Counterspelling a wand?

[MarkVIIIMarc]

How does Counterspell work with wands? Is it different for each wand? How about a ring of spell storing?

[Galithar]

Any time a spell is cast you can counterspell. If the wand 'casts magic missle' it can be counterspelled. If it 'creates three balls of force that deal 1d4+1 damage each' it cannot because it didn't cast the spell. It created a spell like effect that was described exactly like a magic missle spell.

Counter spell would then apply as normal to the spell. You must be able to see it being cast and be in range, so a DM could potentially rule that the spell just takes effect (having been cast when the wand was created presumably, but most wands say you can use them to 'cast the x spell')

I'm not 100% sure I'm RAW on this though, so hopefully someone else will confirm or deny

[Arkhios]

If it's a spell, Counterspell (spell) works as written (a spell of 3rd level or lower fails immediately; higher than that requires a check, unless Counterspell is cast from a higher spell slot).
If it's not a spell, Counterspell (spell) doesn't work at all. Simple as that.

[Mjolnirbear]

Doesn't a wand cast spells like a sorcerer (I.e. No components)?

Isn't the no components thing the reason subtle spells are impossible to counterspell?

If the wand had visual casting effects, like magic missile or Fireball, I'd say yes. But a wand of suggestion or charm person, I'd have to say no. Because with no components and no visual effects, there's no way to know the wandslinger cast anything (though you could, if paranoid, go the detect-magic/dispel-magic route in that case)

[SpanielBear]

Doesn't a wand cast spells like a sorcerer (I.e. No components)?

Isn't the no components thing the reason subtle spells are impossible to counterspell?

If the wand had visual casting effects, like magic missile or Fireball, I'd say yes. But a wand of suggestion or charm person, I'd have to say no. Because with no components and no visual effects, there's no way to know the wandslinger cast anything (though you could, if paranoid, go the detect-magic/dispel-magic route in that case)

No *Verbal* components. You still have material, and more importantly somatic.

I’m not a fan of the “magic is always instantly spotted and provokes a lethal response” approaches, but even I would accept that in a setting where wands are a thing, someone pointing an ornate stick of wood at me is going to be as recognisable and as threatening as a stranger aiming a gun.

[NaughtyTiger]

Counterspelling a spell from a magic item is the same as for casting it against a spell from a slot.



Activating some Magic Items requires a user to do something Special, such as holding the item and uttering a Command word.
...
A Command word is a word or phrase that must be spoken for an item to work.
...
Some Magic Items allow the user to Cast a Spell from the item. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell level, doesn’t expend any of the user’s Spell Slots, and requires no Components, unless the item’s description says otherwise.

This section explicitly states that you don't need components to cast the spell.
It doesn't say whether it obviates the need for verbal or somatic, but that at least one of the 2 (holding=somatic, command word=verbal) is required.

Either of those is enough (in normal circumstances) to trigger Counterspell from.

[LudicSavant]

Doesn't a wand cast spells like a sorcerer (I.e. No components)?

Isn't the no components thing the reason subtle spells are impossible to counterspell?

Subtle Spells are only protected from Counterspells if they have no material components.

[Snowbluff]

Counterspelling a spell from a magic item is the same as for casting it against a spell from a slot.



This section explicitly states that you don't need components to cast the spell.
It doesn't say whether it obviates the need for verbal or somatic, but that at least one of the 2 (holding=somatic, command word=verbal) is required.

Either of those is enough (in normal circumstances) to trigger Counterspell from.

Xanathar's goes more in depth. Long story short and AFB, but you can't counterspell a spell without components because you don't know if a spell has been cast, activating an item is not a component, and the magic item removes the need for any other component.

[Snowbluff]

You have to be able to see the spell being cast in order to counterspell it.


But what about the act of casting a spell? Is it possible for someone to perceive that a spell is being cast in their presence? To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component. The form of a material component doesn’t matter for the purposes of perception, whether it’s an object specified in the spell’s description, a component pouch, or a spell- casting focus.
If the need for a spell’s components has been removed by a special ability, such as the sorcerer’s Subtle Spell feature or the Innate Spellcasting trait possessed by many creatures, the casting of the spell is imperceptible. If an imperceptible casting produces a perceptible ef- fect, it’s normally impossible to determine who cast the spell in the absence of other evidence.

It's completely and utterly impossible to even know if they're casting a spell, because the actual components have been removed. Of course, I will gladly abuse your ruling by waving a stick around several times to trigger counterspells to waste enemy reactions and spell slots. :smalltongue:

[NaughtyTiger]

Xanathar's goes more in depth. Long story short and AFB, but you can't counterspell a spell without components because you don't know if a spell has been cast, activating an item is not a component, and the magic item removes the need for any other component.

hmm. when i quoted and bolded the text "requires no components" i was thinking material components.

clearly Crawford expected counterspell to work on wands, too. (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/792412232432758784)

i will have to ponder that.

[Snowbluff]

Yeah his ruling makes no sense, since items require no components. I would say if you have some way of detecthing magic outside your senses (ie, 3e's Battlemagic Perception or Duelward), you would be able to counterspell it.

[Keravath]

Quote from Xanathar's pg 85 .. Perceiving a Spell.

"But what about the act of casting a spell? Is it possible for someone to perceive that a spell is being cast in their presence? To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component. The form of a material component doesn’t matter for the purposes of perception, whether it’s an object specified in the spell’s description, a component pouch, or a spellcasting focus.

If the need for a spell’s components has been removed by a special ability, such as the sorcerer’s Subtle Spell feature or the Innate Spellcasting trait possessed by many creatures, the casting of the spell is imperceptible. If an imperceptible casting produces a perceptible effect, it’s normally impossible to determine who cast the spell in the absence of other evidence."

Counterspell:
"I 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."

DMG p 141

"Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell level, doesn't expend any of the user's spell slots, and requires no components, unless the item's description says otherwise"


Spells cast using wands and the ring of spell storing no longer have components [V,S,M] and so can't be perceived and counterspelled.

[Kyutaru]

*goes to make wands of meteor swarm*

[Mjolnirbear]

So then my ruling depends on the spell. Magic Missile, rays, fireballs, lines like lightning bolt and the like can be countered; the magic is perceptible and the source is clear.

Something perceptible, but with no source, like Moonbeam and Wall of Fire, can't be countered but can be dispelled.

Imperceptible and no clear source? Dispelled if you happen to know magic is about, which I guess will depends on Detect Magic or, conceivably, "My wife would never give our nest egg away! I have to fight with her tooth and nail to get an extra bottle of wine! Those marauder must have cursed her somehow!"

[Keravath]

So then my ruling depends on the spell. Magic Missile, rays, fireballs, lines like lightning bolt and the like can be countered; the magic is perceptible and the source is clear.

Something perceptible, but with no source, like Moonbeam and Wall of Fire, can't be countered but can be dispelled.

Imperceptible and no clear source? Dispelled if you happen to know magic is about, which I guess will depends on Detect Magic or, conceivably, "My wife would never give our nest egg away! I have to fight with her tooth and nail to get an extra bottle of wine! Those marauder must have cursed her somehow!"

By the time you see the effects of the spell, it has already been cast. You can't counterspell a spell after it has been cast only while it is being cast. In order to notice that a spell is being cast it needs to have a V,S, or M component. Spells cast from wands and a ring of spell storing or other magic items have no components (dmg p141) and so can't be perceived before they are cast and can't be counterspelled.

[Kyutaru]

By the time you see the effects of the spell, it has already been cast. You can't counterspell a spell after it has been cast only while it is being cast. In order to notice that a spell is being cast it needs to have a V,S, or M component. Spells cast from wands and a ring of spell storing or other magic items have no components (dmg p141) and so can't be perceived before they are cast and can't be counterspelled.

Unless the wand itself, the biggest material component of them all, is a dead giveaway to what spell is store inside.

