Do I have this rule correct?

[Misterwhisper]

Situation:

Group a and group b are in combat in a location where cover is an option. (Forest, city street, caves, whatever)

Caster looks around the battlefield and picks a target.

Caster thenmoves behind full cover, like around a corner or whatever.

Caster uses ready action while in full cover to cast a spell and used concentration to hold the energy of the spell.

Their condition is “I will release this spell against ‘enemy a’ as soon as I see them”

Steps out of total cover to see the battlefield, and “enemy a”

Uses reaction on own turn to hit target with spell.

Then steps back into total cover.

Free safe casing that can’t be counter spelled because they didn’t see you cast the spell, they can only see you release it.

All for just the cost of your reaction and their being cover around?

[JNAProductions]

Would also end any Concentration spells you have, but technically RAW.

If you plan on doing this, I'd ask your DM how they'd rule-some would be fine with RAW, others would rule you could still get affected by Counterspell.

[Man_Over_Game]

Would also end any Concentration spells you have, but technically RAW.

If you plan on doing this, I'd ask your DM how they'd rule-some would be fine with RAW, others would rule you could still get affected by Counterspell.

I think I'd be cool with it.

Costs a Reaction, costs you your Concentration, and you can lose it by taking damage. Someone could just as easily set their Reaction to be "When that damned mage steps out from cover". As a DM ruling, I'd probably use MtG Stack Rules, and use his Reaction before yours, since his was more specific than yours, has a higher chance for the trigger to fail, and has a trigger that directly involves yours. Basically, if two Reactions are set to trigger at roughly the same time, the one that goes first was the one that was more likely to not trigger.

Plus, Counterspell is pretty dumb. Enemy mage spent an action, you spent a Reaction, and you technically could spend a lower level spell slot and still succeed (if YOU choose to gamble for it). Just feels like power creep to me, and an easy method to counter counterspell wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

[MrStabby]

I dont think this works for a lot of spells. You cast the spell as an action. You release it as a reaction. To cast the spell you often need to see the target (as specified in the spell description).

[crustacean]

Seems like it would work by RAW.

Of course, you can't really do this with any spell that requires you to choose a target or a point that you can see. As you're behind total cover, you can't see the target while you're casting the spell (even though you can see the target when you release it).

Also, i don't think Counterspell necessarily requires you to see the caster. Couldn't you Counterspell someone behind total cover if they were using verbal components?

[Misterwhisper]

Seems like it would work by RAW.

Of course, you can't really do this with any spell that requires you to choose a target or a point that you can see. As you're behind total cover, you can't see the target while you're casting the spell (even though you can see the target when you release it).

Also, i don't think Counterspell necessarily requires you to see the caster. Couldn't you Counterspell someone behind total cover if they were using verbal components?

No, you specifically have to see the casting.

Also the line of sight issue is for when the spell goes off.

If I am standing in the open and ready cast fire bolt at “the first person through the door.” That is perfectly fine. Same thing just in this case the caster is moving instead of the target.

[Keravath]

I dont think this works for a lot of spells. You cast the spell as an action. You release it as a reaction. To cast the spell you often need to see the target (as specified in the spell description).

Either you need to see the target at the time of casting (not behind total cover) or the DM allows you to delay targeting of a readied spell. RAW, I think that for all spells (not just ones requiring you to see the target) you can't cast them from behind total cover.

"Sometimes you want to get the jump on a foe or wait for a particular circumstance before you act. To do so, you can take the Ready action on your turn so that you can act later in the round using your reaction. First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction. Then, you choose the action you will take in response to that trigger, or you choose to move up to your speed in response to it. Examples include "If the cultist steps on the trapdoor, I'll pull the lever that opens it," and "If the goblin steps next to me, I move away.

When the trigger occurs, you can either take your reaction right after the trigger finishes or ignore the trigger. Remember that you can take only one reaction per round.

When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but hold its energy, which you release with your reaction when the trigger occurs. To be readied, a spell must have a casting time of 1 action, and holding onto the spell's magic requires concentration (explained in chapter 10). If your concentration is broken, the spell dissipates without taking effect. For example, if you are concentrating on the web spell and ready magic missile, your web spell ends, and if you take damage before you release magic missile with your reaction, your concentration might be broken."

The example of readying a spell uses magic missile. Magic missile require you to see the targets of the spell. "Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range.". The ready action only specifies that you need to list the conditions and one of those is typically an enemy coming into your line of sight. However, it also says that "you cast it as normal".

