21
\$\begingroup\$

Related to this question about a spellcaster hiding in a group of spellcasters.

The reaction trigger for counterspell is "when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell". It has a range, but no target.

Suppose the Death Eaters all start chanting and waving their wands at once, and I can't tell which of them is really casting the spell. But one of them is a creature casting a spell within 60 feet, and I do see it (because I see them all). Can I counterspell "whoever", or do I have to aim for one of them specifically?

(If you want mechanical details, assume all but one of the mages readied this action: "When any other Death Eater chants and waves their wand, chant and wave my wand." Then one of them started casting a V, S, M spell. Also assume the whole thing isn't a bluff, which would be a different scenario.)

\$\endgroup\$
14
\$\begingroup\$

It depends - is magic obvious or not?

I haven't found anything in the rulebooks to explicitly say it, but it reads to me that casting a spell is obvious. An observer can always tell the difference between someone waving their hands and speaking nonsense, and someone casting a spell.

If it is obvious

"Suppose the Death Eaters all start chanting and waving their wands at once…"

The one Death Eater casting will stand out from the rest. To steal a line from my favourite kids tv show, "One of these things is not like the others."

If it is not obvious

Then counterspell is useless. Swap it for another spell.

Seriously, if magic is not obvious then there is no need to fake anything (and thus no Deception roll needed) - just wave your hands and speak gibberish before and after the casting spell. Observers have no way to tell which is gibberish and which is actual spellcasting, so the couterspeller has to guess at which point in time you start casting the spell.

Player: My sorcerer waves their hands. Any counterspell? No, ok, they wave their hands a bit more. Counterspell? Ok, no, so they do a bit more waving. Counterspell? No? PSYCH! that was the actual spell, the fireball goes off.

I suspect rules interactions like this are why spellcasting is usually considered to be obvious.

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 12
    \$\begingroup\$ "My sorcerer waves their hands. Any counterspell?" That sounds totally fair, so long as faking the spell uses your action (and it should, since casting the spell for real would use your action). Waving your arms ineffectually at an enemy who can cast third-level spells is a pretty high opportunity cost. \$\endgroup\$ – Mark Wells Nov 28 '19 at 0:13
  • 9
    \$\begingroup\$ @GreenstoneWalker To wave your hands in such a way as to convince someone you were casting a spell would take an equal amount of time as casting the spell anyway. So it is fair that it should consume your action, or bonus action, depending on what spell you were pretending to cast. \$\endgroup\$ – linksassin Nov 28 '19 at 2:27
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ I would rule trying to fake someone out by pretending to cast a spell is a deception check, and one that takes as long as the spell you are trying to pretend to cast. since of you tried to fake out and cast a spell in the same round then the real spell is still a valid target for the counterspell. \$\endgroup\$ – John Nov 28 '19 at 5:57
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Note: instead of just waving your hands, you can cast a cantrip. It is actually casting a spell, so no need for deception and a caster cannot both recognize the spell cast and counterspell it. I have actually done just this to "pysche out" an NPC caster. \$\endgroup\$ – Szega Nov 28 '19 at 10:06
11
\$\begingroup\$

Counterspell has a target

You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell.

If only one of the Death Eaters is actually casting a spell and the others just “chant and wave my wand” there is only one creature casting a spell so only one valid target. If the counterspeller can see that target, they can Counterspell. The rules for targeting are:

A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. ("The creature casting the spell")

Beyond that, all that is required is a clear path and, for this particular spell, that you can see the caster. The fact that you can also see other creatures who are not casting a spell is irrelevant.

Alternatively, if all of the Death Eaters are actually casting a spell then they don’t do it at the same time. Obviously, if they each take the Cast a Spell action they will do it sequentially on each of their turns and the Counterspeller will have to decide to Counterspell or not as each trigger happens.

The same is true if each Death Eater takes the Ready action because:

When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but hold its energy ...

The time for Counterspell is when the spell is “cast ... as normal”.

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ "there is only one valid target and Counterspell will find that target." Could you support that spells will automatically find valid targets; that invalid targets are not an option? \$\endgroup\$ – Medix2 Nov 27 '19 at 20:52
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ "The fact that you can also see other creatures who are not casting a spell is irrelevant." - No it isn't given this part that you have quoted: "A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic." - So it's not irrelevant given they may cause you to pick the wrong one which is what the core of this question is, does this setup cause such an 'incorrect pick' to be possible or not. If you think it doesn't it would be good to see some more backing as to why cause currently I reckon your quotes support the opposite stance! \$\endgroup\$ – RyanfaeScotland Dec 2 '19 at 11:46
8
\$\begingroup\$

According to the Counterspell text, the Casting Time is "1 reaction,...

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

In 5e, because of the importance of the action economy, reactions are very strict, and are only allowed under very specific circumstances, as written. In this case, you must see a creature that is casting a spell.

There are several indications in the rule books that spellcasting in and of itself does not present any visible signs in the absence of verbal and somatic components. The sorceror metamagic ability Subtle Spell (PHB p.102) says:

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

If spellcasting activity was innately identifiable despite the absence of these components, then this particular ability wouldn't be very subtle, would it?

Also, in the Spellcasting chapter of the PHB (p. 204) under Targets, we have:

Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature's thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise.

Lastly, according to the Sage Advice Compendium,

If a spell that’s altered by Subtle Spell has no material component, then it’s impossible for anyone to perceive the spell being cast. So, since you can’t see the casting, counterspell is of no use.

So, you must perceive the spellcasting activity. However, since the visible components of spellcasting appear to only be the somatic components themselves (barring any visible effects like a fireball), there is no indication I have found in the rules that there would be any way to distinguish between the caster and someone who cannot cast the spell making the same noises and hand gestures.

By this argument, the OP's question makes sense. It is possible to see someone casting a spell, but not know whether they are actually casting or just acting. That means the real question is

...do I have to aim for one of them specifically?

The spell doesn't use the word "target". However, the first line of the spell says:

You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell.

Since the spell only affects 1 spell being cast, and not an area, it seems straightforward that you would have to specify the creature you intend to interrupt.

So yes, you have to choose.

Now, having said that, if the other creatures aren't casting the same spell but are just acting then, as a DM, I would have them make a deception check to get the moves right to fool you. And that would be easier if you didn't know anything about spellcasting, so the obvious opposing skill roll I would ask for from you would be an Arcana check. If you don't have that skill, I might allow Perception to figure out if one or more of these fellows seem more adept than the others in their movements. Depending on the relative die rolls, you might eliminate some or all of the imposters from contention and improve your odds.

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I think this answers the question and provides good, real-world guidance for how to resolve what is fundamentally a rules-versus-narrative conflict. A DM should always allow for narrative potential that falls outside the normal scope of a spell's capabilities without completely stripping a character of agency. \$\endgroup\$ – Rykara Nov 28 '19 at 0:15
4
\$\begingroup\$

I will assume that the Death Eaters have a strong enough grasp of magic to make a compelling attempt at mock spell casting.

The DM must decide if the Death Eater that is truly casting is discernible from the others at all through a relevant check; be it Arcana, Insight or maybe just Perception and if the Death Eaters are using their action in this way they are now contesting it with their own Deception, Arcana or even Performance check. The ones that create a compelling enough show are now targets that are treated as casting that the Counter Spelling creature must choose from.

For those Death Eaters with an indiscernible fake casting then the creature casting counter spell interprets several Death Eaters all casting at once and must either choose one or have the dice decide.

How many Death Eaters are faux casting and put up a compelling enough performance? 5 "realistic" fakes and 1 real? Roll a d6.

There is the possibility that a simultaneous chorus of chanting creates a cacophony of noise that adequately masks the caster and there is no time to apply a discerning eye and just try using counter spell on one and hope for the best.

In which the same applies with no check. Just a choice or a dice roll. There are after all a number of Death Eaters spending their action and reaction to ready their performance/deception/arcana check to protect the action of one.

If the caster of counter spell fails to choose the appropriate target the counter spell fails.

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$
1
\$\begingroup\$

You can counterspell it

The rules are clear: "when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell". Someone who is pretending to cast a spell is not casting a spell. There is no confusion.

You do not need to observe verbal or somatic components to counter a spell

You have assumed that counterspell has something to do with sight, but that is not true. Only the trigger requires you to see someone casting a spell, but there isn't anything in the skill that actually says that.

A sorcerer can use metamagic to cast a spell with no vocal or somatic components:

Subtle Spell

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

This spell can still be counter spelled. Mechanically you do not have to explain how you are identifying who casts the spell, it is assumed that you can do this automatically.

You can explain this as detecting magical flux or whatever you want, by the rules it doesn't matter.

But if a PC wanted to do this, I may allow a deception check

A reasonable way that a DM could make this situation interesting is by using deception to have the casters hide who is casting the spell.

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$
-4
\$\begingroup\$

You will know who is casting a spell.

Waving your hands around and chanting gibberish can't be confused with spellcasting.

Consider the Flameskull. It can innately cast spells, and doesn't need to use either verbal or somatic components to do so. The innate spellcasting abilities of monsters are subject to counterspell according to Sage Advice. Nothing in the Flameskull's stat block suggests that its spells can't be counterspelled due to a lack of verbal or somatic components, so there must be some other component of a spell being cast that can be detected.

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ That link to "sage advice" is actually just a 3rd party site that aggregates the unofficial tweets from the various folks at Wizards of the Coast. It has no association with the published Sage Advice and may help with some thoughts from designers, but that's it \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Nov 27 '19 at 22:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ The flameskull's statblock says "It requires no somatic or material components to cast its spells." It doesn't say verbal components are ignored - and all the spells the flameskull can cast do seem to require verbal components. ...Also, Mike Mearls' tweets have never been official rulings, and rarely - if ever - have any basis in what the rules actually say. In this case, he fails to mention counterspell being a reaction to "seeing a creature casting a spell". If a spell has no V/S/M components, there's generally no way to know that it's casting a spell until it's already finished casting. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Jul 18 at 6:36

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.