The new spell identification rules are terrible.

[Tanarii]

Counter-spell is an important spell for viability if you had a sorcerer and a wizard duking it out in a class level 20 vs level 20 magic duel. Unless you mean for one to be an obviously superior magic user, but it is hard to imagine that is what WotC was going for, considering that they tried to balance out the sorcerer by giving them metamagic, while also giving them less spells to work with.

Since they explicitly designed this not work with Counterspell, that's not really relevant.

But yes, I agree that they're effectively limiting how it works. Unless you as a DM allow the variant checks rule to apply to this check. Which if you want Magic to work in a certain way in your game you absolutely should. (Of course, magic working in a specific way is probably going to affect a whole bunch of things, not just this.)

And yeah, from the perspective of a player choosing how they want their own magic to work, if the DM doesn't care, it's also limiting. As I've already given an example of, it limits all casters to casting with common V or S components that anyone trained in Arcana can identify. You can't have a character casting in a totally different fashion that there's no possible way anyone locally could recognize, for example from half-way across the world or another plane of existence. Alternately if your DM allows state-of-knowledge did-you-ever-know-it Int checks , anyone who can make the Arcana check somehow "just happens" to know this incredibly specific and unlikely knowledge. Neither of those are particularly palatable to me as a DM or a player, even if they simplify the game.

[JimmyHoffa69]

Since they explicitly designed this not work with Counterspell, that's not really relevant.

It was just meant to be an example of how they tried to make them more or less equal classes for viability.

[DivisibleByZero]

It was just meant to be an example of how they tried to make them more or less equal classes for viability.

They are more or less equal.
The Wizard has flexibility which spells he can cast.
The Sorc has flexibility in what his spells can do.

The Sorc gets a bad wrap on forums. It's nowhere near as bad as people think it is.

[Shadowknight12]

You're free to rule in something if you like as a DM, but the spell's components are only absolutely required when you take the Cast a Spell action. So not all DMs will rule it that way.

I never mentioned components, I mentioned some sort of verbalization, which is what RAW states when they tell you that transferring the spell requires you to curse.

[Breashios]

I never mentioned components, I mentioned some sort of verbalization, which is what RAW states when they tell you that transferring the spell requires you to curse.

I think this is just a problem with the English language. "To curse at" someone or something requires a verbalization. "A curse" in the magical or mystical sense does not require verbalization to come into being or in the case of 5e to move "the curse" that has been verbalized during casting upon the initial target.

It may be a "house rule" or a "ruling" at your table that it does, but standard usage in the English language does not require the moving of the curse to have any verbal component.

[Shadowknight12]

I think this is just a problem with the English language. "To curse at" someone or something requires a verbalization. "A curse" in the magical or mystical sense does not require verbalization to come into being or in the case of 5e to move "the curse" that has been verbalized during casting upon the initial target.

It may be a "house rule" or a "ruling" at your table that it does, but standard usage in the English language does not require the moving of the curse to have any verbal component.

Except the RAW does not say "move the curse". It says "you can use a bonus action on a subsequent turn of yours to curse a new creature." It doesn't use the word curse as a noun, it uses it as a verb. I wouldn't be making this argument if it wasn't 100% exactly what the rules stated.

[Laserlight]

Except the RAW does not say "move the curse". It says "you can use a bonus action on a subsequent turn of yours to curse a new creature." It doesn't use the word curse as a noun, it uses it as a verb. I wouldn't be making this argument if it wasn't 100% exactly what the rules stated.

Yes, your point of view is entirely reasonable. But it's not RAW, which does not address the question one way or the other. As the "you can't identify and counterspell on your own, but you can have a spotter when you counterspell" demonstrates, RAW isn't identical to Reasonable.

[mer.c]

They are more or less equal.
The Wizard has flexibility which spells he can cast.
The Sorc has flexibility in what his spells can do.

The Sorc gets a bad wrap on forums. It's nowhere near as bad as people think it is.

Generally agreed. I think the big difference is you can pretty much do whatever on a Wizard and be amazing. Sorcerers can be just as good more or less, but there may actually be more traps than good choices, and you really need to know what you're doing for them to really have much of a point.

[DrMartin]

I don't dislike the concept of identifying a spell while being cast taking effort and concentration, in the form of a character's reactions.

