How does Counterspell work (passive checks)?

[Guy Lombard-O]

I'm curious exactly how people actually use this spell in real games.

The spell says:
"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."

So I get the basic idea, you use your reaction and a 3rd (or higher) level spell slot to interrupt the enemy's spell. But XGtE says that it takes up your reaction to even identify what spell someone is casting. Putting those two things together, it suggests that caster A, who wants to counterspell the spell that caster B is casting, must do without knowing what spell Caster B is even casting.

My real question for the people who've actually used this spell in play at their tables, is this how it's actually done? Do you as the DM tell your players "Caster B is casting a spell. Does anyone take a reaction?" or something similar? Or is it more like "DM: Caster B is going to cast a Fireball. PC: I'm going to counterspell!"?

I understand that it's apparently RAW supposed to be the first one, firing counterspell blind. Personally, I've never cast a counterspell because of exactly this question. As a player, I'm extremely averse to using up a (relatively) powerful spell slot without having any idea if it's a worthwhile expenditure of that resource. I'd feel pretty stupid if I ended up counterspelling the necromancer's Chill Touch, on the off chance that he might be casting Finger of Death (and that my 3rd level counterspell would actually prevent it). Or maybe not? Maybe the PC never even learns what Caster B's spell even was? They just know that they successfully interrupted it?

How does this spell actually work at your table?!? Any illumination is appreciated.

EDIT: I've been thinking about this issue and people's answers, and I now want to know: For those DMs/tables that follow RAW and say you cannot both make an active Arcana/Religion skill check to identify the spell being cast and cast Counterspell, would you give the PCs the knowledge of what the spell is as a passive Arcana or Religion skill check, and still allow them to cast the Counterspell?

[Man_Over_Game]

Realistically, there are two ways I see people play it:


Option 1- Unknown Magic: A caster obviously casts a spell, but what's described are the effects of the spell, not the name of the spell itself. "The Wizard says some mumbo jumbo, and the dirt under your feet begins shifting loose. Claws of bone reach out and try to drag you down." You don't know exactly what spell the Wizard cast, only what it does, when it does it.



Option 2- Obvious Magic: A caster's turn is spent casting a specific spell. Everyone knows what spell was cast.





Option 1 is the best case scenario at a lot of tables, but if you have an inexperienced DM, or the table is in a rush to get through the fight, you might experience more of Option 2. How Counterspell works is dependent upon how your DM runs magic, usually in one of these two groups. I suppose there's a third option of people saying they're casting a spell, and then revealing that spell once there's no counter to it, but nobody would ever play like that.

[Solusek]

So I get the basic idea, you use your reaction and a 3rd (or higher) level spell slot to interrupt the enemy's spell. But XGtE says that it takes up your reaction to even identify what spell someone is casting. Putting those two things together, it suggests that caster A, who wants to counterspell the spell that caster B is casting, must do without knowing what spell Caster B is even casting.

Correct, that is how it's supposed to work. You're not supposed to know what spell is being cast at the moment you have to decide to counter or not.




How does this spell actually work at your table?!? Any illumination is appreciated.

Usually how it works in actual play is the DM (or a player) says "The wizard casts fireball catching these targets in the blast" and then starts to roll damage dice while the other person says "nope my character uses a reaction to counterspell."

It's a real pain to play the game in a manner that forces counterspell to be used RAW. Do you really want to be playing your home D&D game like it's a Magic The Gathering tournament? "I put my ability on the stack, any reactions?" or more accurately "I'm using an ability, any reactions before I reveal what it is?"

[Mellack]

We use counterspell blind at our table. Usually it is saved for the more major bad guys, with isn't hard because there are not many minion-types that have a lot of spells. It has been a real help, even when we don't know what the BBEG is casting. Trading a reaction and a spell slot is generally worth it to negate whatever they are spending an action on.

[TheHutz]

I've seen some creative rules realted to this. I believe there is something published about using your reaction to determine what the spell is using Arcana, but then that means no counterspell. I've had a DM run that you can roll an Arcana check to determine the spell, and still counterspell on top of it. This would only be for spells that have components that are obvious. Something like subtle spell would make this impossible.