Does readying the spell allow you to select the targets when the condition is fulfilled or does "casting as normal" require the targets to be visible at the time when you ready the spell?

"A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below)."

"To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover."

Some spells require you to target a creature you can see. Others require you to select a point within range however the rule about not being behind total cover still applies.

I think this means that RAW you can not cast a readied spell from behind total cover since at the time of casting the spell there is no clear path to the intended target.

If a DM decides to allow this tactic then it would work equally as well for spells that require you to see your target as those that are targeted on a point since in both cases, targeting is being delayed until the spell is released as a reaction since at the time of casting neither type of spell has a valid target if cast from behind total cover.

P.S. On another topic ... counterspell does require you to see the caster. "1 reaction, which you take when you see
a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell"

[Keravath]

No, you specifically have to see the casting.

Also the line of sight issue is for when the spell goes off.

If I am standing in the open and ready cast fire bolt at “the first person through the door.” That is perfectly fine. Same thing just in this case the caster is moving instead of the target.

RAI, I think you are likely correct. However, RAW the rules say the spell is "cast as normal" when readied which includes the requirement of a clear path to the target, meaning you can't cast it against a target behind total cover (which a creature outside the door would be).

[Tanarii]

IMO you have to be able to fulfill the clear path to the target and (if required) sight requirements both when you cast the spell and when you use your reaction to trigger it.

I do recall there are some examples of wonkiness this creatures, but I think it's the best default ruling to make.

Just stand behind the wall peeking out (3/4 cover), cast the spell as normal, then step behind the wall right afterwards for full cover. Seems less complicated. Doesn't help with being counter spelled though.

[thoroughlyS]

No, you specifically have to see the casting.

Also the line of sight issue is for when the spell goes off.

If I am standing in the open and ready cast fire bolt at “the first person through the door.” That is perfectly fine. Same thing just in this case the caster is moving instead of the target.
RAI, I think you are likely correct. However, RAW the rules say the spell is "cast as normal" when readied which includes the requirement of a clear path to the target, meaning you can't cast it against a target behind total cover (which a creature outside the door would be).
You know, I've never considered that aspect of readying a spell. I personally am in favor of allowing someone to ready firebolt (etc.), and therefore am in favor of the interpretation given in the OP. I would ask your DM about the thread question, and also about their interpretation of the ready rules discussed here. If you are the DM, I would recommend making your ruling based off of how you generally interpret the rules for readying.

[micahaphone]

Purely my read, but I see readying a spell as you half casting it, holding onto the energy of an uncompleted spell until your trigger. That's why even a held cantrip requires concentration.

So the "as normally cast" part of Readying an action means that you're completing the spell after your trigger, and can therefore be counterspelled, as an enemy would see you in the last part of casting a spell, and would meet the requirements of the spell.

Sidenote, in my game world, I flavor counter spell as a burst of arcane energy being sent through the weave, to flood and disrupt an enemy caster's spell mid-construction, before its been finished and solidified.

[Demonslayer666]

I would say the spell is still able to be counterspelled, even if they didn't see you start casting it, you haven't completed casting it yet.

Depending on the situation, the opposing wizard would not likely notice this anyway to be able to counterspell it. At least, that's how I'd run it in my game.

[Theodoxus]

Readying an action and using in the same turn seems odd, but I'd allow it.

However, if you ready an action and use your reaction to resolve it, that's all you can do. So, if you were to ready a firebolt while behind cover, move out of cover to see your intended target, and use your reaction to release the firebolt, you're stuck there. No more movement - your reaction negates everything else. It would work once against a specific set of enemies, but if the next round, you ducked behind the wall again, Readied another firebolt and peeked around to cast it, you'd be met with a lot of readied actions to snipe you into the dirt...

[Mellack]

I see either of two rulings being logical.

1. You are casting the spell when you are around the corner, therefore you are limited to the line of effect by the corner.

2. You are partly casting the spell around the corner and partly during your reaction. This avoids the targeting limitation but also makes the caster vulnerable to counterspell.

Either way makes the plan of hiding legal, but essentially useless.

[Democratus]

I see either of two rulings being logical.

1. You are casting the spell when you are around the corner, therefore you are limited to the line of effect by the corner.

2. You are partly casting the spell around the corner and partly during your reaction. This avoids the targeting limitation but also makes the caster vulnerable to counterspell.

Either way makes the plan of hiding legal, but essentially useless.

This sums it up pretty well.

I agree that if the spell can be cast then it can be Counterspelled.

