DMs and Counterspell: How do you do enemy spells?

[Schwann145]

Counterspell, as written and intended, is a horrible spell that requires you to essentially guess, with zero relevant information in most cases, when to use it and what spell slot level is most appropriate. The reason it's so bad is because you aren't intended to have any idea what your enemy is casting, only that they are casting. The introduced way to identify a spell as it's being cast requires using the very same action type as the casting of Counterspell (your reaction) which means you can either know what's coming, or counter it, but not both.
So if you blow your 9th level slot on a Counterspell, thinking it's going to be super-clutch, only to find out you countered a cantrip... well, that's just how it be sometimes.

Obviously, this is awful and feels awful.

Alternatively, you could simply allow your players to know what's being cast at them and let them decide if it's worth using a Counterspell or not. However, the power swing here is wild, turning one of the worst spells into the game into arguably a contender for best spell in the game! Even if you can't pinpoint the specific level slot used for a spell, simply knowing which spell is being cast is a ton of important information in the moment and can easily be the deciding factor between a victory or a defeat (a great demonstration of this is the final fight in Critical Role's first campaign).

So which method do you play with at your table?

[diplomancer]

Counterspell is NOT horrible if you don't know which spell is being used, because of the way Action Economy works (well, it is if you are using 9th level slots, but that's just not very smart; ALWAYS use a 3rd level slot unless you somehow KNOW which level the spell you are trying to counterspell is.) Only situation where that isn't true is if you are facing fanatics who are willing to die to make you waste your spell slots on the way to the BBEG.

DM has to be honest though; if the party IS facing cantrip-casting-in-a-deadly-combat-fanatics, realizes that, and stop casting Counterspell, DM shouldn't now do a switcharoo and say "well, this one's actually casting Fireball" when he'd decided they were casting Firebolt when he thought it was going to be Counterspelled.

[Unoriginal]

Counterspell, as written and intended, is a horrible spell that requires you to essentially guess, with zero relevant information in most cases, when to use it and what spell slot level is most appropriate.

I call that a greatly written spell, personally,



The reason it's so bad is because you aren't intended to have any idea what your enemy is casting, only that they are casting.

The reason it's so good, IMO.



The introduced way to identify a spell as it's being cast requires using the very same action type as the casting of Counterspell (your reaction) which means you can either know what's coming, or counter it, but not both.
So if you blow your 9th level slot on a Counterspell, thinking it's going to be super-clutch, only to find out you countered a cantrip... well, that's just how it be sometimes.

Obviously, this is awful and feels awful.

It's great and feel great.

If your PC wants reliability and certainty, they should be working as a butler, not fighting people who have 9th level spells.



DM has to be honest though; if the party IS facing cantrip-casting-in-a-deadly-combat-fanatics, realizes that, and stop casting Counterspell, DM shouldn't now do a switcharoo and say "well, this one's actually casting Fireball" when he'd decided they were casting Firebolt when he thought it was going to be Counterspelled.

Absolutely.

There are little worse in DMing than having quantum threats with a lethality depending on if the PCs can counter them or not.


Unless they're holding back for X reason, most casters in a fight to the death will use their big spell slots ASAP, with factors depending on their personalities and the tactical situation.

[Valmark]

Like others have said, it's not awful- at least to me and most people I met. Keep in mind that unless the spellcaster is baiting your cantrip to cast a bonus action spell you're basically always going to want to Counterspell because the enemy is likely not holding back to defeat you. I've tried both methods you listed and there's usually no appreciable difference between behaviors.

I'll echo diplomancer in always using 3rd level slots if possible and just risk the roll, unless you know what's being cast and even then it honestly depends on the spell.

The only complain I heard about it is that it's a boring spell because it stops things from happening.

[Zhorn]

I'll often let my players know what spell is being cast OOC while in combat, I've had decent success in training my players to be reasonable with separating PC knowledge from OOC stuff, and in combat I don't care for the whole meta of 'do I waste my Reaction on identifying the spell, or do I Counterspell with the chance of it just being a Magehand?" as that just feels gross. Spell level is kept quiet till reactions have been declared, but again we've established a level of trust that I'm not gonna switcharoo spell levels to screw them over.

Outside of combat I'll ratchet up the tension with unknown spells and mystery saving throws. It's part of the agreed tradeoff made with the players. I'll avoid antagonistic rulings in clutch situations so it never feels like a toxic 'Players vs DM' environment, but for the immediate low risk narratives and slow moving scenes I'll raise the difficulty with unknown factors to keep players on the edge of their seats. In return, they get to retain control in mind-control and charm situations, given the freedom to behave how they honestly think they would under the circumstances, and I'm usually impressed with them not pulling punches, with regular apologies to party members with "I'm really really sorry... but Action Surge into a double Fireball!: centered on our Bard"

Again, the big part is trust. Show your players you can trust them with metaknowledge and a willingness to be fair and open with information, and they in turn will reciprocate with fair and honest decisions in play.
But if you act like an antagonist to your players and breed a toxic level of mistrust, you are just training them to respond in kind.

[Amnestic]

I think it's fine.

But I do allow it so that if they spend their reaction to try to identify the spell with an arcana check, they can choose to counterspell as part of the same reaction. I think it's cooler that way.

Sometimes they'll fail the arcana check. Sometimes they won't.

[stoutstien]

I have two rules I use depending on table and play style. Fast and easy rules are just RaW plus the understanding that NPCs are not going to try to bait CS with cantrips.

The second is for my hardcore group who regularly faces off 2-3X deadly encounters all day. For that group it's a double blind for party and NPCs. *Caster declares intent to cast a spell and palms two tokens representing spell choice and slot level. If CS is used the slot level is stated before the original caster shows their hand.*

[MoiMagnus]

My current DM has banned counterspell (among a lot of changes to combat), so what I will give here is how I used to handle counterspell when I was DM:

(1) If the PCs had seen this spellcaster [or another spellcaster that learn spellcasting at the same place] cast this same exact spell earlier, I'd give to them the info of which spell it is. Standard case is "you see the cultist starting to cast the same spell as last turn".

(2) Otherwise, I'd give a set of information that I assume is reasonably visible from the act of spellcasting, namely:
+ The direction of the target.
+ The amount of power / complexity the spells generate, so the spell level plus or minus 1 ("probably a cantrip or a level 1 spell", "something powerful maybe a level 5 spell").
+ The element (fire/cold/...) of the spell when applicable, otherwise some similar descriptor.

