Can spells cast from items be counterspelled?

[nickl_2000]

If I cast Dimension Door through a cape of the mountebank, can the BBEG counterspell it?


This may be important since we are in the final battle of the campaign and the BBEG is a long ways away and there are likely lots of traps between him and me (and if we were to fall of the catwalk we may fall 50 feet into molten lava)

[Trickery]

There's a difference between using an item to cast a spell and the item itself casting the spell. Spells cast by creatures can be Counterspelled. If the item casts the spell, Counterspell won't work because the target is not a creature.

So, it depends. Does that help?

[RulesJD]

"While wearing it, you can use it to cast the Dimension Door spell as an action."

The key phrase on most items. DDoor has a Verbal component, so unless the BBEG can't actively see you (around a corner, invisible, etc) or you are outside the range of 60ft, he can Counterspell the cape.

[nickl_2000]

"While wearing it, you can use it to cast the Dimension Door spell as an action."

The key phrase on most items. DDoor has a Verbal component, so unless the BBEG can't actively see you (around a corner, invisible, etc) or you are outside the range of 60ft, he can Counterspell the cape.

Thank you for the clarity. Even more importantly thank you for the information about the range, I completely forgot about that. He is definitely more than 60 feet away from me! Now here's to hoping he doesn't have something to stop teleportation in place.

[NaughtyTiger]

My interpretation:, yes, you can counterspell spells cast from an item, but you can't tell they are casting a spell

Magic Items, Spells
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.

It does not say material components, it says components, which includes verbal, somatic, and material.

I firmly believe that this was sloppy on the dev's part, and it should only eliminate material components.

[ProsecutorGodot]

There's a difference between using an item to cast a spell and the item itself casting the spell. Spells cast by creatures can be Counterspelled. If the item casts the spell, Counterspell won't work because the target is not a creature.

So, it depends. Does that help?

This isn't true. Items that allow you to cast spells still count as you casting the spell. You are using an action to cast the spell, the item is allowing you to cast the spell.

We can reference the DMG for proof of this:

Spells
Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item, often by expending charges from it. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell and caster level, doesn’t expend any of the user’s spell slots, and requires no components unless the item’s description says otherwise. The spell uses its normal casting time, range, and duration, and the user of the item must concentrate if the spell requires concentration. Certain items make exceptions to these rules, changing the casting time, duration, or other parts of a spell.

A magic item, such as certain staffs, may require you to use your own spellcasting ability when you cast a spell from the item. If you have more than one spellcasting ability, you choose which one to use with the item. If you don't have a spellcasting ability - perhaps you're a rogue with the Use Magic Device feature - your spellcasting ability modifier is +0 for the item, and your proficiency bonus does apply.

As for the question in OP, it's complicated. We know from the description of spells cast through an item that they don't use any components (Verbal, Somatic and Material are all components) so that leads me to believe that you shouldn't be able to counterspell the Dimension Door. There isn't any trigger for the counterspeller to see as part of the spellcasting process. I can see room for debate on this but my first impression is "No, the BBEG can't counterspell your Cape of the Mountebanks spell".

[darknite]

FWIW, the ruling I see at cons from WOTC and AL folk are typically that you can't counterspell an item. One thing I've heard is that the character is casting the spell from the item, ie the item is the motive force in casting the spell, not the wielder. Counterspell only works on creatures casting a spell, not using an item.

[RulesJD]

My interpretation:, yes, you can counterspell spells cast from an item, but you can't tell they are casting a spell


It does not say material components, it says components, which includes verbal, somatic, and material.

I firmly believe that this was sloppy on the dev's part, and it should only eliminate material components.

Hmmmmmmmm that's a very good point I had missed.

That makes it a bit more complicated. JC (praise be) indicates that yes, items can be Counterspelled.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/12/21/does-the-counterspell-work-against-wands/

But that PHB statement that there are no Components introduces a fairly straight forward RAW reasoning that because there is no Verbal Component, the BBEG can't see a spell being cast within 60ft (CS requirement), ergo you can't CS a Cape of the Mountebank.

Thanks for pointing that out!

