The new spell identification rules are terrible.

[LeonBH]

Then players should make more reasonable requests off-turn, per your reading of the RAW. It is abusable.

- I would like to drop this open box of ball bearings
- I would like to dodge out of the way of their incoming attack
- I would like to use my weapon to deflect their incoming attack
- I would like to slip out of their grip while they drag me around an area of Spike Growth
- I would like to start running away from the scary orc, no way I'm letting that guy get within 5ft of me

The point is not THAT it is abusable, but that your reading shows these are all RAW. They are actions a player can attempt and the DM can adjudicate.

Reactions represent things you can do out of turn. That is the whole point of a reaction. That is why the action economy is important. If I can freely do things out of turn without a reaction, I can abuse the action economy. But I shall agree with you that it is a moot point. The point is not that it is abusable, but that you are saying it is RAW to allow arbitrary off-turn actions with/without reactions.

Finally, I am saying RAW does not specify you can make an Athletics check to hold on to a moving wagon during an enemy's turn. RAW does not specify you can make an Acrobatics check to avoid falling during an enemy's turn. I am not saying characters cannot make such checks (I mean, I am, but it's not the issue), but that RAW does not provide a timing, and if you interpret it by presuming a timing (on or off turn), then that is not RAW.

[imanidiot]

Identifying a spell being cast as a reaction means Counterspell has to always be blind. Which is problematic for a countless amount of reasons, the least innocuous being that it removes your ability to make an informed decision about what to counter and the most ridiculous being every spell now has to be cast in secret just in case some NPC somewhere on the table has a counterspell.

What the hell were they thinking?

There is nothing wrong with just telling the PC what level spell is being cast or even what exact spell. Counterspell works just fine and is well balanced without all of this convoluted nonsense.

[KillingTime]

There is nothing wrong with just telling the PC what level spell is being cast or even what exact spell. Counterspell works just fine and is well balanced without all of this convoluted nonsense.

This.
It was fine. Nobody ever complained about it. It wasn't broken.

If it ain't broke... don't fix it.

[Easy_Lee]

This.
It was fine. Nobody ever complained about it. It wasn't broken.

If it ain't broke... don't fix it.

I agree. And as I said earlier, I've seen people doing this a lot even though it's not technically correct.

[Tanarii]

Have I missed it, or has no one brought up yet that JC is wrong about being able to use one PX to identify the spell and communicate it to a second PC counter speller?

You can only talk for free on your turn. That means it's unlikely the indentifying PC will be able to communicate anything.



Edit: ultimately this is a non-issue for me anyway. Generally speaking I tend to say exactly what spell was cast unless there's no way to identify it from the effects, and even then it'll just slip out sometimes. Despite ruling that the general rules was there is no way to identify spells being cast.

[Shadowknight12]

It's possible that they omitted a part in "Identifying a Spell" that lets the identifier communicate their findings aloud. Speaking the spell's name in this case would be included as part of the reaction to identify a spell, just like casting a spell with Verbal components as a reaction includes speaking the Verbal components aloud.

EDIT: But yes, I too use full spell transparency at my table. There have never been any issues, since it goes both ways.

[Tanarii]

EDIT: But yes, I too use full spell transparency at my table. There have never been any issues, since it goes both ways.

I don't do it on purpose. I run combat as fast as I can, and I always lose track that the rule is you can't indentify things because I'm thinking about ten other things. It almost always slips out.

Same happens with creature names. As some point in combat I'll be like "the Grell blah blah blah" and the players now know the floating beak-brain thing is a Grell. Or whatever.

Edit: nm on the talking thing, someone started as peerage thread for it:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...terspell-rules

[Shadowknight12]

I don't do it on purpose. I run combat as fast as I can, and I always lose track that the rule is you can't indentify things because I'm thinking about ten other things. It almost always slips out.

Same happens with creature names. As some point in combat I'll be like "the Grell blah blah blah" and the players now know the floating beak-brain thing is a Grell. Or whatever.

Yeah, same. I never really understood the point of withholding OOC information when we're all supposed to be on the same playing field, building an interesting story/game together. I generally roll everything in the open, too.

[The1exile]

I don’t like this change and I won’t be using it at tables I run, and will ask my DMs not to use it in theirs too.

The only change I’ve felt needed to be made recently was around flavour, so I adopted some of the thinking from this article. I’ll tell the players if it’s a spell they’ve seen before (hypnotic pattern, fireball, hold person etc) but not if it’s a rarer one (blindness, command, blight). A lot of the narrative flavour is lost if the players can’t describe how they avert the lightning bolt.

