The new spell identification rules are terrible.

[Elminster298]

This makes a counterspell bard pretty much the only reliable counterspell...

[Unoriginal]

SPLIT
DM is like No, Player is like then I casts NUKE SPELL OF AWESOME
DM is like Yes, Player is like, Oh, in that case I'ma cast a Cantrip... kay?

So now the only legit way to do is to like write it down on a piece of paper what spell you're going to cast...


Part 2

Monster is casting a Spell, who knows what it is?

Player A without Counter Spell uses his reaction to do the Arcana Check
Fails
Player B without Counter Spell uses his reaction to do the Arcana Check
Succeeds
Player B tells Player C that the spell is DEATH BALL! COUNTER SPELL IT!

but then the DM is like, nah this ain't cool... Yall do your Arcana Checks and Decide to Counter Spell BEFORE I tell you the result of your Arcana check

Why are those people treating D&D like some kind of "gotcha" hypocrisy-filled competition? Also, why are they playing with people they obviously neither trust nor like?

Then the rule doesn't work. Or the DM can't use counter spells. Your choice.

I'm sorry, could you explain why the rule doesn't work or it prevent the DM from using counterspell? I don't see any reason why it would.

wait to see if one of the archmage's mooks can play spotter to the archmage (who really shouldn't need the help from some character on the sidelines commenting like he's in some shonen anime).

Well I for one would find that awesome.

Joke aside, I think one D&D book made fun of the Red Wizards of Thay for telling their spell's names aloud while casting, like anime characters.

[Talamare]

Why are those people treating D&D like some kind of "gotcha" hypocrisy-filled competition? Also, why are they playing with people they obviously neither trust nor like?

Where did you get the idea where we don't trust nor like the person?

I would trust that person with MY LIFE! They have a Key to my House! They know my Bank Account Info! WE HAVE A GROUP ORGY ON THE WEEKENDS!

Don't equate wanting to play seriously with not liking or not trusting each other.

[Breashios]

My players simply revolted from anything like this the first time it came up. It broke credulity in their mind in the case that they knew how to cast the fireball spell, that they would not know the enemy was casting a fireball. Being that its a game, and I don't need to force something on the players (even though we played extreme RAW) that they couldn't accept we just did it like this -

If the spell was known to the character, that character automatically knew what was being cast (but there wasn't time to communicate this to another character unless the spell took more than one action). If it was a spell they had seen cast before often, but not a spell they knew, the free action Arcana DC was 10, modified up for less frequent experience. If they never saw it before, I'd let them roll and give a hint depending on how good the roll was. The group liked that. It was one of the rare cases I guess we had a house rule (made more clear by the recent publication).

Given they rarely wasted a counterspell on their side, it did not bother them that I could have "cheated". There were plenty of times they knew the NPC had counterspell on their list and did not use it.

When they did ask why I hadn't attempted a counterspell in a particular case I told them honestly if I were saving it for a potential greater threat or when they did not know what the party was casting. I did cast counterspell a lot from the enemy. So I stopped a few fireballs, but when higher level spells were involved, I usually failed to counterspell or ruled in my own mind the NPC did not know what was coming.

[LeonBH]

I mean it's still asymmetrical in that place because PC reactions are way more valuable than NPC ones, especially because in 5e there are often more NPCs than PCs.

Also it's just a lot of work for a feature that should be automatic. And it doesn't address the slowdown issue of identifying spells at all.

I agree. But still, the rule does open synergies that didn't exist before. Classes that don't have special reactions can now participate in mage fights. Arcana expertise is now mechanically a good choice. Conjuration spells that give you a sentient creature (like a familiar or homunculus) can now aid you in battle (fluff it as master/familiar telepathy).

DMs can adapt to this. Now, something like this can play out.

DM: The caster looks hurt. He starts casting a spell...
Wiz: Damn, I only have one Counterspell left at 4th level. If they're casting Dimension Door right now, we'll win if I counter. But if not, he can get away!
Clr: Wait a sec (rolls). It was a Firebolt! He was trying to trick us so he could get away!

