[5E] Interrupting a Spellcaster via Ready Action

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
True, many parts fo the initiative system has bothered our group for a while, but that is nothing new. I get that it was a design choice, I just think a bit more complexity could have resolved such issues this thread has discussed. Compared to other versions of D&D, I find it interesting that the chapter on combat in the PHB is only about 10 pages while personality and background is more than twice as long. Even the DMG section on running the game is less than 10% of the book. I know 5E was supposed to be easy to learn and such, but this much lack of rules leads to more of a "why not let the players create their own rules and game?"

That probably serves many people well. 5E has great popularity after all! I think we'll probably result to a die roll in such cases as I agree that neither action should be faster by default. Our DM might give advantage in certain situations or something, but again it comes down to players making more rules.

As a side point, our DM expressed some pretty bad frustration recently to me. He said its ridiculous that we need (well... desire?) so many house-rules. I think we are over 20 pages. Another friend of his told him he should just make his own game and be done with it.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to post and respond. It's always appreciated. :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

That's the difference between us, I assume GMs and groups who run things different from my tastes are just different people with different preferences - and I dont need to dub one better or worse.

To me it's not about a measuring contest, but about each playing the game they like.

But hey, you do you.

Hey I stated a lot that you can play as you want. But you qute and say random things just barely scratching my post. So I can assume as much as I want.

Also my comment was generally the ability to enabe that certain roleplaying scenario of knife at throat not roleplaying in general. But as I said above you seem to barely read post but react on triggers.
 
Last edited:

5ekyu

Hero
[MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION]

You still miss the target.

1. RAW Ready goes 2nd, but not after an action but a perceivable trigger. So hostage scenarios are an edge case as well as having a killing shot. It is also possible to circumvent the trigger and still cast a spell. (Subtle casting metamagic etc.)

2. Hostages are often low level bystanders or badly wounded people. For the scene it is not necessary to do a killing blow, just the threat of it.

3. I even second you in rulings that make ready an action a rare scenario. So no concentration. But I like it as a gamble you might take in those situations.

4. I just strongly disagree with your reading of "finishes the trigger". We would not have the discussion if it was worded as in previous editions "finsihes the triggering action". In that case the spell would go off no question.
But I really like the wording of 5e RAW because it rewardsclever thinking on both sides.
[MENTION=6987520]dnd4vr[/MENTION]

As you can read in my post: I don't think the rule is in anyway jnfortunately written. Actually it works perfectly. No backloop. No time traves. Just a simple trigger reaction and then tine goes on normally. The only thing you as a DM have to take care off: you don't say: the wizards ignores your threat and just casts you have to say: ignoring your warning the wizard still moves his hand. And now the PC decides: shoot or not. The player might get a sense motive pr perception chech to notice what the intend of the movement is, but now you have to decide possibly before you know what the movement means.
That alligns perfectly with movie scenes that depic such situations.
"4. I just strongly disagree with your reading of "finishes the trigger". We would not have the discussion if it was worded as in previous editions "finsihes the triggering action". In that case the spell would go off no question."

Here is another case where context matters - why trying to isolate and cut out other references leads to misunderstanding.

Others may think it "clever " to avoid using the word action in their trigger to duck the after finish rule. Meh. I find it just tedious. It leads to both sides playing words games instead of the game. It also tends to create very different balance divisions - ones not necessarily obvious or intended. Are daggers meant to be less interruptable than slings cuz slings have the property which has you draw ammo as you fire? Nope, cuz that was done in the context of action and what's done in an action are the same.

In 5e, things like drawing an action, reaching for your pouch of components, speaking arcane words, etc are done within your action. Just like taking an attack action is making an attack - the gestures and drawing arrow etc are a part of the events they are - not separate.

So, in that context, there was no need to put in every reference to stuff done in the course of actions repeated references to the action vs the things done in the action - in the context of 5e the action and the things it entails are one and the same unless specifically noted otherwise. Look at how ammo and loaded works, how interactions work "as part of actions."

Ignore rules that say characters are always in motion so that one can trigger on micro- movements - fine.
Ignore rules that let interactions including drawing weapons and things from pouches occur as part of actions not as pre-cursors - fine.

But the trying to claim clever or RAW when ignoring those and then concluding the language in other sections was vague or open cuz it did not repeat those - sure have fun - but it's not convincing.
 

5ekyu

Hero
Hey I stated a lot that you can play as you want. But you qute and say random things just barely scratching my post. So I can assume as much as I want.

Also my comment was generally the ability to enabe that certain roleplaying scenario of knife at throat not roleplaying in general. But as I said above you seem to barely read post but react on triggers.
You can certainly assume other groups are not as good or aren't actually roleplaying - one's assumptions say a lot and tend to serve as foundations.

Me, I dont need to make such assumptions or assertions. Nor do I find any value in doing so.

But, you do you.
 

epithet

Explorer
Reading through this thread, it seems I disagree with most of you. No surprise there, I suppose.

So, supposing you want to play according to the rules, how should you handle the question posed in the OP?

First, your player has told you that he wants to wait for some sign of casting, then interrupt that spellcast with his readied action. Now, if you clearly understand what he intends to do but still feel that you need to screw with him about whether he used the right terminology, you're doing a bad job of being a DM. Sorry, I know we're all supposed to avoid "badwrongfun" accusations, but the player's supposed to be able to communicate what he wants and you, the DM, are supposed to adjudicate it in game terms. That's your job. In this case, the player has clearly expressed an intent to interrupt the spell being cast, so if you choose to hear that as the trigger being the completion of the spell, you chose poorly.

But how should you rule on the attempt to interrupt the spell? As some have pointed out, there is no specific rule in 5e for interrupting a spell in mid-cast. As a Dungeon Master, though, you don't need a specific rule for every little thing, though, do you? The idea that the lack of a specific rule must mean you can't do something, well... that's just wrong. We've all read the "Actions in Combat" part of the rules, right?

Actions in Combat
When you take your action on your turn, you can take one
of the actions presented here, an action you gained from
your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise.
Many monsters have action options of their own
in their stat blocks.
When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in
the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible
and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine
success or failure.

The part I bolded is the important bit here. It makes it my job, as the Dungeon Master, to decide whether the improvised action to interrupt a spell being cast is possible, and how to determine whether or not it succeeds. Ok, I can do that. Options include making a concentration check to cast a spell if you take damage during the cast, using disarm to knock a component or focus out of the hand of the caster, or stretching the rule for casting within 5 feet of an opponent to apply disadvantage to a spell attack when the PC throws a spear at the caster during its spellcasting. We have options.

So, moving on to the Arcanist's turn, the mind flayer starts to cast the spell. How should I handle the trigger? This is a fighter, not a spellcaster, so I don't think he'll recognise a spell automatically. I might make an exception if it is one that a party member uses all the time, like ray of frost, but for the most part he's guessing. I know how to do that--passive intelligence (Arcana) to recognise the casting of a spell. Not to determine which spell, just to see if one is being cast in the first place. What should the DC be? Call it 15 minus 2 for each type of component (V, S, M) called for in the spell. If the Arcanist is speaking strange syllables waving its hands in the air while brandishing its corrupted rabbit's foot fetish, you'd have to be a real idiot not to suspect a spell, especially if you're waiting for it. Disadvantage (-5 on the passive check) if the Fighter is looking at the Arcanist in dim light, but maybe advantage (+5 on the passive check) if he's reasonably familiar with what spellcasting looks like and, as I mentioned, he's looking for it. I'll let the player know when he announces he's holding an action that recognising the spellcast will be a passive Arcana check, so he can make choices accordingly (to use inspiration, for example.)

If the spell being cast is a bonus action, I don't think the fighter will be able to do anything regardless of his Arcana passive. Bonus Actions are fast, thus "you hear a sort of grunting burble from within those twitching face tentacles, by by the time you realise it was a spell it's already cast." He can still throw the spear if he wants to.

If the spell is cast as an Action, then it depends on the passive check. Fail, and "the mind flayer seems to be trying to communicate through gestures or speech which you can't understand." He doesn't understand that a spell is being cast, so there is no trigger. I'd let him throw the spear after the spell was cast, assuming the spell had an obvious effect. Succeed on the passive check, and he gets to try to interrupt the cast. What we go with depends on the spell being cast and what he wants to do, and in this case he wants to hit the caster with a thrown spear. The straightforward, uncomplicated resolution is to let him make the attack, deal his damage, and have the Arcanist make a concentration check to release the spell. If, for whatever reason, I wasn't comfortable with that (which for the record, I totally am) I would just apply disadvantage to any ranged spell attack roll, probably regardless of whether the attack hit. If I wanted to get fancy, and there was a material component to the spell, I might ask if the throw was targeting the caster or the spell focus. If the spell focus is disarmed, it might have effects beyond just interrupting the spell being cast as the Arcanist looks for and recovers the dropped focus.

The fighter has given up his Action, possibly a Bonus Action, and is using his Reaction to have a chance to interrupt this spell. Overpowered, this is not. Nor, in fact, is this at all a nerf to spellcasters. This is an improvised action, made and adjudicated within the rules of D&D 5e. There are probably other ways to handle it, but this one is mine. If it all works, I might give inspiration to the fighter for "thinking outside the box."

You're not the dealer in a casino, or the host of a television game show. Your function is not to just tell players "that's not in the rules, you can't do it." Your job is to run the game, because you're the Dungeon Master. That means if it isn't in the rules, you make it up.
 

I second everything else, but here I want to add that to actually use silence if he starts casting a spell you start casting silence on your turn and hold the energy until your next turn which might result in a very cost inefficient trade if you go by RAW. I would allow to hold a spell for as long as you use the readied action on consecutive turns but that is a house rule.

How readying a spell works(not the house-rule): you cast the spell but hold the final syllable (or whatever you want to narrate) until the triggered action occurs. If the triggered action does not occur in the round you readied it, you lose your action and the spell slot. Inefficient? Yes. Readied actions aren't guaranteed. They are often a gamble which is why allowing a readied action to interrupt another action isn't as Over Powered as some people have been claiming. If you think it's overpowered, then you haven't used it in actual game play. You should try it first and then decide if it's overpowered.

What this rule shows however that it is impossible to cast a spell in as little time as a single reaction to fire it off immediately. It is not even enough time to cast the spell and let it loose after the enemy has completed his trigger. So we need to assume spellcasting takes more time than swinging with a swird which you can ready wirhout giving the intend away. This however is only my interpretation and even if someone diaagrees it does not belittle the fact that RAW the trigger explicitely does not have to be an action.


It doesn't really show anything because it's fiction. It's as fast as the what makes sense for the story. Protection from evil requires you to use powdered silver and holy water but it's one action to cast. How much of that 6 seconds is preparing the materials for the spell and how much is invoking the Power needed to execute the spell? Or does it all happen at once? Every players description of protection from evil will be different. "I pour the powdered silver in to the holy water and it bubbles into a protective cloud around me." "I throw it all in the air and, Magically, it forms into a protective pentagram which glows with divine power and fades to nothing." Meanwhile Power Word Kill is "I say the word 'DIE"
That last one might be trickier to predict and a bit harder to narrate as holding the action. You cast the spell but don't actually say the Empowered Word? Maybe you just tap in to the Magical Weave and hold the final Word. I leave that kind of creativity to the players.

What this rule (of casting the spell first before readying) demonstrates is that the spell is cast even if your readied action does not trigger. They are saying "YOU MUST CAST THE SPELL and then ready. No matter what happens, you lose a slot because you cast the spell."

To me, They are tying up a loophole to prevent a wizard's player from readying spells and then claiming that they don't use a spell slot because their trigger did not occur. I don't think it's discussing the minutiae of how long it takes to cast a spell in a round.

When you ready a weapon, you are using your whole action to keep that weapon at the ready, just the same as precasting the spell. It's just the timing of the attack or spell that gets delayed.
 

Nickolaidas

Explorer
Reading through this thread, it seems I disagree with most of you. No surprise there, I suppose.

So, supposing you want to play according to the rules, how should you handle the question posed in the OP?

First, your player has told you that he wants to wait for some sign of casting, then interrupt that spellcast with his readied action. Now, if you clearly understand what he intends to do but still feel that you need to screw with him about whether he used the right terminology, you're doing a bad job of being a DM. Sorry, I know we're all supposed to avoid "badwrongfun" accusations, but the player's supposed to be able to communicate what he wants and you, the DM, are supposed to adjudicate it in game terms. That's your job. In this case, the player has clearly expressed an intent to interrupt the spell being cast, so if you choose to hear that as the trigger being the completion of the spell, you chose poorly.

