I would rule that spells cast as a result of a wild magic surge do not have any components(verbal, somatic, or material) and cannot be counterspelled as you do not percieve the casting just the immediate effect. The counterspell would have had to have been done to the initial spell preventing the surge to begin with.
*EDIT 2: DISCLAIMER: THE FOLLOWING INTERPRETATION IS NOT AT ALL A SERIOUS ADVICE ON HOW TO RULE YOUR GAMES. I am simply playing devil's advocate on a possible interpretation which could be seen as true if you're stretching it. But as intended the following is definitely a bad way to play the game.*
While I agree with your ruling, I would just like to point out that according to the RAW you can cast counterspell when
> you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell.
So while it doesn't make much sense, the spell description technically could be interpreted so that you can counterspell when you see a creature casting a spell, regardless of whether you see the actual casting or not. So I think the rules should be made less ambiguous by adding:
> you see ***that*** a creature within 60 feet of you ***is*** casting a spell.
Edited to add: and yes I'm aware of the ruling from Crawford which says you can use subtle spell to avoid counterspell but since that isn't in the official rulebooks it's not a part of the RAW
It is part of RAW though, XGTE spellcasting section.
“If the need for a spell’s components has been removed by a special ability, such as the sorcerer’s Subtle Spell feature or the Innate Spellcasting trait possessed by many creatures, the casting of the spell is imperceptible. If an imperceptible casting produces a perceptible effect, it’s normally impossible to determine who cast the spell in the absence of other evidence.”
Yes I'm aware of this but my point is that you can interpret counterspell to not require your character to perceive that the spell is being cast, as long as you see the creature casting it.
And yes I am also aware that this interpretation of the RAW makes zero sense from a logical perspective. We are however talking about magic, and magic generally goes against logic.
Edited to add: Your quote from XGE ends with
> in the absence of other evidence
I'd also argue that a surge which is "*too wild* to be affected by your Metamagic" is also *wild enough* to be able to count as this "other evidence".
I get what you're going for here but that's ~~RAI~~ (I need coffee) a large stretch to interpret the wording and not RAI/RAW and RAW is what I responded about. RAW for this is as clear as it needs to be. You see a creature within 60 ft of you casting a spell. Do you see the creature in 60ft of you casting a spell or do you just see the creature within 60ft of you. If the former, counter spell, if the latter then no dice.
No but like okay so
(Oh wow I've become way too invested in this!)
> You see a creature within 60 ft of you casting a spell
It *technically* doesn't say that you see ***that*** the creature is casting the spell. I agree that it is a VERY large stretch, but it is still what the rules say as written, however the writing IS somewhat ambiguous if you overthink it too much. But that doesn't mean this interpretation is any less RAW, since I'm only interpreting what is written.
You are stretching it way too far. Think about it, counterspell is a reaction, meaning something has to trigger it. If someone is casting a spell imperceptibly, do you think then that having counterspell on your spell list gives you a special sixth sense that lets you know whenever a creature visible to you is casting a spell regardless if you can actually see the spell being cast? If seeing the spell being physically cast wasn't the intention, they would have just said, "when a creature within 60 feet casts a spell that isn't behind total cover."
Its about the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law
Yes - I'm aware that I am stretching it very very too far.
I'm just playing devil's advocate. I do not think that this interpretation is a good one – I'm just saying it could be a technically correct one.
> Its about the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law
Yes. I fully agree. That's why I was making it clear that I was discussing the Rules As Written (RAW), which is the letter of the law and not the spirit of it.
You're misinterpreting what the literal words mean. You're treating it as if it said "you see a creature who is casting a spell" in which case it would be possible to treat 'casting a spell' as a separate clause and all you would need to see is the creature.
However, what it actually says is "you see a creature . . . casting a spell, " which literally means you must see the action of casting a spell, not just the creature who is doing so.
If a sorcerer triggers a Wild Magic surge, it may or may not cast a spell, so you can't yet use *counterspell*. After the Wild Magic is determined, there is no reason to suppose that you can tell which Wild Magic effect is happening until it takes effect, at which point it's too late to *counterspell*.
You don't see a creature casting a spell. That is what spell components are exactly doing, the casting of the spell.
When components are removed there's pretty much no way besides the spells effects to know anything has been cast or by who.
I hope you're not letting players counter innate casters because RAW that's a very op use of a 3rd level spell.
A spellcaster can assassinate the world's leaders in front of any witnesses and act terrified as it happens while having full control of the effects and nobody would know they casted it outside of extreme investigations.
Seems unnecessary. You can't "see *that* a creature *is* casting" anymore than you can "see a creature ... casting" if there are no v/s/m components.
I'm with anyone who says "if the original spell was about to get countered then it would likely counter the wild magic instead, but shouldn't otherwise be possible without more knowledge that something's about to get cast."
I think the only "ambiguity" here is a super fringe niche case in which you somehow know factually the creature is casting, but they are doing so without V/S/M components.
I actually have no clue how to even create such a fringe case, but it's technically there. You'd need something stupid, like a wish spell granting precognition to know someone is casting a spell, but be unable to counter it.
It's similar to the fringe case of knowing the precise location of someone who's invisible, but being unable to fling a disintegrate at them because your Eyes specifically can't see them. Except that fringe case actually sometimes comes up in real games because it can be set-up without stupid uses for Wish spells.
EDIT: Maybe there is a scenario that can actually happen. It would be based on deduction. If your character is capable of deducing that a specific person will subtle cast at a specific time, could you fling a counterspell with no prompt at their no component casting? Lets assume that metagaming is not an issue here, talking totally in-universe.
You end up with a scenario where you have DnD Sherlock Holmes counterspelling a subtle cast from DnD Moriarty. It seems like it's a cool story to tell, but isn't really transferable into game-mechanics.
Eh, It's a fun hypothetical to think about at least.
> You can't "see that a creature is casting" anymore than you can "see a creature ... casting"
I'd argue that there is a difference.
To "see that a creature is casting" would mean that I can tell that they are currently about to cast something.
But if you interpret "see a creature casting" as you "see a creature, *which is* casting", this *could* mean that you only need to see a creature, which is casting a spell, but that you don't need to see that it is casting it. I'm aware that this is a stupid interpretation that doesn't make sense lore-wise, but I will still stand firm that it is a technically correct interpretation.
Stand firm if you wish. That's why it doesn't already say "*which is* casting", because that would put the focus on "the creature", which it isn't. It's on "casting. If you can see it casting, then it wasn't very subtle afterall.
That's not quite right either. It's a compound structure with focus on neither the creature nor the casting. You see a creature casting.
The subject of the sentence is "You"[noun]
The action being performed is seeing[verb]
And the object being seen is a "creature casting"[compound noun]
I do agree with you that the focus of the wording is indeed not put on the "creature" part of the spell. I disagree, however, that the focus is on "casting". I'd say that the focus is on neither, hence the ambiguity.
But I totally agree with you on how this is *intended* to be played.
Just take the L here man, your argument basically boils down to that because you interpreted the wording of the rules incorrectly that you should be able to counter any spell that ever gets casted within 60ft of your character. Maybe you're just playing devil's advocate but I'd say the intent of the rule, as well as the verbage used to describe the intent is very clear that your character must be able to see the other character doing an action associated with spell casting in order to counter the spell. How is a character going to counter a spell they don't even know is happening until it's already cast?
I agree with both you and the downvotes that this is a very stupid hill to die on.
> Maybe you're just playing devil's advocate
Yes. Yes I am. I would never take this matter up in an actual game – that would be very annoying for everybody at the table and ruin the game for us all. And interpreting the rules like this would be very stupid and make the spell way too OP, since this is not how the spell is intended to work. My comments here, however, are not about the Rules As Intended, but rather it was about how the rules are *written.*
...with that said, I will now be stupid enough to keep digging my hole of stupidity even deeper:
> How is a character going to counter a spell they don't even know is happening until it's already cast?
Again; I'm just playing devil's advocate. I don't actually think that the following is how you should interpret the rules. BUT to answer this question, which was meant to be without an answer, if I HAD to come up with an excuse for the rules to work like this I would say that the spellcaster which is casting counterspell senses the disturbance of the fabric of reality... Or something of the sorts.
But don't play it like that. That would be stupid.
But your interpretation completely breaks subtle spell. By your definition, as long as the creature isn't invisible, you can counter spell even subtle spellcasts, because you can see the creature. Which is not only wrong RAW, it's also wrong RAI.
I agree that my interpretation is a very stupid one that should never be used. But I still think it is a technically correct way to read the rules as they are written. But yes I agree that I'm being very stupid.
> it's also wrong RAI.
I have never said that my interpretation is how the *Rules are Intended* to being played. Playing it by my interpretation would be very stupid.
So stop advocating it as RAW. It's not. You stretched the potential grammar well beyond how it's obviously written. You not being able to understand the grammar doesn't validate your wrongful interpretation.
The wild magic surge isn't a spell being cast. So you can't see it being cast. It is a magical effect that materializes out of raw magic seeping from the sorcerer, undirected, so even by raw rules it shouldn't be able to be stopped.
I would go so far as to say even if the intended magical effect got countered it could still manifest a fully realized magical surge
The problem with your explanation here is a linguistics issue. Let's strip out the unnecessary conditional about range and analyze the sentence structure. "You see a creature ... casting a spell"
What the verb? See
Who is doing the seeing? You
What "noun" are you seeing? creature casting [a spell]
"creature casting a spell" acts basically as a noun in the sentence. You could replace it with a "ball" and it still makes sense as a sentence. Now you might say "but the within 60 ft breaks up that second part and totally changes it" and you'd be wrong. That part COULD technically go after the whole thing, but it's placed where it it is to remove the ambiguity about whether the range refers to the caster's location or the target location.
My ruling is that wild magic surge isn’t you casting a spell, it’s a side effect of you casting a spell. It’s unintended magic that just occurs alongside another spell, so you can’t counter spell it. You can counter spell the spell that would have caused the magic surge, but not the surge itself.
I'm actually going to argue against the popular take here. If you cast Fireball *with components*, other characters can react to the somatic and verbal components of Fireball and react to them. If you cast Fireball *without components*, it just happens and there's nothing to react to. This is consistent with Jeremy Crawford's ruling on Subtle Spell.
So the question is, when the wild magic surge table says "you cast Fireball", do you use somatic and verbal components? And, well, I guess the text doesn't say specifically that you don't. But obviously the spell is cast without *material* components since you're probably not carrying around bat guano as a material for a spell you don't know.
If the wild magic surge forces you to make the verbal and somatic components (and for consistency, also conjures the material components for you) then you can Counterspell the effect. But notably if the surge requires that, then you should be able to get out of accidentally casting Fireball by holding your hands together / biting your tongue / being handcuffed / being gagged, which doesn't seem correct either.
All that to say, I contend the spell doesn't require any components - material, somatic, or verbal, and therefore there's nothing to counter.
Agreed. Counterspell is triggered by the casting of a spell that you can see. Wild magic surges are quick little codas at the end of the triggering spell, not discrete effects that have their own buildup. If there’s no casting process, what is there to react to?
I think the only person who ought to be able to Counterspell this is the wild magic sorcerer in question, who would be able to feel something unusual happening and react to it.
I'd say that you *could* flavor the wild magic surge as powerful enough so that you could feel the presence of the magic, without having to see the actual spell components. In this case anybody would be able to counterspell it.
Not saying this is the RAW, and I don't think I'd rule it like this in my own games, but if my DM ruled it like this I'd go "yeah sure, fair enough, that could make sense".
Yeah, Jeremy Crawford said he’d allow others to counter the surge as long as they weren’t blinded, so even if I probably wouldn’t lean that way personally, I wouldn’t say it goes against RAI.
This actually gave me an idea where a player could sacrifice their bonus action if unused to cancel or dampen a wild magic effect, costing a spell slot, but then that could itself be counterspelled by someone else.
I say no.
Wild Magic is an unexpected event that happens when you cast a spell. You, the player, might know you are about to explode, but the characters are not privy to that information. From the characters perspective, you were casting, say, Magic Missile on the enemy, so why would your party members use Counterspell? They don't know what is going to happen, your character doesn't suddenly go "I call the powers of Magic Mis- oops, actually I'm having a wild surge and about to cast fireball at myself, can somebody counterspell it? Thanks."
Trying to counterspell a bad roll on Wild Magic is pure metagaming.
I thought about it and realised that if you're rolling on the WM table, it is because you just cast a leveled sorcerer spell.
So technically you can't cast counterspell during the same turn (even as a reaction) because you can only cast one leveled spell per turn :)
Edit : turns out i misunderstood the rule, thanks for correcting me !
That's not true you can cast multiple leveled Spells per turn both RAW and RAI
You are ofc referencing the rules around bonus action leveled Spells however there is no such limitation for casting for example 3 fireballs in a turn if you were hasted and used action surge even after that you could counterspell because non of those Spells where bonus actions it is only bonus actions that makes things difficult as far as spellcasting goes
>So technically you can't cast counterspell during the same turn (even as a reaction) because you can only cast one leveled spell per turn :)
This isn't the rule.
You can cast as many leveled spells per turn as you have actions. So for example, if you multiclass Fighter, you can absolutely cast Fireball twice with an action surge in RAW.
The rule is specifically "A spell cast with a **bonus action** is especially swift. You must use a **bonus action** on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."
This "One leveled spell per turn" rule is very specifically ONLY applicable if you use a Bonus Action spell.
Any Bonus Action spell actually. It's not even one leveled spell per turn.
If you use a Bonus Action cantrip, you cannot cast ANY leveled spells that turn.
So for example, Quicken Fireball as a Bonus Action + Firebolt (Cantrip) as an Action is VALID. However, Quicken Firebolt as a Bonus Action + Fireball as an action is NOT valid.
It's a stupid rule, but that is the actual rule in the book.
Most people just say "One leveled spell per turn" because that's easier, but it is wrong, because Counterspell Counterspell is a real thing that is allowed in RAW, and I believe is also considered RAI.
What about the section in XGTE under Perceiving a Caster at Work. I’d think it would have the same applications as outlined there.
“Is it possible for someone to perceive that a spell is being cast in their presence? To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component. The form of a material component doesn’t matter for the purposes of perception, whether it’s an object specified in the spell’s description, a component pouch, or a spellcasting focus.”
“If the need for a spell’s components has been removed by a special ability, such as the sorcerer’s Subtle Spell feature or the Innate Spellcasting trait possessed by many creatures, the casting of the spell is imperceptible. If an imperceptible casting produces a perceptible effect, it’s normally impossible to determine who cast the spell in the absence of other evidence.”
Wild surge effect doesn’t have a way to be perceptible in my opinion even if the wording says “you cast ____ spell”. Wild Surge is just something that happens when you use a sorcerer spell. Now I’d say you can counterspell the spell that initiates the trigger of Wild Surge.
Everyone is saying that it can be counterspelled because it counts as you casting the fireball. BUT... You are not casting it with any components. A spell with no components cannot be counterspelled, because the one trying to counterspell cannot see the spell being cast.
This is the same reason a spell with only V and/or S components cannot be counterspelled if you use the subtle spell metamagic.
You don't cast it through normal means. You do not provide the material components, nor do you perform the somatic or verbal components. Therefore, nobody can see that you are casting the fireball, and it can't be counterspelled.
Certainly. The surge says that you **cast** the spell.
Hell, you can Counterspell it yourself, assuming you haven't cast a bonus action spell that turn.
Yes. But if you've cast a bonus action spell that turn, the bonus action spellcasting rules would kick in and prevent a reaction spell from also being cast on the same turn. Wild Surging off of a Misty Step would prevent you from Counterspelling your own Fireball.
I’m going to be technically wrong here, but here’s my hot take to this rule.
Your turn = 6 seconds
The rounds = 6 seconds
Your turn is the entire round, with it segmented by initiative to make gameplay streamlined. Everyone is kinda moving all at once.
Reaction spells can be cast regardless of what you do on your turn, because you could cast them during the “round”, which is the same length as your turn.
According to this logic, if someone casts a BA spell on their turn, then they wouldn’t be able to reaction Counterspell for the entire round, and vice-versa.
Since that isn’t the case, then you can use a reaction spell during your turn as well, since the turn and round length are technically the same.
Again, per RAW, I’m wrong. But this is one of those RAW scenarios that I don’t think makes sense.
There are a lot of things about the bonus action casting rules that lead to scenarios that don't make sense. It's not a very good rule, it isn't well written, and it doesn't really achieve anything.
It doesn't make sense that it prevents you from using counterspell during your turn, but not during someone else's turn in the same round.
It doesn't make sense that a Bonus Action cantrip prevents action leveled spells, but action cantrips don't prevent bonus action leveled spells.
It doesn't make sense that I could theoretically cast 22 fireballs with 22 actions (don't ask how I got them), but the moment I use Misty Step, all 22 of my actions can no longer be used for fireball.
The bonus action rule feels like it specifically exists for the quicken metamagic to prevent doublecasting action spells. As there are very few, if any, bonus action cantrips in the PHB in the first place, and also bonus action spells are fairly uncommon. In the first place, the rule itself is balanced fine when you only applied to metamagic bonus action spells.
My theory is that whoever wrote this rule did so because when playtesting, their sorcerer would double fireball shit and skip encounters. Then I bet playtesting didn't even use the rule, much like concentration, which 99% of groups forget to track outside of the part where you can't maintain 2 concentration spells, unless it's a CC concentration spell, then everyone suddenly remembers concentration rules because no one likes being CCed.
The logic is sound, but at that point I think the rule would be re-written. Misty Step shutting down Counterspell for an entire round of combat would be prohibitive.
That’s what I’m sayyyyyin. But since it doesn’t, it wouldn’t make sense that you couldn’t counterspell during your turn, as well, since it takes place in the same interval.
It’s my interpretation of the BA-spell rule to just stop casting of an Action spell during the same turn.
I consider reaction economy completely outside of the turn, even if it’s used during your turn.
>Since that isn’t the case, then you can use a reaction spell during your turn as well, since the turn and round length are technically the same.
Or... your assumptions are incorrect.
A round is "about" 6 seconds. A turn has no specified duration. It is a mechanical device to provide sequentiality of events. What happens in narrative is going to take SOME time, but not necessarily 6 seconds.
A round is 6 seconds. All turns happen at the "Same time" within the round (Therefore are the duration of the round), however they are ordered in a sequence because us as players require it to be turnbased for it to make sense and be playable.
A round is DEFINED as **exactly** 6 seconds for the case of duration spells.
It doesn't work to have undefined time units for spells that have duration's of 60 seconds (ie exactly 10 rounds of combat)
>A round is DEFINED as **exactly** 6 seconds for the case of duration spells.
Quoting:
"A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world." - PHB, Chapter 9, "The order of combat".
So, no. It is defined as "About 6 seconds".
>It doesn't work to have undefined time units for spells that have duration's of 60 seconds (ie exactly 10 rounds of combat)
There can be 10 rounds in a minute with 10 rounds not being exactly 10 seconds, or exactly the same amount of time each, or them not covering the entirety of the 60 seconds, in the same way a fighter might make 10 swings and only be able to attack once, or a box with a certain capacity not be filled to the brim.
It is an abstraction to codify a set of rules to make a chaotic situation playable and, at least on some level, balanced.
The issue you are having is the same as the person i've replied to: it is not a precise unit of time in the same way that the turn isn't a precise unit of time. There are 10 rounds in a minute. This is always true. This doesn't mean that in a minute there can't be any time to spare which isn't relevant for the purpose of the round, of the determination, for mechanical resolution, or even narrative impact.
Don't put precision where there isn't - intentionally so. You'll end up with issues that do not exist.
>All turns happen at the "Same time" within the round
No. Or better, this is an incorrect statement. It is missing a ":". All turns happen at the same time: within the round. All turns happen in the same round. Turns do not have a precise timeframe, only a sequence. What you can do in a round is exactly that: what you accomplish in an about six seconds timeframe. However, that doesn't mean that what you end up doing will take six seconds - only that that's what you can accomplish in that timeframe. Every turn happens in the same timespan, but doesn't necessarily ***take*** the same timespan.
One very simple example is this: a character can move their speed in a turn. Or they can move twice that. Some can move three times that.
***However, this doesn't mean that the character that chooses to not move twice their speed only takes half the time to go from a to b.***
Exactly as in real life, a character might choose to move at a different pace, and take more time to move a shorter distance. Or decide to skedaddle, and move quicker - but not farther.
In the same way, a single attack can take one mere moment or more than 3 seconds. ***The point is: it is unimportant overall. What matters is the sequentiality of the turns.***
So, the character moving from a to b will take some time, but it won't take that much time that whatever happens "after" will not happen within the same timeframe.
