[5E] Interrupting a Spellcaster via Ready Action

[Ristamar]

Well, I think you misunderstand me. I'm not sure that straight up doing damage with a ranged weapon is going to be able to be able to disrupt a spellcaster. It's just as unlikely as shooting the fighter with an arrow is going to disarm his weapon.

If a player says, "I want to ready to prevent that guy from casting a spell" I will respond with, "sure, what do you do?"

Shooting them won't cut it. (no pun intended) Casting Silence might, if the triggering spell has a verbal component. Using a skill to disarm their material component might, if it has a material component. Readying to shoot will simply do damage right before the spell triggers.

I redacted my comment earlier that you could force a concentration check on a spell. I didn't redact my statement that you could interrupt actions or prevent actions given the appropriate counter-action.

Understood, no worries. My response was more in tune with [MENTION=6796566]epithet[/MENTION]'s original suggestion. I'm also not a fan of disarming components for similar reasons, but I won't argue the point as I've said my peace.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yeah, mage slayer is cool because it lets you use your reaction as an AoO on a spellcaster without needing to ready an action and risk losing your main action. On top of all the other cool stuff it does, like getting advantage on saving throws. So it's way more flexible than just readying, which makes it a great feat.

Really, no one in our group has ever taken it since with the 5 feet requirement it didn't seem as useful. The best part I thought would be having your target make concentration checks with disadvantage. I guess in games with more spell casters and at higher levels maybe it would be more appealing.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

As long as you also allow players to ready an action to interrupt a weapon attack (or to interrupt someone else's turn in any way, for that matter), I see no problem in allowing it. As a random nerf directed at spellcasters, I don't think it's fair, but do it anyway, if you think that's an improvement to your game (personally, I don't think so).

 

[5ekyu]

As long as you also allow players to ready an action to interrupt a weapon attack (or to interrupt someone else's turn in any way, for that matter), I see no problem in allowing it. As a random nerf directed at spellcasters, I don't think it's fair, but do it anyway, if you think that's an improvement to your game (personally, I don't think so).

Actually, I agree with the sentiment here but it really needs to be aimed st interrupting an ACTION not a bit of an action.

In 5e, the gradual scaling of power is handled differently by different classes. Casters, rogues etc get more powerful single-event actions with higher slotted dpells and added sneak damage as they level. Fighter and monk get some increase in the per-attack but mostly get extra attacks.

Others hit a mid-road where they may get a little of both - an extra attack but not four and some other boosts like smiting slots or whatever.

So, a "stop spell" maneuver really hits the caster more than a stop one attack hits a fighter or especially a monk. Assigning a couple minions to counter-spell sniping wiyh heavy crossbows would be amazingly effective against a full caster, but not so much against a fighter or a monk - if it were per attack.

If a GM wants this, it's easy with house rules, but definitely falls into the "should be made clear at char-gen".

 

[5ekyu]

I think it is frustrating to have conversations where the main point ks ignored. So I indeed can assume that I would have no fun playing with you.

I find that folks telling you their assumptions is often very very informative. You can learn a lot from what assumptions they choose to make and even post about.

So, thanks. Each of these tells us more and more of how you see things.

 

[epithet]

Actually, I agree with the sentiment here but it really needs to be aimed st interrupting an ACTION not a bit of an action.

In 5e, the gradual scaling of power is handled differently by different classes. Casters, rogues etc get more powerful single-event actions with higher slotted dpells and added sneak damage as they level. Fighter and monk get some increase in the per-attack but mostly get extra attacks.

Others hit a mid-road where they may get a little of both - an extra attack but not four and some other boosts like smiting slots or whatever.

So, a "stop spell" maneuver really hits the caster more than a stop one attack hits a fighter or especially a monk. Assigning a couple minions to counter-spell sniping wiyh heavy crossbows would be amazingly effective against a full caster, but not so much against a fighter or a monk - if it were per attack.

If a GM wants this, it's easy with house rules, but definitely falls into the "should be made clear at char-gen".

Well, Disarm has been a published rule since the DMG came out, and there is no shortage of ways a caster can lock down a fighter. I'm still not seeing this as any kind of unbalanced caster nerf.

To lose the spell, the fighter in my analysis would have to recognise that a spell was being cast and hit with his attack, and the caster would have to fail its concentration check. That's a whole lot of "if." In the overwhelming majority of cases, a combatant would be better off taking his regular turn in combat and saving his reaction for opportunity attacks or a class feature. I'm certainly not, as a DM, going to waste one of the few rounds of combat a minion typically survives holding a Ready action to make an attack, hoping to get the trigger and make the shot just to deny a single spell from being cast. That's not a good strategy. If you're planning ahead, blocking an enemy caster's vision is a much more reliable way to protect the party from spell attacks, and much more easily accomplished.

