29
\$\begingroup\$

Counterspell
1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell.

Can I Counterspell a creature that completely eliminates component requirement?

Subtle Spell
When you cast a spell, you can spend 1 sorcery point to cast it without any somatic or verbal components.

If the spell is subtle then can I see it’s being cast in order to counterspell it?

Improve this question
\$\endgroup\$
0

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
40
\$\begingroup\$

No, you can't counterspell spells with no components

Subtle spell is meant to protect against counterspelling. See this unofficial ruling from Jeremy Crawford:

Subtle Spell is meant to protect a spell w/o material components from counterspell, since you can't see the casting.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
4
  • \$\begingroup\$ Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk
    May 7, 2018 at 4:11
  • 12
    \$\begingroup\$ I think your answer would be much improved if it referenced the text as well as JC. From XGE "If the need for a spell’s components has been removed by a special ability, such as the sorcerer’s Subtle Spell feature or the Innate Spellcasting trait possessed by many creatures, the casting of the spell is imperceptible." \$\endgroup\$
    – Rubiksmoose
    May 7, 2018 at 11:19
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ That also means that casting spells from magic items can't be counterspelled… as they don't require any components per the DMG... interesting. \$\endgroup\$
    – Slagmoth
    Jul 22, 2019 at 2:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Slagmoth more reason to use that spell scrolls if there are counterspell-ers on enemy team. \$\endgroup\$
    – Vylix
    Jul 22, 2019 at 4:05
14
\$\begingroup\$

Spells with no components cannot be counterspelled

Counterspell says that it is cast as a reaction

which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell

So a spell must be visibly being cast in order to qualify for counterspelling.

The components of a spell are what make the casting visible since a spell can have no effects (visible or otherwise) until its casting is complete. So removing those components completely will indeed make a spell's casting imperceptible.

This is confirmed by a section of optional guidance in Xanathar's Guide to Everything which says:

If the need for a spell’s components has been removed by a special ability, such as the sorcerer’s Subtle Spell feature or the Innate Spellcasting trait possessed by many creatures, the casting of the spell is imperceptible.

Thus, if using Subtle Spell on a spell would result in it having no components left as part of the casting, that casting would be immune to counterspell. Specifically this works for spells that have no material component. Spells with a material component would still be visible and counterspellable even after using Subtle Spell.

Rules as Intended seem to agree

Jeremy Crawford also unofficially agrees in a Tweet:

Subtle Spell is meant to protect a spell w/o material components from counterspell, since you can't see the casting.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
2
  • \$\begingroup\$ I would, however, read all of this such that any way of sensing the magic's raw arcane power would eliminate that effect, since the spell would be perceivable through that. OTOH, I kinda doubt such an "arcane sense" exists anywhere at all within RAW. \$\endgroup\$
    – Egor Hans
    Feb 15, 2021 at 13:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ I will add that there are spells like Detect Thoughts that would make it possible to Counterspell even if it has been Subtle Spelled. \$\endgroup\$
    – Kyle
    Jun 29 at 0:03

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .