Counterspell and “seeing” the caster

[RSP]

Had this interesting thought and was curious what DMs opinions on this would be.

An arcane caster 30’ away from you is covered in a bed sheet, such that no part of their body is visible, however, the thickness of the sheet is such that their making of S movements is obvious, the V component can be heard without any issue, and the staff they’re holding (their M component focus) is clearly sticking out the bottom of the sheet.

Does this fulfill the requirement of Counterspell of you being able to “see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell.”

[Keltest]

Had this interesting thought and was curious what DMs opinions on this would be.

An arcane caster 30’ away from you is covered in a bed sheet, such that no part of their body is visible, however, the thickness of the sheet is such that their making of S movements is obvious, the V component can be heard without any issue, and the staff they’re holding (their M component focus) is clearly sticking out the bottom of the sheet.

Does this fulfill the requirement of Counterspell of you being able to “see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell.”

Ultimately, i think this comes down to the question of "does the sheet make the area heavily obscured?"

And personally, the answer is "no." You can see them enough to locate them and identify specific movements through vision alone. Theyre no more obscured than if they were wearing a heavy cloak.

[RSP]

Ultimately, i think this comes down to the question of "does the sheet make the area heavily obscured?"

And personally, the answer is "no." You can see them enough to locate them and identify specific movements through vision alone. Theyre no more obscured than if they were wearing a heavy cloak.

For the record, I was hopefully creating a difference between wearing something (like a cloak), and rather having the blockage come from something that isn’t considered gear or worn.

[Keltest]

For the record, I was hopefully creating a difference between wearing something (like a cloak), and rather having the blockage come from something that isn’t considered gear or worn.

I mean, from the description you gave, it sounded like he was wearing the bedsheet. Is it suspended from the ceiling or something instead? That might make it lightly obscured, but you can still identify the movements enough to recognize somatic components, so its still not heavily obscured, so i stand by my position.

[BurgerBeast]

I mean, from the description you gave, it sounded like he was wearing the bedsheet. Is it suspended from the ceiling or something instead? That might make it lightly obscured, but you can still identify the movements enough to recognize somatic components, so its still not heavily obscured, so i stand by my position.

I think the litmus test here is: would you give a melee attacker disadvantage because he can’t see the target?

I think the answer is a clear “no.”

[RSP]

I think the litmus test here is: would you give a melee attacker disadvantage because he can’t see the target?

I think the answer is a clear “no.”

I’m just curious what the board’s opinion is on “Seeing” something; I hadn’t thought of it in terms of attacking. Appreciate the perspective.

In the example I gave, for instance one can tell someone is casting, but I don’t think you’d be able to tell what race the creature was, or anything they’re wearing (clothes, cloaks, armor, etc), much less actual identifying features outside of rough weight/height estimates.

In my opinion, it’s less than you’d get looking at someone in Lightly Obscured conditions, but more than Heavily Obscured. Technically speaking, you might be seeing someone cast, but are not actually seeing someone (if that makes sense).

[Keltest]

I’m just curious what the board’s opinion is on “Seeing” something; I hadn’t thought of it in terms of attacking. Appreciate the perspective.

In the example I gave, for instance one can tell someone is casting, but I don’t think you’d be able to tell what race the creature was, or anything they’re wearing (clothes, cloaks, armor, etc), much less actual identifying features outside of rough weight/height estimates.

In my opinion, it’s less than you’d get looking at someone in Lightly Obscured conditions, but more than Heavily Obscured. Technically speaking, you might be seeing someone cast, but are not actually seeing someone (if that makes sense).

I dunno, this sounds like textbook lightly obscured to me. Disadvantage on strictly visual perception checks (ie to identify their race) but otherwise still able to see them.

[RSP]

I dunno, this sounds like textbook lightly obscured to me. Disadvantage on strictly visual perception checks (ie to identify their race) but otherwise still able to see them.

Except you can’t actually see them. No part of the creature is actually visible.

I’d say it’s closer to “seeing” an invisible in water: you can’t actually see the creature, but can make out it’s outline.

But that’s my take, and perhaps why I found it interesting.

[BurgerBeast]

I’m just curious what the board’s opinion is on “Seeing” something; I hadn’t thought of it in terms of attacking. Appreciate the perspective.

In the example I gave, for instance one can tell someone is casting, but I don’t think you’d be able to tell what race the creature was, or anything they’re wearing (clothes, cloaks, armor, etc), much less actual identifying features outside of rough weight/height estimates.

In my opinion, it’s less than you’d get looking at someone in Lightly Obscured conditions, but more than Heavily Obscured. Technically speaking, you might be seeing someone cast, but are not actually seeing someone (if that makes sense).

It does make sense. Watch out for the word "see." I have memories of a marathon thread or two on the topic of magic missile versus mirror image in which I met resistance for even trying to discuss the semantic nuances around the word "see" and "target."

It's a bit like "sing." Can you sing? No, I can't. With the exception of someone who is mute, I'm pretty sure everyone can sing.

Suppose you bump into your childhood friend at the supermarket and you don't recognize him. Then later someone asks you if you saw him at the supermarket.

Well? Didya? Didya see him? Didya? /endsarcasm

[BurgerBeast]

Except you can’t actually see them. No part of the creature is actually visible.

I’d say it’s closer to “seeing” an invisible in water: you can’t actually see the creature, but can make out it’s outline.

But that’s my take, and perhaps why I found it interesting.

So what about someone wearing clothing? Can you see their feet if they're wearing boots? Can you see their body if it's entirely covered by a robe? If someone is in full plate with the visor down, does that mean you can't see him at all? You're really splitting hairs, here.

I fully admit to being overly pedantic, and I think you're being overly pedantic, here.

Edit: If a cop says "show me your hands!" and you raise your hands in the air, but you have gloves on, have you failed to comply?

[Eldariel]

Had this interesting thought and was curious what DMs opinions on this would be.

An arcane caster 30’ away from you is covered in a bed sheet, such that no part of their body is visible, however, the thickness of the sheet is such that their making of S movements is obvious, the V component can be heard without any issue, and the staff they’re holding (their M component focus) is clearly sticking out the bottom of the sheet.

Does this fulfill the requirement of Counterspell of you being able to “see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell.”

I think "See" requires Line of Sight so you must have no visual obstacles concealing the entirety of target caster from you (i.e. the bed sheet would be enough if no part of their body is visible but if you could see their leg I'd say you can "see" them - though I wouldn't rule it that way in actual game).

[RSP]

So what about someone wearing clothing? Can you see their feet if they're wearing boots? Can you see their body if it's entirely covered by a robe? If someone is in full plate with the visor down, does that mean you can't see him at all? You're really splitting hairs, here

Which is why I wanted it made clear the caster is not wearing the sheet. Gear is generally treated differently than something like the sheet example, and I was hoping to avoid that.

Though, I think I’d rule even something intentionally worn could block sight. I’m thinking something like the Ralph Machio original Karate Kid, when he wears the Shower Stall Halloween costume. If we assume that curtain goes to floor, covering his feet, I’d rule that anything he does within the curtain is non-Counterspell-able.

Looking at it that way, it seems seeing the S component is a factor for me, at least.

[RSP]

I think "See" requires Line of Sight so you must have no visual obstacles concealing the entirety of target caster from you (i.e. the bed sheet would be enough if no part of their body is visible but if you could see their leg I'd say you can "see" them - though I wouldn't rule it that way in actual game).

I hadn’t thought of the sheet breaking line of effect until I read this post, which could potentially be a factor.

[MaxWilson]

Had this interesting thought and was curious what DMs opinions on this would be.

An arcane caster 30’ away from you is covered in a bed sheet, such that no part of their body is visible, however, the thickness of the sheet is such that their making of S movements is obvious, the V component can be heard without any issue, and the staff they’re holding (their M component focus) is clearly sticking out the bottom of the sheet.

Does this fulfill the requirement of Counterspell of you being able to “see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell.”

For me, yes. The bedsheet is effectively clothes, and for whatever reason, clothes in 5E get treated as being as much a part of a creature as superman's suit is part of him. E.g. you can't use Drawmij's Instant Summons to summon the bedsheet because it's currently being worn. Seems totally fair to also rule that it doesn't count as total cover, and that the creature is therefore "seen". (If the creature were invisible the bedsheet would be invisible too.)

It's kind of silly really but that's just how magic works in 5E.

Note that bedsheet is ismorphic to plate armor in terms of how much of you it allows to be seen. I.e. any ruling which applies to bed sheet will also apply to plate armor.

============================================


Which is why I wanted it made clear the caster is not wearing the sheet. Gear is generally treated differently than something like the sheet example, and I was hoping to avoid that.

Though, I think I’d rule even something intentionally worn could block sight. I’m thinking something like the Ralph Machio original Karate Kid, when he wears the Shower Stall Halloween costume. If we assume that curtain goes to floor, covering his feet, I’d rule that anything he does within the curtain is non-Counterspell-able.

Looking at it that way, it seems seeing the S component is a factor for me, at least.

This wasn't clear, but if you intended e.g. a bedsheet that was hung as a curtain from the ceiling, and the caster is standing behind it instead of wearing it, I'd say:

(1) That doesn't sound compatible with the description in the OP of being able to see somatic components, etc.