I know it slows down combat, but it's not all bad.

[Naanomi]

Seems like there is good space for a feat that makes passive arcana checks a thing (15 wouldn’t be hard to hit passive with decent stats and proficiency)

[mer.c]

I haven’t seen the new rule in full, but would it work better if you just axed the reaction requirement and said identification was essentially a free action? Out working rule has been the counterspeller makes an Arcana check to identify, with varying degrees of success in getting info on the spell, then decide if they want to counter based on what they glean. It sounds like that’s pretty much what happens here, but taking the reaction to do it.

I’d be hesitant to allow for someone else identify the spell and tell the counter-er. Identifying a spell, telling the counter-er, and then the counter-er having time to make the judgment to counter it and cast the counterspell I time seems overly lenient, personally.

[Unoriginal]

Stop going against the basic new rules, brah

You're our DM, but we are still playing a game together, brah

New rules say you have to say you're counter spelling before I tell you what my spell is, brah

You're not making any sense. It's not at all what the rules say. The rules only concern the knowledge of characters, PCs or NPCs, not of the people around the table

Oh, and if you decide that every enemy has infinite counter spells as free reaction actions, then I decide not to come to your terrible games anymore, brah

This makes sense, though.

Where did you get the idea where we don't trust nor like the person?

I would trust that person with MY LIFE! They have a Key to my House! They know my Bank Account Info! WE HAVE A GROUP ORGY ON THE WEEKENDS!

Don't equate wanting to play seriously with not liking or not trusting each other.

What do you mean by "wanting to play seriously" ?

If you don't trust your DM to not give NPCs meta-knowledge they shouldn't be able to get by the rules, then you obviously don't trust your DM. And if someone around the table lies out-of-character to get an advantage in the game, this someone doesn't like the others much.

[UrielAwakened]

I haven’t seen the new rule I full, but would it work better if you just axed the reaction requirement and said identification was essentially a free action? Out working rule has been the counterspeller makes an Arcana check to identify, with varying degrees of success in getting info on the spell, then decide if they want to counter based on what they glean. It sounds like that’s pretty much what happens here, but taking the reaction to do it.

I’d be hesitant to allow for someone else identify the spell and tell the counter-er. Identifying a spell, telling the counter-er, and then the counter-er making the judgment to counter it not seems overly lenient, personally.

Identifying as a free action makes a ton of sense. I'd be fine with needing to identify a spell to counterspell it with knowledge.

I'm not fine with their explanation being that would "slow down the game" when their solution slows it even further. All they did was add a pass-priority system to D&D.

[Breashios]

I’d be hesitant to allow for someone else identify the spell and tell the counter-er. Identifying a spell, telling the counter-er, and then the counter-er having time to make the judgment to counter it and cast the counterspell I time seems overly lenient, personally.

And take time that is mechanically allowed, but stretches credulity.

[LtDarien]

Player is Casting a Spell

DM is ready to CS

Player knows so doesn't want to tell DM what the spell is

Player says he is casting a Spell

DM says what is it?

Player is like nah, are you going to CS it?

SPLIT
DM is like No, Player is like then I casts NUKE SPELL OF AWESOME
DM is like Yes, Player is like, Oh, in that case I'ma cast a Cantrip... kay?

So now the only legit way to do is to like write it down on a piece of paper what spell you're going to cast...

This is a pretty easy fix. I'll make a COUNTERSPELL token I'll keep behind my screen.

Player: I cast a spell
DM Grabs counterspell token (or not) and holds out his fist.
Player: "Fireball!"
DM reveals token or empty hand.

[DivisibleByZero]

If you have such a problem with the new ID rules, just ignore them.
Then you have 2 options.
Option 1) Use whatever ID rules you like.
Option 2) Use the old ID rules, of which there aren't any, meaning you can't ID spells as they're being cast.

The lack of such an option in the PHB is intentional, and always has been.
The old way of counterspelling required that you cast a spell from the same school, which necessitated knowing what school the target spell came from.
In 5e, instead of jumping through hoops, and to streamline combat, they removed all of that and just made it a spell of its own.

