Counterspelling counterspell

[dnd2016]

How does it work? Does the player have to say what spell it is right off the bat.Does the dm have to commit with his spellcaster before he knows what spell the pc is using?. Can 5 spellcasters counterspell one after the other, countering the counterspell?.

[Greywander]

First of all, counterspell undoes the previous spell, including counterspell. If I cast spell A, and you counterspell it, but Bob counterspells you, then your counterspell is negated, and my spell A casts normally. But Alice could counterspell Bob, preventing him from counterspelling you, meaning that you can successfully counterspell me. And so on. Basically, every time counterspell is cast, it toggles between the original spell being negated and not being negated, so the only thing that matters is which "side" counterspells last. Think of it like flipping a switch every time counterspell is cast, and the only thing that matters is whether it ends up in the "on" or "off" state.

In XGtE, I believes it's stated that you have to use your reaction to determine what spell is being cast, which of course prevents you from counterspelling it (since that also uses a reaction). By RAW, then, you have to counterspell before you know what spell is being cast, but YMMV with how your DM handles it. If one of your buddies casts a spell and an enemy counterspells it, you don't necessarily know that the reaction spell they're casting is counterspell, but it's a reasonable guess (there's not a lot of reaction spells).

If you wanted to be technical according to the rules, a player would need to announce that they're casting a spell, then wait for the DM/other players to decide if they're going to use any reactions (which includes counterspelling or figuring out which spell they're casting). Once reactions have been decided, the player would then announce which spell they're casting. Vice versa when its an NPC casting a spell. Naturally, this slows the game way down, so most people probably don't bother; they just announce the spell they're casting followed by anyone announcing a counterspell, if they want to.

[Ganryu]

Yup, you can. Until the sorcerer subtle spells it. You can't counter spell a spell you can't see coming. And subtle ruins that chain. But until they, 60 people want to counter spell each other in a row? Go for it.

[Asisreo1]

The funny thing is: with so many spellcasters, the counterspell chain is probably the quickest a turn is resolved in combat.

[DrKerosene]

I think it depends on how a group wants to play it.

I usually see it as one person announces a spell (such as Fireball or Healing Word), then another decides that is worth using Counterspell against.

I’ve posited that some groups may decide to play it as the DM announcing one Mage-NPC doing verbal and/or somantic components to some spell, possible with materials listed instead of a focus, and then the Party would have a few options.
1. One PC uses their Reaction to try to identify the spell and yell what it is to the Counterspeller PC, who can then decide if it is worth using their Reaction to cast Counterspell.
2. Without anyone to identify the spell, or failing in identifying, a PC has to decide on blindly casting Counterspell.

It is also probably worth coming to a consensus with your group about if Counterspell actually “prevents” a spell from being cast, or if it simply causes the end result to fail (and things like Bonus Action+Cantrips restrictions would still apply).

I’ve also seen someone insist that, on their turn, they can cast Healing Word and Counterspell a Counterspell against their Healing Word, because the specific wording of Counterspell’s trigger overrides Bonus Action Spell general text. So that may be worth addressing.

For a DM using Counterspell, I think you can either have metagame mages who basically go Nova to get the most bang for their CR, smart mages built around being mage duelers, or “lucky” magic users. Or ones who don’t have the ability to cast it at all.

I haven’t had to DM for PC using Counterspell, but it was used against me once as a PC. I’ve never played a magic user who had Counterspell on their class spell list.

[Bundin]

I’ve also seen someone insist that, on their turn, they can cast Healing Word and Counterspell a Counterspell against their Healing Word, because the specific wording of Counterspell’s trigger overrides Bonus Action Spell general text. So that may be worth addressing.

Sage Advice Compendium is explicit about this, apparently it can be done.


Can you cast a reaction spell on your turn? You sure can! Here’s a common way for it to happen: Cornelius the wizard is casting fireball on his turn, and his foe casts counterspell on him. Cornelius also has counterspell prepared, so he uses his reaction to cast it and break his foe’s counterspell before it can stop fireball.

[Keravath]

Sage Advice Compendium is explicit about this, apparently it can be done.

The poster before you was referring to the rule that states if you cast a spell as a bonus action then any other spells you cast on your turn must be cantrips with a casting time of one action. The Sage Advice Compendium answer does not address this. Can you counterspell on your turn after casting a spell using the cast a spell action? Yes, you have your reaction available AND are able to cast counterspell and can thus counterspell a counterspell targeting the spell you are casting.

However, if you cast a bonus action spell like healing word, the rules on bonus action spells limit what spells can be cast on your turn in which case, although you still have a reaction available, you can not use it to cast counterspell because it is not a cantrip with a casting time of one action.