 

[5ekyu]

Well, Disarm has been a published rule since the DMG came out, and there is no shortage of ways a caster can lock down a fighter. I'm still not seeing this as any kind of unbalanced caster nerf.

To lose the spell, the fighter in my analysis would have to recognise that a spell was being cast and hit with his attack, and the caster would have to fail its concentration check. That's a whole lot of "if." In the overwhelming majority of cases, a combatant would be better off taking his regular turn in combat and saving his reaction for opportunity attacks or a class feature. I'm certainly not, as a DM, going to waste one of the few rounds of combat a minion typically survives holding a Ready action to make an attack, hoping to get the trigger and make the shot just to deny a single spell from being cast. That's not a good strategy. If you're planning ahead, blocking an enemy caster's vision is a much more reliable way to protect the party from spell attacks, and much more easily accomplished.

"Well, Disarm has been a published rule since the DMG came out, and there is no shortage of ways a caster can lock down a fighter. I'm still not seeing this as any kind of unbalanced caster nerf."

Yes but disarm does not end an action, just an attack. With typical interaction rules a fighter can draw another weapon and continue fighting. You interrupt a rogue or caster - not do many options (rogue might get to use TWF if a lenient GM rules being disarmed before you get to attack still counts for enabling TWF.)

As for wizard bring able to lock down fighters, sure, that was built-in and tested. That's part of the many reasons wizards have d6 not d20 HD etc.

Now we are talking about adding in some new mechanics to that mix.

But, the fact is this, it's not really about fighter vs wizard. It's more about a mage, a guard Captain and six thugs against a group. In that case, a couple thugs being able to knock out the caster ability to cast makes a big hit.

But your focus on the fighter vs wizard ko vs each other... kinda seems like the goal may be more aimed at the casters and in games where it's a problem, hey, house rules to make frustrating the casters easier might be very effective in discouraging their play.

I would, myself, in a game with ever growing interrupt rules, go for monk myself.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

This isn’t new mechanics. It’s a ready action. Also, you can only draw one weapon per round not per attack. I might be wrong there, but drawing two weapons requires the duel weapon feat does it not? I’m sure someone will gleefully correct me if I’m wrong. But, if that’s the case, a fighter draws a weapon and you disarm him, he now has no weapon until he picks it up and which could potentially mess with multiple attacks. Maybe you’d let him pick it up with an ‘interact with object’ action. Idk. Those interact rules seem vague to me. Potentially wasting an action to stop a spell or other action is probably as powerful or less so than a wizard casting Hold Person and locking down a single opponent for multiple rounds. Actually locking down an opponent AND doing other actions on the following turns. Ready requires you to dedicate your turn every round.

In my experience of actually playing with this actual rule, it doesn’t lead to wizard lock-down tactics. It’s quite situational and doesn’t come up often. If it does come up, it’s because the player described an action that makes sense under that rule and it isn’t always a guaranteed success. So, for actual advice, I would recommend to the OP that they try it. If it’s overpowered, they can ditch it. If it’s useful on occasion, they can use it. If it’s generally found to be useless, no one will bother using it and it’s a moot point. After all, in the end, I’m not trying to convince anyone I’m right, I’m just offering a suggestion to the OP. At this point, there isn’t much more I can add to the subject.

(But I’m totally right). J/k.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You can only interact with one object for free as part of your move or attack. If you need to interact with a second object, you have to take the Use an Object action.

So, yeah, if you disarm a target as a readied action, they can still draw another weapon and attack if they have multiattack/extra attack.

However, if the target drew the weapon in order to attack you and you disarmed them, they could not draw a second weapon and continue to attack as their one freebie was used already.

That's the way we interpret the rules anyway.

 

[5ekyu]

You can only interact with one object for free as part of your move or attack. If you need to interact with a second object, you have to take the Use an Object action.

So, yeah, if you disarm a target as a readied action, they can still draw another weapon and attack if they have multiattack/extra attack.

However, if the target drew the weapon in order to attack you and you disarmed them, they could not draw a second weapon and continue to attack as their one freebie was used already.

That's the way we interpret the rules anyway.

Yes, if the victim drew the first weapon that you disarmed during that attack before they attack then it could be a full-stopper for drawing another and they would be reduced to unarmed attacks or shove/grapples - still getting to use their remaining attacks.

But if they already had weapon in hand, they could draw a new weapon and attack with it.

Both spotlight the difference between disarming in ready action mode vs a character class who scales up thru multi-attacks and one who scales up by more powerful ones.

Like I said earlier, monk looks really good under this option.