The new spell identification rules are terrible.

[Meta]

Never heard of the correction bait style of making a point I see.

I play tested this game from beta, do you honestly think I did not know it takes an action to search for someone?

It was a sarcastic correction bait comment, made to point out how ridiculous the idea of identifying a spell for no action is.

The quickest way to get people to agree on something on the internet is to make a comment that is incorrect and wait for them to dog pile correcting it.

Thus more people move to the needed opinion.

Also, still can never actually ignore your ignore list I see.

Keep that massive unfounded ego rolling, it is fun to watch.

Weirdly personal attacks?

Searching for something is different than observing it. A fireball is probably easier to spot than an invisible rogue.

[Dudewithknives]

Weirdly personal attacks?

Searching for something is different than observing it. A fireball is probably easier to spot than an invisible rogue.

Nothing weirdly personal about it, we just hate each other.

He is an arrogant know it all who has never once in the history of this site admitted when he was wrong, even when Jeremey Crawford himself has said it.

If you prove him wrong, he will put you on ignore, but he can not let it go so he just reads all of the comments anyway because he can not resist checking if someone talked about him.

I have zero tolerance for those kinds of people.




On topic, looking around to find something and looking at something trying to figure out what exactly it is are essentially the same thing.

It would not surprise me if JC changes his mind on it, heaven forbid there is ever a nerf to casters, people will lose their mind.

Also your example is not accurate.

The fireball would not have manifested yet, it is not like the bead of fire comes out and you stop it mid flight.
Counterspelling you are stopping the person as they are casting the spell, like as they are performing the somatic components and speaking the correct words, possibly holding X component. Identifying what someone is specifically casting, and even at what spell level they are casting it on, based on interpreting their hand gestures and language is very different that stopping a spell effect you can already see. Also, the Rogue being invisible is not required, they could just be hiding in some tall grass, or peaking from behind a tree or something.

[DivisibleByZero]

Weirdly personal attacks?

That's what he does every single time he says anything to me. Personal attacks. Over and over and over again. He even attacks me what he's speaking to you. He attacks me even when I'm speaking to other people.

[Unoriginal]

That doesn't help. There are several steps to casting and resolving a spell. At various points players will know some of the spell's effects.

They will know it once the casting is finished and the spell start having effect.

Monster decides to use its action on Cone of Cold (DM can announce or not)

Which means the monster cast the spell, meaning this is where the casting starts and end.

Monster picks where the aoe goes, players presumably can see this "effect"

The AoE happening is not part of casting, it's an effect, and it's what the PCs can see. The monster deciding where the AoE goes and the AoE happening aren't the same things.

Monster rolls some damage, another effect.

Indeed.

Players in the aoe need to make saves. This is an effect?

Yes

All of those steps are listed under Casting a Spell.

There's nothing in the book (that I've seen at least) that explains when a spell goes from Casting to Resolving. All you've shown is that spells have effects after they've been cast

No, I've shown that the casting of the spell and the effects of the spells are separate, and that the effects happen once the spell is done casting.

. Neat, but not relevant in a discussion talking about when in this process a counterspell can be used, unless you've got a specific citation on when casting ends relative to dice being rolled, HP being removed, etc.

You want a specific citation? Fine:

Each spell description begins with a block of information, including the spell’s name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell’s effect.

By the PHB's own word, anything in the spell entry aside from the spell’s name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration is the spell's effects.

And the books are clear that the effects happen once the casting is done.

[Breashios]

And the books are clear that the effects happen once the casting is done.

While I agree with your determination of when a spell casting is done (before effects are apparent), I do not see where the books make that clear. Therefore, I understand some people seeing this differently. It may not be common, but I can understand someone seeing it another way that it might appear in manga, etc. Is there a page we can quote that make it clear the spell casting (for purposes of Counterspell) is complete before any affects can be noticed?

[Dudewithknives]

That's what he does every single time he says anything to me. Personal attacks. Over and over and over again. He even attacks me what he's speaking to you. He attacks me even when I'm speaking to other people.

Kind of like how I was on your ignore list, did not mention you in the least, and you jumped in to say something about how I make points like 5 posts ago?

I posted a comment, Tanarii responded, and I responded back to him, not mentioning you in the very least.
You, who supposedly have me on ignore, jump in and question my basis of comments in an insulting manner.

Then you get offended when I comment back.

You put yourself in this, you choose to take the blowback from it.

How about this, I will never respond to you, mention you, or quote you ever again, and you mind your own business.

I won't even quote your twitter account.

Everyone wins.

[Meta]

It's an action to identify a spell after it has been cast, so they're both actions. I think it's a little off that it's the same action to think "huh I wonder what the giant ball of flame was" as it is to listen intently for quiet footsteps. I used the invisible rogue just as a more dramatic foil.

I'm not a huge fan of the new reaction to identify, but so be it. I'd like if they saved the sneaky aspect of hiding what spells you're using for subtle spell or illusionists.

[Dudewithknives]

It's an action to identify a spell after it has been cast, so they're both actions. I think it's a little off that it's the same action to think "huh I wonder what the giant ball of flame was" as it is to listen intently for quiet footsteps. I used the invisible rogue just as a more dramatic foil.

I'm not a huge fan of the new reaction to identify, but so be it. I'd like if they saved the sneaky aspect of hiding what spells you're using for subtle spell or illusionists.

I am pretty sure the action to identify after it has been cast is more like, someone teleported from here do to residual magic, not looking at a lightning bolt and saying hey that is a lightning bolt.

When you counter spell you do it before the spell takes effect and manifests, not after it is already on the way.

If you are a wizard and have your spell book and have studied for years, and you see a person in the bar playing a lute and saying "Rifram, confintinae, malatesta" and doing something magical it is at least just as hard to decipher what he is casting, what level it is, who the target is, and what the effect will be out of the 100s of spells out there, as it is to look down an alley and spot the guy hiding behind a dumpster, or find the right book on the bookshelf in 6 seconds.

[Tanarii]

While I agree with your determination of when a spell casting is done (before effects are apparent), I do not see where the books make that clear. Therefore, I understand some people seeing this differently. It may not be common, but I can understand someone seeing it another way that it might appear in manga, etc. Is there a page we can quote that make it clear the spell casting (for purposes of Counterspell) is complete before any affects can be noticed?

There no quote saying "effects resolution isn't part of casting the spell, but rather after casting the spell". Because 5e intentionally isn't written with that kind of divisibility.

But it takes a special kind of mind to think that the effects of the spell don't come as a direct result of casting the spell, after that is done. Especially given several things the PHB does say.

For example:

PHB page 201 - "In casting a spell , a character {does weave stuff} and the releases them to unleash the desired effect - ..."

That's pretty clear there is a cause (casting spell) and effect (spell effect) thing going on here.

[Meta]

I'm pretty confident that resolution comes after casting, my point is that the rules don't explicitly say when one ends and the other begins, and that at some point a DM has to decide how they want to rule it. Unoriginal's quote is interesting but is more for how spell 'stat blocks' are set up. I mean, how would Duration not be a part of spell effects? It's certainly not a part of casting, and yet it appears before the "effects." You might be three hours in to an 8 hour duration and someone could counterspell it if we read it so literally.

I agree that some spells should be blatantly obvious to identify after the fact, but that the rules say it takes an action to identify. My point is that maybe the rule isn't entirely well thought out.

I'll personally be allowing counterspells to be used when targets are selected (effect could be in the air, flavorfully, if that's how the player wants to describe it) but before any dice are rolled for in person sessions. That jives with me on now stuff like shield works.

As for how other people visualize it, I think it's honestly more common for counterspells to be interrupting something physical. Every MtG counterspell I can think of depicts it this way. The stopping before the casting finishes sounds more like a Silence type effect to me.

Edit: I thought of some MtG counterspells that depict countering something more amorphous, so they depict it both ways.

[Unoriginal]

Is there a page we can quote that make it clear the spell casting (for purposes of Counterspell) is complete before any affects can be noticed?

When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so (see “Concentration” below). If your concentration is broken, the spell fails

Note how none of the effects are happening during the process of casting the spell.

Couterspell:

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

Also:

Many spells create obvious effects: explosions of fire, walls of ice, teleportation, and the like. Other spells, such as charm person, display no visible, audible, or otherwise perceptible sign of their effects, and could easily go unnoticed by someone unaffected by them

[...]


But what about the act of casting a spell? Is it possible for someone to perceive that a spell is being cast in their presence? To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component.

If an imperceptible casting produces a perceptible effect, it’s normally impossible to determine who cast the spell in the absence of other evidence.

Both quote quite clearly make the distinction between the casting and the effect.

As noted in the Player’s Handbook, you normally don’t know that a spell has been cast unless the spell produces a noticeable effect.

Here you can see that the spell *has been* cast to produce an effect.

Furthermore:

To do so, a character can use their reaction to identify a spell as it’s being cast, or they can use an action on their turn to identify a spell by its effect after it is cast.

This make it quite clear that the effect of the spell happen after it is cast.

I'm pretty confident that resolution comes after casting, my point is that the rules don't explicitly say when one ends and the other begins

Wrong.

Unoriginal's quote is interesting but is more for how spell 'stat blocks' are set up.

By that same logic I could say "AoE being in the Casting a Spell section is more how the chapter is set up".

I mean, how would Duration not be a part of spell effects? It's certainly not a part of casting, and yet it appears before the "effects."

Duration indicates how long the spell's effect last, but it's not part of the effect itself.

You might be three hours in to an 8 hour duration and someone could counterspell it if we read it so literally.

No you couldn't. Duration is not Casting Time. You could be three hours in to a 8 hour casting time and someone could cast Counterspell on you, because you were in the process of casting the spell, but once the spell is cast it lasts for the duration, unless interrupted by conditions depending on the spell's effect.

I agree that some spells should be blatantly obvious to identify after the fact, but that the rules say it takes an action to identify. My point is that maybe the rule isn't entirely well thought out.

You're misreading it. A spell with an obvious effect does not require an action to be identified after the fact, because 5e has for principle that you only do checks if there is a chance at failure. You don't need to identify what is obvious. For exemple, that the wall of stone that just appeared is the result of the spell Wall of Stone is obvious.

Though of course, you might want to make *sure* it's really a Wall of Stone and not just an illusion (which is not obvious), in which case the identifying check is needed.

I'll personally be allowing counterspells to be used when targets are selected (effect could be in the air, flavorfully, if that's how the player wants to describe it) but before any dice are rolled for in person sessions. That jives with me on now stuff like shield works.

You can rule it like that if you wish, since you're the DM and it's your right, but to be clear by RAW selecting the target happens before the effect is in the air. You don't first let your Disintegration ray out of your fingers, then decide to aim at someone in particular, and you can't counter an effect that's already cast.

As for how other people visualize it, I think it's honestly more common for counterspells to be interrupting something physical. Every MtG counterspell I can think of depicts it this way.

Regardless of how other works and games do it, in 5e the Counterspell interrupts the caster while casting, not the effects.

It's more akin to two gunfighters doing a duel at high noon, and one of them shooting their opponent's gun out of their hand.

Dispell Magic does interrupt the spell that's physically here, though.

The stopping before the casting finishes sounds more like a Silence type effect to me.

Silence type effects removes the possibility to attempt to cast a spell with a V component.

Counterpell disrupts the casting.

[Meta]

You're right about the Casting a Spell section is set up, it could just be how they decided to organize it. It was just the best thing I could find to go off of. There isn't a handy flow chart for the phases of spellcasting.

