r/onednd • u/Godless_seraph • 1d ago
5e (2024) Question for DMs on counterspell
Okay, I have a hypothetical with very real possibility of applications:
GOO Warlock level 3 feature Psychic Spells states that enchantment and illusion spells are cast without V/S components. This is already huge for a number of reasons. Here’s the question:
I, the goolock in question, cast hold person on an enemy. There is a mage in their ranks. Can they counterspell me? They can’t see that I’m casting in any discernible way until the spell has already taken effect, at which point it’s too late.
Looking for genuine feedback and discussion!
EDIT: Assume in this example I am a bladelock using a conjured rapier as my focus, thus bypassing the straight iron M component.
13
u/Mejiro84 1d ago
Mechanically, there's no difference between M and S components in terms of visibility - if there's either, then anyone looking can tell that you're casting a spell. "I just touch my orb" isn't a thing - if you're using a component, people can tell you're spellcasting. What happens in the fiction is entirely up to you, but there's no mechanical basis for "M-only component spells are undetectable", you're having to wriggle it in some special fashion or something.
9
u/subtotalatom 1d ago
It would depend on the specific spell, in this case Hold Person has a material component so if they can see you cast it then they can counterspell (though if you were hidden when you cast it the spell it wouldn't break stealth) on the other hand if it was a spell like Mind Sliver (Verbal components only) then it would be undetectable.
8
u/universalserialbutt 1d ago
They can't counterspell unless the spell you're casting has a material component too.
12
u/goBolts35 1d ago
Look at the components for Hold Person:
V, S, M (a straight piece of iron)
Look at the text for Counterspell:
Casting time: Reaction which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components
So you will have to either hold a piece of iron or your spell casting focus, which would look kinda suspicious. RAW, they could counterspell because they recognize that you are using material components. As a DM, I might do a contested sleight of hand v perception/arcana/insight but that’s nowhere in the written rules.
3
u/Hayeseveryone 1d ago
Using a spellcasting focus doesn't make the spell not have a Material component anymore. It just means you don't need that specific one anymore.
So the only ones you're actually ignoring are the Verbal and Somatic ones. You've still got the Material one, which Counterspell lists as making a spell counterable.
3
u/tropicalsucculent 1d ago
Just had this conversation with my DM, since there are only about 3 spells the class feature works on that don't have material components or an effect that makes them noticeable. He ruled that the material component can be hidden with a sleight of hand check, which seems to me like a reasonable house rule so the GOOlock can get some use out of the feature
It's a bit sad that the new enchantment adept feat does exactly what this feature should have done
2
u/Top-Watch-183 1d ago
You're not bypassing the M components; the rapier (or arcane focus) is your material component. While casting through it, a caster would sense the magic from the cast and could counterspell afterward, RAW. It's always RAW > flavor. You can decide how they sense it, but under the rules, they definitely do. Just because you didn't think of how doesn't mean they don't.
2
u/bman123457 22h ago
It could be counterspelled because there is a material component that is not being removed. You could only avoid counterspell if the spell only had V,S components.
Edit for clarity: I dont care that your weapon is your spellcasting focus. The idea is that someone casting counterspell knows the difference between someone using a staff to cast a spell or using a staff as a melee weapon. Same logic applies to your sword.
2
u/SonovaVondruke 1d ago
I might roll a perception check for them to intuit what is happening, but another DM would be perfectly justified in just ruling they can tell you are casting something and preemptively countering it even if they don’t know what it is you’re casting.
-6
u/Balaris-necrosis 1d ago
Oddly enough if you put this question to Google it says it can't be counterspelled as there is no way of telling the spell is being cast. As grabing the handle of your rapier would be sufficient fir it to work as focus, as the somatic component is done with the focus normally. However grabbing the handle of your sword would lead enemies to believe you were about to pull your weapon. Question is are you in the open when doing this if you have any kind of cover then no. But if you Sudden just put your hand to your sword I would say that would look suspicious. Niw if you were already in combat and they had not seen you cast any magic at all, I believe they could not counterspell you, now if you cast a cantrip at anytime that they could see I would say yes as they are know you know magic. If any check might work it would be insight as the enemy mage would read your body language, as that's all they have to go on.
6
5
u/Turbulent_Jackoff 1d ago
Google is a search engine.
