Should Magic Spells/Powers be Interruptible?

[James Gasik]

Great point, but I think it's fairly simple: don't be in melee range.

Counterspell, the 3rd level spell slot, allows you to be within 60 feet. The proposed martial-counter spell would be significantly reduced to 5-feet. I would imagine it would also simply require a concentration check (typically DC 10), which I would imagine would be very easy for most spellcasters to achieve. This is different from counterspell, which can amount to saying "no, you don't".

I don't think that's an issue at all, and it's still very simple.

edit: in truth, it's along the lines of 5E's current spellcaster-vs-martial modus operandi, which is that a martial can in theory do everything a spellcaster can do, just less effectively yet without spending a resource.

What about casters who are intended to be in melee range, like Clerics?

 

[grimmgoose]

What about casters who are intended to be in melee range, like Clerics?

Just like in earlier editions (if I remember correctly), spells with a range of Touch would ignore this ruling. Otherwise - gotta play smart! Positioning is important!

 

[GMMichael]

My two cents: Interrupting a spell should have approximately the cost and difficulty of deflecting an arrow (that would otherwise hit), blocking a sword-stroke (ditto), disarming an opponent, or breaking an opponent's weapon. It should have a lesser cost & difficulty for a spell directed specifically at you, and a greater one for stopping an area-effect spell or if the caster has to pay a cost beyond just the lost action.

Agreed - for spells that accomplish the same thing as a sword or bow attack. What about spells that turn your insides into your outsides? Some spells accomplish quite a bit more than the above examples.

The problem I see with this line of thinking is, once you say "yes, of course, magic should be interruptible", I can imagine players asking if other things can be. Can I interrupt someone using a bow or crossbow? Interrupt a sword slash? Sunder or Disarm weapons? Target the wings of a flying creature to bring it down?

Some of these things appear as different rules (in different games). It makes sense for some additional rules for spellcasting interruption to appear in these games. My nitpicks with these are A) they often include loss of spellcasting power despite no spell occurring, and B) more rules to remember. Or more likely, more textbook-on-table time.

Making a way to actually interrupt spells into a Fighting Style, Maneuver, or Feat (or something similar) would be perfectly fine, but how many people would actually go out of their way to get such an option as opposed to other things they could do?

Me, for one. If I can take a little training (feat?) and have the ability to disrupt some potentially life-ending events, I'll sign up!

The question then becomes, "what is the equivalent of a 3rd-level spell slot for a non-caster". Because that's the going rate for Counterspell.

Now one could say that Martial Counterspell doesn't have to be equal in power to Magic Counterspell, and it could be easier to pull off, but then the question becomes "why have Counterspell?". Because if countering spells is something anyone can do with a weapon, then the casters could do it as well.

To pull this away from D&Dese a bit, a Modos 2 counterspell, Dispel 1, is a one-action spell (hence the "1"). It's just as fast, in action economy, as throwing a dagger, and as such, it can also occur as a reaction. So throwing the dagger might be a non-caster equivalent, but there's no rules-support for a dagger attack disrupting a spell, besides rule zero. There's another twist: taking damage doesn't even mean getting hit by a dagger, so what would actually be the interruption?

What would Martial Counterspell be? Probably a called shot. "I shoot the caster's spell book/casting hand/staff." Which, yes, casters could do as well. As GM, I'd tack on a bit of difficulty to such a reaction. Which adds value to Dispel 1, because its difficulty increases with the level of the spell to be countered. So countering a level 1 or 2 spell with Dispel would be easier than throwing a dagger or shooting an arrow, from a luck-of-the-dice perspective. Also, while casters could use the martial counterspell as well, a warrior is likely to have more skill at it than a spellcaster would.

 

[Umbran]

As an aside, if new monster designs in 2024-25 are like those found in Monster's of the Multiverse, fewer monsters will use actual spells (instead using "spell attacks") and the ability to counter spells may be vastly more useful for enemies than for players.

I understand people's issue with this, but the solution is pretty dirt-simple: Stop worrying about what the stat block calls them. If the narrative says it is a spell, it is a spell.

 

[James Gasik]

I understand people's issue with this, but the solution is pretty dirt-simple: Stop worrying about what the stat block calls them. If the narrative says it is a spell, it is a spell.

If that's universally adopted, that'll be fine by me.

 

[CleverNickName]

Many of the things that stop fighters from being able to fight (hold person, banishment, polymorph) also stop casters from being able to cast. The framework is already there, it just needs to be expanded. The monk has stunning strike, paladin has blinding smite... why not give rogues and fighters some of those toys? A rogue that can blind or silence their target as part of a sneak attack (for example) would be pretty sweet.

 

[pemerton]

So do we really need interruption rules? Do they just slow a game down? Are they essential for keeping casters/villains in check?

I don't think the concept of need is very apposite here.

But assuming that your system resolves attacks (by sword, spell etc) via a roll of the dice, then one way of narrating a failure is that the opponent disrupted the effort.

 

[Umbran]

If that's universally adopted, that'll be fine by me.

?

Really? Do you not see how... entitled this seems?

Why do you need everyone, most of whom you will not ever meet, much less play with, to adopt a thing? Why is it not enough to have it at your own table?

 

[CreamCloud0]

The question then becomes, "what is the equivalent of a 3rd-level spell slot for a non-caster". Because that's the going rate for Counterspell.

Now one could say that Martial Counterspell doesn't have to be equal in power to Magic Counterspell, and it could be easier to pull off, but then the question becomes "why have Counterspell?". Because if countering spells is something anyone can do with a weapon, then the casters could do it as well.

And if "Martial Counterspell" can't be performed by magical characters (even an Eldritch Knight), that raises more questions, at least in the narrative.

i'd say the price for martial counterspell should be
-requires 1 reaction
-within 60ft
-have an available ranged or thrown weapon on them (that reaches)
-make your attack to-hit roll
(possibly) -caster makes their concentration check

given that the caster's counterspell
-requires 1 3rd level spell slot
-requires 1 reaction
-within 60ft
-have a free hand (somantic component)
-autosucceeds on an equal or lower spell being countered, or requires a spellcasting DC of 10+spell level if higher.

 

[James Gasik]

?

Really? Do you not see how... entitled this seems?

Why do you need everyone, most of whom you will not ever meet, much less play with, to adopt a thing? Why is it not enough to have it at your own table?

I'm sorry you took it that way. What I mean is, if I play at a table and they say "a spell attack is a spell", then I have nothing to worry about. If they say "a spell attack isn't a spell", then I feel I can worry about that.