counter a spell

Where are you pulling this from aside from the name of the spell? Why can you not counter the process of casting the spell? It's in the spell description that this is exactly what the spell does.

This feels like yet another case of someone reading extra effect into the fluff description of a spell vs. interpreting what the spell says it does in mechanical terms.

I'm not so sure it is this. Many spells use their introduction to describe the fluff effect of the spell; which is then interpreted into game mechanics. A Fireball, for example, states;

A bright streak flashed from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame

Is this just fluff? Yes. Does it also describe, specifically, what the spell does? Also yes. It's what the spell does and cannot be ignored. You can't ignore that first sentence and have a Fireball that spontaneously causes an area to explode, because you require line of effect for this description to be valid.

Similarly with Counterspell, the first line of the spell description describes how the spell (Counterspell) interrupts the casting process. It doesn't negate a spell effect, it doesn't counter a spell in play and it doesn't stop just the effect of the spell because it interrupts a creature during the spellcasting process before the spell ever goes off.

The target of Counterspell is not the spell being countered; it's the creature casting the spell.

DivisibleByZero

2016-08-20, 01:22 PM

Where are you pulling this from aside from the name of the spell? Why can you not counter the process of casting the spell? It's in the spell description that that is exactly what the spell does.

How exactly are you interrupting the verbal/somatic/material components?
That's the spellcasting process. That's all there is to it.
How are you interrupting those?

You arent. You're interrupting the spell itself. Which you cannot do if no spell was cast.

I'm done with this thread. It's obvious that the spell is cast and the slot is used. If you want to lawyerize it and bastdardize it until it makes no sense for the sake of arguing, go ahead.
I won't do it any longer.

JellyPooga

2016-08-20, 01:26 PM

How exactly are you interrupting the verbal/somatic/material components?
That's the spellcasting process. That's all there is to it.
How are you interrupting those?

Err...with magic?

That's what Counterspell explicitly does. It stops those components, whether they be somatic, verbal or material from producing the magical effect that the caster is trying to accomplish. It counters the spell by interrupting the process of casting, not by cancelling the spell in action.

Erys

2016-08-20, 01:29 PM

You're interrupting the spell itself. Which you cannot do if no spell was cast.

This.

People as a whole need to stop trying to interpret meanings deeper than what the intent is. In this case, Counterspell counters a spell. Both spell countered and Counterspell are lost from available slots.

Simply put: that's balanced.

To try to give one side of the equation an unfair advantage where their resource is not lost but the other side's is is not fair, not balanced, and against the spirit of 5th ed dnd (and most games in general).

JellyPooga

2016-08-20, 01:37 PM

People as a whole need to stop trying to interpret meanings deeper than what the intent is. In this case, Counterspell counters a spell.

That's just it, though; Counterspell does not do what you claim. It does not counter a spell, despite its name. Counterspell, in 5ed D&D, interrupts a creature in the process of casting a spell. That is its function and this is clearly spelled out in the spell description. If there's any misinterpretation it's that Counterspell counters a spell, even though that would be the more intuitive interpretation (and yes, I'm aware of how backwards that sounds :smallwink:)

I'm done with this thread.
Damn you DivisibleByZero! You were my greatest hope of being shot down! :smalltongue:

Don't give up in the face of legalese...you've got a solid case that I actually agree with. We just need to find a way to circumnavigate the legalese without relying on it being "common sense" or a misinterpretation of what the spell actually does.

Erys

2016-08-20, 01:51 PM

That's just it, though; Counterspell does not do what you claim. It does not counter a spell, despite its name. Counterspell, in 5ed D&D, interrupts a creature in the process of casting a spell. That is its function and this is clearly spelled out in the spell description. If there's any misinterpretation it's that Counterspell counters a spell, even though that would be the more intuitive interpretation (and yes, I'm aware of how backwards that sounds :smallwink:)

How is it fair to have one person cast a spell, have another Counterspell it, but only one of the two loses a spell slot resource?

Where is the balance when I cast a spell and you Counterspell it, then I Counterspell your Counterspell; making me lose 2 resources and you lose... none.

Even if you were technically right with your current interpretation, that is going against the spirit and intent of the game.

Kornaki

2016-08-20, 01:59 PM

How is it fair to have one person cast a spell, have another Counterspell it, but only one of the two loses a spell slot resource?

Where is the balance when I cast a spell and you Counterspell it, then I Counterspell your Counterspell; making me lose 2 resources and you lose... none.

If counter spell is so awful, why did you counterspell a counterspell?

Obviously the advantage is the action economy of the spell under this interpretation.

Erys

2016-08-20, 02:04 PM

If counter spell is so awful, why did you counterspell a counterspell?

Obviously the advantage is the action economy of the spell under this interpretation.

You lost me on this one.

The action economy is not being debated. The consumption of spells slot resources is.

JellyPooga

2016-08-20, 02:07 PM

How is it fair to have one person cast a spell, have another Counterspell it, but only one of the two loses a spell slot resource?

How is it fair that when I make an attack with an arrow, that I expend that arrow whether I hit or miss, whilst in melee it's assumed that an "attack" is not literally a single strike, nor when I "hit" I necessarily actually strike the target?

As pointed out by Kornaki and others, the implications on the Action Ecomomy could well be worth the expenditure of a spell slot. By comparison, Hold Person exchanges one of your own (3rd level) spell slots for a chance at impacting your opponents own actions. The target of Hold Person needs to fail two consecutive saves in order for it to be a worthwhile investment (i.e. more than my single action for your single action) and that's considered a good spell by most accounts.

