Should Magic Spells/Powers be Interruptible?

[James Gasik]

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.

As long as you realize if, that is all that is required, and anyone can do this, you just give spellcasters more options, since a Wizard isn't inept at throwing daggers.

 

[CreamCloud0]

As long as you realize if, that is all that is required, and anyone can do this, you just give spellcasters more options, since a Wizard isn't inept at throwing daggers.

be that as it may, giving a spellcaster a second way to trigger spell interruption might be giving them more options, but it is comparatively less of a buff to them in comparison to non-casters who currently have no way to interrupt casting as a viable option, though i might make a revision to my initial sketch up to remove the distance limit for just plain weapon range and remove ranged weapons as an option and just leave it as thrown weapons, giving martials a max potential range of 30/120 with the javellin, but being a STR weapon it wouldn't be one that most casters would be heavilly invested in.

 

[Gammadoodler]

be that as it may, giving a spellcaster a second way to trigger spell interruption might be giving them more options, but it is comparatively less of a buff to them in comparison to non-casters who currently have no way to interrupt casting as a viable option, though i might make a revision to my initial sketch up to remove the distance limit for just plain weapon range and remove ranged weapons as an option and just leave it as thrown weapons, giving martials a max potential range of 30/120 with the javellin, but being a STR weapon it wouldn't be one that most casters would be heavilly invested in.

Personally, I'd probably just have it be melee- only.

Feels both more balanced and more believable to me. Ranged martials (in 5e at least) don't suffer as badly from the effects of spells as melee martials do. And I think a burly dude swinging a greatsword in your direct vicinity is more disruptive to your movements than having an occasional arrow shot your direction.

If that encourages some spellcasters to mix it up in melee range to get some discount counterspells, more power to them.

 

[James Gasik]

Clerics and Druids would be happy for the buff, I'm sure. I mean let's not forget that not every caster gets Counterspell- it's a fairly limited ability.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

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.

Are you suggesting that spells with more powerful effects be harder to interrupt, or easier to interrupt?

 

[Gammadoodler]

Clerics and Druids would be happy for the buff, I'm sure. I mean let's not forget that not every caster gets Counterspell- it's a fairly limited ability.

Sure. Melee weapon clerics and battle-form druids could be pleased to have some additional utility in the trenches.

That said.. if it were a problem, they could just..not get the ability to interrupt.

This seems like the kind of thing that is probably better defined at the class (or monster) level, than defined as a general function related to spellcasting.

 

[GMMichael]

Are you suggesting that spells with more powerful effects be harder to interrupt, or easier to interrupt?

Seems like they should be easier to interrupt, but maybe harder spells must be cast by more talented magic users, who cast spells faster or more cautiously?

 

[Gammadoodler]

Seems like they should be easier to interrupt, but maybe harder spells must be cast by more talented magic users, who cast spells faster or more cautiously?

Kinda sounds like you're looking for a skill check equivalent for casting.

Which makes sense to me.

Probably not the same kettle of fish as spell interrupts though.

 

[Umbran]

I'm sorry you took it that way.

So, I am sliding now away from you and what you wrote, and into a discussion of writing and communication, in general. What you wrote is merely the immediate example. You may not be interested in that, and you are free to ignore what follows.

"I am sorry you took it that way," is like, "I'm sorry you took offense at what I said." It places responsibility for the result on the audience, and acknowledging none on the writer's part.

A writing teacher of mine once had a precept that seems appropriate here: There are three versions of every text: 1) what the author intended to get across, 2) what actually ended up on the page, and 3) what the audience gets from that text.

Thus....

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.

Are you sure that the text you wrote actually includes the information to get that? If not, the responsibility for the misunderstanding isn't much on the audience.

This is similar in form (though not in content) to the issue we see when someone states a personal preference, but doesn't explicitly note that in the text.

"Ford trucks do not work," is a statement on the objective mechanical operation of Ford trucks, while, "Ford trucks do not work for me," is a statement of preference. The lack of specification changes the logical content of the statement, and the audience should not be expected to know the author means the latter, when only the former is presented.

 

[GMMichael]

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.

Kinda sounds like you're looking for a skill check equivalent for casting.

Spells should absolutely require rolls. Whose idea was it that a magic-user's spells are always flawless, and it's on the victim to try to avoid the flawlessness?

Anyway, the masses (less than 50 of us) have spoken, and spell/power interruption should be a thing.*

There are going to be a lot of disappointed end-bosses out there . . .

It occurs to me that the combat-problem of "you miss, turn wasted" applies to spellcasters getting their spells disrupted, especially with the concept of saving throws. So back in support of my Vielleicht vote, I'd like to see some effort on the part of the disruptor to make disruption a game-friendly mechanism.

*should exist, for those of us boomers/gen Xs.