[Guy Lombard-O]

We use counterspell blind at our table. Usually it is saved for the more major bad guys, with isn't hard because there are not many minion-types that have a lot of spells. It has been a real help, even when we don't know what the BBEG is casting. Trading a reaction and a spell slot is generally worth it to negate whatever they are spending an action on.

Do you ever find out what the BBEG's spell was? Or do you just counterspell whatever and then move on?

[Rukelnikov]

We run the Arcana check to recognize spell as a free action. We only do this when there's some kinda of relevance to knowing what the spell is before having its effects apply, most normally counterspelling. So, if no one is able to counterspell or do anything about it the DM would just describe the effect or name the spell, depending on the current investment in the fight, and move on.

[Mellack]

Do you ever find out what the BBEG's spell was? Or do you just counterspell whatever and then move on?

Our DM will tell us after the counterspell what was being cast. One I remember was counterspelling what turned out to be Greater Invisibility. That didn't save damage but probably saved the group a lot of trouble.

[Unoriginal]

As a DM I say something like "Caster X is moving their hands in a sinuous pattern while muttering strange yaps", and they get to say if they Counterspell or not.

None of my PCs has this spell so far, though.

[Guy Lombard-O]

TheHutz? I've had a DM run that you can roll an Arcana check to determine the spell, and still counterspell on top of it. This would only be for spells that have components that are obvious. Something like subtle spell would make this impossible.


We run the Arcana check to recognize spell as a free action. We only do this when there's some kinda of relevance to knowing what the spell is before having its effects apply, most normally counterspelling.

This seems like a fair and workable way to go, using a (free) Arcana or Religion check. It's probably how I'd run it as a DM, despite the RAW (which I generally stick close to). Maybe give advantage if the PC has that spell, or just saw it cast?

A related question which I forgot to ask originally: Does upcasting Counterspell with a higher level slot, but still not equal to Caster B's spell, have any benefit at your tables (e.g. Caster A uses a 6th level slot to cast Counterspell of Caster B's 7th level Finger of Death)? The spell doesn't suggest it, but it seems counter intuitive that the additional slot levels wouldn't subtract from the DC of successfully counterspelling.

[MoiMagnus]

As a DM the infos I give are:
1) The approximate target (he is casting a spell on himself / he is casting a spell in your direction / ...)
2) The spell's level tier (2 or less, 3 to 5, 6 or more)
3) If this exact spells have already been cast recently, I give the exact spell ("the mage try to cast another fireball" or "you recognize the spell you just used against him: a scorching ray")

I was quite tolerant with "after-the-fact" counter-spells when I didn't ask "someone counterspell?" before resolving the spell (which I tend to do often), but my players know that they aren't supposed to use precise knowledge of the spell to chose if they want to counterspell it.

[VonDragon]

it hasn't come up yet as my players are only lv 2 but I plan on using the obvious magic approach due to the fact that I will know what the players are casting first and rather than not have my npcs make a decision based on this fact ill just allow both of the table to know

[PhoenixPhyre]

I go with the blind counterspell these days.

"<X> begins casting a spell."
pause for reactions, possibly a directed "do you want to counterspell"? for new players
If not countered, then I provide the description and resolve the effect. If countered, then resolve the counter-spell.

Because I'm forgiving, I'll also let someone try to jump in late if they were distracted (I play with a lot of mothers with little children, so...)

I don't use NPCs with counterspell often, and when I do they have set priorities: "will counter the first spell they see." This avoids the DM-knowledge issue.

I used to be open about it, but I've decided otherwise for several reasons.

[vexedart]

Roll an Arcana check to identify that a spell is being cast to use counterspell. Reaction to use DC 15+spell level, but high but that’s what XGtE calls for. Which means you then can’t counterspell. This isn’t how I normally see it used, but those are the rules as written.

Very strange since knowledge checks generally don’t take an action (usually the dm just tells you when you can make the roll) to know what you already know. Maybe the nerf was to make it a team based thing, where one is the ‘spotter’ for spells and the other, the ‘counter-speller.’

[JoeJ]

Very strange since knowledge checks generally don’t take an action (usually the dm just tells you when you can make the roll) to know what you already know. Maybe the nerf was to make it a team based thing, where one is the ‘spotter’ for spells and the other, the ‘counter-speller.’

