Counter spell. Do you know what they are casting

[Whit]

When an opponent is casting a spell, , what is the rule on knowing what they are casting to use counter spell or not?

[Ganryu]

Nope. You cast counterspell as they are casting the spell, before its cast.

[nickl_2000]

According to Xanathar's Guide it requires a reaction with a skill check to know what spell is being cast. It also requires a reaction to cast counterspell.

The best way I've seen it is to have multiple people. One tried to identify spells while the other counterspells. Since talking is free there is nothing stopping Player One from shouting "He's casting fireball, stop him, stop him now before he makes us all burn!" and Player 2 casting counterspell.

[Callak_Remier]

Too be honest the Identifying spells as they are Cast rules are kinda garbage.

I started working on a system for a better experience. Namely if the spell is on your spell list you know it when cast.

With some added bonuses for each class.

For example Clerics would know what the spells cast by "unnamed fiends" whose CR is lower than thier Cleric level.

Paladin's would know what the spells cast by "unnamed fiends" whose CR is lower than Half thier Paladin level.

I haven't 100% ironed it out but I have a start.

[Pex]

The bad guys always know what spell the PCs cast because the DM has to know. The DM can try not to metagame it, but he always has the excuse of particular bad guys being geniuses. In the name of fairness the players should know, no roll needed. Call it gamist all you want, but it is a roleplaying game. The game aspect will make itself known. This is one of those times.

No question this is not the rule. Before Xanathar there was no rule. Xanathar has a rule. I'm glad the rule concept exists, but I don't care for the implementation. I don't object to there being a roll. It shouldn't have cost a reaction.

[micahaphone]

The bad guys always know what spell the PCs cast because the DM has to know. The DM can try not to metagame it, but he always has the excuse of particular bad guys being geniuses. In the name of fairness the players should know, no roll needed. Call it gamist all you want, but it is a roleplaying game. The game aspect will make itself known. This is one of those times.

No question this is not the rule. Before Xanathar there was no rule. Xanathar has a rule. I'm glad the rule concept exists, but I don't care for the implementation. I don't object to there being a roll. It shouldn't have cost a reaction.

I agree that an arcana check sans reaction is okay, but the DM doesn't necessarily know what spell the player is casting, the player can say "I cast a spell, I cast X", giving the DM time to counterspell if they want. Slows down the game but if you care about that bit, worth it for fights with spellcasters.

[Spiritchaser]

I don’t currently use the Xanathar’s rule in my campaigns , it messes up the flow. It’s much cleaner to say that the opposition casts a fireball and have the dogpile of reactions, rather than detail the spell casting, wait for a few moments, then move on to the Narration of effects. This could get super annoying with 3 or 4 casters unleashing all manner of chaos on the party. Plus I know what the party is casting... may as well keep it even.

I’m aware that this reduces combat complexity, and possibly eliminates some cool bluffing options so I CAN imagine running a campaign with some of rules as written, especially with a bunch of experienced players who like that sort of thing, but... neither of the campaigns I’m currently running would really benefit.

That said, I’d likely never require a reaction to make the spell ID roll.

[stoutstien]

I currently use a double blind system to keep it honest. So if a player casts a spell, I as the NPC must decide to CS prior to knowing the spell and slot.

[nickl_2000]

I currently use a double blind system to keep it honest. So if a player casts a spell, I as the NPC must decide to CS prior to knowing the spell and slot.

When we are fighting caster our table general says "I am casting a spell" then looks pointedly at the DM. If there is no response within 2 seconds we say what it is and resolve it.

[Sigreid]

The bad guys always know what spell the PCs cast because the DM has to know. The DM can try not to metagame it, but he always has the excuse of particular bad guys being geniuses. In the name of fairness the players should know, no roll needed. Call it gamist all you want, but it is a roleplaying game. The game aspect will make itself known. This is one of those times.

No question this is not the rule. Before Xanathar there was no rule. Xanathar has a rule. I'm glad the rule concept exists, but I don't care for the implementation. I don't object to there being a roll. It shouldn't have cost a reaction.

For me, if the npc is the type to counterspell, they do it every time they have the opportunity.

[Telwar]

You may have a *little* more information available, depending on what they've done in the encounter so far, and how much attention the player has been paying.

For example, if they've taken an action of any sort already, it's pretty obvious that the spell they're casting is going to be a Bonus Action spell, like, say, Healing Word.


There's also a possibility for a Passive version of an Arcana check, just as Perception and Investigate have passive uses. "That goblin is making the Mudra of the Fruitbat...he's casting Fireball!" Granted, that means the wizard is going to auto-succeed, and maybe a Lore bard, too, but I don't really have a particular problem with that. Granted, this would be a house rule, of course.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Too be honest the Identifying spells as they are Cast rules are kinda garbage.

I started working on a system for a better experience. Namely if the spell is on your spell list you know it when cast.

With some added bonuses for each class.

For example Clerics would know what the spells cast by "unnamed fiends" whose CR is lower than thier Cleric level.

Paladin's would know what the spells cast by "unnamed fiends" whose CR is lower than Half thier Paladin level.

I haven't 100% ironed it out but I have a start.

This is similar to how we do it at our table, with the added provision that casters can identify spells they've seen cast previously. So if someone in our party gets targeted with a spell once, and our Wizard sees it being cast, he'll know what it looks like the next time around and he can decide whether to counterspell it.

