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

[Lanefan]

Any defensive spell used by a caster has to also not require concentration, as not only do your best spells require them, but any interruption of another spell you're casting will just open you up to a Con save to avoid losing the defensive spell in the first place. And some classes don't even have good defensive spell options to begin with.

If casters were more interruptable, maybe the concentration mechanic could mostly Go Away as a trade-off.

 

[Lanefan]

I feel like 'player is forced to stop playing' should be considered a fail state in design.

That would make just about every card or board game in history designed for three or more players count as a design fail; as the first player knocked out is forced to stop playing before any of the others are.

Sorry, not buying this premise.

 

[Lanefan]

Well the thing is, when your spells do work, there is the risk of breaking an encounter in half.

Exactly, and that's the point!

Casting is high-risk but at the same time, high-reward when it does work.

Sometimes you do break the encounter in half. Other times, it breaks you.

 

[ECMO3]

I guess it's more fair to say that WotC doesn't prescribe any particular class or party composition. The only thing I've found in the PHB is a line about how the party has to work together and that other characters can cover for your weaknesses, but I haven't found a line saying "thou must bring a Bard, Cleric, or Druid".

While there's a lot of "play the class you want" sentiment found online, I don't see anything official, so maybe that's just something the fandom made up? My brain keeps telling me I have heard this from a WotC source, but as I get older, my memory is less reliable and prone to Mandela effects.

I guess I'll have to change my party line from "WotC says you can play what you want" to "WotC never says you have to play anything in particular".

I get what you are saying, but in 5E I think part of it is the number of classes. If you have one of every class in 5E covered your minimum party size is 13.

Personally I love the lack of perscribed class roles in 5E and the flexibility that lets most classes be sucessful in a variety of roles.

 

[ECMO3]

Or..instead of bless...

meteor storm..or
blink..or
plane shift..or
maze..or
dominate monster..or
hold person..or
fireball..or
teleport..or
force cage..or

..one of the many other options available which are completely unaffected by the caster having 10 different status effects applied to them.

I don't think this is true. Can you provide an example of the 10 conditions effects that could be applied and enable them to still cast these spells?

The only status I see regularly that does not stop casting most spells are grappled, restrained, invisible or poisoned.

Also I will note that using hide will prevent a Wizard from using 4 of those spells on you and make using another 3 of them a bit sketchy.

 

[ECMO3]

Or my favorite, your playing a good spellcaster and 70 percent of all the spells you find are a necromancer or sociopaths wet dream. Because "that's what those guys would use". It's so lovely to get spells that you can't sell or use because it would be an evil action to do so.

The solution here is to play a more morally ambivalent PC.

The way I look at it, if my good PC can slit an evil guys throat without feeling bad, he can summon a Zombie from the one he killed a few minutes ago to do it too.

 

[M_Natas]

This is the core of the disagreement. In D&D 5e the classes are not equally powerful. The moderate difference in damage output between a caster and a martial does not bridge the gap afforded by spells like Spirit Guardians, Pass Without Trace or Force Cage.

A Twilight Cleric is not 50% stronger than a Champion fighter, what each can do belong to entirely different worlds.



For a good number of people, this is already the status quo.

A twilight cleric is not strong because of his spells, but because of some subclass features, that wouldn't be affected by the proposed change.

It seems like you're complaining about the potential for "poor GM-ing".

The potential to be interrupted =/= the certainty of being interrupted.

Being interrupted 100% of the time would involve a similar amount of "poor GM-ing" as when a GM creates terrain with impassable physical obstacles between the party and their intended destination.

The difference is that the GM would have to work harder to be irritating since they'd need to have creatures in reaction range of the spellcasters at all times with a reaction to spend, and an attack effective enough to hit and cause the interrupt, vs. just saying there's a 200ft wide lava river between your party and a door they need to get through or the door is sealed with magic.

I'm speaking from the experience of my games, where caster are often also hit. Not being in melee range of somebody in the current campaign is the exception for my wizard.
In order for the interruption of spells not be tried like every round, the DM would have to change the encounters up. He would need to adjust the difficulty and tactics of the monsters/NPCs in order to not to TPK the party.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I don't think this is true. Can you provide an example of the 10 conditions effects that could be applied and enable them to still cast these spells?

The only status I see regularly that does not stop casting most spells are grappled, restrained, invisible or poisoned.

Also I will note that using hide will prevent a Wizard from using 4 of those spells on you and make using another 3 of them a bit sketchy.

I included the list, I just counted each step of exhaustion separately as each has its own debuff effect, and no step of exhaustion impacts the ability to cast save or buff spells until exhaustion 6..(which causes the 'dead' status effect)

So..
Exhaustion 1-5
Frightened
Prone
Grappled
Poisoned
Restrained

Though we could also add
Deafened and..to a lesser extent
Blinded (for non-sight targeted spells), and
Charmed (for any buffs or saves spells against targets other than the charmer)

 

[Lanefan]

I get what you are saying, but in 5E I think part of it is the number of classes. If you have one of every class in 5E covered your minimum party size is 13.

Better start recruiting, then.

Personally I love the lack of perscribed class roles in 5E and the flexibility that lets most classes be sucessful in a variety of roles.

And where does niche protection fit in - the idea that each class is good at a few things nobody else can do (or do nearly as well) and not good at a lot?

 

[Gammadoodler]

A twilight cleric is not strong because of his spells, but because of some subclass features, that wouldn't be affected by the proposed change.

I'm speaking from the experience of my games, where caster are often also hit. Not being in melee range of somebody in the current campaign is the exception for my wizard.
In order for the interruption of spells not be tried like every round, the DM would have to change the encounters up. He would need to adjust the difficulty and tactics of the monsters/NPCs in order to not to TPK the party.

Or..your party would need to adjust their tactics. Maybe plan more ambushes, set up battlefield control areas or get summoned creatures on the battlefield, plan for buff spells that help prevent hits that could interrupt spellcasting..

Note: these are the exact kinds of suggestions as you'd made for the martials encountering impassable obstacles. Yes, your GM could adjust your encounters, but your party could also adjust their approach

..and considering you all are drawing from a bunch of spell lists and have a bunch of spell slots, you should have between more and waaayyyy more (and mostly better) solutions available to you than the average party of martials.