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

Hell0W0rld

Explorer
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'

Don't forget how conveniently the "correct" way to portray magic often seems to make life easier for the caster!

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.

It would be simple to ban arcane casting in armor rather than fiddling with proficiency. The line dictating what is acceptable crunch and what is not is pretty arbitrary. No reason why it always has to favor the magical classes.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

ezo

Adventurer
Don't forget how conveniently the "correct" way to portray magic often seems to make life easier for the caster!
Which is simply the direction D&D has taken with each new edition.

It would be simple to ban arcane casting in armor rather than fiddling with proficiency.
Sure, it would be easy enough to do if you wanted to impose that limitation, but IME only bards, warlocls, EK, and AT are casting arcane spells in any armor (and other than EK it is light armor...). Clerics and druids, paladins, and rangers, all have non-arcane spells. Sorcerers and Wizards aren't wearing armor often IME.

The line dictating what is acceptable crunch and what is not is pretty arbitrary.
It is extremely arbitrary! WotC just decided where it was for D&D by default.

No reason why it always has to favor the magical classes.
Again, not when house-ruled or homebrewed, but otherwise since WotC designs the game and does so with what they believe is desired by the majority of players, it is up to them.
 


Sure. But it's not like there is a game-based reason for it to be this way. It just kinda is.

And the basic premise of the thread is that there are game-based and thematic reasons why it could/should be otherwise.
Indeed the thematic of casting and interrupting casting is a matter of taste, feeling and fun of play. There is no logic that help stating that I like interrupting casting or not.
 

M_Natas

Hero
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.
It also would make combat more complicated and longer. Every effect rhat interrupts or forces a resolute or changes the outcome after the fact will eat up a lot of table time.
Counterspell, silvery barbs, luck and every other ability where you now the roll but not yet the outcome and can effect that ...

It just slows the game down, because suddenly in Combat you really have to first declare your intent (attack, cast ...) and then wait for anybody reacting. Than you have to roll, then wait again for anybody reacting.
And only then the DM can declare success or failure based on the roll.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
In 3x, casters ARE interruptible. It happens often.

If someone has higher initiative (or waits for the next round), they can READY an action, most often missile attacks. If they hit, the caster needs to do a Concentration skill check (essentially a Constitution save can be buffed with Skill Points) or lose the spell - the spell is not cast and the slot is lost.

I don’t remember seeing that in other editions, whether AD&D (before 3e) or later editions. Maybe I just didn’t notice folks doing that In 1/2 & 4e. To my memory, 3e/3.5e is the only edition that explicit called for the approach you say it killed.

It does (I still DM 3.5e) have the effects folks are saying. Fighters need to protect casters, especially unarmored arcane casters, and it is like infantry + artillery, or the linemen and the quarterback.
Making a prepared action not use your reaction would help make this work in 5e.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
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.
To stop nonsense like this in its tracks I'd just drop down the same rule I use for counterspells: an AOO cannot itself trigger an AOO.
 

ECMO3

Hero
To stop nonsense like this in its tracks I'd just drop down the same rule I use for counterspells: an AOO cannot itself trigger an AOO.

So every time fighter makes an attack Wizard can cast a spell at him as an AOO ..... and then I guess with your houserule no one can AOO that Wizard for his casting because it is an AOO ..... which brings us back to square 1, Wizard gets to cast a spell without anyone being able to interrupt her!
 

CreamCloud0

One day, I hope to actually play DnD.
rather than triggering AoO's what if casters hand a delay before they cast them and required a dedicated attack to disrupt them? a base delay of say '5+spell level - casting stat' in the iniative between their turn and the spell 'triggering', reaction spell would obviously be exempt from this and there'd probably a few other levelled spells that 'fastcast' without the delay as well as cantrips.
 

ECMO3

Hero
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.

I don't think it is equivalent. I think swinging something like a Maul or shooting a bow, or drawing an arrow, picking a lock., grappling someone or drinking a potion exposes someone MORE than spell casting does.

Ok, lets look to what spells and somatic components are. According to the PHB "A spell is a discrete magical effect, a single shaping of the magical energies that suffuse the multiverse into a specific, limited expression."

Further the section on somatic components states: "Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures." - That sounds pretty darn simple to me compared to attacking someone with a weapon, and those few spells that explain the actual somatics reinforce that perception. For that reason it is safe to conclude that casting a spell exposes you less than most actions you can take in combat.

I think stabbing with a dagger or other light weapon is roughly "equivalent" to spell casting in terms of how it exposes you I think, based on both the description of a spell and the description of a somatic component.

Note: I am talking about spells with a casting time of 1 action. Spells cast as a bonus action would expose you less and spells that take longer than one action to cast would obviously expose you more (and there are rules for losing those spells in the PHB).
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top