I think the real reasons the devs made it take a reaction to identify a spell (or an action if you do it after the spell is cast) are that they don't hate illusionists, and that if there was no cost the game would slow down because everybody would try to identify every spell.

[Frozenstep]

As a DM the infos I give are:
1) The approximate target (he is casting a spell on himself / he is casting a spell in your direction / ...)
2) The spell's level tier (2 or less, 3 to 5, 6 or more)
3) If this exact spells have already been cast recently, I give the exact spell ("the mage try to cast another fireball" or "you recognize the spell you just used against him: a scorching ray")

I was quite tolerant with "after-the-fact" counter-spells when I didn't ask "someone counterspell?" before resolving the spell (which I tend to do often), but my players know that they aren't supposed to use precise knowledge of the spell to chose if they want to counterspell it.

I think for my game, I'm going to use a similar system, but attach it to an arcana check by someone who can cast counterspell before they choose to attempt it or not, with varying results depending on how they roll.

DC 10: Figure out the rough target
DC 15: Figure out rough spell level
DC 20: Figure out the spell name, get a quick idea of the spell effect.

Wizards of a particular college of magic can automatically tell if it's a spell of their school or not, and have advantage on the check if it is.

I'm still playing around with what should be figured out at each DC, and whether I should adjust them. NPC's would use the rule as well, though I would rarely have counter spellers and if I did, they'd probably just counterspell the first thing more dangerous then a cantrip, or just counter blindly if they fail to hit DC 15 to figure out it's a cantrip.

[OverLordOcelot]

I understand that it's apparently RAW supposed to be the first one, firing counterspell blind. Personally, I've never cast a counterspell because of exactly this question. As a player, I'm extremely averse to using up a (relatively) powerful spell slot without having any idea if it's a worthwhile expenditure of that resource. I'd feel pretty stupid if I ended up counterspelling the necromancer's Chill Touch, on the off chance that he might be casting Finger of Death (and that my 3rd level counterspell would actually prevent it). Or maybe not? Maybe the PC never even learns what Caster B's spell even was? They just know that they successfully interrupted it?

Everyone I know runs it as the first one, though often the first spell cast gets said because they forget. The sequence can sound like "The enemy casts a fireball" "I counterspell" "OK, enemy two casts a reaction spell" "OK, other player counters counterspell", "OK, that chain is done. Enemy 2 now casts a spell, does anyone counter?" and continues with "Person casts a spell, any counter?" from then on. Counterspell (and similar abilities) are extremely powerful, the fact that they use up PC spell slots without knowing exactly what is being countered forces the PCs to actually spend resources. Since it's rare in my experience for T2 and T3 games to end with casters out of spell slots, I don't think it's much of a problem.

You have to remember that combats are usually fast, so even if you 'wasted' counterspell on a chill touch, you also forced the enemy to waste his entire action not hitting you with a major effect. If the necromancer doesn't hit you with finger of death in the first or second round and just tosses a chill touch while waiting for a good moment, it's quite possible your group can simply burn him down before he ever gets to cast it. I also like that dealing with counterspell forces a lot of use of darkness, line of sight, and party coordination, it makes casting significantly more tactical. Conjuring minions and casting major buffs before a fight is worthwhile and even non-counterspellers can join the war - as a T3 druid it can be very worthwhile for me to toss out longstrider in round 1 to troll for counters.


I think for my game, I'm going to use a similar system, but attach it to an arcana check by someone who can cast counterspell before they choose to attempt it or not, with varying results depending on how they roll.

Note that if you do this, wizards who are serious about conterspelling will likely have at least +13 to arcana checks (expertise and +5 int) so will identify the level (DC 15) pretty much all of the time. Rolling a bunch of arcana checks for the PCs and enemies (for counter-counterspelling) can get really cumbersome really fast, if I was going to use this rule with such a low DC I wouldn't bother with an arcana check and just make it automatic.

[Rukelnikov]

Note that if you do this, wizards who are serious about conterspelling will likely have at least +13 to arcana checks (expertise and +5 int) so will identify the level (DC 15) pretty much all of the time. Rolling a bunch of arcana checks for the PCs and enemies (for counter-counterspelling) can get really cumbersome really fast, if I was going to use this rule with such a low DC I wouldn't bother with an arcana check and just make it automatic.