Counterspell costing a 3rd level slot and your Reaction to negate the Action of your target should, by that metric, be a solid spell, even though your target has the option of attempting to cast that spell again next turn.

bid

2016-08-20, 02:07 PM

bid

2016-08-20, 02:09 PM

Counterspell costing a 3rd level slot and your Reaction to negate the Action of your target should, by that metric, be a solid spell, even though your target has the option of attempting to cast that spell again next turn.
Compare to shield which mostly "negates" all attacks against you.

bid

2016-08-20, 02:14 PM

Where is the balance when I cast a spell and you Counterspell it, then I Counterspell your Counterspell; making me lose 2 resources and you lose... none.
That's not quite right. You lose 1 resource, the main one is not wasted since it worked as planned.

So, you lose 1 slot and your reaction in exchange to the counter's reaction. You won't be able to counterspell his next action, which is pretty bad though.

Erys

2016-08-20, 02:19 PM

How is it fair that when I make an attack with an arrow, that I expend that arrow whether I hit or miss, whilst in melee it's assumed that an "attack" is not literally a single strike, nor when I "hit" I necessarily actually strike the target?

Comparing apples to oranges.

A more accurate comparison would be if you shot an arrow at me and I am a monk and I snatch the arrow from the air. Because I negated your attack, you didn't suddenly get your arrow back... if you did, that would not be fair.

RAI, well no one tweeted the question.

Dividebyzero did early. Haven't seen a reply yet though.

https://mobile.twitter.com/calebrus44/status/767048267062386688

bid

2016-08-20, 02:33 PM

A more accurate comparison would be if you shot an arrow at me and I am a monk and I snatch the arrow from the air. Because I negated your attack, you didn't suddenly get your arrow back... if you did, that would not be fair.
Well, you'd get it back. Point first.

Dividebyzero did early. Haven't seen a reply yet though.
Nice.

RickAllison

2016-08-20, 03:04 PM

Well, you'd get it back. Point first.

Nice.

I was just about to point that out :smallbiggrin: I really love monks. I don't care whether they are powerful (I think they are!), they are just super fun!

Erys

2016-08-20, 03:19 PM

Well, you'd get it back. Point first.

Haha! Touché.

DivisibleByZero

2016-08-20, 04:36 PM

Damn you DivisibleByZero! You were my greatest hope of being shot down! :smalltongue:

Don't give up in the face of legalese...you've got a solid case that I actually agree with. We just need to find a way to circumnavigate the legalese without relying on it being "common sense" or a misinterpretation of what the spell actually does.

Why would I continue?
The rules clearly state that when you cast a spell, you expend the slot.
The rules clearly indicate when there is an exception to this.
The rules indicate no such exception in the case of Counterspell.
Furthermore, the legalese being used is absolutely, clearly, 100% anti-RAW for how spellcasting works, and absolutely, clearly, 100% anti-RAI for how every single one of you *KNOWS* Counterspell is supposed to work.

The entire debate is predicated upon the legalese, and the entire debate ignores all of RAW, RAI, and common sense, in favor of trying to find a loophole that doesn't even actually make any sense.
I mean, "you Counterspell the process, not the spell".... Really?!?!?
Are you kidding me right now?

Nope. Your minds are made up. That's fine. I'm done trying to convince you of the abundantly clear truth, and I'll just let you carry on with your game as you see fit.

uraniumrooster

2016-08-20, 05:13 PM

Wow, this thread has taken off since I last checked it.

It seems the debate boils down to two possible interpretations...

1. Counterspell counters the original spell after it has been cast. The original caster loses their Action, spell slot, and is unable to cast a Bonus Action spell, but they do gain the benefit of any rider abilities for casting spells (such as Arcane Ward).

2. Counterspell interrupts the original caster, preventing the spell from being cast. The original caster retains their spell slot and can still cast a Bonus Action spell on the same turn, but their Action is wasted and they get no bonus from rider abilities for casting spells.

In my judgment, there's enough ambiguity that both interpretations work by strict RAW. I can't speak to RAI, but I would tend to believe option 1 is closer to the mark. I think I'll run it by my players and see which method they would prefer.

Using option 2 makes Counterspell somewhat weaker, but I don't have a problem nerfing it. It would still be stronger than most 3rd level spells just for the ability to trade your Reaction plus a spell slot to deprive an enemy caster of their Action. I also tend to include at least one caster in most encounters, so Counterspell is used frequently on both sides, and nerfing it would both help and hinder my players.

To answer the argument that option 2 creates a paradox ("what are you countering if there's no spell to counter?"), that's not really what's going on. Caster A begins their spell and Caster B uses Counterspell to interrupt it, causing it to fail and have no effect. There is no paradox - Counterspell doesn't alter time and prevent the spell from ever having been cast, it simply prevents it from being completed. Caster A already spent their Action on the spell, but since it was magically interrupted, they can continue with the rest of their turn as if they hadn't cast a spell.

DivisibleByZero

2016-08-20, 05:27 PM

RickAllison

2016-08-20, 05:33 PM

On option 1, no rider abilities (such as arcane ward) take effect. The spell failed.
You used your action to cast a spell.
You expended a spell slot to do so.
The spell was countered and it failed.
Next player's turn in the initiative order.

Nope. Either you cast the spell or you didn't. If you cast the spell, triggers that work off casting a spell go off and the spell slot is used. If they didn't cast the spell, they don't go off and don't lose the slot.

Basically, you can pick one way or the other to penalize the players, but a DM who inflicts both penalties is both breaking the rules and is probably an a-hole.

JellyPooga

2016-08-20, 06:16 PM

I mean, "you Counterspell the process, not the spell".... Really?!?!?
Are you kidding me right now?

Have you read the spell?

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

There's no kidding here, it's what the spell explicitly does in no uncertain terms. It literally interrupts the casting process of the creature; it does not "counter" the spell itself. No two ways about it. Counterspell takes effect (or not, as the case may be) before the casting process is completed.