[Kane0]

If you're playing without the Xanathar's optional rule, ask your DM.
If you're playing with the Xanathar's optional rule, you have to use your reaction to identify the spell and so you can't use your reaction to cast counterspell.

[Segev]

I assume nobody knows. This makes legendary saves way better than Counterspell. My NPCs just have priorities based on what kind of caster they see. The elf wizard got his Entangle (from a wand) Counterspelled because the red wizard saw a wand pointed at him and his bodyguards and assumed he didn’t want that to happen.

[Lord Vukodlak]

For me, if the npc is the type to counterspell, they do it every time they have the opportunity.
That makes things easy.
PC1:I cast light
NPC:Counterspell
PC2:I cast x spell that's actually meaningful to the encounter


The bad guys always know what spell the PCs cast because the DM has to know. The DM can try not to metagame it, but he always has the excuse of particular bad guys being geniuses. In the name of fairness the players should know, no roll needed. Call it gamist all you want, but it is a roleplaying game. The game aspect will make itself known. This is one of those times.

Agreed, as the DM I always know so in the interest of fairness the PC's should always know to. As one guy at me group summed up. "Finding out you wasted your counterspell on something trivial is not fun, knowing you saved the party from a world of hurt is."

[Sigreid]

That makes things easy.
PC1:I cast light
NPC:Counterspell
PC2:I cast x spell that's actually meaningful to the encounter


And that's the chess game of counter spell isn't it?

[Keravath]

I assume nobody knows. This makes legendary saves way better than Counterspell. My NPCs just have priorities based on what kind of caster they see. The elf wizard got his Entangle (from a wand) Counterspelled because the red wizard saw a wand pointed at him and his bodyguards and assumed he didn’t want that to happen.

A DM can play however they like but RAW you can't counterspell a spell from a wand or other magic item.

"Casting Time: I reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell"

You have to see the spell being cast. Someone holding a wand does not tell you that there is a spell being cast.

DMG p141
"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."

Casting a spell from an item requires no components. No verbal, somatic or material components, except holding it if the item description says so. Unless the item description says otherwise you don't need to point, gesture, wave or say a command word when casting a spell from a magic item - there is no indication that a spell is being cast. As a result, RAW, you can't counterspell a wand or spell cast from a magic item because there is nothing to see other than a character holding an item. The person wishing to use counterspell has no idea when or if a spell is being cast from a magic item and so there is nothing to trigger counterspell.

As mentioned, DMs are welcome to run it however they like though.

P.S. To the OP, in general, you don't know the spell being cast. At the tables I've played at, both the DM and the players just say "I am casting a spell" and wait for a second to allow someone to speak up with a counterspell before saying what spell they are casting. If folks have a habit of changing their mind about which spell is being cast after hearing whether it is being counterspelled or not (i.e. cheating) then we'll have them write it down.

P.P.S. There are rules in Xanathar's about identifying spells that are pretty reasonable. However, how easy a spell is to identify depends on how the DM interprets magic in their games.
For example, a DM might rule that every casting of the same spell by anyone has exactly the same verbal, somatic and material components. As a result, if you see a particular item, gesture or sound then you might immediately know what spell is being cast. For DMs who interpret spells this way then it makes sense for them to be easily identifiable without requiring a reaction since everyone has to do the same thing and it becomes pretty easy to determine whether a spell is a fireball or a firebolt. On the other hand, other DMs (myself included) tend to think of the components of magic spells NOT being exactly the same for every character. The text in the book talks about both individual notations on spells and conducting spell research to learn new spells (the free two a wizard gets every level). If you are researching spells then it is possible that the components might be similar for the same spell but not exactly identical. As a result, it isn't immediately obvious whether a spell caster is casting a fireball or firebolt and you need to use an arcana skill check and some time to figure out exactly which spell is being cast. In this sort of system the Xanathar's guide approach makes sense since what spell is being cast is not immediately obvious because the spell components vary somewhat between casters of the exact same spell. Anyway, whatever way the DM wants to run it, identifying spells depends on the DMs discretion.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

RAW you need someone else to use his reaction to identify the spell.

In my table you get an Archana check for free if you have the spell in your class list.
If you know the spell I make it an auto success or a -5 to DC in special cases.

In some places I will give them a check for free even if the spell is not in the player class list.
Stuff like backstory explanation/iconic race spells/some other story reason/when it will be more fun for everyone.

My NPCs also get a free roll using the same rules for PCs.
Some of them have the special feature of "always know spell" but they are very rare (like the head of the wizard college or the super old Lich).

[NaughtyTiger]

For 4 years, we all ran it with you know what is being cast... and it worked great.
Only had a couple DM play that we didn't know...
and those DMs generally enjoyed a player vs DM game...


RAW you need someone else to use his reaction to identify the spell.
RAW if the DM is using the optional rule from Xanthars.

[Sigreid]

For 4 years, we all ran it with you know what is being cast... and it worked great.
Only had a couple DM play that we didn't know...
and those DMs generally enjoyed a player vs DM game...


RAW if the DM is using the optional rule from Xanthars.

As someone pointed out up thread, depending on how the DM plays the NPC it can actual be an advantage for the party I'd you dont know.