I would implement it in game by having the character casting a spell also declare the level of the spell they are going to cast - justified in-fiction by bigger spells having a larger build-up of magical energies while being cast. A cantrip is going to be instantly recognizable from a 1st level spell, and a 1st level spell from a higher level one, so that you have *some* information to base your counterspelling on.

[korvanos]

We’ve always played with known spells,and known attack rolls. It’s too irritating to play blind mind bluff just for counter spell and shield spell.

It’s never been a problem, so I can’t see why anyone would want to play with secret spell casting like this. Sounds like a lot of tedious gameplay to me.

[Tanarii]

I never mentioned components, I mentioned some sort of verbalization, which is what RAW states when they tell you that transferring the spell requires you to curse.

Except the RAW does not say "move the curse". It says "you can use a bonus action on a subsequent turn of yours to curse a new creature." It doesn't use the word curse as a noun, it uses it as a verb. I wouldn't be making this argument if it wasn't 100% exactly what the rules stated.

"to curse" in the context of Hex does not in any way require verbalization. That's a huge and incorrect assumption on your part. It doesn't mean "to cuss them out". It means "to {Hex} curse". Hex is a curse.

[mer.c]

It seems to me like the Xanathar's Guide spell identification system work smoothest if you skip spotters and just say Counterspell can be cast as part of the reaction used to ID the spell. That keeps people from just trying to ID every spell that's cast, and leads to fewer checks (and IMO less strained credibility) than using partymembers as spotters. Plus, that's less of a slowdown than just going down the line of potential identifiers.

Maybe even say that successfully IDing the spell is what enables the reaction-less counterspell (you know exactly what it is, so you can counter it without spending the whole reaction). So you can skip tyring to identify the spell and cast your counter for certain, or try to ID and maybe not be able to counter. Seems faster and more fun to me, personally, than the new RAW.

[Unoriginal]

It seems to me like the Xanathar's Guide spell identification system work smoothest if you skip spotters and just say Counterspell can be cast as part of the reaction used to ID the spell.

It's specifically going against the intent of the rule, though.

[mer.c]

It's specifically going against the intent of the rule, though.

Sure. But 1) I dislike the gaminess and logistics of this system and 2) the system doesn't do a good job of enforcing the intent anyways (since they said part of the reason they went with this method was to speed up combat, where the spotter system bogs it down with cascading identification checks).

[Tanarii]

Sure. But 1) I dislike the gaminess and logistics of this system and 2) the system doesn't do a good job of enforcing the intent anyways (since they said part of the reason they went with this method was to speed up combat, where the spotter system bogs it down with cascading identification checks).

He means the intent is that Identification cannot be used with Counterspell.

[mer.c]

He means the intent is that Identification cannot be used with Counterspell.

I know that’s what he meant, or at least that’s my assumption. But that’s also not really the intent assuming the spotter system was intended all along and not an after-the-fact “Oh yeah, that’s totally what we meant, *nervous laughter and shifty eyes*.” Honestly my money is on the latter. ;)

At any rate, I do understand the intent and I think I’ve voiced where I think it fails, what I’ll try in its place, and why I’m trying that.

[Unoriginal]

The spotter system wasn't intended all along.

It wasn't either a "Oh yeah, that’s totally what we meant" thing.

People are really making mountains out of molehills about Crawford just saying "Yes" when asked if it was reasonable to have one person do the Identify check and another do Counterspell

[Longman]

You can't have a character casting in a totally different fashion that there's no possible way anyone locally could recognize, for example from half-way across the world or another plane of existence. Alternately if your DM allows state-of-knowledge did-you-ever-know-it Int checks , anyone who can make the Arcana check somehow "just happens" to know this incredibly specific and unlikely knowledge. Neither of those are particularly palatable to me as a DM or a player, even if they simplify the game.

Me neither. I think you should have a chance to identify spells from your specialist school / religion etc as they are being cast, but otherwise you wouldn't know - or, it would take you a lot longer than a reaction.

However, the idea that a cantrip requires less "build-up" or obvious manifestation of power than higher level spell seems fair to me. Even if you don't know the spell, the GM could still tell you the spell's approximate level (0-1, 2-3, 4-5, etc).

I haven't got to this level yet in the game I am running, so don't know exactly how I will handle this, but probably something along those lines.

[Breashios]

The spotter system wasn't intended all along.

It wasn't either a "Oh yeah, that’s totally what we meant" thing.