Wizard: *uses arcana* Hmm, quartz tip, looks like obsidian shaft, and some bluebells on the hilt? Definitely a Lightning Bolt wand.

[tieren]

Personally I woould rule that whatever was needed to activate the item was a component (command word = verbal component, pointing wand = somatic component).

It doesn't appear to be RAW but I believe it to be RAI and I think makes the most sense. I don't think my players that invested in having counterspell would appreciate lots of spell effects coming at them they couldn't do anything about.

[Keravath]

Unless the wand itself, the biggest material component of them all, is a dead giveaway to what spell is store inside.

Wizard: *uses arcana* Hmm, quartz tip, looks like obsidian shaft, and some bluebells on the hilt? Definitely a Lightning Bolt wand.

I think RAW this doesn't work but you are welcome to run it however you like.

Your example makes a number of assumptions.
1) The wizard can clearly see the wand or ring.
2) At whatever distance the wizard can figure out what sort of wand or ring it is when there isn' necessarily any standardized look to any particular wand. (I realize the DMG has some pictures but I am sure a wizard could make their wand of lightning bolts look like a wand of secrets if they wanted to)
3) This assumes that the user hasn't just covered the wand with a cloth to make it impossible for someone to identify it at a distance.
4) How can the command word be distinguished from any other word?
5) It would take the wizard an action to try to use Arcana to try to get an idea of what something might. In addition, since trying to identify something using Arcana actually duplicates the use of the identify spell, I'm not sure how much arcana would necessarily reveal about a random magic item held by an opponent in combat 30 feet away.

Finally, is there anything that can be interrupted when casting a spell using a magic item? I don't know, the rules give no information on how casting a spell from an item differs from performing the V,S,M components to cast the spell normally.

Anyway, that is a DM call and I can see it going either way. I'd say that RAW, since spells cast with magic items don't have any components, then they can't be prevented by counterspell. Does that make spell casting magic items somewhat more powerful? Yes ... and the DM can incorporate that into game balance. It doesn't really change anything.

[tieren]

Anyway, that is a DM call and I can see it going either way. I'd say that RAW, since spells cast with magic items don't have any components, then they can't be prevented by counterspell. Does that make spell casting magic items somewhat more powerful? Yes ... and the DM can incorporate that into game balance. It doesn't really change anything.

Good points all and I believe RAW you are correct even though I don't agree with RAW here.

Let me ask you this though, suppose its not a random encounter, but you've been observing the wand user for a couple of days,and every time he activates the wand he flourishes it and says "Sim sim salibim".

Then the next day you and he get into an argument, he pulls out the wand, flourishes it and says "sim sim..." Then before he finishes you ask the DM if you can react by casting counterspell.

Do you or do you not think it would be reasonable for counterspell to protect you in that instance?

[Mjolnirbear]

By the time you see the effects of the spell, it has already been cast. You can't counterspell a spell after it has been cast only while it is being cast. In order to notice that a spell is being cast it needs to have a V,S, or M component. Spells cast from wands and a ring of spell storing or other magic items have no components (dmg p141) and so can't be perceived before they are cast and can't be counterspelled.

You're right. I hadn't thought of that.

[Merudo]

Xanathar's "Perceiving a Spell" (p.85) rule about a spell requiring a V/S/M component to be detected is an optional rule.

If we go by PHB/DMG only, a Wand can be visually seen and so its spell can be detected & counterspelled.

[Unoriginal]

Have you guys checked the wands' descriptions to see if all or some of them still require components?

If the rule is "no component unless the item says so", then the next step is to check the item.

EDIT:

Also keep in mind wands, even those who aren't magic items on top of that, are arcane focuses too, aka an alternative to material components.

[Snowbluff]

Xanathar's "Perceiving a Spell" (p.85) rule about a spell requiring a V/S/M component to be detected is an optional rule.

If we go by PHB/DMG only, a Wand can be visually seen and so its spell can be detected & counterspelled.