[NaughtyTiger]

Enemy mage spent an action, you spent a Reaction, and you technically could spend a lower level spell slot and still succeed ... and an easy method to counter counterspell wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

counterspell already has a bunch of easy methods to counter it.

counterspell
cast 61 ft away
cast from magic item
don't use spellcaster NPCs
subtle
blind
...

moreover an enemy using reaction on counterspell... uses a fireball slot and can't cast shield

[BRC]

What is the reasoning behind treating Readying a Spell different from any other Action anyway?

Like, you can say "I ready an action to shoot the first enemy to come through the door", and when the enemy shows up, you take your Attack action when an enemy comes through the door.

But if you replace "Shooting a bow" with "Casting Magic Missile", suddenly it becomes a whole different Thing.

The main thing I can think of is the Bonus Action Spell rule, which says that if you cast a spell as a Bonus Action for any reason, any other spells you cast that turn must be Cantrips. Under normal Ready rules, you could cast a spell as a bonus action, then "Take the Ready Action" to cast a non-cantrip out-of-turn, thus cheesing around the rules. But I feel like there would be an easier way to prevent that.

[micahaphone]

What is the reasoning behind treating Readying a Spell different from any other Action anyway?

Like, you can say "I ready an action to shoot the first enemy to come through the door", and when the enemy shows up, you take your Attack action when an enemy comes through the door.

But if you replace "Shooting a bow" with "Casting Magic Missile", suddenly it becomes a whole different Thing.

The main thing I can think of is the Bonus Action Spell rule, which says that if you cast a spell as a Bonus Action for any reason, any other spells you cast that turn must be Cantrips. Under normal Ready rules, you could cast a spell as a bonus action, then "Take the Ready Action" to cast a non-cantrip out-of-turn, thus cheesing around the rules. But I feel like there would be an easier way to prevent that.

Probably trying to limit some level of stacked action cheese, putting a cost on it (concentration and reaction) to keep people from setting up a practically programmed combat.

[NaughtyTiger]

What is the reasoning behind treating Readying a Spell different from any other Action anyway?

Like, you can say "I ready an action to shoot the first enemy to come through the door", and when the enemy shows up, you take your Attack action when an enemy comes through the door.

But if you replace "Shooting a bow" with "Casting Magic Missile", suddenly it becomes a whole different Thing.

The main thing I can think of is the Bonus Action Spell rule, which says that if you cast a spell as a Bonus Action for any reason, any other spells you cast that turn must be Cantrips. Under normal Ready rules, you could cast a spell as a bonus action, then "Take the Ready Action" to cast a non-cantrip out-of-turn, thus cheesing around the rules. But I feel like there would be an easier way to prevent that.

A level 11 fighter could have 3 attacks
if she readies an attack, she only gets 1 attack
it costs her 2 attacks if the trigger is met.
it costs her 3 attacks if the trigger is not met.

A level 11 wizard readies fireball
there is no additional cost if the trigger is met.
it costs him a 3rd level slot if the trigger is not met.

*edited to state the costs.

[Misterwhisper]

A level 11 fighter could have 3 attacks
if she readies an attack, she only gets 1 attack
thus it costs her 2 attacks.

Readying a spell costs concentration... it is only an opportunity cost if the trigger is not met.

There will never really be a way of getting around the power of a full caster in a whack a mole type of combat.

[NaughtyTiger]

There will never really be a way of getting around the power of a full caster in a whack a mole type of combat.

don't penalize martials in ready action is a start.

[Misterwhisper]

don't penalize martials in ready action is a start.

That is just RAW, but not like expect them to make it balanced as far as classes go, it is Wizards of the Coast, not Fighters of the Plains.

[BRC]

Huh, I had to double check the rules, and yeah, Extra Attack specifically doesn't work if you use the Attack Action outside your turn.

Which considering "Ready" is really the only way to take a generic action out-of-turn (There are other effects that can grant people out-of-turn actions, but those are usually limited, for example specifying "Making a single attack") feels a little uneccessary.

I guess it helps cut off some arguments about AoO's (Which Extra Attack already doesn't apply to, since they're not The Attack Action, but whatever).
Weird. I feel like somebody at WOTC had a chip on their shoulder about Readied Actions specifically.

[Man_Over_Game]

counterspell already has a bunch of easy methods to counter it.

counterspell
cast 61 ft away
cast from magic item
don't use spellcaster NPCs
subtle
blind
...

moreover an enemy using reaction on counterspell... uses a fireball slot and can't cast shield

I think we have different definitions of the word "easy".


A game mechanic being countered with the same mechanic isn't balance. It just kinda encourages everyone to all be the same.
You don't know the target has Counterspell until it's already happened.
Most encounters I've played in generally don't have much more than 50ft of distance when the real combat starts.
Letting a player pick a spell and then decide on DM fiat that that spell choice doesn't do anything seems...wrong.
Subtle is a specific class feature, I don't expect everyone to consider Rage a consistent solution to fall damage.
Blind is a fairly common condition...but most uses of it also hinder you, and also refers to the first bullet.


"Recognizable", sure. "Easy?" Probably not. Not if these are the easiest means of dealing with it.


Huh, I had to double check the rules, and yeah, Extra Attack specifically doesn't work if you use the Attack Action outside your turn.

Which considering "Ready" is really the only way to take a generic action out-of-turn (There are other effects that can grant people out-of-turn actions, but those are usually limited, for example specifying "Making a single attack") feels a little uneccessary.

I guess it helps cut off some arguments about AoO's (Which Extra Attack already doesn't apply to, since they're not The Attack Action, but whatever).
Weird. I feel like somebody at WOTC had a chip on their shoulder about Readied Actions specifically.

It was a change from how previous versions did it, where you could delay your initiative counter in the round.

Problem is, the most efficient way of playing a game is to leave as little room for your opponents to interfere with your expectations. So you could come up with a wombo-combo (Gust of Wind + Wall of Fire) that the enemy wasn't allowed to interact with by just delaying your initiatives to be grouped together. And it also could be said about the opposite, where a group of enemies with high initiatives all delay their turns to make 6 attacks on a player and kill him. It's the very same reason bosses have Legendary Actions, as a means of keeping time between their actions to allow the opposing side time to react.

In order to make sure players and enemies were evenly spaced on the initiative table, you had to keep initiatives from moving. And their solution to that was the Ready Action.

Another part of it was to make things less tactical. 3.5 was extremely rule-crunchy, too tactical, and the devs wanted 5e to be a bit simpler and less "Excel Spreadsheet", so treating Initiative as less of a combat mechanic and more of just a Random-Turn-Generator was believed to be a step in the right direction.

[No brains]

Some trouble I see with this hack is that to 'cast' a spell can refer to both the summoning of the energy of the spell and the release of the spell.

First, colloquialisms. To cast something is to throw it. A spell leaving you is the casting. "The die is cast." 'Common sense' rulings supports 'cast' as the 'throwing' of the spell.

Second, The text of Glyph of Warding (ever the thorn in the side of 'simple' D&D) uses 'cast' to refer to expending the spell slot to store a spell and the release of the spell upon triggering. It might be in this specific case, but there is RAW support for 'cast' to refer to the release of the spell.

Third and unrelated to grammar, there is the 'gentleman's agreement' at stake here. Introducing any new strat that unbalances the playing field risks upsetting the fun of the game. If anybody wants to use this strat, they need to make sure the rest of the table is onboard. Counterspelling is contentious enough as it is, make sure countering counterspelling is the fun your table wants to have.

[NaughtyTiger]

Some trouble I see with this hack is that to 'cast' a spell can refer to both the summoning of the energy of the spell and the release of the spell.

First, colloquialisms. To cast something is to throw it. A spell leaving you is the casting. "The die is cast." 'Common sense' rulings supports 'cast' as the 'throwing' of the spell.

Second, The text of Glyph of Warding (ever the thorn in the side of 'simple' D&D) uses 'cast' to refer to expending the spell slot to store a spell and the release of the spell upon triggering. It might be in this specific case, but there is RAW support for 'cast' to refer to the release of the spell.

Third and unrelated to grammar, there is the 'gentleman's agreement' at stake here. Introducing any new strat that unbalances the playing field risks upsetting the fun of the game. If anybody wants to use this strat, they need to make sure the rest of the table is onboard. Counterspelling is contentious enough as it is, make sure countering counterspelling is the fun your table wants to have.


You use the phrases "hack" and "new strat[egy]". I am unclear what you think is the hack or new strategy.
I am seeing this as two interpretations of Ready an Action: Cast a spell. and a side discussion about Counterspell.

[NaughtyTiger]

I think we have different definitions of the word "easy".

i guess we do, cuz given how rarely Counterspell is successfully executed in a game (that I have participated in), i would say we don't need another way to shut it down.
Especially when there is a whole subclass based on Counterspell.
I don't like adding rules and interpretations to make weak player choices weaker.

[Man_Over_Game]

I don't like adding rules and interpretations to make weak player choices weaker.