[sir_argo]

This thread is an interesting read. For the record, my group has always played Counterspell as blind. To my recollection, we've never even tried to identify a spell being cast. We have had our quick little debates, "But what if he's casting a higher level spell like Wall of Fire? Think I should use a higher level slot for my CS? If all it is, is a Firebolt I'm wasting a Counterspell." Yeah, we've had those discussions. That's how we thought CS worked. The only time we have knowledge of the spell in advance is if the DM literally announces the spell, "The sorcerer is casting Wall of Fire over here." Easily avoided by the DM not literally announcing; just say, "the sorcerer is casting a spell." And as for keeping the DM honest, I guess we're lucky that we trust our DM's. We can just say, "I'm casting," and the DM ponders a bit to decide if and what level of CS he will use. But he doesn't tell us right then. He just says, "Ok, I know what I'm doing. What are you casting?" We then say what spell we're casting and the DM announces what he had decided.

I'm intrigued by the discussion, mostly because in my group it has been a complete non-issue.

[Scathain]

This thread is an interesting read. For the record, my group has always played Counterspell as blind. To my recollection, we've never even tried to identify a spell being cast. We have had our quick little debates, "But what if he's casting a higher level spell like Wall of Fire? Think I should use a higher level slot for my CS? If all it is, is a Firebolt I'm wasting a Counterspell." Yeah, we've had those discussions. That's how we thought CS worked. The only time we have knowledge of the spell in advance is if the DM literally announces the spell, "The sorcerer is casting Wall of Fire over here." Easily avoided by the DM not literally announcing; just say, "the sorcerer is casting a spell." And as for keeping the DM honest, I guess we're lucky that we trust our DM's. We can just say, "I'm casting," and the DM ponders a bit to decide if and what level of CS he will use. But he doesn't tell us right then. He just says, "Ok, I know what I'm doing. What are you casting?" We then say what spell we're casting and the DM announces what he had decided.

I'm intrigued by the discussion, mostly because in my group it has been a complete non-issue.

Same here, makes me thankful for my group, seeing everyone here worried about DM vs Player problems.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I did just have a kind of cool idea- a system for arcane casters who use the spell identification reaction to study the spells being cast in order to replicate them later. Like, have a player keep a count of how many times they see each spell cast, and on the third proper identification, they learn it. I know some bard/sorcerer/warlock players that would love the chance to expand their spell list like that. I doubt they'd even mind the extra book keeping.

[Relbin]

I think the main issue here’s that these rules don’t address the main area of need.

DMs: “How do I rule on counterspell? Identifying all spells automatically seems too permissive but giving no way to identify is too punishing and runs counter to how the spell is written. Can I have something I can use that’s more balanced, like a set of rules to identify a spell my players or NPCs want to counter?”

Wizards: “Here’s rules for identifying a spell. Oh, you wanted to use this with counterspell? These rules don’t let you do that. Just use no way to identify.”

DMs: “Ok...I guess these rules are for all situations except the most common one that comes up in game and the reason I wanted rules...I’m more constrained now than I was before and still don’t have a good answer to my question.”

[Spiritchaser]

My problem isn't with balance. I don't think it's an issue one way or another, as long as it's clear.

My problem, as some others have mentioned, is with narrative flow.

"The gaunt man in ragged black robes casts a ball of fire..."

"Counterspell!"

Is something we've all heard.

I am not waiting after each spell cast and polling 4 valid counterspellers in the party each time one of the 3 magic using foes casts something.

Keeping things fast and fun trumps a little realism on the identification of spells.

The new rules look like they'll slow the game down, and I'm not having it.

Just possibly some day I might try a one shot where I play around with this, and a few other things (my nearly on short rest work in progress?) but not soon.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I generally agree that the new rules slow the game down, I don’t see any overt problem with how they are besides that. If. You want to be precise with counterspelling you could be warlock 3 grab a sprite and have it use its own reaction to identify the spell and communicate it to you Telepathically then cast your counterspell.

Or have someone else identify it for you. Speaking is still non action right ?

[Tanarii]

DMs: “How do I rule on counterspell? Identifying all spells automatically seems too permissive but giving no way to identify is too punishing and runs counter to how the spell is written. Can I have something I can use that’s more balanced, like a set of rules to identify a spell my players or NPCs want to counter?”

WoTC answer: "You made a mistaken assumption. It was never intended for Counterspell to be used with knowledge of what the enemy spell being cast is. It was always intended to be cast blind. And here are some rules to make that clear."

[Unoriginal]

WoTC answer: "You made a mistaken assumption. It was never intended for Counterspell to be used with knowledge of what the enemy spell being cast is. It was always intended to be cast blind. And here are some rules to make that clear."

This sums it up well.

