D&D 5E Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room

[clearstream]

Never mind the to-me-ridiculous RAW in 5e that makes it possible to interrupt your own spell to cast another spell then resume and resolve your original spell! As in:

Caster starts casting, foe responds with counterspell, caster stops original spell to counterspell the foe's counterspell, caster then resumes and completes original casting.

Huh? How does that work? Where's the RAW permitting it?

 

[Lanefan]

Huh? How does that work? Where's the RAW permitting it?

Someone can explain the minutae better than I can...all I know is I got in an argument in a thread in here a few months back where I was trying to suggest such a thing was impossible and was proven wrong, using logic like this:

Counterspell is cast as a reaction to someone within range casting a spell, according to its write-up.

So, I start casting Fireball. Another caster within range reacts to this by casting Counterspell against me. I in turn react to that caster starting to cast a spell (because the write-up for Counterspell says I can) by casting my own Counterspell against him. I counter his counterspell, thus my original spell is not countered and goes on to resolve as it should.

IMO this is garbage in many ways, but I'm told that's how it works. My guess is that someone on the design team plays too much Magic the Gathering.

Lan-"the part that completely baffles me is how one counterspell can be started and finished during the time it takes to cast another"-efan

 

[clearstream]

Someone can explain the minutae better than I can...all I know is I got in an argument in a thread in here a few months back where I was trying to suggest such a thing was impossible and was proven wrong, using logic like this:

Counterspell is cast as a reaction to someone within range casting a spell, according to its write-up.

So, I start casting Fireball. Another caster within range reacts to this by casting Counterspell against me. I in turn react to that caster starting to cast a spell (because the write-up for Counterspell says I can) by casting my own Counterspell against him. I counter his counterspell, thus my original spell is not countered and goes on to resolve as it should.

IMO this is garbage in many ways, but I'm told that's how it works. My guess is that someone on the design team plays too much Magic the Gathering.

Lan-"the part that completely baffles me is how one counterspell can be started and finished during the time it takes to cast another"-efan

Ah, I get it. In the October Sage Advice compendium I see this question and answer

"Can you also cast a reaction spell on your turn? You sure can! Here’s a common way for it to happen: Cornelius the wizard is casting fireball on his turn, and his foe casts counterspell on him. Cornelius has counterspell prepared, so he uses his reaction to cast it and break his foe’s counterspell before it can stop fireball."

What is happening here is that Cornelius is using his Action to cast Fireball, and his Reaction to cast Counterspell. Casting a spell doesn't require uninterrupted effort. No timing finesses of the MTG sort are needed.

@Tony Vargas where is the ruling on Action Surges that you referred to earlier? Based on what I can find, you can Cast with an Action, Cast with an Action Surge, and Cast with a Reaction, all in one round. You can add a cast with a Bonus Action if you are willing to limit all your other casts to Cantrips. Example - Player Warlock/Eldritch Knight - Eldritch Blast, Eldritch Blast, Expeditious Retreat... dammit there are no Reaction cantrips

Relevant links to rulings...
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/06/10/bonus-action-spell-reaction-spell/
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/04/17/action-surge-spell-3/
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/06/12...r-turn-an-unintended-consequence-of-the-rule/
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/02/04/counterspell-vs-counterspell/

 

[Imaro]

In the classic game (and 3e, for that matter), the 5MWD favored classes with more of their power locked up in powerful daily resources (typically spells). By balancing daily abilities with at-will abilities over the course of a 6-8 encounter day (assuming it's done so successfully), 5e has returned to that classic model.

I thought we moved back to this in 4e with psionic classes and essential classes, many of which are balanced around daily abilities... Or do those not count since they don't support your narrative?

EDIT: In other words, throughout this discussion I've seen you continually downplay or ignore parts of 4e that don't support your specific claims...

 

[Hussar]

Yet that is my problem with it, as a DM I don't want to waste all that time at the table.