(2) I would count that as not-seeing if and only if you can't see anything they're wearing or carrying either (which also conflicts with the OP's description of the "clearly visible" staff).

============================================


I think "See" requires Line of Sight so you must have no visual obstacles concealing the entirety of target caster from you (i.e. the bed sheet would be enough if no part of their body is visible but if you could see their leg I'd say you can "see" them - though I wouldn't rule it that way in actual game).

As an aside: mirrors allow you to see things not otherwise within line of sight, but 5E magic explicitly that the target not have total cover against you, so mirrors won't actually help you cast spells around corners even though they can potentially let you attack around corners without disadvantage (e.g. with a Force Ballista turret).

[RSP]

For me, yes. The bedsheet is effectively clothes, and for whatever reason, clothes in 5E get treated as being as much a part of a creature as superman's suit is part of him. E.g. you can't use Drawmij's Instant Summons to summon the bedsheet because it's currently being worn. Seems totally fair to also rule that it doesn't count as total cover, and that the creature is therefore "seen". (If the creature were invisible the bedsheet would be invisible too.)

It's kind of silly really but that's just how magic works in 5E.

Note that bedsheet is ismorphic to plate armor in terms of how much of you it allows to be seen. I.e. any ruling which applies to bed sheet will also apply to plate armor.

============================================



This wasn't clear, but if you intended e.g. a bedsheet that was hung as a curtain from the ceiling, and the caster is standing behind it instead of wearing it, I'd say:

(1) That doesn't sound compatible with the description in the OP of being able to see somatic components, etc.

(2) I would count that as not-seeing if and only if you can't see anything they're wearing or carrying either (which also conflicts with the OP's description of the "clearly visible" staff).

============================================

After the second post:


For the record, I was hopefully creating a difference between wearing something (like a cloak), and rather having the blockage come from something that isn’t considered gear or worn.

For the bedsheet situation: imagine it as a trap: the sheet dropped down on the caster. They don’t want to be in it, and I certainly would not count that as gear, but you may.

So I’d definitely say Plate Mail is gear/worn, but I’d not agree the sheet counts the same way. And I’d not think a sheet dropped on an invisible character would turn invisible, any more than flour thrown on them would turn invisible.

But this does open up an interesting question for those who think they can “see” the caster in the sheet: if the caster was invisible, AND under the visible sheet, are they still able to be Counterspell’d? (For the record, I’m still undecided either way; Max’s post/my response just made me think of this.)

[Keltest]

After the second post:



For the bedsheet situation: imagine it as a trap: the sheet dropped down on the caster. They don’t want to be in it, and I certainly would not count that as gear, but you may.

So I’d definitely say Plate Mail is gear/worn, but I’d not agree the sheet counts the same way. And I’d not think a sheet dropped on an invisible character would turn invisible, any more than flour thrown on them would turn invisible.

But this does open up an interesting question for those who think they can “see” the caster in the sheet: if the caster was invisible, AND under the visible sheet, are they still able to be Counterspell’d? (For the record, I’m still undecided either way; Max’s post/my response just made me think of this.)

Personally i would say yes, its seeing them enough for the purposes of counterspell. If it doesnt count as being able to see them, it opens up some super unintuitive shenanigans with regards to folding your cloak over yourself to become immune to counterspelling, among other things.

[RSP]

Personally i would say yes, its seeing them enough for the purposes of counterspell. If it doesnt count as being able to see them, it opens up some super unintuitive shenanigans with regards to folding your cloak over yourself to become immune to counterspelling, among other things.

Sure, though again, the cloak would be gear and “count” as seeing the person just like the aforementioned Plate Mail wearer. Not that I’d disagree, but I do see a difference between personal gear/equipment worn, and non-personal gear/non-worn equipment.

[MaxWilson]

So I’d definitely say Plate Mail is gear/worn, but I’d not agree the sheet counts the same way. And I’d not think a sheet dropped on an invisible character would turn invisible, any more than flour thrown on them would turn invisible.


I foresee inconsistencies.

[Mellack]

Sure, though again, the cloak would be gear and “count” as seeing the person just like the aforementioned Plate Mail wearer. Not that I’d disagree, but I do see a difference between personal gear/equipment worn, and non-personal gear/non-worn equipment.

If a person's personal gear/equipment count as seeing them, then the wizard should count as being seen. You said that their staff was clearly visible. So by that ruling, they are seen.

[yellowrocket]

So what about someone wearing clothing? Can you see their feet if they're wearing boots? Can you see their body if it's entirely covered by a robe? If someone is in full plate with the visor down, does that mean you can't see him at all? You're really splitting hairs, here.