[Brookshw]

RAW if the DM is using the optional rule from Xanthars.

Don't have my copy handy, is it described as an optional rule therein, or are you saying it's optional because its not in core?

[NaughtyTiger]

As someone pointed out up thread, depending on how the DM plays the NPC it can actual be an advantage for the party I'd you dont know.

yeah, i read sigreid's post. what does that have to do with my experience?


Don't have my copy handy, is it described as an optional rule therein, or are you saying it's optional because its not in core?
it is optional because XGE says


this book offers options to enhance campaigns...
The options here build on the official rules...
Nothing herein is required for a D&D campaign - this is not a fourth core rulebook

[Sigreid]

yeah, i read sigreid's post. what does that have to do with my experience?

It's that depending on how fair the DM actually is, neither side knowing what the other is casting is actually an additional tool for the party to leverage rather than the DM being an adversarial prick.

[NaughtyTiger]

It's that depending on how fair the DM actually is, neither side knowing what the other is casting is actually an additional tool for the party to leverage rather than the DM being an adversarial prick.

agreed. in my experience, the 2 DMs did that were explicitly adversarial pricks. nowhere did i say that all DMs were APs. nowhere did i reference your post to suggest/imply/hint that you were an AP.

personally, i like the idea of identifying a spell, but

it is too clunky,
shuts down a whole feature of war mage, and
counterspell is fairly limited anyway

[Sigreid]

agreed. in my experience, the 2 DMs did that were explicitly adversarial pricks. nowhere did i say that all DMs were. nowhere did i reference your post to suggest/imply/hint that you were.

personally, i like the idea of identifying a spell, but

it is too clunky,
shuts down a whole feature of war mage, and
counterspell is fairly limited anyway


I wasnt offended, just concerned I'd not communicated well.

[Segev]

A DM can play however they like but RAW you can't counterspell a spell from a wand or other magic item.

"Casting Time: I reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell"

You have to see the spell being cast. Someone holding a wand does not tell you that there is a spell being cast.

DMG p141
"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."

Casting a spell from an item requires no components. No verbal, somatic or material components, except holding it if the item description says so. Unless the item description says otherwise you don't need to point, gesture, wave or say a command word when casting a spell from a magic item - there is no indication that a spell is being cast. As a result, RAW, you can't counterspell a wand or spell cast from a magic item because there is nothing to see other than a character holding an item. The person wishing to use counterspell has no idea when or if a spell is being cast from a magic item and so there is nothing to trigger counterspell.

As mentioned, DMs are welcome to run it however they like though.

In 3e, I'd have agreed that anything that says you're counterspelling another character CASTING a spell doesn't work. But in 5e, all those items specify that they let you cast the spell. I know your actual point is on whether the caster can "see" the other caster doing it, but I wanted to point that part out, first. Using a wand lets the user cast the spell(s) in the wand.

I could argue the need for gestures or words, but in this particular case, at least. the wand of entangle does require pointing it at the targets, and so as soon as the wizard (who I'd already decided was counterspelling whatever the obvious PC wizard was going to try that round) saw the obvious PC wizard pointing a wand, he counterspelled it. That was the sum total of my logic. (Well, that, and double-checking that 5e wands have the same wording as other magic items: i.e. "This item lets you cast XYZ spell.")

[Kane0]

This is the bickering I missed. You really don't appreciate what you have until it's gone.

[MagneticKitty]

As stated you don't get to know for free.
What I normally do is tell them the enemy starts casting. Wait 15 seconds. If they didn't counter spell they lost their opportunity.

Optionally, (homebrew not raw)
If the caster knows the spell themselves you could tell them "you recognize the motions/verbal for spellname"
Optionally if it's on their spell list but they didn't take it you might give them a free casting roll to identify it

[Kane0]

I don't think it's been stated enough, but the Xanathar's rule that uses your reaction to attempt to recognize the spell is optional. It's pointed out as optional in the book it comes from, which is not a core rulebook and came out three years after the PHB and DMG.

And that optional rule is about as good as DMG flanking is. In my opinion.

[Brookshw]

it is optional because XGE says

Ah, thank you.

[sithlordnergal]

I tend to just allow everyone to know what's being cast, not because I want to make things fair between myself and the players...but simply because I don't want to bog down combat even more. I love my players, but they don't do well at thinking on their feet...at all. As a result they will re-plan what they're going to do on their turn...during their turn. I have implemented a few things to hurry them up, but it still takes a while to get through them and the NPCs.

I really don't want to implement another time waster where I cast a spell, and then they decide if someone wants to counterspell it, and if someone else should identify it beforehand. Not when it can take 4 or 5 minutes for them to decide if they want to take an attack of opportunity or not if three or more people get that AoO.

[NaughtyTiger]

If the caster knows the spell themselves you could tell them "you recognize the motions/verbal for spellname"
Optionally if it's on their spell list but they didn't take it you might give them a free casting roll to identify it

have you tried/seen this at the table?
when I did it, i found it impossible to remember what spells the PCs had...

[BloodSnake'sCha]

have you tried/seen this at the table?
when I did it, i found it impossible to remember what spells the PCs had...

I just use notes with my players abilities.
It works well.