Do we all have spidey sense, then? We can detect when someone is actually using the wand and not just being dramatic, or trying to trick you? What happens if you spend your reaction to counter a spell that is not being cast in the first place?

What about wands being waved for spells that don't require a focus? Does that count as the spell being visible? The motion is unrelated to the spell, so I can't imagine that it is.

[NaughtyTiger]

Xanathar's "Perceiving a Spell" (p.85) rule about a spell requiring a V/S/M component to be detected is an optional rule.

If we go by PHB/DMG only, a Wand can be visually seen and so its spell can be detected & counterspelled.

i dont think this is true. otherwise the sorcs subtle casting wouldnt have any effect.

[Dalebert]

Wands don't have commands words. That's an older editions thing. They have no components. DM rules they can CS you anyway? New strategy:

Point a want at them, easily a free action if you're not activating it. They CS. NOW cast a spell yourself. The wand doesn't even have to be magical.

[Snowbluff]

It's completely and utterly impossible to even know if they're casting a spell, because the actual components have been removed. Of course, I will gladly abuse your ruling by waving a stick around several times to trigger counterspells to waste enemy reactions and spell slots. :smalltongue:


Wands don't have commands words. That's an older editions thing. They have no components. DM rules they can CS you anyway? New strategy:

Point a want at them, easily a free action if you're not activating it. They CS. NOW cast a spell yourself. The wand doesn't even have to be magical.

Ninjaed Spellthiefed you. :smalltongue:

[NaughtyTiger]

Wands don't have commands words. That's an older editions thing. They have no components. DM rules they can CS you anyway? New strategy:

Point a want at them, easily a free action if you're not activating it. They CS. NOW cast a spell yourself. The wand doesn't even have to be magical.

I disagree.

If you are trying to convince someone you are using an item, it should be convincing, an action to perform a deception/performance.
Moreover, XGE optional identify BS aside, a decent DM should let you identify the spell being cast. (especially if they can also cast fireball)

I don't understand why WotC felt the need to nerf Counterspell so much in XGE, thus I don't use that optional rule.

If you want to be pedantic and super rules lawyery, CS will only trigger when a real spell is being cast. (XGE optional rules talk about ineligible targets, not triggers)

[Keravath]

Good points all and I believe RAW you are correct even though I don't agree with RAW here.

Let me ask you this though, suppose its not a random encounter, but you've been observing the wand user for a couple of days,and every time he activates the wand he flourishes it and says "Sim sim salibim".

Then the next day you and he get into an argument, he pulls out the wand, flourishes it and says "sim sim..." Then before he finishes you ask the DM if you can react by casting counterspell.

Do you or do you not think it would be reasonable for counterspell to protect you in that instance?

I would tend to say no but it is a DM call. (RAW there are still no components to the spell). The command word activates the device which casts the spell with no components required.

From the text of a wand of polymorph as an example:
"While holding it, you can use an action to expend 1 of its charges to cast the polymorph spell (save DC 15) from it."

The description can be read to say that the wand is casting the spell, the spell comes from it. The command word just activates the wand.

On the other hand counterspell says:
"1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell"

In this case, is the creature casting a spell? The wand would appear to be casting the spell. The creature is using the "use a magic item" action which counterspell doesn't interrupt.

That's RAW :)

From a fluff perspective, the player activates a magic item releasing the stored magical effect. The magical effect occurs as soon as the magic item is activated so I would tend to think it can't be counterspelled but as I've said it is entirely up to the DM how they want to run it.

[Keravath]

I disagree.

If you are trying to convince someone you are using an item, it should be convincing, an action to perform a deception/performance.
Moreover, XGE optional identify BS aside, a decent DM should let you identify the spell being cast. (especially if they can also cast fireball)

I don't understand why WotC felt the need to nerf Counterspell so much in XGE, thus I don't use that optional rule.

If you want to be pedantic and super rules lawyery, CS will only trigger when a real spell is being cast. (XGE optional rules talk about ineligible targets, not triggers)

You're assumption here is that the V,S,M components for every spell are identical for each spell caster. There is nothing specifically on this anywhere in the source material.

Let's take wizards as an example. Every level you can add two spells to your spell book. These could be ones you have been working on and perfecting for the past level. You can also copy another wizard's spells but this requires transcribing the spell into your own "unique system of notation" and practicing associated verbal and somatic components.

"Copying a spell into your spellbook involves reproducing the basic form of the spell, then deciphering the unique system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it. You must practice the spell until you understand the sounds or gestures required, then transcribe it into your spellbook using your own notation."

If every spell used exactly the same V,S,M components every time it was cast, it would probably be pretty easy to figure out what was being cast. However, another way to look at it is that the V,S,M components are used by the individual wizard to manipulate the weave and trigger their interaction with magic and they may not be exactly the same as another wizards. For example, one wizard might cast shield by holding their hand up, palm extended, and saying "stop" ... another might swing their hand across from left to right and say "block", another might speak draconic and move their hand from down to up while saying "shields up!". If there is any variation in the V,S,M components for spells then it is NOT immediately obvious what spell is being cast unless the observer carefully looks at the components and infers what the spell might be.

In most of the games I have played in, all the DM says is that the opponent is casting a spell, and that is all the input you have to decide whether to counterspell or not. Similarly, the player will say they are casting a spell and the DM then decides whether the NPCs will counterspell it before you state what the spell will be (if you are concerned about cheating the player can write it down).

[NaughtyTiger]

You're assumption here is that the V,S,M components for every spell are identical for each spell caster. There is nothing specifically on this anywhere in the source material.

Let's take wizards as an example. Every level you can add two spells to your spell book. These could be ones you have been working on and perfecting for the past level. You can also copy another wizard's spells but this requires transcribing the spell into your own "unique system of notation" and practicing associated verbal and somatic components.

"Copying a spell into your spellbook involves reproducing the basic form of the spell, then deciphering the unique system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it. You must practice the spell until you understand the sounds or gestures required, then transcribe it into your spellbook using your own notation."

If every spell used exactly the same V,S,M components every time it was cast, it would probably be pretty easy to figure out what was being cast. However, another way to look at it is that the V,S,M components are used by the individual wizard to manipulate the weave and trigger their interaction with magic and they may not be exactly the same as another wizards. For example, one wizard might cast shield by holding their hand up, palm extended, and saying "stop" ... another might swing their hand across from left to right and say "block", another might speak draconic and move their hand from down to up while saying "shields up!". If there is any variation in the V,S,M components for spells then it is NOT immediately obvious what spell is being cast unless the observer carefully looks at the components and infers what the spell might be.

In most of the games I have played in, all the DM says is that the opponent is casting a spell, and that is all the input you have to decide whether to counterspell or not. Similarly, the player will say they are casting a spell and the DM then decides whether the NPCs will counterspell it before you state what the spell will be (if you are concerned about cheating the player can write it down).

My experience is different, the DMs are fairly liberal about what is being cast, if only to keep the game moving.

The material components are identical.

my assumption is that the spell verbal/somatic/material components are close enough to figure it out.
your assumption is that the gestures and verbals greatly differ based on the individual caster.
neither assumption is wrong.

regardless of the words that i use to describe how a crossbow works (written in short hand, english, dragonic, equations), the physics are the same, and it takes practice to aim and hit.

[Dalebert]

I would tend to say no but it is a DM call. (RAW there are still no components to the spell). The command word activates the device which casts the spell with no components required.

Wands don't have command words. There are no components to casting spells from them unless their specific description says so, which combined with the following makes a good point.


Have you guys checked the wands' descriptions to see if all or some of them still require components?

If the rule is "no component unless the item says so", then the next step is to check the item.