I fully admit to being overly pedantic, and I think you're being overly pedantic, here.

Edit: If a cop says "show me your hands!" and you raise your hands in the air, but you have gloves on, have you failed to comply?

To answer your question, it depends on the cop. A bad one in a bad mood has considered it noncompliance in the past. And thats just the honest truth.

So long as you can make out the location of your target you can target them. A staff that's visable and the somatic components make it pretty easy.

Edit: the verbal just finishes the argument for me. The sheet at that point is no longer effective at obscuring the caster.

[MoiMagnus]

Does this fulfill the requirement of Counterspell of you being able to “see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell.”

My ruling would be Yes, for multiple reasons:
1) You can see a creature casting a spell without seeing the creature itself. What matters from a in-universe perspective is that you see the Spellcasting, not the Spellcaster.
2) That's a clothing, it at least an object worn by the creature. If the Spellcaster was in an exoskeleton, I would still rule that the entire exoskeleton is invisible when under invisibility spell, and that anybody with a line of sight to the exoskeleton has a line of sight to the creature for spell purposes.

(You need an arbitrary limit about what is part of a creature for spell purposes, and what is not. The only logical limit is "your biological body", but since we want clothing to be part of you that doesn't work. So my arbitrage is "everything that consistently moves with you when you move around", with a case by case analysis for extreme situations.)

[Jerrykhor]

I'll worry about this the next time someone bring a bedsheet to a combat encounter.

But yes, bedsheets and glass windows are pretty useful things to stop spellcasters with. Screw you and your magic, you don't have a clear path to the target!

[RSP]

So it seems the consensus is, then, that it’s not “seeing a creature, who is casting a spell,” but rather “seeing the S component, when a creature is casting a spell.”

Interesting.

[Democratus]

So it seems the consensus is, then, that it’s not “seeing a creature, who is casting a spell,” but rather “seeing the S component, when a creature is casting a spell.”

Interesting.

What's odd is that you can counterspell something that has only a V component, but you still have to use sight.

[RSP]

(You need an arbitrary limit about what is part of a creature for spell purposes, and what is not. The only logical limit is "your biological body", but since we want clothing to be part of you that doesn't work. So my arbitrage is "everything that consistently moves with you when you move around", with a case by case analysis for extreme situations.)

My personal limit is whether a thing is counted as “gear” or “equipment”. For instance, is it something listed on their character sheet because they carry it. Plate Mail would be listed, so that’s gear.

If an enemy were to trap a PC in a net, I wouldn’t expect that player to write down “net” on their character sheet (though certainly, if they survive/succeed in the encounter it could be possible to them keep the net). Getting caught in the enemy’s net isn’t the PC’s gear.

[RSP]

What's odd is that you can counterspell something that has only a V component, but you still have to use sight.

Was thinking the same, though, in that instance, I imagine, you’d still have to actually see the creature.

I wouldn’t allow you to Counterspell a creature with Greater Invisibility up who casts a V component spell, just because you can hear the V component and know the 5’ space of where that creature is. You’d still need to see them.

[Democratus]

Was thinking the same, though, in that instance, I imagine, you’d still have to actually see the creature.

I wouldn’t allow you to Counterspell a creature with Greater Invisibility up who casts a V component spell, just because you can hear the V component and know the 5’ space of where that creature is. You’d still need to see them.

Yeah. Greater Invisibility is the go-to spell for my bad guys when they want to cast spells in peace.

[MaxWilson]

My ruling would be Yes, for multiple reasons:
1) You can see a creature casting a spell without seeing the creature itself. What matters from a in-universe perspective is that you see the Spellcasting, not the Spellcaster.

This probably isn't true, or else you'd be able to spoof Counterspell with pseudomagical syllables and/or illusion magic, and you'd be able to Counterspell while blinded as long as you could hear the verbal components, and you'd be able to Magic Missile while blinded as long as you knew the target location (e.g. you're grappling them). If you're going to ditch the "a creature you can see" requirement for Counterspell you might as well ditch it across the board in favor of "a creature not behind total cover" for all spells and abilities.


So it seems the consensus is, then, that it’s not “seeing a creature, who is casting a spell,” but rather “seeing the S component, when a creature is casting a spell.”

Interesting.

There's a consensus that the situation you described does not prevent Counterspell, but there is no consensus about the why. Many posters are saying it's because the wizard counts as seen (his staff is clearly visible, he's effectively wearing the bedsheet, etc.), and others say it's because the spell components are detectable.

That's definitely not the consensus you've described.

[RSP]

There's a consensus that the situation you described does not prevent Counterspell, but there is no consensus about the why. Many posters are saying it's because the wizard counts as seen (his staff is clearly visible, he's effectively wearing the bedsheet, etc.), and others say it's because the spell components are detectable.

That's definitely not the consensus you've described.

Perhaps. My take away was more that the S component was visible, but perhaps I’m wrong. We seem to disagree on the sheet counting as gear, so let’s try this:

Caster is under the effects of Greater Invisibility, and is submerged in water up to their neck so their outline is noticeable. They cast a spell that doesn’t have S components, so no hand movements. They may or may not be holding a M component or focus, but you can hear the V component.

Assuming no way to defeat the Invisibility, can another creature Counterspell?

[Keltest]

Perhaps. My take away was more that the S component was visible, but perhaps I’m wrong. We seem to disagree on the sheet counting as gear, so let’s try this:

Caster is under the effects of Greater Invisibility, and is submerged in water up to their neck so their outline is noticeable. They cast a spell that doesn’t have S components, so no hand movements. They may or may not be holding a M component or focus, but you can hear the V component.

Assuming no way to defeat the Invisibility, can another creature Counterspell?

Theyre invisible so you cant see them. You know where they are from other signs, but you cant see them, thus you cant counterspell them.

[RSP]

Theyre invisible so you cant see them. You know where they are from other signs, but you cant see them, thus you cant counterspell them.

Neither could you see them with the sheet, though: you just see how their body was interacting with the sheet, but not their body. Likewise, in this scenario, you can see their body interact with the water, but not actually see their body.

In both scenarios, the creature can’t be seen, but you know where they are and what they’re doing from other signs.

[Mellack]

Neither could you see them with the sheet, though: you just see how their body was interacting with the sheet, but not their body. Likewise, in this scenario, you can see their body interact with the water, but not actually see their body.

In both scenarios, the creature can’t be seen, but you know where they are and what they’re doing from other signs.

Going with the reasoning that seeing a persons gear = seeing the creature, your scenarios are different. In the first you could see at least some of the gear clearly, so that counted as seeing the creature. The invisibility scenario has nothing of the creature you can see. You can deduce where they are, but you can see nothing of them. That makes the results different.

[Telok]

Consider a situation where it is possible to see a limb of the caster, but not all limbs and not the torso or head. Can they be counterpelled?

This isn't insanely out there either. A place with lots of tall stuff on tables, but you can see the caster's legs. A small alcove or doorway in a hall sufficent to conceal everything except the arm holding the staff needed for the S component. Someone backed up to a tree or pillar wide enough to cover their body and one side but not quite enough to get the other arm or leg. Laying in a coffin on an altar and being forced to raise your arms above the sides in order to cast. Partially trapped under a collapsed building with just the S jesturing arm sticking out.

[RSP]

Going with the reasoning that seeing a persons gear = seeing the creature, your scenarios are different. In the first you could see at least some of the gear clearly, so that counted as seeing the creature. The invisibility scenario has nothing of the creature you can see. You can deduce where they are, but you can see nothing of them. That makes the results different.

I’m not sure you’ll find a lot of agreement in “I can see part of the person’s staff (but none of the person), so I can Counterspell them”.

For instance: a creature is around a corner. You can’t see any of the creature but the end of their staff is sticking out. Let’s say you can see 6” of it; the rest of the staff and the creature are behind the corner and out of sight.

Are you saying you can therefore “see” the creature holding the staff?

Can you target the creature with magic missile? An attack?

[Mellack]

I’m not sure you’ll find a lot of agreement in “I can see part of the person’s staff (but none of the person), so I can Counterspell them”.

For instance: a creature is around a corner. You can’t see any of the creature but the end of their staff is sticking out. Let’s say you can see 6” of it; the rest of the staff and the creature are behind the corner and out of sight.

Are you saying you can therefore “see” the creature holding the staff?

Can you target the creature with magic missile? An attack?

Either equipment counts as part of the creature or it does not. If a person is standing with their back to you in a full cloak, you may see nothing but the cloak. Yet even though not a bit of the actual biological creature is visible, they would count as seen. Now put a bush going up to their waist, are they still seen? How about a tree trunk, covering 75%, 90%? I would say that it is a binary choice. If you can see part of them or their equipment, you can see them. A magic missile can hit a target through an arrow slit, where you might just see a bit of a helmet. I say it is the same.

[RSP]

Either equipment counts as part of the creature or it does not. If a person is standing with their back to you in a full cloak, you may see nothing but the cloak. Yet even though not a bit of the actual biological creature is visible, they would count as seen. Now put a bush going up to their waist, are they still seen? How about a tree trunk, covering 75%, 90%? I would say that it is a binary choice. If you can see part of them or their equipment, you can see them. A magic missile can hit a target through an arrow slit, where you might just see a bit of a helmet. I say it is the same.

