Before you commit to reacting to a casting of a spell, like with counterspell or an attack of opportunity, would you generally know a who or where a spell is aimed at in terms of targets or area of effect?
I guess this goes for any reaction that triggers on the cast, not on the effects of spell like Shadow Siphon. For counterspell, at least you have to know what the spell is beforehand, but where that fireball is pointed at is probably the determining factor for counterspelling it or not. Would you have the luxury of that info though?
I’m pretty sure this is GM determined. I would run it that if the PC successfully identified the spell, then where the target is would be known too.
An AoO, however, would not get that same privilege. By the time the spell is cast, it would be too late to strike. AoO is built to be more of an interruption to the casting than to counter it. The PC with the AoO either uses it when the opportunity presents itself or doesn’t.
|
Who is casting? Yes. Casting spells is very obvious.
What spell is being cast? Only if you have the spell prepared or in your repertoire, otherwise you need to Identify Magic on your next turn after the spell is cast.
Where or who the spell is going to affect? Absolutely not. You counter the spell before the casting is finished, so there's no way to know where the caster is going to target.
I fail to see a situation where the target of the spell would change your decision. I mean, if the evil wizard is casting, whatever the target it will be a good thing to interrupt them.
In the case where a spellcaster is supposed to cast a spell but you think they may take the opportunity to cast something else (like if they convince you to cast Detect Magic and will instead cast Charm or any situation like that) I'll certainly ask for a Sense Motive/Deception check to settle the case.
But maybe you have a situation in mind that would help us understand your issue.
Where or who the spell is going to affect? Absolutely not. You counter the spell before the casting is finished, so there's no way to know where the caster is going to target.
That doesn’t seem like a counter but an interruption. To me, one cannot counter a spell until it has been fully cast, whereas interrupting the spell is what occurs if the casting is stopped before finished.
I fail to see a situation where the target of the spell would change your decision. I mean, if the evil wizard is casting, whatever the target it will be a good thing to interrupt them.
In the case where a spellcaster is supposed to cast a spell but you think they may take the opportunity to cast something else (like if they convince you to cast Detect Magic and will instead cast Charm or any situation like that) I'll certainly ask for a Sense Motive/Deception check to settle the case.But maybe you have a situation in mind that would help us understand your issue.
I can give you a case where it would change your mind. Evil cleric casts Harm at your friend, not realizing that your friend is actually a dhampir or a bones oracle who currently has negative healing. You wouldn't counterspell that, but might with a different target.
Any significant single target spell really would be a thinker for me on counterspelling.
If the target is known and isn't the worst possible target for said spell, I'd consider letting it slide depending on our situation. If I had no info on targets, I probably wouldn't risk not counterspelling anything that could critically threaten even one ally.
I can give you a case where it would change your mind. Evil cleric casts Harm at your friend, not realizing that your friend is actually a dhampir or a bones oracle who currently has negative healing. You wouldn't counterspell that, but might with a different target.
Good one. I hope it will happen to my Dhampir Barbarian once.
Still, it's extremely niche.|
|
Where or who the spell is going to affect? Absolutely not. You counter the spell before the casting is finished, so there's no way to know where the caster is going to target.That doesn’t seem like a counter but an interruption. To me, one cannot counter a spell until it has been fully cast, whereas interrupting the spell is what occurs if the casting is stopped before finished.
Counterspell's trigger is "A creature Casts a Spell that you have prepared.", and the reaction's text reads "When a foe Casts a Spell and you can see its manifestations, you can use your own magic to disrupt it."
You are disrupting the spell before the magic is complete to prevent the cast all together. You aren't waiting for the spell to manifest and then countering it then. Fireball for example is an instantaneous explosion of fire. You have about 4 seconds to react to the caster's actions, but after they finish the explosion is probably only a tenth of a second, maybe even faster. Don't you think it makes more sense that you would be using your own magic to create feedback in the caster to make the spell fail, rather than stopping the magic when it has already manifested?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any significant single target spell really would be a thinker for me on counterspelling.
If the target is known and isn't the worst possible target for said spell, I'd consider letting it slide depending on our situation. If I had no info on targets, I probably wouldn't risk not counterspelling anything that could critically threaten even one ally.
If you're not going to counterspell things I don't know why you took counterspell. There are a lot of stars that need to align for you to even use the feat. Any target can roll a natural 1, and counterspell effectively stun 2s that enemy. You'd need to be fighting a pretty puny caster to pass up the opportunity.
You're definitely interrupting the spell before it is completed, so you shouldn't know the target. I could see cases where you could ascertain it, like if someone says "Die, Ratfolk scum!" beforehand, or they are looking at a side of the battlefield with only one possible target in that general direction. But you should not expect the GM to divulge that information by default.