[Hairfish]

However, if you cast a bonus action spell like healing word, the rules on bonus action spells limit what spells can be cast on your turn in which case, although you still have a reaction available, you can not use it to cast counterspell because it is not a cantrip with a casting time of one action.

Seems like a case of "specific beats general", to me. The specific conditions under which a specific spell can be cast as a reaction beats the general rule of only being able to cast a cantrip on your turn if you also cast a spell as a bonus action.

[RSP]

Seems like a case of "specific beats general", to me. The specific conditions under which a specific spell can be cast as a reaction beats the general rule of only being able to cast a cantrip on your turn if you also cast a spell as a bonus action.

That’s not specific beats general. There’s a general rule about BA spells. And there’s a general rule about Triggers and Reactions. Neither specifically trumps the other.

Just the fact that the wording says you can do something isn’t a “specific beats general.” For instance, you can’t say the wording of Counterspell allows you to cast Counterspell even if you’ve already used you Reaction. (Edit: I mean you could say that, you’d just not be following the RAW).

[BloodSnake'sCha]

That’s not specific beats general. There’s a general rule about BA spells. And there’s a general rule about Triggers and Reactions. Neither specifically trumps the other.

Just the fact that the wording says you can do something isn’t a “specific beats general.” For instance, you can’t say the wording of Counterspell allows you to cast Counterspell even if you’ve already used you Reaction. (Edit: I mean you could say that, you’d just not be following the RAW).


Bonus Action
A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

Reactions
Some spells can be cast as reactions. These spells take a fraction of a second to bring about and are cast in response to some event. If a spell can be cast as a reaction, the spell description tells you exactly when you can do so.
It look to me like the reaction spells are more specific as it has a spell specification in the general rule about Reactions.
The bonus action segment tell us the general rule and the reaction segment refer us to a set of specific rules.

[RSP]

It look to me like the reaction spells are more specific as it has a spell specification in the general rule about Reactions.
The bonus action segment tell us the general rule and the reaction segment refer us to a set of specific rules.

What in the Reaction rule makes you think it contradicts the BA rule?

Because having a separate rule, isn’t specific beats general, in and of itself.

Edit: For instance, just because Reactions have their own header, doesn’t mean they don’t follow every other rule of spell casting, like using a spell slot.

[Chronos]

It's not a matter of specific vs. general; it's a matter of can vs. can't. There are all sorts of situations where one rule says you can do something but another rule says you can't, in which case you can't. Like, even though there are rules saying you can do all sorts of things, you can't do them while unconscious. Having cast a bonus action spell isn't as big a restriction as being unconscious, but it still says you can't cast certain sorts of spells.

[Keravath]

It look to me like the reaction spells are more specific as it has a spell specification in the general rule about Reactions.
The bonus action segment tell us the general rule and the reaction segment refer us to a set of specific rules.

This is a case of RAW vs logic and opinion.

RAW says that if you cast a bonus action spell then you can only cast cantrips with a casting time of one action in that turn. It doesn't affect your use of spells during the rest of the round, only during your turn.

The rules on reaction spells state that if certain conditions are triggered you might be able to cast the spell as a reaction (however, if you don't have a reaction left or you are bound so you can't perform somatic components then no matter what the spell says you can't cast it). Similarly, if the character cast a bonus action spell this round, then RAW, it says that they can not cast any other spells except cantrips on this turn and that includes reaction spells like shield (perhaps an opponent had a held action?) or counterspell. It isn't a case of specific beats general because the spell descriptions give the conditions under which you might be able to cast the spell, they don't guarantee that you can cast the spell.

----

From a logic perspective - this is NOT what the rules say and is not RAW - bonus action spells are faster than regular ones and the flavor text for reaction spells says "These spells take a fraction of a second". I wouldn't be surprised if some DMs house rule that it is ok to cast a reaction spell on your turn even if you have already cast a bonus action spell because reaction spells are indicated to cast in only a "fraction of a second". In theory, this is such a small fraction of your six second turn that whether you cast a bonus action+cantrip or a regular spell, it should not impact your ability to cast a reaction spell that the rules claim is so fast it takes only a fraction of a second. However, that is not what RAW says, it is just a likely house rule justified by the flavor text.

[dnd2016]

What about the DM saying if the spell you cast is on his enemy list then he knows what spell you are casting and can decide to counterspell or not?

[Laserlight]

How does it work? Does the player have to say what spell it is right off the bat.Does the dm have to commit with his spellcaster before he knows what spell the pc is using?. Can 5 spellcasters counterspell one after the other, countering the counterspell?.

Avoid this question ever coming up simply by staying our of Counterspelling range.

[RSP]

From a logic perspective - this is NOT what the rules say and is not RAW - bonus action spells are faster than regular ones and the flavor text for reaction spells says "These spells take a fraction of a second".

I don’t think the BA spell rule has anything to do with time, even in the fluff. Yes it says BA spells are faster, but nothing says this is why you can’t cast a leveled spell. Quite the opposite: if it was a time constraint you wouldn’t be able cast cantrips either (as a 1 Action casting time is the same amount of time, presumably, whether a cantrip or leveled spell).

I’ve always assumed the restriction was d/t spell power: BAs might be quicker than normal spells, but you still can’t have the magical power of multiple leveled spell slots working through you at the same time.

[Tanarii]

How does it work? Does the player have to say what spell it is right off the bat.Does the dm have to commit with his spellcaster before he knows what spell the pc is using?. Can 5 spellcasters counterspell one after the other, countering the counterspell?.
If the DM is me, they just blurt out what the spell is in the heat of running a fast pace combat and the players get that knowledge for free. :smallamused:

For players worrying about counter spelling in a tense battle ... well that's what spellcards are for. Put them on the table face down.

It is kind an awkward mechanic, since most players I've played with just say out loud what spell is being cast. Conversely more than a few DMs I've played with decline to share that info unless they have to. They prefer description of what the character can perceive.

[Keravath]

I don’t think the BA spell rule has anything to do with time, even in the fluff. Yes it says BA spells are faster, but nothing says this is why you can’t cast a leveled spell. Quite the opposite: if it was a time constraint you wouldn’t be able cast cantrips either (as a 1 Action casting time is the same amount of time, presumably, whether a cantrip or leveled spell).

I’ve always assumed the restriction was d/t spell power: BAs might be quicker than normal spells, but you still can’t have the magical power of multiple leveled spell slots working through you at the same time.

Sounds fine to me :) ... the fluff surrounding why a rule might be one way or another is entirely up to the DM so whatever explanation you want to come up with is fine. The rules don't say anything about limits on channeling magical power or the exact time required to cast spells. Your idea and explanation is as valid as mine.

From my persepective, I like to think that cantrips are so easy and so well known that you can easily cast one in combination with a bonus action spell which the character can't do with a leveled spell. The justification for casting a cantrip with a bonus action spell seems to be that bonus action spells are faster than usual to cast.

However, the whole concept of time doesn't really make much sense either because the turn includes you moving which also takes time and there aren't rules to take the time you spend moving instead casting a spell. This tends to imply that you are casting while moving so that movement and actions can take up your entire turn :) ... basically 5e D&D wasn't designed to be broken down to this level of detail ... the rules tell us what happens but not why that is the case (most of the time) and it is up to the DM to figure out how they want to run it when unusual cases develop.

P.S. The main issue with the "spell power" idea is that it ranks level 1 spells the same as level 9 spells. If you can handle the "spell power" of a level 9 spell ... why not two level 1 spells in the same turn? However, it is all just fluff so doesn't really matter.

[Keravath]

If the DM is me, they just blurt out what the spell is in the heat of running a fast pace combat and the players get that knowledge for free. :smallamused:

For players worrying about counter spelling in a tense battle ... well that's what spellcards are for. Put them on the table face down.

It is kind an awkward mechanic, since most players I've played with just say out loud what spell is being cast. Conversely more than a few DMs I've played with decline to share that info unless they have to. They prefer description of what the character can perceive.

Yep. If it is ever an issue in a game you play then either the DM or player says "I am casting a spell" and waits to see if anyone responds with "I am counter spelling" then they go on to revealing what the spell is and what level it is being cast at so they can resolve counterspell (if it was cast) or any spell effects. If you don't trust the players or DM to not change their minds have them jot it down on a piece of paper or use spellcards as suggested.

It adds a bit of tension since you never know if it is worthwhile using that counterspell. :)

[Chronos]

At my table, players and DM alike usually cast spells descriptively.

"OK, the monster needs to make a DC 16 Int save"
<roll> "He failed."
"All right, then, he thinks he sees that knight we rescued squaring off against him."

Everyone involved can probably figure out that that was a Phantasmal Force, but nobody ever actually says it. If it's unclear, occasionally the DM will ask "What spell was that?".

[J-H]

My table only had 1 character capable of counterspelling (dead last session) so I just ran it as "X is casting a spell" and then that's his chance to yell "I counter-spell!".