Which is really my whole point that you seem unable to come to terms with. All of your quotes are related sure, just like how I think the casting a spell section's set up is an indicator, but nothing explicitly says when you counterspell, because nothing says explicitly what casting a spell is. You keep talking about RAW but then using your own interpretation at what some related statements mean. You can argue that's RAI, I guess.

[Amdy_vill]

I'm more concerned about the implications for DMs. In the past, though it wasn't technically correct, I've seen counterspell play out this way:

DM: creature casts this spell
Player: I counterspell it

Then the two would figure out what level counterspell it would take. Otherwise the player just had to guess, which is no good. Again, I know this was not technically correct, but I think it was common.

Now, it seems you'll need a spotter. But it also seems that the order now must be;

DM: you see creature begin casting a spell
Player 1: I roll arcana to see what it is
Etc.

That's going to slow things down.

this is what my table does

[DivisibleByZero]

I posted a comment, Tanarii responded, and I responded back to him, not mentioning you in the very least.
You, who supposedly have me on ignore, jump in and question my basis of comments in an insulting manner.

Then you get offended when I comment back.

You put yourself in this, you choose to take the blowback from it.

That's not what happened at all. What happened was:
You said X
T said, No, it's Y.
You said, Oh, I know it's Y, and I only said X because I wanted you to correct me because that places more weight on my saying Y even though I didn't say Y and I actually said X.

That's not a "strategy" at all. That's you backpedaling.
And when I called you on it you attacked me personally.
"You put yourself in this, you choose to take the blowback from it."

[Unoriginal]

Which is really my whole point that you seem unable to come to terms with. All of your quotes are related sure, just like how I think the casting a spell section's set up is an indicator, but nothing explicitly says when you counterspell, because nothing says explicitly what casting a spell is. You keep talking about RAW but then using your own interpretation at what some related statements mean. You can argue that's RAI, I guess.

Alright, so I'll stop a moment, and I will just ask you to please tell me any interpretation, that makes sense in plain English, of the quotes I provided that doesn't include "the casting is separate and happen before any part of the spell's effect"

[Dudewithknives]

That's not what happened at all. What happened was:
You said X
T said, No, it's Y.
You said, Oh, I know it's Y, and I only said X because I wanted you to correct me because that places more weight on my saying Y even though I didn't say Y and I actually said X.

That's not a "strategy" at all. That's you backpedaling.
And when I called you on it you attacked me personally.
"You put yourself in this, you choose to take the blowback from it."

Yes, I did, because you jumped into a conversation that did not involve you, only to be condescending in the process, after we have gotten into it on multiple occasions, on multiple threads.

It is simple as this, do not start anything and nothing would have happened.

I did not mention you, I did not quote you, I did not even mention any point you brought up, and you supposedly have me on ignore, so when you jump into it and be condescending, deal with it.

If you have me on ignore because you do not agree with what I say or think, stick with it.

Simple solution, mind your own business.

[Meta]

Alright, so I'll stop a moment, and I will just ask you to please tell me any interpretation, that makes sense in plain English, of the quotes I provided that doesn't include "the casting is separate and happen before any part of the spell's effect"

I think this is your view, but I want to make sure:

Anything in the text box of the spell is it's effects.
Casting a spell happens before the effects, so before anything in the box. Presumably all other aspects of a spell occur here, like components?

Therefore, counterspell has to happen before anything in the box.


I think that's what I'm getting from what you've quoted.

I'm pretty sure there's a logical jump there that isn't the books but I want to make sure I have your view right before I address it. In plain English of course.

[Breashios]

Unoriginal,

I find your quotes in answering my question compelling. The one that most clearly supports the view we have (with little wiggle room), however, is the "To do so, a character can use their reaction to identify a spell as it’s being cast, or they can use an action on their turn to identify a spell by its effect after it is cast." from the new publication.

Can you go back and edit those quotes to include the reference location, so I can in turn find and present them for discussion with my group before we begin our new campaign? Thanks. Might be helpful to others as well.

[Unoriginal]

I think this is your view, but I want to make sure:

Anything in the text box of the spell is it's effects.
Casting a spell happens before the effects, so before anything in the box. Presumably all other aspects of a spell occur here, like components?

Therefore, counterspell has to happen before anything in the box.

I would say yes, with the exception of Duration (obviously) and the instances where the text box explains more about the V, S or M components.

[Tanarii]

I agree that some spells should be blatantly obvious to identify after the fact, but that the rules say it takes an action to identify. My point is that maybe the rule isn't entirely well thought out.

Couple of points here. First of all, as unoriginal pointed out, if something can't fail in the DMs judgement there shouldn't be a check. Given we have a standard DC that should probably be somewhat rare, but that might occur. If your PC has successful identified with absolute certainly a Flaming Sphere, 4 adventuring days in a row, I'd probably skip it.

Second, if the only consequences of failure is time and it's possible for you to succeed, you can take ten times as long (1 minute) and automatically succeed. That's a DMG rule.

Third, if something is pretty obvious to you and your PC that it's a Flaming Sphere, and you have no particular reason to need to confirm with absolute certainty it's actually a Flaming Sphere, then don't take the action to confirm it. If you want to be sure it's not a Phantasmal Force instead (for example), then take the action. (Of course, many illusions allow Investigation checks vs spell caster DC, which may be easier or harder for your character to pass.)

[MaxWilson]

That's not what happened at all. What happened was:
You said X
T said, No, it's Y.
You said, Oh, I know it's Y, and I only said X because I wanted you to correct me because that places more weight on my saying Y even though I didn't say Y and I actually said X.

Ironically, the original statement (even though it was correction-bait) contains some insight: it doesn't necessarily take an action to spot someone who's hidden. It's totally possible to spot someone in hiding just with your passive perception. The Search action allows you a second or third chance (you get to make an active check).

The analagous situation with spell identification would be if passive Arcana let you automatically know what spell was being cast, but expending your action to study it more closely gave you a second chance.

So the original statement was right to point out an inconsistency. It would be more consistent if spell identification did not require a reaction but also worked only passively. By strange coincidence, this is also the fastest and most convenient way to actually run the game--or at least tied for fastest with the policy of "always just tell everyone up front what spell is being cast."

[DivisibleByZero]

Yes, I did, because you jumped into a conversation that did not involve you,

I'm sorry. Do you own the internet forums? Are you the person who gets to decide who is allowed to comment on threads?
Get over yourself.

[Dudewithknives]

I'm sorry. Do you own the internet forums? Are you the person who gets to decide who is allowed to comment on threads?
Get over yourself.

The point is this.

I was talking talking to someone else, they understood what I was doing afterward, and it seems others do as well.
Dislike having me on ignore, you throw out a condescending insult anyway.
I insult you back and you whine about it.
I am perfectly fine with calling it there and offered to never speak to you, about you, or anything you mention ever again if you do the same.
However, you can not let it go, and keep on arguing.
If you had not been condescending in the first place nothing would have happened at all.
You do not then get to complain about being insulted if you start it.

Again. Ignore me, never speak to me, never comment on anything I ever mention, and I will happily do the same for you.

As a matter of fact don't even bother to comment back if you are cool with that plan. Just move on. The last thing any thread needs if for us to get in an argument again and mods have to go fixing things again.

Let's just understand that we do not get along and simply do each other the favor of completely ignoring each other.

[DivisibleByZero]

I really think you aught to rewind and look at where the insults started. In point of fact, I never insulted you once.
You seem to have a skewed memory. Luckily it's right there for you.

[Xetheral]

Couple of points here. First of all, as unoriginal pointed out, if something can't fail in the DMs judgement there shouldn't be a check.

If you're going to let that general rule supercede the fixed DC at tables that use the optional identification rule, why on earth can't a DM apply the same general rule at a table that doesn't use the optional identification rule? (This is largely rhetorical: I don't know off the top of my head where you personally stand on the permissibility of ability checks to resolve tasks not explicitly mentioned in the rules--I may be preaching to the choir.)

