[5E] Interrupting a Spellcaster via Ready Action

[pming]

Hiya!

So *why* can't the higher in initiative creature ready an action to stop a spellcaster from casting a spell?

(First, I did catch the 'dash' wording...but dismissed it and accepted it as "description" and not "statement of a Move"; if it was "Dashes", then I would have known you meant it in the sense of it being a 'noun' and not so much a 'verb'. No matter, I now know you meant Dashes, as in the Move ).

There is no reason why someone who isn't being attacked can't just sit there with his crossbow, bow, throwing dagger, or whatever and just give the hairy-eyeball to the spellcaster, just *waiting* for the caster to start doing his thing. Well, except for the way spells in 5e work, where they are 'cast' on your exact Initiative number. Not before, not after. Exactly that one, single number. No matter what happens in the round. It makes no sense to me either...hence, why I use BECMI/1e AD&D's somewhat personally-bastardized method.

If you want to see an interesting Initiative method for a D&D-like game...check out the latest iteration of Kenzer & Co's "Hackmaster" RPG. It uses something called the "Count Up" method where everything in the game is given an amount of seconds it takes to "do" that thing (not perfect, but "up to and about X seconds"; good enough for a consistent game thing). It always takes, for example, Drawing an Arrow (5 seconds), Load/Notch it (2 seconds), then Fire it (1 second); so 8 seconds to "shoot your bow". A PC has a base Initiative dice (lower the better, obviously), and that is the base 'second' all his actions start on. If a PC rolls d10 for his Init and gets a 3, then everyone knows that on second 1, the character is still figuring out what to do...second 2, he's figured he should probably shoot an arrow, second 3 he starts to Draw an arrow from his quiver...4, 5, 6, 7, 8...now on second 9 he gets it all notched, 10 he pulls back, and on second 11 he Fires. Roll to hit. Note, at virtually ANY point along the 'sequence of action', the player can change his mind. So if he sees a camouflaged dire-chameleon suddenly appear right above him on, say, second 6 (re: "Count" as it's called in-game), he can say WHOA!...I move backwards as fast as I can! He then looks at his movement rate and sees how many feet he can move in 1 second. So on that 6th second, he moves back, say 4'. If the Chameleon goes on Count 9, which the player WOULD NOT KNOW, on Count 7 he can move back another 4', on Count 8, another 4', on Count 9 he is in the process of moving when the Chameleon's tongue lashes out...about 12' away. This distance would affect what dice the Chameleon uses to roll his to-hit. Lets say he misses. Now, we are on Count 9. The player of the Archer now has to decide what to do; drop his bow and arrow and pull out a melee weapon? Continue to move backwards? Reach for a potion in his pouch? No matter what he decides, his new action has a "Seconds to Do" (either flat or dice, depending on action) and whatever that number is, it gets added to 9 to find out which Count his new action is completed on. But each and every Second of the Count is handled, one at a time, in a never ending increase. There are no "rounds", just the ever-advancing Count Clock, one second at a time.

Sounds amazing to play! Never tried it...this new HM has some really cool ideas and whatnot, but it just lost that "Hackmaster" feeling to me/us (my group). Mind you, half my group over the last year and a half have had Life kick 'em in the butt...so I'm down to only 2.5 of my regular players (the .5 is taking a brake after her other friends complained she never hangs out with them anymore...she'll be back... they always come back).

Wow. That was a bit..."long and semi-off the point". I mean, it is a different way to handle Initiative and all that. Spells take X seconds to cast, and when you decide to start casting an "Icy Blast" spell has a casting time of 3 seconds. If you start on count 8, then for count 8, 9, 10 you are casting the spell and on Count 11, the spell "goes off" (iirc). During that time you only get d8p for defense (oh, it's not an "AC" based system anymore; it's an opposed Attack/Defense check).

Sorry. At any rate, I have considered just trying to "port over" the Count system to 5e, but so far I've been too chicken to try it. Maybe tomorrow...or next week...or maybe next month...or, you know, whenever...

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Sadras]

Oh IMHO never say that about a magical elf game!

I've always felt magical dwarf games tend to be more real.

We're not playing "Mother-May-I" at our table. If that's the style of play at your table and everyone is on board and having fun with it, carry on.

If you but only knew what hassles that phrase caused in another running thread.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Ok so much misinformation here.

First maybe your games are different, but it's often the case that getting hit foes not equal dead nor does it equal not being able to cast later whrn your turn comes up, so in that case a ready shot has done house rule making it able to stop casting, there are I am sure lots of cases where "my ready shot stops a spell" is a lot better than "my ready shot does 7 more hp yo you."

Second, I have seen as many readied actions from the init losers as the winners. I have no idea where the notion of ready requiring winning init comes from.

Init 20 wizard spells moves, init 10 guy readies something against them for their next action with a defined trigger, so on init 20 next turn if the trigger goes it's the init 10 guy ready trigger vs the init 20. Init is cyclical in 5e, generally speaking.

As for fun, dead, etc... you fo you.

What?
Even when you lost initiative you gave up your action to attack later. No you can't stop the caster from casting. Where exactly did I say that? You can just threaten to kill. Once again if you could stop caating with the readied action you already were able to do so on the round before (on lower initiative). If your attack does not kill the wizard the spell gets cast as normal. I mean, when did I say differently? I am still shocked about what you read into posts or rules.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Let's look at this in a slightly different way. Here's the scenario:

A bowman is standing over a trap door in the floor and you have your hand on the lever that triggers it. He is holding his bow, but his arrows are still in his quiver. He has valuable information, so you don't want to just trigger the trap and possibly kill him. You have won initiative and are acting first:

You: I tell him not to attack or I will pull the lever.

DM: Ok, so you are Readying your action to Use an Object, the lever, if he attacks.

You: Yep. I know I could interact with it for free now, but I don't want to do it unless I have to.

DM: Sure, he shoots you then.

You: What!? Wait, don't I get to pull the lever first?

DM: You would think so, huh? But since the triggering action was his attack, and your readied action doesn't take place until after the triggering action, he still gets his attack against you.

You: That can't be how it works!?

DM: Sure it is. Page 191 of the PHB. I'll read it to you: "When the trigger event occurs [his attack], you can either take your reaction right after the trigger finishes or ignore the trigger." So, you can pull the lever after I resolve his attack on you, but not before it. Sorry.

You: Then what was the point of my standing there holding the lever???

DM: Nothing, I guess you should have just pulled it on your turn and hope he survived. *grins*

That is my interpretation of how the official system works currently. I think that is pretty much how it reads, right? Am I wrong about this? If so, PLEASE tell me how.

Your Situation is great. That would be the official version. If you however set the trigger to: "if he draws an arrow from the quiver immediately" you are faster.

But if the archer stops and waits a bit I would stop cyclic initiative and then I would roll initiative anew if someone would start the fight again. Because your hand is on the lever while the archer has yet to draw the arrow, you would get advantage on initiative if you just pull the lever if you win (which would be a ruling not a rule).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

How many times in movies have we seen that kind of thing end in the poised to kill getting shot or stabbed or otherwise hit and killed before he completes the kill? Quite a few, it's common.

I get your intent, but the answer to that is to rule change yo havd readies eork like AO, before the trigger completes across the board.

But if this is specifically aimed at magical casting, that's z different animal.

If you watch the movie more closely you notice that after someone has a knife on the throat the combat stops for a few seconds in most cases. So the threat of stabbing is real. If you always alllow a spell to be faster than the one threatening to stab, all movies would just result in the one with the knife just killing the hostage instead because using his actiob to build a threat of killing is futile.

So once again: the one with the knife at somepoint took his turn to ready an action which makes him give up his action on his turn in favour of building the threat.
Because the threat is killing the victim is real, noone can just shoot the man with the knife without risk.
So at least if you want to shoot, you at least have to win some contest. Either a dex contest for speed (initiative) or some other contest. Deception vs insight or whateber is appropriate. Often in films the victim does something the person with the knife didn't think expect, sometimes shoving the one with the knife away. In game terms that would be not doing something what would be perceived as the trigger of the readied action. Using the shove action when it is the victims turn most probably.

 

[Krachek]

If you watch the movie more closely you notice that after someone has a knife on the throat the combat stops for a few seconds in most cases. So the threat of stabbing is real. If you always alllow a spell to be faster than the one threatening to stab, all movies would just result in the one with the knife just killing the hostage instead because using his actiob to build a threat of killing is futile.

So once again: the one with the knife at somepoint took his turn to ready an action which makes him give up his action on his turn in favour of building the threat.
Because the threat is killing the victim is real, noone can just shoot the man with the knife without risk.
So at least if you want to shoot, you at least have to win some contest. Either a dex contest for speed (initiative) or some other contest. Deception vs insight or whateber is appropriate. Often in films the victim does something the person with the knife didn't think expect, sometimes shoving the one with the knife away. In game terms that would be not doing something what would be perceived as the trigger of the readied action. Using the shove action when it is the victims turn most probably.

Thank, this comment remind me we are playing a rpg.
There is a « situation». If we apply rules blindly we simply kill the drama.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You are right, that is how the official system works. I am glad we agree on that. Some seem to think the system rule is that it goes the other way.

Note however, if he was moving onto the trap door and that was your trigger, you could drop him then.

Again, countless examples in fiction and film where this stand-off results in shot lever guy.

A GM can change this with a house rule - have at it - but if the house rule is ready always wins, then, you have just swapped the win/lose. Maybe you house rule a dex-off. Maybe you house rule that blue fipurry darts go first and then the blight spell and then who knows what.

Good. Since we (at least) agree on how the official rules work, now we can discuss how absurd they are IMO. While you are correct that examples exist where you would get shot first, there are also examples where the lever is pulled. Since it could go both ways, why don't the rules reflect that? How could these scenarios never arise in play testing and if they did, why rule it in such an ambiguous manner?

Consider what you wrote: "if he was moving onto the trap door and that was your trigger, you could drop him then." So, the reasoning here is that because he was moving and not attacking, your reaction is faster? He is moving when he draws an arrow to shoot, takes aim, and fires. How is that faster than him walking, or you pulling the lever?

There are no speeds for actions, so unfortunately it comes down to the wording of the trigger--which is sad IMO since the intent is clear and it becomes a case of word-smithing.

Your Situation is great. That would be the official version. If you however set the trigger to: "if he draws an arrow from the quiver immediately" you are faster.

But if the archer stops and waits a bit I would stop cyclic initiative and then I would roll initiative anew if someone would start the fight again. Because your hand is on the lever while the archer has yet to draw the arrow, you would get advantage on initiative if you just pull the lever if you win (which would be a ruling not a rule).

Thanks. I was hoping it would be a clear example. Now we are just talking semantics. Obviously the intent to pull the lever before the attack is there either way. Has D&D gotten to that point? Where wording is so nit-picky that it causes such strange results?

Your idea of stopping the action and rerolling initiative in this case would work, but that is a DM deciding how to proceed. Like many of the rules in 5E, perhaps it was left this way to create options for the DM/table to use as they see fit. I know other editions had so many rules to make such situations overly clear and they wanted to avoid having a horde of rules.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Same situation except now I am a player as well (new text in italics):

A bowman is standing over a trap door in the floor and you have your hand on the lever that triggers it. He is holding his bow, but his arrows are still in his quiver. He has valuable information, so you don't want to just trigger the trap and possibly kill him. I am there ready to fire my crossbow at the guy if he moves at all. You have won initiative and are acting first. I am second. The bowman is last:

You: I tell him not to attack or I will pull the lever.
Me: If he moves at all I am just going to shoot him with my crossbow.
DM: Ok, so you are Readying your action to Use an Object, the lever, if he attacks. And you are Readying your attack with the crossbow if he moves.
You: Yep. I know I could interact with it for free now, but I don't want to do it unless I have to.
Me: Sure shooting! *laughs
DM: Sure, he shoots you then.
You: What!? Wait, don't I get to pull the lever first?
DM: You would think so, huh? But since the triggering action was his attack, and your readied action doesn't take place until after the triggering action, he still gets his attack against you.
You: That can't be how it works!?
DM: Sure it is. Page 191 of the PHB. I'll read it to you: "When the trigger event occurs [his attack], you can either take your reaction right after the trigger finishes or ignore the trigger." So, you can pull the lever after I resolve his attack on you, but not before it. Sorry.
Me: Wow, that sucks.
You: Then what was the point of my standing there holding the lever???
DM: Nothing, I guess you should have just pulled it on your turn and hoped he survived. *grins*
Me: Well, don't I get to shoot him? My circumstance for attacking was if he moves at all, he must be moving to draw an arrow and shot.
DM: Huh? Oh, well... yeah, I guess so. You get to roll to attack him first.
You: Wait, wait, wait! So, he can shoot his crossbow first, then the bowman is shooting me, and then I get to pull the lever? This is so messed up...

So, unfortunately, because of the wording and despite the intent of both you and me, I would get to shoot and you get shot. I think this ruling needs some serious revamping.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Good. Since we (at least) agree on how the official rules work, now we can discuss how absurd they are IMO. While you are correct that examples exist where you would get shot first, there are also examples where the lever is pulled. Since it could go both ways, why don't the rules reflect that? How could these scenarios never arise in play testing and if they did, why rule it in such an ambiguous manner?

Consider what you wrote: "if he was moving onto the trap door and that was your trigger, you could drop him then." So, the reasoning here is that because he was moving and not attacking, your reaction is faster? He is moving when he draws an arrow to shoot, takes aim, and fires. How is that faster than him walking, or you pulling the lever?

There are no speeds for actions, so unfortunately it comes down to the wording of the trigger--which is sad IMO since the intent is clear and it becomes a case of word-smithing.



Thanks. I was hoping it would be a clear example. Now we are just talking semantics. Obviously the intent to pull the lever before the attack is there either way. Has D&D gotten to that point? Where wording is so nit-picky that it causes such strange results?

Your idea of stopping the action and rerolling initiative in this case would work, but that is a DM deciding how to proceed. Like many of the rules in 5E, perhaps it was left this way to create options for the DM/table to use as they see fit. I know other editions had so many rules to make such situations overly clear and they wanted to avoid having a horde of rules.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Same situation except now I am a player as well (new text in italics):

A bowman is standing over a trap door in the floor and you have your hand on the lever that triggers it. He is holding his bow, but his arrows are still in his quiver. He has valuable information, so you don't want to just trigger the trap and possibly kill him. I am there ready to fire my crossbow at the guy if he moves at all. You have won initiative and are acting first. I am second. The bowman is last:

You: I tell him not to attack or I will pull the lever.
Me: If he moves at all I am just going to shoot him with my crossbow.
DM: Ok, so you are Readying your action to Use an Object, the lever, if he attacks. And you are Readying your attack with the crossbow if he moves.
You: Yep. I know I could interact with it for free now, but I don't want to do it unless I have to.
Me: Sure shooting! *laughs
DM: Sure, he shoots you then.
You: What!? Wait, don't I get to pull the lever first?
DM: You would think so, huh? But since the triggering action was his attack, and your readied action doesn't take place until after the triggering action, he still gets his attack against you.
You: That can't be how it works!?
DM: Sure it is. Page 191 of the PHB. I'll read it to you: "When the trigger event occurs [his attack], you can either take your reaction right after the trigger finishes or ignore the trigger." So, you can pull the lever after I resolve his attack on you, but not before it. Sorry.
Me: Wow, that sucks.
You: Then what was the point of my standing there holding the lever???
DM: Nothing, I guess you should have just pulled it on your turn and hoped he survived. *grins*
Me: Well, don't I get to shoot him? My circumstance for attacking was if he moves at all, he must be moving to draw an arrow and shot.
DM: Huh? Oh, well... yeah, I guess so. You get to roll to attack him first.
You: Wait, wait, wait! So, he can shoot his crossbow first, then the bowman is shooting me, and then I get to pull the lever? This is so messed up...

So, unfortunately, because of the wording and despite the intent of both you and me, I would get to shoot and you get shot. I think this ruling needs some serious revamping.

I think you can play like that if you want to do it. But I would never trigger on the attack but on something else. And that is allowed by RAW. My trigger would be"draw an arrow". If you can shoot the bow without completely draw an arrow, yes you are faster.

 

[Blue]

During casting, there is ONLY a concentration check for multi round casting. There is absolutely no other "damage interrupts CASTING" mechanic in 5e. Only spells longer than an action require concentration to cast.

There is. The status is called dead. Or a battlemaster may disarm the caster with an attack. There is an optional disarm rule in the dmg. So yes, you might stop someone from casting a spell. But not by forcing a concentration check.

Since I explicitly was talking about calling for a Concentration check, I am unsure how you can both say that there are methods that require a concentration check and then admit that there aren't.

After this I wasn't really getting your gist - you talked about the caster trying to bluff or distract, when I was talking solely about damage not interrupting a casting, so I don't know how that fits. Or stopping initiative until the fight restarts makes no sense when the fight doesn't stop. Are you replying to other people in this thread?

All I can say that if a DM wants to make a ruling, then make a ruling. And that's why we have real DMs. But if they make a ruling they should understand their own intent and not get tripped up in the timing of ready triggers and such.

And if they don't make a ruling, none of that matters because there are no concentration checks for casting spells except those that take more than one round. An intentional removal since it was here in earlier editions.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Lots of things I should quote but I'm lazy.

1. It's established you can't force a concentration check to interrupt a spell because that's not how concentration works and this isn't 3e.

2. If you want to prevent spellcasting or attacks, you have to do something different. Examples: disarming a person will prevent them from attacking with that sword. Casting silence on a caster will prevent them from casting spells with verbal components.

3. Can you do these actions as a readied action? Yes, but can you do it to interrupt the action?

If I go by the interpretation that the triggered action must resolve first and if I go by the ruling that I can't have my trigger be "if he reaches for his spell component pouch" and instead have to make the trigger action be 'when he casts a spell', then I'm going to be very limited by the kind of story the players want to tell.

Is it a house-rule to let a ready interrupt an action? I don't think so because I'm using the rules how they are intended: to facilitate the action and intent of the players. Rulings over rules. Which was the design intent. I'd rather use the rules as a tool rather than to warp the story to fit a specific rigid reading of the rules. I'm not making up a new house-rule. I'm using an existing rule to make my game run smoothly.

My player says, "I don't want to do anything offensive but If he reaches for the spell component pouch, I'm going to assume he's casting a spell and I'm going to cast silence on him."

I can say, "sorry, no, you can't do that because, you aren't allowed to ready for 'Reaching' you have to ready to trigger off an actual action, which, in this case is casting a spell. If you do that, his spell will go off before you can do that. That's what the rules say, just ask Sage Advice. Try another action instead."

Or I can say, "sure, that's a clever. The rule that best works for this scenario is the 'Readied Action'. On his turn, I'll let you make a check (insight or perception - whichever is better to notice if he's about to cast a spell), if you succeed, your trigger goes off and you can interrupt his spell before it affects anyone. Do you want to do that?"

So, I'm not sure what else to tell the OP. You can't force a concentration check with a readied action, but depending on how rigidly you adjudicate the rules, there are other ways to stop a spellcaster.

One way might be knocking components out of his hand - like in ultimate Frisbee, when you react to someone throwing a frisbee and you knock the frizbee out of their hand as they are about to throw it. Or you might rule that the person has to finish throwing the Frisbee before you can knock it out of their hand, in which case it's already flying through the air. Or maybe you might rule that such an action is impossible and you must knock the frisbee out of their hand on your turn.