Counterspell mechanics

[Selion]

In XGTE its clarified that identifying a spell through an arcana check requires a reaction.
Counterspell also requires a reaction, thus, to my understanding, either you identify the spell or you try to prevent it being cast, which is... fine on a balance perspective, but kinda awkward to roleplay. Are you then supposed to counter blindly a random magical effect or did I interpret the rule the wrong way?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Yes, you are supposed to blindly Counterspell, and I prefer it that way personally.

[Selion]

Yes, you are supposed to blindly Counterspell, and I prefer it that way personally.

Y, I agree that it would otherwise render useless any spell which doesn't exceed the casting ability of the party's wizard, and even worst, make the party's spellcasters useless against an enemy which knows this spell.
What makes it awkward, by the way, is that the master, knowing you have this spell, has to interrupt the narration and stop the moment a spell is being cast before describing the effects.
It's the bittersweetness of the 5th edition, rules are simple, fast and functional, but they let out (purposely and sometimes brilliantly) the hard tuning.

[Unoriginal]

Yes, you are supposed to blindly Counterspell, and I prefer it that way personally.

Seconded.


Y, I agree that it would otherwise render useless any spell which doesn't exceed the casting ability of the party's wizard, and even worst, make the party's spellcasters useless against an enemy which knows this spell.
What makes it awkward, by the way, is that the master, knowing you have this spell, has to interrupt the narration and stop the moment a spell is being cast before describing the effects.
It's the bittersweetness of the 5th edition, rules are simple, fast and functional, but they let out (purposely and sometimes brilliantly) the hard tuning.

It's a manner to do it, but the DM could also just describe the casting and not stop.

Not all DMs stop to ask if the caster wants to use Shield when said caster is attacked, either. Or ask the polearm wielder if they want to use PAM when an enemy enters their range.

[Tanarii]

Thirded, intent is blindly.

It does make things a little awkward during play for DMs. Players have a tendency to blurt out spells regardless. But DMs are accustomed to making decisions for NPCs with full knowledge that the NPCs would not have. (Not necessarily making them well, but they still have to do it all the time.)

Less so for players, depending on the campaign. IMX many DMs are already prone to being "descriptive" when enemies cast spells, not just blurting out the name of them. I am not one of them. OTOH if I have a caster bad guy, and the PC has counterspell, my caster bad guy is probably dropping their biggest bombs in the first round or two, as a general rule.

Where is makes the biggest difference is in deciding what level of slot to burn for the spell.

Edit: There is a time when it would especially be worth playing a mini game of laying down your spellcards* facedown and waiting to see if someone counterspells: in a caster duel.

*I've been told not everyone uses spellcards. As far as I'm concerned they're a requirement to play a caster, but each unto their own.

[Cikomyr2]

I think there is an argument to be made about having *some* information about the spell being cast.

First of all, the DM should outright tell you it's a spell or just an ability of the monster.

Second, the DM should tell you what the target of the spell is. Is it a point in space, a person, the Caster himself? A cone?

But yhea, besides that you should Counterspell blind.

[JonBeowulf]

*I've been told not everyone uses spellcards. As far as I'm concerned they're a requirement to play a caster, but each unto their own.

I agree... but VTT makes that incredibly difficult. And my group prob wouldn't use them anyway. I think they like the mini-game of "what does <a spell> do?"

[Kane0]

In XGTE its clarified that identifying a spell through an arcana check requires a reaction.
Counterspell also requires a reaction, thus, to my understanding, either you identify the spell or you try to prevent it being cast, which is... fine on a balance perspective, but kinda awkward to roleplay. Are you then supposed to counter blindly a random magical effect or did I interpret the rule the wrong way?

Xanathar's Guide offers an optional rule on identifying spells as they are being cast, and I disregard it as such.

When spells are cast at my table, the spell that is being cast is announced from both sides, Player and DM. Both the Players and DM have the opportunity to act on this information by means of a counterspell.
What we do not do is announce what level of spell slot is being used for the spell in question, which retains some level of uncertainty.

[Samayu]

Yes, you are supposed to blindly Counterspell, and I prefer it that way personally.

Why? Because counterspells are overused?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Why? Because counterspells are overused?

No, because reactions are split second decisions and I like the way its designed to force commitment. If you allow them to cast to a point where you can reliably recognize the spell, you've very likely lost the opportunity to stop it. I believed that before Xanathar's gave rules for recognizing spells and have only had that opinion reinforced afterwards.

In my experience Counterspell is also not exactly overused, it has significant opportunity cost for the characters who have it at my table because our reactions are very important, my Redemption Paladin especially is very heavy on reaction options and all of them are situationally important.

Every successful Counterspell is also a significant hit to the enemy caster, who likely spent an action on nothing. Action denial is powerful, making it blind* on both sides so you can't (a) fish for an optimal spell to counter or (b) have a malicious DM avoid your counterspell seems like a better choice to me.
*or announced openly on both sides, all that matters is that opportunity and knowledge is as equal as possible between DM and player.

[MoiMagnus]

Note that as written, the rules of Xanathar allows for another player to identify the spell with their reaction, say it to you as a free action, and you counterspell with your reaction. IMO that's definitely against the spirit of Xanathar's rules, but some GMs might allow it.


Why? Because counterspells are overused?

While it's not my preference (I don't like having some kind of bluffing game at the middle of an enemy action), having counterspell blind fundamentally changes the role it has as a spell.
It changes from a resource-denial (you prevent opponents from using their high level spells, and you deter them from trying to) to an action-denial (you prevent a spellcaster from acting for one action, and sometimes burn some of their resources).