I’d say it has limits. For instance, in our table’s last session, PCs tied 50’ ropes they were carrying around their waists while traversing a narrow bit of cliff. That 50’ rope is definitely part of their equipment and is even being “worn”, however, if a creature saw part of that rope dragging, I wouldn’t say they saw the PC. I wouldn’t say they could attack the PC simply because they saw the last 5’ of dangling rope. I wouldn’t let an enemy caster target them with a sight spell simply because they saw a bit of the rope, their gear.

Maybe you would, but I don’t think it’s a binary situation.

[Mellack]

I’d say it has limits. For instance, in our table’s last session, PCs tied 50’ ropes they were carrying around their waists while traversing a narrow bit of cliff. That 50’ rope is definitely part of their equipment and is even being “worn”, however, if a creature saw part of that rope dragging, I wouldn’t say they saw the PC. I wouldn’t say they could attack the PC simply because they saw the last 5’ of dangling rope. I wouldn’t let an enemy caster target them with a sight spell simply because they saw a bit of the rope, their gear.

Maybe you would, but I don’t think it’s a binary situation.

Agreed, it has some limits. I would put that limit as the equipment has to be in the same square as the creature. So I think the creature behind a sheet but with parts of their stuff visible can be counterspelled.

[RSP]

Agreed, it has some limits. I would put that limit as the equipment has to be in the same square as the creature. So I think the creature behind a sheet but with parts of their stuff visible can be counterspelled.

I’d still disagree. If my DM tells me that my PC sees a bit of backpack sticking out from behind a wall, I doubt they’d let my character attack the NPC wearing it. If my PC tried to cast MM on the NPC, I’d imagine I’d get a similar “you don’t see who (if anyone) is wearing the backpack, you only see a part of the backpack.”

Likewise, I’d rule similarly.

I think I’m concluding that “seeing the creature” is equivalent to “seeing some portion of the creature, or it’s gear that contains HPs within”.

For instance, in the above backpack example, my PC isn’t seeing anything that “contains” the NPC’s HPs. But if my PC sees a gloved hand, well that bit of gear actually does contain a creatures HPs within it, so I’d say it’s targetable as the creature, even though what’s being seen isn’t, technically, the creature.

[lall]

I’d still disagree. If my DM tells me that my PC sees a bit of backpack sticking out from behind a wall, I doubt they’d let my character attack the NPC wearing it. If my PC tried to cast MM on the NPC, I’d imagine I’d get a similar “you don’t see who (if anyone) is wearing the backpack, you only see a part of the backpack.”

Likewise, I’d rule similarly.

I think I’m concluding that “seeing the creature” is equivalent to “seeing some portion of the creature, or it’s gear that contains HPs within”.

For instance, in the above backpack example, my PC isn’t seeing anything that “contains” the NOC’s HPs. But if my PC sees a gloved hand, well that bit of gear actually does contain a creatures HPs within it, so I’d say it’s targetable as the creature, even though what’s being seen isn’t, technically, the creature.
I agree with that. As a DM, I would say a player couldn’t counter as they couldn’t see sheet dude.If I was a player, I would assume sheet dude couldn’t see me either, so I would be less concerned than normal about the spell he is casting as many spells, such as Counterspell, require you to see the target.

[CheddarChampion]

If I had a player say their character tossed a bedsheet over themself so they couldn't be targeted by counterspell I'd tell them "Okay, just as long as you're effectively blinded to other creatures so you can't "see" them or target them individually with spells either."

I wouldn't try to use such a thing against my players either.

[micahaphone]

If I had a player say their character tossed a bedsheet over themself so they couldn't be targeted by counterspell I'd tell them "Okay, just as long as you're effectively blinded to other creatures so you can't "see" them or target them individually with spells either."

I wouldn't try to use such a thing against my players either.

So you're saying I just need to get blindsight or tremorsense, then I can use a bedsheet to prevent counterspell?

[RSP]

So you're saying I just need to get blindsight or tremorsense, then I can use a bedsheet to prevent counterspell?

Daniel LaRusso’s Halloween costume would work better for this, than a sheet.

[Telok]

Interesing thought: How does the character know a spell is being cast? They hear the verbals, see the somatic and materials. Then, according to Xanthars, you choose to counter or identify.

To counter you have to be able to see the caster. To identify you have to be able to perceive the components. These are different things. If you can see the feet of someone behind a curtain, you can see them. Likewise if their hat just sticks up above it. However if you can only see their feet (or hat) then, while you can counterspell, you may only attempt to identify a verbal-only spell because you can't perceive the material or somatic.

