The new spell identification rules are terrible.

[Talamare]

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.

There are no Cool Heads here!

Besides it makes no sense to be a reactive spotter...

How is it faster to...

Person A keeps a look out, if something happens, he will inform Person B what is happening, so that Person B can make a decision of whether to press the button

vs

Person B keeps a look out, if something happens, he makes the decision to press the button.


or even worse

Person A keeps a look out, if something happens, he will inform Person B what is happening, but he failed to understand what is happening
So he asks Person C to also take a look, Person C can't figure it out either.
Still unsure, Person C decides to ask Person D to take try to figure it out.
Person D finally figures it out, and decides to explain it to Person B.
So that Person B can make a decision of whether to press the button

[Beelzebubba]

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."

Yeah, pretty much. I plan out general tactics for my complex monsters, and if it comes down to it I'll do something like this:

Flaw: Arrogant, so never Counterspells the first spell cast against them
Above 50% hit points, Counterspells 11-20
Below 50% hit points, Counterspells on 6-20
If more than one spellcaster, always Counterspells the Arcane caster

And just roll every time.

It took a minute, and now I can say those out to the players, roll in the dice tray in the middle of the table, and it's now a mechanic instead of the stuff most of you are terrifying yourself / complaining about

[Waterdeep Merch]

I'm thinking of letting players who know the spells being cast automatically know when those spells are being cast. I'll separate divine/arcane versions because they tend to actually be different in my games, but that seems fair.

I'll have to get players in the habit of saying "I cast a spell" instead of the name of the spell to make things fair backwards. I'll throw down a card if there's an enemy caster that wants to counterspell it, meaning the enemy absolutely will if they don't recognize the spell but might if they know the spell as well. Then the player says what they're casting and we move on from there.

It's a few extra steps, but I think it's ultimately going to be more useful for the players. I'm not against the reaction checks so much as even needing them for spells you already know.

I do like the teamwork aspect, however.

[Easy_Lee]

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.

To this point, I'm more concerned about this tripping up DMs than anything. But I do think encouraging teamwork is a good idea. In my experience, the best way to ensure you do well in a campaign is to show up with a partner and coordinate your character with theirs.

Friend wants to play a moon druid? Have him take Sentinel, then play a Mounted Combatant Wolf Barbarian and ride your friend into battle.

Friend wants to play a ranger? Play a land druid and provide cover, haste, longstrider, wild shape support, entangle, faerie fire, and similar.

Friend is playing a gnome wizard? Play a rogue or bard with arcana expertise plus alert, play spotter, and put that squishy wizard in your backpack like Yoda where he'll be safe.

[Finieous]

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.

Dude, you just repeated the thought process I went through in the post you quoted, didn't you? I can justify the archmage's action either way. What I have to do with this rule is compartmentalize what I know, and then, not just justify after the fact but choose a course of action for the archmage without using that knowledge. It's possible I'm mentally deficient, but I can't credibly claim to be able to do that. I'd just have to roll randomly.

Or, more likely, just always have plenty of spotters to identify spells for me. It seems some people actually like that idea, which is cool. I do not. Anyway, I just chatted with my group and we all agreed the rule is goofy and we won't be using it. So that's another house rule.

[Breashios]

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.

My definition of houserule is different than yours apparently.

My use: House Ruling (and the reason it is considered less desirable than DM ruling) is making a change to existing rules to suit the house's (or table's) desire for the game they are playing, while DM Ruling, is making any decision, whether it is to keep the game moving (a subset of DM ruling we call temporary), to expand, detail or interpret (when unclear) an existing rule or create a rule when it is determined no rule exists to handle a situation.

There have been plenty of times where two or more players reading the same rule come to different interpretations of a section and it needs to be worked out for future cases by the group how they would like it to be handled. It is understood a different group may never deal with such a case or may decide to handle it differently. Obviously, these are all cases around the edges of the mechanics and not usually mechanical at all.

I have no problem in retrospect seeing how this can be considered House Ruling, but when I play with other groups, they handle this in a variety of different ways - most allow some level of identification of the spell before deciding to counterspell or not, and none have ever told me it was a house rule. I've always accepted it as a DM ruling for that table.

[Easy_Lee]

Well, a familiar could play spotter for the wizard. Pretty sure they all have terrible intelligence and no arcana - except maybe a few chain pact warlock familiars. But it's a thought.

[LeonBH]

There are no Cool Heads here!

Besides it makes no sense to be a reactive spotter...

How is it faster to...

Person A keeps a look out, if something happens, he will inform Person B what is happening, so that Person B can make a decision of whether to press the button

vs

Person B keeps a look out, if something happens, he makes the decision to press the button.


or even worse

Person A keeps a look out, if something happens, he will inform Person B what is happening, but he failed to understand what is happening
So he asks Person C to also take a look, Person C can't figure it out either.
Still unsure, Person C decides to ask Person D to take try to figure it out.
Person D finally figures it out, and decides to explain it to Person B.
So that Person B can make a decision of whether to press the button

You're exaggerating the chain. Not all the PCs will identify the spell because it costs a reaction. If a melee attacker uses their reaction this way, the opponents adjacent to them can move without using their action to Disengage.

Realistically, only ranged fighters or casters without Counter spell will be spotters.

As for explaining how the chain can get so long, I feel like having a GOO Warlock or the Telepathy spell in the party will really facilitate the fiction of instant communication.

If neither is present, they can just talk via hand signals and nonverbal gestures (especially if a Rogue is there, who can teach everyone a bit of Thieves' Cant), or handwave it away.

[stoutstien]

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.

My thinking is that Arcana is not just knowing how to cast a spell but it's the study of spell casting in general regardless of its source being natural or divine. I'm pretty sure that Arcana is an available skill pick for every primary Caster that has counterspell on their list. Other than that I can't find the other use for arcana in the book other than pure fluff.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Has anyone considered that two or more characters can now work together to identify a spell?

That's exactly the jarring thing.

Q: Can you identify a spell before Counterspelling it?

JC: No, there's no time, Counterspelling is a frantic reflex.

Q: OK, but can you have another character paying attention grind the gears in their head to determine which spell it is, then shout (off-turn) the in-game designation for that spell, as if that's some kind of tactical tag-team routine fantasy heroes practice for whenever they encounter a magic-user, then have the Counterspeller grind the gears in their head to determine whether it's worth Counterspelling, then fling off the Counterspell?

JC: Yeah! Do that!

[LeonBH]

My definition of houserule is different than yours apparently.

My use: House Ruling (and the reason it is considered less desirable than DM ruling) is making a change to existing rules to suit the house's (or table's) desire for the game they are playing, while DM Ruling, is making any decision, whether it is to keep the game moving (a subset of DM ruling we call temporary), to expand, detail or interpret (when unclear) an existing rule or create a rule when it is determined no rule exists to handle a situation.

There have been plenty of times where two or more players reading the same rule come to different interpretations of a section and it needs to be worked out for future cases by the group how they would like it to be handled. It is understood a different group may never deal with such a case or may decide to handle it differently. Obviously, these are all cases around the edges of the mechanics and not usually mechanical at all.

I have no problem in retrospect seeing how this can be considered House Ruling, but when I play with other groups, they handle this in a variety of different ways - most allow some level of identification of the spell before deciding to counterspell or not, and none have ever told me it was a house rule. I've always accepted it as a DM ruling for that table.

My understanding is that if you make a DM ruling on an unclear issue, and the table is now bound by that ruling, it is a new house rule. It is a rule that specific table is following and it is a rule not in the game.

Anyway, there is nothing wrong with house rules. Every table has house rules.

[Unoriginal]

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.

Actually, not true.

D&D spells work the same for everyone (aside from innate and psionic stuff which are slightly different). A Cleric casting Firebolt is doing the same thing, fundamentally, than a Wizard casting Firebolt or a Bard casting Firebolt, if they both have the capacity to cast that spell. Even if they get that spell from totally different sources.

And knowledge of spells, any of them, is under Arcana.

