Counterspell and Trickster Cleric

[Spellbreaker26]

If a Trickster Cleric's shadow clone from the Channel Divinity is used to cast a spell, can that spell be counterspelled if the person can see the clone but not the actual cleric?

[BiPolar]

If a Trickster Cleric's shadow clone from the Channel Divinity is used to cast a spell, can that spell be counterspelled if the person can see the clone but not the actual cleric?

This is a pretty awesome question. I keep flip-flopping between either answer :) I could see it that given that "...you must use your own senses." it would mean that the counterspell would have to be on the Cleric and not the Shadow, but I could also see that if you are "casting as though you were in the illusion's space" would mean that the shadow would have to be counterspelled.

However, my gut tells me that this is a duplicitous act and that you would have to counterspell the cleric and not the shadow.

[Spellbreaker26]

This is a pretty awesome question. I keep flip-flopping between either answer :) I could see it that given that "...you must use your own senses." it would mean that the counterspell would have to be on the Cleric and not the Shadow, but I could also see that if you are "casting as though you were in the illusion's space" would mean that the shadow would have to be counterspelled.

However, my gut tells me that this is a duplicitous act and that you would have to counterspell the cleric and not the shadow.

I'm trending towards "you have to see the cleric" as well, primarily because Trickster seems a little underpowered. Plus, Counterspell doesn't have enough weaknesses.

[BiPolar]

I'm trending towards "you have to see the cleric" as well, primarily because Trickster seems a little underpowered. Plus, Counterspell doesn't have enough weaknesses.

and it wouldn't be very duplicitous if the shadow WAS the caster. It's already nerfed by still requiring the target to be in the Cleric's range and not the Shadows, so this basically supports that to balance it.

[RickAllison]

This is a pretty awesome question. I keep flip-flopping between either answer :) I could see it that given that "...you must use your own senses." it would mean that the counterspell would have to be on the Cleric and not the Shadow, but I could also see that if you are "casting as though you were in the illusion's space" would mean that the shadow would have to be counterspelled.

However, my gut tells me that this is a duplicitous act and that you would have to counterspell the cleric and not the shadow.

See, I would go in the opposite direction and say that you have to target the illusion if it is being cast through that. Which means you can just see which of the two copies would be seen and respond accordingly.

I could see some fun tactics being used for this. Since the spell uses your sense but is cast from the clone, it stands to reason that you can position the clone in a Fog Cloud or similar barrier to sight and cast just fine because you have perfect line of sight and of effect. You could deliberately flub an enemy caster by getting them to Counterspell you when really it is the clone taking advantage of your Warlock's darkness who is causing trouble. They lose a spell slot and your spell is still legal.

[BiPolar]

See, I would go in the opposite direction and say that you have to target the illusion if it is being cast through that. Which means you can just see which of the two copies would be seen and respond accordingly.

I could see some fun tactics being used for this. Since the spell uses your sense but is cast from the clone, it stands to reason that you can position the clone in a Fog Cloud or similar barrier to sight and cast just fine because you have perfect line of sight and of effect. You could deliberately flub an enemy caster by getting them to Counterspell you when really it is the clone taking advantage of your Warlock's darkness who is causing trouble. They lose a spell slot and your spell is still legal.

hmm, that also is pretty neat. Tactics could be used similarly the other way around, too. And the line "You can cast spells as if you were in the illusion's space" does support your interpretation. If that's where you are casting spells, then that is where you can be counterspelled.

DM has to be aware, though. A counterspelling enemy would be smart enough to know that certain spells need line of sight and if the illusion doesn't have line of sight, the gig is up.

[Hrugner]

I think you need to see the cleric. I'm not sure it's a good idea to make it work like that though, since the trickster duplicate lets you get around the "on the same plane" restriction in some spells.

[Biggstick]

The person using the Counterspell absolutely can cast the spell as per normal.

But since they can't see the actual caster of said spell, and only an illusion created by the Trickery Cleric, the Counterspell fails (but the spell slot is still burned).

The person casting the Counterspell has wasted their reaction, a 3rd (or higher) level spell slot, and the Trickster Cleric got to cast their spell.

[RSP]

The character is still the caster. The character still has to perform all the components, including the S component, which tends to be the visual cue that a Spell is being cast.

Nothing in the Trickery ability allows the Illusion to do the components, so it's still the character who would need to be Counterspelled.

[BiPolar]

The character is still the caster. The character still has to perform all the components, including the S component, which tends to be the visual cue that a Spell is being cast.

Nothing in the Trickery ability allows the Illusion to do the components, so it's still the character who would need to be Counterspelled.

Very true! And the illusion isn't a creature and that's a requirement for counterspell.

[Spellbreaker26]

Also, by "with your own senses" what if the target is seen via an arcane eye spell?

[BiPolar]

Also, by "with your own senses" what if the target is seen via an arcane eye spell?

Not possible. Both the channel divinity and arcane eye require concentration. Gotta pick one.

[Spellbreaker26]

Not possible. Both the channel divinity and arcane eye require concentration. Gotta pick one.

Not quite; it says "as if you were concentrating on a spell"

it doesn't actually use up concentration.

[BiPolar]

Not quite; it says "as if you were concentrating on a spell"

it doesn't actually use up concentration.

C'mon, man.


As an action, you create a perfect illusion of yourself that lasts for 1 minute, or until you lose your concentration (as if you were concentrating on a spell).

...what's one way to lose concentration? Cast another spell that requires concentration.

[Spellbreaker26]

C'mon, man.



...what's one way to lose concentration? Cast another spell that requires concentration.

I think there's some gray area on that but what about using some other spell that allows you to spy? Say, find familiar?

[BiPolar]

I think there's some gray area on that but what about using some other spell that allows you to spy? Say, find familiar?

No, there is no grey area. Concentration is concentration. As for Find Familiar, it's an interesting idea but there are two issues with it:


While your familiar is within 100 feet of you, you can communicate with it telepathically. Additionally, as an action, you can see through your familiar's eyes and hear what it hears until the start of your next turn, gaining the benefits of any special senses that the familiar has. During this time, you are deaf and blind with regard to your own senses.

First issue is that you have to use your action to see through your familiar's eyes, which means you don't have an action (unless you've dipped fighter for action surge) to cast a spell whilst seeing through your familiar's eyes.

Second issue is more of an interpretation problem and is mostly superseded by the first issue. However, Invoke Duplicity requires you to use your own senses. If your own senses are deaf/blind then you are deaf/blind. The problem arises is whether "seeing through your familiar's eyes" counts as "your own senses". That's going to be a bit more of a DM interpretation, although without the clause "as if they were your own" I'd say that you aren't using your own senses.

But again, the first issue pretty much negates the need for the second issue.

[Spellbreaker26]

True, but there are several ways around that. A magic item like Robes of the Archmagi, or you could use channel divinity after the spell, since it's not technically casting a spell, therefore you wouldn't break the first spell's concentration.

[BiPolar]

True, but there are several ways around that. A magic item like Robes of the Archmagi, or you could use channel divinity after the spell, since it's not technically casting a spell, therefore you wouldn't break the first spell's concentration.

This is getting silly, Spellbreaker. The channel divinity is an action, and your cleric doesn't have two actions (unless that fighter dip occurred.) So that's not a way. Also, Find Familiar is a Wizard spell, not a Cleric spell, so you'd either have to take Magic Initiate or dip Wizard.

And if your DM is either kind enough, or you were lucky enough for him to make the random roll to get the Legendary Robe of the Archmagi...then you have the Robe of the Archmagi. Which does nothing to help you here. It provides a different AC methodology, gives advantage on saving throws vs spells and magical effects and increases your spell save DC and spell attack. SO i'm not really sure where you were going with that.

If you meant to say Robe of Eyes, which is only rare, then you would get an increase in your darkvision to 120'. That increases your darkvision range, but does nothing to increase your spell requirement range.

[Spellbreaker26]

This is getting silly, Spellbreaker. The channel divinity is an action, and your cleric doesn't have two actions (unless that fighter dip occurred.) So that's not a way. Also, Find Familiar is a Wizard spell, not a Cleric spell, so you'd either have to take Magic Initiate or dip Wizard.



Robe of the Archmagi allows for concentration on two spells. And I'm not actually planning on playing this, I was just spitballing.

[BiPolar]

Robe of the Archmagi allows for concentration on two spells. And I'm not actually planning on playing this, I was just spitballing.

I'm sorry, where does it say that?

[Spellbreaker26]

I'm sorry, where does it say that?

Huh, I could have sworn that it did that. I'm pretty sure there is a magic item that allows that.

[BiPolar]

Huh, I could have sworn that it did that. I'm pretty sure there is a magic item that allows that.

I'm pretty sure there ain't. As far as I know, the only way to 'do' this is to first set up a glyph of warding.

[tieren]

I think from the OP's question there are two parts:
1. Can the cleric's spell be counterspelled
2. If it isn't counterspelled does counterspeller lose a slot

Counterspell requires the creature casting the spell to be seen. In the situation as given, the wizard can see the clone and not the cleric itself (maybe he is hiding or under greater invisibility). In that instance the spell coming from the clone can not be counterspelled as the requirements of counterspell are not met (creature casting spell to be seen).

So what happens when the wizard tries to counterspell? He sees what he believes is a creature casting a spell, it is reasonable for him to use his reaction trying to counterspell. The counterspell won't work, invalid target. I believe I would have the wizard lose his reaction, but not the spell slot. I wouldn't let him keep trying multiple reactions but I wouldn't charge against a non-firing spell.

[RSP]

Sounds like it was resolved, but just in case, here's the tweet about design intent regarding the "as concentrating on a spell" clause:

@JeremyECrawford Creatures that have a ability that says: "as concentrating on a spell" is there a different between it & real concentration

Crawford:
A creature can't concentrate on such an ability and a spell at the same time. #DnD https://twitter.com/rugholm86/status/711995712230334464 …

[RSP]

So what happens when the wizard tries to counterspell? He sees what he believes is a creature casting a spell, it is reasonable for him to use his reaction trying to counterspell. The counterspell won't work, invalid target. I believe I would have the wizard lose his reaction, but not the spell slot. I wouldn't let him keep trying multiple reactions but I wouldn't charge against a non-firing spell.

Would be up to the DM, due to, as you stated, the requirement isn't met for being able to use your reaction/cast Counterspell in the first place.

Personally, I'd go with Counterspell is cast and fails (slot and reaction wasted).

As a Player, I've always wanted to try and use my character's Action to pretend to cast a spell to get an enemy caster to waste slots on Counterspell. This would run into the same issue.

[BiPolar]

The issue of invalid targeting has come up several times before. Here is one example (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?499439-Casting-an-invalid-spell&highlight=invalid+target).

It seems very dm-dependent as to what happens and should probably be something to ask at session 0 or in general. My table tends to play strictly; if we cast a spell that shouldn't able to be cast for whatever reason(invalid target, out of range, etc), we lose the action and slot.