[5E] Interrupting a Spellcaster via Ready Action

[TaranTheWanderer]

[MENTION=6788736]Flamestrike[/MENTION] I agree. The trigger might not have anything to do with an action, so the whole 'waiting for an action' argument is irrelevant. The trigger could be, "when anyone says the word 'Orange'". As soon as that happens, your action would trigger immediately, regardless of what action is taking place in the battle.

As for magic weapons and the like, relatively easy disarm and a campaign that relies on higher power magic weapons seems to be opposing goals. Sounds like disarm the latest excalibur and the scrum for the weapon would be common combat play, especially with multiple minions at your side to play kerp-away. I mean, how much fun is combat after combat of keep-away magic weapon scrambles gonna be in a high item power game?

Wouldn't the very first feature enchanted into a weapon or item be "hard to take away" is we get ready-interrupt-disarms?? otherwise the other enchantment seems silly since you may just be handing it to the enemy, right?

Guess lots for some if +3 swords and weapon scrum is a go-to case.
****
But the worst combo for having combats sequences that mesh up with source and action driven and fewer cases of exception-bashing and exploits was - actor-based with strong interrupt/ready. It tends to create a war of exceptions and reactions and lead to much more of an almost zugzwang becoming the more common norm - instead of the exception - because in too many cases that niche rule becomes a "stop the other guy from doing stuff" and that is powerful enough to no longer be niche - but norm.

but, my experiences are just kine so maybe i am totally completely wrong on this and it makes sense for a game with lotsa high value magic items and potent spells to have them all thwarted by a handful of kobolds or orcs with ready actions or whatever because nobody in that universe when creating magic items or cpellcasting for combat thought of these things - ever -at all.

Actually, Eldritch Knights, who can summon their swords back to their hands so their magic items can't be disarmed, really.

I've never played in a game where magic items were impossible to disarm. That's an interesting choice for a campaign. Nor have I played in the strange campaign setting you are describing. But I HAVE played with readied actions that interrupt actions and I know from experience, even in my low magic games, and know first-hand that the crazy, exaggerated scenarios you described don't happen. So, you question your experiences and whether you are wrong and I can tell from the false assumptions you make of how it will destroy the game and force everyone to play monks that you haven't actually tried playing it that way in 5e.

I guess I just find your reading of the ready action to be very rigid. I would find it too constraining to player's intentions and ability to tell the story they want or do actions that, to the people at the table, make sense. Obviously, you don't and you think it's great. In any case, I think I've made my case clearly enough so no need to go any further.

 

[5ekyu]

Nowhere does it say that the 'trigger' for the ready action has to be 'a full action, that must be completed in its entirety for you to take your readied action'.

You could (for example) ready an action to take place after the first attack of a creatures multi-attack (after 1 attack has happened, and before the action is resolved via the iterative attacks). No DM would have an issue with that.

Same deal, you dont have to wait till a creature has used ALL its movement to take a readied action, particularly when your trigger is 'if the creature attempts to move out of the space it currently occupies'.

An even better trigger is: 'If the creature moves more than halfway out of my reach, but before they leave it entirely'.

You state the trigger (it must be observable to your PC). The trigger can be anything ('as soon as the Guy in robes reaches for his component pouch/ a weapon'). Your readied action goes off as soon as the trigger is complete.

In this case, as soon as the Guy in robes reaches for his component pouch or a weapon, your readied action goes off (before he draws the weapon, or casts the spell).

The trigger does not need to be an action, completed in full. It just needs to be something observable to your PC (who doesnt have a clue what an 'Action' is) and stated in clear language.

Sigh... what is the assumption? The opponent is standing stock still until he declares an action?

"In combat, characters and monsters are in constant motion, often using movement and position to gain the upper hand."

What if the opposing character says "when I am in combat as non-action I move my hand back and forth repeatedly towards my component pouch"? After all, we have pretty established that even changing hands of weapons is non-action, not interaction.

A typical combat encounter is a clash between two sides, a flurry of weapon swings, feints, parries, footwork, and spellcasting. "

What if we say...
"Even when I am casting verbal only spells, I reach for my component pouch, maybe even draw stuff but I will tell you those."

"Your turn can include a variety of flourishes that require neither your action nor your move"


What if I say...
"I routinely spout arcane words and fragments of verbal component during combat before and after casting, usually brief utterances.These may include gestures."

"You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn."

What if I say
"Even with the component pouch thing, I will reach for it usually more than once before I actually draw **as part of casting** the components."

Or, what if I say "I keep a wand focus in one hand and reach for components with the other."

Etc etc etc etc...

Sooner or later this word game of scrabble-fu to get to actual casting is seen as not "clever not "tactics but just dueling linguistics.

Like I said before, if you want there are much better ways to get a more action- based resolution system and an actor-basedvone with strong empowered ready-interrupts heads into the worst of both worlds- in my experience- creating an arms race of rules-fu code words instead of tactical play.

Some may like it but then some like rules-fu playstyle. Lots of guys loved in other systems moving st dpeeds 5-6 but getting 7 moves as if theh moved speed 7. Heck, I knew one guy who on his move on his turn counted out loud 1-2-3-4 as he moved thru a path but whren immediately after another player counter the same 1-2-3-4 tried to argue that path was 5, not 4.