[NaughtyTiger]

I just use notes with my players abilities.
It works well.

i was overwhelmed, but i am glad it works for others. this seems like the most reasonable accurate(?) way to handle spell ID.

[diplomancer]

i was overwhelmed, but i am glad it works for others. this seems like the most reasonable accurate(?) way to handle spell ID.

It's somewhat balanced, but, unless I'm mistaken, the game specifically says that each spell caster casts spells differently.

I don't like Xanathar's solution either. Maybe just adding a line that "after attempting to identify it, you may cast counterspell as part of the same reaction (as long as all the other requirements for casting counterspell are met)"

[ChildofLuthic]

I never really tell my players what the name of the spell is, only what their characters see and experience. Up until the point where I've told them what damage or mechanical effect their character is about to endure, they're free to counterspell. Saying "He casts fireball" would take me out of the narrative, and it seems fair for a player to know "there's some flames and a dex save" before deciding to waste a third level spell slot.

[Segev]

I suppose a fair narrative question is this: What exactly happens when you cast counterspell?

Does the enemy caster wave his fingers, hold forth his focus, chant some words, and you quickly utter an incantation that finishes before his does, so that nothing at all seems to happen save two weirdos chanting and waving at each other?

Or, does the enemy's spell begin to go off, the fiery bead jetting towards you or the entangling vines beginning to erupt or the stone wall shimmering into existence, only for your rapid gesture and rebuking incantation to cause these things to snap out of existence, as if an engine failed to turn over?

[Asmotherion]

The most accurate portail for this to me is having the enemy caster under a detect thoughts. The spell he's casting and it's level will be surface thoughts, so you'll know if you have to upcast to counterspell.

We used to play it as "you see some casting witch triggers an arcana check". Xanathar's counter(spells) this Raw though. :smallwink:


I suppose a fair narrative question is this: What exactly happens when you cast counterspell?

Does the enemy caster wave his fingers, hold forth his focus, chant some words, and you quickly utter an incantation that finishes before his does, so that nothing at all seems to happen save two weirdos chanting and waving at each other?

Or, does the enemy's spell begin to go off, the fiery bead jetting towards you or the entangling vines beginning to erupt or the stone wall shimmering into existence, only for your rapid gesture and rebuking incantation to cause these things to snap out of existence, as if an engine failed to turn over?

I suppose the former, as the latter is more what I imagine a dispel magic would do.

Counterspell would be more like reversing the flow of magic, so that whatever is "programmed" to happen would find a force that resists the change (one side ties the weave, the other unties it); if it overcomes it, it actualises, otherwise it's countered. Dispel would most likelly be like a tear to the weave's threads, and thus the programing would be deleted. I hope this makes sence, at least that's what I imagine.

So, Counter would prevent a spell's actualisation (no actual visual other than seemingly crazy people gesturing at each other and speaking non-comprehesivingly).

[stoutstien]

I never really tell my players what the name of the spell is, only what their characters see and experience. Up until the point where I've told them what damage or mechanical effect their character is about to endure, they're free to counterspell. Saying "He casts fireball" would take me out of the narrative, and it seems fair for a player to know "there's some flames and a dex save" before deciding to waste a third level spell slot.

I'm a firm believer of doing both.
"As you get another solid against morg, the ancient white dragon, he lets out a deafening roar of frustration and takes to the sky once more. Even if he is Not one to easily admit defeat he knows pride has killed more of his kind than anything else.
With uncanny Grace for a creature as large as he is, he retreats. He disengage and starts flying towards the summit of the mountain."

I don't treat spell-casting any differently. Players only know what I tell them and I want to tell them enough so they make informed decisions.

[Asmotherion]

I'm a firm believer of doing both.
"As you get another solid against morg, the ancient white dragon, he lets out a deafening roar of frustration and takes to the sky once more. Even if he is Not one to easily admit defeat he knows pride has killed more of his kind than anything else.
With uncanny Grace for a creature as large as he is, he retreats. He disengage and starts flying towards the summit of the mountain."

I don't treat spell-casting any differently. Players only know what I tell them and I want to tell them enough so they make informed decisions.

The whole narrate effects vs spell names is valid for a PC whith no arcana profficiency; A Wizard is expected to be able to put 1+1 together and figure what words or gestures for example would be fire magic, evocation 3rd grade, or "add two grades of magic for a tolal of a 5th level spell". Otherwise it's like expecting a blacksmith not to understand what a jeweler's smelter could possibly do, just because it looks slightly different; They both use the same or similar tools, and you can logically expect one to know how the other's tools work, even if they have no experiance in doing so; Verbal and Somatic components are a Mage's tools of the trade.

[Keravath]

In 3e, I'd have agreed that anything that says you're counterspelling another character CASTING a spell doesn't work. But in 5e, all those items specify that they let you cast the spell. I know your actual point is on whether the caster can "see" the other caster doing it, but I wanted to point that part out, first. Using a wand lets the user cast the spell(s) in the wand.

I could argue the need for gestures or words, but in this particular case, at least. the wand of entangle does require pointing it at the targets, and so as soon as the wizard (who I'd already decided was counterspelling whatever the obvious PC wizard was going to try that round) saw the obvious PC wizard pointing a wand, he counterspelled it. That was the sum total of my logic. (Well, that, and double-checking that 5e wands have the same wording as other magic items: i.e. "This item lets you cast XYZ spell.")