[Knaight]

You're missing the forest for the trees. It's not about the tree. It's the vagueness of 5E. Paladin smiting with a heavy weapon, conjuring animals, now apparently monks in anti-magic field, and so forth, people are disagreeing on how the game is played before house rules are brought into the equation. That's relearning how to play the game. The lack of defined skill DCs is a symptom, not the whole thing.

I see the forest just fine, and the tree is emblematic of a broader point of how rigid rules can produce weird effects in setting-first fiction, where more flexible rules that require DM adjudication are better able to cover them.

[Tanarii]

But, outside Counterspell, what use is identifying every spell in the first place?

There are many spells, especially defensive ones, that don't have a visible effect. It may be important to know what they were. It may affect if a PC wants to cast Dispel Magic. It may effect who the PCs attack, if anyone.

As I said a few posts up I tend to just blurt out what the spell is being cast, not the least of which is because the player can see what just happened anyway. It does give Counter-spellers a small advantage, but if they have it they're likely to use it against a first round spell being cast anyway. But my official "rule" has been there's no way to indentify it from the casting. The most common time I don't identify what's being cast is when there's no visible effect.

Example of how I can see this going down my game now:
Me: "the cleric intones a prayer and casts a spell."
Player: "Hey you didn't tell us what it was"
Me: "yeah, this spell doesn't have a visible effect"
Player: "can I identify using the new Xanthar's rule? I'll use my reaction."
Me: "it was an upcast Bless on everyone"
Player: "So targeting that guy to break his concentration."

(I'm fine with that.)

[Spiritchaser]

There are many spells, especially defensive ones, that don't have a visible effect. It may be important to know what they were. It may affect if a PC wants to cast Dispel Magic. It may effect who the PCs attack, if anyone.

As I said a few posts up I tend to just blurt out what the spell is being cast, not the least of which is because the player can see what just happened anyway. It does give Counter-spellers a small advantage, but if they have it they're likely to use it against a first round spell being cast anyway. But my official "rule" has been there's no way to indentify it from the casting. The most common time I don't identify what's being cast is when there's no visible effect.

Example of how I can see this going down my game now:
Me: "the cleric intones a prayer and casts a spell."
Player: "Hey you didn't tell us what it was"
Me: "yeah, this spell doesn't have a visible effect"
Player: "can I identify using the new Xanthar's rule? I'll use my reaction."
Me: "it was an upcast Bless on everyone"
Player: "So targeting that guy to break his concentration."

(I'm fine with that.)

This is probably a reasonable compromise, and it's a lot like what will probably happen at my table. Anything overt and visible is going to be announced. Anything without a visible effect wasn't going to be announced anyway, and this can codify how they figure it out. That doesn't slow anything down.

[LeonBH]

This thread is an interesting read. For the record, my group has always played Counterspell as blind. To my recollection, we've never even tried to identify a spell being cast. We have had our quick little debates, "But what if he's casting a higher level spell like Wall of Fire? Think I should use a higher level slot for my CS? If all it is, is a Firebolt I'm wasting a Counterspell." Yeah, we've had those discussions. That's how we thought CS worked. The only time we have knowledge of the spell in advance is if the DM literally announces the spell, "The sorcerer is casting Wall of Fire over here." Easily avoided by the DM not literally announcing; just say, "the sorcerer is casting a spell." And as for keeping the DM honest, I guess we're lucky that we trust our DM's. We can just say, "I'm casting," and the DM ponders a bit to decide if and what level of CS he will use. But he doesn't tell us right then. He just says, "Ok, I know what I'm doing. What are you casting?" We then say what spell we're casting and the DM announces what he had decided.

I'm intrigued by the discussion, mostly because in my group it has been a complete non-issue.

I agree with you and have a similar experience. I've always Counterspelled blind but it was a non-issue for us, as our DM isn't adversarial. But he likes to throw some really powerful enemies at us.

DM: He starts waving his hands in the air...
Me: Is that a spell? I'll Counterspell. What's the DC?
DM: -grins- 19
Me: Okay, here goes. I have advantage because Tides of Chaos... 22!
DM: ...

This happened when we were level 7. Hehe.

[Pex]

I see the forest just fine, and the tree is emblematic of a broader point of how rigid rules can produce weird effects in setting-first fiction, where more flexible rules that require DM adjudication are better able to cover them.

Considering how rigid all rules before 5E were yet still produced a large variety of campaigns as there were a variety of DMs, that is meaningless.

[Tanarii]

Considering how rigid all rules before 5E were yet still produced a large variety of campaigns as there were a variety of DMs, that is meaningless.

You left out "in 3e". Because that's the only edition of D&D that had all rigid rules.

And his point is completely applicable to 3e, because that's what it did. Create weird disruptions where the strict rules met the in-game universe. All over the place.