If they are willing to take a dip in Rogue or spend a feat in Prodigy for Arcana, the rule has effectively nerfed those casters, and thus, its pretty different from not having the rule in the first place.

[Hail Tempus]

All the tables I play at ignore the rule in Xanathar's. Its only purpose seems to be to slow down the game. Who wants to wait for every caster to write down the spell they're casting every turn?

A house rule I've played with is that you can't upcast Counterspell, so if you're trying to stop a spell of level 4+, you need to make an ability check.

[OverLordOcelot]

If they are willing to take a dip in Rogue or spend a feat in Prodigy for Arcana, the rule has effectively nerfed those casters, and thus, its pretty different from not having the rule in the first place.

One level dip in knowledge cleric gives two extra proficiency, expertise in arcana and one other skill, plus medium armor, shields, guidance, any first level cleric spells, any cleric magic items while maintaining full slot progression and only giving up one level of known spell progression. That's not really a nerf, that's something that is tempting even without the house rule.

[Frozenstep]

Note that if you do this, wizards who are serious about conterspelling will likely have at least +13 to arcana checks (expertise and +5 int) so will identify the level (DC 15) pretty much all of the time. Rolling a bunch of arcana checks for the PCs and enemies (for counter-counterspelling) can get really cumbersome really fast, if I was going to use this rule with such a low DC I wouldn't bother with an arcana check and just make it automatic.

I wanted the DC to be relatively low so a sorcerer would still have a fair shot of not using counterspell against a cantrip, but I can see a bard with arcana expertise being able to expertly identify exactly what level spell slot they need to use every time getting a bit out of hand. Still playing with ideas. Maybe a relatively low DC to figure out if the spell is more then a 3rd tier spell, but more specific information on the level/name of the spell is pushed back to DC 25 or something.


All the tables I play at ignore the rule in Xanathar's. Its only purpose seems to be to slow down the game. Who wants to wait for every caster to write down the spell they're casting every turn?

A house rule I've played with is that you can't upcast Counterspell, so if you're trying to stop a spell of level 4+, you need to make an ability check.

How has that worked out for you? I could see that being a neat way to handle some issues.

[Rukelnikov]

One level dip in knowledge cleric gives two extra proficiency, expertise in arcana and one other skill, plus medium armor, shields, guidance, any first level cleric spells, any cleric magic items while maintaining full slot progression and only giving up one level of known spell progression. That's not really a nerf, that's something that is tempting even without the house rule.

Then you need to have a 13 in Wis (which cuts into your Dex or Con), and while you get some very interesting goodies, you are delaying your spell progression anyways.

[ImperiousLeader]

I play a Sorcerer with Counterspell, and my DM has done both. Announce what spell was being cast, then I counter, or just saying that "this guy is casting a spell" and not giving me the knowledge of what spell is being cast, or what level.

I got super lucky in the last battle, where I used two 3rd level Counterspells to counter 2 spells that I couldn't identify. After, I asked OOC what I had countered. A Chain Lightning, followed by a Finger of Death.

I felt REAL good after that battle. :smallcool:

[Kane0]

My table ignores the Xan's reaction-to-identify thing. They are optional after all.

[Hail Tempus]

How has that worked out for you? I could see that being a neat way to handle some issues.It creates just enough uncertainty to make Counterspelling interesting. It’s no longer just an “I win” button that lets you shut down an enemy caster. And vice versa, where a high level enemy Wizard can’t totally sideline a PC.

We thought about extending the rule to Dispel Magic, but decided it wasn’t needed since Dispel Magic isn’t a reaction.

[Chronos]

My feeling is that, any time a boss is casting a spell, you should probably assume that it's something that you'd really rather not work. And if it was actually just Chill Touch, well, my goal was not to get hit by a Finger of Death (or whatever), and I'm not getting hit by a Finger of Death. Mission accomplished.

That said, our DMs are often a bit sloppy about giving folks a chance to counter. They're trying to get better at that, but meanwhile, we've had a few cases of a player declaring the Counterspell while the DM is rolling damage, because they didn't get a chance to earlier.

And going the other way, I don't generally say "I'm casting X spell". I say something like "The monster needs to make a DC 14 Dex save", which is answered by "<roll> OK, he failed. What happens?". Most of the other players in my group do the same, except for one of the clerics, because everyone knows that when he's casting in combat, it's either Spirit Guardians or Guiding Bolt, anyway (though out of combat, it could be almost anything, and has drawn the DM's ire multiple times for ruining a perfectly good plan).

[Tanarii]

Officially, I use the XtgE rule and Counterspelling is blind. But I run fast combat and sometimes forget myself and blurt out the spell being cast. That's my problem if I do, and players are welcome to take advantage of it.

[Guy Lombard-O]

EDIT: I've been thinking about this issue and people's answers, and I now want to know: For those DMs/tables that follow RAW and say you cannot both make an active Arcana/Religion skill check to identify the spell being cast and cast Counterspell, would you give the PCs the knowledge of what the spell is as a passive Arcana or Religion skill check, and still allow them to cast the Counterspell?

[Tanarii]

Making it a passive check wouldn't change the requirement to spend a reaction. It'd just mean the player didn't roll a die to determine the result.

Which is what the "passive" in passive check means. It has nothing to do with the character being passive.

[Naanomi]

There are big parts of illusion and a few enchantment spells that basically don’t work if you allow automatic spell recognition

Some system of ‘passive perception’ that allows high level/high expertise people to recognize low level spells (maybe only if you know the spell yourself?) wouldn’t be the worst house-rule in the world; I like increasing the utility of passive checks beyond just Stealth in general

[Unoriginal]

EDIT: I've been thinking about this issue and people's answers, and I now want to know: For those DMs/tables that follow RAW and say you cannot both make an active Arcana/Religion skill check to identify the spell being cast and cast Counterspell, would you give the PCs the knowledge of what the spell is as a passive Arcana or Religion skill check, and still allow them to cast the Counterspell?

No. Because I follow the rules that say you have to do an active INT check with Arcana proficiency to identify a spell being cast.

Religion proficiency doesn't do anything for this, active or not.

Also, there is no skill checks in 5e.

[Avonar]

For me personally, I will tell them that the enemy is casting a spell, and if it is a spell that one of them can cast I will tell them what the spell is, going with that they can recognise the hand movements or the words used to figure out what it is. If it is not a spell anyone can cast though, then it's up to them to guess.

[Vorpalchicken]

A Big Bad Caster is going to open with a big spell under most circumstances, so you are usually safe to spend a Counterspell on it. Trying to root out the Counterspell with a cantrip would be pretty bad metagaming on the part of the DM under most circumstances.

[Grey Watcher]

A related question which I forgot to ask originally: Does upcasting Counterspell with a higher level slot, but still not equal to Caster B's spell, have any benefit at your tables (e.g. Caster A uses a 6th level slot to cast Counterspell of Caster B's 7th level Finger of Death)? The spell doesn't suggest it, but it seems counter intuitive that the additional slot levels wouldn't subtract from the DC of successfully counterspelling.

I think that, just as strictest RAW says you can't directly know what spell you're trying to counter, the level is supposed to be similar guesswork. Sure, you could guarantee success by blowing your 9th level slot on it, but you run the risk of wasting that slot when a 4th level slot would've worked just as well. Conversely, you can use a 5th level slot, only to learn you have to roll for it anyway. The risk is in accidentally over- or underspending.

[Samayu]

A Big Bad Caster is going to open with a big spell under most circumstances, so you are usually safe to spend a Counterspell on it. Trying to root out the Counterspell with a cantrip would be pretty bad metagaming on the part of the DM under most circumstances.

Or just plain poor tactics. The only time that would every happen is if the caster needed a certain setup, and didn't have anything really big to do in the first round.

I'm not a fan of counterspelling. It's fun to see lots of spells flying around the board, so when you use your slots on counterspells, you lose some of that fun. And then you have to weigh are their spells going to mess us up more than my spell is going to mess them up? If their spellcaster is much higher level than me, the answer is probably yes. But if that's the case, will my counterspell even work?

