Counter spell. Do you know what they are casting

[Whit]

When an opponent is casting a spell, , what is the rule on knowing what they are casting to use counter spell or not?

[Ganryu]

Nope. You cast counterspell as they are casting the spell, before its cast.

[nickl_2000]

According to Xanathar's Guide it requires a reaction with a skill check to know what spell is being cast. It also requires a reaction to cast counterspell.

The best way I've seen it is to have multiple people. One tried to identify spells while the other counterspells. Since talking is free there is nothing stopping Player One from shouting "He's casting fireball, stop him, stop him now before he makes us all burn!" and Player 2 casting counterspell.

[Callak_Remier]

Too be honest the Identifying spells as they are Cast rules are kinda garbage.

I started working on a system for a better experience. Namely if the spell is on your spell list you know it when cast.

With some added bonuses for each class.

For example Clerics would know what the spells cast by "unnamed fiends" whose CR is lower than thier Cleric level.

Paladin's would know what the spells cast by "unnamed fiends" whose CR is lower than Half thier Paladin level.

I haven't 100% ironed it out but I have a start.

[Pex]

The bad guys always know what spell the PCs cast because the DM has to know. The DM can try not to metagame it, but he always has the excuse of particular bad guys being geniuses. In the name of fairness the players should know, no roll needed. Call it gamist all you want, but it is a roleplaying game. The game aspect will make itself known. This is one of those times.

No question this is not the rule. Before Xanathar there was no rule. Xanathar has a rule. I'm glad the rule concept exists, but I don't care for the implementation. I don't object to there being a roll. It shouldn't have cost a reaction.

[micahaphone]

The bad guys always know what spell the PCs cast because the DM has to know. The DM can try not to metagame it, but he always has the excuse of particular bad guys being geniuses. In the name of fairness the players should know, no roll needed. Call it gamist all you want, but it is a roleplaying game. The game aspect will make itself known. This is one of those times.

No question this is not the rule. Before Xanathar there was no rule. Xanathar has a rule. I'm glad the rule concept exists, but I don't care for the implementation. I don't object to there being a roll. It shouldn't have cost a reaction.

I agree that an arcana check sans reaction is okay, but the DM doesn't necessarily know what spell the player is casting, the player can say "I cast a spell, I cast X", giving the DM time to counterspell if they want. Slows down the game but if you care about that bit, worth it for fights with spellcasters.

[Spiritchaser]

I don’t currently use the Xanathar’s rule in my campaigns , it messes up the flow. It’s much cleaner to say that the opposition casts a fireball and have the dogpile of reactions, rather than detail the spell casting, wait for a few moments, then move on to the Narration of effects. This could get super annoying with 3 or 4 casters unleashing all manner of chaos on the party. Plus I know what the party is casting... may as well keep it even.

I’m aware that this reduces combat complexity, and possibly eliminates some cool bluffing options so I CAN imagine running a campaign with some of rules as written, especially with a bunch of experienced players who like that sort of thing, but... neither of the campaigns I’m currently running would really benefit.

That said, I’d likely never require a reaction to make the spell ID roll.

[stoutstien]

I currently use a double blind system to keep it honest. So if a player casts a spell, I as the NPC must decide to CS prior to knowing the spell and slot.

[nickl_2000]

I currently use a double blind system to keep it honest. So if a player casts a spell, I as the NPC must decide to CS prior to knowing the spell and slot.

When we are fighting caster our table general says "I am casting a spell" then looks pointedly at the DM. If there is no response within 2 seconds we say what it is and resolve it.

[Sigreid]

The bad guys always know what spell the PCs cast because the DM has to know. The DM can try not to metagame it, but he always has the excuse of particular bad guys being geniuses. In the name of fairness the players should know, no roll needed. Call it gamist all you want, but it is a roleplaying game. The game aspect will make itself known. This is one of those times.

No question this is not the rule. Before Xanathar there was no rule. Xanathar has a rule. I'm glad the rule concept exists, but I don't care for the implementation. I don't object to there being a roll. It shouldn't have cost a reaction.

For me, if the npc is the type to counterspell, they do it every time they have the opportunity.

[Telwar]

You may have a *little* more information available, depending on what they've done in the encounter so far, and how much attention the player has been paying.

For example, if they've taken an action of any sort already, it's pretty obvious that the spell they're casting is going to be a Bonus Action spell, like, say, Healing Word.


There's also a possibility for a Passive version of an Arcana check, just as Perception and Investigate have passive uses. "That goblin is making the Mudra of the Fruitbat...he's casting Fireball!" Granted, that means the wizard is going to auto-succeed, and maybe a Lore bard, too, but I don't really have a particular problem with that. Granted, this would be a house rule, of course.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Too be honest the Identifying spells as they are Cast rules are kinda garbage.

I started working on a system for a better experience. Namely if the spell is on your spell list you know it when cast.

With some added bonuses for each class.

For example Clerics would know what the spells cast by "unnamed fiends" whose CR is lower than thier Cleric level.

Paladin's would know what the spells cast by "unnamed fiends" whose CR is lower than Half thier Paladin level.

I haven't 100% ironed it out but I have a start.

This is similar to how we do it at our table, with the added provision that casters can identify spells they've seen cast previously. So if someone in our party gets targeted with a spell once, and our Wizard sees it being cast, he'll know what it looks like the next time around and he can decide whether to counterspell it.

[Kane0]

If you're playing without the Xanathar's optional rule, ask your DM.
If you're playing with the Xanathar's optional rule, you have to use your reaction to identify the spell and so you can't use your reaction to cast counterspell.

[Segev]

I assume nobody knows. This makes legendary saves way better than Counterspell. My NPCs just have priorities based on what kind of caster they see. The elf wizard got his Entangle (from a wand) Counterspelled because the red wizard saw a wand pointed at him and his bodyguards and assumed he didn’t want that to happen.

[Lord Vukodlak]

For me, if the npc is the type to counterspell, they do it every time they have the opportunity.

That makes things easy.
PC1:I cast light
NPC:Counterspell
PC2:I cast x spell that's actually meaningful to the encounter

The bad guys always know what spell the PCs cast because the DM has to know. The DM can try not to metagame it, but he always has the excuse of particular bad guys being geniuses. In the name of fairness the players should know, no roll needed. Call it gamist all you want, but it is a roleplaying game. The game aspect will make itself known. This is one of those times.

Agreed, as the DM I always know so in the interest of fairness the PC's should always know to. As one guy at me group summed up. "Finding out you wasted your counterspell on something trivial is not fun, knowing you saved the party from a world of hurt is."

[Sigreid]

That makes things easy.
PC1:I cast light
NPC:Counterspell
PC2:I cast x spell that's actually meaningful to the encounter

And that's the chess game of counter spell isn't it?

[Keravath]

I assume nobody knows. This makes legendary saves way better than Counterspell. My NPCs just have priorities based on what kind of caster they see. The elf wizard got his Entangle (from a wand) Counterspelled because the red wizard saw a wand pointed at him and his bodyguards and assumed he didn’t want that to happen.

A DM can play however they like but RAW you can't counterspell a spell from a wand or other magic item.

"Casting Time: I reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell"

You have to see the spell being cast. Someone holding a wand does not tell you that there is a spell being cast.

DMG p141
"SPELLS
Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell level, doesn't expend any of the user's spell slots, and requires no components, unless the item's description says otherwise."

Casting a spell from an item requires no components. No verbal, somatic or material components, except holding it if the item description says so. Unless the item description says otherwise you don't need to point, gesture, wave or say a command word when casting a spell from a magic item - there is no indication that a spell is being cast. As a result, RAW, you can't counterspell a wand or spell cast from a magic item because there is nothing to see other than a character holding an item. The person wishing to use counterspell has no idea when or if a spell is being cast from a magic item and so there is nothing to trigger counterspell.

As mentioned, DMs are welcome to run it however they like though.

P.S. To the OP, in general, you don't know the spell being cast. At the tables I've played at, both the DM and the players just say "I am casting a spell" and wait for a second to allow someone to speak up with a counterspell before saying what spell they are casting. If folks have a habit of changing their mind about which spell is being cast after hearing whether it is being counterspelled or not (i.e. cheating) then we'll have them write it down.

P.P.S. There are rules in Xanathar's about identifying spells that are pretty reasonable. However, how easy a spell is to identify depends on how the DM interprets magic in their games.
For example, a DM might rule that every casting of the same spell by anyone has exactly the same verbal, somatic and material components. As a result, if you see a particular item, gesture or sound then you might immediately know what spell is being cast. For DMs who interpret spells this way then it makes sense for them to be easily identifiable without requiring a reaction since everyone has to do the same thing and it becomes pretty easy to determine whether a spell is a fireball or a firebolt. On the other hand, other DMs (myself included) tend to think of the components of magic spells NOT being exactly the same for every character. The text in the book talks about both individual notations on spells and conducting spell research to learn new spells (the free two a wizard gets every level). If you are researching spells then it is possible that the components might be similar for the same spell but not exactly identical. As a result, it isn't immediately obvious whether a spell caster is casting a fireball or firebolt and you need to use an arcana skill check and some time to figure out exactly which spell is being cast. In this sort of system the Xanathar's guide approach makes sense since what spell is being cast is not immediately obvious because the spell components vary somewhat between casters of the exact same spell. Anyway, whatever way the DM wants to run it, identifying spells depends on the DMs discretion.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

RAW you need someone else to use his reaction to identify the spell.

In my table you get an Archana check for free if you have the spell in your class list.
If you know the spell I make it an auto success or a -5 to DC in special cases.

In some places I will give them a check for free even if the spell is not in the player class list.
Stuff like backstory explanation/iconic race spells/some other story reason/when it will be more fun for everyone.