No worries. Ultimately everything is a DM call. :)

In 5e, all the wand descriptions in the DMG (I couldn't find a wand of entangle) just say "While holding it, you can use an action to expend 1 or more of its charges to cast the <spell name> spell from it." Almost all the descriptions are phrased the same way. All the character has to do is hold the item and they can then use their action to cast the spell. Most if not all of the items I looked at in the DMG do not require you to point it or do anything else.

The general rules in the DMG say that casting a spell using a magic item does not require any components. This is the key element since a spell with no components can't be detected when being cast (i.e. like sorcerer subtle metamagic which removes the requirement for verbal and somatic components). It would be up to a DM whether just holding an arcane focus or a magic item is sufficient to allow an opponent to counterspell since they could be holding the item and not casting a spell. It may not be possible to tell when or if a character just holding an arcane focus or magic item is casting a spell. They could even be holding the item in a pocket or under a coat.

Anyway, its ultimately up to the DM how they want to play it but I am not sure how a character using a wand can be counterspelled but a sorcerer using subtle meta-magic could not be since neither method of casting has components.

[Segev]

I confess that it just strikes me as weird that holding a wand means magic becomes a simple act of will, undetectable by anything. Have you ever seen wands in fiction used that way? "I grasp the wand in my pocket, and magic moves to my will, causing a fireball to appear 300 feet away without me so much as glancing that direction!"

[BoringInfoGuy]

P.P.S. There are rules in Xanathar's about identifying spells that are pretty reasonable. However, how easy a spell is to identify depends on how the DM interprets magic in their games.
For example, a DM might rule that every casting of the same spell by anyone has exactly the same verbal, somatic and material components. As a result, if you see a particular item, gesture or sound then you might immediately know what spell is being cast. For DMs who interpret spells this way then it makes sense for them to be easily identifiable without requiring a reaction since everyone has to do the same thing and it becomes pretty easy to determine whether a spell is a fireball or a firebolt. On the other hand, other DMs (myself included) tend to think of the components of magic spells NOT being exactly the same for every character. The text in the book talks about both individual notations on spells and conducting spell research to learn new spells (the free two a wizard gets every level). If you are researching spells then it is possible that the components might be similar for the same spell but not exactly identical. As a result, it isn't immediately obvious whether a spell caster is casting a fireball or firebolt and you need to use an arcana skill check and some time to figure out exactly which spell is being cast. In this sort of system the Xanathar's guide approach makes sense since what spell is being cast is not immediately obvious because the spell components vary somewhat between casters of the exact same spell. Anyway, whatever way the DM wants to run it, identifying spells depends on the DMs discretion.
As best I can recall from past editions, spellcasting was meant to work the second way, where each wizard had their own method for writing down a spell in a spell book. Presumably, that would indicate variations on the actual casting.

Beyond that though, I always liked the idea that each wizard casts the same spell slightly differently. It just adds so much potential worldbuilding.

Spellcasting styles could be as distinctive as sword styles.

A very successful check could let you know that not only is the wizard casting Fireball, he is also an Evoker who studied at the Royal Academy.

A Teaching wizard could impart his style on his students. In contrast, a self taught book wizard would show though his lack of such an imprint.

Mix in the idea that a world with multiple ideals for how arcane magic can be taught. Such as:

•The Royal Academy for nobles in the Capitol.
“Blood will tell”

•From Master to Apprentice in the Free Cities.
“Shaping the finest minds”

•Self taught from found books.
“My life, my path”

The Apprentices of two different Master wizards may consider themselves natural rivals / enemies, but both may find common cause against the Royal Academy alumni.

[stoutstien]

I really wish counterspelling why isn't itself a spell but rather a class feature where each forecaster had a different specialty. Like the bard's counter charm but not not all sucky. It would also expand to work on effects that are not necessarily spells. Just a spitball.

[BoringInfoGuy]

I really wish counterspelling why isn't itself a spell but rather a class feature where each forecaster had a different specialty. Like the bard's counter charm but not not all sucky. It would also expand to work on effects that are not necessarily spells. Just a spitball.
As a smaller tweak to the rules, being able to identify a spell as a bonus or free action instead of a reaction would be thematically appropriate for the Sorcerer, Abjurer, and Diviner.

[stoutstien]

As a smaller tweak to the rules, being able to identify a spell as a bonus or free action instead of a reaction would be thematically appropriate for the Sorcerer, Abjurer, and Diviner.

Could toss war wizards on that list as well. If anything they could use the help somewhere in the middle there.

[Man_Over_Game]

One thing I've started using is a dedicated "Passive" skill. That is, you don't do things "passively" unless you decide to make something your passive skill. Otherwise, you do.

So you don't passively search for monsters, unless you are.

You don't passively identify spells, unless you are.

History can help identify artifacts or heroic enemies.

Nature can help identify plant-based poisons, enemies, or effects, etc.

It helped with a lot of issues at my own table, including the whole "knowing a spell" dilemma. It also encourages people to use different skills. Sleight of Hand seems a lot more valuable when it gives you a bonus to hit with Light weapons.

[Kane0]

One thing I've started using is a dedicated "Passive" skill. That is, you don't do things "passively" unless you decide to make something your passive skill. Otherwise, you do.