[Knaight]

You left out "in 3e". Because that's the only edition of D&D that had all rigid rules.

The variety across DMs (particularly those who adhered to a more rigid structure) was also pretty stunted compared to other games.

And his point is completely applicable to 3e, because that's what it did. Create weird disruptions where the strict rules met the in-game universe. All over the place.

Remember the Spot mechanic? Weird edge cases were one thing, but basically every time that skill came up it was stupid in some fashion or other.

[mer.c]

There are many spells, especially defensive ones, that don't have a visible effect. It may be important to know what they were. It may affect if a PC wants to cast Dispel Magic. It may effect who the PCs attack, if anyone.

As I said a few posts up I tend to just blurt out what the spell is being cast, not the least of which is because the player can see what just happened anyway. It does give Counter-spellers a small advantage, but if they have it they're likely to use it against a first round spell being cast anyway. But my official "rule" has been there's no way to indentify it from the casting. The most common time I don't identify what's being cast is when there's no visible effect.

Example of how I can see this going down my game now:
Me: "the cleric intones a prayer and casts a spell."
Player: "Hey you didn't tell us what it was"
Me: "yeah, this spell doesn't have a visible effect"
Player: "can I identify using the new Xanthar's rule? I'll use my reaction."
Me: "it was an upcast Bless on everyone"
Player: "So targeting that guy to break his concentration."

(I'm fine with that.)

Yeah, it was pointed out that I was working on the assumption that a spell is always identified after the casting is resolved. Thanks for the clarification; I like your way a lot.

[Tanarii]

Remember the Spot mechanic? Weird edge cases were one thing, but basically every time that skill came up it was stupid in some fashion or other.

5e passive perception and wisdom (perception) can cause similar problems unless used within the context of the DM determining first "is this an automatic success/failure", and generally using her judgement.

Which is the entire point of the 5e ability checks system. It has its flaws, including many valid ones that pex has pointed out in the past. Some of which are preference, others of which are just problematic. But the advantage is it's supposedly based on DM using judgement on what's applicable given the current in-game situation, and adjusting appropriately.

Yeah, it was pointed out that I was working on the assumption that a spell is always identified after the casting is resolved. Thanks for the clarification; I like your way a lot.

Ah, I didn't realize that was your context.

[Knaight]

5e passive perception and wisdom (perception) can cause similar problems unless used within the context of the DM determining first "is this an automatic success/failure", and generally using her judgement.

It has some of them, but it doesn't have the -1 penalty per 10 feet thing, which is where it tended to get really stupid.

[JellyPooga]

This thread is an interesting read. For the record, my group has always played Counterspell as blind. To my recollection, we've never even tried to identify a spell being cast. We have had our quick little debates, "But what if he's casting a higher level spell like Wall of Fire? Think I should use a higher level slot for my CS? If all it is, is a Firebolt I'm wasting a Counterspell." Yeah, we've had those discussions. That's how we thought CS worked. The only time we have knowledge of the spell in advance is if the DM literally announces the spell, "The sorcerer is casting Wall of Fire over here." Easily avoided by the DM not literally announcing; just say, "the sorcerer is casting a spell." And as for keeping the DM honest, I guess we're lucky that we trust our DM's. We can just say, "I'm casting," and the DM ponders a bit to decide if and what level of CS he will use. But he doesn't tell us right then. He just says, "Ok, I know what I'm doing. What are you casting?" We then say what spell we're casting and the DM announces what he had decided.

I'm intrigued by the discussion, mostly because in my group it has been a complete non-issue.

Pretty much this. Counterspell is a terribly strong spell; spending a Reaction to automatically negate an enemies Action is powerful, let alone the possibility of the spell level difference (e.g. using a 3rd level slot to counter a 4th level spell). Enforcing "blind" counterspells with "spell ID as a Reaction" is only reinforcing the balance of the spell that was, IMO, intended.

[Tanarii]

It has some of them, but it doesn't have the -1 penalty per 10 feet thing, which is where it tended to get really stupid.

Spoiler: getting pretty far off topic here

Show

Accounting for range is one thing that's missing that often lets 5e passive perception get stupid, unless the DM adjusts. Especially for hearing. Most people don't know a (loutish) conversation is as quiet as a whisper at 30-60ft, and a shout at 60-120ft. So you get things like DMs having your battle draw enemies that are 250 ft away into the fray, or detecting invisible creatures trying to stealt by hearing alone at 100 ft.

Although I was originally referring to the way many people treat passive perception like an always on radar, regardless of what the PCs are doing. (Which isn't a actually what the rules say to do, but still ...)

[Mara]

Every day 5e only gets worse.