Mechanics that dont make sense

[Khrysaes]

So. This popped into my head and i am sure it is the only instance in 5e.

You can use your reaction to cast counterspell OR identify the spell being cast, but not both. So you always counterspell blind.

What are other mechanics that are counterintuitive or dont make sense that exist?

I know some of the have been in sage advice then contradicted by another sage advice.

[Tanarii]

Why doesn't that make sense? Nothing before Xan rule for identifying spells being cast as a reaction implied it was possible at all. So counterspelling blind was the norm already.

[KorvinStarmast]

Makes sense to me, and it's how we play counterspell at our tables.

[Unoriginal]

So you always counterspell blind.

That is the point of the rule, and the intent.

I third the opinion that it makes sense.

[Khrysaes]

Okay, fine, bad example. What are some that dont make sense?

[JackPhoenix]

In even makes logical sense: When you let the spellcasting progress to the point you can tell what's coming, it's too late to stop it. Now, Counterspell chains or counter-Counterspell on the other hand....

[MoiMagnus]

Why doesn't that make sense? Nothing before Xan rule for identifying spells being cast as a reaction implied it was possible at all. So counterspelling blind was the norm already.

Was it, though?
The norm is not systematically to get the minimal amount of information the rules guaranties you have.

I'd say it's more precise to say that the norm was to rely on GM fiat like for every kind of perception issue. E.g, every spell that relies on material component, you might be able to guess it from the GM's description of "the enemy mage take a small piece of metal and light a small flame above it, starting to incant" (this would be the casting of Heat Metal) ... assuming the GM does provide those kind of descriptions.

And then you have an additional layer of GM fiat on the worldbuilding: if spells are unique enough in the exact posture your need to make to cast them, for spell famous enough like Fireball, even non-mages might recognise the posture of casting them (similarly to how a lot of us would recognise Dragon's Ball's Kamehameha).

For me, before Xanathar, we were pretty much in the same case of whether or not enemy HP are public:
+ nothing in the rules says you know how much HP they have, but you can still ask your GM how injured they look, and while some GMs will give you a qualitative descriptions, others will not bother and give you the exact amount, even if that's more information than what your character would know.
+ nothing in the rules says you know exactly what spell the enemy are casting, but you can still ask your GM what the spellcasting looks like, and while some GMs will give you a qualitative descriptions hinting at the possible spells, others will not bother and give you the exact spell cast, even if that's more information than what your character would know.

[Sorinth]

In even makes logical sense: When you let the spellcasting progress to the point you can tell what's coming, it's too late to stop it. Now, Counterspell chains or counter-Counterspell on the other hand....

I mean I get that, but it doesn't have to be the case. If to cast Summon Lesser Demons you have to say Klaatu Verata Nikto three times and it's the only spell that uses those words then logically it should be easy to identify with time remaining to cast counterpsell if desired (Assuming you pass the arcana check to know that Summon Lesser Demons is the only spell that uses those words).

The being able to counterspell while in the middle of casting a spell on the other hand I agree never really made sense.

[Greywander]

There is a way to use this, though. Have one person identify the spell, and shout it out. Someone else casts Counterspell if it's worth Counterspelling. Often, though, whatever spell an enemy is casting is designed to ruin your day, so they're probably all worth Counterspelling. If someone decides to cast a useless spell, they're voluntarily giving up their turn to do nothing or next to nothing, which is a losing strategy even if you don't get Counterspelled. Unless you're in some kind of mage duel and you both have Counterspell and you're trying to outlast your opponent by not spending too many slots on Counterspell, in which case it's a matter of playing mind games and guessing what your opponent is casting while trying to trick them with regards to what you're casting.

Okay, fine, bad example. What are some that dont make sense?

If you attack someone you can't see, you have disadvantage. If you attack someone who can't see you, you have advantage. Makes sense, right? What if you both can't see each other? Then you have both advantage and disadvantage, which cancels out. Okay, that's kind of weird, but I guess it makes some sense at least. You're flailing around blindly, but the other person can't see to defend themselves, so you get a lucky hit about as often as if you could both see to fight properly. Where this gets truly weird is when considering cases where you would normally have disadvantage, since it can't stack. For example, shooting from long range; if you shoot into or out of a Fog Cloud, even at long range, you shoot with both advantage and disadvantage, cancelling it out. So dropping Fog Cloud on a group of archers will actually increase their accuracy at long range.