But untill you attempt to identify you have no way to know if it is a verbal only spell.

This gives us a possible deception to use up counterspell slots. Simply perform the verbal components of a VS or VM spell without the other component/s and thus without casting a spell.

[Spiritchaser]

Had this interesting thought and was curious what DMs opinions on this would be.

An arcane caster 30’ away from you is covered in a bed sheet, such that no part of their body is visible, however, the thickness of the sheet is such that their making of S movements is obvious, the V component can be heard without any issue, and the staff they’re holding (their M component focus) is clearly sticking out the bottom of the sheet.

Does this fulfill the requirement of Counterspell of you being able to “see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell.”

I would allow counterspell here.

If the bedsheet were hanging on a clothesline (or whatever) and the caster were standing behind it, I would not allow counterspell, even if the tip of their staff were showing.

Somewhere between those two states is the tipping point.

[RSP]

So you're saying I just need to get blindsight or tremorsense, then I can use a bedsheet to prevent counterspell?

This begs the question if something like tremorsense, or blindsight (if it’s coming from something like echolocation) counts as “seeing” someone. Basic English, it doesn’t. I may know where someone is based on tremorsense, but that doesn’t mean I see them.

[Keltest]

This begs the question if something like tremorsense, or blindsight (if it’s coming from something like echolocation) counts as “seeing” someone. Basic English, it doesn’t. I may know where someone is based on tremorsense, but that doesn’t mean I see them.

I'm AFB right now, but doesnt blindsight specifically call out that you aren't seeing things, but rather using other senses to perceive them?

[RSP]

I'm AFB right now, but doesnt blindsight specifically call out that you aren't seeing things, but rather using other senses to perceive them?

Per the PHB:

“A creature with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius. Creatures without eyes, such as oozes, and creatures with echolocation or heightened senses, such as bats and true dragons, have this sense.”

Yeah, I’d say, RAW, you can’t Counterspell with Blindsight.

[Keltest]

Per the PHB:

“A creature with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius. Creatures without eyes, such as oozes, and creatures with echolocation or heightened senses, such as bats and true dragons, have this sense.”

Yeah, I’d say, RAW, you can’t Counterspell with Blindsight.

Hmm, so would a Darkness spell be an effective countermeasure to it if you could perceive things through it? Or is the inability to see yourself too much of a drawback?

[JackPhoenix]

Interesing thought: How does the character know a spell is being cast? They hear the verbals, see the somatic and materials. Then, according to Xanthars, you choose to counter or identify.

To counter you have to be able to see the caster. To identify you have to be able to perceive the components. These are different things. If you can see the feet of someone behind a curtain, you can see them. Likewise if their hat just sticks up above it. However if you can only see their feet (or hat) then, while you can counterspell, you may only attempt to identify a verbal-only spell because you can't perceive the material or somatic.

But untill you attempt to identify you have no way to know if it is a verbal only spell.

This gives us a possible deception to use up counterspell slots. Simply perform the verbal components of a VS or VM spell without the other component/s and thus without casting a spell.

You need to see a creature within 60' cast a spell to get the CS reaction. Mumbling something is not casting a spell. Identifying doesn't play any part in it.

If you aren't casting a spell, you can't actually trigger a Counterspell, so all you're wasting is your action (maybe, talking on your turn doesn't take an action), not the opponent's slots or reactions.

[RSP]

Hmm, so would a Darkness spell be an effective countermeasure to it if you could perceive things through it? Or is the inability to see yourself too much of a drawback?

Depends. Added into the Blindsight description is that “Creatures without eyes, such as oozes, and creatures with echolocation or heightened senses, such as bats and true dragons, have this sense.” Out of that list, I’d really only be worried about Dragons casting Counterspell, so yeah, Darkness would probably prevent that, even though the dragon could still know your location, and probably still know you’re casting.

[Telok]

You need to see a creature within 60' cast a spell to get the CS reaction. Mumbling something is not casting a spell. Identifying doesn't play any part in it.

If you aren't casting a spell, you can't actually trigger a Counterspell, so all you're wasting is your action (maybe, talking on your turn doesn't take an action), not the opponent's slots or reactions.

Doesn't that just bring us back to the same spot as aking if you can cast magic missile at everything in a room to check for mimics? Every time an npc does something unusual you ask to counterspell. If the dm says yes then you know they've got a npc concealed casting ability, magic item, or such.

Or I suppose we could have the decision to counterspell be some sort of narrative retcon ability. You'd only counterspell after you know that it's someone casting a spell, so you never counterspell anything that isn't casting even if you thought it was.