TBH, I'm wondering if counterspell would not be better balance-wise if it never consumed any resources from the target. So a reaction when someone is casting a spell, the casting is stopped but the spell slot (or spell usage) is not lost by the caster, and none of the components are consumed. If would also be much less frustrating for the players when their spell get counterspelled.



In my experience Counterspell is also not exactly overused, it has significant opportunity cost for the characters who have it at my table because our reactions are very important, my Redemption Paladin especially is very heavy on reaction options and all of them are situationally important.

Though if I understand correctly, your experience is with blind counterspell, right? If you play with knowledge-full counterspell (you get to counterspell after knowing the spells and the targets), while the spell is not necessarily frequently used, it is almost a must-have in your prepared spells just-in-case.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Though if I understand correctly, your experience is with blind counterspell, right? If you play with knowledge-full counterspell (you get to counterspell after knowing the spells and the targets), while the spell is not necessarily frequently used, it is almost a must-have in your prepared spells just-in-case.

It's something I keep (or would keep, if I were playing a class that didn't have it as an Oath Spell) prepared regardless, in the same vein as Revivify. I would rather have it sitting with the opportunity to be used and not have to use it than to not have that option in the rare (in my personal experience) cases it was important.

I think that's true whether you play it blind or open. Not knowing what a spellcaster is casting isn't any less dangerous than actually knowing.

Small anecdote on a time it was important: We got a bit too nosy with Halaster "resetting" the dungeon behind us and I ended up having to Counterspell something he tried to throw at us. I didn't know at the time, but the DM had gone straight to Meteor Swarm. I didn't care what he was casting though, anything he could have done was enough of a threat. The successful Counterspell was a victory regardless of what spell he was casting.

[MrStabby]

I tried it both ways and I actually prefer having the players know what they are countering.

Counterspell is a powerful spell. It is a very powerful spell and it absolutley doesn't need buffing...

but

Most of its power I find is from exchanging an action for a bonus action. Enemies don't tend to run out of spells in an encounter and honestly are unlikely to have multiple encounters per day where it makes a difference. There is an occasional side benefit to forcing a caster to use a lower level spell slot but this isn't really a frequent thing.

On the positive side, it lets the player countering the spell feel awesome and know what is at stake on their die roll. You want to counter a random spell - ok, nothing happens and thats what you were aiming for. Even being told afterwards "oh, and you felt that was meteor swarm that you counterspelled" is counterclimactic. Knowing how much and what hinges on your managing to succeed with your counterspell adds to the tension at the table and adds to the joy of at least one of your players whilst taking nothing from the others.

I always felt that it was one of the issues with the monk and one reason why a lot of people felt it unsatisfying that you never knew what you stopped with stunning strike - you never see the spell that isn't cast, the critical hit that was never made or the battle altering ability that went unused.

I would prefer to find other ways to limit the spell's power (if it is a problem for you, as well it might be) that would have a bigger effect on its power and a smaller effect on its fun.

[JackPhoenix]

Note that as written, the rules of Xanathar allows for another player to identify the spell with their reaction, say it to you as a free action, and you counterspell with your reaction. IMO that's definitely against the spirit of Xanathar's rules, but some GMs might allow it.

There's no "say it to you as a free action". There are no free actions, and talking is specifically mentioned as something you can do on *your* turn.

[Kane0]

There's no "say it to you as a free action". There are no free actions, and talking is specifically mentioned as something you can do on *your* turn.

I believe that's pretty much what was meant, just as shorthand.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I believe that's pretty much what was meant, just as shorthand.

Not a whole lot of spells to be identified as they're being cast by enemies during your own turn. The nitpicking (warranted in this case, I think) is that talking is something allowed specifically on your own turn.

If you identify the spell as a reaction, and it is your turn, that spell was also very likely a reaction spell... small list of things it could be, not incredibly useful unless spellcasters are prone to readying spells in your games. If you identify the spell as a reaction and it is not your turn, you can't technically speak immediately.

[Tanarii]

Note that as written, the rules of Xanathar allows for another player to identify the spell with their reaction, say it to you as a free action, and you counterspell with your reaction. IMO that's definitely against the spirit of Xanathar's rules, but some GMs might allow it.

There's no "say it to you as a free action". There are no free actions, and talking is specifically mentioned as something you can do on *your* turn.

I believe that's pretty much what was meant, just as shorthand.If that's what was meant, the described sequence wouldn't work. Because it would be: another PC identifies the spell with their reaction, waits until their turn to say it to the counterspelling PC, at which point it is too late to counterspell.

Agreed with JackPhoenix the RAW is that you speak on your turn. But with the caveat that many folks find that ridiculous. :smallamused:

[Kane0]

Lol yes it would be a little silly to have a pair of characters try to have a conversation with initiative running, that would be very stilted even if they go in the 'right' order.

[Tanarii]

Lol yes it would be a little silly to have a pair of characters try to have a conversation with initiative running, that would be very stilted even if they go in the 'right' order.
It makes some "narrative" sense in terms of the time it takes to react to things. Just as taking the time to identify something burns your reaction, it wouldn't be an unreasonable house rule to say shouting a response warning to something burns a reaction.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It makes some "narrative" sense in terms of the time it takes to react to things. Just as taking the time to identify something burns your reaction, it wouldn't be an unreasonable house rule to say shouting a response warning to something burns a reaction.
My basic, not very tightly enforced rule is that you can talk on your own turn except:

When someone asks you a question or addresses you, you can reply. But not replies to replies. Anything of length or mechanical status (liner trying to get them to run away) is part of your turn.

And witty repartee and trash talking between enemies and the party. That's always acceptable. But it's nothing more than color.

So talking is a free action if you're being witty or insulting. But anything actionable needs to be on your turn.