I never really had to think too much about it because the only character with counterspell was the Warlock, so counterspell-spam was not a thing. But I guess that if it started to become a major part of the game, I would have allowed PCs and NPCs to make deception/intimidation skill checks to make a spell look more dangerous or less dangerous than what it actually is, or fake the target to change at the last moment, etc.

[Wraith]

My GM has noticed a similar pattern that he has mostly resolved by using Passive Observation checks.
For example, if an enemy caster starts to cast a spell and I have my reaction available, he'll have me make a Passive check and if I succeed he'll inform me (truthfully) whether it appears to be a cantrip, a spell, or a really powerful spell - for example, if the enemy is pulling gemstones or other rare and valuable items out of their component pouch then I can guess that it's going to be something nasty. If I don't pass the check, all I know is it's 'a spell' and it's up to me to decide if the scrawny goblin shaman is a threat based on what else I've seen it do so far.

If I want to know more, I can sacrifice my bonus action (should I still have one) to make an Arcana check and see if I can tell more specifically what is being cast. The details are usually scarce since we try to replicate the effect of taking a split second to make a decision so it takes a hugely successful roll to get them to tell me exactly what spell it is, but with a few titbits - it's a Wizard spell, it's an Evocation spell, it's being cast as a full action or bonus action - then I can roleplay whether or not I think the counterspell is worth it, based on observations relevant to my character's skills.

It's not strictly RaW as an Arcana check should probably be a full action, but it feels like a decent compromise, it runs pretty quickly so we're not holding up the encounter, and everyone gets treated fairly because the GM can't miraculously switch from a Magic Missile to a Finger of Death based on whether or not I try to stop him.

[NulliusinVerba]

I think it's fine.

But I do allow it so that if they spend their reaction to try to identify the spell with an arcana check, they can choose to counterspell as part of the same reaction. I think it's cooler that way.

Sometimes they'll fail the arcana check. Sometimes they won't.

I think that this is a really cool way to go about it! Never thought about having them roll Arcana as a part of the reaction.

At my virtual games, the DM usually tells us the 'effect' of the spell and we have to sort of guess its level. Most of us are 5E veterans though, so we can usually guess within 1 or 2 spell levels.

[Bloodcloud]

I've said it before, but every round the BBEG caster is NOT throwing a high level spell is a victory. Even if he has legendary action, you STILL avoided a major spell that turn, because he could have cast two high-level spell. Combats is usually decided within 3 rounds in my experience, reducing the spell output by a third is nothing to sneeze at.

[Eldariel]

I think it's fine.

But I do allow it so that if they spend their reaction to try to identify the spell with an arcana check, they can choose to counterspell as part of the same reaction. I think it's cooler that way.

Sometimes they'll fail the arcana check. Sometimes they won't.

I let them identify as a free action simply because I feel it's natural that you would know a spell if you're familiar with the components immediately, rather than after spending a while observing it. This also means they can use Absorb Elements for the right element against spells (something not really possible by RAW; something like lightning bolt hits you the second casting finishes so unless you identify it, you can't Absorb Lightning in response). I rule that characters have Advantage on the check if they know the spell personally (everybody's gestures and method of casting are a bit different so it's not a guarantee) while otherwise they have to roll normally. I also rule that if they have Detect Magic or similar active, they can judge the approximate amount of energy in the spell immediately (Weak [cantrip], Moderate [Level 1-3], Strong [Level 4-6], Extreme [Level 7-9], Overwhelming [Epic magic and deific powers]) - this allows ballparking the spell level for Countermagic purposes.

[MaxWilson]

Counterspell, as written and intended, is a horrible spell that requires you to essentially guess, with zero relevant information in most cases, when to use it and what spell slot level is most appropriate. The reason it's so bad is because you aren't intended to have any idea what your enemy is casting, only that they are casting. The introduced way to identify a spell as it's being cast requires using the very same action type as the casting of Counterspell (your reaction) which means you can either know what's coming, or counter it, but not both.
So if you blow your 9th level slot on a Counterspell, thinking it's going to be super-clutch, only to find out you countered a cantrip... well, that's just how it be sometimes.

Obviously, this is awful and feels awful.

Alternatively, you could simply allow your players to know what's being cast at them and let them decide if it's worth using a Counterspell or not. However, the power swing here is wild, turning one of the worst spells into the game into arguably a contender for best spell in the game! Even if you can't pinpoint the specific level slot used for a spell, simply knowing which spell is being cast is a ton of important information in the moment and can easily be the deciding factor between a victory or a defeat (a great demonstration of this is the final fight in Critical Role's first campaign).

So which method do you play with at your table?

I just don't use the (optional) spell identification rule from Xanathar's. It's a bad rule for the very reason you're criticizing here. Instead I just let the players perceive the effects as they're taking shape, in addition to feeling the magic, which for a Fireball would involve something like "you feel a spell gathering as an swirling orb of compressed fire coalesces coalesces in front of the Flameskull" or in other words "the Flameskull is casting Fireball."

There are rare spells with outwardly-imperceptible effects for which I might just say "the Mind Flayer is casting a spell but you see nothing outwardly manifesting--do you Counterspell?" (it's a Dominate Monster spell).

If I skip to the end and say "the Mind Flayer casts Dominate Monster on Ralph" and someone says, "Wait, I want to Counterspell that!" then I say "Okay, make your attempt" and let them, and make a mental note to ask about Counterspell next time I want to keep Dominate Monster a secret.

[JackPhoenix]

I let them identify as a free action simply because I feel it's natural that you would know a spell if you're familiar with the components immediately, rather than after spending a while observing it. This also means they can use Absorb Elements for the right element against spells (something not really possible by RAW; something like lightning bolt hits you the second casting finishes so unless you identify it, you can't Absorb Lightning in response).

That's not how Absorb Element works.

[YoungestGruff]

Kind of off topic, but if you were using the Spell Points Variant could you not get a best of both worlds situation by Anteing Up? I spend X Spell Points. It does nothing. I add 2 SP. Nothing. I add 2. . . so on until either you're deciding if it's worth the sunk cost or not.

[MaxWilson]

Kind of off topic, but if you were using the Spell Points Variant could you not get a best of both worlds situation by Anteing Up? I spend X Spell Points. It does nothing. I add 2 SP. Nothing. I add 2. . . so on until either you're deciding if it's worth the sunk cost or not.