The default is that no one knows what spell is being cast but the caster.
Many people houseruled this to suit their own needs.
You're still free to do that now.

[Finieous]

Why are those people treating D&D like some kind of "gotcha" hypocrisy-filled competition? Also, why are they playing with people they obviously neither trust nor like?

Some of y'all must be way better than I am at compartmentalizing or placing yourself behind a veil of ignorance.

The PCs are in a tough fight and the cleric player says he's casting mass cure wounds. Now I have to figure out whether my archmage counterspells without metagaming. Well, how do I do that? My archmage is pretty smart. He knows what the cleric can do. He knows the PCs are in a tough spot. So I can easily justify why he would cast counterspell in this situation. But the archmage knows the cleric could also be casting sacred flame. So I can easily justify why he wouldn't.

So what do I do, roll randomly? I'd be willing to do that if there were a big enough payoff. I don't see any payoff. Like, I just don't see any compelling reason to do this to myself as a DM. Counterspell has worked fine in all my games (as player and DM) when the spell is known before the decision to counter is made. It's actually created some interesting tactical situations (get out of sight, get out of range, etc.). This seems entirely counterproductive and I won't be using it.

[Unoriginal]

I haven’t seen the new rule in full, but would it work better if you just axed the reaction requirement and said identification was essentially a free action? .

It would not. It would just cause "combat to devolve into people identifying every spell" like Crawford said.

[lunaticfringe]

Is this optional/variant? I wasn't planning to use new rules from X's because I like how 5e works as is. Some Sage Advice and comments from the design team have lead me to believe they will be terrible. Like we have different approaches. The game wasn't designed for spell identification so I figured it was going to be a tacked on **** fest to appease dumbasses & whiners.

[Breashios]

The default is that no one knows what spell is being cast but the caster.
Many people houseruled this to suit their own needs.
You're still free to do that now.

Yes, but now you would be considered "House Ruling" because it has been presented in black and white.

While it is just semantics, most of the people I know considered the way they allowed characters to identify hostile spell casting as "DM ruling" (in the absence of a clear rule).

[Talamare]

You're not making any sense. It's not at all what the rules say. The rules only concern the knowledge of characters, PCs or NPCs, not of the people around the table

What do you mean by "wanting to play seriously" ?

If you don't trust your DM to not give NPCs meta-knowledge they shouldn't be able to get by the rules, then you obviously don't trust your DM. And if someone around the table lies out-of-character to get an advantage in the game, this someone doesn't like the others much.

Seriously tho, Drop the Red Herring Fallacy. Since the absurds didn't connect.

This is a pretty easy fix. I'll make a COUNTERSPELL token I'll keep behind my screen.

Player: I cast a spell
DM Grabs counterspell token (or not) and holds out his fist.
Player: "Fireball!"
DM reveals token or empty hand.

This is actually a pretty elegant solution.
A Counter Spelling player could implement a similar requirement.

Tho the question of identification is still up in the air.

Can the other players react identify to inform the counterspeller, or do all these events happen fairly simultaneously?

[LeonBH]

I’d be hesitant to allow for someone else identify the spell and tell the counter-er. Identifying a spell, telling the counter-er, and then the counter-er having time to make the judgment to counter it and cast the counterspell I time seems overly lenient, personally.

Practically speaking, the spotters don't need to say the name of the spell and its level. They just have to signal the Counterspeller yes or no, if they think it's a worthy spell to counter.

[DivisibleByZero]

Yes, but now you would be considered "House Ruling" because it has been presented in black and white.

While it is just semantics, most of the people I know considered the way they allowed characters to identify hostile spell casting as "DM ruling" (in the absence of a clear rule).

It's not just semantics.
Sometimes, even often times, that's the case. But not here.
It has been stated, on multiple occasions, that the removal of ID'ing spells in 5e was intentional. Adding it in is therefore an houserule. If you allowed any ID at all before, it was an houserule.
If you alter the rules newly presented, it's an houserule.

"The absence of a clear rule" is actually the absence of any rules whatsoever and it wasn't an oversight. They were intentionally removed. There's a difference.