But how should you rule on the attempt to interrupt the spell? As some have pointed out, there is no specific rule in 5e for interrupting a spell in mid-cast. As a Dungeon Master, though, you don't need a specific rule for every little thing, though, do you? The idea that the lack of a specific rule must mean you can't do something, well... that's just wrong. We've all read the "Actions in Combat" part of the rules, right?

Actions in Combat
When you take your action on your turn, you can take one
of the actions presented here, an action you gained from
your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise.
Many monsters have action options of their own
in their stat blocks.
When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in
the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible
and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine
success or failure.

The part I bolded is the important bit here. It makes it my job, as the Dungeon Master, to decide whether the improvised action to interrupt a spell being cast is possible, and how to determine whether or not it succeeds. Ok, I can do that. Options include making a concentration check to cast a spell if you take damage during the cast, using disarm to knock a component or focus out of the hand of the caster, or stretching the rule for casting within 5 feet of an opponent to apply disadvantage to a spell attack when the PC throws a spear at the caster during its spellcasting. We have options.

So, moving on to the Arcanist's turn, the mind flayer starts to cast the spell. How should I handle the trigger? This is a fighter, not a spellcaster, so I don't think he'll recognise a spell automatically. I might make an exception if it is one that a party member uses all the time, like ray of frost, but for the most part he's guessing. I know how to do that--passive intelligence (Arcana) to recognise the casting of a spell. Not to determine which spell, just to see if one is being cast in the first place. What should the DC be? Call it 15 minus 2 for each type of component (V, S, M) called for in the spell. If the Arcanist is speaking strange syllables waving its hands in the air while brandishing its corrupted rabbit's foot fetish, you'd have to be a real idiot not to suspect a spell, especially if you're waiting for it. Disadvantage (-5 on the passive check) if the Fighter is looking at the Arcanist in dim light, but maybe advantage (+5 on the passive check) if he's reasonably familiar with what spellcasting looks like and, as I mentioned, he's looking for it. I'll let the player know when he announces he's holding an action that recognising the spellcast will be a passive Arcana check, so he can make choices accordingly (to use inspiration, for example.)

If the spell being cast is a bonus action, I don't think the fighter will be able to do anything regardless of his Arcana passive. Bonus Actions are fast, thus "you hear a sort of grunting burble from within those twitching face tentacles, by by the time you realise it was a spell it's already cast." He can still throw the spear if he wants to.

If the spell is cast as an Action, then it depends on the passive check. Fail, and "the mind flayer seems to be trying to communicate through gestures or speech which you can't understand." He doesn't understand that a spell is being cast, so there is no trigger. I'd let him throw the spear after the spell was cast, assuming the spell had an obvious effect. Succeed on the passive check, and he gets to try to interrupt the cast. What we go with depends on the spell being cast and what he wants to do, and in this case he wants to hit the caster with a thrown spear. The straightforward, uncomplicated resolution is to let him make the attack, deal his damage, and have the Arcanist make a concentration check to release the spell. If, for whatever reason, I wasn't comfortable with that (which for the record, I totally am) I would just apply disadvantage to any ranged spell attack roll, probably regardless of whether the attack hit. If I wanted to get fancy, and there was a material component to the spell, I might ask if the throw was targeting the caster or the spell focus. If the spell focus is disarmed, it might have effects beyond just interrupting the spell being cast as the Arcanist looks for and recovers the dropped focus.

The fighter has given up his Action, possibly a Bonus Action, and is using his Reaction to have a chance to interrupt this spell. Overpowered, this is not. Nor, in fact, is this at all a nerf to spellcasters. This is an improvised action, made and adjudicated within the rules of D&D 5e. There are probably other ways to handle it, but this one is mine. If it all works, I might give inspiration to the fighter for "thinking outside the box."

You're not the dealer in a casino, or the host of a television game show. Your function is not to just tell players "that's not in the rules, you can't do it." Your job is to run the game, because you're the Dungeon Master. That means if it isn't in the rules, you make it up.

... I am actually 100% satisfied with this answer. Nicely played, good sir.
 



But the trying to claim clever or RAW when ignoring those and then concluding the language in other sections was vague or open cuz it did not repeat those - sure have fun - but it's not convincing.
It is impossible and unnecessary to convince you because still miss the point.
 

Remove ads

Top