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

[ezo]

Because it doesn't leave them more open to attack than other things characters do.

True. I agree that many things PCs do while in the reach of a hostile creature SHOULD trigger OOA:

Examples:

• Using the Healer feat
• Getting an item out of your backpack
• Attacking a second creature while engaged with the first
• And on and on and on...

At the very least, if applicable, the character's action should involve disadvantage (such as the 3rd example).

With some spells, such as booming blade, without a somatic component and requiring an attack as part of the spell, really shouldn't provoke an OOA. Other spells, such as charm person, has a somatic component, but as players and DMs of the game we have no clue as to what that somatic component involves. It might be a simple waving of the hand, or it might be complex, involving gestures with other parts of the body, moving steps in a pattern, or whatever. Finally, some spells with somatic components have in their description the somatic action (such as burning hands).

But even then it depends on a lot of other factors. We don't have weapon speeds to compare to casting speeds, or how much does reach affect the situation?

Honestly, it is a difficult. And so most things could, or probably should, provoke OOAs don't. But it keeps the game simple, which was always one of the defining goals for 5E.

 

[Krachek]

If we want to be realistic any small distraction provoke an AOO,
and using the healer feat should you get killed on the spot.

 

[ECMO3]

True. I agree that many things PCs do while in the reach of a hostile creature SHOULD trigger OOA:

Examples:

• Using the Healer feat
• Getting an item out of your backpack
• Attacking a second creature while engaged with the first
• And on and on and on...

At the very least, if applicable, the character's action should involve disadvantage (such as the 3rd example).

Well what about heavy weapons. I mean if we are going to be realistic, "winding up" to swing that Maul exposes one a heck of a lot more than waving your hands around. Why isn't that on your list?

Which brings in a neat situation that articulates the problem with implementing this kind of "realism" - Wizard goes to cast a spell, Fighter next to her gets to attack with an AOO, this fighter attack causes an AOO from the Wizard because the fighter made an attack with a weapon and is exposing himself ..... then the Wizard casts a spell on the fighter with that AOO because she has Warcaster.

With some spells, such as booming blade, without a somatic component and requiring an attack as part of the spell, really shouldn't provoke an OOA.

Booming Blade has a Somatic component.

 

[ECMO3]

Because..??

Like you've never actually provided a reason this should make sense.

Just like no one has provided a reason swinging a Maul shouldn't cause an AOO.

I think things like this are "baked in" to the attack actions and the way combat works already. That is why when you dodge you make yourself harder to hit.

The AC, chance to hit and number of attacks assume you are doing things like casting spells, swinging weapons, deinking a potion, grappling people, tying off a rope, picking a lock and "exposing" yourself each and every time you do that. When you are NOT doing these things and "dodge" you are more difficult to hit.

What makes you so convinced that these actions or the combinations thereof should be matter-of-fact, perfunctory, trivial..in their execution, unperturbed by circumstance?

For the same reason the other numerous examples I gave are.

 

[Clint_L]

Specifically it was meant as a comparison vs. the way these conditions would impact a martial's effectiveness in attacking on the battlefield...

And most of those individual conditions would have significant, sometimes severe impacts on a martial's effectiveness at executing attacks on the battlefield. Like.. good luck being a melee martial with the frightened condition and the enemies are out of reach. Meanwhile..the caster can be bound, drugged, with wax poured in their ears, and not allowed to sleep for 5 days..and they are..unbothered.

So when I think of the presence of this condition effectiveness asymmetry, I have a hard time sympathizing with spellcaster concern about the addition of a single mechanic that, sometimes, may make it more difficult for them to do their thing.

And the thing is too, I've played monks..hell I've played mage slayer monks, you know something tailor made for hunting mages..and it was..ok at shutting down casters, but it happened a ton of times where my monk would get up close, the caster would TP away, my monk would reaction swing (which RAW isn't really allowed), the caster would shield and it was like "ok..will spend another turn trying to get to you and have an effective turn, hope I save your next spell..and you don't lay down a bunch of difficult terrain..or forcecage me.

And what I eventually realized is that the best user of the mage slayer feat..is another spellcaster. They have the spike damage to break concentration and can counterspell attempts to get away.

Ok, you have your narrative and are sticking to it. It’s a little hard to take seriously when you cite spellcasters for spike damage, but you do you.

The reality of my games, and most games, it seems, is that casters aren’t unbalanced. So not interested in trying to add a 1e mechanic to fix a problem that doesn’t exist in 5e.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Just like no one has provided a reason swinging a Maul shouldn't cause an AOO.

I think things like this are "baked in" to the attack actions and the way combat works already. That is why when you dodge you make yourself harder to hit.

The AC, chance to hit and number of attacks assume you are doing things like casting spells, swinging weapons, deinking a potion, grappling people, tying off a rope, picking a lock and "exposing" yourself each and every time you do that. When you are NOT doing these things and "dodge" you are more difficult to hit.




For the same reason the other numerous examples I gave are.

So what you are saying when you are going for this "baked in" justification is that you have no thematic justification for it, simply that the mechanics provide for things to be this way so it must make sense.

Circling back to your examples..

If you believe them to be equivalent to spellcasting, then it would seem to be your position that manipulating the magical Weave of creation is roughly equivalent to taking off a shield, drinking from a bottle, walking in a crowded room, or pulling a weapon from a sheath/holster.

If this is the case, I assume that the entrance exams to Wizard colleges are somewhat less than challenging.

Excited teen: Mom! I did it, I got into Wogharts.

Mom: Oh that's great, I was so worried when the community college said no. What was the test like?

Excited teen: Well there was this door see, and when it opened, there were all these guys in robes, and they all yelled "You're in!"

Mom: Oh, what'd you have to do open the door?

Excited teen: well..I didn't really open it, I just knocked and when someone answered I said I was looking to get in to Wogharts

Mom: you knocked.. like with your mind?

Teen: No Mom, with my hand..like this (mimes knocking)

Mom: ..did you have to say something special, like a password, or a quote from an ancient text..

Teen: ..I said please I guess..

Mom(confused): oh I'm so proud of you. Go ahead and take your helmet off and we'll get some tea to celebrate.

Teen: Yeah wish you could have been there.. hey.. can you get this buckle for me, I can never figure it out

Mom: that's Velcro sweetheart..

 

[Gammadoodler]

Ok, you have your narrative and are sticking to it. It’s a little hard to take seriously when you cite spellcasters for spike damage, but you do you.

Single damage instance spikes yeah.

Certainly compared to a monk. A whole lot of spells do more than D4-D12 + static mods when forcing the concentration check, and in most cases at least some of that damage is guaranteed.

So as a caster, you have reasonable certainty of forcing a disadvantaged check from anywhere on the battlefield as long as you can see them, and on a failed save against your spell, a more threatening DC on the concentration check.

The most useful part for a monk is the extra chance to stun on the reaction, and it was occasionally effective. But it doesn't work if you're being kited..which I had more than one spellcaster do.

 

[ezo]

Well what about heavy weapons. I mean if we are going to be realistic, "winding up" to swing that Maul exposes one a heck of a lot more than waving your hands around.

Which is why weapon speed was a good thing. It demonstrated the difference in wielding a light, quick weapon compared to a heavier weapon. And the "winding up" to swing a Maul properly is part of the proficiency. And since we have no idea what a somatic component is comprised of, we don't know if it is just waving your hands around or something more elobrate.

Why isn't that on your list?

Did you not see the last bullet?

• And on and on and on...

The list was hardly meant to be exhaustive.

Which brings in a neat situation that articulates the problem with implementing this kind of "realism" - Wizard goes to cast a spell, Fighter next to her gets to attack with an AOO, this fighter attack causes an AOO from the Wizard because the fighter made an attack with a weapon and is exposing himself ..... then the Wizard casts a spell on the fighter with that AOO because she has Warcaster.

Wow, I think you aren't even reading my posts. Or you are simply "seeing red" with certain parts to the point of becoming obvilious to the rest?

Honestly, it is a difficult. And so most things could, or probably should, provoke OOAs don't. But it keeps the game simple, which was always one of the defining goals for 5E.

Pretty much if you are doing anything to distract you from dealing with the opponent directly in front of you, it could leave an opening for that opponent to get in a hit. Many such things should be done with disadvantage or at some penalty unless you are foregoing your defense against that opponent to accomplish the other task.

Booming Blade has a Somatic component.

Sure, making the attack with the weapon. The "without" should have been "with" and was simply a type-o. I'll edit the post to avoid further confusion. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Which is why weapon speed was a good thing. It demonstrated the difference in wielding a light, quick weapon compared to a heavier weapon. And the "winding up" to swing a Maul properly is part of the proficiency. And since we have no idea what a somatic component is comprised of, we don't know if it is just waving your hands around or something more elobrate.


Did you not see the last bullet?

• And on and on and on...

The list was hardly meant to be exhaustive.


Wow, I think you aren't even reading my posts. Or you are simply "seeing red" with certain parts to the point of becoming obvilious to the rest?


Pretty much if you are doing anything to distract you from dealing with the opponent directly in front of you, it could leave an opening for that opponent to get in a hit. Many such things should be done with disadvantage or at some penalty unless you are foregoing your defense against that opponent to accomplish the other task.


Sure, making the attack with the weapon. The "without" should have been "with" and was simply a type-o. I'll edit the post to avoid further confusion. Thanks for pointing it out.

the issue here is the same fundamental one as with martial vs magic problem solving: magic can do anything it likes in any way that it likes as we have no comparisons to hold it to in real life because it's magic whereas using weaponry is held to those boring old limitations of 'reality' and 'realism'

 

[ezo]

the issue here is the same fundamental one as with martial vs magic problem solving: magic can do anything it likes in any way that it likes as we have no comparisons to hold it to in real life because it's magic whereas using weaponry is held to those boring old limitations of 'reality' and 'realism'

That is simply because people choose to treat it that way. For most people this isn't an issue at all. But for those who take issue with it, the arguments are always the same...

Magic can do anything.
A martial can swing a weapon all day.
Martials shouldn't be able to topple mountains.
Magic should be rare and difficult.
Yadda yadda yadda...

As those of us familiar with the TSR-era, there were more limitations to magic in AD&D. Spells had to be prepared multiple times if you want to cast the spell multiple times, spells were interruptable, etc. but spells auto-scaled with levels, save or die effects occurred, and so on.

At any rate, you can have fantasy as fantasy or fantasy as reality or something in between. 5E is frought with magic, that is just the way it is designed, and with each new supplement it gets more so. Races can do magic, most classes can do magic, and for those that can't often subclasses can, and then there are feats, or magic items, which allow the final few have no magic through other avenues to have magic.

5E was also designed (in theory anyway) to be simple. So you sacrfice a level os realism or simulation with that simplicity. Fortunately, house-rules and homebrews abound to add complexity if you want it.

Initially, I was onboard with spell interruption being an old-school fan, but as I agree many other 5E actions in combat should provoke OOA, you have to draw the line somewhere. For me, to keep the simplificity of 5E, I won't be using spell interrupting via OOA.