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

[ECMO3]

You should do more research then and inform yourself.

I think I am well informed

If you don't think such actions would disrupt the somatic component, that is your perrogative. I think most players would disagree.

Most tables (all I have played on) specifically allow casting while prone or grappled. Further I have never watched a 5E game online that did not allow this.

RAW you can even do somatic components while holding a shield in one hand and an orb or wand or holy symbol or weapon in the other; which would be far more difficult than doing the somatic components in the conditions I mentioned with your hands being free.

When I have seen deviations from RAW it is actually in the opposite direction - allowing concentration while incapacitated or paralyzed, ignoring concentration checks and ignoring spell components and hand switching. Several tables I played on and watched online actually handwaive or ignore handsy stuff completely and make casting a lot easier than it should be (especially when wirelding a shield and weapon). There are even threads on places like Reddit that talk about ignoring hand switching and component rules. On the other hand I have never seen a table make it more difficult than RAW.

Given that I think the number of 5E players who disagree with me is very, very small.

You're assuming the actions described in the spell are the only part of the somatic component. I believe such descriptions are for flare and such more than "this is all it takes, isn't magic easy!!!".

I believe it is generally less than that and when the flare is mentioned it is to point it out.

As I noted above, it is possible to do somatic components while holding something in both hands, because the rules specifically allow for that.

Seriously, though, while you might "see" the weapon, blindingly fast is an expression, but other than the "flash of the blade in the light" there are many very fast weapons, including a claymore. Holding it and moving only your wrists and forearms allow the blade tip to move much quicker.

Not quicker than I can touch my thumbs together and make a fan with my fingers .... and not any quicker than I could "flourish a weapon" .... actually exactly the same amound of time as that if it is a Claymore I am flourishing.

 

[ECMO3]

Sure I guess, though the range of martials' damage potential is pretty wide and casters have quite a few tools to make delivering that damage difficult or impossible.

Again it's this weird (to me) asymmetry. Casters have a wide variety of tools to deal with martials, many which also deal damage.

Hell, there are like 5 different 1st level spells which, on a failed save would make it impossible for a martial to move into melee and attack on their turn. I'd also found 3 at 2nd level, just from looking at conditions imposed, two at 3rd level, and four at 4th level (and for levels 2-4, I was only really looking at spells that imposed the frightened, paralyzed, stunned, incapacitated, unconscious, restrained, petrified, or charmed conditions...My that's a lot of conditions that can completely shut down a melee martial's ability to move in and attack. But hey at least we could rule out grappled, which would only keep them from moving, and poisoned and blinded, which would only give them disadvantage on attacks, and prone, which would only halve their movement, oh and invisible which would also likely only put disadvantage on their attacks.

For melee martials they can go for the kill if they get in range on their turn, and that's it.

Sure and a 1st level caster can do that twice a day.

Also you are ignoring ranged attacks in this discussion.

You say "melee martial", which by its nature means generally poor ranged attacks, but that is the result of a build choice, not a weakness of martials in general.

Sure a caster can get spells to do the things you mention, but my Sorcerer could also just as easily pick Detect Magic and Witchbolt as my 1st level spells and then I couldn't do any of the things you mention.

At the end of the day you can't balance combat assuming poor build decisions and building a character that relies on melee to be effective is a poor build decision .... playing a melee only build is the equivalent of a caster purposely taking crappy spells and then complaining that they are ineffective in combat.

As a marrtial, you can easily have it both ways with a high dex, a couple scimitars and a heavy crossbow your 1st level fighter is pretty badass!

 

[ezo]

I think I am well informed

You can think that all you want, of course...

Most tables (all I have played on) specifically allow casting while prone or grappled. Further I have never watched a 5E game online that did not allow this.

RAW you can even do somatic components while holding a shield in one hand and an orb or wand or holy symbol or weapon in the other; which would be far more difficult than doing the somatic components in the conditions I mentioned with your hands being free.

Yes, that is all RAW. No one is arguing that. We're discussing a house-rule. Again, 5E does this for ease of play due to D&D being a fantasy game. People interested in such a house-rule want a more simulation/realistic feel.

When I have seen deviations from RAW it is actually in the opposite direction - allowing concentration while incapacitated or paralyzed, ignoring concentration checks and ignoring spell components and hand switching. Several tables I played on and watched online actually handwaive or ignore handsy stuff completely and make casting a lot easier than it should be (especially when wirelding a shield and weapon). There are even threads on places like Reddit that talk about ignoring hand switching and component rules. On the other hand I have never seen a table make it more difficult than RAW.

LOL seriously? That is some really lax playing-style.

Yeah, I don't ignore any of that stuff... Not losing a concentration spell because you are incapatated? Ignoring spell components? Ignoring hand switching (which is a free object interaction typically)? Casting is easy enough RAW, there is no need to make it even easier!

I have seen tables that have nerfed casters in various ways (reducing spell slots, slower spell progression, getting rid of spell foci so you have to track actual components).

Given that I think the number of 5E players who disagree with me is very, very small.

And yet how many people here are arguing against you??? Hmm...

I believe it is generally less than that and when the flare is mentioned it is to point it out.

As I noted above, it is possible to do somatic components while holding something in both hands, because the rules specifically allow for that.

Which is, again, for ease of play and so players of casters can have more "fun". But that isn't realistic at all and doesn't follow what the OP and others are talking about.

Not quicker than I can touch my thumbs together and make a fan with my fingers .... and not any quicker than I could "flourish a weapon" .... actually exactly the same amound of time as that if it is a Claymore I am flourishing.

Yes, quicker. Much quicker. You like making an argument for heavy weapons, so what about finesse ones? I've fenced in college and that tip moves lightning fast. There is no way you could do a burning hands gesture before I could lunge and strike you.

And before you say it, I also think (as I've stated before) that weapon speeds were a great addition to AD&D. Even if not entirely accurate, at least in incorporated a way to represent how much quicker weapons could strike faster than slower ones.

But, once again, WotC removed them for ease of play and no other reason IMO.

At any rate, you think one thing, which I completely disagree with. Since I am not advocating the OP's house-rule, and you aren't going to change your mind, I see little point in continuing this.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Those guys are swinging MUCH, MUCH slower than I can touch my thumbs and make a fan. I could on average do that probably 3 times for every one of their swings.

wouldn't that imply that whatever the somatic component is, it's actually much slower then just making a fan with your hands? since you can only cast burning hands once a turn (under normal circumstances).

Can you give a single example of a fantasy caster where an enemy got to attack them BECAUSE they were casting a spell?

well, no, because that's a nonsensical question. what you should be asking is "can you give a single example of a fantasy caster being interrupted in the midst of casting what could be called a 1 action spell by a melee attack". to which my immediate (and admittedly cheeky) answer would be any 3.5 or pf1/2e caster (though to be fair, in pf2e's case you can only interrupt spells that have the manipulate trait, which would basically be any spell that has a somatic or material component).

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

The problems with attempting to force, for example, opportunity attacks on attacking is that a combat round is actually an abstraction of the real actions taken. An attack isn't necessarily a single attack motion. This is often discussioned, though seemingly ignored here for some reason... I wonder why?

A character holding a greatsword and making an attack is actually also potentially involved in defending and maneuvering. This explains opportunity attacks from moving away. So we can assume that there are defensive actions taken here that are not seen, because we don't care about a simulation that detailed. Most important here is that the character is carrying a weapon.

But a caster is typically not holding a weapon when casting, so for the sake of verisimilitude it makes no sense for a character to be able to take any defensive actions. They are unarmed. It is impossible for them to engage in an armed back and forth trade of blows.

Therefore it makes more sense for there to be an opportunity attack against a caster using magic in melee than for there to be an opportunity attack against someone wielding a big weapon.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Sure and a 1st level caster can do that twice a day.

Also you are ignoring ranged attacks in this discussion.

You say "melee martial", which by its nature means generally poor ranged attacks, but that is the result of a build choice, not a weakness of martials in general.

Sure a caster can get spells to do the things you mention, but my Sorcerer could also just as easily pick Detect Magic and Witchbolt as my 1st level spells and then I couldn't do any of the things you mention.

At the end of the day you can't balance combat assuming poor build decisions and building a character that relies on melee to be effective is a poor build decision .... playing a melee only build is the equivalent of a caster purposely taking crappy spells and then complaining that they are ineffective in combat.

As a marrtial, you can easily have it both ways with a high dex, a couple scimitars and a heavy crossbow your 1st level fighter is pretty badass!

