D&D 5E Casters should go back to being interruptable like they used to be.

[ECMO3]

Can an improvised action be used as a reaction? If not, it won't do much about spellcasting...

First off yes it can. That said I was not talking about off turn.

I put my hand over the casters mouth shut so they can't talk - That is an improvised action I can attempt on my turn (not as a reaction) and if successful it will stop a caster from using any spell with a verbal component.

Another one - I grab the casters hands so he can't use them for somatic components.

A third example I have actually seen used in game by two players:
Player 1 (who was my fighter): I pick up the tapestry off the floor and throw it over him
Player 2 (who was a Rogue): I grab him and hold the tapestry so he can't remove it

This blinded the caster and since most spells require sight he could not use them.

Entangling someone in a net pretty much hoses that person if what the person was trying to do was physically attack you somehow.

But if that person's casting a (combat) spell the odds are extremely high that spell will go off as planned; the caster can then cast another one next round, and really isn't hosed at all other than being unable to "move" in game terms.

That example was for the observation that martials can't affect other martials except by reducing them to 0 hps. FWIW A net will stop some spells by preventing movement and thereby eliminating the ability to get in position to use it (particularly for defensive touch spells), but that is admitedly situational and I was not using that as an example for stopping a caster.

 

[The Sigil]

Yes, in fact you missed two ways to disrupt a caster, both of these normally happen as actions on your (the disrupters) turn.

1. The first is covered under Ready on page 193 of the PHB. If a caster has readied a spell you can attempt to disrupt it by breaking his concentration before the trigger occurs.

2. The second is on page 202 of the PHB under Longer Casting Times. Any time a caster is casting a spell with a longer casting time than 1 action you can dirupt it by breaking concentration.

Stop. We BOTH know these are distinctions without a difference.

No caster "readies" an incapacitating spell in combat, because the trigger condition may not come to pass and the foes is not incapacitated. Instead the caster simply casts the incapacitating spell as their action.

Further, all "incapacitate your foe" spells take 1 action to cast (for reference, here is a list of all spells that take more than one action to cast: https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells?fi...ncentration=&filter-ritual=&filter-sub-class= - none of these are spells that would be of great use in a general combat setting except though admittedly there are niche cases when some of them - like Resurrection - would be useful if you could cast them in 1 action in a combat setting).

Neither of these is relevant to the discussion at hand.

Any discussion on balance must consider the level and the specific classes. At early levels optimized martials are more powerful than most optimized casters through the first two levels (except Druids and Clerics) and depending on specific classes we are comparing at some martial classes are ahead of some full casters classes beyond level 10.

Observation 1 and Observation 3 "Casters have access to many spells ...." A first level Sorcerer has access to two level spells total (3 with certain subclasses), so this statement is patently false for a 1st level Sorcerer and mostly false for a lot of other casters (virtually all of them at 1st and 2nd level).

I have no problem conceding the point that martials are generally more effective at lower levels (because casters have such a paucity of spell resources at these levels that their spell slots can be expended within a single encounter) and at very low levels (1st and 2nd), martials generally have the ability to incapacitate a caster with a single hit.

Even though the observations are generally false, these conclusions are true at certain levels but they are untrue at other levels.

This statement is flat out wrong. As mentioned, the observations are "generally true" as casters have the ability to incapacitate in a single action starting at level 1. Even ONE spell that incapacitates is sufficient to make this a problem. At first level, Charm Person. Command ("Surrender" or worse "Autodefenestrate"), and Hideous Laughter are ALL available, meaning from the very beginning casters have access to the "incapacitate in a single action" ability.

The fact that interrupting casters may not be needed at levels 1 and 2 (and this COULD be argued) makes the observations "generally true" and "occasionally false", NOT "generally false" and "occasionally true." (Similarly, the fact that a particular caster might have chosen "damage dealing spells" or "utility spells" instead of "incapacitating spells" does not mean casters in general do not have the ability to choose to incapacitate others with a single spell). Let's not fall victim to the Slothful Induction fallacy and fail to acknowledge the disparity in ability to incapacitate between casters and martials IS an issue at most levels.

This prevents a real problem for both immersion and game design; to really balance the game we would need to make it so a 9th level Wizard casting a 1st level Magic Missile can be interrupted by the goblin standing next to her, while a 1st level Wizard not only can't be interrupted casting the same spell but also gets an extra dice for damage to "balance" the game and make up for the fact she is weaker than the Monk in the party.

I've already said speaking to "immersion" speaks to subjective ideas about how magic SHOULD work, so there's not a lot of room for us to argue as that's an argument over opinion and there can be no right answer. Your "game design" objection raises a Straw Man argument; you're not arguing the points I raised, you're raising your own points and arguing against those instead. Since these aren't my arguments, I see no need to respond further to this line.

Observation 2 and Observation 4: Martials have more than one method of making casters unable to use abilities. Improvise an action is available to all classes and can be used to prevent casters from using their abilities (both spells and others) or other martials from using their abilities.

Perhaps I missed it earlier in the thread; if I did, I apologize, but it was my understanding that your contention has been "there should be no way to disrupt a one action spellcast because it's not in the Rules as Written." If this statement means that you assert that "Improvise an Action" should be allowed to disrupt a spell, then I would submit we are in agreement on principle, we simply disagree as to the mechanical specifics about how "disrupting a spell" works, and while that might make for an interesting discussion, it is best served elsewhere as this thread is about "SHOULD there be a way to interrupt a one-action spellcast" and not HOW SHOULD that be implemented?

EDIT: Actually, now that I think more about it I guess part of this thread IS "how should that be implemented?" I'm wrong on that point. Sorry! Please continue discussing "How Should?" in here and not just "Should?"

Further the disarm action can severely gimp another martial, especially since you can pick up his weapon off the ground. Finally, many other things doable by martials using equipment available. A net for example can be used to restrain an opponent an unlimited number of times a day.

Disarm a melee martial, for instance, and he's likely to draw a backup weapon on his turn - the dagger may do a d4 instead of his sword's d8, but that's on average simply giving him a net -2 to damage; he's still probably pretty lethal even with a dagger. I'd hardly call -2 to damage "severely gimped" ("Gimped?" Sure. "Severely gimped?" No.)

I mean, situationally nets can be interesting but if nets were so amazing, everyone would be using them instead of swords. An opponent can destroy a net with a slashing attack (a pretty common damage type), a problem other weapons don't have. Also, note the net is pretty limited in effectiveness - it's best used exactly at a range of between 10 and 15 feet - inside of 10 feet (e.g., melee range ) you attack with disadvantage (unless you have the Crossbow Expert feat) and outside of 15 feet you attack with disadvantage because you're outside its short range.

But again, while these distractions might be interesting, you still haven't addressed the root of the problem:

Casters generally do have the ability to incapacitate martials with a single action, and (outside of very low levels) martials do not have the ability to reciprocate.

This is the interaction that is problematic, not "both have the ability to incapacitate the other in one action" (caster vs. caster) or "neither has the ability to incapacitate the other in one action" (martial vs martial). Kindly remain focused on the issue a hand, please.

 

[ECMO3]

Casters generally do have the ability to incapacitate martials with a single action, and (outside of very low levels) martials do not have the ability to reciprocate.

I think over half of martials in play have the ability to do this. All Monks above 5th level have the ability to do this, 100% of them and more importantly all classes have the opportunity to get an ability to incapacitate an enemy with a single action by 4th level.

When you consider Monks, spells, subclass abilities and feats, I think it is over 50% of all martials being played above 3rd level do have an ability to incapacitate an enemy. Probably not 50% of Rogues and certainly not 50% of Barbarians, but 50% or more overall of all the players playing martial classes (defining ,martials as classes that get extra attack as a class feature).

I would agree most full casters above 3rd level have this as well and at an even higher percentage than martials, but it is not all casters either. Which is really the problem with these types of discussions - you are painting something with a broad brush which is often invalidated by the particulars in a given game or even in most games.

Although there are a lot of assumptions and caveats - I can make a statement that "The Wizard class is more powerful than the Fighter class" and that statement has a bunch of assumptions rolled into it, but it is mostly true as a standalone statement. But it is not the same as
Casters are more powerful than Martials" which is far more ambiguous and far less true generally. And finally a statement that in game Casters are more powerful than Martials which is entirely situational and game dependent.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Who said I was letting go of it ....

"fly open" implies you are no longer holding the door open.

which bring in another thing. I can swing it closed or I can push it closed slowly while holding the handle the whole time (and continuing to hold the handle after it closes) both of which take a different amount of time obviously and are doable as an action.

but you're still opening a door.

How does it. Are you telling me the rules imply iot takes the exact same amount of time to draw a crossbow bolt, put it in a crossbow and shoot a heavy crossbow as it does to toss a dagger that is already in your hands? Those things don't take the same amount of time, yet they take the same amount of actions.

okay, i'm done engaging with this "the exact same time" crap. i'm gonna be ignoring every statement involving it from now on.

which can only be done once a turn. To do it again you need to use an action to do it and it is a full action.

this is part of the abstraction of object interactions, yes.

Now are you suggesting that free object interactions must take the same amout of time as an

...uhm...

No it isn't.

and yet you're about to explain that it is. so...

To start with the examples I was using are actions. You can interact with one object for free (PHB 190), and after you have done that you need to use an action and you can use an action whether or not you have used your interact with an object for something else.

So on my turn if I take a ring off of my finger as my free use an object action and then draw a dagger, it takes my entire action (use an object action) to do draw that dagger. That is his action in the example drawing the dagger ... or maybe he drew one as a free action and one as an action.. By the same token a fighter with the right fighting style can both draw the dagger and throw it with the same action.