[Crgaston]

All the tables I play at ignore the rule in Xanathar's. Its only purpose seems to be to slow down the game. Who wants to wait for every caster to write down the spell they're casting every turn?

A house rule I've played with is that you can't upcast Counterspell, so if you're trying to stop a spell of level 4+, you need to make an ability check.


How do you handle Warlocks? By this rule, they can only Counterspell at levels 5 and 6, when they have 3rd level spell slots.

[Guy Lombard-O]

Making it a passive check wouldn't change the requirement to spend a reaction. It'd just mean the player didn't roll a die to determine the result.

Which is what the "passive" in passive check means. It has nothing to do with the character being passive.


Unoriginal

No. Because I follow the rules that say you have to do an active INT check with Arcana proficiency to identify a spell being cast.

Religion proficiency doesn't do anything for this, active or not.

Also, there is no skill checks in 5e.

Sigh...(watches Religion skill lose final finger-grip on second-to-last rung of ladder of relative skill proficiency usefulness, and slip into freefall)...OK.

I hate that, but I guess it's RAW. Soooo:

PC cleric of Thor: Casts Spiritual Weapon.

PC party member wizard: "Oh no, the BBG has Dominate Person'd brother (NPC cleric of Thor)! And (NPC cleric) is performing some sort of ritual and channeling divine energy! What's he doing, (PC cleric)?!?"

PC cleric, to DM: "Do I recognize what he's doing?"

DM to PC cleric: "Maybe. Make an Arcana check Intelligence check using your Arcana proficiency."

PC cleric to DM: "But...I only have Religion proficiency."

DM to PC: "What's that got to do with anything?"

PC cleric shrugs, turns to other PC: "I Dunno what that divine power is."

NPC cleric of Thor casts Spiritual Weapon. Low-Int clerics who've all skipped Religion proficiency everywhere chuckle. :smalleek:

----------------------------

Just to be clear, I'm asking because I'm in some danger of being drafted to DM again (ugh), and need to know how to rule on it.

Anyhow, thanks for all the good replies and information! I've learned a lot, and I've gotten lots of good food for thought. If I'm called upon to DM again, I'll now know how to use Counterspell (otherwise, I'll skip it).

Oh, and...


Naanomi:

There are big parts of illusion and a few enchantment spells that basically don’t work if you allow automatic spell recognition

Great point! Good reason for following RAW. :smallsmile:

[Unoriginal]

Sigh...(watches Religion skill lose final finger-grip on second-to-last rung of ladder of relative skill proficiency usefulness, and slip into freefall)...OK.

I hate that, but I guess it's RAW. Soooo:

PC cleric of Thor: Casts Spiritual Weapon.

PC party member wizard: "Oh no, the BBG has Dominate Person'd brother (NPC cleric of Thor)! And (NPC cleric) is performing some sort of ritual and channeling divine energy! What's he doing, (PC cleric)?!?"

PC cleric, to DM: "Do I recognize what he's doing?"

DM to PC cleric: "Maybe. Make an Arcana check Intelligence check using your Arcana proficiency."

PC cleric to DM: "But...I only have Religion proficiency."

DM to PC: "What's that got to do with anything?"

PC cleric shrugs, turns to other PC: "I Dunno what that divine power is."

NPC cleric of Thor casts Spiritual Weapon. Low-Int clerics who've all skipped Religion proficiency everywhere chuckle. :smalleek:


If the spell is on your spell list, you get advantage to identifying it while it's cast.

But yeah, it's not because you have spells from your deity than you're an expert at magic theory.

If the NPC cleric was using a version of Channel Divinity, then Religion would be relevant.

Not that identifying Spiritual Weapon before it's cast is particularly useful. A Cleric would know what it is one it's cast.



Just to be clear, I'm asking because I'm in some danger of being drafted to DM again (ugh)

Don't let yourself be drafted to DM if you don't want to. No game is better than bad game, and a game you don't want to DM is among the worst.

[ChiefBigFeather]

As far as I understand, the Xanathar‘s rules are optional. After reading this thread, I like them a lot more though: good points about illusion spells!

I will probably run a hybrid system, declaring if someone is casting a cantrip, starts a relatively easy spell or something more complex.