So you don't passively search for monsters, unless you are.

You don't passively identify spells, unless you are.

History can help identify artifacts or heroic enemies.

Nature can help identify plant-based poisons, enemies, or effects, etc.

It helped with a lot of issues at my own table, including the whole "knowing a spell" dilemma. It also encourages people to use different skills. Sleight of Hand seems a lot more valuable when it gives you a bonus to hit with Light weapons.

Thats interesting. So even the skillmonkey can only have one passive at a time, including perception?
That would make spreading out certain party functions much easier but also more tactical.

[stoutstien]

One thing I've started using is a dedicated "Passive" skill. That is, you don't do things "passively" unless you decide to make something your passive skill. Otherwise, you do.

So you don't passively search for monsters, unless you are.

You don't passively identify spells, unless you are.

History can help identify artifacts or heroic enemies.

Nature can help identify plant-based poisons, enemies, or effects, etc.

It helped with a lot of issues at my own table, including the whole "knowing a spell" dilemma. It also encourages people to use different skills. Sleight of Hand seems a lot more valuable when it gives you a bonus to hit with Light weapons.

Hmmm. Some classes get more or automatically passive skills? *Yoink*

[Man_Over_Game]

I mean, they basically suggest doing something like that in the DMG, where each person decides what kind of thing they're doing while traveling (Mapping, scouting, foraging, etc), which is what some of the Ranger's Favored Terrain bonuses are supposed to be referring to.

I just took it a step further and decided that they apply in every situation that they're applicable to. It also helps cover the players' asses, so they don't have to constantly explain "YES, of COURSE I was: Looking For Traps/Hiding/Telling my party what I was doing/Watching him closely/etc".

Coincidentally, it means that I, the DM, don't have to care about your 12 skills to determine what you notice or react to. Rather, I only care about the 1 you tell me to care about.

[Theodoxus]

The bad guys always know what spell the PCs cast because the DM has to know. The DM can try not to metagame it, but he always has the excuse of particular bad guys being geniuses. In the name of fairness the players should know, no roll needed. Call it gamist all you want, but it is a roleplaying game. The game aspect will make itself known. This is one of those times.

No question this is not the rule. Before Xanathar there was no rule. Xanathar has a rule. I'm glad the rule concept exists, but I don't care for the implementation. I don't object to there being a roll. It shouldn't have cost a reaction.

This. All of this. To this day, when I DM, I announce the spell to the players. As a player, I expect the same treatment. There's no rules for or against it - but it's the only way Counterspell even remotely works without mucking up either Counterspell or reactions.

Xanathar's was looking for a problem to solve that honestly wasn't there.

[Man_Over_Game]

This. All of this. To this day, when I DM, I announce the spell to the players. As a player, I expect the same treatment. There's no rules for or against it - but it's the only way Counterspell even remotely works without mucking up either Counterspell or reactions.

Xanathar's was looking for a problem to solve that honestly wasn't there.

Problem is, with knowing what spells are being cast with no additional cost, Counterspell is always a power creep for any class that can use it, period.

This is because Counterspell, when using the same spell slot as the spell being countered, costs a Reaction, where most spells worth being countered cost an Action. And, besides something like Hellish Rebuke, there is no other instance of a Reaction being more powerful than an Action.

Reactions are worth less, and so the character casting Counterspell always has a gain over the one being countered. That's not including the fact that the Countering mage has a chance to counter the spell at a reduced spell slot by gambling a skill check.

But even then, you're not wrong. Making things "Balanced" might not be what's best at the table, as trying to keep the information hidden may just be more complicated and frustrating than it's worth. And when caught between what's best for the game and what's best for the table, most would go for the table.

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

Wouldn't be a bad idea to modify Counterspell.

Make it into a Concentration spell that is instead held early with a Bonus Action to be released with a Reaction when a creature casts a spell, but losing Concentration doesn't cost you your spell slot. It'd make Counterspell a tactical choice rather than a dumbfire win button.

[diplomancer]

for me, the main problem with the Xanathar solution is the usual implementation of it; player 1 tries to identify it as a reaction, shouts it out to player 2, who then counterspells it. Not only it makes it cost 2 reactions, which is non-trivial, it really breaks immersion, as I don't see how you can identify a spell as it is being cast, shout it out to someone else, and have that someone else cast counterspell, all at the same time and in the middle of the chaos of combat.

[Segev]

for me, the main problem with the Xanathar solution is the usual implementation of it; player 1 tries to identify it as a reaction, shouts it out to player 2, who then counterspells it. Not only it makes it cost 2 reactions, which is non-trivial, it really breaks immersion, as I don't see how you can identify a spell as it is being cast, shout it out to someone else, and have that someone else cast counterspell, all at the same time and in the middle of the chaos of combat.

It's particularly gamey, too: if the time it takes to ID it and shout what it is to somebody else so they can cast counterspell is less than the time it takes to ID it and cast counterspell, yourself, something is definitely wrong with the simulation. The whole idea behind "it takes a reaction to identify the spell" is that it takes time and concentration to identify it. So it's not like you're enabling the counterspellcaster to act faster than if he had to ID the spell, himself, since he's waiting on you.