Now, it would be completely different if it was something like Channel Divinity. Since Channel Divinity is not a spell but a part of a God's domain used by a Cleric, Arcana would not work.

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.

That's why you need an Arcana check for identifying what the spell is.

Also the verbal component is not in any language, strictly speaking. It's the sound that's important.

Dude, you just repeated the thought process I went through in the post you quoted, didn't you?

Well, it wasn't my intent, I just tried to explain my thought process in that kind of situation and hoped it would give you some idea on how to make your NPCs-decision-making clearer. I'm sorry it didn't help.

I can't credibly claim to be able to do that. I'd just have to roll randomly.

I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything, but just to make sure I understand your problem: if your bad guy and the PCs are confronted by an enigma, which as a DM you know the answer of, do you have troubles not giving the meta-knowledge to your bad guy?

[Finieous]

JC: Yeah! Do that!

It's worse. Spotter 1 spends a reaction and fails the Int check, then Spotter 2 spends a reaction and fails the Int check, then Spotter 3...

[Unoriginal]

My understanding is that if you make a DM ruling on an unclear issue, and the table is now bound by that ruling, it is a new house rule. It is a rule that specific table is following and it is a rule not in the game.

Anyway, there is nothing wrong with house rules. Every table has house rules.

The difference between a ruling and an house rule is that the ruling is how the DM interpret an already existing rule, while an house rule is adding a personal rule to the game or modify the rules who are already here (ex: "all Wood Elves get Sneak Attack as a racial power")

[Finieous]

I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything, but just to make sure I understand your problem: if your bad guy and the PCs are confronted by an enigma, which as a DM you know the answer of, do you have troubles not giving the meta-knowledge to your bad guy?

I'm not tracking the abstract hypothetical, here. If I'm running an NPC with the party and they're investigating something I know the answer to, maybe I have my NPC make an Investigation check. How does that help me in the counterspell case?

Step away from counterspell for a moment. If a player attacks my archmage, I know whether he hit or missed as soon as the d20 stops rolling (actually, as soon as the result appears on the screen, since I play on Roll20). I can't pretend I don't know what the result is when I decide whether the archmage casts shield or not. Therefore, everyone gets to know the result of an attack roll when they decide whether or not to cast shield. Works fine for us.

[Unoriginal]

That's exactly the jarring thing.

Q: Can you identify a spell before Counterspelling it?

JC: No, there's no time, Counterspelling is a frantic reflex.

Q: OK, but can you have another character paying attention grind the gears in their head to determine which spell it is, then shout (off-turn) the in-game designation for that spell, as if that's some kind of tactical tag-team routine fantasy heroes practice for whenever they encounter a magic-user, then have the Counterspeller grind the gears in their head to determine whether it's worth Counterspelling, then fling off the Counterspell?

JC: Yeah! Do that!

It's worse. Spotter 1 spends a reaction and fails the Int check, then Spotter 2 spends a reaction and fails the Int check, then Spotter 3...

Let's not exaggerate, please.

Crawford just said it was reasonable if one person identified the spell and another cast Counterspell with that knowledge.

He didn't say "y'all need Identifying"

[stoutstien]

I keep pretty thorough notes of all my more complex combating counters and is from what I can tell as soon as my players believe that an enemy casters capable of counterspell they do everything they can to lock down the reaction. Either by trying to draw a shield earlier in the round or straight up deny through shocking grasp. Orform some other aspect that hinderes reactions.

[LeonBH]

That's exactly the jarring thing.

Q: Can you identify a spell before Counterspelling it?

JC: No, there's no time, Counterspelling is a frantic reflex.

Q: OK, but can you have another character paying attention grind the gears in their head to determine which spell it is, then shout (off-turn) the in-game designation for that spell, as if that's some kind of tactical tag-team routine fantasy heroes practice for whenever they encounter a magic-user, then have the Counterspeller grind the gears in their head to determine whether it's worth Counterspelling, then fling off the Counterspell?

JC: Yeah! Do that!