People are really making mountains out of molehills about Crawford just saying "Yes" when asked if it was reasonable to have one person do the Identify check and another do Counterspell

Isn't that the thing though? I really appreciate the clarity Crawford's answers can often bring. The problem is, sometimes they create a mess.

On occasion I have seen him come back and fix his mistaken first take, but I've also seen this cause another mess at least once. I've stopped relying on anything until it shows up in the official Sage Advice pdf.

[Regitnui]

"I ready a counterspell for when the BBEG casts a level 4 spell."

"Alright, roll to identify."

"17 Arcana with my Intelligence."

"He's casting a fireball. You can counterspell."

[DivisibleByZero]

"I ready a counterspell for when the BBEG casts a level 4 spell."

"Alright, roll to identify."

"17 Arcana with my Intelligence."

"He's casting a fireball. You can counterspell."

Are you identifying the spell, or are you counterspelling it?
Using the action you have Readied requires your reaction, as does the ID.

[Saeviomage]

The old rules were effectively "everyone automatically identifies every spell, for free, unless they don't see/hear/smell the spell being cast". Kind of like how nobody is going to fail to notice an archer standing in the open shoot someone.

And it worked just fine, because the DM said "This guy casts fireball" and the player went "I counterspell it". There's still some fakeout potential with upcasting and the like, but in general, both sides are just saying what they do and responding with the benefit of useful information.

The new rules just add a clunky formal procedure to things no matter how you play them, because the dm can no longer just say "this guy casts fireball".

The upsides of this rule? Is it actually fun to make someone waste slots on pointless spells when they try to counterspell? Is there actually a problem with people getting momentary foreknowledge of cast spells? Is there really some problem with the barbarian being able to identify spells... when the proposed alternative just makes it more likely that he does it instead of the wizard?

[DivisibleByZero]

You apparently haven't read the thread, because those are not the old rules.
The old rules you're referring to? Those were your own table's house rules.
The old rules for 5e? There were none. None at all.
There was no way to ID a spell as it was being cast until now.

[Tanarii]

The old rules were effectively "everyone automatically identifies every spell, for free, unless they don't see/hear/smell the spell being cast"

I disagree. The old rules were no one identifies a spell being cast at all. There was nothing in the rules that implied this was at all possible.

The new rules just add a clunky formal procedure to things no matter how you play them, because the dm can no longer just say "this guy casts fireball".

The new merely codify what was there before: all counterspells were supposed to be blind.

DMs (like me) often blurting out what spells with visible effects were as they were being cast was certainly passable on a gamist level, but IMO it went against the (now clear) intent of Counterspell.

Edit: okay, that technically means there were no rules, but I'm still going to stick with my begging the question logic that the new rule demonstrated intent that Counterspell was always supposed to be 'blind'.

[Laserlight]

The old rules for 5e? There were none. None at all.
There was no way to ID a spell as it was being cast until now.

Sure there was. Player says ”Hey, can I make some kind of roll to see what spell he's casting?” and the DM says ”Uh, roll...Arcana, I guess.”
There were no specific rules specifying how to accomplish the task (just like there were no rules on how to recognize Orion, seduce the guard, cook velociraptor, or use your collection of skulls to make armor) but there were also no rules forbidding it. No one would argue that you can't recognize a constellation just because the book doesn't address the question. Well...ok...no one other than some of our friends on the forum here...

[DivisibleByZero]

There were no specific rules because those specific rules were intentionally removed.
So any rules that DMs created were house rules.

[Coffee_Dragon]

The old rules for 5e? There were none.

There was no way to ID a spell as it was being cast

These two seem like distinct claims to me. It also seems to me like what keeps these arguments going is that people react to the second claim, and are received as if they had questioned the first.

[DivisibleByZero]

These two seem like distinct claims to me. It also seems to me like what keeps these arguments going is that people react to the second claim, and are received as if they had questioned the first.

Those two claims are the same. There were no rules for it, and as such, there was no way to do it.
A house rule is a rule created that does not exist within the text of the rule book.
If you created rules for it you were making a house rule.

[Unoriginal]

These two seem like distinct claims to me. It also seems to me like what keeps these arguments going is that people react to the second claim, and are received as if they had questioned the first.

How are those distinct claims?

[Coffee_Dragon]

How are those distinct claims?

One contains the additional unstated premise that if there are no specific rules for something, it cannot happen or be done.