The big thing with counterspell is that each caster can do it only once per turn. So the question you have to ask is whether letting the counterspeller know what's being cast so that his only gamble is, "Will a nastier spell come along?" is overpowered compared to the alternative of having the counterspeller have to guess, "Is this a spell I even care about, or should I wait for another that might be worse?"

Both contain the question of whether a nastier spell will happen that round, but the second also has them potentially counterspelling a simple attack spell when they are more worried about something on the scale of Tasha's hideous laughter. The second one introduces an issue for the DM, too, in that he now has to guage NPC awareness of spells as a separate thing from his own; this is like the illusion problem, in that the DM now knows that Bob is casting misty step, not charm monster, but Charlie the NPC mage doesn't know this. Would Charlie gamble that it was "fine" to permit, or would he gamble that this was the big nasty spell Bob was going to cast?

I'm actually inclined to just go with being able to see enough of the spell starting up that the counterspeller at least knows what he's counterspelling, unless he's unfamiliar with the spell. And to assume that most mages can at least guess the basics of what a spell is doing.

If guessing spell level is an issue, I might make people make Arcana rolls (as free actions) to try to remember the level, and tell them what level they THINK it is based on the roll. (Something like adding a d4-2 for failing by 5 or less, d6-3 for 10 or less, d8-4 for 15 or less, etc.) If it's a serious problem (for me as a DM, or for players), I might even require them to give me their "margin for error" before seeing if they remember the spell's level. How high above the level they "think" it is will they actually use, "just to be sure?" With the obvious "you can use the highest level spell slot you have if your margin for error is higher" caveat.

So Bob's player (possibly the DM) determines that Bob will cast at +1 level over what he "thinks" it is, "just to be sure." A failure by 7 on the identification roll results in a 3rd level spell being identified as a 4th level spell, so Bob casts from a 4th level spell slot (would have been 5th, but he's out of/doesn't have any of those), and does quash it, but used too high a spell slot. If he'd incorrectly identified it as 3rd (because he wasn't sure, see failing the roll), same thing (because of his +1 safety margin). If he incorrectly identified it as a 1st level spell, he'd ...still use a 3rd level slot, since counterspell can't be cast from a 2nd level one.

I'm thinking this may only be relevant at higher levels.

[deljzc]

Does anyone run or play a campaign WITHOUT counterspell?

I'm not a big fan of the spell. It's not a D&D thing. It's a Wizards of the Coast/Magic the Gathering thing.

With all the abuse and/or rules around this spell (it seems like it's a must-have), anyone just say screw it?

[BoringInfoGuy]

This also brings up the question of Upcasted spells.

Xanathar gives rules on identifying a spell being cast, but is silent on whether you can determine how much the spell may have been upcast. So maybe you recognize that the spell is a 2nd Level Hold Person, but do you know if it’s being upcast enough to potentially lock down your entire party?

Does a Cure Wounds look different if cast at 1st level vs 9th level?

I don’t think there have been any official rulings on this question, so it’s a DM worldbuilding situation.

Going back to the current Xanathar rule. I don’t like the player A identifies and player B Counterspells idea.

If I were to houserule it, I think may try just making so that Identifying the Spell and Countering it can be done on the same Reaction. After using your Reaction attempting to recognize the spell - successful or not - you then decide whether to follow through with casting Counterspell.

Whether you use Counterspell or not, your Reaction for the round would be spent. So no, you couldn’t still counterspell something nastier coming later this turn. But you don’t have to burn a Third level slot on an enemy Cantrip.

[Man_Over_Game]

Does anyone run or play a campaign WITHOUT counterspell?

I'm not a big fan of the spell. It's not a D&D thing. It's a Wizards of the Coast/Magic the Gathering thing.

With all the abuse and/or rules around this spell (it seems like it's a must-have), anyone just say screw it?

There's a lot of issues with that. There are a number of fairly low-power options that rely on it. Namely Retribution Paladin, Arcane Cleric, and Abjuration Wizard.

Not saying you can't replace their powers, but it might take some work to find/make something that'd fit into that niche.

[Segev]

Does anyone run or play a campaign WITHOUT counterspell?

I'm not a big fan of the spell. It's not a D&D thing. It's a Wizards of the Coast/Magic the Gathering thing.

With all the abuse and/or rules around this spell (it seems like it's a must-have), anyone just say screw it?

Counterspell isn't new to D&D. It's just split off from dispel magic. In prior editions, one of the functions of dispel magic was to ready it as an action, and then cast it when an enemy mage cast a spell. If you passed your dispel check against their spell's dispel DC (both spelled out in dispel magic), you cancelled their spell as they cast it.

Counterspell removes the need to ready an action, instead making it consume your reaction. It also has a few other differences, but it originated as part of dispel magic.

(3e also had rules to let you counterspell using the exact spell that was being cast at you. This required readying an action to counterspell, identifying the spell, and then casting the same spell. This automatically worked to counter it.)

[sandman102]

1. If the DM outright states the spell. For example, "She lifts her finger and casts disintegrate on you." and if the player has taken the time (research) to know what spell level that and every single spell's level is from memory, I think their character should also know the spell level in game.

2. If the DM doesn't specifically say the spell, perhaps use an intelligence check to see if you can properly identify the spell or not. Again, just what the spell is, not the actual level.

Using a player's rogue memory, without looking it up, while under duress seems in keeping with counterspell.

[Segev]

1. If the DM outright states the spell. For example, "She lifts her finger and casts disintegrate on you." and if the player has taken the time (research) to know what spell level that and every single spell's level is from memory, I think their character should also know the spell level in game.

2. If the DM doesn't specifically say the spell, perhaps use an intelligence check to see if you can properly identify the spell or not. Again, just what the spell is, not the actual level.

Using a player's rogue memory, without looking it up, while under duress seems in keeping with counterspell.

Players often have more encyclopedic memories of the rules than their PCs, but for spellcasters, I suppose this much isn't unreasonable to expect.

[CapnWildefyr]

Counterspell isn't new to D&D. It's just split off from dispel magic. In prior editions, one of the functions of dispel magic was to ready it as an action, and then cast it when an enemy mage cast a spell.

(3e also had rules to let you counterspell using the exact spell that was being cast at you. This required readying an action to counterspell, identifying the spell, and then casting the same spell. This automatically worked to counter it.)

Also, In 2e when spells had casting times, anyone could counterspell--with a sword, a brick, or a faster spell. It played into strategy--cast a fast low power spell or a long winded strong one? I loved the choke spell, too... sigh.

For 5e, yes knowing the spell certainly helps. But one question: when do you ever want the other guy to do whatever HE wants?. My villains never cast heal at you, and even counterspelling something that would fail anyway still means the bad guy did nothing for a round, which can still be a win.

In my group we just announce the spells. I dont think Id use the XGE rule much unless its out of combat.

[BoringInfoGuy]

Also, In 2e when spells had casting times, anyone could counterspell--with a sword, a brick, or a faster spell. It played into strategy--cast a fast low power spell or a long winded strong one? I loved the choke spell, too... sigh.

For 5e, yes knowing the spell certainly helps. But one question: when do you ever want the other guy to do whatever HE wants?. My villains never cast heal at you, and even counterspelling something that would fail anyway still means the bad guy did nothing for a round, which can still be a win.

In my group we just announce the spells. I dont think Id use the XGE rule much unless its out of combat.

Spell slots a limited resource. If you keep spending your slots trying to prevent every Cantrip an enemy tries to fling at you, you’ll run out of them quickly.

If you blocked his powerful spells, great. You both spent your resources. But if the smart enemy was deliberately casting unlimited Cantrips to waste the parties spell slots on? Once the party stops countering his Cantrips, he has his full arsenal to unload with impunity.

[Pex]

Does anyone run or play a campaign WITHOUT counterspell?

I'm not a big fan of the spell. It's not a D&D thing. It's a Wizards of the Coast/Magic the Gathering thing.

With all the abuse and/or rules around this spell (it seems like it's a must-have), anyone just say screw it?

You can counterspell in 3E by readying an action to do it. You counter by casting the same spell for the purpose, cast Dispel Magic and roll, or specific spells that say they counter other specific spells such as Slow/Haste.

[diplomancer]

Spell slots a limited resource. If you keep spending your slots trying to prevent every Cantrip an enemy tries to fling at you, you’ll run out of them quickly.

If you blocked his powerful spells, great. You both spent your resources. But if the smart enemy was deliberately casting unlimited Cantrips to waste the parties spell slots on? Once the party stops countering his Cantrips, he has his full arsenal to unload with impunity.

Assuming, of course, he's still alive after wasting his first rounds baiting you

[Asmotherion]

Does anyone run or play a campaign WITHOUT counterspell?

I'm not a big fan of the spell. It's not a D&D thing. It's a Wizards of the Coast/Magic the Gathering thing.

With all the abuse and/or rules around this spell (it seems like it's a must-have), anyone just say screw it?

Counterspell is a very D&D thing, at least from my perspective (originally 3.5 player...though back then we used to punsh casters in the face to counterspell :smallcool: ). And it gives an interesting perspective over what a Wizard duel would look like. Can't agree with the premisse that it's OP either.

With all the crazy things magic can accomplish, it's only natural a mage would research a spell to disable his opponent. It also makes seccondary casters and non-casters more relevant to the group, when one of the roles a full caster must fill is "make sure enemy caster doest't fireball/dominate the whole party".

If anything, I believe it should be an ability of casters rather than a spell in itself, as it only functions as a spell tax (you'll get it either way eventually, unless you're ok with changing team members every time someone fails a save), especially for spells known classes.


Also, In 2e when spells had casting times, anyone could counterspell--with a sword, a brick, or a faster spell. It played into strategy--cast a fast low power spell or a long winded strong one? I loved the choke spell, too... sigh.

For 5e, yes knowing the spell certainly helps. But one question: when do you ever want the other guy to do whatever HE wants?. My villains never cast heal at you, and even counterspelling something that would fail anyway still means the bad guy did nothing for a round, which can still be a win.

In my group we just announce the spells. I dont think Id use the XGE rule much unless its out of combat.

Oh, we'd make such a wanderful meme... captioned "counterspell? back in my days the fighter would counterspell... by cutting the mage's hands off" :smallbiggrin:

[BoringInfoGuy]

Assuming, of course, he's still alive after wasting his first rounds baiting you
An enemy wizard who spent his first rounds getting his powerful spells Counterspelled is somehow more likely to survive?

Enemy wizards are just as likely to know the value of meat shields as any PC.