I understand it makes less temporal sense. You've phrased it in a way that makes it look ridiculous. But the simple solution if you dislike the rule, is roll in the Arcana check with the Counterspell.

If you want to play by RAW, though, you will have to find ways to explain this. Thieves' Cant, GOO Telepathy, the Telepathy spell.

You can also imagine the fiction to go something like: the enemy casts a spell, the Wizard begins motions for a Counterspell, but at the last second looks at their spotters who say yes/no, and they proceed/discontinue.

That is, you can pretend the Counterspell and spell identification are happening simultaneously, but the CS always finishes last.

[Dhuraal]

For those who can't wrap their head around how it makes more sense to have a spotter identify the spell then tell the counterer, think of it in terms of an actual sniper and spotter.

The sniper is focused on lining up the shot with input from the spotter and when the spotter says "fire" the sniper fires.

In this situation they characters see a spell being cast, the counterer starts to prepare and go through the steps for a counter (few though they may be for a reaction) meanwhile the spotter focuses and identifies. Then the spotter yells something along the lines of "COUNTER! 7!" or "HOLD!" and the counterer acts accordingly. Either finished the spell and countering or pulling off and letting it go.

It is not a chain of events but a simultaneous series of events. And talking is a free action

[Waterdeep Merch]

It's worse. Spotter 1 spends a reaction and fails the Int check, then Spotter 2 spends a reaction and fails the Int check, then Spotter 3...

I think I'm also going to lower the threshold for recognizing spells a bit. 15+spell level (this is what I've been told it is) means, in the beginning, someone trained in arcana with a 16 in intelligence has only slightly better than 50/50 odds to recognize a level 1 spell. Anyone that's not a rogue or bard with expertise but maxes intelligence will eventually get to the lofty heights of still failing to recognize the highest level spells 65% of the time.

Meaning, if you actually want to spot spells, you're just not going to be able to do it with any regularity unless you play a rogue or bard and take expertise in arcana. Even then, with maxed intelligence and double proficiency at cap, you've got a 35% chance of not recognizing level 9 spells.

That's stupid. I think I'll do it the way I always have- 10+spell level, cannot attempt it without training in arcana.

[Beelzebubba]

Actually, not true.

D&D spells work the same for everyone (aside from innate and psionic stuff which are slightly different). A Cleric casting Firebolt is doing the same thing, fundamentally, than a Wizard casting Firebolt or a Bard casting Firebolt, if they both have the capacity to cast that spell. Even if they get that spell from totally different sources.

And knowledge of spells, any of them, is under Arcana.

Now, it would be completely different if it was something like Channel Divinity. Since Channel Divinity is not a spell but a part of a God's domain used by a Cleric, Arcana would not work.

I agree with the conclusion, based on how Spell Scrolls work (if it's on your list you can use it, it doesn't discriminate), but do the rules specifically say this somewhere?

[Dhuraal]

You can also imagine the fiction to go something like: the enemy casts a spell, the Wizard begins motions for a Counterspell, but at the last second looks at their spotters who say yes/no, and they proceed/discontinue.

That is, you can pretend the Counterspell and spell identification are happening simultaneously, but the CS always finishes last.

*shakes fist*

[Finieous]

Let's not exaggerate, please.

Crawford just said it was reasonable if one person identified the spell and another cast Counterspell with that knowledge.

He didn't say "y'all need Identifying"

Is there some limit on the number of reactions that can occur? Sounds like we might need a house rule.

For the record, I have no problem with those who like the rule. I can see some benefits of it (along with what I consider some absurdities). I think it can be made to work at the table better than it would on VTT (the token idea is cool). But in either case, I don't personally think the payoff is worth the hassle. My group agrees. We're good.

[Unoriginal]

I'm not tracking the abstract hypothetical, here. If I'm running an NPC with the party and they're investigating something I know the answer to, maybe I have my NPC make an Investigation check. How does that help me in the counterspell case?

Let's say your NPC has three paths in front of him and has to choose one. His Intelligence (Investigation) check is not enought to find the crucial clue that shows which is the right path, but it's enough to tell him the first path is long and tortuous, the second would be shorter but require to climb a cliff, and the third is shorter still but goes right through the territory of some kind of monster.