[RSP]

I mean I get that, but it doesn't have to be the case. If to cast Summon Lesser Demons you have to say Klaatu Verata Nikto three times and it's the only spell that uses those words then logically it should be easy to identify with time remaining to cast counterpsell if desired

In terms of a spell cast as an Action, it’s probably only taking a couple seconds, in-game. If you think of all the things you could do during an ~6 second turn, the Action part of it is probably about a 1/3rd of that time.

I know that’s not really how the game is necessarily designed, but that’s how the in-game logic breaks down.

So it’s more about if one can realistically identify a spell in about a second (I don’t think anyone could intelligibly say Klaatu Verata Nikto one time in a second, assuming that’s what would be needed for V components), in order to decide, and cast, Counterspell before the target casting is over.

Plus, RAW, it’s not the words themselves, but specific pitch and resonance that’s needed, so you could have different casters using different words (not to mention in different languages) to cast the spells, which makes it all the more difficult to identify the spell in about that second.

[Sorinth]

In terms of a spell cast as an Action, it’s probably only taking a couple seconds, in-game. If you think of all the things you could do during an ~6 second turn, the Action part of it is probably about a 1/3rd of that time.

I know that’s not really how the game is necessarily designed, but that’s how the in-game logic breaks down.

So it’s more about if one can realistically identify a spell in about a second (I don’t think anyone could intelligibly say Klaatu Verata Nikto one time in a second, assuming that’s what would be needed for V components), in order to decide, and cast, Counterspell before the target casting is over.

Plus, RAW, it’s not the words themselves, but specific pitch and resonance that’s needed, so you could have different casters using different words (not to mention in different languages) to cast the spells, which makes it all the more difficult to identify the spell in about that second.

I'm not sure the action takes 2s is in anyway RAW or even RAI. A fighter isn't spending 2s attacking, 2s moving, and 2s doing nothing because they didn't have a BA to use that turn. They are attacking and moving at the same time which is why they can split their attacks in the middle of the movement, so the action is pretty much the full 6s. And I don't see why a spellcaster couldn't also be seen to be moving while casting. And nobody is spending 2s doing nothing because they lack a BA.

In the end it all comes down to how particular the V and S components are. If the difference between summon demon and fey is Klaatu Verata Nikto and Klaatu Verata Niktai then yeah it's going to be hard to identify the spell before it's too late, if Klaatu is only ever used for summon demons then it's going to be a lot quicker to identify.

But anyways the point is more you can't really apply logic, because there's no real foundation to draw any conclusions from.

[LudicSavant]

Under that Xanathar's rule, you don't need to counterspell blind, you can just have someone other than the counterspeller identify the spell.

Personally, I don't like the rule at all, for several reasons, not the least of which being that if I see someone pull out the material components of a Fireball spell, I instantly know what spell they're casting OOC, and I didn't study magic for 80 years.

[JackPhoenix]

There is a way to use this, though. Have one person identify the spell, and shout it out. Someone else casts Counterspell if it's worth Counterspelling.

How often do you feel the need to identify what spell is being cast during your turn so it can be Counterspelled? Because you can't shout out what's going on when it's not your turn.

So dropping Fog Cloud on a group of archers will actually increase their accuracy at long range.

Assuming, of course, they are shooting into the right area at all.

[RSP]

I'm not sure the action takes 2s is in anyway RAW or even RAI. …They are attacking and moving at the same time which is why they can split their attacks in the middle of the movement, so the action is pretty much the full 6s. And I don't see why a spellcaster couldn't also be seen to be moving while casting. And nobody is spending 2s doing nothing because they lack a BA.

Never said it was either RAW or RAI.

What I said was it appears that way using in-game logic.

A fighter cannot be moving and doing their attack at the same time if they’re moving their full speed to get to the target. I really don’t see how its logical to say “okay you attack the target that’s 30’ away from you with your longsword.” The attack begins when they’re within their weapon’s Reach, or their final position of attack (for instance, if using the variant flanking rule, the attack wouldn’t be until the character got into appropriate position to get Advantage).