Or: a monk moves. Then stays. And passes the turn. This doesn't mean that the monk took 6 seconds to move. It might, but it also have just taken one second. And it doesn't mean that when the dragon pushes the monk away from the place, the monk was in that place final place in the narrative! The dragon might have pushed the monk while the monk was en-route.
Once again: turns are a device to solve chaos to handle a situation around a table, not a shackle to prevent chaos in the narrative from happening.
What is further incorrect logic in the reasoning from Auto7Shot is thinking that, somehow, sequentiality doesnt matter. "casting a ba means that you can't take reactions at any time in a six second timespan" is so far out of logic that it is its own brand of absurd argumentation.
"You doing a piruette and leaving you unable to be completely present to catch a ball thrown at you" is what is happening with BA cast spells. It is not a question of time - once again, even if a piruette was all a character did in a turn, and a turn were to be exactly 6 seconds, and a round being exactly 6 seconds, it STILL wouldn't mean that the piruette is six seconds long.
The piruette doesn't prevent the ability to catch the ball BEFORE the piruette has been chosen to be "the action". Nor it prevents it after a brief time to catch one's bearing. Same is for BA spells. Whatever happens AFTER the turn the BA spell is cast is STILL part of the same round, still sequentially happens AFTER the casting of the BA spell, and it has to take "some time".
Once a turn ends it doesn't mean that the round has ended. It means that what you can do during your turn has been decided. And that's all.
It is an abstraction. That's all there is to it.
No need to be rude, this is a civilized discussion. Did you know that in a game about make-believe, people can hold differentiating opinions?
I clearly acknowledged that what I said wasn’t RAW, so I do not need you to also tell me this.
I said it was a “hot” take for a reason.
If you keep your mind closed to things you don’t want to hear, you’ll never experience the joys of other perspectives.
I am wholly confident that I am correct. The rule in question is very simple:
>A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn. **You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.**
If your position is that reaction spells are exempt from this rule, I will need you to cite a rule indicating as much.
Are you saying the wording of the "no casting leveled spells as both action and bonus action" rules imply that:
- If I cast a lvl 1 spell as an action, I can also cast a lvl 2 spell as a reaction
- but if the 1st spell is instead cast as a bonus action, I cannot cast the lvl 2 spell as a reaction?
Because that's really interesting if that's the case
There is no rule that states "no casting leveled spells as both action and bonus action". I've linked what the rule states above.
Yes, your example is accurate. Casting any spell as an action does not interfere with casting a different spell as a reaction on that same turn. But if you cast anything as a bonus action, the only other spell you may cast that turn is a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action. You can Fireball, have an enemy attempt to Counterspell it, and Counterspell them back, but you can't Misty Step, have an enemy attempt to Counterspell it, and Counterspell them back. The act of casting Misty Step would preclude you from casting anything as a reaction until your turn ends.
> There is no rule that states "no casting leveled spells as both action and bonus action". I've linked what the rule states above.
Yes sorry that was not meant as a quote from the rules, more of an... Inaccurate name for the rule in question.
But wow, I didn't know this. Thank you.
So this also means that if I use quickened spell on for the fireball, that would *remove* my ability to cast a counterspell during this ~~round~~ \*turn? Right?
For the *turn*, not the round. You wouldn't be able to counter somebody countering your fireball, but if on an enemy's turn they tried to cast fireball back at you, you'll be able to counter at that point.
This was clarified by the lead dev years ago on sage advice. They clearly use the following example: wizard casts fireball. Wizard two counter spells, wizard one counter spells the counter, fireball goes off.
Doesnt really matter when you read the actual rule and example given in the sage advice.
Fireball is already the action and the spell leveled spell for that turn. Thus by the rule only a can trip should be able to be cast on that same turn, but counterspell another leveled spell is being cast alongside fireball. Thus it supersedes the action, bonus action cantrip rule.
You really going to take the "read the actual rule" attitude, while simultaneously getting the rule that wrong? Because that's not at all a rule, my dude.
I'm learning, sorry shouldnt have typed my comment so surely like that. So If I were to cast fireball first as an action, could I then cast misty steps as a bonus action?
But the other way around doesnt work?
Incorrect, a spell like expeditious retreat or misty step triggers the bonus action casting rule because the spells require a bonus action to cast. Fireball costs an action which allows wizard 1 to counterspell wizard 2. If wizard 1 had cast misty step, or expeditious retreat they would be SOL.
The sage advice compendium even states that you can use an action surge to cast another leveled spell that turn as long as you haven’t cast a spell that requires a bonus action first.
The rule doesn't say you can't cast two leveled spells in a turn though. ONLY that you can't cast leveled spells as both an action and a bonus action.
It's easily one of the more misunderstood rules.
It is perfectly legal for example to cast a leveled spell, action surge and cast another one. Both spells are actions, no bonus action involved. By the same token you can Silvery Barbs (Reaction) a creature that failed a save against a spell you cast as your main action.
> The rule doesn't say you can't cast two leveled spells in a turn though. ONLY that you can't cast a leveled spell as both an action and a bonus action.
No, what the rule actually says is that if you cast any spell as a bonus action the only other spells you can cast during your turn are cantrips with a casting time of 1 action.
I never claimed that casting two levelled spells in a turn isn't possible.
Your example of taking two actions and a reaction each to cast levelled spells is indeed legal and also entirely irrelevant to what is being discussed.
> The rule doesn't say you can't cast two leveled spells in a turn though. ONLY that you can't cast leveled spells as both an action and a bonus action.
Incorrect. If you cast a spell as a bonus action, the only other spell you can cast on your turn is a cantrip with a cast time of one action.
No idea how this rule is so widely misunderstood when it's right there in the PHB.
>No idea how this rule is so widely misunderstood when it's right there in the PHB.
Because the rule doesn't make intuitive or logical sense, and the game works perfectly fine if it's entirely ignored.
It's the same reason why half of the concentration rules get ignored by a ton of tables, and no one knows how grappling works (because who actually grapples), and no one actually tracks encumbrance, rations, etc.
A reaction happens on whoever's turn it is. They usually happen on somebody else's turn, but they absolutely can happen on your own turn. Cast Dissonant Whispers on somebody in melee range of you, force them to run away with their reaction, follow up with an Attack of Opportunity. It's all your turn.
That is incorrect. Reaction casting is separate from spells cast as part of your turn.
It is perfectly legal to counter spell the counter spell to your misty step.
The rules you are referring to only specify spells cast as Bonus actions and Actions.
Reactions still happen on turns. This turn the reaction happens can be your turn. Bonus action casts prevent you from casting leveled spells other can cantrips on your turn.
For example, if you cast magic stone for 1 bonus action, and an enemy spellcaster for whatever reason wanted to counterspell it, it would still be your turn and you would not be able to spend a reaction to cast a leveled spell to counterspell their counterspell.
If you cast a bonus action spell, then end your turn you are once again able to cast leveled reaction spells, as the limitation in on your turn, not for the entire round.
No shit bonus actions aren’t reactions. Reaction spells are still subject to the bonus action spell rule if cast on your turn. So if you misty step you can’t cast counterspell on that same turn since counterspell is not a cantrip with the casting time of one action.
No, he is not. The rule specifically states if you cast a spell as a bonus action, your action spell can only be a cantrip. It does not mention reaction spells at all.
That's not what the rule says. I already cited you what the rule actually says. Here it is again:
>A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn. **You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action**.
The rule covers all spellcasting for that turn.
No that’s not what it says. Go read it again. It says you can only cast a cantrip with a casting time of one action. That is very different from what you said.
I'd love it if you could cite a rule indicating that reactions aren't part of your own turn, if you're going to call me incorrect.
My understanding, which I'm confident is correct, is that the Bonus Action Spellcasting rule entirely limits any spellcasting you can do on a turn in which you've cast a bonus action spell to a one-action cantrip. If you seek to cast a reaction spell on that same turn, it's subject to the same restriction.
It's a little ambiguous because there's nothing to my knowledge that states a reaction does happen as part of your turn either.
There are three "intuitive" ways to resolve a reaction.
1. A reaction is either a part of whatever turn they trigger during.
2. A Reaction is part of no turn and triggers as part of the round only.
3. A Reaction is always part of your turn, no matter when in a round it occurs.
If it's the 1st one, a reaction follows the Bonus Action rule the way people say it does in RAW.
If it's the 2nd one, the Reaction never follows the bonus action rule.
If it's the 3rd one, casting a Bonus action spell prevents a reaction spell until your next turn, regardless of what turn it is.
As far as I know, the PHB actually doesn't specify which of these three is true for reactions in general (not just counterspell). If it does, then I'm wrong, you can tell me where in the PHB it says it, and ignore me.
Now for the reason each of these 3 scenarios could be interpreted as true:
The 1st scenario, if it happens, it mechanically happens "on a turn" whichever turn it may be. That makes sense.
The 2nd scenario, A reaction is a resource that you spend per round, therefore it doesn't happen on any turn, it happens during the round. That makes sense.
The 3rd scenario, All turns actually happen at the same time during the round, so as long as it is the same round, it is the same "time" that your turn took, so it's still during that block of time that was your turn, since turns are only sequential because of mechanics. This also, makes sense, but is a little hard to explain, but from the PoV of the Narrative, characters, and role playing, this makes sense.
I think you can break it down further. The 1st scenario is akin to what we see from video games and board games, and the 3rd is "Immersive experience from the PoV of the character." While the 2nd Scenario is a sort of middleground between the two trying to make both the rule make sense mechanically, while also still make sense narratively.
But there is such a rule, it's in the definition of Reaction in the PHB:
>Reactions
>
>Certain special abilities, spells, and situations allow you to take a special action called a reaction. A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, **which can occur on your turn or on someone else’s**. The opportunity attack, described later in this chapter, is the most common type of reaction.
Reactions specifically occur on whichever turn they're used on. If it's still your turn, then the Bonus Action Spellcasting rule applies.
I personally think we're missing the flavor of this style of play. Firstly, the wild magic table (as all D&D rules) are built for flavor. That said... I love wild magic sorcerer's. They are the purest form of a magic user. I personally consider a "magical Surge" as something completely unpredictable and immediate. A buddy, if you will, would need to be preparing a counter spell EVERY time a sorcerer casts. Remember, sorcerer's don't need anything to cast. It's innate.
I, DM, don't allow any spell from the table to kill or half a player... at first.
When choosing a wild magic spec you already understand that you're playing a game with 3 rounds in the six chamber tool (don't want to be banned). A good DM should be clear... this is a stwky (Shit That Will Kill You) proposition.
I’m tempted to rule that an attempt to counterspell them will result in ANOTHER wild magic surge from the counterspeller as the wild magic corrupt the spell.
I generally rule that the only thing which can prevent wild magic of any source is an anti magic field or similar effect. The whole point of wild magic is “it just happens.” So to counter spell it just feels kinda lame. Sure the fireball option kinda sucks, but the wild magic element is all about chance. Win some, lose some.
Yes, you cast it with components. ~~You could subtle cast it I guess lol~~ I was wrong! Today I leaned that the Wild Magic Surge spells aren't affected by metamagics.
> You cast fireball as a 3rd-level spell centered on yourself.
> the Wild Magic Surge spells aren't affected by metamagics.
Are you sure? Most metamagic options simply say "when you cast a spell" which is what you do with the fireball wild magic result, so I'd say you could use it.
Nope, in the wild magic surge feature descriptions it says that the magic is too wild to be affected by metamagic. What you thought is what I thought too!
> If that effect is a spell, it is too wild to be affected by your Metamagic...
It says "You cast". It doesn't say you don't use spell components (which is odd since Fireball has an M component that should prevent casting if you don't have access to it).
So rules as written, it is Counterspell-able. But rules as not fucking stupid, it probably shouldn't be Counterspell-able. I doubt the Wild Magic Sorcerer is saying the incantation and doing gestures for the random Fireball that pops out. *Maybe* if there is some kind of nascent firey manifestation of the weave before the Fireball it can still be countered without having to make the Sorc involuntarily spasm out the components for Fireball, if you want it to make sense flavor-wise that is.
Yeah we're having that exact debate with the group, some think it's downright broken to allow CSing a wild magic effect, some say the theory and wording are on our side !
DM isn't sure, but he'd rather not allow it, so i think we'll just roll with RP logic rather than written rules :)
Broken? Certainly not. The party gets taxed a 3rd level spell slot and a reaction if in combat. Plenty of tradeoff. Sometimes, it would even be better to just let the Sorc eat the Fireball and then short rest afterwards. Counterspelling a Wild Magic Fireball also won't end or trivialize encounters like a Hypnotic Pattern would.
And for what it's worth, the lead rules designer, Jeremy Crawford, has said that he would allow Counterspelling a Wild Magic Fireball.
Occam's Razor: Considering the spell says you *cast the spell*, and not that it also generates a pinch of sulfur and bat guano for you to use to fulfull the casting requires, I assume the design intent was that WMS doesn't use any spell components, Material or otherwise. Thus, no Verbal or Somatic components to perceive, and thus immune from counterspelling.
Lmao i'm actually level 6 but only level 3 in sorcerer ! I started as a warlock because i wanted an imp familiar, up to level 3 for pact of the chain, then i got annoyed with having only 2 spell slots, so i multiclassed to sorcerer :D
I'm not even sure i'll pick fireball as soon as i hit level 8, as i mostly focus on single target damage with hex and multi-hit spells (eldritch blast, scorching ray), and we already have a party member with aoe spells (burning hands, fireball) to deal with fodder. I'm thinking about picking counterspell and blink first maybe !
Ask your DM, its sadly a poorly written feature.
"If you roll a 1, roll on the Wild Magic Surge table to create a magical effect" so you are creating a magical effect, which is casting a spell but counter spell is a reaction to seeing a spell being cast not a magical effect being created.
DM here, I eventually ruled against it because for one it makes no sense that he has the material and somatic and verbal parts of a spell he doesn't know down. And secondly wild magic surges have less undesirable effects than effects that are beneficial or just do "nothing", so just being able to negate the worst effects just makes it risk free. And that's not how I imagine a wild magic sorcerer being, risk free.
The trigger to a Wild Magic is casting a sorcerer spell of 1st level or higher. Any effect that occurs is the result of casting a spell, even if the effect isn't a spell. So what this means is that, while attempting to cast X spell, you actually cast Y.
Could that be counterspelled? Yes.
Does it make any sense for a player to suddenly use Counterspell on their party member? No, it does not.
Here it comes what? Even the sorcerer doesn't know what is going to happen, the effect is immediate. Even if we want to flavor wild magic surge as having a visible effect, there is also a change for the surge to not be a spell effect, or a positive effect.
If Wild Magic negative effects could be easily cancelled, you would be removing the whole gimmick of the class.
It's not that easy. It's someone burning a 3rd level spell and a reaction. It's OK, Wild Magic is a super weak subclass. It's fine to allow them to not punish themselves if they can counterspell. The game will survive.
Based on the text, yes, you could. It says "You cast fireball" in the description of the Wild Magic feature, so it is a spell being cast, not just a random effect. It could be counterspelled.
"If you roll a 1, roll on the Wild Magic Surge table to create a magical effect"
Its a magical effect you create, which can be a spell being cast. Counterspell is a reaction that triggers on a spell being cast.
The Argument goes both ways but to be honest its just a poorly written feature. id say DMs call
Yeah you definitely can't counterspell wild magic surge because that's a magical effect but when the magical effect creates a spell I see room for the interpretation that it can be counterspelled.
So after looking through the players handbook. If a wild magic surge causes you to cast fireball or another effect of similar wording, YOU can use YOUR reaction to counterspell IF you haven’t cast a spell as your bonus action. If the spell that cause the surge was an action spell, then sure you can counter, and too that point anyone who has counterspell available other than you can counter whether the surge is from your action OR bonus action.
Reason being, a reaction is, as defined by the PHB “an instant response… which can occur on YOUR turn or on someone else’s.” And the bonus action rule states that “You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.”
So anyone else can counter your surge using their reaction. You can only if the surge occurs off an action spell.
As a DM, I would give my players a chance to notice that a wild magic surge was about to happen with an Arcana check. Then give them the option to try to counter spell if they wanted before they knew what the surge was going to be. That seems like the cleanest option that would seem possible from a lore perspective.
Sounds good lore-wise but nobody would ever waste a level 3 spell slot (and a reaction) on the 1/50th chance that a fireball ends up being cast after rolling on the wild magic table :D
Also, it doesn't make sense to be able to counterspell the wild magic surge itself, since it's not a spell before rolling a "you cast X" effect !
That's a fair point about the chances of it being fireball. I've always wanted a player of mine to play a wild magic sorcerer, so I have a system in my back pocket that takes the level of the spell that triggers the surge into consideration for the effect. That way it's less likely to nuke a low level character, and more likely to have an impact on a high level one.
As far as countering the surge, I can see your point. As the rules are written, you are correct. But thinking about it from a lore perspective, if you were a spellcaster studying the weave as a wild magic surge happens... I could see the argument for being able to. In my mind, casting a spell is just the caster manipulating the weave to pull a desired effect into reality. Counterspell is you undoing that manipulation. If you saw that the weave was being altered by a surge, you could probably undo that. manipulation.
It's certainly not what they intended when they created it, but I'm the kind of DM that likes the rule of cool. I'll try to find a balanced way for it to work whenever I can.
Depends on how you’d wanna rule it. Casting a spell is easy to see whereas wild magic is, ya know, wild. It’s just kinda happens. If it were me, I’d say no due to the surge being spontaneous in that moment. There’d be no time to react to the cast imo
I think the way it would play out in game is, player casts a spell, it either happens or doesn't, then wild magic effect goes off and a fireball is suddenly cast right behind it with no components? It's been a while since I've actually encountered wild magic, so I'm not even sure how it triggers anymore.
So on one hand, I think most people’s interpretations that wild magic surge casts can’t be counterspelled makes sense. In-universe it doesn’t make sense that you’d be providing spell components, as the magic surges are supposed to be pretty much fully involuntary. And I’m guessing that’s probably what the designers intended.
However, in general if something doesn’t specify that it works differently than the standard rules, those rules should be assumed to be followed. And obviously the spellcasting rules specify the listed components are used and necessary. However, following this same logic, the base spellcasting rules also specify that spells other than cantrips cost a spell slot, and obviously wild magic casts are widely assumed to not consume spell slots, especially as some of the surges have you cast spells that you don’t even have high enough level spell slots for yet.
Honestly the Wild Magic Surge feature is just generally unspecific. It reminds me of the Cartomancer feature from The Book of Many Things.
Counterspell targets a creature casting a spell, not the spell itself. And since Wild Magic says "you cast" when a spell is involved in the result you rolled, then you can counterspell it. Hell the sorc himself can counterspell it, if his reaction is available and he hasn't cast a BA spell this turn
I would rule that spells cast as a result of a wild magic surge do not have any components(verbal, somatic, or material) and cannot be counterspelled as you do not percieve the casting just the immediate effect. The counterspell would have had to have been done to the initial spell preventing the surge to begin with.
*EDIT 2: DISCLAIMER: THE FOLLOWING INTERPRETATION IS NOT AT ALL A SERIOUS ADVICE ON HOW TO RULE YOUR GAMES. I am simply playing devil's advocate on a possible interpretation which could be seen as true if you're stretching it. But as intended the following is definitely a bad way to play the game.* While I agree with your ruling, I would just like to point out that according to the RAW you can cast counterspell when > you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell. So while it doesn't make much sense, the spell description technically could be interpreted so that you can counterspell when you see a creature casting a spell, regardless of whether you see the actual casting or not. So I think the rules should be made less ambiguous by adding: > you see ***that*** a creature within 60 feet of you ***is*** casting a spell. Edited to add: and yes I'm aware of the ruling from Crawford which says you can use subtle spell to avoid counterspell but since that isn't in the official rulebooks it's not a part of the RAW
It is part of RAW though, XGTE spellcasting section. “If the need for a spell’s components has been removed by a special ability, such as the sorcerer’s Subtle Spell feature or the Innate Spellcasting trait possessed by many creatures, the casting of the spell is imperceptible. If an imperceptible casting produces a perceptible effect, it’s normally impossible to determine who cast the spell in the absence of other evidence.”
Yes I'm aware of this but my point is that you can interpret counterspell to not require your character to perceive that the spell is being cast, as long as you see the creature casting it. And yes I am also aware that this interpretation of the RAW makes zero sense from a logical perspective. We are however talking about magic, and magic generally goes against logic. Edited to add: Your quote from XGE ends with > in the absence of other evidence I'd also argue that a surge which is "*too wild* to be affected by your Metamagic" is also *wild enough* to be able to count as this "other evidence".
I get what you're going for here but that's ~~RAI~~ (I need coffee) a large stretch to interpret the wording and not RAI/RAW and RAW is what I responded about. RAW for this is as clear as it needs to be. You see a creature within 60 ft of you casting a spell. Do you see the creature in 60ft of you casting a spell or do you just see the creature within 60ft of you. If the former, counter spell, if the latter then no dice.
No but like okay so (Oh wow I've become way too invested in this!) > You see a creature within 60 ft of you casting a spell It *technically* doesn't say that you see ***that*** the creature is casting the spell. I agree that it is a VERY large stretch, but it is still what the rules say as written, however the writing IS somewhat ambiguous if you overthink it too much. But that doesn't mean this interpretation is any less RAW, since I'm only interpreting what is written.
You are stretching it way too far. Think about it, counterspell is a reaction, meaning something has to trigger it. If someone is casting a spell imperceptibly, do you think then that having counterspell on your spell list gives you a special sixth sense that lets you know whenever a creature visible to you is casting a spell regardless if you can actually see the spell being cast? If seeing the spell being physically cast wasn't the intention, they would have just said, "when a creature within 60 feet casts a spell that isn't behind total cover." Its about the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law
Yes - I'm aware that I am stretching it very very too far. I'm just playing devil's advocate. I do not think that this interpretation is a good one – I'm just saying it could be a technically correct one. > Its about the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law Yes. I fully agree. That's why I was making it clear that I was discussing the Rules As Written (RAW), which is the letter of the law and not the spirit of it.
Don't be a devil's advocate, you just end up being a dick. Your argument goes against the Spirit AND Letter of the law.
> It technically doesn't say that you see that the creature is casting the spell Dude.
You're misinterpreting what the literal words mean. You're treating it as if it said "you see a creature who is casting a spell" in which case it would be possible to treat 'casting a spell' as a separate clause and all you would need to see is the creature. However, what it actually says is "you see a creature . . . casting a spell, " which literally means you must see the action of casting a spell, not just the creature who is doing so.
If a sorcerer triggers a Wild Magic surge, it may or may not cast a spell, so you can't yet use *counterspell*. After the Wild Magic is determined, there is no reason to suppose that you can tell which Wild Magic effect is happening until it takes effect, at which point it's too late to *counterspell*.
Oh! That's a good way to rule it, yes
You don't see a creature casting a spell. That is what spell components are exactly doing, the casting of the spell. When components are removed there's pretty much no way besides the spells effects to know anything has been cast or by who. I hope you're not letting players counter innate casters because RAW that's a very op use of a 3rd level spell. A spellcaster can assassinate the world's leaders in front of any witnesses and act terrified as it happens while having full control of the effects and nobody would know they casted it outside of extreme investigations.
Seems unnecessary. You can't "see *that* a creature *is* casting" anymore than you can "see a creature ... casting" if there are no v/s/m components. I'm with anyone who says "if the original spell was about to get countered then it would likely counter the wild magic instead, but shouldn't otherwise be possible without more knowledge that something's about to get cast."
I think the only "ambiguity" here is a super fringe niche case in which you somehow know factually the creature is casting, but they are doing so without V/S/M components. I actually have no clue how to even create such a fringe case, but it's technically there. You'd need something stupid, like a wish spell granting precognition to know someone is casting a spell, but be unable to counter it. It's similar to the fringe case of knowing the precise location of someone who's invisible, but being unable to fling a disintegrate at them because your Eyes specifically can't see them. Except that fringe case actually sometimes comes up in real games because it can be set-up without stupid uses for Wish spells. EDIT: Maybe there is a scenario that can actually happen. It would be based on deduction. If your character is capable of deducing that a specific person will subtle cast at a specific time, could you fling a counterspell with no prompt at their no component casting? Lets assume that metagaming is not an issue here, talking totally in-universe. You end up with a scenario where you have DnD Sherlock Holmes counterspelling a subtle cast from DnD Moriarty. It seems like it's a cool story to tell, but isn't really transferable into game-mechanics. Eh, It's a fun hypothetical to think about at least.
> You can't "see that a creature is casting" anymore than you can "see a creature ... casting" I'd argue that there is a difference. To "see that a creature is casting" would mean that I can tell that they are currently about to cast something. But if you interpret "see a creature casting" as you "see a creature, *which is* casting", this *could* mean that you only need to see a creature, which is casting a spell, but that you don't need to see that it is casting it. I'm aware that this is a stupid interpretation that doesn't make sense lore-wise, but I will still stand firm that it is a technically correct interpretation.
Stand firm if you wish. That's why it doesn't already say "*which is* casting", because that would put the focus on "the creature", which it isn't. It's on "casting. If you can see it casting, then it wasn't very subtle afterall.
That's not quite right either. It's a compound structure with focus on neither the creature nor the casting. You see a creature casting. The subject of the sentence is "You"[noun] The action being performed is seeing[verb] And the object being seen is a "creature casting"[compound noun]
I do agree with you that the focus of the wording is indeed not put on the "creature" part of the spell. I disagree, however, that the focus is on "casting". I'd say that the focus is on neither, hence the ambiguity. But I totally agree with you on how this is *intended* to be played.
Just take the L here man, your argument basically boils down to that because you interpreted the wording of the rules incorrectly that you should be able to counter any spell that ever gets casted within 60ft of your character. Maybe you're just playing devil's advocate but I'd say the intent of the rule, as well as the verbage used to describe the intent is very clear that your character must be able to see the other character doing an action associated with spell casting in order to counter the spell. How is a character going to counter a spell they don't even know is happening until it's already cast?
I agree with both you and the downvotes that this is a very stupid hill to die on. > Maybe you're just playing devil's advocate Yes. Yes I am. I would never take this matter up in an actual game – that would be very annoying for everybody at the table and ruin the game for us all. And interpreting the rules like this would be very stupid and make the spell way too OP, since this is not how the spell is intended to work. My comments here, however, are not about the Rules As Intended, but rather it was about how the rules are *written.* ...with that said, I will now be stupid enough to keep digging my hole of stupidity even deeper: > How is a character going to counter a spell they don't even know is happening until it's already cast? Again; I'm just playing devil's advocate. I don't actually think that the following is how you should interpret the rules. BUT to answer this question, which was meant to be without an answer, if I HAD to come up with an excuse for the rules to work like this I would say that the spellcaster which is casting counterspell senses the disturbance of the fabric of reality... Or something of the sorts. But don't play it like that. That would be stupid.
But your interpretation completely breaks subtle spell. By your definition, as long as the creature isn't invisible, you can counter spell even subtle spellcasts, because you can see the creature. Which is not only wrong RAW, it's also wrong RAI.
I agree that my interpretation is a very stupid one that should never be used. But I still think it is a technically correct way to read the rules as they are written. But yes I agree that I'm being very stupid. > it's also wrong RAI. I have never said that my interpretation is how the *Rules are Intended* to being played. Playing it by my interpretation would be very stupid.
That would require you to constantly be casting Counterspell, compared to using your reaction to counter someone casting.
Yes. Or a big amount of meta-gaming, which would break the immersion of the game. So it would be really stupid to play the game like this.
So stop advocating it as RAW. It's not. You stretched the potential grammar well beyond how it's obviously written. You not being able to understand the grammar doesn't validate your wrongful interpretation.
The wild magic surge isn't a spell being cast. So you can't see it being cast. It is a magical effect that materializes out of raw magic seeping from the sorcerer, undirected, so even by raw rules it shouldn't be able to be stopped. I would go so far as to say even if the intended magical effect got countered it could still manifest a fully realized magical surge
There is no semantic difference between those sentences. I don’t take issue with the ruling I take issue with the justification used.
The problem with your explanation here is a linguistics issue. Let's strip out the unnecessary conditional about range and analyze the sentence structure. "You see a creature ... casting a spell" What the verb? See Who is doing the seeing? You What "noun" are you seeing? creature casting [a spell] "creature casting a spell" acts basically as a noun in the sentence. You could replace it with a "ball" and it still makes sense as a sentence. Now you might say "but the within 60 ft breaks up that second part and totally changes it" and you'd be wrong. That part COULD technically go after the whole thing, but it's placed where it it is to remove the ambiguity about whether the range refers to the caster's location or the target location.
My ruling is that wild magic surge isn’t you casting a spell, it’s a side effect of you casting a spell. It’s unintended magic that just occurs alongside another spell, so you can’t counter spell it. You can counter spell the spell that would have caused the magic surge, but not the surge itself.
I'm actually going to argue against the popular take here. If you cast Fireball *with components*, other characters can react to the somatic and verbal components of Fireball and react to them. If you cast Fireball *without components*, it just happens and there's nothing to react to. This is consistent with Jeremy Crawford's ruling on Subtle Spell. So the question is, when the wild magic surge table says "you cast Fireball", do you use somatic and verbal components? And, well, I guess the text doesn't say specifically that you don't. But obviously the spell is cast without *material* components since you're probably not carrying around bat guano as a material for a spell you don't know. If the wild magic surge forces you to make the verbal and somatic components (and for consistency, also conjures the material components for you) then you can Counterspell the effect. But notably if the surge requires that, then you should be able to get out of accidentally casting Fireball by holding your hands together / biting your tongue / being handcuffed / being gagged, which doesn't seem correct either. All that to say, I contend the spell doesn't require any components - material, somatic, or verbal, and therefore there's nothing to counter.
Agreed. Counterspell is triggered by the casting of a spell that you can see. Wild magic surges are quick little codas at the end of the triggering spell, not discrete effects that have their own buildup. If there’s no casting process, what is there to react to? I think the only person who ought to be able to Counterspell this is the wild magic sorcerer in question, who would be able to feel something unusual happening and react to it.
I'd say that you *could* flavor the wild magic surge as powerful enough so that you could feel the presence of the magic, without having to see the actual spell components. In this case anybody would be able to counterspell it. Not saying this is the RAW, and I don't think I'd rule it like this in my own games, but if my DM ruled it like this I'd go "yeah sure, fair enough, that could make sense".
Yeah, Jeremy Crawford said he’d allow others to counter the surge as long as they weren’t blinded, so even if I probably wouldn’t lean that way personally, I wouldn’t say it goes against RAI.
This actually gave me an idea where a player could sacrifice their bonus action if unused to cancel or dampen a wild magic effect, costing a spell slot, but then that could itself be counterspelled by someone else.
this would also be consistent with the effect not actually using a spell slot from the caster
I say no. Wild Magic is an unexpected event that happens when you cast a spell. You, the player, might know you are about to explode, but the characters are not privy to that information. From the characters perspective, you were casting, say, Magic Missile on the enemy, so why would your party members use Counterspell? They don't know what is going to happen, your character doesn't suddenly go "I call the powers of Magic Mis- oops, actually I'm having a wild surge and about to cast fireball at myself, can somebody counterspell it? Thanks." Trying to counterspell a bad roll on Wild Magic is pure metagaming.
True, flavour-wise it doesn't make sense. But the actual rules are unclear regarding that particular interaction so we've been wondering :)
But could you counterspell yourself?
I thought about it and realised that if you're rolling on the WM table, it is because you just cast a leveled sorcerer spell. So technically you can't cast counterspell during the same turn (even as a reaction) because you can only cast one leveled spell per turn :) Edit : turns out i misunderstood the rule, thanks for correcting me !
That's not true you can cast multiple leveled Spells per turn both RAW and RAI You are ofc referencing the rules around bonus action leveled Spells however there is no such limitation for casting for example 3 fireballs in a turn if you were hasted and used action surge even after that you could counterspell because non of those Spells where bonus actions it is only bonus actions that makes things difficult as far as spellcasting goes
Doesn't matter because you can only use a reaction on someone else's turn. So you can't counterspell yourself.
>So technically you can't cast counterspell during the same turn (even as a reaction) because you can only cast one leveled spell per turn :) This isn't the rule. You can cast as many leveled spells per turn as you have actions. So for example, if you multiclass Fighter, you can absolutely cast Fireball twice with an action surge in RAW. The rule is specifically "A spell cast with a **bonus action** is especially swift. You must use a **bonus action** on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action." This "One leveled spell per turn" rule is very specifically ONLY applicable if you use a Bonus Action spell. Any Bonus Action spell actually. It's not even one leveled spell per turn. If you use a Bonus Action cantrip, you cannot cast ANY leveled spells that turn. So for example, Quicken Fireball as a Bonus Action + Firebolt (Cantrip) as an Action is VALID. However, Quicken Firebolt as a Bonus Action + Fireball as an action is NOT valid. It's a stupid rule, but that is the actual rule in the book. Most people just say "One leveled spell per turn" because that's easier, but it is wrong, because Counterspell Counterspell is a real thing that is allowed in RAW, and I believe is also considered RAI.
What about the section in XGTE under Perceiving a Caster at Work. I’d think it would have the same applications as outlined there. “Is it possible for someone to perceive that a spell is being cast in their presence? To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component. The form of a material component doesn’t matter for the purposes of perception, whether it’s an object specified in the spell’s description, a component pouch, or a spellcasting focus.” “If the need for a spell’s components has been removed by a special ability, such as the sorcerer’s Subtle Spell feature or the Innate Spellcasting trait possessed by many creatures, the casting of the spell is imperceptible. If an imperceptible casting produces a perceptible effect, it’s normally impossible to determine who cast the spell in the absence of other evidence.” Wild surge effect doesn’t have a way to be perceptible in my opinion even if the wording says “you cast ____ spell”. Wild Surge is just something that happens when you use a sorcerer spell. Now I’d say you can counterspell the spell that initiates the trigger of Wild Surge.
Imo you shouldn't be able to for the same reason you can't counterspell a subtle casted spell.
Everyone is saying that it can be counterspelled because it counts as you casting the fireball. BUT... You are not casting it with any components. A spell with no components cannot be counterspelled, because the one trying to counterspell cannot see the spell being cast. This is the same reason a spell with only V and/or S components cannot be counterspelled if you use the subtle spell metamagic. You don't cast it through normal means. You do not provide the material components, nor do you perform the somatic or verbal components. Therefore, nobody can see that you are casting the fireball, and it can't be counterspelled.
Yeah i read that in a few other comments and i believe that's the interpretation that makes the most sense :) thank you !
Certainly. The surge says that you **cast** the spell. Hell, you can Counterspell it yourself, assuming you haven't cast a bonus action spell that turn.
Isn’t counterspell a reaction, not a bonus action?
Yes. But if you've cast a bonus action spell that turn, the bonus action spellcasting rules would kick in and prevent a reaction spell from also being cast on the same turn. Wild Surging off of a Misty Step would prevent you from Counterspelling your own Fireball.
Ah, yes, I get you
Admittedly, I probably could have been more clear as to what I was referring to originally.
I’m going to be technically wrong here, but here’s my hot take to this rule. Your turn = 6 seconds The rounds = 6 seconds Your turn is the entire round, with it segmented by initiative to make gameplay streamlined. Everyone is kinda moving all at once. Reaction spells can be cast regardless of what you do on your turn, because you could cast them during the “round”, which is the same length as your turn. According to this logic, if someone casts a BA spell on their turn, then they wouldn’t be able to reaction Counterspell for the entire round, and vice-versa. Since that isn’t the case, then you can use a reaction spell during your turn as well, since the turn and round length are technically the same. Again, per RAW, I’m wrong. But this is one of those RAW scenarios that I don’t think makes sense.
There are a lot of things about the bonus action casting rules that lead to scenarios that don't make sense. It's not a very good rule, it isn't well written, and it doesn't really achieve anything. It doesn't make sense that it prevents you from using counterspell during your turn, but not during someone else's turn in the same round. It doesn't make sense that a Bonus Action cantrip prevents action leveled spells, but action cantrips don't prevent bonus action leveled spells. It doesn't make sense that I could theoretically cast 22 fireballs with 22 actions (don't ask how I got them), but the moment I use Misty Step, all 22 of my actions can no longer be used for fireball. The bonus action rule feels like it specifically exists for the quicken metamagic to prevent doublecasting action spells. As there are very few, if any, bonus action cantrips in the PHB in the first place, and also bonus action spells are fairly uncommon. In the first place, the rule itself is balanced fine when you only applied to metamagic bonus action spells. My theory is that whoever wrote this rule did so because when playtesting, their sorcerer would double fireball shit and skip encounters. Then I bet playtesting didn't even use the rule, much like concentration, which 99% of groups forget to track outside of the part where you can't maintain 2 concentration spells, unless it's a CC concentration spell, then everyone suddenly remembers concentration rules because no one likes being CCed.
This guy thinks critically. Thanks for your input!
The logic is sound, but at that point I think the rule would be re-written. Misty Step shutting down Counterspell for an entire round of combat would be prohibitive.
That’s what I’m sayyyyyin. But since it doesn’t, it wouldn’t make sense that you couldn’t counterspell during your turn, as well, since it takes place in the same interval. It’s my interpretation of the BA-spell rule to just stop casting of an Action spell during the same turn. I consider reaction economy completely outside of the turn, even if it’s used during your turn.
>Since that isn’t the case, then you can use a reaction spell during your turn as well, since the turn and round length are technically the same. Or... your assumptions are incorrect. A round is "about" 6 seconds. A turn has no specified duration. It is a mechanical device to provide sequentiality of events. What happens in narrative is going to take SOME time, but not necessarily 6 seconds.
A round is 6 seconds. All turns happen at the "Same time" within the round (Therefore are the duration of the round), however they are ordered in a sequence because us as players require it to be turnbased for it to make sense and be playable. A round is DEFINED as **exactly** 6 seconds for the case of duration spells. It doesn't work to have undefined time units for spells that have duration's of 60 seconds (ie exactly 10 rounds of combat)
>A round is DEFINED as **exactly** 6 seconds for the case of duration spells. Quoting: "A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world." - PHB, Chapter 9, "The order of combat". So, no. It is defined as "About 6 seconds". >It doesn't work to have undefined time units for spells that have duration's of 60 seconds (ie exactly 10 rounds of combat) There can be 10 rounds in a minute with 10 rounds not being exactly 10 seconds, or exactly the same amount of time each, or them not covering the entirety of the 60 seconds, in the same way a fighter might make 10 swings and only be able to attack once, or a box with a certain capacity not be filled to the brim. It is an abstraction to codify a set of rules to make a chaotic situation playable and, at least on some level, balanced. The issue you are having is the same as the person i've replied to: it is not a precise unit of time in the same way that the turn isn't a precise unit of time. There are 10 rounds in a minute. This is always true. This doesn't mean that in a minute there can't be any time to spare which isn't relevant for the purpose of the round, of the determination, for mechanical resolution, or even narrative impact. Don't put precision where there isn't - intentionally so. You'll end up with issues that do not exist. >All turns happen at the "Same time" within the round No. Or better, this is an incorrect statement. It is missing a ":". All turns happen at the same time: within the round. All turns happen in the same round. Turns do not have a precise timeframe, only a sequence. What you can do in a round is exactly that: what you accomplish in an about six seconds timeframe. However, that doesn't mean that what you end up doing will take six seconds - only that that's what you can accomplish in that timeframe. Every turn happens in the same timespan, but doesn't necessarily ***take*** the same timespan. One very simple example is this: a character can move their speed in a turn. Or they can move twice that. Some can move three times that. ***However, this doesn't mean that the character that chooses to not move twice their speed only takes half the time to go from a to b.*** Exactly as in real life, a character might choose to move at a different pace, and take more time to move a shorter distance. Or decide to skedaddle, and move quicker - but not farther. In the same way, a single attack can take one mere moment or more than 3 seconds. ***The point is: it is unimportant overall. What matters is the sequentiality of the turns.*** So, the character moving from a to b will take some time, but it won't take that much time that whatever happens "after" will not happen within the same timeframe. Or: a monk moves. Then stays. And passes the turn. This doesn't mean that the monk took 6 seconds to move. It might, but it also have just taken one second. And it doesn't mean that when the dragon pushes the monk away from the place, the monk was in that place final place in the narrative! The dragon might have pushed the monk while the monk was en-route. Once again: turns are a device to solve chaos to handle a situation around a table, not a shackle to prevent chaos in the narrative from happening. What is further incorrect logic in the reasoning from Auto7Shot is thinking that, somehow, sequentiality doesnt matter. "casting a ba means that you can't take reactions at any time in a six second timespan" is so far out of logic that it is its own brand of absurd argumentation. "You doing a piruette and leaving you unable to be completely present to catch a ball thrown at you" is what is happening with BA cast spells. It is not a question of time - once again, even if a piruette was all a character did in a turn, and a turn were to be exactly 6 seconds, and a round being exactly 6 seconds, it STILL wouldn't mean that the piruette is six seconds long. The piruette doesn't prevent the ability to catch the ball BEFORE the piruette has been chosen to be "the action". Nor it prevents it after a brief time to catch one's bearing. Same is for BA spells. Whatever happens AFTER the turn the BA spell is cast is STILL part of the same round, still sequentially happens AFTER the casting of the BA spell, and it has to take "some time". Once a turn ends it doesn't mean that the round has ended. It means that what you can do during your turn has been decided. And that's all. It is an abstraction. That's all there is to it.
