Is there any sort of sensory effect associated with using a spellcasting focus?

[OgataiKhan]

It is generally assumed that you can counterspell a Sorcerer's subtle spell if the spell has a material component because you can still see them casting the spell.

Is this correct? If the Sorcerer is holding the focus in his hand but doesn't move or say anything, what exactly does an enemy caster see that allows them to counterspell? Does the focus shine or something that lets you know a spell is being cast through it?

[Unoriginal]

It is generally assumed that you can counterspell a Sorcerer's subtle spell if the spell has a material component because you can still see them casting the spell.

Is this correct? If the Sorcerer is holding the focus in his hand but doesn't move or say anything, what exactly does an enemy caster see that allows them to counterspell? Does the focus shine or something that lets you know a spell is being cast through it?

Material components and focuses aren't quite the same, here.

There is no indication that the Sorcerer is Subtle Casting aside from the fact they're holding the relevant components or focus EXCEPT if the components get consumed in the casting. If it's a focus they're holding anyway (like a staff) then there's no way to tell.

[OgataiKhan]

Material components and focuses aren't quite the same, here.

There is no indication that the Sorcerer is Subtle Casting aside from the fact they're holding the relevant components or focus EXCEPT if the components get consumed in the casting. If it's a focus they're holding anyway (like a staff) then there's no way to tell.

So, Subtle Spell also makes spells with material components uncounterable provided you are using a focus to cast them and they have no costly components that are consumed?

[ff7hero]

Material components and focuses aren't quite the same, here.

There is no indication that the Sorcerer is Subtle Casting aside from the fact they're holding the relevant components or focus EXCEPT if the components get consumed in the casting. If it's a focus they're holding anyway (like a staff) then there's no way to tell.

(citation needed)

[Porcupinata]

This is one of the (many!) cases where the RAW simply doesn't mention something, so some people say "if the RAW doesn't explicitly say that X happens then X doesn't happen" and other people say "if the RAW doesn't specify whether X happens or not then whether X happens is left to common sense".

In this case, the 'X' in question is what a caster actually does with the material components of a spell. The rules say that the caster must have a hand free to access the material components of a spell, and that the hand that holds material components can also be the one that does somatic components, but not what they need to do with the components. Does the caster simply hold the material components passively? Does the caster need to do specific things with them? It's undefined.

Both common sense and genre tropes would seem to indicate that material components need to be manipulated in some way, rather than just passively present, and that in the case of spells that have both a material and somatic component that manipulation is tied in with the somatic component in that the gestures involve the material components in some way.

But that's just common sense and genre tropes, not RAW.

So we basically have a number of questions that need the DM (or group) to decide on the answers for an individual campaign.

1) Do you need to do something with material components, or just passively hold them while you perform somatic components?

2) If you do not need somatic components (because you're using Subtle Spell or because the spell doesn't have them) do you still need to manipulate the components in some way or can you just passively hold them?

3) Regardless of the answers to questions 1-2, when material components are used or consumed do they just silently and subtly disappear, or do they sparkle, fizz, hover in the air briefly and spin around, disappear with a *pop*, stream towards the target fading out as they do so, form part of the spell effect, glow with a spectacular light show, turn to punguent smoke, or do some other thing that is noticeable?

4) If you are using a focus to replace components, does this change the answer to any of the above three questions?

Again, there is no RAW answer to any of these questions, so it's up to the DM and group to decide on what they prefer.

Personally, my subjective answers for my own campaign would be:

1) Yes, you sprinkle them or pass your hand over them or break them or something - manipulating them is an active part of the spell casting.

2) You don't need to actively do things with them, you can passively hold them in your hand, but they will still behave the same - so dust will sprinkle itself, or a crystal will shatter, or whatever.

3) Yes, the things that the material components do will be noticeable to observers. The exact details of what happens will vary from spell to spell, but the general rule is that anyone watching/listening will notice the material components doing their thing even if you are not performing somatic or verbal gestures.

3) Using a focus changes things but doesn't eliminate them. You still need to gesture if you have somatic components - just with your focus instead of with the components. And instead of the components doing things your focus will do things. This will be just as noticeable as your focus will glow or emit sparks or whatever - again the exact details will vary from spell to spell, but the general rule is that anyone watching/listening will notice the focus doing its thing even if you are not performong somatic or verbal gestures.

[Unoriginal]

If you need to do somatic components with your material components, but have a feature that removes somatic components, then you don't do somatic components with your material components.

Arguing that you need to do magical gestures with your magical ingredients when Subtle Spell removes the magical gestures is neither logical nor fitting the idea of Subtle Spell.

[Porcupinata]

If you need to do somatic components with your material components, but have a feature that removes somatic components, then you don't do somatic components with your material components.

Arguing that you need to do magical gestures with your magical ingredients when Subtle Spell removes the magical gestures is neither logical nor fitting the idea of Subtle Spell.