Which stands in frank contradiction to the fact you just outlined the mechanics you use to solve it! Shared rules are there in part to proactively resolve issues that all DMs are likely to encounter in their games; or to put that another way, to communicate resilient solutions to those problems to everyone. While I would agree that we don't know the ideal solution to this issue today, we do know a number of mitigating rules for play and WotC's design efforts should buttress rather than undermine those rules.

I wouldn't consider an adventure's random encounter elements to be part of the game's rules since those random encounter elements only apply to this single adventure. In another adventure, I could easily design the adventure differently so that planned encounters domino into each other, creating a string of encounters that still satisfies the 6-8/day paradigm.

I look at it like this. In order to satisfy the OP's needs, we'd have to rewrite the entire game. The entire Monster Manual would need to be rewritten in order to make individual monsters more of a threat so as to satisfy his need for single encounter days. Additionally, classes would need to be rewritten so that every class balances over the course of individual encounters, instead of over the course of a day.

IOW, we'd need to rewrite 5e to use 3e style monsters and 4e style character balance. While I understand the impetus, I'm also very realistic in that this is just not going to happen. There is no way that WotC is going to do this. It's a pipe dream.

So, being the pragmatic person that I am, I offer solutions that don't require rewriting the entire game. Plan your adventures such that you are no longer relying on single encounters to provide an adequate challenge. We did this in 1e all the time since 1e monsters individually compared to the PC's were extremely weak. So, you designed adventures where you had waves of baddies, strung together encounters, and a much more restricted recovery rate.

IOW, the solution to the "Elephant in the Room" is to either accept the system as it is and work within that system or find a different system. And, AFAIC, that's the long and the short of it.

 

[Hussar]

I thought we moved back to this in 4e with psionic classes and essential classes, many of which are balanced around daily abilities... Or do those not count since they don't support your narrative?

EDIT: In other words, throughout this discussion I've seen you continually downplay or ignore parts of 4e that don't support your specific claims...

Umm, Imaro, Essentials classes focused a LOT more on At Will abilities than on dailies. Psionic power points recovered on short rests, not long ones. Psionic characters were not balanced over the day. 4e, throughout it's run, focused balance on the individual encounter. The encounter, not the adventuring day, was the base unit of all classes.

 

[Imaro]

Double Post

 

[Imaro]

Umm, Imaro, Essentials classes focused a LOT more on At Will abilities than on dailies. Psionic power points recovered on short rests, not long ones. Psionic characters were not balanced over the day. 4e, throughout it's run, focused balance on the individual encounter. The encounter, not the adventuring day, was the base unit of all classes.

D'oh... you are right. Well that egg on my face doesn't feel good but it'll teach me to look up something rather than comment on it from 8 year old memories. [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] - I retract my earlier statement as my facts were all screwed up... sorry about that.

 

[CapnZapp]

IOW, the solution to the "Elephant in the Room" is to either accept the system as it is and work within that system or find a different system. And, AFAIC, that's the long and the short of it.

That's exactly the opposite of a solution.

Whether to call it resignation or outright apologist is a subject we can discuss another day.

This entire thread (and I'm the OP) is about acknowledging the problem, to raise it up general awareness.

Awareness is the first step of recovery.


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Obryn]

Someone can explain the minutae better than I can...all I know is I got in an argument in a thread in here a few months back where I was trying to suggest such a thing was impossible and was proven wrong, using logic like this:

Counterspell is cast as a reaction to someone within range casting a spell, according to its write-up.

So, I start casting Fireball. Another caster within range reacts to this by casting Counterspell against me. I in turn react to that caster starting to cast a spell (because the write-up for Counterspell says I can) by casting my own Counterspell against him. I counter his counterspell, thus my original spell is not countered and goes on to resolve as it should.

IMO this is garbage in many ways, but I'm told that's how it works. My guess is that someone on the design team plays too much Magic the Gathering.

Lan-"the part that completely baffles me is how one counterspell can be started and finished during the time it takes to cast another"-efan

Wow. Add this to the 'dumb D&D tricks' file.