What happens after you've interrupted the process is what's up for debate here; the spell is not cast if the Counterspell is effective. Fact. Whether an interrupted spell expends a spell slot or not is the issue here and as far as I can see, the only precedent for a spell casting being interrupted is under the Longer Casting Times rules and they state that the spell slot is not expended if the casting time is not completed.

Compare to Dispel Magic, which explicitly targets "one creature, object or magical effect". Counterspell has no such distinction or range of target; it targets "a creature in the process of casting a spell" and "on a success, the creature's spell fails and has no effect". There's very little room for manouevre on that; so little that I, personally, cannot see it (as much as I want to).

Personally, I'm inclined to use uraniumrooster's first interpretation of;

1. Counterspell counters the original spell after it has been cast. The original caster loses their Action, spell slot, and is unable to cast a Bonus Action spell, but they do gain the benefit of any rider abilities for casting spells (such as Arcane Ward).
...as I think that this is the RAI, but the "letter of the law" contradicts this, as far as I can see and further that the "rules as precedent implies" (for want of a better term) is not an unbalanced view, mechanically, because of the implications on the Action Economy. I can see either interpretation flying at any given table.

What I'm looking for is a conclusive argument either way, which is what I've yet to see.

Zalabim

2016-08-21, 05:17 AM

I'm not so sure it is this. Many spells use their introduction to describe the fluff effect of the spell; which is then interpreted into game mechanics. A Fireball, for example, states;

A bright streak flashed from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame

Is this just fluff? Yes. Does it also describe, specifically, what the spell does? Also yes. It's what the spell does and cannot be ignored. You can't ignore that first sentence and have a Fireball that spontaneously causes an area to explode, because you require line of effect for this description to be valid.

In a startling new discovery, it has been learned that Flameskulls have fingers! It is fluff. You can ignore it. All spells require line of effect unless they state otherwise. It is a general rule.

Similarly with Counterspell, the first line of the spell description describes how the spell (Counterspell) interrupts the casting process.
No, it doesn't say how. It states only that it occurs during the casting process.

It doesn't negate a spell effect, it doesn't counter a spell in play and it doesn't stop just the effect of the spell because it interrupts a creature during the spellcasting process before the spell ever goes off.
It's explicit when it says the spell has no effect. It does not specifically say the spell is not cast. Spells only make the changes they say that they make. Therefore the spell is still cast. Spells that are cast can fail, as referenced in many spell descriptions. The interrupted caster's spell fails and has no effect.

Dalebert

2016-08-21, 08:32 AM

That's what I said. Too much is being read into the fluff description of the spell. It says you interrupt the casting of a spell in the fluff. What does that mean? It goes on to tell you exactly what the effect is--the spell fails; not that it doesn't get cast. It's reasonable to make an exception for spells with a long casting time because it's been specifically stated somewhere (according to earlier posts) that spells with a long casting time don't use a slot if they're interrupted, which also strongly implies (or else why point out the exception) that spells with a standard casting time DO use a slot if you start them and don't complete them.

Of course by putting fluff descriptions in the first place, they've introduced ambiguity. These threads have been coming up a lot where people come to a different conclusion based on the fluff even when it contradicts with what seems to me to be the clearly-stated mechanical effect. Ultimately some folks are going to interpret them differently and eventually you just have to throw up your hands and let people run their games how they're going to. I'm just suggesting that you don't lose sleep arguing with folks when these threads become 15 pages long. :smallbiggrin:

smcmike

2016-08-21, 08:37 AM

Yeah, I don't think the language is fluff, but I think it's too thin to assign much meaning to. I don't see any reason why interrupting the casting of a spell couldn't mean that the spell slot is used up.

JellyPooga

2016-08-21, 09:48 AM

It is fluff. You can ignore it.

I can? Great! What else can I ignore in a spells' description? Can I change the damage type of Fireball? Both Create AND Destroy Water with a single casting? Target more than one creature with Disintegrate? Make more than one Wish? The possibilities are endless when you ignore the spell description; any spell can do anything you want! Amazing. :smallannoyed:

It's explicit when it says the spell has no effect. It does not specifically say the spell is not cast.
I'll grant you that...

Therefore the spell is still cast.
...but this does not follow. If you'd care to join the dots for me, I'd be interested how you got from "the spell fails and has no effect" to "which means the spell must still be cast".

Yeah, I don't think the language is fluff, but I think it's too thin to assign much meaning to.

It is pretty thin and the rules regarding the casting process are vague at best, so when you encounter something that interrupts it, there's not a lot we can go on.

I don't see any reason why interrupting the casting of a spell couldn't mean that the spell slot is used up.

The only reason I can see is that a Spell Slot is only expended when a spell is cast (pg.201).
- A spell with a longer casting time does not expend a slot until the casting process (i.e. the spells specific Casting Time) is completed.
- It follows that starting the casting process (regardless of the spells Casting Time) does not expend the slot, but completing it does.
- Therefore, if Counterspell interrupts the casting process, the spell is never completed and the slot is never expended.

If Counterspell does not interrupt the casting process, then the spell is cast and the slot expended, even if the spell subsequently fails.

This means that the debatable first sentence of the Spell Description, in conjunction with the Reaction trigger described under the Casting Time of Counterspell (which is undeniably not fluff, being part of the spells stat block), is key to solving whether or not a spell slot is expended.

NNescio

2016-08-21, 09:56 AM

In a startling new discovery, it has been learned that Flameskulls have fingers! It is fluff. You can ignore it. All spells require line of effect unless they state otherwise. It is a general rule.

To be pedantic, the general rule is that only spells that target something or has a point of origin (i.e. AoEs) require line of effect (PHB 204). This is slightly different than the case was in 3.5e, where any spell which target or creates an effect or has a point of origin require LoE to the target/space in which the effect is created/point of origin. So while in 3.5e one explicitly cannot summon a creature (or any a conjured effect) without LoE to the space, this is not true in 5e (unless the DM expands the definition of targeting to include selecting a space, which has other repercussions when applied to other situations consistently), so one can create a Spiritual Weapon in a space even without LoE.

This distinction is also important in the case of teleportation spells, like Misty Step, which targets the caster (and hence requires line of effect from the caster to the caster, a trivial requirement which is always true), but can teleport the caster to any location he can see within range, even if he doesn't have line of effect to that location. So you could, for example, Misty Step through a transparent window, or even Misty Step out of an enemy's stomach by using the senses of your familiar (and in the case of a Gelatinous Cube, you don't even need a familiar).

(I'm being pedantic here because your argument is true for Counterspell and Fireball.)

Plaguescarred

2016-08-21, 12:22 PM

Longer Casting Time tells us that a spell that fail to cast completly doesn't expend a spell slot when the process is interrupted before completion. That's pretty much what Counterspell does.

DivisibleByZero

2016-08-21, 12:27 PM

Longer Casting Time tells us that a spell that fail to cast completly doesn't expend a spell slot when the process is interrupted before completion. That's pretty much what Counterspell does.

The difference is that Counterspell doesn't tell us that the slot isn't expended like LCT states.
People are reading it that way, but it doesn't actually read that way.

Dalebert

2016-08-21, 12:32 PM

I'm very curious what Crawford has to say. I don't have the greatest record eliciting a response from him though.

Oh well. Worth a try:

@JeremyECrawford Bob casts fireball. Successfully counterspelled by Sue. Bob still used up a spell slot or still has it?

Plaguescarred

2016-08-21, 01:41 PM

The difference is that Counterspell doesn't tell us that the slot isn't expended like LCT states.
People are reading it that way, but it doesn't actually read that way.You cannot read something not written and if Counterspell wrote about the fate of the spell slot, this thread wouldn't exist. We know the spell interrupt a casting process before completion though, and that Longer Casting Time rules tells us what happens to a spell slot when the casting process is interrupted before completion. I don't think its reaching too much to come to the conclusion that a spell slot isn't expanded when the casting process is interrupted before completion, either by a broken concentration, or a Counterspell reaction.

JellyPooga

2016-08-21, 02:05 PM

The difference is that Counterspell doesn't tell us that the slot isn't expended like LCT states.
People are reading it that way, but it doesn't actually read that way.

You're correct that Counterspell doesn't specifically state the same as LCT, but LCT provides the only other precedent for a spell being interrupted during the casting process. There is no other mention of a spells casting process being interrupted in the Spellcasting rules. With no other rule on the subject, it's not an unreasonable interpretation to assume that the same criteria are being followed in both circumstances, leading to the same result;

1) Player A begins casting a spell.
2) Player B interrupts the spellcasting process.
3) Player A's spell fails and does not expend a spell slot.

The alternative is that we end up with two different results for the same set of criteria; i.e. that #3 in the above progression is different for Counterspell and LCT. This is not necessarily a bad thing nor necessarily untrue, but it is also (however infinitesimally) more complicated, requiring additional clarification in the absence of the simpler function of consolidating both of these similar situations under a single rule.

With one of 5ed's design philosophies being "simpler rules = better rules", the interpretation that involves less specific rules for each individual case is more likely to be the "true" interpretation.

(NB - Please note that I am in no way talking about "definites" or "certainties" here, merely supposition and interpretation that I think most likely based on the facts presented.)

Quintessence

2016-08-21, 02:28 PM

If you cast a spell and it is countered, it definitely should expend the spell slot... Anyone who says otherwise is 100% munchkin.

uraniumrooster

2016-08-21, 02:34 PM

If you cast a spell and it is countered, it definitely should expend the spell slot... Anyone who says otherwise is 100% munchkin.

I don't see how it's munchkin-y at all. If anything it's a nerf for Counterspell, which is one of the must-have spells of its level. The ruling would go both ways, so if you use Counterspell against an NPC, they would keep their spell slot as well.

Xetheral

2016-08-21, 02:36 PM

All spells require line of effect unless they state otherwise. It is a general rule.

Like NNescio, I don't see anything in the 5e rules that requires line of effect as a general rule applicable to all spells. Do you have a citation?

Erys

2016-08-21, 02:40 PM

I don't see how it's munchkin-y at all. If anything it's a nerf for Counterspell, which is one of the must-have spells of its level. The ruling would go both ways, so if you use Counterspell against an NPC, they would keep their spell slot as well.

Spell for a spell is balanced. Spell for nothing is not.

5th ed strives for balance, so ideally we should stop trying to creatively interpret spells to offset said balance.

Quintessence

2016-08-21, 02:43 PM

I don't see how it's munchkin-y at all. If anything it's a nerf for Counterspell, which is one of the must-have spells of its level. The ruling would go both ways, so if you use Counterspell against an NPC, they would keep their spell slot as well.

Because it is obvious the intended effect is spell for spell and not spell for nothing, and just cast it again next turn.

smcmike

2016-08-21, 02:52 PM

Longer Casting Time tells us that a spell that fail to cast completly doesn't expend a spell slot when the process is interrupted before completion. That's pretty much what Counterspell does.

This assumes that spells with longer casting times aren't an exception.

JellyPooga

2016-08-21, 02:58 PM

Because it is obvious the intended effect is spell for spell and not spell for nothing, and just cast it again next turn.

Why is it obvious? Four pages of discussion begs to differ.

uraniumrooster

2016-08-21, 03:02 PM

Spell for a spell is balanced. Spell for nothing is not.

5th ed strives for balance, so ideally we should stop trying to creatively interpret spells to offset said balance.

Because it is obvious the intended effect is spell for spell and not spell for nothing, and just cast it again next turn.

Scenario: Caster A uses the Cast a Spell Action and begins casting Fireball. Caster B uses their Reaction to cast Counterspell.

There are two interpretations for how this Counterspell resolves:

1. Counterspell opposes the effect of Fireball after it has been cast, causing it to fail. In this case, Caster A loses their Action, spell slot, and cannot cast a Bonus Action spell this turn. It costs Caster B their Reaction and a spell slot.

2. Counterspell interrupts the casting of Fireball before it is completed. In this case, Caster A loses their Action, but retains their spell slot and can still cast a Bonus Action spell if they have one prepared. It costs Caster B their Reaction and a spell slot.

Neither of these interpretations cause Counterspell to function as a "spell for nothing". If anything, Option 1 is overpowered, while Option 2 is more balanced. Caster B expends a spell slot and Reaction to deprive Caster A of their Action. Imagine if there was a spell that allowed you to do that for other types of Actions (Reaction + Spell Slot to have an enemy Attack Action automatically fail? Yes please!).

RickAllison

2016-08-21, 03:03 PM

Spell for a spell is balanced. Spell for nothing is not.

5th ed strives for balance, so ideally we should stop trying to creatively interpret spells to offset said balance.

Sure, if it cost an action. But no, Counterspell gives up a minor part of action economy for the greatest part of it. Without costing the original caster their slots, it is already a powerful effect. It is telling someone that they don't get to act this turn. The most powerful casters of the realm can already be rendered helpless by a crew of comparatively low-level casters. Losing the spell slot renders that even more powerful because they can then prevent the caster from doing anything, even after the battle.

Plaguescarred

2016-08-21, 03:05 PM

This assumes that spells with longer casting times aren't an exception.This makes no assumption about exceptions at all - it tells you about the fate of a spell slot when a spell casting process is interrupted before completion, because as a general rule, spells otherwise don't have time to get interrupted usually. Counterspell is an exception if there's any.

orange74

2016-08-21, 03:11 PM

Player: I cast Scorching Ray.

DM: Okay, roll d20 and add your Strength bonus.

Player: Add my what now?

DM: Add your Strength bonus.

Player: To a spell.

DM: Yes, of course, what is confusing about this? The spell description clearly reads, "You create three rays of fire and *hurl* them at targets within range." I don't see rays of fire listed as Finesse weapons so you'll have to use Strength to throw them.

Player: But the next sentence says—

DM: Read the spell. "Hurls." Merriam-Webster defines "hurl" as "to throw something with great force." It's abundantly clear.

Player: But that's just fluff! The next sentence, where it describes the actual game mechanics of the spell, says—

DM: Next sentence? What could that possibly add to my understanding of this situation? I always read the first sentence of the spell and then check the definitions in the dictionary. That is all the information I require.

Player: But there are words there! Some of them are specifically defined elsewhere in the Player's Hand—

DM: Do you want to throw them all at the same target? You have to decide first, the spell's duration is instantaneous.

NNescio

2016-08-21, 03:14 PM

DivisibleByZero

2016-08-21, 03:27 PM

You cannot read something not written and if Counterspell wrote about the fate of the spell slot, this thread wouldn't exist.

If you finished that thought there, this debate wouldn't exist.
You're correct. You cannot read something not written. So why do you guys insist on reading that the slot isn't used when it is not written that way?

The one time.... One. Time.... that the slot is not used it is explicitly stated.
For counterspell, it is not stated as such.

Quintessence

2016-08-21, 03:27 PM

Why is it obvious? Four pages of discussion begs to differ.

Would it not be logical to say that as soon as you take the action to "cast a spell" that the spell slot is used and then the enemy has a chance to counterspell it? Because when you take the casting action the order of operations would be..

Declare action "cast spell" > Determine spell > Use spell slot to begin casting said spell > get buttblasted by counterspell and lose slot plus spell.

RickAllison

2016-08-21, 03:34 PM

Would it not be logical to say that as soon as you take the action to "cast a spell" that the spell slot is used and then the enemy has a chance to counterspell it? Because when you take the casting action the order of operations would be..

Declare action "cast spell" > Determine spell > Use spell slot to begin casting said spell > get buttblasted by counterspell and lose slot plus spell.

Because there are numerous spells in the book that do already allow the Cast a Spell action to not consume the spell slot immediately. In fact, there is a rule that when these spells are stopped before they finish casting, they don't lose the spell slot. So then logic has to consider whether Counterspell interrupts the casting process (in which case it does not use the caster's slot) or cancels the spell after casting (in which case it is consumed):

Quintessence

2016-08-21, 03:37 PM

Because there are numerous spells in the book that do already allow the Cast a Spell action to not consume the spell slot immediately. In fact, there is a rule that when these spells are stopped before they finish casting, they don't lose the spell slot. So then logic has to consider whether Counterspell interrupts the casting process (in which case it does not use the caster's slot) or cancels the spell after casting (in which case it is consumed):

If you use your action to "ready" a spell and you don't use it by the time it is your turn again, then you lose that spell slot and spell even though you never actually cast said spell. This makes me believe you "fill" the spell slot the instant you use the action.

Erys

2016-08-21, 03:39 PM

Sure, if it cost an action. But no, Counterspell gives up a minor part of action economy for the greatest part of it. Without costing the original caster their slots, it is already a powerful effect. It is telling someone that they don't get to act this turn. The most powerful casters of the realm can already be rendered helpless by a crew of comparatively low-level casters. Losing the spell slot renders that even more powerful because they can then prevent the caster from doing anything, even after the battle.

So does Shield, which last all round and could mitigate a myriad of attacks.

Also, a well oiled machine of orcs can kill a high level character just the same; is this not the philosophy of bounded accuracy at its core?

The type of action does not diminish the intention of the game to be balanced, ie. spell verse Counterspell: both are lost.

Erys

2016-08-21, 03:43 PM

Because there are numerous spells in the book that do already allow the Cast a Spell action to not consume the spell slot immediately. In fact, there is a rule that when these spells are stopped before they finish casting, they don't lose the spell slot. So then logic has to consider whether Counterspell interrupts the casting process (in which case it does not use the caster's slot) or cancels the spell after casting (in which case it is consumed):

The only examples I can think of that have this 'not consumed' caveat are rituals; which don't take slots to begin with. What non-ritual spells say this?

RickAllison

2016-08-21, 03:44 PM

Going by that, since it is mentioned in every other spell that works as such why isn't it said in counterspell that it works that way? Also if you use your action to "ready" a spell and you don't use it by the time it is your turn again, then you lose that spell slot and spell even though you never actually cast said spell.

I wasn't talking about a spell, I was talking about anything that can (without the specific exception of Counterspell) be interrupted. The case of Counterspell potentially interrupting a 1 action casting time spell is the only occurrence where the casting could be interrupted and we don't have the rules saying the spell slot isn't consumed.

Thus, we have the central question of the thread: Does Counterspell interrupt the casting process like the text says, or does it counter a finished spell?

Erys

2016-08-21, 03:45 PM

Quintessence

2016-08-21, 03:48 PM

I wasn't talking about a spell, I was talking about anything that can (without the specific exception of Counterspell) be interrupted. The case of Counterspell potentially interrupting a 1 action casting time spell is the only occurrence where the casting could be interrupted and we don't have the rules saying the spell slot isn't consumed.

Thus, we have the central question of the thread: Does Counterspell interrupt the casting process like the text says, or does it counter a finished spell?

I edited my post because it was a baseless tangent.

RAI it should be countering a finished spell, the reason I believe this is because it has been stated that the victim of a counterspell can counterspell the counterspell. Now since you can't cast two spells at the same time, wouldn't that mean you finish casting and the effect just hasn't taken place yet?

DivisibleByZero

2016-08-21, 03:51 PM

uraniumrooster

2016-08-21, 03:57 PM

If you use your action to "ready" a spell and you don't use it by the time it is your turn again, then you lose that spell slot and spell even though you never actually cast said spell. This makes me believe you "fill" the spell slot the instant you use the action.

When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal on your turn but hold its energy (requiring concentration), which you release with your Reaction when the trigger occurs. The energy dissipates if the trigger doesn't occur before your next turn, but the spell slot was expended on your turn when you readied the spell in the first place.

RickAllison

2016-08-21, 04:10 PM

I edited my post because it was a baseless tangent.

RAI it should be countering a finished spell, the reason I believe this is because it has been stated that the victim of a counterspell can counterspell the counterspell. Now since you can't cast two spells at the same time, wouldn't that mean you finish casting and the effect just hasn't taken place yet?

Is there a rule that you can't cast two spells at the same time?

uraniumrooster

2016-08-21, 04:30 PM

...it has been stated that the victim of a counterspell can counterspell the counterspell. Now since you can't cast two spells at the same time, wouldn't that mean you finish casting and the effect just hasn't taken place yet?

If you cast a spell with a Longer Casting Time, it requires your Action each turn, and your Concentration. You can still, however, use your Reaction to cast Counterspell against an enemy caster, on your turn or otherwise, despite the fact that you're still in the middle of casting your own spell. The same could be true for a spell with a casting time of 1 Action, the timescale is just shorter.

Plaguescarred

2016-08-21, 04:40 PM

If you finished that thought there, this debate wouldn't exist.
You're correct. You cannot read something not written. So why do you guys insist on reading that the slot isn't used when it is not written that way?Its not written in Counterspell, but its written in the general rules for Casting a Spell where it addresss the general way into which a spell casting process can be interrupted. As a DM without any indication as to the fate of the spell slot following a Counterspell, i would look elsewhere where it discuss spell casting process interrupted before completion for insight about the fate of the spell slot to make a decision.

Is there any other general rule that tells about the fate of a spell slot when spell casting process is interrupted before its completed?

Erys

2016-08-21, 04:45 PM

If you cast a spell with a Longer Casting Time, it requires your Action each turn, and your Concentration. You can still, however, use your Reaction to cast Counterspell against an enemy caster, on your turn or otherwise, despite the fact that you're still in the middle of casting your own spell. The same could be true for a spell with a casting time of 1 Action, the timescale is just shorter.

Where does it say that you can use another spell while casting a longer than one action spell?

uraniumrooster

2016-08-21, 04:58 PM

As to the garbage about a corner case setting precedent:
I'll tell you what sets precedent - Crawford's absolute favorite response tweet, to paraphrase, goes something like:
"If [x] did [y] then the description would say so. If doesn't say that."
There's your precedent.

So then, if Counterspell caused the target to lose their spell slot, wouldn't it say so?

The ambiguity arises from the fact that the spell description doesn't state what happens to the target's spell slot one way or the other.

Further, the rules for the Cast a Spell Action and Spellcasting Times don't say whether Action, Bonus Action or Reaction spells consume their slots when you begin the casting or after completing it. The only precedent that exists is for spells with Longer Casting Times, which tells us that the slot is expended upon completion of the spell. It's not a stretch to assume that all spells function similarly, for the sake of consistency, and spell slots are consumed upon completion of a spell.

The only question, then, is whether Counterspell opposes an already completed spell, or interrupts the casting before it can be completed. Since the RAW supports either conclusion, it's left to DM interpretation, or a dev tweet if they choose to clarify the RAI.

uraniumrooster

2016-08-21, 05:17 PM

Where does it say that you can use another spell while casting a longer than one action spell?

The requirements for casting a spell with a Longer Casting Time are A) spending your Action casting the spell each turn, and B) maintaining your concentration.

The only limitation on casting multiple spells on a turn is if one of the spells is a Bonus Action, in which case you can only cast a Cantrip with a casting time of 1 Action.

So, for a LCT spell, since you have to spend your Action every turn Casting a Spell, you're unable to cast a Bonus Action spell that same turn, but there is no restriction on casting Reaction spells.

Since the Longer Casting Time also requires Concentration, you wouldn't be able to cast another Concentration spell without causing your LCT spell to fail. There's no limitation on casting another non-concentration spell, however.

So, while casting a LCT spell, you are able to cast a Reaction spell that doesn't require Concentration. It's not a long list of valid options - Absorb Elements, Counterspell, Feather Fall, Hellish Rebuke and Shield - but it is possible.

Erys

2016-08-21, 05:38 PM

The requirements for casting a spell with a Longer Casting Time are A) spending your Action casting the spell each turn, and B) maintaining your concentration.

The only limitation on casting multiple spells on a turn is if one of the spells is a Bonus Action, in which case you can only cast a Cantrip with a casting time of 1 Action.

So, for a LCT spell, since you have to spend your Action every turn Casting a Spell, you're unable to cast a Bonus Action spell that same turn, but there is no restriction on casting Reaction spells.

Since the Longer Casting Time also requires Concentration, you wouldn't be able to cast another Concentration spell without causing your LCT spell to fail. There's no limitation on casting another non-concentration spell, however.

So, while casting a LCT spell, you are able to cast a Reaction spell that doesn't require Concentration. It's not a long list of valid options - Absorb Elements, Counterspell, Feather Fall, Hellish Rebuke and Shield - but it is possible.

Oh, so it doesn't actually say you can do this. You just came to that conclusion on your own accord.

A decent line of thought, but definitely not RAW.

In fact, for me, I come to the exact opposite conclusion with the same info. Casting is sequential. Your bonus spell does not go off at the same time as your cantrip which doesn't overlap with any reaction spells you may take. They all happen consecutively one at a time, albeit sometimes in a very short span of time.

In the end of the day it seems evident the intent of 5th is to cast only one spell at a time. Regardless of casting time.

uraniumrooster

2016-08-21, 05:56 PM

Oh, so it doesn't actually say you can do this. You just came to that conclusion on your own accord.

A decent line of thought, but definitely not RAW.

In fact, for me, I come to the exact opposite conclusion with the same info. Casting is sequential. Your bonus spell does not go off at the same time as your cantrip which doesn't overlap with any reaction spells you may take. They all happen consecutively one at a time, albeit sometimes in a very short span of time.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that all spellcasting happens at the same time. I agree with you that a Bonus Action Spell and a 1 Action Cantrip are sequential, and in most cases Reaction spells happen independently as well. However, that doesn't mean Reaction spells cannot be cast at the same time as, say, a LCT or Action spell, given the proper trigger, and there is nothing in the RAW the prevents that from being the case.

Of course, its your prerogative as a DM to rule how you see fit, and its not my intent to say that your interpretation is wrong. That's been my argument regarding Counterspell all along - the RAW support multiple interpretations, and its up to each DM to decide which interpretation fits with their preferences.

In the end of the day it seems evident the intent of 5th is to cast only one spell at a time. Regardless of casting time.

This, I disagree with. It is your interpretation that a character can only cast one spell at a time, but there is ambiguity in the rules that supports either conclusion. Unless you're one of the designers and/or have a tweet or Sage Advice to link to, the intent is unknown.

Erys

2016-08-21, 06:05 PM

Unless you're one of the designers and/or have a tweet or Sage Advice to link to, the intent is unknown.

It would be nice if they would weigh in on this.

Vogonjeltz

2016-08-21, 06:10 PM

None of those example have anything to do with saving throws. So your argument is irrelevant.

Saving throws do not make a spell fail, it still succeeds but has "no effect". It seems clear that the slot is expended on success, but that doesn't say anything about failure.

It comes down to this:
- Why does being on the astral plane will make you explicitely lose your slot?
- Why is it not explicit when you speak with dead a second time within 10 days?

Another point of approach is readying a spell: in that case, the slot is explicitely lost. The question becomes: Can you counterspell a readied spell?

That wasn't my argument at all.

I said those are situations where the spell is described as automatically failing, absent which there might be a saving throw. Which is relevant and true.

bid

2016-08-21, 11:36 PM

A decent line of thought, but definitely not RAW.
It definitely matches RAW. There isn't a One True Interpretation of RAW, both can be true even if they reach "the exact opposite conclusion with the same info".

Unless there's a explicit rule that makes it not-RAW, but then you'd mention it.

It would be like saying that only NOW contains the letters N,O,W. Coming up with OWN or WON won't make NOW any less true. Being right doesn't mean the others are wrong.

bid

2016-08-21, 11:40 PM

That wasn't my argument at all.

I said those are situations where the spell is described as automatically failing, absent which there might be a saving throw. Which is relevant and true.
Yes, sorry. I misread that part.

I still don't think spending the slot automatically follows failing the spell. It might be the fairest solution, but the opposite seems still valid.

Gwendol

2016-08-22, 02:43 AM

You're correct that Counterspell doesn't specifically state the same as LCT, but LCT provides the only other precedent for a spell being interrupted during the casting process. There is no other mention of a spells casting process being interrupted in the Spellcasting rules. With no other rule on the subject, it's not an unreasonable interpretation to assume that the same criteria are being followed in both circumstances, leading to the same result;

1) Player A begins casting a spell.
2) Player B interrupts the spellcasting process.
3) Player A's spell fails and does not expend a spell slot.