[lall]

This begs the question if something like tremorsense, or blindsight (if it’s coming from something like echolocation) counts as “seeing” someone.
No, they don’t count.

[JackPhoenix]

No, they don’t count.

RAI, they do. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/04/26/__trashed-30/) At least blindsight does, as it goes around the sight requirement, tremorsense just tells you where the creature is.

[lall]

Good to know, thanks Jack.

[Democratus]

In the world of 5e it seems clear that spell casting is something special - and nothing else can be mistaken for it.

It's so distinctive that anyone observing knows for certain that a spell is being cast.

[RSP]

In the world of 5e it seems clear that spell casting is something special - and nothing else can be mistaken for it.

It's so distinctive that anyone observing knows for certain that a spell is being cast.

I don’t think this is a correct assumption. The only things apparent, per RAW, when casting are the V,S,M components. Hence why if using Subtle spell, the caster (and casting) can be completely unknown, even though the casting happened in front of others.

[BurgerBeast]

I don’t think this is a correct assumption. The only things apparent, per RAW, when casting are the V,S,M components. Hence why if using Subtle spell, the caster (and casting) can be completely unknown, even though the casting happened in front of others. (emphasis added)

Subtle Spell does not say that that the caster or casting can be completely unknown. It says you can cast without verbal or somatic components.

[RSP]

Subtle Spell does not say that that the caster or casting can be completely unknown. It says you can cast without verbal or somatic components.

Correct. The rule on components tells us that those are the physical requirements of spells. I don’t have it at hand, but XGtE further expounds that spells without components (like Subtle spells that don’t have M components) are imperceptible.

The RAW in the PHB is pretty clear (I’m assuming the use of slots and having the Spellcasting feature is a non-physical requirement) that the components are the physical manifestation of spellcasting and XGtE clarifies that further.

[Democratus]

I don’t think this is a correct assumption. The only things apparent, per RAW, when casting are the V,S,M components. Hence why if using Subtle spell, the caster (and casting) can be completely unknown, even though the casting happened in front of others.

I agree. The point I was making is that you can't fake casting by waggling your fingers and uttering phrases. Casting (when using components) is special and unmistakable.

[Mjolnirbear]

The way I understand the position...

The sheet is hung, as though from a clothesline.

The caster is behind the sheet, close enough to brush against the sheet with movements.

If I've got that right then I'd say the caster is heavily obscured, but not hidden. Effectively invisible. You can attack the square no problem, and you can aim an AoE effectively enough to hit the caster's space, but no you can't counter the caster's spells and neither of you can target the other with spells or abilities requiring line of sight.

If the sheet, say, flapped with the wind and wrapped around his arm or face so it was like wearing a mask or article of clothing, then in that instant it would be 3/4 cover, which is sufficiently visible to cast (and counter) spells, and also not invisible for the purposes of being able to attack the enemy without disadvantage.

The intention of the rules is to guide you, not shackle you. Imagine you are there and your kid or sib is playing hide and seek. What would reveal the person hiding? Voices, talking, movement made by brushing against the sheet... But you couldn't exactly reach through and be certain you'll grab their arm on the first try, because you can't see their arm well enough to aim.

I would not rule seeing part of a weapon is enough to target the caster. Enough to be sure of their position, much like dusty footprints from an invisible person would. Enough to target the object with, say, Heat Metal. Not enough to target the caster with Charm Person.

If the caster is close enough to the sheet that you can see the bunch of a shoulder or the poking of a knee or elbow, that's good enough to allow you to try to poke said object, and that would be enough to allow targeting, which means lightly obscured or at least 3/4 cover. If the sheet is draped over the person like a ghost costume, then it's effectively worn and no hindrance at all.

TLDR: If I can see you well enough to poke a finger through the sheet and know what part of the body I'll hit, you can be seen. Otherwise, you are unseen but not hidden.

[RSP]

I agree. The point I was making is that you can't fake casting by waggling your fingers and uttering phrases. Casting (when using components) is special and unmistakable.

Depends on how the DM rules it.

In essence, a spellcaster knows all the proper V,S,M requirements for their spells. Nothing stops them from doing those components and just not using a spell slot (that is, “faking” a casting).

Some DMs/tables might like that aspect, others won’t.

Personally, I’d rule if you’re using your Action to fake spellcasting (do all the components for a spell but not actually use a slot or cast anything), I’m fine with another character wasting a Counterspell (if that’s what they’d do).

Action (with actual knowledge of spellcasting) traded for a Reaction and 3rd level slot, during an encounter, seems fair.

I’d also probably let a Rogue try this with a decent Arcana check (maybe DC 15 to make it believable components).

But none of that is RAW, just personal preference.