I'm not saying it's never been a problem at any table, ever, but I've never seen it be a problem, nor heard of anyone who encountered it being a problem.

The system certainly had problems, but that sort of particular bizarre manifestations of the rules are more of a player issue - and a DM-needs-to-grow-a-spine issue - than a system issue.

A common timing issue in 5e, that bothers a lot of players, goes like this: 

Brutus Badcaster and Annie Apprentice are opposed by the heroes, of whom Chester is a wizard and Doug is a bard.

All four of these punks have Counterspell, because of course they do.

Brutus begins casting a high level, powerful spell that will wreck the party- say, Forcecage or Meteor Swarm.  Doug uses his reaction to cast Counterspell on the powerful spell.  Annie then targets Doug's Counterspell with her own Counterspell. Chester then targets Annie's Counterspell with his own Counterspell.  Brutus then casts Counterspell- I think he can target only Chester's Counterspell because he waited, but there is valid way where he counters something earlier in the chain.

If you're familiar with Magic: The Gathering, you know what happens- Brutus counters Chester, Annie counters Doug, and Brutus's main spell lands and Edgar and Frank can't get out of the Forcecage, and immediately go on /r/dndnext to bitch about caster/martial disparity.

This sequence of events is not some rare thing- it's rules as written, apparently rules as intended, and actually happens at real tables today, as 5e is so popular because of totally perfect interactions like this.

This kind of crap can happen in 3.X, but it was substantially rarer.

You may or may not like this interaction- it's certainly interesting, and it's high stakes (especially if Chester upcast his counterspell so that Brutus has to roll, for instance), and it plays out its own little minigame, and it's mostly fair- but it's also a little bit stupid with so much riding on these dumb counterspell spams, frequently houseruled (many tables rule you can't react to a reaction, which stops the entire chain, and others rule you can't counterspell whilst you are already in the middle of casting, which would prevent Brutus's final counterspell)... but I'd say it also runs into just a more general issue about timing. 

How long does it take to make the hand signal for counterspell?  Does it take a half second?  A whole second?  Isn't it strange that by some evaluations in the system, the Forcecage has already been cast, but by other evalutions in the system, Forcecage hasn't actually happened yet?  If there's some delay between finishing a spellcast and the manifestation, how long is it?  If we assume it's a second and a half- short enough to fit in a round easily- then each of these counterspells has to be able to start and finish casting in that same time too.  Even though the rules tell you what happens, and even though there's only four people, this kind of sucks from a verisimilitude standpoint, right?

Even cases where it's not fully degenerate still press on the simultaneity in a round.

The counterspell circle example was written in an article or blog several years ago, the peasant railgun is an iteration that I didn't recognize because of the colossal red-damage-herring.

Quote from: Venka on February 20, 2023, 02:04:39 PM
Brutus begins casting a high level, powerful spell that will wreck the party- say, Forcecage or Meteor Swarm.  Doug uses his reaction to cast Counterspell on the powerful spell.  Annie then targets Doug's Counterspell with her own Counterspell. Chester then targets Annie's Counterspell with his own Counterspell.  Brutus then casts Counterspell- I think he can target only Chester's Counterspell because he waited, but there is valid way where he counters something earlier in the chain.

I confess to never having used Counterspell much (if at all), and I guess — rules as written — you can actually Counterspell a Counterspell, although that strikes me as counterintuitive. No matter.

But I'm fairly sure that Brutus in the example above could not cast Counterspell as a reaction because he had already cast a spell (the initial one) in that round. Or does that rule only apply if you are casting a spell using a bonus action?

Quote from: Wtrmute on February 20, 2023, 02:53:04 PM
I confess to never having used Counterspell much (if at all), and I guess — rules as written — you can actually Counterspell a Counterspell, although that strikes me as counterintuitive. No matter.

It's at least a somewhat common houserule (based on discussions I've seen only, so who knows) that some tables prevent you from reacting to reactions in general, or counterspelling reactions more specifically, or even just blocking counterspell counterspelling counterspell as the most specific case.  It's not even unheard of to just ban counterspell, especially now that a lot of monsters have been printed with "spells that aren't spells" specifically to prevent counterspell from doing anything.  I guess a table like that, you gotta buff the abjurer's main ability a bit?  But yea, as written, you are able to do that. 

QuoteBut I'm fairly sure that Brutus in the example above could not cast Counterspell as a reaction because he had already cast a spell (the initial one) in that round. Or does that rule only apply if you are casting a spell using a bonus action?

It's the bonus action thing.  That rule is explicitly only under the section about casting spells as a bonus action, and therefore doesn't apply to reactions, therefore you can counterspell while casting or right after casting or whatever it actually means, who knows.

Several years ago, there was a conversation about this with all the medium-wigs on twitter, and at one point one of them said that the no-two-levelled-spells-with-a-bonus-action wasn't about game balance or something silly like that.  Basically throwing gasoline on the fire and leaving, as sorcerer players screamed wait so can I use my quickened spell to dualcast now???....

Anyway I just brought up the 5e thing to show how there are consistently timing based issues, and they are a problem in any of the games that execute turns fully sequentially.

I'm still stuck on the javelins, but I'm wondering if there's been a mix up about how magic works in the counterspell scenario.

Setting aside cantrips, I'm not sure that it makes sense to be able to "ready" a spell at all. Magic, especially of the Vancian type core to D&D, is not perfectly at a mage's beck and call. Although I've yet to read any of Vance's works, it seems like an element of another magic system has crept into the game this way.

Imagine doing all of the somatic and verbal components for a spell, and you're standing at the scene of the current battle waiting for the trigger: An adventuring party of six, plus maybe four henchmen, and an assortment of goblins. You're now filled with magical energy that wants to, has to be released, and perhaps standing up in full view of the enemy archers is a consequence of having to complete the somatic component of the spell.  You could be standing around maintaining your concentration for 3-5 crucial minutes (or more) that should otherwise turn you into a pincushion. Maybe you don't get hit, but maybe you wait long enough for the trigger to not quite happen just yet, and the spell fizzles without being cast at all. It's likely true across all editions that if you ready a spell, you can't move without fizzling your own spell as a price for taking a different action (which would be a great opportunity to add spell mishaps).

I think what's confusing about this is how AD&D 2E handled spellcasting. The Casting Time in every spell description for that edition is noted as an "optional ritual casting" rule contra AD&D where it's required. Every time a mage casts a spell in that system it's done near instantaneously by default, and if that's the sort of ruling they were going for, you'd have no time to counter a counterspell. For that matter, I don't think it would be possible to counter any spell unless you can match the spell level of the target spell, since it would require a number of rounds equal to the target spell and your opponent already has a head start. So countering spells at all in D&D needs to be a special ability.

Oh I didn't mean to imply there was something about the 3e rules themselves per se that invited or caused this; as I said, most of us coming from earlier editions are just wired different and our brains dismiss absurd rules-theory-craft stuff like the railgun as invalid on its face because the outcome doesn't "fit", if it feels like a glitch in a computer game it is the incorrect way. What I meant to convey was that the only time I encountered such was with players whose first dnd was 3e and who were primarily M:tG players before that.

You know how magic is, a colon or semi-colon and where exactly its printed makes a difference to rules outcomes, the strict computer logic order of operations supercedes anything making sense if envisioned in the form of a fantasy film or comic, which is fine for magic due to the abstract nature of being a wizard in a card game. Just seemed like these types could not get past card game or board game & really understand role playing game.

Arguments over "can't take a shit w/o the take a shit feat" devolve into "you can't take a shit at all son nowhere in the phb does it even say the word shit in such context"...

Which becomes "i can't starve i can eat my own poo, by RAW there is no save vs disease for eating poo" then becomes "son by RAW you can't pee OR poo, so yes shiteater you WILL starve"..

FIND ME POO ON THE EQUIP LIST FIND ME THE NUTRIONAL VALUE IN CON POINTS OF ASSORTED POO PILES

And when they do this after joining up and then pushing to play something else after only one session, after trying to convince you the game is just broken, I'm left with either brain-itch inducing confusion or i have assign it a form to dismiss, verdict, intentional sabotage. (verdict rendered for the sake of my sanity)

Me like point.

You say smart game stuff.

Me like games.

Me like talk games.

Me like smart game talk stuff.

Me glad here.

You teach much.

Me learn much.

Me happy.

You have good ancestors, not shit people.

Fair enough bud, you win!

You come from a long line of fuckwits who hates their real traditions and you take some real stock in that.

Guess I should just play the rules you want to set about unwarranted respect.

Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 20, 2023, 07:26:41 PM
Me like point.

You say smart game stuff.

Me like games.

Me like talk games.

Me like smart game talk stuff.

Me glad here.

You teach much.

Me learn much.

Me happy.

You have good ancestors, not shit people.

oof. I hope you aren't aiming that at me; if so I was unaware I had done anything to draw it, my last post was just attempting to clarify that I don't think it's necessarily a product of the 3e rules so much as a product of the way some people insisted those rules be applied or interpreted. In truth it looks totally detached from anything upthread to my eye, but on the off chance you are addressing me I'll take it best I can. I didn't feel anything game stuff related I'd said was terribly smart as such, just what I've seen in practice. I like games and talking about them too, talking about them less so but still. Yeah, it's aight here every now and then, i've been worse places. Now shucks fren, teach is powerful, is every bad example a teacher? I'd say no. I'm glad to hear of your happiness, I applaud it, world needs more happiness (w/o throwing rupees into a fairy pool, dammit). As to my ancestors I wouldn't broad brush them anymore than I would the ones I've known in my time, some good some bad, most probably meh.

Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 20, 2023, 07:33:47 PM
Fair enough bud, you win!

You come from a long line of fuckwits who hates their real traditions and you take some real stock in that.

Guess I should just play the rules you want to set about unwarranted respect.

Only on the off-chance I'm your focus here I'll try and take this too:
You speak of win yet I'm unaware of any conflict or contest. I DO come from a long line of fuckwits, that is true, make no mistake, devils and black sheep and really bad eggs. But I don't get the last half of the comment regarding traditions and cannot address it w/o further understanding. I have no idea what you mean in regard to rules of unwarranted respect; I have very few rules, I'm actually a psuedo-anarchist at heart, as few rules as possible if you please.

In any case, if you were not aiming at me I apologize, if you were I've attempted to address what appears to be your concerns, if you should require anything further from me please do not hesitate to let your needs be known friend.

Fantastic