Likewise, consider a Wizard having to swim and cast a spell with V and S components: they couldn’t swim and cast at the same time.

Or if the character knew another caster had Counterspell and needed to move 30’ to get behind full cover before starting to cast so as not to be seen (thereby preventing Counterspell). If they start casting while moving, then they’re Counterspell-able.

So if you take the full amount of possible stuff in a turn, (I’m sure optimizers can come up with better) for instance a Multiclass Fighter/Sorcerer could use their BA on a spell, then their Action on a spell, then Action Surge for an additional spell, and move 35’ (Wood Elf) to full cover before any casting. That’s 3 spells and separate moving during ~6 seconds. Let’s say it takes 2 seconds to move 35’. That means the 1 Action casting time takes less than 2 seconds, in order to also fit in the swifter BA spell.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I guess anything where decisions can happen to impact the result after you've seen the results of the dice roll or determined success or failure. Start with Divine Smite and Inspiration Dice and work your way along to Shield Spell and now Silvery Barbs. I'm sure it's a really long list at this point.
To me all of these things would require time to back up a bit then have the user apply the ability, then get time going again. If I were designing a game you'd have to apply these sorts of things pre-roll. I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I lose a little suspension of disbelief every time this happens... and the game loses a little flow.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I guess anything where decisions can happen to impact the result after you've seen the results of the dice roll or determined success or failure. Start with Divine Smite and Inspiration Dice and work your way along to Shield Spell and now Silvery Barbs. I'm sure it's a really long list at this point.
To me all of these things would require time to back up a bit then have the user apply the ability, then get time going again. If I were designing a game you'd have to apply these sorts of things pre-roll. I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I lose a little suspension of disbelief every time this happens... and the game loses a little flow.

I see those things as artifacts of atomic(ish) actions. During action resolution, the in-game universe is paused until the entire thing is fully resolved, including damage. There's no delay between making the attack and dealing the damage in universe, but there's a sequence point in the game layer. Shield, Smite, Inspiration Dice, etc are happening (in the fiction) during the attack, but act as interrupts inside the resolution sequence in game.

Even shield isn't actually a-temporal; it's just last second. In fiction, the rock would have hit, except that at the last second <magibabble> happened, which deflected it. The attack roll itself has no meaning until the whole action (not the formal Action, but including interrupts) resolves; time is paused.

Basically, as soon as you try to get time resolutions more precise than 6 seconds (an entire round), you cause yourself absurdity. That's what happens when you break abstractions and go below the resolution of the system. Just like if you get too close to a screen or picture, you can no longer see the image but just a bunch of dots.

[Keravath]

1) I too have also always played counterspell so that the caster doesn't know what spell they are countering.

2) If you want a rule that really doesn't make sense - it would have to be the mess they have made of the rules for heavily obscured and darkness.

"A heavily obscured area-such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage-blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A) when trying to see something in that area."

"Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness."

These work fine if everything is dark. It also works fine if you are trying to see something inside a darkened area.

In these cases, natural darkness blocks vision entirely as described in the text.

However, natural darkness does not behave the same as opaque fog or dense foliage when viewing something on the other side of it or when looking out of a darkened area. In the real world, you can see through natural darkness to lighted areas - you can NOT see through opaque fog or dense foliage.

Something that blocks vision entirely, blocks vision into it, out of it and through it from one side to the other. This is a good description for opaque fog, dense foliage and magical darkness (since the Darkness spell contains the additional rider that it blocks Darkvision entirely). However, it breaks most people's concept of reality with natural darkness and I don't know anyone who plays it this way.

So - I would say that the RAW for natural darkness really doesn't make much sense. :)

[Naanomi]

I like to use passive skills a lot so... I allow 'passive arcana' to recognize some spells being cast without taking an action to do so

The rules over the distinctions between attacks with a weapon and weapon attacks and the like lead to some silly situations sometimes

[Keravath]

Under that Xanathar's rule, you don't need to counterspell blind, you can just have someone other than the counterspeller identify the spell.

Personally, I don't like the rule at all, for several reasons, not the least of which being that if I see someone pull out the material components of a Fireball spell, I instantly know what spell they're casting OOC, and I didn't study magic for 80 years.