[Rukelnikov]

What stops me from just getting a run of the mill cape, and using it to comver my mouth and arms every time I'm gonna cast DD? They cant see me casting, they can't counterspell me, right?

[Man_Over_Game]

On that note, though: "To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component." -Xanathar's Guide to Everything.

So either:

Wands and other magical items DO involve a component (contradicting ProsecutorGodot's reference from the DMG).
A spell does not need a component to be perceptible (contradicting my reference from Xanathar's)
Counterspell does not require you to perceive a spell being cast, only that you see someone (who is attempting to cast a spell), which means that things like Subtle Spell don't prevent the countering of spells.


That, or JC is factually wrong, even though his ruling is how things should actually be.

[ProsecutorGodot]

On that note, though: "To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component." -Xanathar's Guide to Everything.

So either:

Wands and other magical items DO involve a component (contradicting ProsecutorGodot's reference from the DMG).
A spell does not need a component to be perceptible (contradicting my reference from Xanathar's)
Counterspell does not require you to perceive a spell being cast, only that you see someone (who is attempting to cast a spell), which means that things like Subtle Spell don't prevent the countering of spells.


That, or JC is factually wrong, even though his ruling is how things should actually be.

If we're getting technical, JC answered with his usual "up to interpretation" response, never straight up confirming that an item has components that can be counterspelled, just that Counterspell recognizes a creature as the source of casting even if they're using an item to do so.

This is a whole can of worms that I didn't expect to find. The deeper I dig the more I agree with NaughtyTiger that some major oversight has happened. It bothers to mention that items can make exception on whether components are entirely unnecessary but I can't find any that say so. I wanted to argue that Command Words could be treated as Vocal components, but they're explicitly a separate thing.

The best I can offer at this point is "make the ruling you prefer". Or more specifically in this case, ask your DM to make the most favorable towards you one they prefer.

[Trickery]

Heh, well this is fun.

Magic items are rare, and it's unusual for a given spell to be coming from an item. On that ground, I'd say that spells cast from magic items being immune to counterspell is a reasonable perk for having the item.

[Chrizzt]

Heh, well this is fun.

Magic items are rare, and it's unusual for a given spell to be coming from an item. On that ground, I'd say that spells cast from magic items being immune to counterspell is a reasonable perk for having the item.

Often lessened anyway by having a lower DC compared to being cast by a proper mage.

The DC of a medaillon of thoughts is DC 13. Which is still nice if nobody can realize I'm reading thoughts.

When cast as a proper spell with components (verbal, somatic etc) the dc is likely higher, but the magic is not subtle anymore.

Edit: Or is it not subtle at all because of command words etc??

[Arial Black]

It does not say material components, it says components, which includes verbal, somatic, and material.

I firmly believe that this was sloppy on the dev's part, and it should only eliminate material components.

I don't believe they were sloppy, I believe they said what they meant.

Previous editions have the same rule, that counterspell counters...spells. And it does so by interfering in the casting process so that the spellcasting is never successfully completed so that the spell effect (i.e. 'the spell') never occurs.

In 3E it is even specific in the Spellcraft table that you must be able to see/hear the somatic/verbal components in order to know that spellcasting is taking place, and you need that in order to counterspell.

JC knows very well how it worked in previous editions, and if he were to deliberately change the way it works so that you could counter magic from items then he would make sure that we knew things had changed! He wouldn't just mention that spells from items don't require components without mentioning his new concept of "...but you can counter them anyway", nor would he allow the rule in Xanathar's that clarifies that you must be able to perceive the VSM components in order to counter spells.

[Nagog]

With the huge variety of magic items, various triggers of spells, and wide variety of them that lack a narrative explanation for how to use it, the most accurate and RAW way to do it is: Your DM decides. D&D is such a huge hit because of little things like this, making the same basic system adaptable and functional with a wide variety of factors, and in the sense that each table plays differently.

[Maelynn]

Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item. [...] Many items, such as potions, bypass the casting of a spell and confer the spell's effects, with their usual duration.

Emphasis mine. To me, the bolded words make it clear that the user is still casting a spell. Hence, Counterspell can apply. For potions and the like you'd need Dispel Magic.

[GrumpyHobbit]

Emphasis mine. To me, the bolded words make it clear that the user is still casting a spell. Hence, Counterspell can apply. For potions and the like you'd need Dispel Magic.

but since there are no components - the counterspeller has no clue a spell is being cast...

[Keravath]

but since there are no components - the counterspeller has no clue a spell is being cast...

This exactly if you are asking about RAW.

Counterspell requires that the spell being cast be noticeable by using V,S or M components. Subtle spell metamagic prevents counterspelling because it removes requirements for some components meaning that there is nothing to see in some cases when the spell is being cast and it can't be counterspelled.

As already quoted in this thread, magic items remove ALL component requirements for the spells being cast. Without any components there is no way for an outside observer to know that a spell is being cast that could be counterspelled. The magic item lets the user cast the spell without any components - they simply hold the magic item and they spend their action to cast the spell with no visible side effects. Thus it can't be counterspelled.

---

JCs tweets are often his initial reaction on how he might run it at his table rather than a strict interpretation of what is written in the rule books. This is why his sage advice tweets are no longer considered official rulings since they have been shown to conflict with the written rules on several occasions and JC has been known to change his mind on how he might run it over the years. His insight is a great resource for helping DMs adjudicate how they want to run things in their games but the contribution is as much from a fellow, very experienced DM as from the lead game designer.

---

Anyway, the bottom line is that RAW, in general, you can't counterspell spells cast from magic items unless the magic item description includes some text that would indicate that the casting of the spell is somehow perceptible.

[darknite]

No way can you counterspell a subtle casting. The target is the caster who is seen to be casting a spell. Subtle does not fit that criteria.

[Chrizzt]

Many items require activation by a command word. What about this? Perhaps it does not allow for a counterspell, but the activation itself will no longer be subtle. And I guess just like with real verbal components you cant just mumble silently something in your beard.

[darknite]

Many items require activation by a command word. What about this? Perhaps it does not allow for a counterspell, but the activation itself will no longer be subtle. And I guess just like with real verbal components you cant just mumble silently something in your beard.

If you're using a command word are you using the Use an Object (PH p.193) action or the Cast a Spell (PH p.192) action? I'd say the former, which by definition means you're not casting a spell in the traditional sense.

[Aprender]

NPC does X.
PC recognizes X as the casting of a spell
PC uses his/her reaction to do Y in an attempt to disrupt X.
Resolve.

If that seems like a simple algorithm, it actually isn't.

What actions can NPC do that are recognized as X?
How do PCs recognize that?
What reactions are allowed that can attempt to disrupt X (counterspell can, but why can't a raging half-orc barbarian attempt to rip the mage's arms off to disrupt X... I mean other than the rules don't allow for it.)
Resolution can be interrupted by the same process.

This is why Jeremy Crawford defaults to "ask your DM" so often.

[tieren]

At my table, items that require command words are treated as verbal components. Harry Potter style if Voldemort points his wand at you and starts yelling "avra ca..." its ok to counterspell it,even if the wand was a magical item that let him cast that spell using that command word.

Similarly some items describe how to use them, "point at the target and touch the gem" or whatever and we would treat those as having a somatic component.

I agree the RAW isn't written that way, but it makes the most sense to us.

I find it helpful to think about what the party would deem fair if the BBEG was doing it. You have a caster PC who prepared counterspell, has been waiting to use it through all the trash non-casting minions, you finally get to the boss fight, the boss points his staff and begins an incantation and "you can't counterspell, the staff lets him cast it, hes not doing it" would not be fun.

[Zuras]

This exactly if you are asking about RAW.

Counterspell requires that the spell being cast be noticeable by using V,S or M components. Subtle spell metamagic prevents counterspelling because it removes requirements for some components meaning that there is nothing to see in some cases when the spell is being cast and it can't be counterspelled.

As already quoted in this thread, magic items remove ALL component requirements for the spells being cast. Without any components there is no way for an outside observer to know that a spell is being cast that could be counterspelled. The magic item lets the user cast the spell without any components - they simply hold the magic item and they spend their action to cast the spell with no visible side effects. Thus it can't be counterspelled.