Are you trying to convince me we should be looking at game rules on the basis of what can happen at level 1? If so..umm..not gonna do that.

I am ignoring ranged attacks. That is purposeful as I do not believe they need as much help as melee. Furthermore, since the premise of the topic involves interruption of spells as part of a reaction, it seems useful to perhaps start with the build which has as one of its goals, to position the PC in an opportune spot for triggering reaction attacks.

At the end of the day you can and should be balancing the effectiveness of a variety of builds in combat. Thats what the process of balancing is for. And it's not like choosing to be a polearm master/great weapon master is some deeply eccentric build choice. Like this is pretty vanilla stuff.

Incidentally, it is in no way similar to balancing for a caster who chooses "crappy" spells. Because each caster has 100-something pages of spells from which it could select and can select between 1 and 20 something spells as part of a build + flexibility to change by day for some casters. And those 100 pages of spells cover both combat and noncombat with extreme breadth. You can only really balance casters in D&D at the spell list level. On an individual basis, there's far too much variety.

"Fortunately" martials are not so deeply burdened with such oppressive levels of flexibility and breadth of remit. There are something like 4, maybe 5 martial weapon builds, which mostly vary by which 2 or 3 feats they select from levels 1-20.

This isn't the rocket surgery you are suggesting it is.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Yes, just like the Grizled warriors are dancing around swinging their weapons.

Also to be clear, I did not say they should be safe from reactions, I said casting a spell should not cause an opportunity attack. Those are two very different things. I think someone who wants to ready an action to attack a caster as a reaction should be able to (or use any other applicable reaction against a caster), and RAW that is allowed. They are allowed to do that with the grixzzled warriors too.



I am saying swinging a Maul exposes one mroe than the somatic components that are described in the PHB. I don't think there is any question of that.

The somatic components described are simple and easy.



Can you give a single example of a fantasy caster where an enemy got to attack them BECAUSE they were casting a spell?

Casters already have limitations in the PHB, including rules on disrupting both spells and the process of spell casting. I have not said those "limitations" should be removed, nor have I argued they should be weakened.

When you say, dancing around swinging their weapons, I'm assuming you're meaning stuff like looking for openings, considering angles, focusing on their opponent, and generally NOT trying to manifest supernatural forces using voice, motion, and delivery of exotic materials.

I am not going to participate in a "You just don't know how magic hand waving really works" debate except to say that any conclusions you think are unassailable are not.

As far as examples, I'm not inclined to look for a specific instance of being attacked because of spellcasting, but I would note that the Warders from the Wheel of Time appear to be entrusted with the exact purpose of preventing such attacks (though I'm really only familiar with the Anazon series).

 

[James Gasik]

Not a good reason IMO. Casters should be terrified of being grappled and unable to cast spells with somatic components, or at least having to make a check in order to do it. Otherwise, it should be an eventuality casters DO prepare for either by having those strong martials around to help or knowing a spell or two so they can escape.

But, that is just my POV.

I'm not arguing the point, I was just putting forward a theory as to why WotC would make such a decision. Certainly casting in 3e was a pain in the behind! Maybe they wanted to weaken grapple as an option?

 

[Lanefan]

Because that was the video I found, but those you posted prove out the same point - I can put my thumbs together and my fingers in a fan far faster than anyone can swing a claymore.

Those guys are swinging MUCH, MUCH slower than I can touch my thumbs and make a fan. I could on average do that probably 3 times for every one of their swings.

What the game doesn't say (but really should) is how long you have to maintain that touched-thumb fan position before flames shoot out of it. You seem to be saying that in your view the flames appear as soon as you get the touched-thumbs fan formed; but IMO that's just as much a house rule as it would be were I to say it has to be maintained for x-amount of time.

 

[Lanefan]

Can you give a single example of a fantasy caster where an enemy got to attack them BECAUSE they were casting a spell?

What I can't give is a single example of a character (out of the nearly 1500 I've seen go through our games) who has ever used a Maul in combat. Quite a few, however, have used two-handed swords.

Casters already have limitations in the PHB, including rules on disrupting both spells and the process of spell casting. I have not said those "limitations" should be removed, nor have I argued they should be weakened.

My position - and I don't think I'm alone - is that those limitations are nowhere near limiting enough.