[stoutstien]

I've used a really simple rule if they have Proficiency in Arcana they know the spell no check required or if it's on their spell list even if it's on prepared they would recognize it. And I usually give them a 3 spell level range based on the intensity of the spell so they don't know exactly what level it is but they know if it's going to be a higher spell slot or not. Simple quick no dice roll

[LeonBH]

If you have such a problem with the new ID rules, just ignore them.
Then you have 2 options.
Option 1) Use whatever ID rules you like.
Option 2) Use the old ID rules, of which there aren't any, meaning you can't ID spells as they're being cast.

The lack of such an option in the PHB is intentional, and always has been.
The old way of counterspelling required that you cast a spell from the same school, which necessitated knowing what school the target spell came from.
In 5e, instead of jumping through hoops, and to streamline combat, they removed all of that and just made it a spell of its own.

The default is that no one knows what spell is being cast but the caster.
Many people houseruled this to suit their own needs.
You're still free to do that now.

I know, right?

My DM never told me what spells were being cast on me. If he says something that sounds like a spell, I just counterspelled it. We had no Arcana check house rules in place. For some strange reason, I countered a 5th, 7th, and 9th level spell this way. Also countered no cantrips, probably because he wasn't being a **** about the Counter spell rules.

[Laserlight]

If you're in a battle, you'd generally not want an enemy spell caster to successfully cast ANY spell.

However, preventing by Counterspell comes with a cost--you're burning a spell slot which might better be used for Fireball.

This is all happening in seconds if the enemy is casting a combat spell so there's no luxury to sit around and analyze if you want to stop it.

There is, per Crawford, time for Alice to identify the spell, tell Bob what it is, and Bob cast counterspell:

Harvey Williams‏
Replying to @JeremyECrawford
Would it be reasonable that one person could identify a spell and another counterspell it with that knowledge?

Jeremy Crawford‏
@JeremyECrawford
Yes.

There just isn't time for Bob--no matter how expert in Arcana he is--to identify the spell himself and counterspell.

That right there is stupid.

[Breashios]

It's not just semantics.
Sometimes, even often times, that's the case. But not here.
It has been stated, on multiple occasions, that the removal of ID'ing spells in 5e was intentional. Adding it in is therefore an houserule.

Well, I have not seen that information in a published product, so my ignorance allowed me and many other people have the false comfort that it was a "DM Ruling". (It's great that there is a Sage Advice, but after seeing contradictory decisions over the years there, I no longer count it as authoritative as the ultimate source of clarity [and my players will not allow me to sight it anymore either]. We base everything on core published material only, and I suspect many others do as well.

[Talamare]

I've used a really simple rule if they have Proficiency in Arcana they know the spell no check required or if it's on their spell list even if it's on prepared they would recognize it. And I usually give them a 3 spell level range based on the intensity of the spell so they don't know exactly what level it is but they know if it's going to be a higher spell slot or not. Simple quick no dice roll

It's a Natural Spell
It's a Divine Spell

How do they identify a Miracle Spell from GOD, by knowing Arcana?
Inherently Magic Works differently for different people in DnD.

Just Proficiency in Arcana as a blanket freebie isn't enough, and kinda of ruins some character backgrounds.


Also, just because we are both casting Fireball... Doesn't mean we are both casting it the exact same way. We could be doing the Verbal Component in different Languages; for example.

[Unoriginal]

I'm not fine with their explanation being that would "slow down the game" when their solution slows it even further. All they did was add a pass-priority system to D&D.

If you make it a free action, everyone and their grandmother will roll Arcana to identify every single spell cast in a fight.


DM: "The arch-druid is badly burned, but still alive. He raises a hand and start casting a spell."
Player 1: "Roll Arcana to Identify"
Player 2: "Roll Arcana to Identify"
Player 3: "Roll Arcana to Identify"
Player 4: "Roll Arcana to Identify"
Player 5: "Roll Arcana to Identify"

or the reverse:

Player 1: "My wizard cast Fireball"
DM: "One sec, I have to roll an INT check for those 20 goblins to see if they identify that"

And that basically make spells in combat a sad joke

This is a pretty easy fix. I'll make a COUNTERSPELL token I'll keep behind my screen.