But you don't need to do somatic components with your material components. Manipulating material components and performing somatic gestures are two separate things, and an individual spell may need one or the other or both or neither.

The books says that you always need a free hand to use material components, and this includes situations/spells where there are no somatic components, so you obviously need to do something with them. By extension, you need to do a similar somthing with your focus if you use that instead (because the rules don't take away the requirement for a free hand if you use a focus instead of material components).

The fact that it says you can do whatever you need to do with them with the same hand that does somatic components doesn't mean that not needing to do somatic components (either because you have Subtle Spell or because the spell doesn't have somatic components) suddenly means you no longer need to do whatever you normally do with material components.

[JackPhoenix]

If you need to do somatic components with your material components, but have a feature that removes somatic components, then you don't do somatic components with your material components.

Arguing that you need to do magical gestures with your magical ingredients when Subtle Spell removes the magical gestures is neither logical nor fitting the idea of Subtle Spell.

To perceive a spell being cast, the spell must have V, S or M component. Therefore, spell with a M component is perceivable even when no S or V component is present. Subtle spell removes V and S, but not M.

Whatever you do with the M component when you cast a spell with no S or V component is different enough from just holding it to inform an observer you're casting a spell and trigger a Counterspell or similar ability.

[Chronos]

What you need from a material component is just to be holding it. If you have to wave it around or wiggle your fingers on it or whatever, that's a somatic component.

If a sorcerer casts a subtle spell with a staff as a component, then what you see is a sorcerer holding a staff. Now, in a world like D&D, it might be considered suspicious to see a known spellcaster holding a staff. But that still doesn't tell you that they're casting a spell right this moment, as opposed to any other moment they were just holding it.

[JackPhoenix]

What you need from a material component is just to be holding it. If you have to wave it around or wiggle your fingers on it or whatever, that's a somatic component.

If a sorcerer casts a subtle spell with a staff as a component, then what you see is a sorcerer holding a staff. Now, in a world like D&D, it might be considered suspicious to see a known spellcaster holding a staff. But that still doesn't tell you that they're casting a spell right this moment, as opposed to any other moment they were just holding it.

Unless you know Counterspell, or have Mage Slayer feat, or just have an action readied to someone casting a spell, in which case you know the exact moment they cast a spell. If a sorcerer casts a subtle spell with a staff as a component, then what you see is a sorcerer casting a spell while holding a staff.

[Tanarii]

You have to use a free hand to access your material component, component pouch, or focus as part of the casting. That's visible.

[Zhorn]

To perceive a spell being cast, the spell must have V, S or M component. Therefore, spell with a M component is perceivable even when no S or V component is present. Subtle spell removes V and S, but not M.

Whatever you do with the M component when you cast a spell with no S or V component is different enough from just holding it to inform an observer you're casting a spell and trigger a Counterspell or similar ability.

If you are going that route, the implication of it should also follow.
See a caster holding a material component = react as though they are casting a spell, whether that actual are casting a spell or not.
Sometimes you get lucky and successfully Counterspell before they complete the casting, sometimes you waste a spell slot and reaction on your paranoia.

There's no verbal or somatic component, all that is perceivable until the spell is successfully cast is the caster doing what looks like an object interaction (and even that could be just them standing still if the material/focus is already in hand).
No magic words
No arcane/divine gestures
Just holding an object

To treat is as automatically knowing they ARE in the process of casting a spell and not just holding/retrieving an object is acting on meta knowledge and completely undermines the Subtle Spell feature.

[Edea]

I should also note, that even if your DM rules using a spellcasting focus to replace the (M) component is sufficient for counterspelling a Subtle Spell, there are a lot of staple spells for the sorcerer that don't have an (M) component at all.

One of them just so happens to be counterspell, itself, which a Subtle Spell-using sorcerer is stupidly good at, particularly given their Flexible Casting.

Just don't use the optional rules in XGtE, they're...well, they certainly nerf counterspell into oblivion, and it's apparently what Crawford originally intended for the spell, but it just creates an extremely metagame-y atmosphere and you don't want that.

[JackPhoenix]

If you are going that route, the implication of it should also follow.
See a caster holding a material component = react as though they are casting a spell, whether that actual are casting a spell or not.
Sometimes you get lucky and successfully Counterspell before they complete the casting, sometimes you waste a spell slot and reaction on your paranoia.

Exept that's not an implication of the rules. Holding a material component =/= casting a spell using the same material component. That's like saying holding a sword is the same as stabbing someone with the same sword.

There's no verbal or somatic component, all that is perceivable until the spell is successfully cast is the caster doing what looks like an object interaction (and even that could be just them standing still if the material/focus is already in hand).
No magic words
No arcane/divine gestures
Just holding an object

No, what's perceivable is the caster using an object to cast a spell, which is clearly different from just holding it, because it's sufficient to trigger interactions that require you to see a caster cast a spell. What exactly does that entail is not specified, but then, neither are the V and S components. Perhaps the caster needs to do something specific, perhaps it starts glowing and playing magicsound.mp3.

To treat is as automatically knowing they ARE in the process of casting a spell and not just holding/retrieving an object is acting on meta knowledge and completely undermines the Subtle Spell feature.

I can easily argue the other way and say that trying to ignore the M component is sufficient to make the spell perceivable completely undermines Counterspell. Both claims are false, Subtle spell still works perfectly fine on spells with no M component.

[Dark.Revenant]

The optional rule in Xanathar's Guide to Everything pertaining to the perceivability of spells simply declares that material-only spells, like any other spell with any combination of components, is perceivable. This doesn't mean everyone automatically perceives it; only that it's physically possible to do so. As with many things in D&D, the deciding factor is a judgment call by the DM pertaining to the specific situation when this comes up. Most reasonable DMs wouldn't declare that everyone would automatically notice a VSM spell being cast in the midst of a hurricane on a moonless night, nor that you can automatically pick out a spellcaster casting a VSM spell in the middle of a noisy crowd 200 feet away. I feel a material-only spell would be quite easy to miss by comparison.

[Unoriginal]

Just don't use the optional rules in XGtE, they're...well, they certainly nerf counterspell into oblivion, and it's apparently what Crawford originally intended for the spell, but it just creates an extremely metagame-y atmosphere and you don't want that.

The Xanathar's rules don't nerf anything about Counterspell. They allow you to identify what a spell is as it's being cast (assuming it's possible to see it's being cast).

[Boci]

You have to use a free hand to access your material component, component pouch, or focus as part of the casting. That's visible.

The examples of arcane focuses listed in the player's handbook are: crystal, orb, rod, staff or wand. Most of those would just be held in combat, rather than reached for in the time of casting (except for maybe a crystal, since you could conceivable mount that on an amulet or bracelet), so would using a focus you are already holding have any visual cue?

[Tanarii]

The examples of arcane focuses listed in the player's handbook are: crystal, orb, rod, staff or wand. Most of those would just be held in combat, rather than reached for in the time of casting (except for maybe a crystal, since you could conceivable mount that on an amulet or bracelet), so would using a focus you are already holding have any visual cue?

The rule is you have to use a free hand to access and hold a focus. Not that you can already be holding it. To start casting a spell with an S or M component, you must have a free hand to start the process.

[Boci]

The rule is you have to use a free hand to access and hold a focus. Not that you can already be holding it. To start casting a spell with an S or M component, you must have a free hand to start the process.

Whilst the rules do say you need a free hand to hold a focus, they say nothing about needing a free hand to start casting the spell. Its an equally valid reading that you can skip that part if you are already holding a focus.

[Unoriginal]

The rule is you have to use a free hand to access and hold a focus. Not that you can already be holding it. To start casting a spell with an S or M component, you must have a free hand to start the process.

So at your table, if a wizard is holding a staff in one hand and a shield in the other, they have to drop the staff to start casting the spell, then pick up the staff again to use it as a focus?

[Tanarii]

Whilst the rules do say you need a free hand to hold a focus, they say nothing about needing a free hand to start casting the spell. Its an equally valid reading that you can skip that part if you are already holding a focus.

You could consider it equivalent if you like, and many do. But a hand holding a focus is not free. And a free hand is required. And the same free hand is used for S components, meaning you have to put the focus down/away for any S components.

Changing it to skip the free hand requirement to allow starting with a focus in hand, and (also common) to allowing the S component to be used with the focus still in hand, potentially has some small implications. The question of "is using a focus visible" is an example.

So at your table, if a wizard is holding a staff in one hand and a shield in the other, they have to drop the staff to start casting the spell, then pick up the staff again to use it as a focus?

Or lean it against themselves. Something to free it up. And that's at any table using the rule as written, not just my table.

[Boci]

You could consider it equivalent if you like, and many do. But a hand holding a focus is not free. And a free hand is required.

A free hand is only required to hold the focus:

"A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components -- or to hold a spellcasting focus --"

It is entirely within RAW to view that as not being required if the spellcaster is already holding their focus.

[Edea]

The Xanathar's rules don't nerf anything about Counterspell. They allow you to identify what a spell is as it's being cast (assuming it's possible to see it's being cast).

Yes, as an action or a reaction.

Counterspell costs the caster their reaction. This check's not rolled into the casting of the spell, they're separate. You only get one reaction per combat round and you can't take actions when it's not your turn.

Before, the DM would just houserule that knowing what spell is being cast is baked-in to casting the counterspell, since there was nothing published clarifying the matter. This is how IMO it's supposed to be.