Then I'd be sure to ostentatiously pull out my little piece of bat guano every time I cast firebolt :) since I know everyone else will waste a counterspell just because I pulled out an irrelevant material component. :)

There is more to identifying what spell is being cast than just seeing a particular material component.

In addition, it is never stated that the V,S,M components for any spell are identical for every different person casting the spell. There could be multiple variations on these components that all work fine for casting the spell. A wrist flick to the right or left might both work, different types of bat guano might work, it might even work with refined bat guano, alternatively the intonation and sounds may differ somewhat because everyone's voice is different.

Does a particularly high or low pitched verbal spell component mean that some folks can't cast that spell? Or are the components flexible enough that minor modifications to suit the individual all work? These are obviously world building questions which 5e doesn't answer but it also doesn't state that every spell uses identical components so identifying a spell might be expected to require some work and time.

[Gtdead]

I'll just repeat what I said in another post.

You don't need to know what you are counterspelling. The only thing you need to know is that you took a turn away from an enemy spellcaster. If the enemy CR12 Archmage tries to juke you with a cantrip or gets counterspelled, then he instantly transforms into a CR4 monster which can't really survive the party's damage.

That's like saying "oh, I can't stun strike the spellcaster because I don't know what he is going to cast". Xanathar's rule has zero effect on the spell's functionality. It only alienates players that want their their cake whole while eating it too and it lowkey triggers players (including myself) that think it should be easy to identify spells for a learned caster, which is my second point.

In MMOs, I can accurately guess the spell based on circumstance and animation, even if the animation is similar between various spells, and I can also do that for multiple enemies although I have to think proactively. This is a process that happens in a split second and comes naturally with experience and knowledge.

By the same logic, I can't for the life of me understand how an educated wizard with high arcana skill can't instantly determine what spells are being cast or the school at the very least. Most of the time I, as a player using meta knowledge, can guess the intentions of an enemy spellcaster, even without sensory information. Being able to see the material components, hearing the incantations etc should be enough info for an identification.

[Darth Credence]

I'll just repeat what I said in another post.

You don't need to know what you are counterspelling. The only thing you need to know is that you took a turn away from an enemy spellcaster. If the enemy CR12 Archmage tries to juke you with a cantrip or gets counterspelled, then he instantly transforms into a CR4 monster which can't really survive the party's damage.

Two level 20 wizards are battling each other. The one with initiative casts a spell. The other counterspells, because it will take their turn away. First wizard begins to cast their second spell, and a blade shaped planar rift appears in front of the second, which proceeds to hit it twice, doing a total of 8d12 damage, taking away about half their HP.

Turns out, the first spell was a cantrip, because why not send out a firebolt cantrip before casting blade of disaster for their bonus action? Would have been better to have counterspelled the 9th level than the cantrip, right? No juking, no metagaming, just how someone would actually cast a bonus action spell and a cantrip in the same turn, and with only one counterspell, they don't lose a turn. Would have been better off with shield.

[LudicSavant]

Then I'd be sure to ostentatiously pull out my little piece of bat guano every time I cast firebolt :)

Sure. Then you just have to...
- Use your object interaction to draw that.
- Be in a situation where people are prepared to blow midlevel slots on you this turn, but you don't need to do anything more than cast Firebolt at them.
- Inform the DM of what spell you're casting, but not let that influence how the target responds at all. Otherwise, instead of actually being bluffed, the person has to determine whether or not their character would be bluffed, then *pretend* to be bluffed, and decide how many resources they would waste as a result of being bluffed.
- Avoid describing/flavoring the spellcasting process in an evocative and potentially recognizable way, which might affect the fun or thematics of the game for some.
- Hope none of the people other than the counterspeller are using their Reactions to identify what you're doing.
- Have nothing in your hands (since you need one hand for the guano, another for the Fire Bolt somatic component)
- Have nobody notice that you're doing something totally different with your other hand.
- Resolve an attempt at deception by some means or another.

In addition, it is never stated that the V,S,M components for any spell are identical for every different person casting the spell. There could be multiple variations on these components that all work fine for casting the spell. A wrist flick to the right or left might both work, different types of bat guano might work, it might even work with refined bat guano, alternatively the intonation and sounds may differ somewhat because everyone's voice is different.

Certainly. And that may or may not be the case.

When it is, however, if people evocatively describe their casting in a flavorful way, I can sometimes guess what they're casting, with access to significantly less information than an in-world observer would have (let alone one who actually studied magic). Not all the time, but definitely a non-zero percentage of the time.

And if there's not evocative and flavorful roleplaying description and it's just "guy is casting a spell, do you react?" then I have an entirely different reason to be annoyed.

Either way I find the rule unsatisfying and inelegant. And again, it hasn't actually stopped me from identifying and countering spells. I just have people other than the counterspeller take the knowledge skills and identify the spell. So if indeed the intent, as it is sometimes hypothesized, is to make everyone be blind countering... well, it doesn't fulfill that intent, let alone elegantly.

I can accurately guess the spell based on circumstance and animation, even if the animation is similar between various spells, and I can also do that for multiple enemies although I have to think proactively. This is a process that happens in a split second and comes naturally with experience and knowledge.

By the same logic, I can't for the life of me understand how an educated wizard with high arcana skill can't instantly determine what spells are being cast or the school at the very least. Most of the time I, as a player using meta knowledge, can guess the intentions of an enemy spellcaster, even without sensory information. Being able to see the material components, hearing the incantations etc should be enough info for an identification.

Yeah. You basically would have to contrive the system of casting to be as vague as possible from a sensory-information perspective... more vague than it is generally described in actual D&D lore! And even then, like you say, you can sometimes guess with no sensory information at all.

And that's decidedly without being a person who has dedicated their entire higher education to the mastery of magic, or made a living hunting down rogue sorcerers, or whatever.

[Tanarii]

2) If you want a rule that really doesn't make sense - it would have to be the mess they have made of the rules for heavily obscured and darkness.

Agreed. That's probably the biggest "doesn't make sense" mess in the rules.

In addition, it is never stated that the V,S,M components for any spell are identical for every different person casting the spell. There could be multiple variations on these components that all work fine for casting the spell. A wrist flick to the right or left might both work, different types of bat guano might work, it might even work with refined bat guano, alternatively the intonation and sounds may differ somewhat because everyone's voice is different.

Does a particularly high or low pitched verbal spell component mean that some folks can't cast that spell? Or are the components flexible enough that minor modifications to suit the individual all work? These are obviously world building questions which 5e doesn't answer but it also doesn't state that every spell uses identical components so identifying a spell might be expected to require some work and time.

Not only might they be individual for the individual involved, but they might be uniquely different each time the same individual is casting the spell depending on the parameters. And of course, M components being used instead of a generic focus is important. Being able to identify a spell at all was a major addition with Xanathar's, assuming a DM uses the rule.

---------

It is worth noting under the Xan rule you can't fool Counterspell by pulling out the wrong M component for a spell, or waving around a focus when it's not needed, or even faking V and S components that are valid. Counterspell requires a spell to actual be cast to use, and an foci used as an M component by a sorcerer with subtle spell to cast a spell is different/identifiable from one just holding it. So faking a spell (even under the PHB rules), or a different spell from the one actually being cast (under the Xan rules), isn't possible.

[Gtdead]

Two level 20 wizards are battling each other. The one with initiative casts a spell. The other counterspells, because it will take their turn away. First wizard begins to cast their second spell, and a blade shaped planar rift appears in front of the second, which proceeds to hit it twice, doing a total of 8d12 damage, taking away about half their HP.

Turns out, the first spell was a cantrip, because why not send out a firebolt cantrip before casting blade of disaster for their bonus action? Would have been better to have counterspelled the 9th level than the cantrip, right? No juking, no metagaming, just how someone would actually cast a bonus action spell and a cantrip in the same turn, and with only one counterspell, they don't lose a turn. Would have been better off with shield.

Out of the two most popular ways to sidestep counterspell, one being outranging it and the other being just casting whatever you want and counterspelling the counterspell, the initiative winning Wizard decided to use a level 9 slot to cast.. Blade of Disaster? And that's an argument against a blind counterspell? This could only be good when operating under the assumption that the duel happens in a 30ft radius arena. In other scenarios, the second wizard just moves out of range and Shapechanges.

Counterspell doesn't work in duels anyway. You can counterspell the counterspell unless you engineer it. For example the initiative winning Wizard can Shapechange into a Marilith (who has reactive), while counterspelling the Counterspell, then counterspell the next spell since the enemy wizard doesn't have any reactions left (tongue twister ^^). If the initiative losing Wizard tries to shield he has instantly lost at this point.

[Hytheter]

There is a way to use this, though. Have one person identify the spell, and shout it out. Someone else casts Counterspell if it's worth Counterspelling.

Under that Xanathar's rule, you don't need to counterspell blind, you can just have someone other than the counterspeller identify the spell.

To me it makes little sense to allow this rather than just let one guy tackle the whole process themselves. If the argument is supposed to be that there isn't enough time to both identify and counter a spell in the casting window, there's no way an extra 'explain the spell to another person' step will fit in there.

[Tanarii]

To me it makes little sense to allow this rather than just let one guy tackle the whole process themselves. If the argument is supposed to be that there isn't enough time to both identify and counter a spell in the casting window, there's no way an extra 'explain the spell to another person' step will fit in there.

It also doesn't work. You can only speak on your turn.

OTOH that rule itself might be one that's worth debating if it makes sense.

[Pex]

Okay, fine, bad example. What are some that dont make sense?

No, it's not a bad example. Before there was a rule to identify a spell being cast the same people telling you it's a bad example were cheering there wasn't and yelling at me for wanting there to be one. Counterspell was supposed to be blind use. By adding a rule to identify a spell being cast the developers chose to keep Counterspell as a blind use. To do that they made identifying a spell a reaction. They believe knowing the spell before Counterspell made the spell too strong. They want the caster not knowing if he's countering Fireball or Fire Bolt. You have every right to disagree with that decision.

To get around the rule is to have party cooperation. One player uses his reaction to identify the spell. The other player uses his reaction to Counterspell if he deems it's worth it. It is a high cost of two players' reactions. It is up to the players if that is worth the cost to counter the enemy spell. Depending on combat circumstances and the spell in question it could very well be worth it. Using your reaction is not an atrocity. A reaction is simply an action economy resource. Plenty of things use a reaction, and you are not doing anything wrong choosing to spend your reaction on one thing instead of another. If identifying a spell so another player can Counterspell is worth doing for you then you are using your reaction wisely.

That said, you are still free and clear to think identifying a spell should not cost a reaction. Depending on your DM it may not matter. Some DMs freely announce the spell the bad guy is casting as it is happening and have no problem whatsoever with a player choosing to Counterspell or not because of it. DMs were doing that before the official rule of identifying a spell existed. The DM is not wrong doing it this way. The DM is also not wrong not doing it this way, just saying a spell is cast and let the player decide to Counterspell or not before applying the effects. If Counterspelling will be a significant thing for your character to do it is best to discuss with your DM how he will handle it.

[Khrysaes]

So this thread got derailed.

Rather than arguing whether blind counterspells vs identifying spells as a reaction make sense, which they PERSONALLY do not, but I can understand it as a decision game design-wise,

I was more interested in learning other mechanics that I may not be thinking of, didn't know, or forgot, about that don't make sense to other people.

So please stop arguing if counterspell makes sense or not. I used it as an example because personally it doesn't make sense to me.

How about this. The cantrip true strike.

Use an action to gain advantage on the next attack, usually the next round. Vs use an action to attack twice, rolling the same number of dice and having the same chance to hit, but having a chance of doing more damage.

[Dualight]

I suspect that the current version of true strike is the result of (probably overzealous) nerfing, as I know that it was a spell worth using in some earlier edition(s)(but this is all I know on the topic), but someone with more knowledge of that spell's history will be needed to confirm or reject this speculation of mine.
As it stands, 5e true strike is extremely situational. I think an Arcane Trickster rogue who cannot safely get into position to (Sneak)attack on one turn, but will be able to on the next could make use of it to generate the advantage for Sneak Attack on that next turn, but it is not a cantrip I have ever (seen) used.

[Azuresun]

I quite liked the rule that the Goblin Boss can use a reaction to make another goblin take a hit for them. But it doesn't specify that the goblin has to be on the same side as the Boss.

So if one of your PC's is playing a goblin, you now have a way to make them throw dice at you!