Player: I cast a spell
DM Grabs counterspell token (or not) and holds out his fist.
Player: "Fireball!"
DM reveals token or empty hand.

How about:

Player: "I cast Fireball".

DM: "OK. The enemy caster didn't think you could cast another spell that powerful, so he doesn't counterspell it/the enemy caster was worried about you powers given your last spells, and tries to counterspell this one."

That right there is stupid.

What's stupid about it, according to you?

[Finieous]

Player 1: "My wizard cast Fireball"
DM: "One sec, I have to roll an INT check for those 20 goblins to see if they identify that"

And that basically make spells in combat a sad joke

That's what this rule does. Those goblins aren't using their reaction for anything. So all twenty of them should use their reaction to identify spells and tell their boss what they are so he can counter one of them.

[DivisibleByZero]

Well, I have not seen that information in a published product, so my ignorance allowed me and many other people have the false comfort that it was a "DM Ruling". (It's great that there is a Sage Advice, but after seeing contradictory decisions over the years there, I no longer count it as authoritative as the ultimate source of clarity [and my players will not allow me to sight it anymore either]. We base everything on core published material only, and I suspect many others do as well.

Irrelevant.
There were no rules for doing this.
You made rules for doing this.
That's not "making a snap decision (ruling) on the fly to keep the game running," that's making a houserule.

[Regitnui]

I love the way everyone immediately goes "They Changed It, so It's Bad". Then the cooler heads roll in and it actually turns out to be a really great way to get more teamwork going in a party. Thinking on a Watsonian level, why wouldn't a spellcaster have a spotter? Heck, why would any ranged attacker not have a spotter? Imagine the warlock and the wizard working together to keep a spellcaster on lockdown while the fighter takes him down.

[LeonBH]

If the party is battling 20 of anything, Counterspell is the least of their concerns. Bounded Accuracy/Action economy suggests that the enemies can feasibly kill the PCs before it gets to their turns.

But in the spirit of addressing the "issues" of having a spotter, those goblins will lose their attacks of opportunity, and now the party is free to weave around the battlefield. That is an opportunity cost.

It also strikes me that this new rule upgrades the value of Quicken Spell and Subtle Spell, which I am totally OK with.

[Unoriginal]

Some of y'all must be way better than I am at compartmentalizing or placing yourself behind a veil of ignorance.

The PCs are in a tough fight and the cleric player says he's casting mass cure wounds. Now I have to figure out whether my archmage counterspells without metagaming. Well, how do I do that? My archmage is pretty smart. He knows what the cleric can do. He knows the PCs are in a tough spot. So I can easily justify why he would cast counterspell in this situation. But the archmage knows the cleric could also be casting sacred flame. So I can easily justify why he wouldn't.

So what do I do, roll randomly? I'd be willing to do that if there were a big enough payoff. I don't see any payoff. Like, I just don't see any compelling reason to do this to myself as a DM. Counterspell has worked fine in all my games (as player and DM) when the spell is known before the decision to counter is made. It's actually created some interesting tactical situations (get out of sight, get out of range, etc.). This seems entirely counterproductive and I won't be using it.

Your archmage is pretty smart, and probably has seen a lot of magical conflicts in his life.

Therefore, when he see the Cleric cast his spell, put yourself in his shoes and ask yourself "would the archmage think that the Cleric is casting powerful spell that needs to be countered, given the situation, or that the Cleric is casting a spell that's not going to be a major problem? And would the Archmage want to keep his spell slot or be ok with spending it on a Counterspell now?"

Once you've asked yourself those two questions, imagine the Archmage's decision.

If the Archmage can genuinely not decide if the spell is most likely to be powerful or not, then the "is it wise to spend now?" would be the deciding factor.

Seriously tho, Drop the Red Herring Fallacy. Since the absurds didn't connect.

What do you mean "drop the Red Herring Fallacy"?