Second, if the only consequences of failure is time and it's possible for you to succeed, you can take ten times as long (1 minute) and automatically succeed. That's a DMG rule.

Applying that rule to knowledge checks yields odd results. Sure, in some cases it makes sense that spending more time reveals more information that might permit identification. But when trying to identify an instantaneous effect from the memory of the event, applying that rule gives somewhat perverse results: very few adventurers can identify the spell at the time it is cast, but given a minute to think harder, all of them (without an int penalty, anyway) can identify the spell?

[Dudewithknives]

So: "I said this thing that was completely 100% incorrect so that someone else would correct it and prove my point for me and make my point carry more weight, even though I actually made a statement which is the exact opposite of the point I am now claiming to make?"
Nice try.

Yes, I know exactly where the insults started, they started right there.

Again. You ignore me, I ignore you. Let's move on.

[Breashios]

Yes, I know exactly where the insults started, they started right there.

Again. You ignore me, I ignore you. Let's move on.

Please and thank you. Can we at least stick to comments about the topic? (after this, of course)

[Chaosmancer]

Chaosmancer, your post is too long to quote, but you're basing your analysis on several things not required by old RAW: spells were not required to be automatically identified if you see them cast ; spells are not required to cast the same by all casters.

Nothing in PHB RAW requires either of those. And the former, assuming that they used to be automatically identified if seen cast, it seriously nerfs at least one category of spells: Illusions. It also put a damper on many others.

Also reread the XtgE rule. You do not need to see the spell cast to use an action to identify it. It specifically says it can be used to identity a spell that was already cast, if the character perceived the spell's effects.

I'm not sure if either of your points disagree with what I am saying.

The Xanathar rule says you can ID a spell if you have seen the effects or saw it cast. Either case allows you to spend an action to ID the spell. And either case allows it as an immediate reaction or a later action. And nothing in the rules says how long you have to take that action. So you can ID a spell after the fight if you saw it being cast

And you are correct in that the book does not say that all fireball spells use the same somatic and verbal components. However, it also does not say that every caster uses different somatic and verbal components. So, the assumption that my illusionist does not recognize someone casting minor illusion because the caster is casting the spell in an unfamiliar way is equally unsupported by RAW.

And I feel that the consequences of "no two casters use the same formula" causes far more problems than magic being somewhat standardized within the DND setting.

No, they don't. And I've already explained how and why that's true.
Spells do not create identical results. Spells create similar results. But each caster is different, and therefore each spell is slightly different. Not identical. Similar, with identical in game statistics.

How similar does something have to be before it is recognizably the same?

No two oak trees are exactly identical, but I'd hope a bontanist who studies trees could identify an oak at a glance.

No two goblins are exactly identical, but you wouldn't say that your players don't recognize goblins after they've fought them a half-dozen times.

But, a wizard who studies illusions (since everyone loves bringing them up) and has spent a half century casting minor illusion can't possibly recognize a minor illusion spell cast in front of them because it's too different despite it being mechanically identical and recognizably incredibly similar.

If magic can be taught and studied then this conclusion doesn't make any sense.

I believe the recipe metaphor was sound, but he got a bit sidetracked expanding upon it.

If we take the same recipe. Let's say for pizza. We first need to make the dough. So it's water, flour, salt, oil and yeast. Results may vary if the water is cold or lukewarm, if you first dissolve the yeast in the water or if you just mix everything toghether. If you put the oil directly on the flour or if you mix it with the water. And so on. However, the recipe doesn't expand on these points. It just says: take 500g of flour, two tablespoons of oil, 20g of salt and 280ml and 50g of yeast and mix everything toghether.

The way I see it, is that even with the same instructions, spellcasters do things slightly differently. The same way people following that recipe will most likely not do the same things the same way. Do I first measure the flour or do I start by measuring the water? Do I measure the salt by itself or do I measure it with the flour in the same bowl?