Doesn't work, because the failure mode of Counterspell isn't "it does nothing", it's "you have to roll." Letting you spend increase the power of a Counterspell to counteract a failed roll makes Counterspell more powerful than PHB rules. It's not just counteracting the Xanathar's spell-blindness rule, it just straight-up makes Counterspell more powerful than intended, since you never have to spend a full-power Counterspell until you've already failed the roll, as opposed to having a partial-power Counterspell against e.g. Feeblemind be risky.

Maybe here's a less confusing way to say it: by PHB rules, even if you know exactly what the incoming spell is, if it's a dangerous spell (like Forcecage on the party fighter or Feeblemind on the healer) it's risky to rely on dice luck to Counterspell it, so you wind up blowing a 7th level slot to Counterspell a Forcecage or an 8th level slot to Counterspell Feeblemind. This is one of the reasons why Abjurors aren't all that exciting in practice. But if it only costs a 7th level slot some of the time, after the Counterspell has failed, then Abjurors suddenly do become awesome counterspellers (and so do Lore Bards) because they can get away with Counterspelling at 3rd level the majority of the time--the price for failure isn't a Feebleminded teammate, it's just some extra spell points.

BTW I see you are a Dresden Files fan. :)

[heavyfuel]

Big-ticket spells are always going to be cast in the begining of the fight. In Tier 2, no one leaves Fireball and Fear to be cast at round 3 because it makes no sense. You want to either control enemies before they can act, or damage them enough so that you can drop them fast the next round.

So Counterspell is great in the begining of a fight. The first round a spellcaster has is probably when they're casting their most harmful spell.

You don't need to know what you're countering. If the enemy thinks you're going to CS and then casts a cantrip, great! You just made the enemy waste their action on a cantrip!

[Keravath]

I run counterspell as written. Most of the games I play in also use it as written. I've never had any problems with it. A PC or NPC states that they are casting a spell. The opportunity is given for PCs or NPCs to decide to counterspell and the level to be used. The chain of events is resolved.

In my experience, since NPCs don't usually have an adventuring day ahead of them, they will tend to use spell slots every turn so counter spelling a cantrip is very infrequent.

Anyway, if I wanted added complexity, I liked the option mentioned above of using an arcana check to try to identify the spell as part of the counterspell process. (I probably would not give the spell level information just the name of the spell). This would give the counterspell caster some information on what is being cast on which to decide whether to counterspell and the level to use. However, honestly, I think it works fine RAW and doesn't need changing.

[MaxWilson]

Big-ticket spells are always going to be cast in the begining of the fight. In Tier 2, no one leaves Fireball and Fear to be cast at round 3 because it makes no sense. You want to either control enemies before they can act, or damage them enough so that you can drop them fast the next round.

So Counterspell is great in the begining of a fight. The first round a spellcaster has is probably when they're casting their most harmful spell.

You don't need to know what you're countering. If the enemy thinks you're going to CS and then casts a cantrip, great! You just made the enemy waste their action on a cantrip!

Unless the guy you thought you were Counterspelling turns out to be a Programmed Illusion, and the real bad guy is still sitting there under Invisibility waiting for you to show your hand and cast the wrong spells before he Meteor Swarms you all and breaks your concentration...

[Warder]

In the last campaign I played in, I was a wizard from 1st to 12th level. We had many house rules, but Counterspell was played by the book - and it never once felt bad to use. In fact, other than a few situations where I could place some battlefield control spells in great spots, my use of Counterspell was probably the most impactful thing I ever did. Enemy spellcasters tend to be by far the most dangerous enemies on the field, and are often the "bosses" of any given encounter. Being able to trade a reaction to shut them down for one turn is almost always worth it, no matter what they're casting.

[jas61292]

Counterspell, as written and intended, is a horrible spell...

Well... there is at least part of your premise that I agree with. Counterspell is horrible. But its not because it has to be cast blind. Its because it is way too strong for its level, exceedingly boring, is practically a required choice on anyone who can get it, and makes fights between casters often come down to simply who has more people to cast Counterspell.

There is a ton wrong with this spell, but in the most simple terms, any feature, be it a spell, class feature, feat or otherwise, that, simply by working, actively makes fewer interesting things happen is bad game design. The entire point of this spell is to make actions (or reactions or bonus actions) end without anything happening. Unless such a thing is a fairly rare occurrence (and thus novel and special), it is always jut going to make the game less fun and interesting.

Honestly, about the only good thing about the design of 5e's Counterspell is that you do not know what you are counterspelling, because that at least adds a minor risk/reward factor to it. If you know what the spell is, then it just becomes "I have this feature so enemy casters need not even try."

[stoutstien]

Unless the guy you thought you were Counterspelling turns out to be a Programmed Illusion, and the real bad guy is still sitting there under Invisibility waiting for you to show your hand and cast the wrong spells before he Meteor Swarms you all and breaks your concentration...

Are you sure you're not one of my players lol. Something weirdly similar happened in the PBP game I'm running two weeks ago.

[Dark.Revenant]

I think it's fine.

But I do allow it so that if they spend their reaction to try to identify the spell with an arcana check, they can choose to counterspell as part of the same reaction. I think it's cooler that way.

Sometimes they'll fail the arcana check. Sometimes they won't.

I use the same solution. The reason is because otherwise, the group starts doing silly things; one person will identify the spell as a reaction, somehow shout it out in time to the other party member, who then decides whether to use or not use Counterspell.

[pragma]

Well... there is at least part of your premise that I agree with. Counterspell is horrible. But its not because it has to be cast blind. Its because it is way too strong for its level, exceedingly boring, is practically a required choice on anyone who can get it, and makes fights between casters often come down to simply who has more people to cast Counterspell.

There is a ton wrong with this spell, but in the most simple terms, any feature, be it a spell, class feature, feat or otherwise, that, simply by working, actively makes fewer interesting things happen is bad game design.

I feel similarly, and have aggressively house ruled counterspell as a result. If your character could cast counterspell (prepared caster preps it, known caster knows it), they instead gain a class ability called counterspell that let's them expend their reaction a counterspelling check as if they had cast counterspell at 3rd level to remove the effect of spells only on themselves. They may use this reaction as often as they like, it doesn't cost spell slots. Dispel Magic also has its casting time reduced to a bonus action.