I'm not sure how it is, though. I foresee players using this more than your monsters will, and even then it provides another choice that comes with different risk (losing Concentration due to damage, not being able to maintain Concentration during the casting phase, and costs your Reaction).

I can respect that opinion, but one of the options you suggested to help deal with Counterspell being too effective from the players is to basically not allow it to be used (by not using NPC Casters), which seems like a contradiction to what you're saying is a priority now.

[Misterwhisper]

i guess we do, cuz given how rarely Counterspell is successfully executed in a game (that I have participated in), i would say we don't need another way to shut it down.
Especially when there is a whole subclass based on Counterspell.
I don't like adding rules and interpretations to make weak player choices weaker.

Hasn’t stopped TWF from becoming worse and worse all the time.

It sucked normally.

Add feats makes it worse

Add in more and more subclasses with bonus action attack abilities makes it worse.

Add in double scimitar and it becomes totally useless.

[NaughtyTiger]

I'm not sure how it is, though. I foresee players using this more than your monsters will, and even then it provides another choice that comes with different risk (losing Concentration due to damage, not being able to maintain Concentration during the casting phase, and costs your Reaction).

I can respect that opinion, but one of the options you suggested to help deal with Counterspell being too effective from the players is to basically not allow it to be used (by not using NPC Casters), which seems like a contradiction to what you're saying is a priority now.

Not quite.
I don't think Counterspell is too effective. I think it is just fine. It rarely gets used by players, because there are rarely targets for it.
It can't be used against Magic Objects, Magic abilities, and NPC mages are just fairly rare.
When the opportunity DOES arise, the PC must weigh the costs between stopping an NPC spell (and losing Sheild) or actually casting their own spell.

I strongly disagree that PC mages risk losing Concentration due to damage (I have seen it twice from non-gish casters)



Hasn’t stopped TWF from becoming worse and worse all the time.
It sucked normally.
Add feats makes it worse
Add in more and more subclasses with bonus action attack abilities makes it worse.
Add in double scimitar and it becomes totally useless.

sarcasm? cuz i thing TWF needs a major buffing.

[Misterwhisper]

Not quite.
I don't think Counterspell is too effective. I think it is just fine. It rarely gets used by players, because there are rarely targets for it.
It can't be used against Magic Objects, Magic abilities, and NPC mages are just fairly rare.
When the opportunity DOES arise, the PC must weigh the costs between stopping an NPC spell (and losing Sheild) or actually casting their own spell.

I strongly disagree that PC mages risk losing Concentration due to damage (I have seen it twice from non-gish casters)




sarcasm? cuz i thing TWF needs a major buffing.

TWF definitely needs a huge buff.

It started weak and they made it worse.

[No brains]

Situation:

Group a and group b are in combat in a location where cover is an option. (Forest, city street, caves, whatever)

Caster looks around the battlefield and picks a target.

Caster thenmoves behind full cover, like around a corner or whatever.

Caster uses ready action while in full cover to cast a spell and used concentration to hold the energy of the spell.

Their condition is “I will release this spell against ‘enemy a’ as soon as I see them”

Steps out of total cover to see the battlefield, and “enemy a”

Uses reaction on own turn to hit target with spell.

Then steps back into total cover.

Free safe casing that can’t be counter spelled because they didn’t see you cast the spell, they can only see you release it.

All for just the cost of your reaction and their being cover around?


You use the phrases "hack" and "new strat[egy]". I am unclear what you think is the hack or new strategy.
I am seeing this as two interpretations of Ready an Action: Cast a spell. and a side discussion about Counterspell.

The hack/ new strategy I was referring to was readying a spell on your turn in cover and then breaking cover to release the spell without visibly 'casting' it to prevent counter-spelling. The idea had not occurred to me, so I thought it was new and of strategic importance.

My interpretations of casting a spell and the side discussion on counterspelling as a whole were commentaries on how effective I feel this 'hack' would be at making the game more fun.

If my usage of terms was seen as derogatory or if my assumption of abuse was out of line, I apologize. I figured I could help the discussion on the validity of this rule interpretation by looking at it from a perspective that assumed the intent of the OP's observations was to game the system. I did not intend to sleight anyone posting on this subject, I merely wanted to take an approach I did not see taken in this discussion to try to vet the idea thoroughly.

I'm sorry if I'm misinterpreting something or communicating my ideas poorly.

[NaughtyTiger]

The hack/ new strategy I was referring to was readying a spell on your turn in cover and then breaking cover to release the spell without visibly 'casting' it to prevent counter-spelling. The idea had not occurred to me, so I thought it was new and of strategic importance.


thanks for clarifying