@JeremyECrawford Not sure if you're fielding questions about Xanathar's Guide yet, but I'm curious about the design intent by having Identifying a Spell take a reaction/action.
— Sivad Semaj (@therealjimdavis) November 9, 2017
In Xanathar's, Identifying a spell requires an action or a reaction because it involves focused deduction; it's not automatic. Moreover, I didn't want combat to devolve into people identifying every spell. #DnD https://t.co/Vj5kD3tjTp
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 9, 2017
But since Counterspell is also a reaction, that means you can never actually know the spell you’re countering before you counter it? Seems like there should be an exception there.It intentionally doesn't work with counterspell. Counterspell is a sudden effort to break a spell. You're intended to have only enough time to cast it, not to carefully weigh whether the other caster's spell is worth breaking.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 9, 2017
Would it be reasonable that one person could identify a spell and another counterspell it with that knowledge?Yes.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 9, 2017
If any of my DMs use these rules yeah I probably will. I quite liked the powerful feeling of control you got from PHB counterspell, it was like playing a Blue deck in MTG. But I can see why you’ve written it this way so again thanks for the clarification.To be clear, the rule in Xanathar's has no effect on how counterspell functions.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 9, 2017
Sorry I think I’ve misunderstood. Previously my DM (or me if I were DMing) would announce which spell was being cast, then the PC would choose to use their reaction or not. Were we doing it wrong somehow? I’m willing to accept we were but I’ve never seen it played differently :/Your DM is choosing to be generous with information, which is the DM's prerogative.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 9, 2017
What if you use your reaction to identify it and communicate the spell to some one else who has their reaction left? That works.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 10, 2017
Along the same lines, I’m betting you have to guess. It creates interesting choices during combat, rather than mechanically optimal ones.You have to guess. Counterspell is extremely potent. Gambling on the outcome is an intended part of the spell's design.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 9, 2017
I don’t think that’s interesting, that just makes Counterspell pretty worthless at higher levels. There’s better things you can do with a sixth level spell slot than waste it counterspelling a second level spell because you’re playing a shell game with the DM and guessed wrong.If you don't have the stomach for the risk posed by counterspell, I do recommend avoiding it.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 9, 2017
Because the old way already worked without this headache. It’s a half-hearted attempted at nerfing counterspell, not an attempt to speed up gameplay. Call it what it is, we’re not idiots. The optional rule in Xanathar’s has no effect on how counterspell functions.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 10, 2017
It does though. I don’t know how you can say that unless you just aren’t thinking about the implications of how much worse it makes the spell.
Why would ever upcast it now? The optional rule in no way dictates how players and DMs describe spellcasting at their table. If your group always says what spell you're casting, ignore this rule. This option exists for the DM who wants a formalized way of identifying spells.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 10, 2017
Yeah I get that it’s an option. It’s just not one that alleviates slowdown at a table like you seem to suggest.
All you’ve done is add a passing-priority system to D&D in the same vein as Magic the Gathering. That’s what I don’t get. The intent. This rule isn't intended to speed up play. It's intended to give you a formalized way to identify spells. I did say that it's an action/reaction, rather than no action at all, because I didn't want it to lead to endless identification.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 10, 2017
By the rules, PCs know if they’ve been hit or not before they cast Shield.
They also know if someone has cast Magic Missile or not. So there isn’t even consistency between how Shield and Counterspell work when it comes to that spell. You are correct. Counterspell has never worked liked shield. Xanathar's Guide doesn't change that fact.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 10, 2017
Maybe you guys meant this to speed up combat but realistically this decision bogs down every combat, forever, regardless of whether anything even can counter a spell or not. Just…what a bizarre design decision. The optional rule has one purpose: giving people a way to identify a spell.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 10, 2017
In a large scale battle with war mages on each side I could see Rary’s Telepathic Bond being used with scholar mages using sensory enhancing magics to watch the enemy mages and tell the counterspelling bards what spell they are casting.
I wonder though would having Detect Magic up allow you to watch a mage build up the magical energies of the spell and thus detect Subtle Spells?
I could see a ruling for allowing a caster with Detect Magic up to be able to both interpret the nature of a spell being cast and be able to counterspell it. By understanding the penalty of the opportunity cost of concentrating on Detect Magic compared to the far more powerful spells available it would be reasonable to grant that benefit in my mind.
Or have a feat/class benefit for a war mage. In fact being able to identify spells without using a reaction or use a reaction with the opportunity to combine the act of identifying with a counterspell would be a much better 6th level Feature than “Power Surge” which is awkward to deal with and not very useful.