13
\$\begingroup\$

Scenario:

Four spellcasters: 2v2 (Notation 1A 1B vs 2A 2B)

  • 1A tries to cast a spell
  • 2A uses his reaction to cast Counterspell to counter that spell
  • 1B uses his reaction to cast Counterspell to counter 2A's Counterspell

Can 2B twin Counterspell to counter both 1A's spell and 1B's Counterspell? I can't think of a use for doing this, other than if 1B got some advantage from successfully countering a spell.

\$\endgroup\$
6
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'm not sure that you can twin counterspell like that in the first place... \$\endgroup\$
    – Icyfire
    Commented Feb 15, 2017 at 7:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ related Counterspelling a counterspell, Can you perform a reaction to somebody else's reaction? \$\endgroup\$
    – enkryptor
    Commented Feb 15, 2017 at 12:04
  • 10
    \$\begingroup\$ To answer the "why would you?" question, here is a better scenario which makes Twinned Counterspell make sense: you cast Fireball at two spellcasters, who both use Absorb Elements to give themselves Fire resistance. As both are reaction spells, you have two targets for Counterspell now. \$\endgroup\$
    – user27327
    Commented Feb 15, 2017 at 16:34
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ Another one is the following (again, just for better context of the question). You walk through a door in which two spellcasters are waiting to ambush you, having prepared to cast spells to kill you the moment you walk through the threshold. As you do this, they use their reactions to cast their prepared spells, at which point you can twin your Counterspell. \$\endgroup\$
    – user27327
    Commented Feb 15, 2017 at 16:47
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I'd recommend folding in the scenarios @markovchain presented to the question as illustrations. \$\endgroup\$
    – KorvinStarmast
    Commented Jun 1, 2017 at 13:34

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
15
\$\begingroup\$

Nothing in the rules says you can't

Counterspell

Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell
Range: 60 feet
Description:
You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. If the creature is casting a spell of 3rd level or lower, its spell fails and has no effect.

The description doesn't imply you must interrupt the same spell you are reacting to. The only restriction is that you must see the spellcasting.

Now, the Twinned spell:

Twinned spell

When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn't have a range of self, you can spend a number of sorcery points equal to the spell's level to target a second creature in range with the same spell (1 sorcery point if the spell is a cantrip).

The Counterspell has the range of 60 feet and targets one creature, so it can target a second creature via the Twinned spell metamagic. It should interrupt spells which are being cast in that very moment.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think this answer is correct, the real question becomes "Why would you want to?" Since 2A has already Counterspelled 1A. \$\endgroup\$
    – Randomorph
    Commented Feb 15, 2017 at 13:46
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ markovchain above gave some much better examples where twining counterspell would be useful. \$\endgroup\$
    – Ian Graven
    Commented Feb 15, 2017 at 20:43
1
\$\begingroup\$

You can do this

Counterspell

Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell
Range: 60 feet
Description:
You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. If the creature is casting a spell of 3rd level or lower, its spell fails and has no effect.

and

Twinned spell

When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn't have a range of self, you can spend a number of sorcery points equal to the spell's level to target a second creature in range with the same spell (1 sorcery point if the spell is a cantrip).

Usage case

However, your propose usage seems weird and strange to me. Therefore let me offer a couple of others that, while they would be highly unusual, actually make sense as something you would like to do.

Case 1

  1. An Invisible Wizard A targets the Sorcerer and others with a Magic Missile.

  2. Sorcerer reacts with a Shield (allowed because he has been hit, Sorcerer cannot Counterspell as he couldn't see the Wizard A).

  3. Wizard B reacts with a Counterspell on the Shield.

  4. Sorcerer reacts with a twinned Counterspell on both Wizard B's Counterspell and Wizard A's Magic Missile, thus keeping his Shield until his next turn and saving his companions from the other Magic Missiles - what a hero!

Case 2

  1. Cleric A is casting a ritual spell - this makes her a valid target for a Counterspell right now, however, our Sorcerer is too canny to use his only Counterspell untwinned!

  2. The Sorcerer waits until Cleric A's friend, Ranger A, starts casting a spell - twinned Counterspells all around!

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • 10
    \$\begingroup\$ Unfortunately case 1 can't work, because the sorcerer would need to take 2 reactions for it to happen as described. First reaction to cast shield and second reaction to counter spell. You can only have 1 reaction per round. To potentially make it valid would be to have someone else cast shield as their reaction, that would give this case a stronger agreement. \$\endgroup\$
    – Chikiko Saotome
    Commented Jun 1, 2017 at 8:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .