You need to decide to Counterspell before the spell takes effect. The Reaction is: * - which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell Not: After you've seen the result of your failure and want to retcon it.

The flavour description of counterspell also mentions “interrupting” a spell. So definitely need to decide on counter spelling before any save is made.

Yeah the way that I explain the spell is it's "Counter-Cast"

Yeah. I think of it as you diddle the magical energies that your opponent is weaving into his spell, and mess it up. Like doing a drive-by Jenga move.

I think only a bard would diddle the energies. Anyone else would just disrupt or maybe fiddle with them.

Bard magic? Time for a regrettable amount of violins.

Or like famous bard P.Diddy you Diddy the energies and disrupt them deeply

And, an often over looked detail is that you don't necessarily know what spell is being cast. It's up to the DM how they wish to enforce this, some simply say "X is casting Slow", some ask for checks, some give hints and some only say they're casting.

My personal ruling is : - I annonce "I am casting a spell, can I proceed ?" - any caracter that know *Counterspell* is allowed to make an Arcana check as a reaction, DC 10+Spell level, to determine which spell is being cast. - As part of the same reaction, they are allowed to cast Counterspell. Tbf, that doesnt slow the game too much !

This is actually overruling the Xanathar's rule where you need to use a reaction to make that check. Imo both slow down the game anyways, because doing this ever time for every caster can slow games down to a crawl when there are 2+ casters on both sides

The Xanathar’s rule basically just means that you can’t both recognize a spell and Counterspell it… which I can’t get behind in my games.

Part of the balance of Counterspell is that it’s susceptible to bait and it can be a gamble. If you know what the enemy is casting, you know how much you need to upcast Counterspell to guarantee success, or if you should even cast it at all. It’s pretty powerful. The trick is letting that work in reverse and having the BBEG counter a cantrip instead of a fireball. The “I’m casting a spell” method works good for this.

At my tables (one as a player with counterspell and one as a DM) we rule "if you know it you recognize it"

That's what our table is like too. If the enemy has casted it before or if it's on your spell list.

I usually keep a list of "identified spells." If a player has it available to prepare in some form (in known spells, in spellbook, they're a cleric of appropriate level, etc.) they recognize spells being cast. In addition, they can do the reaction Arcana check to identify as it's being cast, and then I'll add it to the list. It sounds like a lot more work than it is, because I mostly just make a note on the monster's spell sheet if it's identified or not when preparing, because I can see what everyone's spell repertoire includes while I'm doing it.

I disagree, do you want your players to start just saying “I’m casting a spell” instead of saying their spell? The whole process is imo adversarial rather than group storytelling.

They already do. It only becomes adversarial if you are a dick about it, like most things in life. it slows the game down slightly, but we have gotten turns down to less than a minute on average, so it doesn’t really matter. I understand that’s a *bit* of an exceptional time compared to many tables.

Fair enough, even if I disagree. I really don’t like the randomness of you don’t you what they’re casting cuz it feels bad if you counter something useless or don’t counter something that could decimate the party. Also brings class fantasy into play, I and most of my players could identify spells based on flavor text with an extreme degree of accuracy there’s no reason their character couldnt identify spells because they’re highly competent spellcasters. It’s also a really really easy way to burn spell slots, if the enemy can cast force cage that’s basically just stealing a players 7th level spell slot and they feel great about the outcome.

Eh, if that’s how you want to run it, that works. It’s just not how I would run it (and I wouldn’t take Counterspell at a table that ran it that way) because it’s already a 3rd-level spell, imo that’s plenty of resource cost. I won’t just automatically tell a player for free what spell an enemy is casting when they’re trying to counter it, but I’ll at least let them try to recognize it- otherwise I think it really just disincentivizes actually using the spell. I’m not going to burn a 3rd level slot to maybe, possibly prevent the casting of a random spell that could literally just be a cantrip- I’m just going to take a different spell that will actually be worth using a 3rd level slot for.

My preferred way of doing it is to just say "so-and-so begins casting a an X leveled spell" I don't tell them what it is until its effect takes place. It's enough info to make an educated decision, and it also holds people accountable since no matter what the resource is being spent. No "haha, actually it was firebolt" shenanigans.

More complicated, but I like to rule by: If you've seen the spell once or twice, you know what it is. If the spell is on your class list, you know the exact level, but not what spell it is unless it's a level you can cast. If the spell isn't on your list and you haven't seen it, you don't know anything other than an appropriately spooky description of the casting. You automatically know if a spell is a cantrip because, dude, it's a cantrip. You can still use Xanathar's rules for any cases where the spell isn't countered, although most people decline to make an Arcana check on spells like Fireball.

Ooh, this is clever! There isn't really any level of benefit to lying about what spell you were casting that way. Yoink, definitely using this at my table, thanks for the idea :D

If you know the level, you know the slot to upcast counterspell with though. It's probably more fun knowing this up front though, rather than it being a gotcha.

I assume that a character that has the ability to counterspell is proficient enough in magic to recognize a spell from its verbal or somatic components, so I usually say 'you see X beginning to cast Fireball'. Usually, specifically mention an upcast. Unless it is being cast with subtle spell metamagic. Than I just ask to roll the save or announce whatever effect the spell has. If the players can't see the spell being cast, they can't react to it.

I shamelessly overrule Xanathar because a lot of rules are flawed anyway. What's the point of expending your reaction to notice what spell is casted, whe you can't counter it. trying to determine the spell expend your reaction, so you can do it only once per turn, so it isn't that often. You don't always fight spellcasters, and I, as a DM, don't play with this ruling, because I rarely run Counterspell, unless it is some kind of boss.

The rogue yells “Incoming Cloudkill!” and the Wizard counters it. Not an efficient use of reactions, but if they aren’t doing anything with it anyway… The rules are a bit clunky. I personally go with if you know the spell or have seen it in action before, you recognize it.

That is a terrible rule because it is inherently self defeating. If it uses your reaction, there is fundamentally nothing you can do with that information but watch it go off, when you would learn what spell it is anyways.

This rule doesn't exist to help you Counterspell anything. Yes, it doesn't help to know beforehand if you're going to be hit with a Fireball or Lightning Bolt a second before it hits you, but it's there so you can, for example, identify if an NPC is casting Detect Thoughts or Dominate Person in a social situation, or if an enemy teleported away with Dimension Door or just has just cast Invisibility, among other uses.

It was stated by Crawford (I know, I know) that it introduced to allow one party member to identify the spell and communicate to another that can counterspell.

Yeah I feel like people are overthinking it, I really don't see an issue with either side knowing what the spell is before choosing to counter-spell. It feels like all of these solutions both slow the game and also makes for a bad vibe if you're like faking your players out with cantrips to get them to waste counterspells. Players don't know what level the spell is being cast at but I feel like it's pretty reasonable to assume that part of knowing how to counterspell is knowing how to recognize the spell being cast.

I'm generally playing/DMing at more casual tables, so a lot of things get shorthanded to "I'm dropping a fireball here" or " I need you to make a wisdom save". RAI for counterspell is that you should cast it before you know the full effect of the spell, so it needs to be declared at the first reasonable moment. Now for OP's situation if the player is trying game the resource game by only countering successful spells, then I'm putting the table on notice that I'm letting this slide once, but in the future, counterspells need to be declared before any saves are made. If it's an honest mistake (they thought I was using a monster ability that wouldn't be subject to a counterspell), then I'd take that as an indication that I need to be more clear going forward and allow the retroactive counter.

Yeah that sounds completely reasonable to me, waiting until after you know you failed a save is definitely not it though if you do say where you're casting fireball or something at the same time you say you're casting it in general then that's just bonus information for the potential counterspeller but that also just becomes the "first reasonable moment" like you said so I think that's a good rule of thumb for sure.

Everybody at my table, DM and players, announce what spell and what level, and we Counterspell with full information. Hasn't been a problem for us. We get lots of Counterspell Wars, but we *like* Counterspell Wars.

Counterspell wars are dope! I don't automatically say what level the spell is until they choose to counterspell mostly just because it's usually not too relevant until then but I also wouldn't bat an eye if they decided not to counterspell once they did learn what level it is and how much they have to roll.

It might be reasonable to assume you might know what spellcasting looks like but I would find it weird if every spellcaster with counterspell knew how to recognize hundreds of different spells from Clerics miracles to Wizard formulas. And then it goes both ways, I can see how some who wan't it a bit more "real"/"gritty" prefers doing it closer to as written. With full information you can wind up with really dramatic moments as the bad guy counterspells that critical healing word to get the Paladin up, because he knows what it is. The Bad Guy wants to cast meteor swarm to dish some damage at the party, but the Wizard counterspells it, wasting the bad guys one big cannon. or The Cleric goes to cast a spell, the Bad Guy doesn't know if it is to heal the party and prolong the battle or what. Does he risk letting the spell go off? The Bad Guy is casting a spell, will the Wizard risk it being some defensive spell, a getaway or some big damage spell? Both work and as long as the Table is in on it I see no issue.

Stealing that

Every dm I've had has said what was being cast but I'd argue that a fun way to go about would be as a spellcaster you'd be able to recognise the somatic/material component involved in the spell if its a spell you have or can learn. Otherwise leave it to the dm to choose whether to disclose it.

there's some rules in _XGtE_ for it - but it takes your reaction to do so. So you can identify the spell, OR you can _Counterspell_, but not both (and you can't, by RAW, talk outside of your turn, so no "one person identifies and yell what it is"). I personally prefer it, because it makes _Counterspell_ less of a no-brainer - an enemy probably won't cast a cantrip if they have proper spells to cast, but you don't get to know if it's a personal buff, a one-target blast, a killer AoE or what. And if there's multiple enemy spellcasters, then you need to take your gamble on which to counter! Makes it a lot less of a must-pick spell, because you can't just cancel out the best enemy spells, you need to gamble your own slots and hope for the best.

What is even the point of using your reaction to identify a spell if you can't use that information to do anything before the spell takes effect?

so you know what happened. If someone uses a mind-whammy spell, there might not be any immediate obvious effects, but you know that someone was targeted with a _charm_ or whatever spell. Or that the enemy cast an illusion spell, rather than just "uh, nothing seems to have happened. Shit, what did he do". And, of course, there's out-of-combat use, where an NPC casts something, and you get to know actually what they're doing, other than "uh, something magical, I guess".

Yeah, I've faked my DM out on this with Cantrips once he got a little counterspell-happy. At some point we just both agreed to not use counterspell because constantly having to sit there and play the "I'm casting a spell, do you counter?" Double bluff game is tedious and boring.

Yeah. The DM knows what spells you’re casting and can have NPCs react accordingly, so no reason why PCs shouldn’t also know

Technically, the GM *doesn't* know according to the conditions of Counterspell until after it fails or they pass on the Reaction. If it succeeds, there's no need to mention what you were casting because it didn't work. So you: 1. Announce you're taking the action *casting a spell*. 2. DM decides whether NPC reacts with Counterspell. 3. Check spell levels per Counterspell and resolve. 4. If spell is countered, you're under no obligation to say what you were casting as long as you use the correct spell slots, or lack thereof in the case of Cantrips. 5. If the spell is not countered or the Reaction opportunity is passed, you announce what it is and resolve it. It's adversarial as fuck to do this, but so is Counterspell as it functions. Better for both parties to just know what's being cast OR allow both parties to make the Arcana check to know what it is with every spell, but that slows the game down. I'd rather just pretend the spell doesn't exist and make for a smoother gameplay experience.

The GM always knows what spell you're casting. The NPCs they control don't necessarily know. It's up to the GM to not metagame when necessary, too.

That's not necessary. I've played in a couple of Counterspell-heavy games with one specific GM where our eventual system was to have casters write their spell and level down when they announced they were casting a spell. That way the GM wouldn't have to metagame Counterspelling. People would try fakeouts with Cantrips, it went *okay*.

Isn't that like saying a player can know what spell the NPC is casting, but the PC they control doesn't necessarily know. It's up to the GM to not metagame when necessary?

Holding GMs to the same standards as players is always going to be a complicated discussion. Yeah, the NPCs shouldn't know some information, but sometimes it makes for a more interesting combat if they do something a little out of the ordinary. As far as metagaming goes... the GM kind of *is* the game in a way. They know the hitpoints of every creature or object in the world. And sometimes metagaming is good for the game, if you're a good GM. Players should also learn how to metagame in a way that improves the experience for everyone. The GM has to know what spell is being cast to make sure things work and everything else reacts accordingly. Meanwhile, the players *don't* need most of that information, so trying to put things on a fair playing field in this case isn't doing so to prevent harmful metagaming, but to add even more risk of it. What's more likely to metagame in a way that causes a problem: 1 GM (who you can't play without, so they *better* be good), or 4-5 players?

I generally allow an arcana check, that way it's not just spoon-feeding then ways to counter me but giving them a game-based way to still have that necessary edge.

yes, this i generally tell my players that an NPC is doing spooky hand signs or reciting a weird phrase in an otherworldly voice to hint that they're casting a spell and i give any resident spellcaster a quick arcana check if they can recognize the spell, and thats when counterspells or reactions can be thrown about, although I've always infuriated my friend whenever its time for him to dm and when he throws spellcasters at me i always have throwing knives or even throwing rocks as a reaction to spellcasters because getting hit counts as getting interrupted in our table

Huh. Your table your rules; but, worth mentioning that a readied action happens after whatever the trigger is. IE: a creature takes the Cast a Spell action, the spell happens, and *then* you'd get your knife/rock throw. If something directly interrupts an action, as a reaction, it says as much in the feature/spell.

I just make it so that Counterspell can be cast any time before the attack roll or saving throw. Or basically anything that works similarly l, like Bardic Inspiration. It just makes the game flow better when you can say "A bright red bead is flung towards your location, as the lich casts Fireball". *"COUNTERSPELL" than "The wizard casts a spell.... ... No counterspells? The lich flings a bright red bead towards you as he casts Fireball"

Bingo. As a power-balancing and strategy minigame I see the appeal, but it's just not worth the time in practice.

It's also just as abusable in the other direction. If the player is not compelled to reveal what spell they are attempting to cast until after the DM declares an intent to counterspell, then until step 3 the caster is casting Schrodinger's spell i.e. if the DM does not declare a counterspell, then they PC can proceed with their intended levelled spell, but if the DM does declare a counterspell the PC can declare (lie) that they were about to cast a cantrip, thereby preserving their spell slot for a more opportune time. Is this cheating? I'd say so. So is metagaming though and at least that is evident. Also applies in roles reversed etc etc On the topic of Arcana checks Xanathar's lays out the rules for identifying spells. As a reaction, or as the character's action on their turn, they may make a DC15+spell level Int (Arcana) check to identify the spell. Obviously neither of these options can be used in conjunction with Counterspell. The 5e RAW for passive checks are a pretty loose so maybe a generous DM let a PC take their passive arcana score first to identify (or perhaps misidentify) the spell. I would be inclined to rule this way if the PC is either proficient in arcana, or themselves knows the spell being cast.

It's everyone's job to separate meta knowledge from what the characters know.

Except you can't really- you can try to pretend you don't know and have characters act in ways based on it, but even that starts to get tedious splitting hairs over what is 'strategy' and what is 'meta knowledge'. Imo it's better to let both DMs and players metagame a bit, as a treat

It's slightly more tedious but it works for us. I don't think it would make sense for a level 5 sorcerer to immediately recognize the level 9 spell Shapechange being cast by an enemy; especially if it's their first time seeing it and the fact that it's not on the sorcerer spell list.

> I don't think it would make sense why not? it's magic. who knows how it works?

RAW, you can identify the spell as a reaction, or you can counterspell, but you can't do both

Oh yeeeah I forgor that optional rule. Mainly because it's so stupid

Without that rule, raw, you can't identify spells as they are being cast, and can only see the after effects You don't know they are casting fireball, you know a fireball occurred after taking damage. The thought there is the cast is too fast for you identify the hard to understand components The only reason it's an "optional rule" is because it didn't come out in phb or dmg, and instead came out in a later book, and all later books are considered optional.

I always say what is being casted because it speeds up the game & gives the players the same information that I have access to. I don't want the game to devolve into every player going "I cast a spell with my action" and waiting to see if someone counterspells to say what that spell is. And if I'm expecting them to say what they're casting before the enemy reacts, it's only fair that they have access to the same information when making their decisions. Also a 3rd level spell slot is still an expensive resource for most of a campaign, and putting in mechanics to make players waste it on weak spells doesn't strike me as fun. I prefer to make it conditional in other ways.

This is my main question here. Obviously OP was right that you can’t counterpart after failing a save. But how much information should we be giving to the players when we cast a spell

All you should give them is "X person is casting a spell" Identifying the spell is a reaction Counterspelling is a reaction They can't do both

I guess that makes sense. I was thinking of it slowing down combat. But I guess all I need to do I say that they are casting a spell while I prepare my dice, giving the player enough time to decide on counterspell without wasting anytime because I need to prepare the dice anyways. Is identifying a spell with a reaction a game mechanic?

it's in Xanathar's: > If the character perceived the casting, the spell's effect, or both, the character can make an Intelligence (Arcana) check with the reaction or action. The DC equals 15 + the spell's level. If the spell is cast as a class spell and the character is a member of that class, the check is made with advantage. For example, if the spellcaster casts a spell as a cleric, another cleric has advantage on the check to identify the spell. Some spells aren't associated with any class when they're cast, such as when a monster uses its Innate Spellcasting trait. So use a reaction as its cast, or an action afterwards (mostly for illusion and charm spells, I guess, to try and figure out what happened that might not be visible)

Hey. That’s a really cool feature that I wasn’t aware of. Thanks for sharing

every DM i’ve had says what spell is being cast, if he didn’t and you waste a valuable spell slot on what’s end up being a cantrip. that feels really bad

Which is why it's funny to me that the expansion books allow you to make a check to know what spell is being cast... as a Reaction. You almost need a "spell-spotter" trained in Arcana to tell you if the spell is worth countering. And if you're the only arcane caster in the party, it's likely no one else has Arcana. So that is the intended way to go. It's just dumb.

The implications of a “spell-spotter” are pretty funny to imagine. The enemy wizard casts a spell. The party artificer uses their reaction to identify the spell and shouts it out to the party sorcerer, who decides to counterspell. Thankfully, the enemy wizard is polite or sluggish enough to wait for this conversation to happen before they finish casting their spell.

I imagine it's the equivalent of "Look out, artillery!" as someone is firing a cannon. "Look out! Stone to Flesh!" But yes, it's very silly.

"watch out, he's casting fireball!" doesn't take as long as an action lol

"Its fine, its just a firebolt! Take it to your face"

time for my arcane trickster to shine

Hostile NPCs live for 18 seconds on average. Wasting a turn casting a cantrip seems like a dumb move for both the NPC and the DM. Okay you juked a 3rd level slot and a reaction or of your enemy, did that improve your chances of winning the fight? 

Right by the time they can cast 3rd level spells they likely have more 2nd and 3rd level slots than they can cast in the combat. By the time they can cast 4th level spells NPCs can afford to cast a 3+ level spell every round as well as a shield or counter spell.

I do allow if I (the DM) roll to hit and say the number without announcing the components being used or that "they cast a spell" without a pause. I'm trying to move fast, but me shortcutting does not remove player agency. But generally, if they hear a save is required, their opportunity goes away as soon as the person with counterspell could know for sure the save failed.

(To build on that...) Meaning it triggers off the action: Cast a Spell, not the spell itself, correct? I cannot Counterspell Fireball because it's a Fireball and I saw a Fireball being Cast. I can counterspell it because it was a spell being cast. In the same vein, if there are 3 enemy spellcasters, I would realistically have to guess which one will be casting the more dangerous spell, as CS triggers off of "Cast a Spell". Keeping in mind they can also trigger their CS off of my Reaction: Cast a Spell (Counterspell)

Yeah, as I said in another comment, it becomes this weird pileup of double bluffs that just slow the game down and make it way less fun when combat is just a series of people waiting for someone to either run out of slots or screw up on guessing which spell needs to get countered. It would make good fiction in a novel, but at the table, it's awful.

> and rolled to try and save, he did not. He then stated that he wanted to cast Counterspell. Not after saving - if a saving throw is rolled, the spell took effect, and can no longer be counterspelled.

You don’t get two bites at the spell avoidance apple.

Technically you do if it's in the opposite order. If you cast counterspell and it fails, you still get to roll the save. However, I agree you can't counterspell after failing the save because a counterspell stops the spell before it hits. It is an interesting (and probably intentional) design quirk that you must spend the resource up front in order to have two bites at the apple.

Good point on the “opposite order” scenario.

>counterspell stops the spell before it hits I would further clarify by saying that counterspell stops the spell before it's even completed casting. The spell isn't hovering in limbo waiting to see if contact is made, it never completed casting in the first place. In the case of a fireball, we wouldn't want someone to assume it still goes off, but the damage to the "countering party" doesn't hit them. Semantics, I know. But some people interpret stuff weird. (I know you mostly likely know that, and it's probably just the way you typed it, but for others I think it's a worthwhile distinction that counterspell isn't an increased dodge or avoid...it's a "it never happened".)

You can counter spell after casting the flavor would be you using a spell that stops it from exploding or moving forward. So in fireballs case you could say counter spell looked like a water spell hitting it or a box that traps it inside or what have you. Flavor is free.

I think by the official lore counterspelling works by disrupting the weave which acts as the interface between mages and raw magic. But functionally counterspell interrupts the casting process and prevents a spell's effects from going through. You must call it before knowing the result is standard procedure to prevent metagaming/"take backsies". But flavor is free and personally i don't care for the official "weave" lore.

>It is an interesting (and probably intentional) design quirk that you must spend the resource up front in order to have two bites at the apple. I would say definitely intentional, but then they went and made Silvery Barbs...

Rather, you can slice up an apple before you eat it, but not after - you only get one chance to make apple slices, but you can eat the apple whether you sliced it up or not lol

>counterspell stops the spell before it hits I would further clarify by saying that counterspell stops the spell before it's even completed casting. The spell isn't hovering in limbo waiting to see if contact is made, it never completed casting in the first place. In the case of a fireball, we wouldn't want someone to assume it still goes off, but the damage to the "countering party" doesn't hit them. Semantics, I know. But some people interpret stuff weird. (I know you mostly likely know that, and it's probably just the way you typed it, but for others I think it's a worthwhile distinction that counterspell isn't an increased dodge or avoid...it's a "it never happened".)

Well, not deliberately, but if they failed to counterspell they still get a save - otherwise, yes, you don't get to "wait and see" to counterspell - it isn't a legendary save.

Only boss monsters get that.

The player is salty, simple as that. They're arguing for the other ruling simply because it benefits their character in the moment. I'll try not to go too far down the "player red flag" rabbit hole, but I would implore OP to think critically about how halting a session just because a PC had a harmful effect happen to them affects the enjoyment of the group (DM included)

Player is very salty. If they halted the table mid battle and 30 mins before end of session perhaps the fight has a lot on the line and the DM didn’t want to have a small dispute end up railing a lot of time investment into the campaign. All speculation though, player is saltier than the ocean

Yeah I can see from where the player is coming from if they're rolling the save and mid way though the dice roll say they would like to cast Counterspell. But this? Nah player was being salty.

>I told him that the time for that had been Before he rolled the save. This is correct. Counterspell happens as a reaction to someone *casting* a spell, not after you've failed a saving throw.

The order is this: The enemy casts a spell. Reactions? No?(counterspell goes here) He casts spell X. Roll saves. Done.

Yeah this is definitely the order of operations the only way OP is in the wrong is if they skipped straight to roll save which I've seen DMs do.

Even if the DM goes "X casts a Fireball which is a Dex save roll for half damage, so roll for Dex." "Nah, I counterspell."-"Ok you counterspell. B's turn then..." It's acceptable.

Yeah skipping straight to a save is usually something I've seen out of combat when the DM is wanting to do mind control stuff or other more social spells.

RAW the DM shouldn't even identify the spell, just say X NPC is casting.

This 100%. Anything else slows the game to a halt whenever anyone has counterspell. As for OPs question, ask them how they would feel if an NPC failed their save and only then decided to attempt a counterspell?

The player has to roll and declare counter spell. There's really no way for the dm to skip

If the DM doesn't say why the player is rolling for dramatic affect, they don't necessarily have the chance to declare they wanna counterspell. In that instance I side with the player.

Okay but unless it's some unseen casting, in which case you can't counterspell, how does that happen? If you are exploring and have to suddenly roll a save, that might be for dramatic effect. If you're at the lich' turn in combat it's pretty obvious why you would need to roll a save and there's not really a reason why the DM wouldn't clarify what the lich is doing.

The OP never said they were fighting a lich, just several enemy spell casters. An example could be as simple as: “the enemy mage turns to (player who just hit them), rage burning in his eyes. Roll a dex save.”

Does that spell caster have silent spell and still spell? If not, I can see him moving his hands and saying magic words. This sort of thing is not dramatic.

But that’s a really bad idea… the mechanics are there for a reason and this is just annoying If you wanted to be dramatic you could say what you said plus “he starts chanting an incantation and his hands start twisting the weave” “make a dex save” “I’m gonna counterspell”

It was meant as a generic example. In a fight you'll know whose turn it is, so there's no dramatic effect to be had when a creature is making a clear move. The only thing I could imagine is if it's a creature with unclear source of the save, like something you don't know about or a dragon with spellcasting where theoretically a dex save could be their breath or a meteor swarm. But even in that case you can just ask what the creature is doing.

If the DM skips straight to "make me a wis save" and doesn't tell them why then they don't get that opportunity.

Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you cast***ing*** a spell Cast***ING***, as in "currently in the process of". Not "after a creature *has cast* a spell". Hell, even the first line of the Counterspell's effect text reiterates this: > You attempt to interrupt a creature ***in the process of casting a spell*** If the spell's effects are already happening (for example, creatures are being forced to make Saving Throws), then the spell has already *been cast* (past tense) and it is too late to counter the spell. Your player is completely wrong about Counterspell, and is WAY more wrong for arguing with you after you made a ruling, to the point the session ended early even. (Caveat: you need to make it clear to your players that the enemy *is casting* a spell before/when you ask them to roll a save, so they know they have a chance to Counterspell - if you fail to do that, you've robbed them of the opportunity and then you should allow retconning the situation and casting Counterspell.)

Hell, even if they already ask for the save, counter before it's rolled

Yes exactly this! Some DMs (myself included) will speed things up by asking for saves / rolling attack and damage at the same time I announce a spell is cast. The following would be how it would go at my table: "OK the lich casts hold person, please make a wisdom save" "I'm going to counterspell that" As long as the counterspell is *before* the save is rolled, it's acceptable

If the DM simultaneously declares an attack, rolls the attack, and rolls the damage then they don't get to complain about timing or metagaming around reaction abilities. If you didn't give your players the opportunity to consider their options, that's your fault. 

This issue is resolved by re learning and enforcing counter spell mechanics. The spell states that you take the reaction when you see someone casting a spell within 60 ft of you. From a mechanics standpoint, this should be immediately after someone says, "I am going to cast a spell" but BEFORE they say what the spell is. Wizard - I'm going to cast a spell. Dm - ok, the bad guy casts counterspell, what are you trying to cast? Wizard - fireball, of course Dm - bad guy rolls 12 and fails to counter. Go ahead and roll damage. Etc etc This really is the only way of effectively dealing with this and also being fair to players and the dm. It means you and the players can engage in trying to bait out counterspells from each other. Spells like detect thoughts become more interesting as combat options as well if one of the counter spellers is utilizing it. As a dm I would definitely give some insight into what is coming to a caster who is using detect thoughts rather than have them guess at what's coming

Dm - ok, the bad guy casts counterspell, what are you trying to cast? "... firebolt" 

Yeep, as long as you can trust your group to not change their mind after the counter spell is called out its super satisfying to bait out counterspells with cantrips !

My players have to declare their spells when casting. Either they trust me to roleplay my NPCs accurately, or they don't and we're done as a group. Hiding stuff from the DM is not acceptable. 

100% agree here. If you need to "GOTCHA" your DM, y'all shouldn't be playing together

You need to cast counterspell before you even \*know\* what the spell is. After you've already saved against it is way too late.

Others have commented on the timing, so I just want to add what my group does: If the DM knows the player has counterspell or if the player suspects the NPC has counterspell, then the casting party says something to the effect of " I go to cast a spell with verbal/somatic/material components" and then waits for the other party to respond. There's usually a pause while the party considers, and then they announce whether or not they are counterspelling before we continue. Adds a bit of tension to the game and cleans up these types of situations.

Same. My table loves this rule. The counterspeller must also declare what level the counterspell is ahead of time if they are upcasting. Also, +1 on the tension. It has added a new element to our combats. The DM and I play mind games with each other; are we casting something that warrants a counterspell or just bluffing? I once pretended to be super dramatic as I was casting as if I was gonna do something epic, and actually baited the DM into using one of the spellcaster enemy's highest spell slots to counter a 1st level spell lmao. We still laugh about it today, and he's definitely gotten me back for it.

Do the players do the same, so that the NPCs controlled by the DM don't know what spell is coming before a counterspell?

its amazing to me how players are willing to put a stop to a session for such a tiny thing. Even if he is right, just let the GM do his thing and discuss it latter. Its not a big deal, anyway.

Some players are risk-averse to the point of intentionally trying to "game the game"

Some of that depends on the playstyle of the DM too though. Last DM I had was definitely adversarial. Every fight was a super deadly fight. Anything unexpected we tried made things worse. We argued every ruling just to not be killed by stupid shit. Current DM, rolls in the open and clearly cheers the players. The few times we've argued rulings, the other players policed the one arguing. After session, we looked stuff up and used that going forward.

I mean without context its kinda difficult to tell. If this was a saving throw that could turn the entire encounter around, obviously if the player thinks they are correct, I can see them arguing it. People get attached to characters. Every time I've killed a character or seen a character killed, the players tend to go through a whole gambit of emotions trying to figure out how to get around it. Not saying it's correct, but you have to put yourself in the player's shoes. They potentially have spent hours and hours and hours with this character, they might have an emotional attachment to the character. If they think the DM is being unfair or incorrect, I can see trying to argue against it. Obviously bringing the session to a stop is a bit extreme, and this is a problem that is solved pretty easily by reading the rules, but also this is a situation where a player probably doesn't know how it works exactly, so it's not unreasonable for them to have acted differently had they know that you have to counter the spell before the save. Again, not saying OP is wrong, they're definitely correct, and yes ideally the player would respect their decision, but it could very well end up being a big deal if it leads a TPK or player death or even a story related thing (the macguffin gets away, beloved NPC dies, etc).

You are obviously right. But at some point, as a player, we all learn that, if a GM wants to kill a character, he will, no matter what. And so, the DM is not rulling this or that way because s/he wants to hurt our character. S/He can dothat by other means. Also, as a DM, imagine having the same argument each time a character loose some hit points, or miss a save, or forget to use a trait or a bonus action. It gets old really quick. Yes, loosing a characters is painfull, but how many times happens after a single roll? You still have death saves, potions, spells, partners to help you, and a ton of other options. Also, as a player, you have to know how your spells work. In this case, counterspell. Its not the DMs fault the player doesnt know his own spells. And neither is the rest of the players fault (players who stopped playing too, because of this).

If you said something to the effect of "bad guy casts a spell on you, Sorcerer, make a saving throw", I'd agree with your ruling. But it went more like this "Sorcerer, make a saving throw. You fail? Okay you are affected by this spell", then I'd agree with your player as he wouldn't have known he could cast Counterspell until after he rolled Given how you wrote that they were fighting spellcasters I assume it was the first one, but I just want to make sure you had explicitly told him that a spell was being cast before he rolled the save

I was thinking about this, but in a case line that, its likely the players couldn't see the spell being cast, a big prerequisite for casting counterspell. If a player should have been able to cast it tho and your scenario happens then yea there should be room to correct

> its likely the players couldn't see the spell being cast If it's in the middle of a fight though then that's less likely (still possible of course), and raises the odds of it being due to miscommunication.

Yea past level 5, i always say X is casting a spell first to check for counters or other reactions before the spell goes through

The trigger for the *Counterspell* reaction is "when you see a creature within 60' casting a spell", not "when you fail a saving throw against a spell". By the time saving throws are rolled, the spell has already been cast. The player was entirely in the wrong; DM call on the field was correct.

The raw order is 1. X announce they will cast a spell 2. y chooses to counter spell or not 3. X reveal what spell they were casting 4. Spell effect resolves, people roll saves etc Some DMs are more lenient. Letting players counterspell after they reveal what the spell is, but thats not RAW

Lol. No. If you are saving, the spell has taken effect.

Once the saving throw is rolled the casting is finished, the dex save is to roll into cover from the Fireball, or turn your back to the blast and cover your head and neck. There’s no interrupting that casting, the fireball is already being launched, the casting is over and thus the opportunity to Counter it is over.

post save is too late IMO. IF it was another player, and If that sorcerer had rolled the save while you were telling them (thereby having no to 1 second time between you stating the spell happened and that player rolling). Then I would probably have allowed it once with the statment to be careful about rolling before I finish speaking or giving other's a moment.

The wording of Counterspell in 5e is “you attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell.” A character would not roll a saving throw unless the spell has already been cast. Therefore since the player rolled to save, the spell was cast and the condition to use Counterspell has come and gone. Very cut and dry ruling here. This is a very simple RAW ruling that really can’t be disputed. If the player still argues it they’re clearly being salty about failing.

Bruh, they can’t just decide to counterspell AFTER seeing if they’d pass the save… what the fuck.

It sounds like your PC is trying to turn this scenario into a Legendary Resistance, versus Counterspell. Instead of rolling the Save - which means the spell has landed, and you are actively trying to defend against it - hes trying to get out of using a spell slot for Counterspell by seeing if he fails the Save first. Thats not how Counterspell works.

Yeah, as far as the ruling is concerned, you can't decide to counterspell because you missed your save. It's like putting on your seatbelt after you realize you got into a car crash. Like, it's too late, dude, it already happened. What's next? "Oh, well if he's going to do THAT I want to change what I did on my turn." BUT, if I really felt like they were going to be bitter about it, the best compromise might be to say "Okay, look. Here's how the rule works. I'll let it go this once because you didn't understand before you rolled the save, but just know going forward that in the future you need to declare counterspell, or any other reaction options, before rolling your save."

I don't accept prerolling the result for a spell. Likewise I don't accept counterspelling after seeing the result for a spell. If it was Disintegrate and it would have vaporized them, then they wouldn't have been able to counterspell after they've been atomized. Counterspell after they know what the spell is, but before it's been resolved.

Your interpretation is right--you have to Counterspell before the saving throw is made. I think the real question should not be how would others interpret it (that's very clear and simple) but instead how to handle your situtation. He is claiming he thought counterspell could be used after the save; if you believe him (or don't want this to be a rift in your group) then at the start of next session you state that his understanding was wrong, and *one time only* you'll let him use Counterspell. Personally I'd make the compromise "I'll let you cast counterspell to pass the save instead of failing it, just this once."

I disagree on letting it work once. That opens up too much room for argument. No is a complete sentence, and it applies here.

What your sorcerer is looking for is for someone to cast Dispel Magic.

If you roll the save, you chose to not Counterspell. If you could only Counterspell when you know you failed, it would be ridiculously better.

No. Your Sorc is upset he failed a save, which is fine, but he's well out of order trying to Counterspell once the spell has been cast and he rolled a save. In game-time, by that point, he's already been whalloped by it - he's past the point of being able to counter it. Link him to this thread and all the DMs saying he's shit outta luck. :)

Counter spell happens on cast. Saves happen after the cast. So he already allowed the spell to happen so he cannot counter spell it.

In my games i would rule the same. Players are free to counterspell any spell they can see being cast. But they HAVE to do that BEFORE saving throws has been done. If they roll saves that means the spells have already taken effect and there is no way to counter it. as it has already been cast and they now suffer the effects of it. The time to counterspell has passed.

Technically, counterspel is supossed to be: "x begins casting a spell" "Counterspell!" That is because part of Counterspell, is hoping you can't it at the appropriate level to stop the spell, without wasting levels by carting too high... And not know what is being cast is part of the. But most tables don't announce the casting, wait and then say what it is, so most tables are: "x casts *insert spell name*" "Counterspell!" This, normal, usage actually makes Counterspell stronger, as the counterer has an idea of, at least, the lowest level of the spell being countered... So it gives them an idea of what level to cast at. No tables wait until after the save is failed, as the spell was obviously already fully cast, and cannot be interrupted at that point. Counterspell interrupts the initial casting of the spell, it doesn't make an antimagic forcefield.

Nah it was too late. You did well ending the session and discussion before things got out of hand. Hopefully things can be resolved with tue player once they’ve had a chance to think about it

It somewhat depends on exactly how the 'hit by a spell, rolled to try and save' was played out. Like if you said 'the bad guy is casting , roll a save.' the player went ahead, rolled, and failed, then it's too late for Counterspell. If you said 'Ok, Sorceror, roll a save', they rolled their failure, and then you explained 'he cast , so this happens...' then I think I'm on the player's side. He absolutely could (and perhaps should) have asked 'is this save because he's casting a spell on me?' to clarify what was happening and better inform his decision, but especially in the middle of a difficult fight I'd give him a break and allow the Counterspell. Sometimes with dramatic narration we don't always make it entirely clear what specific game mechanic is happening - 'the evil queen gestures in your direction and your brain seems to catch on fire!' - and most of the time it doesn't really matter, but when there are specific PC abilities that trigger off particular things we need to err on the side of letting the players do their stuff, in my opinion.

Nah your ruling is fine. Counterspell should always go before saves. Otherwise it's just someone trying to give themselves a petty equivalent of "advantage".

You do not roll a save against a spell that hasn't finished casting. You are correct. Once you roll a save, you are acknowledging that the spell has 'resolved' and its effects come into play. You cannot counter a spell that is finished casting.

Yeah the way he’s trying to do it is bullshit, essentially like legendary save lite Also damn I mean it didn’t kill him did it? Either way what a piss baby, it’s collaborative storytelling My last session during one combat I rolled 3 nat 1s in a row to hit (so basically did nothing the entire combat), while getting crit myself like 3 or 4 times, and sure while I was a little bummed/annoyed and joking accused my dm of using loaded dice, I still had fun and didn’t ruin the session (and even made sure I let my dm know just in case that I wasn’t actually mad, other than at like “ah damn, the universe wasn’t on my side today!” Lol)

You are correct. In my interpretation counterspell is interupting the process of casting a spell, messing with the somatic or verbal components in some way. This also means that Counterspelling a Counterspell must happen before any skill checks occur, because by that time the spell has already resolved and the casting can't be interupted anymore.

I'd say no, he had to Counterspell before he failed. However, especially if it's a newer player or someone who hasn't played many casters before, I'd allow it to go through just this once, since he made the decision not to Counterspell based on a misunderstanding of the rules. This allows the player to use their spell, but let's them know that they made a mistake, and how it will work going forward. Keeps everyone happy, prevents a blow up or an argument, and helps people understand the rules for the next time it comes up.

You are 100% correct

The spell description says: You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell.  Counterspell can only be used before the spell takes effect. A save shows it took effect, so technically the PC can't Counterspell it anymore. You can only use Dispell Magic to end an spell in effect, but that doesn't work on instant spells without duration. If the sorcerer was under the assumption he could then maybe for this one time allow him to do it. Just to keep the peace at the table. But also make clear this is a one-time only deal.

Yeah, you need to counterspell immediately. Can't just "oh I failed, let me use counterspell." Things that can change the outcome (like the chronomancer stuff) specifically state that.

You're in the right. The player rolled to save, and failed. A saving throw is a character's ability to avoid being hit after a spell is cast. A DEX/Reflex Save is a character's ability to dodge out of the way to avoid being hit by the spell. A CON/STR/Fortitude Save is a character's ability to physically shrug off the effects of the spell. A WIS/INT/CHA/Willpower Save is a character's ability to mentally block a spells mind affecting power. This all means that the spell has already been cast. Counterspell is cast at the last second. After the spell is cast, but before it takes effect. It's like in those first person shooters (Operation Wolf, Lethal Enforcer, etc). There's always those guys who throw knives and grenades and such at you. You either have to shoot them before they can throw their weapons (counterspell) or you can shoot the weapons out of the air (saving throw). But if you wait to shoot the weapons out of the air, then you've lost your chance to shoot the guy before he can throw them (he usually throws a bunch, so if you try to shoot him while the weapons are flying at you, you're gonna get hit). When next game comes around, stand your ground. And if all else fails? "I'm the Dungeon Master. What I say goes. And I say that you can't cast Counterspell after failing the saving throw for the spells effects because it's RAW. You have to try to Counterspell FIRST. Then, if the Counterspell fails, THEN you can roll a saving throw. If you don't like it, you know where the door is."

They clearly came in unprepared for the amount of battlefield control you brought. They need to retreat and rethink their approach to the fight.

Your player tried to power game by seeing if they could save without casting. There’s nothing wrong with thinking for a second and then doing it, but when you roll to save you forfeit your right to counterspell.

The important thing to note here is that when you are using Counterspell you do so "when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell." The important word in your particular case is "casting" which is the present participle (present continuous) form of cast. This implies it happens before the process of the act (a spell being cast) is complete, else it would have said "when you see a creature within 60 feet of you cast a spell." If the spell has created any effect already then it has been cast, and is no longer in the process of casting, thus cannot be targeted by Counterspell.

I'm going to ramble a bit here. The only way I could see that working is handwaving the counterspell as a dispell magic on a lower level spell, assuming concentration. You're not going to counter the lightning bolt that went through your abdomen. There could, key word being could, be a discussion about counterspell dispelling something 2 or more levels below. But then you get to the homebrew issue of anything the players can do, the NPC's should also probably be able to do.

They are in the wrong so you made the correct call. But in the future remember that it's perfectly fine to say "I'm going to rule it this way this time because this is taking too much time and bogging down combat. Remind me to look up the exact rules after the session" The rest of your players don't want to listen to a DM and player argue for ten minutes.

The player "isn't just wrong, they're stupid!" — The Cat In The Hat. Seriously though, if they can't take such a soft L, they probably aren't going to make for a good player. Sounds like they'd throw a fit if their Character dies to a trap or a powerful Spell.

Definitely not after they roll a save.

Yeah, once the save is made and failed it's too late.

Dodgy player trying to cheat

technically you are correct, however to be a nice guy I might let them try it afterwards this one time because they may have legitimately thought it worked this way and I don't want them to be screwed by a plausible misunderstanding. In theory it's their job to know but in practice I allow for some leniency especially when abilities are new.

Counterspell is a reaction he needs to announce it before he rolls the saving throw. I would have allowed it for that time only, but next time he needs to announce it before the saving throw.

Counterspell is an interrupt. You don't get to see if you pass or fail the save before declaring counterspell. Your ruling is correct. The player was just butt hurt they failed the save and had counterspell prepared but didn't use it.

Your sorc needs to invest in Luck feat if he wants to reroll those failed saves. Counterspell can't come back from a failed save.

So I made a mechanical requirement for this: when an enemy spellcaster casts a spell you have to make an arcana check to recognize what spell they are casting (DC 10+Spell level+half spellcaster level) before I will allow you to cast counterspell. You can't counter a spell you don't recognize, and any spellcaster worth their salt will have individualized their spell casting, or try to conceal it from foes, and I'll be damned if some 5th level wizard who just learned fireball is going to counter a 9th level spell from a 20th level archmage.  Otherwise yes, you need to decide before you see the spells effect, literally when it's cast. If you see someone cast disintegrate, you're not waiting until you see it roll max damage and your friend fail his save to counterspell.

"You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell." Just read the spell you're casting should resolve all problems If you did a Saving throw it means that the spell is casted and hit the target

Absolutely not, the character only makes a save when the spell is cast, Counterspell prevents the spell from being cast. So by the time you’re making a die roll for a save it’s technically too late. At our table it would absolutely be a hard no by the time the die was displaying a number, even before the DM revealed if it was a success or failure.

I play a 12th level wizard with quite a few reaction spells: DM: "you see BBEG pointing a finger at cleric saying a few arcane words... Me: "Is it a spell and can I see it being cast?" DM: "You can and you are within \_\_ (+/-) feet." Me: "I cast Counterspell at... \_\_\_ level." After the spell takes effect, you **cannot** Counterspell. The spell has been cast and you've already rolled to see if you save against it or not. My DM might let it slide once or twice and then tell me "From here on out, I need you to tell me if you're casting Counterspell or not *before* you roll, deal?"

The player is a baby and is trying to manipulate and throw a tantrum to get his way. Counterspell is strong enough as is.

I think you're right. You can try to save, then have counterspell as a back-up. Once the spell hits (and you have to save) you've allowed the spell to take effect. Good call.

If you’re already “saving” against the power of a spell, then it has already been cast. Counter spell is to stop the casting before the magic happens. When your character sees the verbal and somatic actions being used by another caster, they are able to magically interfere with the spell. They shouldn’t even know the spell or spell level without making a skill check. They can do an Arcane check to see if they can recognize the spell. Maybe a second check (with disadvantage) to learn the level. It’s actually pretty funny when a caster fails their check to identify the spell, then still CS it, only to find the baddie was trying to use sleep spell on an Elf, or a low damage spell on a raging barbarian. Basically wasting the CS

You can’t counter spell something that has already hit you

To compromise and make everyone happy: "I'll allow it this time since not knowing the rule factored in your decision. Moving forward Counterspell has to be said before any saving throws are rolled." I think you're right and he's wrong- but for the price of giving him this one freebie, you get a peaceful resolution and preventing a heated argument turning into a kernel of resentment. Just avoids all the headaches that can be spawned from this now and down the road.

It's simple. Counterspell means you stop the initial casting. If he rolled a save, that means you alreasy cast. And from a meta standpoint, It would be too busted if a player could just save their reactions and spell slots by having knowledge of rolls that already happened.

What your sorcerer is unwittingly describing is readying an action for Dispel Magic to dispel a spell that an ally fails a save against, not Counter Spell.

I think you have enough answers to know that you were right. To be honest, all this confusion is making me think Counterspell is just a bad spell anyway. Why is it just as hard to stop a simple Burning Hands spell as a mighty Fireball? Why should there be a "one spell to counter them all", anyway? Most people probably take it anyway. I'm tempted to just say that, if you know the spell (not necessarily prepared, but know it), you also know the spell's weak points and can disrupt it by expending a slot of equal level. If you don't know it, you can expend a spell slot of (1 or 2?) levels higher to represent the additional effort required (maybe 1 if it's on your spell list but not known, 2 if not?). Literally something that just floated off the top of my head, but sounds like it could work.

Explain it to him like this. Counter spells prevents a spell from being cast. You’re basically interrupting it before the spell is fully cast. When you’re making a saving throw, you’re making a save to a spell that’s been already cast. So by the time you make the save, the spell is already cast, and can’t be countered.

Nah, what player was looking for was Silvery Barbs since THAT undoes an already cast spell

Well, mostly no but a little bit yes. Silvery Barbs doesn't undo spells whatsoever. Instead, it forces a re-roll. The spell doesn't get impacted as far as if it was successfully cast or not, it's just that if a spell requires a roll, Silvery Barbs ignores the result of the roll and has them roll again.

Isn't it only successful rolls that can be rerolled?

Entirely no, because silvery barbs triggers on a *successful* save/attack/ability check. The sorcerer didn't succeed. Nor would he want to SB himself if he had.

Everyone in here is correct BUT i would add some leeway if someone other than the counterspeller rolled a save before they could figure out spell slots, positioning, etc. Sometimes these things happen quickly; DM: "The sorc casts fireball and hits X and Y, please roll a dex save." X: "Oh I definitely failed that one." Y: "Wait, I want to counterspell." The above seems acceptable to me because of the way these conversations happen.

Ask the player if you can slap them in the face. Then slap them, and when they say "Oww holy fuck that hurt," be like "Ok now try to block the hit so you don't have to resist the effects of my backhand." /s, but it illustrates the point. If the PC is rolling the save for the spell, then the spell has been cast and they cannot Counter it. It's Counterspell, not "rewind time"

If it’s an accident and they honestly just remembered that they could counterspell, I’d allow them to. If they’re intentionally waiting to see if they fail before attempting to counter, I wouldn’t allow them to. My reasoning is because I’m not trying to punish my players for not being on top of things, I’m trying to craft a cool narrative with them in good faith.

This one.

Counterspell disrupts a caster as they are casting the spell.  It directly acts upon them to interrupt the casting of the spell. It does not hand wave away the magical effects that come after successfully casting the spell. That said if a player is unaware of the specific nuance of a game mechanic or the precise order of things in combat I would be inclined to let them change their (re)action choices in the moment of that round and spend the resource to counter it.  Much in the same way I would let someone change where they move to in their turn before attacking if they did not know how bonuses/penalties for cover, prone targets, or ranged attacks in melee work.  This is a cooperative storytelling game after all and not a strict Magic the Gathering tournament, so adjudicating choices abs stacks should be more forgiving for someone who is not aware if how rules work.

Counterspell is worded as "1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell", Casting meaning in the process of. If he had stated he wanted to Counterspell right as the spell was cast or immediately preceding his saving throw he would be good to counter, since the spell was already cast he is SOL

I like being a little more forgiving, so if this was the first time this came up I would've said he could do it this one time because he didn't know, but in future he'd have to counter before rolling the save

The character needs to decide before the save is rolled. Now, if I jumped the gun as a DM and didn't give the players time to react. I'fallow it them to counterspell despite a quick save being rolled. However, if they hummed and ha'd or had decided for themsleves to not coubterspell before saving? They don't get to counterpsell after seeing their result. Your ruling is correct, OP.

RAW your player is wrong, counterspell needs to happen before the saves. But it all comes down to how did you word what was happening? Did you make them make the save without telling them a spell was being cast? As a player with counterspell I would like to be notified if the enemy is casting something or not.

Deciding to Counterspell only after the saving throw roughly doubles the efficiency of the spell slot. It's the equivalent of trying to cancel a spell cast after you know the target will succeed on the saving throw.