Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Undrhil Jan 18, 2015 3:01:09	Theorycrafting here: Can you cast Counterspell as a reaction to someone within 60 feet casting Counterspell against a spell you are casting?
#2 SilentSin Jan 18, 2015 3:08:39	Undrhil wrote:
#3 Undrhil Jan 18, 2015 4:11:59	I fail to see how it is interrupting my own spell.
(Reply to #3) SilentSin	Undrhil wrote:
#5 Undrhil Jan 18, 2015 6:25:11	Because there is nothing in the rules that says that I cannot use a reaction while taking an action?
(Reply to #5) SilentSin	Undrhil wrote:
#7 Yunru Jan 18, 2015 7:51:23	That's because forced movement doesn't provole. If it did, you could.
(Reply to #7) SilentSin	Yunru wrote:
#9 Tempest_Stormwind Jan 18, 2015 8:49:41	Undrhil wrote:
#10 Kalani Jan 18, 2015 9:24:37	SilentSin wrote:
(Reply to #10) SilentSin	Kalani wrote:
(Reply to #9) SilentSin	Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
(Reply to #12) Ashrym	SilentSin wrote:
#14 Undrhil Jan 18, 2015 21:33:47	So, if I have both hands free (or am using an arcane focus in one hand with a component pouch, as well) then I could cast counterspell against a counterspell against my spell.   There are quite a few examples in fiction of mage's casting spells and changing course in their casting to deflect some other spell and then resuming their original casting.  That would support the counterspell vs counterspell, but not getting to cast my original spell, but also not losing that spell slot.  I would use a spell slot for counterspell, of course.   Either option is interesting as it causes the enemy to use a spell slot which they then do not have later for fireball or who-knows-what.   On the other hand, if someone else is casting a spell and an enemy casts counterspell, I could counterspell their counterspell with no restrictions, correct?  Well, aside from the usualy restrictions of spell casting.
(Reply to #14) SilentSin	Undrhil wrote:
#16 Ninja_Ferret Jan 18, 2015 23:08:59	You would be in an endless loop of counterspelling. Now that person is trying to counterspell you by droping their reaction to your first spell that is now not being cast to counterspell your counterspell.
#17 Kalani Jan 18, 2015 23:40:21	Ninja_Ferret wrote:
#18 paulstrait Jan 18, 2015 23:35:47	By the RAW, I think one can counterspell in the middle of their own spell (note, though, that the question is not whether you can take a reaction during your *turn*, which you obviously can, but whether you can take a reaction while *simultaneously* taking an action -- or, more specifically, whether you can take a reaction to cast a spell while *simultaneously* taking an action to cast a spell).  The fact that this wouldn't apply to swifter bonus action spells but would apply to normal action spells is a bit wanky and suggests that this scenario was not envisioned by the designers.    It would be reasonable, I think, for a DM to require a concentration check in order to not lose track of the original spell that you have halfway cast and put on hold in order to cast counterspell.  I would make it an Intelligence check rather than a Constitution check, with a DC in the 10-15 range.  The 'longer casting times' rule implies that one needs to concentrate for the duration of casting a spell, and I similarly think it would be reasonable to allow PCs to ready an action like firing an arrow right at the moment the evil wizard begins casting a spell -- and supposing that such an attack hits, I would think it reasonable to have the evil wizard make a constitution saving throw to see if the spell was disrupted.
#19 Undrhil Jan 19, 2015 1:12:32	OK.  Let's get down to brass tacks here.   Assuming the original spell is a casting time of 1 action, then I'm done with that part.  It's cast, I've spent my 1 action to do so.  The enemy has cast a reaction which is to cast counterspell.  I am now using my own reaction to cast counterspell.  This is no different than if I were casting Shield at this point.   Now, if I am casting a spell with a casting time of 1 minute or 1 hour, I would except some kind of check upon my own casting of Counterspell, but that really isn't supported by RAW either.   If a spell has a casting time of 1 reaction, then it describes when that reaction can be taken. Counterspell says - Duration: 1 reaction (cast when another creature you can see within 60 feet of you casts a spell)
#20 paulstrait Jan 19, 2015 1:37:03	Undrhil wrote:
#21 Novacat Jan 19, 2015 1:45:51	Kalani wrote:
(Reply to #20) Undrhil	paulstrait wrote:
(Reply to #22) Macv12	Undrhil wrote:
#24 Alficles Jan 19, 2015 16:32:05	SilentSin wrote:
(Reply to #24) guachi	Alficles wrote:
#26 Tempest_Stormwind Jan 19, 2015 16:43:11	Alficles wrote:
#27 Ganymede425 Jan 19, 2015 16:43:18	"You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell."   How is someone "in the process of casting a spell" going to be able to cast Counterspell?
#28 Tempest_Stormwind Jan 19, 2015 16:46:47	Ganymede425 wrote:
#29 Ganymede425 Jan 19, 2015 16:53:07	Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
#30 Tempest_Stormwind Jan 19, 2015 17:32:47	Ganymede425 wrote:
#31 paulstrait Jan 19, 2015 19:26:47	Undrhil wrote:
#32 paulstrait Jan 19, 2015 19:30:02	Macv12 wrote:
#33 Alficles Jan 20, 2015 8:15:28	Consider a similar scenario: You cast Shocking Grasp against another Wizard. He flips you the counterbird. You have the Mage Slayer feat and a dagger in your left hand. Can you stab him? I don't see any reason why not.
#34 Bloodscythe Jan 20, 2015 10:35:21	You could just apply the same rule for bonus action spells to reactions:  You can't cast a 2nd spell on your turn unless it's a cantrip.  You're free to use your reaction spells on another creature's turn, or on your turn if you're not also casting a 1st lvl or higher spell on your turn.   Player A: casts fireball. enemy B: casts counterspell. Player A: "I want to cast counterspell to counter the enemy's counterspell" DM: "You are already using your action to cast fireball.  You can't cast a 2nd spell on your turn unless it's a cantrip."   But since the rule for reaction spells don't include that limitation, I'd rule at my table that such a restriction doesn't exist.   Player A: "I want to cast fireball" DM: enemy X is casting counterspell in reaction to you casting fireball. Player A: "I will cast counterspell as reaction to enemy X casting a spell." DM: "Fireball requires a somatic component... as long as you cast counterspell with your other hand, I don't have a problem with that.  Since counterspell is 3rd lvl, the enemy's spell fails automatically.  Since the enemy's counterspell failed and had no effect, you manage to cast fireball without interruption."   This doesn't seem very overpowered a ruling considering the player had to use two spell slots, their reaction for the round, and required the use of both hands to cast the spells to accomplish it.  This really only works because both spells don't require verbal components, otherwise I'd probably rule differently.   The argument that you can't use a reaction during an action however has no merit.  Imagine this situation, where player A is a monk and has 2 attacks: Player A: "I want to attack the goblin right next to me."  *rolls dice* DM: "The goblin goes down from a single strike.  Now what do you want to do?  You still have 1 attack." Player A: "I will move to the next goblin and attack it." DM: "As you advance on the goblin it throws a javelin at you as a reaction to you moving closer" Player A: "Can I use my reaction to catch the javelin?" DM: "Yes, the rules say you can." Player: "Can I continue moving to the goblin and use my other attack?" DM: "Yes, the rules say you can."   The rules say you can use your reaction on your turn or on another creature's turn.  There is no such limitation that it can't be done between attacks, and since it can be done between attacks, it must therefore be allowed that it can be done during, as well as before or after, your 1 action.
#35 EzechielDantan Jan 20, 2015 10:38:00	As long as the caste has a free hand not aleady somehow engaged in casting o holding something I have no issue with him countespelling as a reaction too, seems to be a fair enough benefit for a caster without shield or picking his spells carefully. Also it will prevent the caster from using a shield spell.
#36 Tempest_Stormwind Jan 20, 2015 10:48:02	EzechielDantan wrote:
(Reply to #36) EzechielDantan	Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
(Reply to #37) Alficles	EzechielDantan wrote:
#39 Tempest_Stormwind Jan 20, 2015 14:26:42	EzechielDantan wrote:
#40 paulstrait Jan 20, 2015 16:07:16	Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
#41 Tempest_Stormwind Jan 20, 2015 16:51:25	paulstrait wrote:
#42 RufusRockbottom Jan 20, 2015 19:05:46	Does it not say under reactions that a reaction happens during anothers turn? Implying not on your own turn.       If not then a counterspell is still a spell and subject to another counterspell, it would resolve the chain of spells in reverse order(last spell resolved first) as it is in tcg games such as magic the gathering imo.   A: casts fireball B: casts counterspell A: casts counterspell   Resolved with last spell cast being resolved first, A's counterspell countering B's counterspell and A's fireball is cast normally.
#43 paulstrait Jan 20, 2015 19:43:54	RufusRockbottom wrote:
#44 RufusRockbottom Jan 20, 2015 22:44:44	paulstrait wrote:
#45 Undrhil May 01, 2015 0:40:38	Sorry for the necro, but I wanted to point out that in this month's Sage Advice, Crawford has put into words this very situation and deemed that it works.   http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/ability-check   What am I talking about?  This is my thread.  I'm not necroing it .. I'm bumping it!
#46 QwertyAzerty May 01, 2015 10:02:03	SilentSin wrote: