[5E] Interrupting a Spellcaster via Ready Action

[5ekyu]

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.

The new mechanic is adding in what amounts to a mechanical-based, unlimited use ready-counterspell to every creature you face.

Especially in the light of the comments about justifying it cuz mages can shut down fighters... have to wonder if the next step is disarming a monks hands, knees, headbuttsxetc cuz they get to use stunning attsck and that can also shut down a fighter.

As for weapon draw, I was not assuming as a default case the target drawing a weapon every time. But even if interaction is lost, they can attack eith fists or shield (improvised z if available) or shove/grapple with remaining attacks.

The other new mechanic is allowing the ready to precede its trigger or at least to somehow separate these parts of an action from their action.

The disarm in the DMG DM workshop for instance (same optional no-balance promise section as injuries etc) isnt presented as an interrupt attack thing, just as a combat option. That's a very different thing than ready to interrupt an attack mid-event disarms. Heck, you wanna add that option, I want spell-points instead of slots!!

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

The new mechanic is adding in what amounts to a mechanical-based, unlimited use ready-counterspell to every creature you face.

No, it doesn't. You must not be understanding. No-one said counterspell. You aren't doing damage to force a Concentration check(that was in 3e). You are doing actions that you can normally do:

-A rogue thief, as a cunning action, can Slight of Hand a caster's spell component pouch which would seriously limit the spells a wizard could cast. Then they can use their main action to attack and do piles of damage. They can do this on their turn without the need to ready. To me this is way more detrimental to a wizard than readying to knock out the material components for a single spell.

-A fighter can disarm a staff used as a focus item on their turn. Which would seriously limit spellcasting.

-A person can disarm(or a spellcaster can cast heat metal) on a fighter's +3 greatsword and force them to use a less potent weapon.

Would you disallow those actions? I don't see how reserving your action to do it on a trigger is any more potent. And from the games I've used it, it isn't. You are trading an action for an action.

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

Sorry, I don't understand your argument here. Could you clarify?

Monks look exactly as powerful as if you tried to disarm them on your turn. The thing that makes monks special is they don't NEED weapons. Even without a readied action you still can't disarm them. So would you disallow disarming, because one class's niche makes them more resistant or impervious to that specific tactic? Or because some classes are more vulnerable to that tactic? Is that what you mean?

That said, if they were wielding a +3 holy short sword(a monk weapon), disarming them and picking it up on your turn would still put them at a disadvantage and would totally be worth doing, either as an action or a readied action.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I'm still not seeing this as any kind of unbalanced caster nerf.

Well, RAW, interrupting a spell being cast is a very specific ability, available to some characters once they hit level 5, and also costing a usually very limited resource (a 3rd level or higher spell slot). So, once more, I have to disagree: allowing anyone to do it with an attack is a very strong nerf.

Actually, in a game where this house rule was in use, I believe the optimal play for your typical party of 4-5 characters facing an enemy spellcaster would be to always have the rogue use cunning action to hide and ready an action to sneak attack the enemy once they start doing anything but moving. Even if you only manage to interrupt a cantrip, that's already stronger than just attacking.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The new mechanic is adding in what amounts to a mechanical-based, unlimited use ready-counterspell to every creature you face.

Especially in the light of the comments about justifying it cuz mages can shut down fighters... have to wonder if the next step is disarming a monks hands, knees, headbuttsxetc cuz they get to use stunning attsck and that can also shut down a fighter.

As for weapon draw, I was not assuming as a default case the target drawing a weapon every time. But even if interaction is lost, they can attack eith fists or shield (improvised z if available) or shove/grapple with remaining attacks.

The other new mechanic is allowing the ready to precede its trigger or at least to somehow separate these parts of an action from their action.

The disarm in the DMG DM workshop for instance (same optional no-balance promise section as injuries etc) isnt presented as an interrupt attack thing, just as a combat option. That's a very different thing than ready to interrupt an attack mid-event disarms. Heck, you wanna add that option, I want spell-points instead of slots!!

Again. It is not a new mechanic to have parts of an action be a trigger.

Simple example: a fighter attacks twice with his action. And can move in between. If you react on the attack, do you wait until the fighter moves and uses the second?

 

[5ekyu]

No, it doesn't. You must not be understanding. No-one said counterspell. You aren't doing damage to force a Concentration check(that was in 3e). You are doing actions that you can normally do:

-A rogue thief, as a cunning action, can Slight of Hand a caster's spell component pouch which would seriously limit the spells a wizard could cast. Then they can use their main action to attack and do piles of damage. They can do this on their turn without the need to ready. To me this is way more detrimental to a wizard than readying to knock out the material components for a single spell.

-A fighter can disarm a staff used as a focus item on their turn. Which would seriously limit spellcasting.

-A person can disarm(or a spellcaster can cast heat metal) on a fighter's +3 greatsword and force them to use a less potent weapon.

Would you disallow those actions? I don't see how reserving your action to do it on a trigger is any more potent. And from the games I've used it, it isn't. You are trading an action for an action.



Sorry, I don't understand your argument here. Could you clarify?

Monks look exactly as powerful as if you tried to disarm them on your turn. The thing that makes monks special is they don't NEED weapons. Even without a readied action you still can't disarm them. So would you disallow disarming, because one class's niche makes them more resistant or impervious to that specific tactic? Or because some classes are more vulnerable to that tactic? Is that what you mean?

That said, if they were wielding a +3 holy short sword(a monk weapon), disarming them and picking it up on your turn would still put them at a disadvantage and would totally be worth doing, either as an action or a readied action.

"You must not be understanding"

Nope. I understand just fine. Ready is being expanded to allow interruptive efforts and mostly its aimed at spellcasters. I said ready- counterspell not as a literal counterspell but in this regard. From now on I will attempt to be more specific and far more lengthy.

Or not.

Yes, a rogue can lift a component pouch. A fighter can disarm a staff, etc etc etc but not currently RAW in middle of someone's casting to thwart the spell.

You act like any one of these is critical, but no, because a caster csn have multiple and use whichever they have left, or choose to cast VS or choose another option, maybe an item. It's the interrupt and cost action that is being added to ready and really aimed directly at casters.


My reference to monks was toward what classes I would play if interruptive ready that can cost actions by disarm were allowed. The characters getting the most out of it are multi-attackers with minimal gear needs. It shifts a balance once you empower ready in this way - *especially* against casters.

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.

Myself, if I was running a campaign with high power weapons, a feature of attunement would be "cant be taken by force". Iirc some items feature that now, but not sure from where.

So, yes, disarm would be allowed *** but magical items of certain power would be built as if the master craftsmen making them were not oblivious idiots who did not know about disarm.*** Similarly, certain items for casters would get the same kind of intelligent design.

 

[5ekyu]

Again. It is not a new mechanic to have parts of an action be a trigger.

Simple example: a fighter attacks twice with his action. And can move in between. If you react on the attack, do you wait until the fighter moves and uses the second?

This is ... sigh

A fight who has attack action and who can make one attack with it, ready cannot go off and interrupt. Fighter with two attacks in that action can have one go off after the first sttack.

Spell caster who has cast a spell with one spell being cast ready cannot go off and interrupt. Caster with two spells from the cast a spell - definitely go off after the first before the second.

So, no, in your case, its after the first is resolved... same for spell.

 

[5ekyu]

look at the risk of repeating myself...

There are game systems that have actor-based init - 5e for instance - and games that have action-based init - unisystem had some - and lots of hybrids in between including quality-based.

There are systems where ready-interrupt is weak - 5e - and others where it is strong - several come to mind including hero - and lots of in-between.

I have played/Gmed quite a few here and there among those, some of each... they each have issues and glitches of different flavors.

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.

maybe... just not the game i run but thats me.

But way before i would change 5e to empower a strong ready interrupt exception based system - i would go for action-based init or a half-measure of speed-factor type play where actions take time in some internal ticker.

 

[jasper]

Damned, you’re right!

But still.
Your player make its Bambi round wet eyes, and ask for a favor.
So as dm you allow an exception.
You look at counterspell, there is a dc.
But the fighter don’t have an spell casting ability, so you use intelligence as the default arcana ability.
So for this time you allow the player to make a int check to interrupt the spell.
The main problem remain, how to resist the Bambi eyes again and again!

Easy hunting season is over. Get Deer Jerky from my boss. Eat deer jerky in front of player when she asks again. Double dm XP if she cries.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This is ... sigh

A fight who has attack action and who can make one attack with it, ready cannot go off and interrupt. Fighter with two attacks in that action can have one go off after the first sttack.

Spell caster who has cast a spell with one spell being cast ready cannot go off and interrupt. Caster with two spells from the cast a spell - definitely go off after the first before the second.

So, no, in your case, its after the first is resolved... same for spell.

Thats quite arbitrary, isn't it?

How can a caster cast 2 spells with one action btw?

 

[Flamestrike]

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.