But this variant explicitly rules out that interpretation. You don't know what spell you're counterspelling unless someone else uses their reaction to make an Arcana check for you and relays that information to you...somehow. Talking, I guess, maybe telepathy if you've got it.

This leads to cutesy metagame-y nonsense like players not declaring what spell they're casting until they know that a reaction's been blown trying to identify it, whereupon they cast a cantrip if the counterspell comes out and a leveled spell if it doesn't. Extra-crap points if they have one of the bonus action druid cantrips. And, of course, the DM will do this to you, which promptly leads to every single turn being declarations of "Any reactions," "what's the Arcana check," and figuring out what piecemeal offering you want to throw out whenever someone makes the mistake of actually confirming they're counterspelling.

[Unoriginal]

Yes, as an action or a reaction.

Counterspell costs the caster their reaction. This check's not rolled into the casting of the spell, they're separate. You only get one reaction per combat round and you can't take actions when it's not your turn.

Indeed.

Before, the DM would just houserule that knowing what spell is being cast is baked-in to casting the counterspell, since there was nothing published clarifying the matter.

The DM can still houserule it that way. The DM is the one who decides what the rules are, not the books.

This is how IMO it's supposed to be.

What do you mean by "how it's supposed to be"? It can be how you prefer it, but it's not how the spell is supposed to work. Which is why the Xanathar's rules added the spell identification option.

But this variant explicitly rules out that interpretation. You don't know what spell you're counterspelling unless someone else uses their reaction to make an Arcana check for you and relays that information to you...somehow. Talking, I guess, maybe telepathy if you've got it.

Yeah, it's pretty great IMO. Counterspell is a gamble, not a "no I don't want this particular spell" button. Same way as Shield is much more interesting to me if the player is told they're hit without knowing if casting Shield will make a difference or not.

This leads to cutesy metagame-y nonsense like players not declaring what spell they're casting until they know that a reaction's been blown trying to identify it, whereupon they cast a cantrip if the counterspell comes out and a leveled spell if it doesn't.

What? That's not metagame nonsense, it's the players nonsensically refusing to play the game, period. PCs can't cast a spell without declaring what the spell is.

Extra-crap points if they have one of the bonus action druid cantrips. And, of course, the DM will do this to you, which promptly leads to every single turn being declarations of "Any reactions," "what's the Arcana check," and figuring out what piecemeal offering you want to throw out whenever someone makes the mistake of actually confirming they're counterspelling.

What.

I have honestly no idea what you mean.

If you can't trust your DM to go "nu-uh, it was actually a cantrip" when the encounter's boss was actually casting Chain Lightning, then why are you playing with that person?

[Edea]

What? That's not metagame nonsense, it's the players nonsensically refusing to play the game, period. PCs can't cast a spell without declaring what the spell is.

Yes, they can. You need to make an Arcana (Intelligence) check if you want to know what spell someone's casting with that variant.

[Unoriginal]

Yes, they can. You need to make an Arcana (Intelligence) check if you want to know what spell someone's casting with that variant.

The in-universe characters do, not the DM. If a player doesn't declare they're casting X spell they are not casting X spell.

It's then up to the NPCs to decide how they are reacting to a PC casting an unidentified spell.

[Zhorn]

I'm with Edea on this one, the Identifying a Spell rule, as written in XGtE, is hot garbage.
It's mechanic are such that it is more beneficial to cheat that system if you don't go the extra mile and have some kind of spell-card or note system to lock in the intended spells, as people can too easily lie about levelled spells vs cantrips, and use the meta gaming to force the wasting of reactions and counterspells.

You can houserule it to work differently, but at that stage we're no longer talking about it as written.

[Unoriginal]

I'm with Edea on this one, the Identifying a Spell rule, as written in XGtE, is hot garbage.
It's mechanic are such that it is more beneficial to cheat that system if you don't go the extra mile and have some kind of spell-card or note system to lock in the intended spells, as people can too easily lie about levelled spells vs cantrips, and use the meta gaming to force the wasting of reactions and counterspells.

How about not playing a RPG with people you don't trust to not lie to you?

[JackPhoenix]

You can houserule it to work differently, but at that stage we're no longer talking about it as written.

As written before XGtE, there's no way to identify what spell is being cast. If you think that's better, good for you.

[Dark.Revenant]

As written before XGtE, there's no way to identify what spell is being cast. If you think that's better, good for you.

The lack of a RAW solution prior to XGtE doesn't mean XGtE's solution is good. Personally, I feel it was added by Jeremy Crawford to codify rules that implement a general principle he ran with at his tables: Counterspell (and Shield, etc.) is a snap decision that the player should make without a full picture of whether it's the right choice or not. The explicit cost of a reaction to identify a spell is unnecessarily constraining and fiddly, in my opinion, but it's a black-and-white way of expressing Conuterspell's intent.

But I really think we're off-topic now.