This creates a logical contradiction - that it takes the same time for that character to use an action to draw a dagger and to use an action to draw a dagger and throw it. How can that be if all actions take the exact same amount of time?

no. it just implies that a single object interaction takes somewhere between a free action and a full action (thus why your next object interaction after the first takes a full action, but isn't a bonus action. that's all that means. you're severely overthinking this.

I mean you can pick a lock as an action .... and you can turn a doornob as an action.

this...is an interesting point. because yes, there are certain things that stretch this, like picking a lock. i'll note, however, that lockpicking takes significantly longer then opening a door, not significantly shorter.

but more importantly, this is getting back to my original point (that i, admittedly, may have strayed away from somewhat) - my problem with your statements about burning hands is that you were giving 0 consideration as to what something being an action implies. yeah, picking a lock being an action is pretty silly, but it's also obviously just a balancing measure. i can conclude this because i have a decent enough idea of what lockpicking actually looks like in real life to realize it's probably not (at least at low levels) an actually accurate reflection of the fiction. i can't really do the same thing with spells because...well, because spells don't exist. as a result, i have to assume that their mechanics at least somewhat match their fiction, and part of that is an action spell probably has similar timing to most other actions. like, i guess you COULD say "oh, it's just an action for balance purposes, in the fiction you can actually get it off way quicker then a sword swing", but then...why not just make it so that in the fiction it's slow enough that you can only do it about once per turn? again, spells don't exist. they are what we need them to be.

They all take less than 6 seconds, but the variation in there is great with some taking fractions of a second and others taking much longer. In some cases it is hard to believe you even can do something in 6 seconds (picking the lock example), in others taking 6 seconds to do something would be excessive (flinging with a dagger).

i'm not sure why you're so obsessed with the 6 second metric. like yeah, that's how long a turn takes, so what?

Similar is ambigous. What kind of precision are you talking about when you use that word?

for the sake of argument we can say maybe...within half a second. or a full second, if you really want to stretch it. and before you call that ridiculous...is it really? i mean, go ahead and open a door in your house/apartment really quick, or make a motion like you're flipping a lever, or swing a broom around like it's a sword. these are pretty similarly timed movements. again, the big exception here is lockpicking, and like i mentioned that being an action is obviously a balance thing that just ends up seeming very silly.

 

[The Sigil]

So you're using what amounts to a last-in first-out stack, then.

I am. If someone has a better way to adjudicate actions that are "reactions" I am very anxious to see it (and steal it), since "reaction" presupposes "triggering action first."

The problem with allowing this is that it blows away the idea of spells taking any in-game time to cast; and that spells require some in-game time to cast is the primary (if not only) rationale that viably allows them to be interrupted by anyone, martial or otherwise. Put another way, if spells take no time at all to cast then they're obviously happening too fast to be interrupted.

Most combat spells take "1 action" to cast. The rules as written do not define "1 action" however, given the rules as written define "1 round" as "six seconds long" and characters are allowed to complete at least 1 action per round it stands to reason that "1 action" must be less than 6 seconds. One might also conclude that since under normal circumstances (i.e., without Haste or similar), characters can ONLY complete 1 action per round, an action must be more than 3 seconds in duration (since if "1 action" takes fewer than 3 seconds, you should be able to complete 2 of them in a 6-second round). Then there's the question of "how long does a bonus action take" and "how long does an interaction take" and "how long does a move action take" and then we're trying to subdivide rounds into even more atomic pieces in order to try to satisfy ourselves that our narration of how events unfold is a perfect simulation of reality.

I happen not to subscribe to the need to define "how long, in seconds, does an action/bonus action/free action/interaction/move action" take. Instead, I subscribe to the idea that "a round has been defined as 6 seconds long" and while this of necessity means that an action/bonus action/free action/interaction/move action must also be less than 6 seconds long since these can be performed within the confines of a round, I also recognize that "1 action" is the level of granularity to which we are abstracting (bear in mind that if you have 10 combatants and each combatant takes one round's worth of actions, 10 actions have been performed, but since only one combat round has elapsed, ALL of these 10 actions have been performed in the same six-second span).

"One combat round" in 1e/2e was ONE MINUTE long (there were rules for using six-seconds segments to add more granularity, but stay with me on the definition of a round for a moment). One combat round in BECMI was 10 seconds long. One combat round in 3e/4e/5e is six seconds long. This is the granularity to which we are mutually agreeing to subdivide time. These granularity divisions are arbitrary and attempting to subdivide further in the name of "realism" or "immersion" or "verisimilitude" or anything else is pointless. It takes less time as measured in seconds to pull the trigger that fires a crossbow bolt than it does to swing a great maul, and yet both are considered to happen in the space of 1 action.

Similarly, in 1e/2e/BECMI, three characters could walk abreast down a 10' passage - about 3' across (this is about the width of a phone booth). Starting in 3e, we changed the level of spatial abstraction to the 5' by 5' square and now TWO characters can walk abreast down a 10' passage (or maybe, just like in the real world, D&D characters have gotten more obese in the past 40 years). I don't see nearly as many people arguing on the internet about how the 5x5' square is stupid because that's 25 square feet and if you believe https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1959/7/23/how-many-in-a-phone-booth/#:~:text=Then there is the matter,the Continental United States, vol. we have photographic evidence of being able to fit 33 people in a phone booth so clearly AT LEAST 33 people can fit into a 5x5 square. But no, we agree 5x5 is the right level of granularity because it's easy and call it a day.

And lest I start hearing that breaking up time and space into discrete lengths that we cannot subdivide further is unrealistic or "breaks immersion", let me point you to the concept of Planck Time, the Planck Length and Planck Voxels - subatomic in scale, but measurements beyond which we literally cannot subdivide our world further into more precise units. Nothing is more realistic than abstracting our world into discrete units beyond which we cannot be more precise.

The above quote is attempting to use and argument of verisimilitude to prove your point. That doesn't work because not everyone agrees on the way magic works. However, for the sake of argument, let me give you an ex post facto "verisimilitude" rationalization of why my mechanical system would work "in the real world" that relies on the concept of "casting time."

Once the verbal, somatic, and material components are met to cast a spell, latent magic (the "Weave" if you are in Faerun) begins to build up in a pattern to execute the spell. This pattern buildup takes 3.5 seconds to fully form, well within the bounds of time of "1 action." And if we assume human reaction is at least 0.3 seconds, that puts an upper limit of 20 reactions that can take place in a chain. We'll keep the number of reactions to two to make things simple.

Magic-sensitive characters in the area may attempt to perturb the formation of the pattern during this buildup window, spoiling it - perturbation is almost instantaneous (though not quite but for sake of argument let's call it 0.0001 seconds) and if done correctly does not need to use as much energy as the spell itself (this is why lower level spell slots can counter higher ones or why diverting just a pinch of fire energy from a stored fireball can perturb the pattern of cold energy forming to execute an Ice Storm). This faster (reaction-speed) perturbation is commonly referred to as a "counterspell" but it is possible for multiple casters to send off-setting perturbations into the latent magical energy ("Weave") so that a second caster can offset the perturbation caused by the initial caster (this is what we call "Countering the Counterspell") and allow the pattern that executes the spell to form despite the initial perturbation... so a pattern buildup that takes 3.5 seconds normally might have a perturbation thrown at it to counter it at the 2.0 seconds mark... and a second perturbation thrown at it to counter the counter at 2.8 seconds... so by 3.5 seconds, the proper pattern has formed.

Now, this may not be how magic works in your head (or in your world), but it's logically consistent within the framework of the rules as written, and "how magic works" is a completely subjective thing when we're asking about verisimilitude (and not strictly game mechanics).

Now, if in your game you've specifically set it up such that Ice Storm takes longer to cast than Fireball (and so on through your example) then fine, but this falls apart the moment you then allow Ice Storm to counter Fireball. And if they take the same amount of time to cast (which as written 5e combat spells seem to mostly do) then by the time the responder has recognized the Ice Storm for what it is and has got away a Fireball, the Ice Storm has already resolved.

Again, this presupposes several things, none of which are true...

• "Ice Storm takes longer to cast than Fireball" - while 1e and 2e listed casting times in "Segments" so one could take longer than another by RAW, as you note, 5e sets all these times to "1 action" - however, as noted above "1 action" is an abstraction and so by RAW there is no way to tell whether one takes longer to cast than another if you're using some sort of stopwatch - the rules are silent on this.
• "Counterspell takes the same amount of time to cast" - no; Counterspell takes "1 Reaction" which is an abstraction of some unspecified amount of time but which can be inferred to be shorter than "1 Action" since casting "Shield" (a Reaction cast) can be used when you see someone starting to cast Magic Missile (one action to cast) to intercept and block the incoming Missiles - so the duration of "Reaction Cast" MUST be shorter than "Action Cast"
• "Sigil's rules for Counterspelling allow offsetting spellcasts" - this is true; however you are ASSUMING I am requiring a "Full Cast" of Fireball to counter Ice Storm. That isn't what I said. Rather, you are allowed to substitute a prepared spell slot with Fireball in a faster "reaction cast" to counter the spell. What nobody has asked is "what if TWO casters attempt to counter the same spell with Fireball substitutions and both are successful?" The answer is NOT that the second caster's Fireball "goes off" because you weren't "casting fireball" (which takes a full action); instead, you were using the shorter reaction-speed action to vent the stored energy of Fireball into disrupting someone else's spell; using the energy in this manner is NOT the same as casting Fireball and doesn't result in a Fireball going off when the energy is discharged because you're focusing the energy in a different manner than you focus it when you're casting the spell. (If you WERE doing a "standard cast" of Fireball to try to counter Ice Storm, the result would be the target area getting blasted by BOTH Ice and Fire, and everyone in the area taking damage from both spells).

And before anyone jumps in with "but Jeremy Crawford said it works this way in sage advice", don't bother.

Nice pre-emptive block of "Appeal to Authority."

Note it's not a logical fallacy for me to "Appeal to Authority" when I'm discussing my own house rules work because the ask is effectively "how do you do things" and the only way for that to be answered is for me to explain that. You can certainly tell me I should do things differently but that's different than telling me that I actually do things differently.

I'm probably going to bow out of the thread at this point unless someone brings up a point that either requires me to elaborate on my house rules or points out a problem with my house rules that I agree needs a correction so if someone later comes upon this thread and wants to steal my house rules, the house rules have already been "fixed" with corrections I agree with. I don't like knowingly leaving things "broken" when I've invited others to take them for themselves.

I think for the most part, we are now all in the position whereby arguing is serving only to entrench each of us more firmly in our belief that the position we have taken is the correct one, and when we reach that point, arguing is no longer serving to enlighten but instead to incense, and that's something I would rather not be party to. I probably WILL keep reading this thread because I am interested in the ideas here, but please do not mistake future silence from me in this thread as assent, anger, argument, or anything else. Future silence does not mean I have nothing else to say, but rather that I do not feel there is value in my saying it (for any number of reasons).

 

[James Gasik]

This statement is flat out wrong. As mentioned, the observations are "generally true" as casters have the ability to incapacitate in a single action starting at level 1. Even ONE spell that incapacitates is sufficient to make this a problem. At first level, Charm Person. Command ("Surrender" or worse "Autodefenestrate"), and Hideous Laughter are ALL available, meaning from the very beginning casters have access to the "incapacitate in a single action" ability.

Just in case anyone was unaware, Command can only do this if the DM allows it, as it's entirely up to them, as per the spell description:

"Some typical commands and their effects follow. You might issue a command other than one described here. If you do so, the DM determines how the target behaves. If the target can't follow your command, the spell ends.

Approach. The target moves toward you by the shortest and most direct route, ending its turn if it moves within 5 feet of you.

Drop. The target drops whatever it is holding and then ends its turn.

Flee. The target spends its turn moving away from you by the fastest available means.

Grovel. The target falls prone and then ends its turn.

Halt. The target doesn't move and takes no actions. A flying creature stays aloft, provided that it is able to do so. If it must move to stay aloft, it flies the minimum distance needed to remain in the air."

 

[ECMO3]

Stop. We BOTH know these are distinctions without a difference.

No caster "readies" an incapacitating spell in combat, because the trigger condition may not come to pass and the foes is not incapacitated. Instead the caster simply casts the incapacitating spell as their action.

It happens all the time, most often to it is often done to let allies get out of an AOEs, wait for an enemy to come into range (if the enemy is 50 foot from the party, moving out in front of everyone 20 feet to cast Tasha's Laughter is pretty dangerous if you are a back line caster) and finally to target invisible creatures when you expect them to become visible on their turn.

Are you seriously saying this kind of thing does not happen in games you play? I am not sure I even believe that.

Further, all "incapacitate your foe" spells take 1 action to cast

As a point of fact, Symbol and Magic Jar take 1 minute to cast. I am not saying they are used for this commonly, but as a point of fact they do (or can) incapacitate a foe and do take more than an action to cast.

Neither of these is relevant to the discussion at hand.

They are if you want to understand ways to interrupt a caster.

This statement is flat out wrong. As mentioned, the observations are "generally true" as casters have the ability to incapacitate in a single action starting at level 1.

No you are "flat out wrong". This is factually not "generally true" if you are talking about "casters". It is very rarely true and I don't even think this is generally true if you are talking about Wizards specifically.

I believe the only two 1st level spells that can cause the incapacitated condition as an action are Sleep and Tasha's Hideous Laughter. Of full casting classes only Bards. Sorcerers and Wizards have class access to these spells and to be able to do it they would need to actually know one of those two spells or have it in their book and prepared.

If you are talking about "casters" well over 90% of full casters can't cause the incapacitated condition with a 1st level spell from their class that they can cast. I would say it is about 40% of Wizards that can do this and maybe 5% of Sorcerers and Bards and no other casters at all.

Even ONE spell that incapacitates is sufficient to make this a problem.

If they have that spell. Sorcerers know 2 spells at 1st level, Bards know 4. Wizards have 6 in their book but can only prepare between 1 and 6.

At first level, Charm Person.

Charm person does not cause incapacitated.

Command ("Surrender" or worse "Autodefenestrate"), and Hideous Laughter are ALL available, meaning from the very beginning casters have access to the "incapacitate in a single action" ability.

Command does not cause the incapacitated condition. It is powerful no doubt, as are many spells and abilities that do not incapacitate, but it is not a spell that causes incapacitation.

Casters only have access to THL if they know it or for Wizards and have it prepared.

The fact that interrupting casters may not be needed at levels 1 and 2 (and this COULD be argued) makes the observations "generally true" and "occasionally false", NOT "generally false" and "occasionally true."

It depends entirely on which class and which non-caster class you are comparing it to.

(Similarly, the fact that a particular caster might have chosen "damage dealing spells" or "utility spells" instead of "incapacitating spells" does not mean casters in general do not have the ability to choose to incapacitate others with a single spell). Let's not fall victim to the Slothful Induction fallacy and fail to acknowledge the disparity in ability to incapacitate between casters and martials IS an issue at most levels.

Monks all have the ability to incapacitate at 5th level and if we are saying this then Fighters all have the ability to incapacitate at 3rd level because they can take the Rune Knight or Eldritch Knight and Rogues because they can take Arcane Trickster.

The fact that a particular Rogue or Fighter might have chosen something else instead of being able to incapacitate does not mean fighters in general do not have the ability to incapacitate.

So fighters, Rogues and Monks can all incapacitate at level 3. As far as non-casters go, we are left with Barbarians .... until level 4 when they too can get an ability to incapacitate someone.

Disarm a melee martial, for instance, and he's likely to draw a backup weapon on his turn - the dagger may do a d4 instead of his sword's d8, but that's on average simply giving him a net -2 to damage; he's still probably pretty lethal even with a dagger. I'd hardly call -2 to damage "severely gimped" ("Gimped?" Sure. "Severely gimped?" No.).

Then disarm him again

I mean, situationally nets can be interesting but if nets were so amazing, everyone would be using them instead of swords. An opponent can destroy a net with a slashing attack (a pretty common damage type), a problem other weapons don't have. Also, note the net is pretty limited in effectiveness - it's best used exactly at a range of between 10 and 15 feet - inside of 10 feet (e.g., melee range ) you attack with disadvantage (unless you have the Crossbow Expert feat) and outside of 15 feet you attack with disadvantage because you're outside its short range.

I did not say they were amazing, I said they could be used to affect other martials. Tasha's Hideous laughter is not amazing either and sleep is situational and at low level amazing in that situation.

The argument was that "Martials also have access to only one method of rendering other martials unable to utilize their abilities" - that is just not factually true.

 

[James Gasik]

this...is an interesting point. because yes, there are certain things that stretch this, like picking a lock. i'll note, however, that lockpicking takes significantly longer then opening a door, not significantly shorter.

I know you said you're not going to engage in this sort of point, but in this example, how long it takes to unlock a door is very unclear, since it would largely depend on the level of lock technology in a campaign. Thieves can open a lock as a bonus action- not that we have any idea exactly how long a bonus action is compared to an action- compare and contrast bonus action spells, which are implied as being particularly swift vs. two weapon fighting, where a single attack can be made with an action and then a bonus action (and it's a little dubious that both strikes are made at the same time, as you'd much rather present a narrower profile in combat than facing them straight on).

 

[Gammadoodler]

It happens all the time, most often to it is often done to let allies get out of an AOEs, wait for an enemy to come into range (if the enemy is 50 foot from the party, moving out in front of everyone 20 feet to cast Tasha's Laughter is pretty dangerous if you are a back line caster) and finally to target invisible creatures when you expect them to become visible on their turn.

Are you seriously saying this kind of thing does not happen in games you play? I am not sure I even believe that.




As a point of fact, Symbol and Magic Jar take 1 minute to cast. I am not saying they are used for this commonly, but as a point of fact they do (or can) incapacitate a foe and do take more than an action to cast.





They are if you want to understand ways to interrupt a caster.



No you are "flat out wrong". This is factually not "generally true" if you are talking about "casters". It is very rarely true and I don't even think this is generally true if you are talking about Wizards specifically.

I believe the only two 1st level spells that can cause the incapacitated condition as an action are Sleep and Tasha's Hideous Laughter. Of full casting classes only Bards. Sorcerers and Wizards have class access to these spells and to be able to do it they would need to actually know one of those two spells or have it in their book and prepared.

If you are talking about "casters" well over 90% of full casters can't cause the incapacitated condition with a 1st level spell from their class that they can cast. I would say it is about 40% of Wizards that can do this and maybe 5% of Sorcerers and Bards and no other casters at all.



If they have that spell. Sorcerers know 2 spells at 1st level, Bards know 4. Wizards have 6 in their book but can only prepare between 1 and 6.




Charm person does not cause incapacitated.



Command does not cause the incapacitated condition. It is powerful no doubt, as are many spells and abilities that do not incapacitate, but it is not a spell that causes incapacitation.

Casters only have access to THL if they know it or for Wizards and have it prepared.




It depends entirely on which class and which non-caster class you are comparing it to.



Monks all have the ability to incapacitate at 5th level and if we are saying this then Fighters all have the ability to incapacitate at 3rd level because they can take the Rune Knight or Eldritch Knight and Rogues because they can take Arcane Trickster.

The fact that a particular Rogue or Fighter might have chosen something else instead of being able to incapacitate does not mean fighters in general do not have the ability to incapacitate.

So fighters, Rogues and Monks can all incapacitate at level 3. As far as non-casters go, we are left with Barbarians .... until level 4 when they too can get an ability to incapacitate someone.





Then disarm him again


I did not say they were amazing, I said they could be used to affect other martials. Tasha's Hideous laughter is not amazing either and sleep is situational and at low level amazing in that situation.

The argument was that "Martials also have access to only one method of rendering other martials unable to utilize their abilities" - that is just not factually true.

Charm Person causes the charmed condition, which prevents the target from attacking those who have charmed them.

Command causes the target to spend their action on their turn following the command..which means they cannot attack.

In addition, at first level you have Cause Fear, which causes the frightened condition, which prevents the target from approaching and forces attacks to be made at disadvantage.

And you have Entangle, which Restrains and creates difficult terrain and costs an action to escape from.

So with Tasha's Hideous laughter, that's 5 separate shutdown spells..

At level 1

..and there might even be a couple more.

 

[Lanefan]

I am. If someone has a better way to adjudicate actions that are "reactions" I am very anxious to see it (and steal it), since "reaction" presupposes "triggering action first."

The simplest way is to just not allow a reaction to be triggered by (or to target) another reaction. This holds two benefits: 1) the integrity of the passage of in-game time is preserved, and 2) it prevents these silly counter-counter wars where everyone has to ask "Are you done?" before the game can proceed.

D&D isn't Magic: the Gathering, despite WotC's best attempts.

Most combat spells take "1 action" to cast. The rules as written do not define "1 action" however, given the rules as written define "1 round" as "six seconds long" and characters are allowed to complete at least 1 action per round it stands to reason that "1 action" must be less than 6 seconds. One might also conclude that since under normal circumstances (i.e., without Haste or similar), characters can ONLY complete 1 action per round, an action must be more than 3 seconds in duration (since if "1 action" takes fewer than 3 seconds, you should be able to complete 2 of them in a 6-second round). Then there's the question of "how long does a bonus action take" and "how long does an interaction take" and "how long does a move action take" and then we're trying to subdivide rounds into even more atomic pieces in order to try to satisfy ourselves that our narration of how events unfold is a perfect simulation of reality.

Personally, I'd take this subdivision of rounds into smaller units as a good thing.

I happen not to subscribe to the need to define "how long, in seconds, does an action/bonus action/free action/interaction/move action" take. Instead, I subscribe to the idea that "a round has been defined as 6 seconds long" and while this of necessity means that an action/bonus action/free action/interaction/move action must also be less than 6 seconds long since these can be performed within the confines of a round, I also recognize that "1 action" is the level of granularity to which we are abstracting (bear in mind that if you have 10 combatants and each combatant takes one round's worth of actions, 10 actions have been performed, but since only one combat round has elapsed, ALL of these 10 actions have been performed in the same six-second span).

I think we mostly agree here, though I think the abstraction is too remote. Every action takes a certain amount of actual in-game time, and IMO that needs to be tracked somehow. For melee martials it's easy: you're attacking the whole round and your initiative just happens to be when you get your best attack in (note too that I'm a strident advocate of rerolling initiatives each round). For ranged, it's when you get your shot away.

But for two groups of actions there are two distinct times within a round that are important: the time when the action begins, and the time when it ends.

Those two action groups are movement, and spellcasting. If movement is not to be in effect a mini-teleport, then it needs to be tracked somehow within the round - this can be abstracted a bit by (whenever it matters where a moving person is e.g. there's a lightning bolt crossing their path) simply rolling to see how far the character has got in its movement at that moment.

For spellcasting, the time between starting the spell and ending it is when the caster is (or certainly should be!) a) defenseless and b) interruptable.

"One combat round" in 1e/2e was ONE MINUTE long (there were rules for using six-seconds segments to add more granularity, but stay with me on the definition of a round for a moment).

In my 1e-adjacent system the rounds are 30 seconds long, made up of six 5-second segments (because we use a d6 for initiative).

One combat round in BECMI was 10 seconds long. One combat round in 3e/4e/5e is six seconds long. This is the granularity to which we are mutually agreeing to subdivide time. These granularity divisions are arbitrary and attempting to subdivide further in the name of "realism" or "immersion" or "verisimilitude" or anything else is pointless. It takes less time as measured in seconds to pull the trigger that fires a crossbow bolt than it does to swing a great maul, and yet both are considered to happen in the space of 1 action.

Adn that's because while it takes less time to pull the trigger on a crossbow that trigger-pull is only one part of the process: you also have to fish out a bolt, load the thing, and then aim it.

Similarly, in 1e/2e/BECMI, three characters could walk abreast down a 10' passage - about 3' across (this is about the width of a phone booth). Starting in 3e, we changed the level of spatial abstraction to the 5' by 5' square and now TWO characters can walk abreast down a 10' passage (or maybe, just like in the real world, D&D characters have gotten more obese in the past 40 years). I don't see nearly as many people arguing on the internet about how the 5x5' square is stupid because that's 25 square feet and if you believe https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1959/7/23/how-many-in-a-phone-booth/#:~:text=Then there is the matter,the Continental United States, vol. we have photographic evidence of being able to fit 33 people in a phone booth so clearly AT LEAST 33 people can fit into a 5x5 square. But no, we agree 5x5 is the right level of granularity because it's easy and call it a day.

Note that "we" here does not include me. I'm fine with three-abreast in a 10' passage; or even four-abreast if they're all Hobbits or Gnomes.

On a more general note, I'm one who will happily bend the game rules to suit reality when-where it makes sense to do so; the x-abreast piece is one such place.

The above quote is attempting to use and argument of verisimilitude to prove your point. That doesn't work because not everyone agrees on the way magic works. However, for the sake of argument, let me give you an ex post facto "verisimilitude" rationalization of why my mechanical system would work "in the real world" that relies on the concept of "casting time."

Once the verbal, somatic, and material components are met to cast a spell, latent magic (the "Weave" if you are in Faerun) begins to build up in a pattern to execute the spell. This pattern buildup takes 3.5 seconds to fully form, well within the bounds of time of "1 action." And if we assume human reaction is at least 0.3 seconds, that puts an upper limit of 20 reactions that can take place in a chain. We'll keep the number of reactions to two to make things simple.

Magic-sensitive characters in the area may attempt to perturb the formation of the pattern during this buildup window, spoiling it - perturbation is almost instantaneous (though not quite but for sake of argument let's call it 0.0001 seconds) and if done correctly does not need to use as much energy as the spell itself (this is why lower level spell slots can counter higher ones or why diverting just a pinch of fire energy from a stored fireball can perturb the pattern of cold energy forming to execute an Ice Storm). This faster (reaction-speed) perturbation is commonly referred to as a "counterspell" but it is possible for multiple casters to send off-setting perturbations into the latent magical energy ("Weave") so that a second caster can offset the perturbation caused by the initial caster (this is what we call "Countering the Counterspell") and allow the pattern that executes the spell to form despite the initial perturbation... so a pattern buildup that takes 3.5 seconds normally might have a perturbation thrown at it to counter it at the 2.0 seconds mark... and a second perturbation thrown at it to counter the counter at 2.8 seconds... so by 3.5 seconds, the proper pattern has formed.

Ah. For me the perturbation at 2.0 seconds would kill the initial spell then and there. By the time the second perturbation arrived it'd be too late to matter, and would Do Nothing.

Again, this presupposes several things, none of which are true...

• "Ice Storm takes longer to cast than Fireball" - while 1e and 2e listed casting times in "Segments" so one could take longer than another by RAW, as you note, 5e sets all these times to "1 action" - however, as noted above "1 action" is an abstraction and so by RAW there is no way to tell whether one takes longer to cast than another if you're using some sort of stopwatch - the rules are silent on this.

Yes, and the dropping of casting times was a poor design move (unless you're a wizard player, in whcih case it was great!).

• "Counterspell takes the same amount of time to cast" - no; Counterspell takes "1 Reaction" which is an abstraction of some unspecified amount of time but which can be inferred to be shorter than "1 Action" since casting "Shield" (a Reaction cast) can be used when you see someone starting to cast Magic Missile (one action to cast) to intercept and block the incoming Missiles - so the duration of "Reaction Cast" MUST be shorter than "Action Cast"

Here we agree: reaction spells take less time to cast than non-reaction spells. And if one rules that reactions cannot themselves trigger or be targeted by further reactions (because using FIFO sequencing by the time the second reaction resolves the first one has already resolved) the whole issue goes away.

• "Sigil's rules for Counterspelling allow offsetting spellcasts" - this is true; however you are ASSUMING I am requiring a "Full Cast" of Fireball to counter Ice Storm. That isn't what I said. Rather, you are allowed to substitute a prepared spell slot with Fireball in a faster "reaction cast" to counter the spell. What nobody has asked is "what if TWO casters attempt to counter the same spell with Fireball substitutions and both are successful?" The answer is NOT that the second caster's Fireball "goes off" because you weren't "casting fireball" (which takes a full action); instead, you were using the shorter reaction-speed action to vent the stored energy of Fireball into disrupting someone else's spell; using the energy in this manner is NOT the same as casting Fireball and doesn't result in a Fireball going off when the energy is discharged because you're focusing the energy in a different manner than you focus it when you're casting the spell. (If you WERE doing a "standard cast" of Fireball to try to counter Ice Storm, the result would be the target area getting blasted by BOTH Ice and Fire, and everyone in the area taking damage from both spells).

OK, here we'll disagree mightily, I think: Fireball is Fireball. Periond, stop, end of story.

There's no "fast Fireball" or "slow Fireball", there's just Fireball. It's a 1-action spell.

Your system allows for a fast version as a reaction, and if that works for you all is cool. But it don't work for me. The only way to counter a spell with another spell should IMO be the actual Counterspell spell, as that's what it's for.

Nice pre-emptive block of "Appeal to Authority."

Note it's not a logical fallacy for me to "Appeal to Authority" when I'm discussing my own house rules work because the ask is effectively "how do you do things" and the only way for that to be answered is for me to explain that. You can certainly tell me I should do things differently but that's different than telling me that I actually do things differently.

Fair enough.