How do you decide which path this NPC will want to take?

Step away from counterspell for a moment. If a player attacks my archmage, I know whether he hit or missed as soon as the d20 stops rolling (actually, as soon as the result appears on the screen, since I play on Roll20). I can't pretend I don't know what the result is when I decide whether the archmage casts shield or not. Therefore, everyone gets to know the result of an attack roll when they decide whether or not to cast shield. Works fine for us.

I'm... not sure I follow you, here. According to the rules of the spell: "Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell", the casting of the spell Shielf can only be done if the caster's getting hit. There would be no need to "pretend to not know the results" and everyone know the result of the attack roll already by default, because the spell trigger when you're hit, provided you spend your reaction.

Now, you could argue that you still need to pretend the archmage doesn't know if the hit is going to be dangerous, or to pretend that you don't know if the Shield is going to help or not, but I'm not sure that's what you're talking about.

[Naicz]

So granted, I play in friendly house games so this holds no bearing on AL games,
but,
as far as I understand, JC and other "Sage Advice" is just that, advice.

So in my game I would say, "Okay, you can use your reaction to make an Int (Arcana) check and identify the spell. Then, successful or otherwise, you could choose to counterspell it as part of the same reaction."

Does it follow the "official" rules? No.
Does it remove the giant speedbump that this causes tables that have simply been calling out "I/He casts FIREBALL"? Yep
Will it make the game simpler and more fun, while still adopting an aspect of the game the developers are trying to introduce? Check and check

Granted, if you haven't been using spell names, and simply stating "I/He am/is casting a spell" and you decide then and there to counterspell or not,
well then now at least you have an official ruling on how to identify it, by expending your reaction and using a skill check.

Nothing lost, something gained, everyone "wins"

[Finieous]

Let's say your NPC has three paths in front of him and has to choose one.

Sorry man, no disrespect. Just not interested in this. I think the counterspell case is different from the hypotheticals you're offering, you evidently don't or you wouldn't be offering them. That's cool, we see it differently. To address the broader issue, yeah, I've been DMing for thirty-seven years and I can make a wide range of decisions for NPCs without metagaming.

I'm... not sure I follow you, here. According to the rules of the spell: "Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell", the casting of the spell Shielf can only be done if the caster's getting hit. There would be no need to "pretend to not know the results" and everyone know the result of the attack roll already by default, because the spell trigger when you're hit, provided you spend your reaction.

Yeah, the spell wording is terrible, of course, because if the shield triggers when you're hit, it can't retroactively stop you from being hit. Beyond that, knowing you would be hit and knowing the result of the attack roll are two different things. In my games, on Roll20, all rolls are in the open (player and DM), so everyone knows not only whether they've been hit but also whether they've been hit by five or less. Hope that clears it up.

[DivisibleByZero]

The bottom line here is this:
People are getting all bent out of shape because the rules do not allow them to identify a spell and counterspell it, by themselves, in the same turn.

News flash: The rules never allowed this in the first place.
You're complaining that the rules "no longer" allow something which the rules never actually allowed to begin with.
If you were allowing it, you were houseruling.
So houserule it again now. Literally nothing changes. You were houseruling before, so houserule it again now. There is no problem that needs to be solved.

[LeonBH]

Sage Advice and JC's tweets are actually officially backed by Wizards of the Coast. If JC says a rule, that is official, in the sense that WotC, who publishes the official rules, says they're official.

[DivisibleByZero]

Sage Advice and JC's tweets are actually officially backed by Wizards if the Coast. If JC says a rule, that is official, in the sense that WotC, who publishes the official rules, says they're official.

*Sage Advice the article on WotC's website, not sageadvice.eu
Just to clarify

And for the record, not all of JC's tweets are official. Sometimes they are. I'd even go so far as to say often. But not always. The difference is usually fairly clear, with wording such as "at my table" or "I'd allow it" or similar.

[UrielAwakened]

The Shield/Counterspell disparity frustrates me.