The idea, I think, is that the arcana check is needed because of the small variations each different spellcaster could make, or even the same spellcaster casting the same spell twice.

Not even in Harry Potter, where we are at first told that each spell needs to be enunciated precisely while swirling and flicking one's wand in a precise matter, are two spells identical. Because later on we learn that one could do away with both words and gestures in spellcasting.


Now, I don't particularly care if my view is raw, rai, racoon or any such other acronym. I just liked the recipe metaphor and wanted to expand on what I think he meant when he mentioned it.

However, I don't have to be a chef to know that with flour and yeast you are making a dough and not BBQ ribs.

And, if I'm a chef I can probably make a good guess how much dough he's making from the amount of ingredients. And if I'm a pizza dough maker, it's even easier for me to not only say what he is doing, but predict and understand why he changed the order of doing things.


But this analogy is being used to say those small differences are so important that my pizza dough chef can't tell if the person they are watching is making omelettes, rice pilaf, pizza dough, or ice cream. I know analogies aren't perfect, but that is the issue I'm running into with this stance that spells can't be recognizable because they are too different. If you were saying I couldn't tell the save dc, or where the spell will land, or what is being summoned, I'd completely agree with you, but you're saying it is completely unrecognizable, which makes no sense.

Let's stop right there. Other than the material components (which usually aren't visible or are replaced by a focus), there's no indication that every caster uses the same verbal or somatic components to cast. Not even within the same class.

But to stop you right here, there is no indication it is vastly different either.

Many people seem to houserule that it is vastly different between casters, but the game talks of "spell formulas" and of studying magic in similar ways to a science. There can be some small variations, but if magic was as wildly different between practioners as people claim you'd have to roll arcana to copy spells out of an ancient spell book, and RAW is very clear that a wizard does not need to do that.

People can homebrew and houserule this all they want, but it becomes a rather strange magic system, if everyone who studies magic gets similiar results from very different practices.

To continue the food analogy, it'd be like watching three chefs make an egg omolet. One by mixing and frying pancake batter, another by freezing jam preserves and the third by catching hus cutting board on fire. Then having them talk about going to culinary school and spending years studying books and doing rote memorization and practice to achieve the results of a highly scientific formula. It reads as absurd.

The designers explicitly told us that they removed these rules intentionally. The designers explicitly told us that in this edition players were intended to Counterspell blindly.
You can go on all you want about House Rules and Rulings and DM Fiat and what was the norm in previous editions.
In this edition they removed those rules on purpose.
So yes, the absence of those rules certainly does mean that it was intended to not be able to be done.
This is not my opinion.
This is what the designers have told us.

I think where you get in trouble with this is making it a sweeping statement.

"The designers told us this was never the intent" does not immediately translate into "If it wasn't written it is impossible to do"

In fact, I don't think I've ever seen any one argue the designers intending us to be able to ID spells. Some have indicated they had never heard that before JCs tweet, but no one argues you were wrong on that point.

I do wonder though if they were correct in that intention, or if they were their "fix" causing so many strange problems and assumptions.

[Keral]

However, I don't have to be a chef to know that with flour and yeast you are making a dough and not BBQ ribs.

And, if I'm a chef I can probably make a good guess how much dough he's making from the amount of ingredients. And if I'm a pizza dough maker, it's even easier for me to not only say what he is doing, but predict and understand why he changed the order of doing things.


But this analogy is being used to say those small differences are so important that my pizza dough chef can't tell if the person they are watching is making omelettes, rice pilaf, pizza dough, or ice cream. I know analogies aren't perfect, but that is the issue I'm running into with this stance that spells can't be recognizable because they are too different. If you were saying I couldn't tell the save dc, or where the spell will land, or what is being summoned, I'd completely agree with you, but you're saying it is completely unrecognizable, which makes no sense.

Yes, you recognize I'm doing some kind of dough, perhaps. But do you have any idea how many different things you could be doing with flour and yeast? I can name at least half a dozen without having to think about it.