My NPCs also get a free roll using the same rules for PCs.
Some of them have the special feature of "always know spell" but they are very rare (like the head of the wizard college or the super old Lich).

[NaughtyTiger]

For 4 years, we all ran it with you know what is being cast... and it worked great.
Only had a couple DM play that we didn't know...
and those DMs generally enjoyed a player vs DM game...

RAW you need someone else to use his reaction to identify the spell.

RAW if the DM is using the optional rule from Xanthars.

[Sigreid]

For 4 years, we all ran it with you know what is being cast... and it worked great.
Only had a couple DM play that we didn't know...
and those DMs generally enjoyed a player vs DM game...


RAW if the DM is using the optional rule from Xanthars.

As someone pointed out up thread, depending on how the DM plays the NPC it can actual be an advantage for the party I'd you dont know.

[Brookshw]

RAW if the DM is using the optional rule from Xanthars.

Don't have my copy handy, is it described as an optional rule therein, or are you saying it's optional because its not in core?

[NaughtyTiger]

As someone pointed out up thread, depending on how the DM plays the NPC it can actual be an advantage for the party I'd you dont know.

yeah, i read sigreid's post. what does that have to do with my experience?

Don't have my copy handy, is it described as an optional rule therein, or are you saying it's optional because its not in core?

it is optional because XGE says

this book offers options to enhance campaigns...
The options here build on the official rules...
Nothing herein is required for a D&D campaign - this is not a fourth core rulebook

[Sigreid]

yeah, i read sigreid's post. what does that have to do with my experience?

It's that depending on how fair the DM actually is, neither side knowing what the other is casting is actually an additional tool for the party to leverage rather than the DM being an adversarial prick.

[NaughtyTiger]

It's that depending on how fair the DM actually is, neither side knowing what the other is casting is actually an additional tool for the party to leverage rather than the DM being an adversarial prick.

agreed. in my experience, the 2 DMs did that were explicitly adversarial pricks. nowhere did i say that all DMs were APs. nowhere did i reference your post to suggest/imply/hint that you were an AP.

personally, i like the idea of identifying a spell, but

• it is too clunky,
• shuts down a whole feature of war mage, and
• counterspell is fairly limited anyway

[Sigreid]

agreed. in my experience, the 2 DMs did that were explicitly adversarial pricks. nowhere did i say that all DMs were. nowhere did i reference your post to suggest/imply/hint that you were.

personally, i like the idea of identifying a spell, but

• it is too clunky,
• shuts down a whole feature of war mage, and
• counterspell is fairly limited anyway

I wasnt offended, just concerned I'd not communicated well.

[Segev]

A DM can play however they like but RAW you can't counterspell a spell from a wand or other magic item.

"Casting Time: I reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell"

You have to see the spell being cast. Someone holding a wand does not tell you that there is a spell being cast.

DMG p141
"SPELLS
Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell level, doesn't expend any of the user's spell slots, and requires no components, unless the item's description says otherwise."

Casting a spell from an item requires no components. No verbal, somatic or material components, except holding it if the item description says so. Unless the item description says otherwise you don't need to point, gesture, wave or say a command word when casting a spell from a magic item - there is no indication that a spell is being cast. As a result, RAW, you can't counterspell a wand or spell cast from a magic item because there is nothing to see other than a character holding an item. The person wishing to use counterspell has no idea when or if a spell is being cast from a magic item and so there is nothing to trigger counterspell.

As mentioned, DMs are welcome to run it however they like though.

In 3e, I'd have agreed that anything that says you're counterspelling another character CASTING a spell doesn't work. But in 5e, all those items specify that they let you cast the spell. I know your actual point is on whether the caster can "see" the other caster doing it, but I wanted to point that part out, first. Using a wand lets the user cast the spell(s) in the wand.

I could argue the need for gestures or words, but in this particular case, at least. the wand of entangle does require pointing it at the targets, and so as soon as the wizard (who I'd already decided was counterspelling whatever the obvious PC wizard was going to try that round) saw the obvious PC wizard pointing a wand, he counterspelled it. That was the sum total of my logic. (Well, that, and double-checking that 5e wands have the same wording as other magic items: i.e. "This item lets you cast XYZ spell.")

[Kane0]

This is the bickering I missed. You really don't appreciate what you have until it's gone.

[MagneticKitty]

As stated you don't get to know for free.
What I normally do is tell them the enemy starts casting. Wait 15 seconds. If they didn't counter spell they lost their opportunity.

Optionally, (homebrew not raw)
If the caster knows the spell themselves you could tell them "you recognize the motions/verbal for spellname"
Optionally if it's on their spell list but they didn't take it you might give them a free casting roll to identify it

[Kane0]

I don't think it's been stated enough, but the Xanathar's rule that uses your reaction to attempt to recognize the spell is optional. It's pointed out as optional in the book it comes from, which is not a core rulebook and came out three years after the PHB and DMG.

And that optional rule is about as good as DMG flanking is. In my opinion.

[Brookshw]

it is optional because XGE says

Ah, thank you.