The alternative is that we end up with two different results for the same set of criteria; i.e. that #3 in the above progression is different for Counterspell and LCT. This is not necessarily a bad thing nor necessarily untrue, but it is also (however infinitesimally) more complicated, requiring additional clarification in the absence of the simpler function of consolidating both of these similar situations under a single rule.

With one of 5ed's design philosophies being "simpler rules = better rules", the interpretation that involves less specific rules for each individual case is more likely to be the "true" interpretation.

(NB - Please note that I am in no way talking about "definites" or "certainties" here, merely supposition and interpretation that I think most likely based on the facts presented.)

Incorrect. The longer casting time rules describe a specific case. To me it looks like Counterspelling acts more like the Arcane Trickster Spell Thief ability. The spell is cast, but fails to take effect, thus expending a spell slot.
Also, Counterspell lacks the specific wording regarding timing of the reaction, thus defaulting to the general rule for reactions (happens after the triggering action is complete). Compare Mage Slayer:

When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell, you
can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack
against that creature.
with Counterspell:

1 reaction, which you take when you see
a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell

Zalabim

2016-08-22, 03:28 AM

...but this does not follow. If you'd care to join the dots for me, I'd be interested how you got from "the spell fails and has no effect" to "which means the spell must still be cast".
With this gem right here, that I conveniently placed between the two statements in the first place "Spells only make the changes they say that they make." Counterspell is resolved before the spell is finished casting, then if it works, the spell fails. However, the caster did not lose their concentration, nor does counterspell does say the spell does not get cast.

The only reason I can see is that a Spell Slot is only expended when a spell is cast (pg.201).
- A spell with a longer casting time does not expend a slot until the casting process (i.e. the spells specific Casting Time) is completed.

Technically, the spell slot is only not expended if the spell fails due to you losing your concentration. If the spell fails for any other reason that clause wouldn't apply. An odd technicality.

(I'm being pedantic here because your argument is true for Counterspell and Fireball.)

Technically it's not all fluff in Fireball, either. Both spells include important mechanical information like their targeting parameters in that first line. I really just wanted an excuse to advertise my new gamer snack "Flameskull Fingers". They're crunchy and hot.

Like NNescio, I don't see anything in the 5e rules that requires line of effect as a general rule applicable to all spells. Do you have a citation?

It's called "A clear path to the target" on page 204. Without any research, I would have assumed that spells that create effects in space still target the space where they create the effect.

Imagine if there was a spell that allowed you to do that for other types of Actions (Reaction + Spell Slot to have an enemy Attack Action automatically fail? Yes please!).

It's called Shield.

Malifice

2016-08-22, 03:50 AM

'Spell fails and has no effect' = gone, kaput, as if cast, dead in the water, cross off the slot.

Player: I cast fireball!
DM: He counterspells, cross off the slot (and I'll cross off mine)

Thats how I rule it.

Dalebert

2016-08-22, 09:54 AM

I really just wanted an excuse to advertise my new gamer snack "Flameskull Fingers". They're crunchy and hot.

Also, does Burning Hands need both hands free since it also describes the somatic component as such? How many DMs make the caster put away their weapon in one hand or arcane focus to cast it?

JellyPooga

2016-08-22, 11:01 AM

To me it looks like Counterspelling acts more like the Arcane Trickster Spell Thief ability.

Compare Mage Slayer [snip] with Counterspell:

This doesn't support your case at all.

There is a distinct difference between something happening "Immediately after a creature casts a spell" or "When a creature [snip] casts a spell" and "when you see
a creature [snip] casting a spell". Notice how the former two happen after the fact and the latter does not?

This is rather the crux of the problem; the absolutely-not-fluff Casting Time of Counterspell gives us a timing issue that is not addressed elsewhere in the rules, except in the possibly-an-exception-but-also-maybe-a-precedent-who-can-say-? LCT rules. It's then compounded by the possibly-just-fluff first sentence of the spell description.

If Counterspell used the same language as the likes of Spell Thief or Mage Slayer, there'd be no argument. The fact that it uses a distinctly different terminology to every other ability in the book that triggers when a spell is cast or being cast, gives rise to the thought that, perhaps, the timing is actually intended to be different. Or maybe it's just an oversight. There's no clarification either way.

Counterspell is an exception itself and should, perhaps, use the only other exceptional rules that address such a circumstance, i.e. those for LCTs.

Gwendol

2016-08-23, 01:28 AM

This doesn't support your case at all.

There is a distinct difference between something happening "Immediately after a creature casts a spell" or "When a creature [snip] casts a spell" and "when you see
a creature [snip] casting a spell". Notice how the former two happen after the fact and the latter does not?

This is rather the crux of the problem; the absolutely-not-fluff Casting Time of Counterspell gives us a timing issue that is not addressed elsewhere in the rules, except in the possibly-an-exception-but-also-maybe-a-precedent-who-can-say-? LCT rules. It's then compounded by the possibly-just-fluff first sentence of the spell description.

If Counterspell used the same language as the likes of Spell Thief or Mage Slayer, there'd be no argument. The fact that it uses a distinctly different terminology to every other ability in the book that triggers when a spell is cast or being cast, gives rise to the thought that, perhaps, the timing is actually intended to be different. Or maybe it's just an oversight. There's no clarification either way.

Counterspell is an exception itself and should, perhaps, use the only other exceptional rules that address such a circumstance, i.e. those for LCTs.

No, because there is no qualifying text in when the reaction is taken. Only the trigger is described (when you see someone casting a spell). This means you need to default to the general rule of reaction timing which is that the reaction is taken after the triggering action is done. Had this been otherwise it would say something along the lines of "before the casting of the spell is complete" or similar. However, in 5e nothing can prevent a spell to be cast unless the casting time is longer than an action. Counterspell provides no tangible evidence of working otherwise, on the contrary it explicitly states that the spell fails and has no effect, and not that it is prevented from being cast.