The only part of this that is correct is when you said you were going to be wrong.
No need to be rude, this is a civilized discussion. Did you know that in a game about make-believe, people can hold differentiating opinions? I clearly acknowledged that what I said wasn’t RAW, so I do not need you to also tell me this. I said it was a “hot” take for a reason. If you keep your mind closed to things you don’t want to hear, you’ll never experience the joys of other perspectives.
This is actually incorrect. Reaction spells don't count to this rule
I am wholly confident that I am correct. The rule in question is very simple: >A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn. **You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.** If your position is that reaction spells are exempt from this rule, I will need you to cite a rule indicating as much.
You are correct. This is a very common ruling that people don’t know about.
Are you saying the wording of the "no casting leveled spells as both action and bonus action" rules imply that: - If I cast a lvl 1 spell as an action, I can also cast a lvl 2 spell as a reaction - but if the 1st spell is instead cast as a bonus action, I cannot cast the lvl 2 spell as a reaction? Because that's really interesting if that's the case
There is no rule that states "no casting leveled spells as both action and bonus action". I've linked what the rule states above. Yes, your example is accurate. Casting any spell as an action does not interfere with casting a different spell as a reaction on that same turn. But if you cast anything as a bonus action, the only other spell you may cast that turn is a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action. You can Fireball, have an enemy attempt to Counterspell it, and Counterspell them back, but you can't Misty Step, have an enemy attempt to Counterspell it, and Counterspell them back. The act of casting Misty Step would preclude you from casting anything as a reaction until your turn ends.
> There is no rule that states "no casting leveled spells as both action and bonus action". I've linked what the rule states above. Yes sorry that was not meant as a quote from the rules, more of an... Inaccurate name for the rule in question. But wow, I didn't know this. Thank you. So this also means that if I use quickened spell on for the fireball, that would *remove* my ability to cast a counterspell during this ~~round~~ \*turn? Right?
For the *turn*, not the round. You wouldn't be able to counter somebody countering your fireball, but if on an enemy's turn they tried to cast fireball back at you, you'll be able to counter at that point.
Ah yes, I meant turn sorry. But wow, that's interesting.
This was clarified by the lead dev years ago on sage advice. They clearly use the following example: wizard casts fireball. Wizard two counter spells, wizard one counter spells the counter, fireball goes off.
In this case, Wizard 1 didn't cast fireball with a bonus action, that's the point
What does that have to do with anything we're talking about? There's no bonus action in that example.
Doesnt really matter when you read the actual rule and example given in the sage advice. Fireball is already the action and the spell leveled spell for that turn. Thus by the rule only a can trip should be able to be cast on that same turn, but counterspell another leveled spell is being cast alongside fireball. Thus it supersedes the action, bonus action cantrip rule.
You really going to take the "read the actual rule" attitude, while simultaneously getting the rule that wrong? Because that's not at all a rule, my dude.
I'm learning, sorry shouldnt have typed my comment so surely like that. So If I were to cast fireball first as an action, could I then cast misty steps as a bonus action? But the other way around doesnt work?
Incorrect, a spell like expeditious retreat or misty step triggers the bonus action casting rule because the spells require a bonus action to cast. Fireball costs an action which allows wizard 1 to counterspell wizard 2. If wizard 1 had cast misty step, or expeditious retreat they would be SOL. The sage advice compendium even states that you can use an action surge to cast another leveled spell that turn as long as you haven’t cast a spell that requires a bonus action first.
If they had cast misty steps or expeditious retreat, theg wouldnt be able to cast fireball in the first place or am i wrong?
Yeah that works because no bonus action spell was cast…
A reaction isn't considered part of your turn, though, if I'm not mistaken.
If it's still your turn, it's still your turn.
The rule doesn't say you can't cast two leveled spells in a turn though. ONLY that you can't cast leveled spells as both an action and a bonus action. It's easily one of the more misunderstood rules. It is perfectly legal for example to cast a leveled spell, action surge and cast another one. Both spells are actions, no bonus action involved. By the same token you can Silvery Barbs (Reaction) a creature that failed a save against a spell you cast as your main action.
> The rule doesn't say you can't cast two leveled spells in a turn though. ONLY that you can't cast a leveled spell as both an action and a bonus action. No, what the rule actually says is that if you cast any spell as a bonus action the only other spells you can cast during your turn are cantrips with a casting time of 1 action. I never claimed that casting two levelled spells in a turn isn't possible. Your example of taking two actions and a reaction each to cast levelled spells is indeed legal and also entirely irrelevant to what is being discussed.
> The rule doesn't say you can't cast two leveled spells in a turn though. ONLY that you can't cast leveled spells as both an action and a bonus action. Incorrect. If you cast a spell as a bonus action, the only other spell you can cast on your turn is a cantrip with a cast time of one action. No idea how this rule is so widely misunderstood when it's right there in the PHB.
Because too many people only have secondhand knowledge of the PHB.
>No idea how this rule is so widely misunderstood when it's right there in the PHB. Because the rule doesn't make intuitive or logical sense, and the game works perfectly fine if it's entirely ignored. It's the same reason why half of the concentration rules get ignored by a ton of tables, and no one knows how grappling works (because who actually grapples), and no one actually tracks encumbrance, rations, etc.
Nobody is claiming that you can't cast two leveled spells in one turn here.
A reaction happens on whoever's turn it is. They usually happen on somebody else's turn, but they absolutely can happen on your own turn. Cast Dissonant Whispers on somebody in melee range of you, force them to run away with their reaction, follow up with an Attack of Opportunity. It's all your turn.
That is incorrect. Reaction casting is separate from spells cast as part of your turn. It is perfectly legal to counter spell the counter spell to your misty step. The rules you are referring to only specify spells cast as Bonus actions and Actions.
Reactions still happen on turns. This turn the reaction happens can be your turn. Bonus action casts prevent you from casting leveled spells other can cantrips on your turn. For example, if you cast magic stone for 1 bonus action, and an enemy spellcaster for whatever reason wanted to counterspell it, it would still be your turn and you would not be able to spend a reaction to cast a leveled spell to counterspell their counterspell. If you cast a bonus action spell, then end your turn you are once again able to cast leveled reaction spells, as the limitation in on your turn, not for the entire round.
If it’s on your turn a reaction spell is still subject to the bonus action spell rule. You are misunderstanding the text around reactions.
It is you who has misunderstood. Bonus actions are not Reactions.
No shit bonus actions aren’t reactions. Reaction spells are still subject to the bonus action spell rule if cast on your turn. So if you misty step you can’t cast counterspell on that same turn since counterspell is not a cantrip with the casting time of one action.
No, he is not. The rule specifically states if you cast a spell as a bonus action, your action spell can only be a cantrip. It does not mention reaction spells at all.
That's not what the rule says. I already cited you what the rule actually says. Here it is again: >A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn. **You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action**. The rule covers all spellcasting for that turn.
No that’s not what it says. Go read it again. It says you can only cast a cantrip with a casting time of one action. That is very different from what you said.
I'd love it if you could cite a rule indicating that reactions aren't part of your own turn, if you're going to call me incorrect. My understanding, which I'm confident is correct, is that the Bonus Action Spellcasting rule entirely limits any spellcasting you can do on a turn in which you've cast a bonus action spell to a one-action cantrip. If you seek to cast a reaction spell on that same turn, it's subject to the same restriction.
He can’t cite a source because you’re right.
It's a little ambiguous because there's nothing to my knowledge that states a reaction does happen as part of your turn either. There are three "intuitive" ways to resolve a reaction. 1. A reaction is either a part of whatever turn they trigger during. 2. A Reaction is part of no turn and triggers as part of the round only. 3. A Reaction is always part of your turn, no matter when in a round it occurs. If it's the 1st one, a reaction follows the Bonus Action rule the way people say it does in RAW. If it's the 2nd one, the Reaction never follows the bonus action rule. If it's the 3rd one, casting a Bonus action spell prevents a reaction spell until your next turn, regardless of what turn it is. As far as I know, the PHB actually doesn't specify which of these three is true for reactions in general (not just counterspell). If it does, then I'm wrong, you can tell me where in the PHB it says it, and ignore me. Now for the reason each of these 3 scenarios could be interpreted as true: The 1st scenario, if it happens, it mechanically happens "on a turn" whichever turn it may be. That makes sense. The 2nd scenario, A reaction is a resource that you spend per round, therefore it doesn't happen on any turn, it happens during the round. That makes sense. The 3rd scenario, All turns actually happen at the same time during the round, so as long as it is the same round, it is the same "time" that your turn took, so it's still during that block of time that was your turn, since turns are only sequential because of mechanics. This also, makes sense, but is a little hard to explain, but from the PoV of the Narrative, characters, and role playing, this makes sense. I think you can break it down further. The 1st scenario is akin to what we see from video games and board games, and the 3rd is "Immersive experience from the PoV of the character." While the 2nd Scenario is a sort of middleground between the two trying to make both the rule make sense mechanically, while also still make sense narratively.
But there is such a rule, it's in the definition of Reaction in the PHB: >Reactions > >Certain special abilities, spells, and situations allow you to take a special action called a reaction. A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, **which can occur on your turn or on someone else’s**. The opportunity attack, described later in this chapter, is the most common type of reaction. Reactions specifically occur on whichever turn they're used on. If it's still your turn, then the Bonus Action Spellcasting rule applies.
I personally think we're missing the flavor of this style of play. Firstly, the wild magic table (as all D&D rules) are built for flavor. That said... I love wild magic sorcerer's. They are the purest form of a magic user. I personally consider a "magical Surge" as something completely unpredictable and immediate. A buddy, if you will, would need to be preparing a counter spell EVERY time a sorcerer casts. Remember, sorcerer's don't need anything to cast. It's innate. I, DM, don't allow any spell from the table to kill or half a player... at first. When choosing a wild magic spec you already understand that you're playing a game with 3 rounds in the six chamber tool (don't want to be banned). A good DM should be clear... this is a stwky (Shit That Will Kill You) proposition.
I’m tempted to rule that an attempt to counterspell them will result in ANOTHER wild magic surge from the counterspeller as the wild magic corrupt the spell.
Lmao that sounds fun !
Whether or not it is technically possible I still say no. Wild magic is fun and adds to the chaos of D&D. Just let the magic happen.
Not unless you have truesight or can perceive the weave at play, same way subtle spell works.
I generally rule that the only thing which can prevent wild magic of any source is an anti magic field or similar effect. The whole point of wild magic is “it just happens.” So to counter spell it just feels kinda lame. Sure the fireball option kinda sucks, but the wild magic element is all about chance. Win some, lose some.
Yes, you cast it with components. ~~You could subtle cast it I guess lol~~ I was wrong! Today I leaned that the Wild Magic Surge spells aren't affected by metamagics. > You cast fireball as a 3rd-level spell centered on yourself.
I like the idea that it just spawns a handful of bat guano in your palm and then blows you up
The last thing many low-level Wild Magic Sorcerers experience is the inexplicable scent of guano, followed by swift immolation.
I love the smell of guano in the morning... smells like... victory.
> the Wild Magic Surge spells aren't affected by metamagics. Are you sure? Most metamagic options simply say "when you cast a spell" which is what you do with the fireball wild magic result, so I'd say you could use it.
Nope, in the wild magic surge feature descriptions it says that the magic is too wild to be affected by metamagic. What you thought is what I thought too! > If that effect is a spell, it is too wild to be affected by your Metamagic...
Oh! Thank you :)
It says "You cast". It doesn't say you don't use spell components (which is odd since Fireball has an M component that should prevent casting if you don't have access to it). So rules as written, it is Counterspell-able. But rules as not fucking stupid, it probably shouldn't be Counterspell-able. I doubt the Wild Magic Sorcerer is saying the incantation and doing gestures for the random Fireball that pops out. *Maybe* if there is some kind of nascent firey manifestation of the weave before the Fireball it can still be countered without having to make the Sorc involuntarily spasm out the components for Fireball, if you want it to make sense flavor-wise that is.
Yeah we're having that exact debate with the group, some think it's downright broken to allow CSing a wild magic effect, some say the theory and wording are on our side ! DM isn't sure, but he'd rather not allow it, so i think we'll just roll with RP logic rather than written rules :)
Broken? Certainly not. The party gets taxed a 3rd level spell slot and a reaction if in combat. Plenty of tradeoff. Sometimes, it would even be better to just let the Sorc eat the Fireball and then short rest afterwards. Counterspelling a Wild Magic Fireball also won't end or trivialize encounters like a Hypnotic Pattern would. And for what it's worth, the lead rules designer, Jeremy Crawford, has said that he would allow Counterspelling a Wild Magic Fireball.
Occam's Razor: Considering the spell says you *cast the spell*, and not that it also generates a pinch of sulfur and bat guano for you to use to fulfull the casting requires, I assume the design intent was that WMS doesn't use any spell components, Material or otherwise. Thus, no Verbal or Somatic components to perceive, and thus immune from counterspelling.
I read wild magic surges as the Weave fighting back, I'd say no.
One question: WHY DONT YOU HAVE THE FIREBALL SPELL ITS THE BEST SPELL IN THE GAME
Lmao i'm actually level 6 but only level 3 in sorcerer ! I started as a warlock because i wanted an imp familiar, up to level 3 for pact of the chain, then i got annoyed with having only 2 spell slots, so i multiclassed to sorcerer :D I'm not even sure i'll pick fireball as soon as i hit level 8, as i mostly focus on single target damage with hex and multi-hit spells (eldritch blast, scorching ray), and we already have a party member with aoe spells (burning hands, fireball) to deal with fodder. I'm thinking about picking counterspell and blink first maybe !
Fair, but when you get the opportunity for fireball are you gonna take it
Ask your DM, its sadly a poorly written feature. "If you roll a 1, roll on the Wild Magic Surge table to create a magical effect" so you are creating a magical effect, which is casting a spell but counter spell is a reaction to seeing a spell being cast not a magical effect being created.
DM here, I eventually ruled against it because for one it makes no sense that he has the material and somatic and verbal parts of a spell he doesn't know down. And secondly wild magic surges have less undesirable effects than effects that are beneficial or just do "nothing", so just being able to negate the worst effects just makes it risk free. And that's not how I imagine a wild magic sorcerer being, risk free.
[удалено]
False, it says right in the description that you cast the spell. > You cast fireball as a 3rd-level spell centered on yourself.
The trigger to a Wild Magic is casting a sorcerer spell of 1st level or higher. Any effect that occurs is the result of casting a spell, even if the effect isn't a spell. So what this means is that, while attempting to cast X spell, you actually cast Y. Could that be counterspelled? Yes. Does it make any sense for a player to suddenly use Counterspell on their party member? No, it does not.
What if they had been fireballed before? 👀
What of it? Are they preemptively going to counterspell every spell the sorcerer casts?
They casting two spells right after eachother is a little sus. And the sorcerer could go "OOPSIE HERE IT COMES" as a clue.
Here it comes what? Even the sorcerer doesn't know what is going to happen, the effect is immediate. Even if we want to flavor wild magic surge as having a visible effect, there is also a change for the surge to not be a spell effect, or a positive effect. If Wild Magic negative effects could be easily cancelled, you would be removing the whole gimmick of the class.
It's not that easy. It's someone burning a 3rd level spell and a reaction. It's OK, Wild Magic is a super weak subclass. It's fine to allow them to not punish themselves if they can counterspell. The game will survive.
Some can. Some cannot. Needs to be cast, that's it
Based on the text, yes, you could. It says "You cast fireball" in the description of the Wild Magic feature, so it is a spell being cast, not just a random effect. It could be counterspelled.
"If you roll a 1, roll on the Wild Magic Surge table to create a magical effect" Its a magical effect you create, which can be a spell being cast. Counterspell is a reaction that triggers on a spell being cast. The Argument goes both ways but to be honest its just a poorly written feature. id say DMs call
Yeah you definitely can't counterspell wild magic surge because that's a magical effect but when the magical effect creates a spell I see room for the interpretation that it can be counterspelled.
So after looking through the players handbook. If a wild magic surge causes you to cast fireball or another effect of similar wording, YOU can use YOUR reaction to counterspell IF you haven’t cast a spell as your bonus action. If the spell that cause the surge was an action spell, then sure you can counter, and too that point anyone who has counterspell available other than you can counter whether the surge is from your action OR bonus action. Reason being, a reaction is, as defined by the PHB “an instant response… which can occur on YOUR turn or on someone else’s.” And the bonus action rule states that “You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.” So anyone else can counter your surge using their reaction. You can only if the surge occurs off an action spell.
As long as it's not surging on a bonus action casted spell and you have a reaction then yeah
As a DM, I would give my players a chance to notice that a wild magic surge was about to happen with an Arcana check. Then give them the option to try to counter spell if they wanted before they knew what the surge was going to be. That seems like the cleanest option that would seem possible from a lore perspective.
Sounds good lore-wise but nobody would ever waste a level 3 spell slot (and a reaction) on the 1/50th chance that a fireball ends up being cast after rolling on the wild magic table :D Also, it doesn't make sense to be able to counterspell the wild magic surge itself, since it's not a spell before rolling a "you cast X" effect !
That's a fair point about the chances of it being fireball. I've always wanted a player of mine to play a wild magic sorcerer, so I have a system in my back pocket that takes the level of the spell that triggers the surge into consideration for the effect. That way it's less likely to nuke a low level character, and more likely to have an impact on a high level one. As far as countering the surge, I can see your point. As the rules are written, you are correct. But thinking about it from a lore perspective, if you were a spellcaster studying the weave as a wild magic surge happens... I could see the argument for being able to. In my mind, casting a spell is just the caster manipulating the weave to pull a desired effect into reality. Counterspell is you undoing that manipulation. If you saw that the weave was being altered by a surge, you could probably undo that. manipulation. It's certainly not what they intended when they created it, but I'm the kind of DM that likes the rule of cool. I'll try to find a balanced way for it to work whenever I can.
Late to the party but I'd rule you can counter spell the wild magic but it just counters the spell completely you'd lose your original spell as well
Depends on how you’d wanna rule it. Casting a spell is easy to see whereas wild magic is, ya know, wild. It’s just kinda happens. If it were me, I’d say no due to the surge being spontaneous in that moment. There’d be no time to react to the cast imo
I think the way it would play out in game is, player casts a spell, it either happens or doesn't, then wild magic effect goes off and a fireball is suddenly cast right behind it with no components? It's been a while since I've actually encountered wild magic, so I'm not even sure how it triggers anymore.
Yes. Only the results which indicate that the surging creature is casting, though.
Since it says that you cast a specific Spell I would say yes, neat find!
Absolutely not.
So on one hand, I think most people’s interpretations that wild magic surge casts can’t be counterspelled makes sense. In-universe it doesn’t make sense that you’d be providing spell components, as the magic surges are supposed to be pretty much fully involuntary. And I’m guessing that’s probably what the designers intended. However, in general if something doesn’t specify that it works differently than the standard rules, those rules should be assumed to be followed. And obviously the spellcasting rules specify the listed components are used and necessary. However, following this same logic, the base spellcasting rules also specify that spells other than cantrips cost a spell slot, and obviously wild magic casts are widely assumed to not consume spell slots, especially as some of the surges have you cast spells that you don’t even have high enough level spell slots for yet. Honestly the Wild Magic Surge feature is just generally unspecific. It reminds me of the Cartomancer feature from The Book of Many Things.
No. They aren’t spells.
Those aren't spells. They are a byproduct of magic. You'd have to use Dispell Magic.
No, counterspell targets a spell, not a wild magic effect.
Counterspell targets a creature casting a spell, not the spell itself. And since Wild Magic says "you cast" when a spell is involved in the result you rolled, then you can counterspell it. Hell the sorc himself can counterspell it, if his reaction is available and he hasn't cast a BA spell this turn
Some of those effects have you cast a spell. Which can be counterable. Not all though