Multiple counterspells?

[diplomancer]

Suppose there are two or more casters with Counterspell. And an opponent casts a spell of 6th level. Do they both have to declare Counterspell simultaneously, or can one of them try to counterspell it and, if he fails, have the others attempt it?

[Kane0]

Probably best to ask your DM. If I were DMing I would rule simultaneous because of the tiny, precise amounts of time otherwise implied

[Amnestic]

Xanathar's has some advice for this:


Simultaneous Effects
Most effects in the game happen in succession, following an order set by the rules or the DM. In rare cases, effects can happen at the same time, especially at the start or end of a creature’s turn. If two or more things happen at the same time on a character or monster's turn, the person at the game table—whether player or DM—who controls that creature decides the order in which those things happen. For example, if two effects
occur at the end of a player character’s turn, the player decides which of the two effects happens first.

Under this rule, whoever controls the creature whose turn it is would get to decide which one happens first. So, the DM decides 99 times out of 100, but it could crop up on a player's turn, in which case that player would decide.

If the players couldn't agree with each other which one they wanted to happen first I'd go off of their initiative - whoever had a higher initiative score (or modifier, either/or) would go first.

[RSP]

Yeah, there’s no guidance on this, RAW, so I’d square it away with DM.

Personally, I’d go with declarations first as the characters don’t really know if Counterspell is successful - they’d only know if Counterspell wasn’t successful if the target spell had a noticeable effect; however, once the effect occurs and is noticeable, signaling the first Counterspell failed, the casting of the target spell is completed and it’s too late to Counterspell it at that point.

[Greywander]

Yeah, there’s no guidance on this, RAW, so I’d square it away with DM.

Personally, I’d go with declarations first as the characters don’t really know if Counterspell is successful - they’d only know if Counterspell wasn’t successful if the target spell had a noticeable effect; however, once the effect occurs and is noticeable, signaling the first Counterspell failed, the casting of the target spell is completed and it’s too late to Counterspell it at that point.
This is probably the right way to do it. Counterspell is already pretty powerful, so this helps rein it in a bit, and really only applies if you have more than one caster with Counterspell anyway. That said, most tables will probably naturally fall into doing it sequentially, allowing someone else to attempt to Counterspell if the first attempt fails. And I'm not sure there's anything in the rules regarding this, either.

I could actually see this as a class feature, allowing you to wait until certain actions are resolved before you need to decide if you are going to use one of your own abilities. Not just for reactions, but also for things that normally force you to use them before rolling or before knowing whether the roll is enough to pass.

[Chronos]

That's true for one way that Counterspell fails, when you don't roll high enough on your check. But another way it can fail is if the enemy also casts their own Counterspell to counter your Counterspell. This one, you know about, and your teammate would have a choice: Also try to counter the original spell, or counter the counter-counterspell.