this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
50 points (96.3% liked)

Dungeons and Dragons

11090 readers
113 users here now

A community for discussion of all things Dungeons and Dragons! This is the catch all community for anything relating to Dungeons and Dragons, though we encourage you to see out our Networked Communities listed below!

/c/DnD Network Communities

Other DnD and related Communities to follow*

DnD/RPG Podcasts

*Please Follow the rules of these individual communities, not all of them are strictly DnD related, but may be of interest to DnD Fans

Rules (Subject to Change)

Format: [Source Name] Article Title

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Just a note in case anyone is worried I’m adding a mage to every encounter, I very rarely use counterspell against my players; it’s one of the spells I consider to have high “fun-ruining” potential.

I’m struggling a bit to decide on how to handle this interaction in a way that feels fair. From my understanding RAW, a character doesn’t know what spell is being cast. I think you can use your reaction to make an arcana check to discern it, but of course then you can’t counterspell it. For enemy spellcasters I generally describe what’s being cast, instead of naming the spell right away, but it can slow combat down, and is a bit one-sided since when a player casts a spell they lead with “I cast X”. This leads to an imbalance where I’m aware of what’s needed to counterspell something while the players are not, and can cause some awkwardness trying to decide how to play around that without metagaming.

I can think of a few different ways to handle this, each with its own drawbacks, but I’m curious to hear what y’all do at your tables!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] micka190 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So, RAW here is how a round with a spell is supposed to work:

  1. Character A announces that they are casting a spell. The name of the spell, and other information such as its level are not mentioned.
  2. There is a short pause to allow someone to use a Reaction.
  3. If no one uses a Reaction, Character A either rolls or tells people what they need to roll.
    • Side note: This is where someone could technically cheat by changing their spell slot level, and is one of the many reasons why Counterspell is a terribly-designed spell.
  4. After this roll (and any effect that would apply to those rolls), Character A describes the effect and can optionally state what the spell was:

You all take 36 Fire damage, as an explosion of flame blooms at your feet from my character's 6th-level Fireball.

RAW, Counterspell would occur during that second step. The creature that casts it has no idea what the spell they're countering is, beyond context clues (i.e. they've seen that armored spell caster has been casting spells that heal their allies earlier).

As you said, there are rules to identify a spell. They were added by either Tasha's Cauldron of Everything or Xanathar's Guide to Everything. A character can use their Reaction to identify the spell. This usually means you'll need 2 spellcasters working in conjunction for Counterspell to work with an identified spell.


As for how I run it at my table: I don't. I really don't like it. It's anti-fun, and the awkward pause and wording that's required to cast spells in case someone wants to counter it. There's some equally awkward metagaming thats required if someone accidentally blurts out the name of the spell, and it plays really poorly with how most VTT software handles spells (most just spit them out in the chat for everyone to see). It is just so un-fun that I just ban the spell outright at my table and it makes everything much simpler.

Having said that, if I do play at a table where it isn't banned, we usually go about it as I described above. The Reaction needed to identify the spell is an intentional design decision to prevent spellcasters from identifying every spell cast their way before deciding to counter them, and needing 2 spellcasters to work together to "cleanly" cast it is perfectly fine, in my opinion. Spellcasters are already bonkers in this game, there's no reason to empower them further by letting them save-up their Counterspells until they're absolutely critical.

It's just important that every player is on the same page and doesn't blurt-out their spell names whenever they cast a spell.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA 5 points 1 year ago

I like giving all my spells new names (for example, I was playing a cleric who worshipped the god of bees. Cause light wounds was "sting" in my spellbook) if the dm is down with it. Gives that layer of abstraction and lets me add flavor.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah from what I know it's one of the more commonly banned spells. Personally I just don’t like the idea of banning published content. Making an effort to keep things mysterious until the spell is actually taking effect is a bit cleaner of a solution, and I do like the teamwork aspect of a RAW spell identification + counterspell