This means spells always go off, but rarely effect magic-users, which sets up a fun paper-rock-scissors where spells are deployed on people who can't counterspell, while martial types try to chase down casters.

[heavyfuel]

Unless the guy you thought you were Counterspelling turns out to be a Programmed Illusion, and the real bad guy is still sitting there under Invisibility waiting for you to show your hand and cast the wrong spells before he Meteor Swarms you all and breaks your concentration...

That's why I said "In Tier 2".

Tiers 3 and 4 are a different game.

[MaxWilson]

That's why I said "In Tier 2".

Tiers 3 and 4 are a different game.

Meh, the mechanisms are different but the fundamental are the same. In Tier 2, a sneaky bad guy might have a skeleton under a Seeming spell to look like himself while he himself is disguised as a lurching zombie (a full 60' away from the main action and therefore not a high-priority target) and his Flameskulls are disguised as Will o' Wisps, or he might just be hiding behind total cover. Instead of a Meteor Swarm he's planning on breaking PC concentration with a Fireball or Hypnotic Pattern. Whatever.

The key principal here is that surprise is what happens when the players optimize their behavior for a situation that turns out not to be the actual situation they're facing.

[JackPhoenix]

I use the same solution. The reason is because otherwise, the group starts doing silly things; one person will identify the spell as a reaction, somehow shout it out in time to the other party member, who then decides whether to use or not use Counterspell.

I mean, if the enemy somehow manage to cast a spell during the identifying character's turn, as they wouldn't be able to talk otherwise....

[Xetheral]

In my experience, the biggest impact of Counterspell is that it incentivizes the side with fewer, more powerful spellcasters to do everything they can do engage from outside of Counterspell range.

The dynamic of encounters at ranges below 60' can vary wildly, depending on just how many spellcasters there are, how many of them know Counterspell, and whether each side would rather try to ensure their offensive spells go through, or protect themselves from enemy casters. The number of permutations of who-counterspells-whom is immense, particularly when one spell can trigger three or more follow-up Counterspells. In any case, it's pretty common for half of all spells cast to be spent on Counterspell in any given clash between casters. Anyone who has Counterspell should probably assume that they'll be casting it every single round in short-range encounters until all the enemy casters are dead.

The presence of Counterspell also increases the importance of giving speed buffs to your casters, so that they have an increased ability to find a location that offers total cover from as many enemy counterspellers as possible while keeping line of sight to the intended target. Alternatively, when cover is not available, a high-speed caster has a greater ability to get out Counterspell range long enough to cast key spells.

As a final observation, the dynamics of Counterspell greatly increase the power of spells/features that prevent the enemy from seeing your casters (and thus also spells/features that pierce such protection). Greater Invisibility (twinnable!), See Invisibility, Faerie Fire, and True Seeing (twinnable!), Subtle Spell, Devil's Sight, any source of blindsight all become critically important in short-range caster battles. Nondetection can also be key, depending on the DM interprets it. Shadow of Moil takes the cake though, as it grants one-way heavy obscurement directly, thus rendering the Warlock (or Bard) caster utterly immune to Counterspell against any enemy that doesn't have blindsight.


Unless the guy you thought you were Counterspelling turns out to be a Programmed Illusion, and the real bad guy is still sitting there under Invisibility waiting for you to show your hand and cast the wrong spells before he Meteor Swarms you all and breaks your concentration...

How does that work? To be eligible to even take the Reaction to cast Counterspell, two requirements have to be met: (1) a creature within 60' of the caster casts a spell, and (2) the caster sees them do so. A Programmed Illusion is neither a creature, not can it cast spells, so no matter what it does it can't trigger a Counterspell. Without the triggering conditions being met the caster simply has no Reaction available to try to cast Counterspell, even if they wanted to.

[Unoriginal]

Big-ticket spells are always going to be cast in the begining of the fight. In Tier 2, no one leaves Fireball and Fear to be cast at round 3 because it makes no sense. You want to either control enemies before they can act, or damage them enough so that you can drop them fast the next round.

Not casting the big-ticket spells out of the gate ould happen if the caster feels they have to keep their big guns for something else, or if they badly underestimated the enemy, but yeah, it's not gonna happen if the casters realize they're fighting for their lives.



How does that work? To be eligible to even take the Reaction to cast Counterspell, two requirements have to be met: (1) a creature within 60' of the caster casts a spell, and (2) the caster sees them do so. A Programmed Illusion is neither a creature, not can it cast spells, so no matter what it does it can't trigger a Counterspell. Without the triggering conditions being met the caster simply has no Reaction available to try to cast Counterspell, even if they wanted to.

A fake person casting a fake spell can result in a caster attempting to use Counterspell on an invalid target. Or it could be a real person using a magic power which isn't a spell.

Same way as someone can waste an Hold Person on a disguised Fiend, or Feather Fall on a mental illusion that makes them believe they're falling.

[MaxWilson]

How does that work? To be eligible to even take the Reaction to cast Counterspell, two requirements have to be met: (1) a creature within 60' of the caster casts a spell, and (2) the caster sees them do so. A Programmed Illusion is neither a creature, not can it cast spells, so no matter what it does it can't trigger a Counterspell. Without the triggering conditions being met the caster simply has no Reaction available to try to cast Counterspell, even if they wanted to.

It depends upon how the DM is running spell detection. If spells are cast by noticing actual spell casting (not spell components), like I do it, then you cannot spoof Counterspell: an illusion doesn't have the "feel" of actual magic moving. However, forum discussions give me the distinct impression that many DMs out there equate "seeing creature casting a spell" with "seeing a creature employing verbal and somatic components". This has two consequences: (1) componentless spellcasting (such as innate abilities or certain Subtle Spells) cannot be Counterspelled, and logically (2) Counterspell can be spoofed by mimicking verbal and somatic components, even if you're not casting a spell. In terms of action declaration this would be the PHB "Improvising an action" action declaration:


IMPROVISING AN ACTION

Your character can do things not covered by the actions in this section, such as breaking down doors, intimidating enemies, sensing weaknesses in magical defenses, or calling for a parley with a foe. The only limits to the actions you can attempt are your imagination and your character’s ability scores. See the descriptions of the ability scores in the Using Ability Scores section for inspiration as you improvise.

When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.