You specifically use "after the first attack in a multi-attack." Others do too.

But if it's a 2nd level fighter with one attack... what then? If cast a spell is only one spell per action, it's like the one attack attack action, not the multi-attack.

Constructing individual component as a different stage like they are each attacks in a multi-attack is imaginative, but not the rules.

I think it might be more tile in PF2 tho.

As others have said, if your trigger is "gestures like spells" and ready then resolves after that finishes- what is it you think finishing the gestures of a spell results in? In my gsmes, when the gestures end, spell happens.

The rule stating the ready and other unspecified reactions occur after their trigger finishes is rendered meaningless if a trigger can be defined as "starting to..." and that be seen as "before it finishes."

By all means- go for it. House rule away til you got the exceptions to exceptions and linguitics-fu combat tour de force. Call it clever or tactical play. Whatever.

 

[5ekyu]

[MENTION=6788736]Flamestrike[/MENTION] I agree. The trigger might not have anything to do with an action, so the whole 'waiting for an action' argument is irrelevant. The trigger could be, "when anyone says the word 'Orange'". As soon as that happens, your action would trigger immediately, regardless of what action is taking place in the battle.





Actually, Eldritch Knights, who can summon their swords back to their hands so their magic items can't be disarmed, really.

I've never played in a game where magic items were impossible to disarm. That's an interesting choice for a campaign. Nor have I played in the strange campaign setting you are describing. But I HAVE played with readied actions that interrupt actions and I know from experience, even in my low magic games, and know first-hand that the crazy, exaggerated scenarios you described don't happen. So, you question your experiences and whether you are wrong and I can tell from the false assumptions you make of how it will destroy the game and force everyone to play monks that you haven't actually tried playing it that way in 5e.

I guess I just find your reading of the ready action to be very rigid. I would find it too constraining to player's intentions and ability to tell the story they want or do actions that, to the people at the table, make sense. Obviously, you don't and you think it's great. In any case, I think I've made my case clearly enough so no need to go any further.

Sure thing.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Sigh... what is the assumption? The opponent is standing stock still until he declares an action?

"In combat, characters and monsters are in constant motion, often using movement and position to gain the upper hand."

What if the opposing character says "when I am in combat as non-action I move my hand back and forth repeatedly towards my component pouch"? After all, we have pretty established that even changing hands of weapons is non-action, not interaction.

I 100% agree: In standard combat a trigger like moving hands is totally useless. But it does not change the fact that RAW it could be a trigger. I am totally happy with thatrule as in normal combats it won't be helpful and thus it won't slow it down as it is never used.

 

[5ekyu]

I 100% agree: In standard combat a trigger like moving hands is totally useless. But it does not change the fact that RAW it could be a trigger. I am totally happy with thatrule as in normal combats it won't be helpful and thus it won't slow it down as it is never used.

I have no horse in your views on whether or not in your games you can ready actions outside of a combat. I will leave that dealio for someone who cares.

Nor do I worry about what is "standard";about certain combats - if that was your gist..

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I have no horse in your views on whether or not in your games you can ready actions outside of a combat. I will leave that dealio for someone who cares.

Nor do I worry about what is "standard";about certain combats - if that was your gist..

Didn't say out of combat. Already explained the Situatuations where it is useful.

Also. Still does not change the fact that you seem to flex RAW and what is an action and what can be a trigger as you like.

 

[S'mon]

Obviously allowing spell disruption via a readied attack (CON save DC 10 or half damage) would be a house rule. I think I'd house-rule allow it for a readied melee attack, but then I'd allow a readied melee attack to disrupt a bow shot also, and probably many other actions. I think with readied missile attack I'd probably rule the spell casting was too quick to disrupt by shooting a bow or throwing a spear.

 

[Li Shenron]

Mmh... I just thought of another specific case when maybe disrupting a spell would work: you ready an attack with trigger "enemy spellcaster casts a spell", and the enemy spellcaster makes the mistake of readying the spell instead of casting it straight away?

I think it could work because readying a spell explicitly means to cast it now and hold and release later, unlike any other readied action.

Note: it won't come up often because readying a spell is almost never a good idea, exactly because of this explicit rule.

 

[Krachek]

Allowing disarm, spell interrupt, disarm focus, may look more « in real life ».
But DnD is not « in real life ».
Even if we play sharp and optimize, we play a romantic fantasy of a real fight, war, exploration and others.
It is a game, a game where the fun is to use its spell, magic item, and prentend a heroic fantasy life.

 

[Henry]

I have to agree with the camp that says that readied attacks can’t disrupt casting of spells. IMO, Not only does the wording of “ready” preclude it, but the case examples of spells or actions being pre-emptied are all called out as being exceptions in their own wording, e.g. Counterspell and Shield. As noted earlier, even the Mage Slayer feat does not specify that its action can interrupt a spell. All these spelled out exceptions necessarily infer to me that the RULE is no interruptions to spells or actions through the ready action.