Still, I think people forget that the one wanting to identify spells is (usually) doing his own thing during combat. And I believe it's a reaction to represent this.

And let's not forget that game mechanics are meant to simplify and to be somewhat abstract. With facing being an optional rule and not usually used, from what I can see, can you really take for granted that someone, in his 6 seconds of turn, after he has moved 30 feet, done his action, his bonus action and his reaction automatically recognizes what the caster is casting behind him with no effort at all?

I mean, the average walking speed is around 1,5m/s. Just moving your speed takes your 6 seconds of turn. Granted, in combat you'll be moving faster, but the rules also need to account for the other actions you might take.

To me it seems that some people assume that someone identifying a spell being cast does nothing but gaze upon the spellcaster(s).

I would certainly allow someone to identify and counterspell a spell at the same time by using the ready action to keep watch on the enemy spellcaster(s). Using your action to identify it and your reaction to counterspell. Or vice versa, whatever.


Going back to the pizza dough example, sure if you're watching you might recognize it with a varying degree of effort which is represented by your check. But you need to be watching me doing stuff. Thus a game action is required and it shouldn't be free.

I don't really think that you can understand what I'm doing if while I was adding the yeast you were doing your own thing and were distracted: if you only see the flour there are hundreds upon hundreds of things I could be doing. Sure, I may not be making icecream, but if you ask someone "what's for dinner" and he answers "something with flour", well, good luck figuring out what you'll be having.



As to the spell cast/effect debacle.

I think it's pretty straightforward. Let's take istantaneous spells, like fireball. You can counterspell a spell as it's being cast, not after it has been cast. Being instantaneous, the moment the spell is cast, it appears and you're rolling damage and saves. There is no time in between. If you're rolling damage and saves it's too late to counterspell it. Otherwise we'd be open to shenanigans like "if I fail my save I counterspell it".

[PhoenixPhyre]

But to stop you right here, there is no indication it is vastly different either.

Many people seem to houserule that it is vastly different between casters, but the game talks of "spell formulas" and of studying magic in similar ways to a science. There can be some small variations, but if magic was as wildly different between practioners as people claim you'd have to roll arcana to copy spells out of an ancient spell book, and RAW is very clear that a wizard does not need to do that.

People can homebrew and houserule this all they want, but it becomes a rather strange magic system, if everyone who studies magic gets similiar results from very different practices.

To continue the food analogy, it'd be like watching three chefs make an egg omolet. One by mixing and frying pancake batter, another by freezing jam preserves and the third by catching hus cutting board on fire. Then having them talk about going to culinary school and spending years studying books and doing rote memorization and practice to achieve the results of a highly scientific formula. It reads as absurd.

My point was that this is an area where you should expect setting variation, so any argument predicated on identity of components is meaningless. RAW is silent on the matter. In some settings, magic might be standardized. Others, not so much. And it might vary strongly between types of spell-casters--a wizard's fireball might look very different than a sorcerer's (or a light cleric's). A bard casts by singing, a cleric by chanting prayers. Even if they're casting the same spell, the method is going to vary considerably. And that's normal--they're operating very differently. One is harmonizing with the Weave, the other is asking a 3rd party for a favor (who then operates on the Weave). It would be strange if they were anything alike, let alone identical. Or identical to that sorcerer who says a single word and gestures sharply (quickened fireball).

Wizardry is a science, with spell formulas. And it's the outlier. Most other branches of magic are not described in such terms. And even then, you can have a science if, for example, the true minimum requirements are unknown and the study is to improve the spell by reducing the extraneous elements of the components. CF Rite of AshkEnte. Different lines of thought (schools in the actual sense, not the "evocation, abjuration, etc" sense) may have different ideas (and those different ideas might actually be meaningfully different in-universe, but not at the level of abstraction the game operates at). There can also be intentional flourishes--one happens to flip his wand just so, another like that, but neither of those matter for the spell. They're just habits picked up over time (or added to confuse others).