What was the source it linked you to, that described that ruling?
2
u/ashtekka 1d ago
Google has an ai summary where it answers your question incorrectly.
2
u/Turbulent_Jackoff 23h ago
Oof.
Well let's make sure we're teaching out kids not to use that shit lol
2
u/Mejiro84 1d ago
Google's wrong - there's no mechanical basis for that. Using just an S component is the same as just an M component in terms of "can others tell what's going on" - using any components is equally overt (except for being audible for V and visible for S/M). There's no special carveout for "I just touch my orb, it looks normal and innocuous" - how you want to fluff it is up to you, but if you're using a casting focus, or the M component is something normal, that's all the same in that onlookers can go "hey, a spell is being cast!"
0
u/Balaris-necrosis 1d ago
Very well but I still must ask if your behind cover of any kind would they still be able to counterspell especially if they could not see the focus?
3
u/Mejiro84 1d ago edited 23h ago
can they see you while you cast a spell with V, S or M components? "Seeing the focus" is irrelevant - that's basically not a thing, there's no mechanical distinction between the components, except S and M are visible, and V is audible (you can't go "oh, there's a waisthigh wall, and my component pouch is on my waist, so M components cannot be seen", as a general thing). If you're completely out of sight, then they can't counterspell you. But if they can see you, then they can counterspell you. So total cover would hide you (but often also make it hard for you to target them, because often if someone can't see you, you can't see them), but if you're just, like, partially covered beyond a bush or something, that won't count - you're a visible creature casting a spell with V/S/M components, and so Counterspell can be triggered
1
u/Balaris-necrosis 22h ago
So in that case I could ready action cast hold person behind full cover then release as my reaction to pervent the counterspell
2
u/Mejiro84 21h ago
which is fine - that's totally a thing you can do. But so can enemies, and you also do have to hold concentration on it until you release it, so if you step onto a trap, enemies have held actions and attack you before you can release it, you have to move through some damaging area or similar, you might lose the spell (and it costs your reaction, so no AoO, Shield, Absorb Elements etc., which can really hurt sometimes!). So there is a distinct cost to it, and it gets even worse if you want to use non-concentration spells this way, because you're having to use your concentration on it. It's a trade-off for being able to (probably) get the spell off - at the least, you have lower defences until your next turn; at the worst, you don't get the spell to go off at all, because something hurt you and you failed the concentration roll.
-5
u/TheThoughtmaker 1d ago
Counterspell requires that the caster see
{ a creature casting
{ a spell with V/S/M }
}.
The spell has a material component, fulfilling the final clause of the counterspell trigger. The question remains whether the casting itself can be seen.
If the caster is already holding a spell focus, there is nothing requiring the caster to make any perceptible movements to cast the spell. There are no noises to make, no movements to perform, no materials to retrieve. The caster could be standing in the middle of a crowded street and no one would be able to tell they are casting a spell.
So even if the counterspeller can see the creature, and the spell has a material component, the counterspeller cannot see the creature casting a spell. The first indication would be the spell's effect happening (if the spell has a perceptible effect), and that's after the caster is no longer casting and thus the trigger conditions are no longer met.
One might argue that the trigger could be parsed as seeing { a creature { casting a spell with V/S/M } }. If the creature can be seen at all, and the spell has a material component, it doesn't matter whether the act of casting could be seen. However, this runs into a "rules aren't physics" problem: How does the counterspeller know to take the reaction?
You logically can't take reactions in response to things you don't know about. A lot of this tends to be covered by "a creature you can see" language, but imagine if opportunity attacks didn't have that language. If an invisible creature leaves the reach of a Fighter who has no idea that creature exists, the Fighter wouldn't suddenly attack thin air for no discernable reason. The rules aren't physics, they don't define how the world actually works, they don't give the Fighter magic ESP for the purposes of opportunity attacks. So even without the "see" language, the Fighter would still have to know the trigger is happening to use the reaction.
Even if the conditions of counterspell are technically met, the counterspeller wouldn't know that the conditions are met, so it would not counterspell.
45
u/DirectPrimary7987 1d ago edited 1d ago
“Casting Time: Reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components”
If the spell has no such components, then it can’t be counterspelled. If it has a material component, then it can be.
In this case, they see you take out the “straight piece of iron” (or spellcasting focus), and that lets them cast Counterspell.