---

JCs tweets are often his initial reaction on how he might run it at his table rather than a strict interpretation of what is written in the rule books. This is why his sage advice tweets are no longer considered official rulings since they have been shown to conflict with the written rules on several occasions and JC has been known to change his mind on how he might run it over the years. His insight is a great resource for helping DMs adjudicate how they want to run things in their games but the contribution is as much from a fellow, very experienced DM as from the lead game designer.

---

Anyway, the bottom line is that RAW, in general, you can't counterspell spells cast from magic items unless the magic item description includes some text that would indicate that the casting of the spell is somehow perceptible.


Fundamentally the answer is spells cast using items usually can’t be counterspelled, because by default they use no components.

However, items with command words, or that require specific motions to use, could be considered by your DM to use Verbal or Somatic components. For example, if you have to say incendio to use a wand of fireballs, I would rule that is a verbal component to the spell.

[RSP]

Emphasis mine. To me, the bolded words make it clear that the user is still casting a spell. Hence, Counterspell can apply. For potions and the like you'd need Dispel Magic.

Just to supplement this: check out Staff of Thunder and Lightning, which doesn’t use casting a spell at all, but, rather, just creates a lightning bolt that’s pretty similar to the upcast version of a 3rd level spell Lightning Bolt.

I think, RAW, when using an item to cast a spell, there’s no components so there’s no Counterspell. A good rule of thumb would probably be “if the target is using the Cast a Spell Action, then it’s Counterspell-able; if not, then it’s not,” though, other factors, like Subtle Spell would impact this.

[Zuras]

At my table, items that require command words are treated as verbal components. Harry Potter style if Voldemort points his wand at you and starts yelling "avra ca..." its ok to counterspell it,even if the wand was a magical item that let him cast that spell using that command word.

Similarly some items describe how to use them, "point at the target and touch the gem" or whatever and we would treat those as having a somatic component.

I agree the RAW isn't written that way, but it makes the most sense to us.

I find it helpful to think about what the party would deem fair if the BBEG was doing it. You have a caster PC who prepared counterspell, has been waiting to use it through all the trash non-casting minions, you finally get to the boss fight, the boss points his staff and begins an incantation and "you can't counterspell, the staff lets him cast it, hes not doing it" would not be fun.


Required components has implications beyond counterspelling as well. If you can use an item while tied up and gagged, as long as you can touch it, then I will happily rule it can’t be detected for counterspell purposes either. Spells from a Ring of Spell Storing, for example, would be 100% subtle, as would a Hat of Disguise, but other items might not, DM rulings as needed when it comes up.

I always figured the Cape of the Montebank required the user to give it a flourish, like a silent film villain, but I still probably wouldn’t let someone counterspell it until they’d seen it in use at least once.

[darknite]

...

However, items with command words, or that require specific motions to use, could be considered by your DM to use Verbal or Somatic components. For example, if you have to say incendio to use a wand of fireballs, I would rule that is a verbal component to the spell.

True, a DM could rule that. Though I'd rule that Command Words are Command Words and Verbal Components to a spell are Verbal Components to a spell. They're not casting a spell. They're commanding an item to cast the spell, which by default cannot be Counterspelled as the item is not a creature.

[Armisael]

The Cape of the Mountebank is pretty clear that the item isn’t casting the spell though; it’s providing the user with ability to cast the spell.

[Dalebert]

Magic items cast spells without any components (v, s, m) unless their description says otherwise so they're effectively subtle and can't be counterspelled. An example of an exception would be the robe of stars which describes a somatic component--pulling stars off it and throwing them. So that particular magic missile spell could be countered. There's a Crawford tweet somewhere in which he confirms this and it sounded pretty intentional.

[Kyutaru]

Magic items are basically pieces of technology. As long as you know how to use them, even if you're a rogue with no magical ability, you can point and shoot the lasers instantly.

[Maelynn]

Counterspell requires that the spell being cast be noticeable by using V,S or M components.

Where on earth did you get that from? The spell description literally states "when you see a creature casting a spell" and that's it. Seeing is very broad. If someone points a wand in your direction, then you see them doing so - that already qualifies for the description. If you see them mouth a command word, then that also qualifies. If you see them pull up the hood of their cloak, that also qualifies. Heck, see them fondle a strange cube and it already qualifies. There's absolutely no need for specifically a V/S/M component, because 'seeing' is a far broader term. At most the DM could call for an INT check to see if you're smart enough to know that an ornate looking item with colourful gems is in fact a magic item, but that's not RAW.

[Mjolnirbear]

Where on earth did you get that from? The spell description literally states "when you see a creature casting a spell" and that's it. Seeing is very broad. If someone points a wand in your direction, then you see them doing so - that already qualifies for the description. If you see them mouth a command word, then that also qualifies. If you see them pull up the hood of their cloak, that also qualifies. Heck, see them fondle a strange cube and it already qualifies. There's absolutely no need for specifically a V/S/M component, because 'seeing' is a far broader term. At most the DM could call for an INT check to see if you're smart enough to know that an ornate looking item with colourful gems is in fact a magic item, but that's not RAW.

Man_Over_Game's post points out that components are required to see a spell being cast, according to XgtE.

[Maelynn]

Man_Over_Game's post points out that components are required to see a spell being cast, according to XgtE.

Ah thanks, overlooked that bit. XGtE says the following:


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.

A magic item is still a material component by this explanation. A wand or cloak serves as a focus for their spells. So I still stand by the examples I listed.

[RSP]

Ah thanks, overlooked that bit. XGtE says the following:



A magic item is still a material component by this explanation. A wand or cloak serves as a focus for their spells. So I still stand by the examples I listed.

No, it’s not. From your own quote:

“whether it's an object specified in the spell's description, a component pouch, or a spellcasting focus.”

A magic item is neither a component pouch, a spellcasting focus nor an object specified in the spell’s description.

Certain items, such as a magic staff, could also be a focus, but it isn’t necessary as the M component to casting from a magic item.

[Toofey]

So I think there's an important distinction some items allow the user to cast something, other items cast the spell themselves.

So a ring of Elemental command (whichever kind, I'm looking at Earth on pg 190) has a bullet point in the description "you can cast the following spells..." In this case the character is casting a spell, so counterspell works as intended.

The Rod of Alertness pg 196 "while holding the rod you can use an action to cast..." counterspell works

But other items do not make the user the caster

Staff of healing pg 202 "... you can use an action to expend 1 or more of it's charges to cast one of the following spells from it..." here we are in the area that is being discussed in this thread.

Staff of power (also pg 202) "... you can use one or more of its charges to cast one of the following spell from it..." again the topic of this thread.


BUT I think it's important to check the specific item because I don't think there's even a question that when items let the character cast a spell that counterspell should work.

[Lord of Shadows]

Assuming that "casting a spell" is a pre-req for counterspelling, PFRPG might have a solution for counterspelling magic items. Under the Combat section at D20PFSRD we have "Activate Magic Item (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/Gamemastering/combat/#TOC-Activate-Magic-Item)", which separates items thus:

Spell-completion items - any magic item that is "mostly finished" but requires "the finishing parts of the spellcasting (the final gestures, words, and so on)" to use. Scrolls are given as the best example. Using these types of items provokes attacks of opportunity.

Everything else (Spell Trigger, Command Word, and Use-Activated Items) - these items require no concentration and do not provoke attacks of opportunity when used. Spell Trigger items require only that the user is able to "cast the corresponding spell... [including] a character who can’t actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin." Command Word and Use-Activated items are even simpler to use.

There are longer descriptions of each under the Magic Items (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/) section (scroll down to "Using Items").

So a DM could rule that Counterspelling is possible only for Spell-completion items, since they involve actually finishing the casting of a spell. It just so happens that using these same items is subject to attacks of opportunity, which could also be used as to determine if Counterspell is possible.

[Lord of Shadows]

So I think there's an important distinction some items allow the user to cast something, other items cast the spell themselves.

Agreed.


So a ring of Elemental command (whichever kind, I'm looking at Earth on pg 190) has a bullet point in the description "you can cast the following spells..." In this case the character is casting a spell, so counterspell works as intended.

PFRPG appears to work the same, although the language used is "gives its wearer the following abilities," not "cast the following spells."


The Rod of Alertness pg 196 "while holding the rod you can use an action to cast..." counterspell works

Same, PFRPG states, "enables the wielder to use..."


But other items do not make the user the caster

Staff of healing pg 202 "... you can use an action to expend 1 or more of it's charges to cast one of the following spells from it..." here we are in the area that is being discussed in this thread.

Staff of power (also pg 202) "... you can use one or more of its charges to cast one of the following spell from it..." again the topic of this thread.

Same and same in PFRPG.


BUT I think it's important to check the specific item because I don't think there's even a question that when items let the character cast a spell that counterspell should work.

Agreed, when it is the PC casting and not the item itself.

[Toofey]

stuff

what's RFRPG?

[ProsecutorGodot]

what's RFRPG?

I can only assume he's talking about Pathfinder. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. What Pathfinder does isn't really relevant to DND 5E.


So I think there's an important distinction some items allow the user to cast something, other items cast the spell themselves. [...]

I don't think this distinction is in any way meant to say that the item is casting the spell, I think this is just a quirk of the wording used for some items found in the Basic Rules. I could be mistaken on this, but many of the items found in the Basic Rules (as well as early modules like Lost Mines of Phandelver and HotDQ) use different wording than the PHB and DMG, which were published afterwards (or in the case of HotDQ, at the same time as the PHB but still prior to the DMG).

Princes of the Apocalypse is the first adventure published with all of the core rulebooks also released. The elemental weapons found in it that grant you the ability to cast certain spells but lack any wording such as "casting a spell from it" to even imply that the item would be the caster.

You've also mistakenly quoted the Rod of Alertness as not having the text "From it" after "you can use an action to cast". The Ring of Elemental Command also uses a variation of this wording "Spells cast from the ring have a save DC of 17."

The item is never the caster of the spell. It provides the ability but the creature using the item is always the caster. The DMG makes this clear.

Spells
Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item, often by expending charges from it.

[Lord of Shadows]

what's RFRPG?

Grrrrrr... spel-chekr failur... Yes, PFRPG is Pathfinder Role Playing Game.


What Pathfinder does isn't really relevant to DND 5E.

I was only pointing out where Pathfinder RPG offers a possible solution to the Counterspell vs. Item topic (Post #36) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=24029688&postcount=36) and where Pathfinder is the same as 3.x for those who might be interested (Post #37) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=24029688&postcount=37).. Although this thread is tagged for 5e, the posts have been all over the place as far as edition. That's why I put links to source material in Post #36 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=24029688&postcount=36).

[ProsecutorGodot]

Although this thread is tagged for 5e, the posts have been all over the place as far as edition. That's why I put links to source material in Post #36 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=24029688&postcount=36).
I only see one comment outside of 5E prior to your post, there are many references to resources that are tied to 5E like Xanathar's Guide to Everything (XGtE) and the Sage Advice Compendium (specifically referencing JC or Jeremy Crawford, the rules designer of the 5E PHB). I'd hardly call that all over the place.

If you did want to see discussion about previous editions, while I was researching alternate opinions of this interaction I found a 3.5E thread about Cape of the Mountebank (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?260065-3-5-Dimension-Door-Cape-of-the-Mountebank-Question). About halfway through the thread a discussion begins on Counterspelling the cape.

What I learned is that even through editions and over the span of 7 years, some things never change. Even in the legalistic environment that 3.5E bred people were still arguing over whether the item or the user was the source of the spell and what that meant.

5E has the rather graceful solution of "Rulings over Rules". Despite what the rules say, your rulings don't have to match.

[Lord of Shadows]

What I learned is that even through editions and over the span of 7 years, some things never change. Even in the legalistic environment that 3.5E bred people were still arguing over whether the item or the user was the source of the spell and what that meant.

Alas, so true..


5E has the rather graceful solution of "Rulings over Rules". Despite what the rules say, your rulings don't have to match.

Again, so true. Sort of harkens back to the old days and that blurb in the first DMG. Hopefully there is enough discussion here to help DM's/Players reach a decision for their table.