So this is a very good point (pun intended!). If the description says you have to point the wand at a target, that would be a somatic component and an exception to the rule. Thus it would satisfy the CS trigger of seeing a spell being cast. If not, then you don't actually have to point it and you can just be walking around holding a wand. In fact, I assume casters go around hold their casting focus on an adventure or at least pull it out at the start of combat to be ready just like a melee person draws their weapon and keeps it in hand.

I know it's the image we picture--pointing a wand and a fireball coming out--but it's not necessarily the case. I assume a fireball spell normally involves pointing because it has a somatic component. However someone who needed no components would reasonably not use them if not necessary with any reasonable chance of a caster around because adventurers know of the threat of CS. A sorcerer using subtle spell would make a point NOT to point. The fireball would presumably just launch from his general vicinity. And a wand who's description doesn't say you point it, doesn't have components (no V, S, or M).

Example: Wand of Binding just says you must be holding the wand.

While holding the wand , you can use an action to expend some of its charges to cast one of the following spells (save DC 17): hold monster (5 charges) or hold person (2 charges).

[Keravath]

Wands don't have command words. There are no components to casting spells from them unless their specific description says so, which combined with the following makes a good point.


Ooops. You are absolutely right. There is actually nothing apparently required in most cases except holding the item. No motions, no command words. Most seem to just indicate that you need to be holding the item. The DMG actually refers to command words on page 141 and having played previous versions I thought most magic items would have a command word or something else required to activate them. (which turns out not to be the case).

(Stone of Commanding Earth Elementals is an example that lists a command word to activate, however this magic item doesn't cast a spell it behaves "as if" a spell had been cast ... so it couldn't be counterspelled anyway)

[mephiztopheleze]

If the description says you have to point the wand at a target, that would be a somatic component and an exception to the rule.

Without scurrying off to read the description of every wand, wouldn't the Wand itself count as a Material Component required for casting a spell from said wand?

Personally, I'd rule that Wands are fair game for being counterspelled. To use it you need to have it out and wave it around in some manner. It doesn't have to be dramatic, but it is fairly obvious to anyone watching you.

What would the be 5e result of throwing Dispel Magic, of equal or greater level, at the wand?

[Kyutaru]

It may be that D&D intends items to be treated as they are in video games. You can't counterspell the usable items and Thief characters tend to act quickly enough to specialize in them. Some games even let him use double items or two items per turn, sort of a Use Magic Device perk. In fact, there are boss fights in Final Fantasy games that prevent your spellcasters from using any magic but you are free to use magical item consumables to damage the enemy instead. Same spell, can't be countered.

[Unoriginal]

Without scurrying off to read the description of every wand, wouldn't the Wand itself count as a Material Component required for casting a spell from said wand?

Not if the spell is from the wand. If you use a Wand of Magic Missile as a focus for one of the spells you cast with your spell slots, sure, it'd be a material component.



What would the be 5e result of throwing Dispel Magic, of equal or greater level, at the wand?

At the wand itself? It'd do nothing.

Dispel Magic needs to be cast at the magic effect or the creature affected by magic, not at the source. And it can't damage the magic of magic items either.

[Dalebert]

Without scurrying off to read the description of every wand, wouldn't the Wand itself count as a Material Component required for casting a spell from said wand?

What Unoriginal said. To back him up, the DMG says spells cast from magic items require no components. The magic item is the source of the spell; not a material component of it--two very different things.


Personally, I'd rule that Wands are fair game for being counterspelled. To use it you need to have it out and wave it around in some manner. It doesn't have to be dramatic, but it is fairly obvious to anyone watching you.

I don't think it's an unreasonable house rule. I don't use it because I don't think CS should be inevitable. I think it's enough that it limits a caster's options but having items means there's something they can do and avoid CS, albeit not necessarily their ideal spell for the situation. Simply the threat of CS limits the caster.


What would the be 5e result of throwing Dispel Magic, of equal or greater level, at the wand?

What Unoriginal said. Dispel Magic only affects existing spell effects per the description. You're probably thinking of older editions when DS made an item stop functioning for one round. Not the case in 5e. Any magical effects that aren't specifically a spell can't be dispelled with it.