(Improvised) action declaration: I (the NPC necromancer) mentally command (bonus action) my skeleton-disguised-as-me to pretend to cast Hypnotic Pattern using <appropriate words and gestures>.

Per Xanathar's rules, if you try to cast a spell on an invalid target (Counterspell on a creature that isn't actually casting a spell), the spell simply fails: the Counterspell does nothing.

TL;DR it depends on how your DM does spellcasting detection.

[Eldariel]

That's not how Absorb Element works.

Fair. I run it that way though. More interesting IMHO.

[Valmark]

(1) componentless spellcasting (such as innate abilities or certain Subtle Spells) cannot be Counterspelled
By innate abilities you mean Innate Spellcasting? Because that does require components (unless it's psionic).

Fair. I run it that way though. More interesting IMHO.
I think Jack was correcting your misinterpretation of the RAW, not the way you actually run Absorb Elements, since it seemed like you were saying that you need to know what element it is beforehand.

[MaxWilson]

By innate abilities you mean Innate Spellcasting? Because that does require components (unless it's psionic).

I agree that it's only componentless if it says it's componentless, but not all of them are psionic. Choosing four examples arbitrarily (the first four examples alphabetically in my database):

Alhoon
***Innate Spellcasting (Psionics).*** The alhoon's innate spellcasting ability is Intelligence (spell save DC 16). It can innately cast the following spells, requiring no components:

Black Abishai
***Creeping Darkness (Recharge 6)*** The abishai casts darkness at a point within 120 feet of it, requiring no components. Wisdom is its spellcasting ability for this spell. While the spell persists, the abishai can move the area of darkness up to 60 feet as a bonus action.

Deep Rothe
***Innate Spellcasting.*** The deep rothe's spellcasting ability is Charisma. It can innately cast dancing lights at will, requiring no components.

Duergar Despot
***Innate Spellcasting (Psionics).*** The duergar despot's innate spellcasting ability is Intelligence. It can cast the following spells, requiring no components:

[Xetheral]

A fake person casting a fake spell can result in a caster attempting to use Counterspell on an invalid target. Or it could be a real person using a magic power which isn't a spell.

Same way as someone can waste an Hold Person on a disguised Fiend, or Feather Fall on a mental illusion that makes them believe they're falling.


Per Xanathar's rules, if you try to cast a spell on an invalid target (Counterspell on a creature that isn't actually casting a spell), the spell simply fails: the Counterspell does nothing.

TL;DR it depends on how your DM does spellcasting detection.

I see the issue as different from an invalid target. For spells that require an Action to cast, like Hold Person, the caster always has an Action to try to cast the spell. If the target is invalid, the DM can use the XGTE rules, or some other approach to resolve what happens.

By contrast, casters don't have a Reaction to use to cast reaction spells unless the triggering conditions are met. So even if the caster (erroneously) thinks they see a creature casting a spell and want to try to cast Counterspell they don't have a Reaction available with which to try. Similarly, even if the caster thinks they or their intended target is falling, unless a creature within 60' of the caster actually falls, there they don't have a Reaction with which to try to cast Feather Fall.

In other words, I don't think a character's subjective perspective can give them a Reaction they don't otherwise have. I'm entirely on board with modifying the Reaction rules to base the triggering conditions on the subjective perspective of the character, rather than the objective reality of the game world (as determined by the DM), but caution is warranted. First, there may be possible exploits if character can give themselves Reactions by changing their subjective perspective. Second, even if exploits aren't a concern (or the DM decides to address any exploits on an ad-hoc basis), resolving the character's subjective perspective may be more difficult than resolving the objective reality of the game world.

For example, spells cast by objects can't be counterspelled, but characters may be unsure whether something is an object or a stationary golem (and thus a creature). If you base the availability of the Reaction to cast Counterspell on the objective reality of the game world, there is no issue, as the DM knows whether it's a creature or an object. By contrast, if you base the availability of the Reaction on the character's subjective perspective, and the character is unsure, it's a much thornier resolution. It's not insurmountable though, so both approaches definitely work.

@MaxWilson: as for the rest of your post, I entirely agree that an illusion can be used to convincingly fake spellcasting, I just don't think that's enough to provide the caster a Reaction to cast a spell, unless a DM wants to make the conditions for having an available Reaction subjective, instead of objective.

[Dark.Revenant]

I mean, if the enemy somehow manage to cast a spell during the identifying character's turn, as they wouldn't be able to talk otherwise....

I should have said "metagaming" instead of "silliness".

[Democratus]

Counterspell can only be cast when you see a creature casting a spell. Not when you see a creature you think is doing something similar to spell casting.

So, per RAW, it can't really be fooled by someone pretending to cast. :smallsmile:

[JonBeowulf]

None of my players have ever taken Counterspell so I've got no first-hand experience to draw on. However, I think I'd shortcut the spell detection/identification stuff with a ruling that the character automatically identifies any spell s/he knows. Going with a "there's only one way to cast X" approach.

[Asisreo1]

Big-ticket spells are always going to be cast in the begining of the fight. In Tier 2, no one leaves Fireball and Fear to be cast at round 3 because it makes no sense. You want to either control enemies before they can act, or damage them enough so that you can drop them fast the next round.

So Counterspell is great in the begining of a fight. The first round a spellcaster has is probably when they're casting their most harmful spell.

You don't need to know what you're countering. If the enemy thinks you're going to CS and then casts a cantrip, great! You just made the enemy waste their action on a cantrip!
Nah, I always save my strongest spells for the last bit of the fight. Especially as an NPC. My first spell would be a higher level spell, something like level 4 or 3, but I'm saving my 5th level spell for when the Paladin's incapacitated and the Wizard used up all of their 2 3rd-level slots.

I also want to highlight that counterspell isn't great because you're not all that likely to succeed if its not instantaneous. By time you get counterspell, the enemy has spells upwards of level 5. Counterspelling those spells are hard, as the maximum chance of counterspelling the spell successfully is actually only 55% (you'd have a +4 to intelligence and the counterspell is against a DC 14 ability check).

Counterspell gets worse very quickly as high level spells like 8&9 can show up by level 10, giving your character a 35-40% chance of successfully even doing anything. All for the price of your reaction (no shield/absorb elements) and a 3rd level slot.

Not very economically safe.

[Kane0]

Counterspell, as written and intended, is a horrible spell that requires you to essentially guess, with zero relevant information in most cases, when to use it and what spell slot level is most appropriate. The reason it's so bad is because you aren't intended to have any idea what your enemy is casting, only that they are casting. The introduced way to identify a spell as it's being cast requires using the very same action type as the casting of Counterspell (your reaction) which means you can either know what's coming, or counter it, but not both.
So if you blow your 9th level slot on a Counterspell, thinking it's going to be super-clutch, only to find out you countered a cantrip... well, that's just how it be sometimes.

Obviously, this is awful and feels awful.

Alternatively, you could simply allow your players to know what's being cast at them and let them decide if it's worth using a Counterspell or not. However, the power swing here is wild, turning one of the worst spells into the game into arguably a contender for best spell in the game! Even if you can't pinpoint the specific level slot used for a spell, simply knowing which spell is being cast is a ton of important information in the moment and can easily be the deciding factor between a victory or a defeat (a great demonstration of this is the final fight in Critical Role's first campaign).

So which method do you play with at your table?

The second, mostly.
When I'm DM I take the Xan's optional spell recognition rule and toss it straight out the window without a second thought. If anyone casts a spell I don't play coy, I say what they're casting. The players do the same. All the information is on the table and both I as DM and the players have all the information to make an informed decision on when to attempt a counterspell.
The one thing I don't specifically call out is what spell level a spell might be upcast to, which leaves some element of uncertainty.

[Valmark]

Nah, I always save my strongest spells for the last bit of the fight. Especially as an NPC. My first spell would be a higher level spell, something like level 4 or 3, but I'm saving my 5th level spell for when the Paladin's incapacitated and the Wizard used up all of their 2 3rd-level slots.

I also want to highlight that counterspell isn't great because you're not all that likely to succeed if its not instantaneous. By time you get counterspell, the enemy has spells upwards of level 5. Counterspelling those spells are hard, as the maximum chance of counterspelling the spell successfully is actually only 55% (you'd have a +4 to intelligence and the counterspell is against a DC 14 ability check).

Counterspell gets worse very quickly as high level spells like 8&9 can show up by level 10, giving your character a 35-40% chance of successfully even doing anything. All for the price of your reaction (no shield/absorb elements) and a 3rd level slot.

Not very economically safe.

I would say that a 35% chance of countering a 9th level spell with a 3rd level slot is great- it may not be safe, but that's what you get by not upcasting it.

[Asisreo1]

I would say that a 35% chance of countering a 9th level spell with a 3rd level slot is great- it may not be safe, but that's what you get by not upcasting it.
I'd say its horrible given its limited range and its susceptibility to being counterspelled as well.

And sure, your players can chain counterspell...to get back that original 35% chance.

Most 9th level spells won't be cast at 60' because spells that high don't need to be that close. Actually, the whole problem can be avoided if you wait for the melee characters to approach while letting the casters hang back. Then just move past 60' from the caster and target either yourself or the melee character with your powerful spell.

[diplomancer]

I'd say its horrible given its limited range and its susceptibility to being counterspelled as well.

And sure, your players can chain counterspell...to get back that original 35% chance.

Most 9th level spells won't be cast at 60' because spells that high don't need to be that close. Actually, the whole problem can be avoided if you wait for the melee characters to approach while letting the casters hang back. Then just move past 60' from the caster and target either yourself or the melee character with your powerful spell.

35% if you're a regular wizard. If you are a Bard, it's better; if you're an Abjurer, still better; if you're a Lore Bard (assuming 14th level, reasonable since we are talking about countering a 9th level spell), still better. Best is if you have Glibness on, then it's 100%.

[Asisreo1]

35% if you're a regular wizard. If you are a Bard, it's better; if you're an Abjurer, still better; if you're a Lore Bard (assuming 14th level, reasonable since we are talking about countering a 9th level spell), still better. Best is if you have Glibness on, then it's 100%.
There are ways to make it better, but its not good in the general sense. Your wizard/sorcerer/warlock are almost always better off without it (Tasha may have changed that a little idk).

[YoungestGruff]

Doesn't work, because the failure mode of Counterspell isn't "it does nothing", it's "you have to roll." Letting you spend increase the power of a Counterspell to counteract a failed roll makes Counterspell more powerful than PHB rules. It's not just counteracting the Xanathar's spell-blindness rule, it just straight-up makes Counterspell more powerful than intended, since you never have to spend a full-power Counterspell until you've already failed the roll, as opposed to having a partial-power Counterspell against e.g. Feeblemind be risky.

Maybe here's a less confusing way to say it: by PHB rules, even if you know exactly what the incoming spell is, if it's a dangerous spell (like Forcecage on the party fighter or Feeblemind on the healer) it's risky to rely on dice luck to Counterspell it, so you wind up blowing a 7th level slot to Counterspell a Forcecage or an 8th level slot to Counterspell Feeblemind. This is one of the reasons why Abjurors aren't all that exciting in practice. But if it only costs a 7th level slot some of the time, after the Counterspell has failed, then Abjurors suddenly do become awesome counterspellers (and so do Lore Bards) because they can get away with Counterspelling at 3rd level the majority of the time--the price for failure isn't a Feebleminded teammate, it's just some extra spell points.

I see what you're saying. I kind of forgot about the rolling to attempt to upcounter (which is now totally a term) and just assumed that you automatically either succeeded or failed - the gamble switches from a dice roll to a blind ante. Which does give Counterspell a massive buff. Hell, it takes it from "A spell" to "Basis for an entirely reworked Abjurer."

I honestly haven't put much thought into that, so I'm also not married to the idea. I've barely flirted with it.


BTW I see you are a Dresden Files fan. :)

I forgot my username for a minute and wondered how you pulled that deduction off. But, yep, one of my favorite series, hands down.

[Captain Panda]

My current DM has banned counterspell (among a lot of changes to combat),

Betting they banned spirit guardians, conjure animals, and fireball too. Can't let casters do anything fun. :tongue:

[Valmark]

There are ways to make it better, but its not good in the general sense. Your wizard/sorcerer/warlock are almost always better off without it (Tasha may have changed that a little idk).

I don't think you face a lot of spellcasters in game, I lost count of the number of times Counterspell saved our hide- as an example, Circle of Death casted on our level 5th group while facing enemies immune to necrotic damage (which meant it could be thrown willy-nilly).

An enemy trying to Plane Shift our party's fighter to the Hells (luckily there were two counterspellers because the first one failed).

Stopping the evil lich from escaping through Dimensional Door and the likes.

It's a spell all casters should have ready in their pocket (btw in two of those examples we didn't know what was coming).

[Asisreo1]

I don't think you face a lot of spellcasters in game, I lost count of the number of times Counterspell saved our hide- as an example, Circle of Death casted on our level 5th group while facing enemies immune to necrotic damage (which meant it could be thrown willy-nilly).

An enemy trying to Plane Shift our party's fighter to the Hells (luckily there were two counterspellers because the first one failed).

Stopping the evil lich from escaping through Dimensional Door and the likes.

It's a spell all casters should have ready in their pocket (btw in two of those examples we didn't know what was coming).
Its easy to take a niche situation and feel like it was a worthy use of a slot.

But its still too weak and niche to be called a good spell and certainly not something I want in my backpocket when I could have a better spell like Hypnotic Pattern, Haste, Gaseous Form, or Major Image.

Maybe if you have no other good spell choice, you can pick it up at a higher level but grabbing it for a few clutch niche moments are no different than saying Flesh to Stone is good because it took out a boss but its only through luck that they just so happened to fail the saves.

A spell that ends up a waste the majority of the time its needed ends up being a bad spell imo.

[Valmark]

Its easy to take a niche situation and feel like it was a worthy use of a slot.

But its still too weak and niche to be called a good spell and certainly not something I want in my backpocket when I could have a better spell like Hypnotic Pattern, Haste, Gaseous Form, or Major Image.

Maybe if you have no other good spell choice, you can pick it up at a higher level but grabbing it for a few clutch niche moments are no different than saying Flesh to Stone is good because it took out a boss but its only through luck that they just so happened to fail the saves.

A spell that ends up a waste the majority of the time its needed ends up being a bad spell imo.

I get teleportation (kinda) but AoE spells niche? Our experiences are definitely different, yeah.

[Asisreo1]

I get teleportation (kinda) but AoE spells niche? Our experiences are definitely different, yeah.
Probably a difference of playstyles but its less about the frequency of AoE's but the frequencies of AoE damage/debuff spells that aren't just a creature's action.

I'm fairly sure less than 20 monsters in the Monster Manual even have a spell AoE option in their arsenal and it isn't even their strongest action for most of them.

A pit fiend shouldn't be casting fireball, they should be using their mace (or whatever). Archmages could get a good, clean kill by stepping away and Time Stopping, then unleash their AoE (better yet, banish the characters with counterspell to keep them out). The Mage should be under Greater Invisibility so that counterspell can't be targeted. A lich should Paralyzing Touch the counterspell character since Constitution is likely their weakness anyways.

It might seem like I'm specifically countering counterspell, but all of these options are all somewhat optimal strategies for these monsters. The party likely will struggle against these strategies with or without counterspell.

The enemies should know that purely dumping an AoE on any group of diverse opponents isn't as good as disabling them first, then cleaning up.

[ecarden]

In the one campaign where this comes up frequently (abjurist wizard, the DM annoyer) our DM usually operates on a 'do you know the spell' rule. Which is more work for him, as he has to check the player's spell list every so often (Roll20-not a problem), but seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

But generally, if you've got an enemy spellcaster on the field, they're going to be dropping their biggest spells as fast as possible (partly for tactical reasons and partly for meta reasons, they're likely to die and even more likely to have only one encounter today. No reason not to spend it all).

[minute]

First time I've ever heard anyone say Counterspell is a horrible spell

[MoiMagnus]

Betting they banned spirit guardians, conjure animals, and fireball too. Can't let casters do anything fun. :tongue:

No, that's not that kind of change. If anything, casters are stronger if you sum up all the changes.
Banning counterspell is more a "enforce high level superiority" move, as counterspell is one of the main equaliser between high level casters and mid level casters.

And it goes with the fact that we're not that far from "one super-deadly combat per long rest" (yes, we already have one-week long rests and one-night short rests, it's just that each quest has in average 2 fights in it), so anything that allows you to burn resources very fast is OP.

On the plus side, since the NPCs don't have it either, it means that teleporting out of battle is a very safe way to run away, and with two casters able to cast dimensional door in our team of 4, knowing that you cannot get counterspelled on that is quite nice.

[Chaosity]

Betting they banned spirit guardians, conjure animals, and fireball too. Can't let casters do anything fun. :tongue:

"I'm going to do a thing"
"No you're not"
"Aaw okay :("

Yes so much fun :tongue:
I do it very simple. No one of my npc's will have counterspell. Untill the day my pc's have counterspell. Then they will have it for the pure reason of countering counterspell.

You can make a lot of really interresting combat encounters around spells and having a player say nope and turn what would be an interresting encounter into a boring slugfest is imo lame.

My players also wouldn't be happy if there entire turn was noped away from a random lvl 5 or higher spellcaster.
In my opinion the most boring spell in the game
On the other hand i have zero problems with dispell magic. Atleast the thing you are trying to show happened then

[Asisreo1]

"I'm going to do a thing"
"No you're not"
"Aaw okay :("

Yes so much fun :tongue:
I do it very simple. No one of my npc's will have counterspell. Untill the day my pc's have counterspell. Then they will have it for the pure reason of countering counterspell.

You can make a lot of really interresting combat encounters around spells and having a player say nope and turn what would be an interresting encounter into a boring slugfest is imo lame.

My players also wouldn't be happy if there entire turn was noped away from a random lvl 5 or higher spellcaster.
In my opinion the most boring spell in the game
On the other hand i have zero problems with dispell magic. Atleast the thing you are trying to show happened then
If you have a problem with it sounding boring, you can turn it from a "fizzle out and die" spell to a "uses the weave to counter the spell" spell.

Every casting of Counterspell is differently flavored based on the spell. Countered fireballs get frozen as a useless bead of ice. Countered spirit guardians have their spirits eliminated by the enemy's own version of spirits or by a magical attack that only kills spirits.

For higher level spells, you can make it a struggle. Countered Cone of Cold could have this cone of icy wind versus a wave of scorching heat and the dice roll determines who is victorious in outputting the necessary amount of power to overtake them.

I have no problem making counterspell interesting. I just think its a bad spell.

[MaxWilson]

First time I've ever heard anyone say Counterspell is a horrible spell

I believe it's often overrated. It's primarily good only in a certain type of meta (one BBEG spellcaster per fight, casting big spells). If the your DM loves lots of little spellcasters (Priests and Inspireds and Flameskulls and Bone Nagas), or mostly just monsters with special abilities (Yetis and Beholders and Dragons instead of Liches), or intelligent spellcasting BBEGs who are immune to Counterspell due to Greater Invisibility or total cover (e.g. using the Ready Spell trick) or who have spellcasting minions (Mummy Lord + priest mummies spamming Hold Person), Counterspell can be a bad way to use a spell slot compared to e.g. Animate Dead or Hypnotic Pattern.

[Chaosity]

If you have a problem with it sounding boring, you can turn it from a "fizzle out and die" spell to a "uses the weave to counter the spell" spell.

Every casting of Counterspell is differently flavored based on the spell. Countered fireballs get frozen as a useless bead of ice. Countered spirit guardians have their spirits eliminated by the enemy's own version of spirits or by a magical attack that only kills spirits.

For higher level spells, you can make it a struggle. Countered Cone of Cold could have this cone of icy wind versus a wave of scorching heat and the dice roll determines who is victorious in outputting the necessary amount of power to overtake them.

I have no problem making counterspell interesting. I just think its a bad spell.

That doesn't really solve the problem.
I can flavor it anyway i want, it's still a "you're not taking your turn this time because i spend a 3th level spell"

The problem i have with it is from a mechanic standpoint, not a flavour one.

An way to make it interresting would be to allow you to change the targets of the spell instead of just making it not happen. Ofcourse would need to be higher level but that sounds way more interactive then "nothing happens, deal with it"

[Tanarii]

I think the proper way to do it is to have to choose blind. I think before Xan it was intended there was no way to identify a spell being cast. After Xan the reaction prevents it from being done with counter spell. And the spell is balanced around it being blind.

And that's a pain to run that way at the table. Players will always just state what spell they're casting, it's necessary information for resolution and slows the game down if they don't. And as a DM, I'll always blurt it out.

But ... overall I feel it doesn't matter. I almost never have counterspelling enemies. Even spellcasting enemies are relatively rare. It's a 3rd level slot or higher, and those are valuable, often far more valuable than stopping a single enemy spell. And enemies will pretty much always open with big gun spells, so if PCs are willing to spend the resource, they know when to do it.

Having read this kind of thread over and over again since 5e release, at this point if I was designing an encounter with a bunch of custom spellcasting mooks in high Tier 2 that were specifically given Counterspell, to back up a BBEG by shutting down PC spellcasting, I'd probably have to counterspell the first PC spell cast (whatever it was) and then make it a mini game to play "draw out the counterspell reactions" with blind casting, having the players put their spell cards face down before each cast was countered or not. Then flip them over to resolve if not.

[Amnestic]

I
But ... overall I feel it doesn't matter. I almost never have counterspelling enemies. Even spellcasting enemies are relatively rare. It's a 3rd level slot or higher, and those are valuable, often far more valuable than stopping a single enemy spell. And enemies will pretty much always open with big gun spells, so if PCs are willing to spend the resource, they know when to do it.

My NPCs will usually only ever counterspell a player's counterspell to allow their actual spell to go through.

[Mellack]

That doesn't really solve the problem.
I can flavor it anyway i want, it's still a "you're not taking your turn this time because i spend a 3th level spell"

The problem i have with it is from a mechanic standpoint, not a flavour one.

An way to make it interresting would be to allow you to change the targets of the spell instead of just making it not happen. Ofcourse would need to be higher level but that sounds way more interactive then "nothing happens, deal with it"

Isn't couterspell weaker than several other powers that say "you're not taking your turn this time"? Monks can do stunning strike, and other spells and powers can do similar. Hypnotic pattern can take the turn away from several creatures for far longer. I don't see how counterspell is different.

[Elbeyon]

Just tell the players the spell or allow them a free action arcana. Counterspell and the check to identity a spell being the same action makes this weird situation where the best person to identify the spell is not the person with counterspell. The best scenario would be a non-spell caster spotter that calls out the enemies spells with their reaction, then the mage counterrspells the spell if it is worth it.

[Tanarii]

The best scenario would be a non-spell caster spotter that calls out the enemies spells with their reaction, then the mage counterrspells the spell if it is worth it.You can only speak on your turn as a no action.

It's pretty clear to me that the intent of the Xan rule was to introduce something that wasn't possible before (identifying a spell being cast), but do it in a way it was impossible to use it in conjunction with Counterspell.

It's still useful if you want to know if you need to Dispel something though. Saves an Identify spell.

[Elbeyon]

You can only speak on your turn as a no action.

It's pretty clear to me that the intent of the Xan rule was to introduce something that wasn't possible before (identifying a spell being cast), but do it in a way it was impossible to use it in conjunction with Counterspell.

It's still useful if you want to know if you need to Dispel something though. Saves an Identify spell.That is not true. The book says a character can speak on their turn. It does not say a player can't speak on someone else's turn. The book was only clarifying that speaking is not an action.

It was always possible to identify a spell. The gm only needed to ask for an ability check, or tell everyone the spell without a check. I'm not sure why the books needed a bad optional rules, but some people like it.

[Tanarii]

That is not true. The book says a character can speak on their turn. It does not say a player can't speak on someone else's turn. The book was only clarifying that speaking is not an action.It doesn't say I can't turn into a red dragon and breathe fire either.

Mechanically speaking, you speak on your turn.


It was always possible to identify a spell. The gm only needed to ask for an ability check, or tell everyone the spell without a check. I'm not sure why the books needed a bad optional rules, but some people like it.
The Xan rules on spellcasting were presented as a clarifications and new options. It needed a new optional rule because it wasn't possible before Xan.

[Elbeyon]

It doesn't say I can't turn into a red dragon and breathe fire either.

Mechanically speaking, you speak on your turn.


The Xan rules on spellcasting were presented as a clarifications and new options. It needed a new optional rule because it wasn't possible before Xan.Talk to your dm about that. They might allow it. I've played a dragon. It's fun.

I also agree a person can speak on their turn.

It was always possible to do an int check to learn about a spell. The dm might simply set the dc so low that no roll is required. "Yes, everyone knows he is casting fireball."

[rel]

At my table identifying a spell (or a power, or an ability, or a cool kung fu move) is a free action that can be taken at any time even on another creatures turn and requires a successful check.