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

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
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!
Correct. Only in this case I don't (and wouldn't) have melee weapon use trigger AOOs, so not an issue for me.

For counterspells and other interrupts, I do this to avoid M:tG-like counterspell wars. It works in Magic because in that game the stack goes last-in first-out, but in an RPG setting where in-game time is a thing and usually only goes in one direction, the "stack" has to go first-in first-out; meaning there's no way to cast a counterspell fast enough to counter another counterspell (Crawford's immensely stupid ruling notwithstanding).

I'd apply much the same logic to AOOs - by the time the second responder realizes there was an opportunity that opportunity has already passed because the first AOO has already been taken, and the chance is lost.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
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.
So, casting times a la 1e. That's been my go-to all along.
 

ECMO3

Hero
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.

I don't see how that would improve the game.
 


ECMO3

Hero
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.

This already exists RAW for spells that take longer than an action to cast.

It sounds like you are suggesting that spells should all (or mostly) take more than one action to cast. I think that would be a separate discussion as I think you are changing the basic definition of what a spell is in 5E.
 

ezo

Adventurer
If it is a heavy weapon it would definitely expose someone more than casting a spell would.
Would it? Who knows... That can certainly be your view, but doesn't seem to be for the people supporting this concept.

Again, we can judge just how "exposed" someone would be wielding a greatsword, such as a claymore, which honestly really wasn't very much. Used with both hands, such swords could be used with deftness, comparitively, of course.

But we do not know and cannot judge just how much exposure casting a spell creates, especially when it has somatic or even material components.

It really has to simply be a judgement call by each group. 5E doesn't bother with such interruptions and opportunity attacks because they want to keep the game as simple as possible and also probably assume whatever weapon you wield or spell you cast you know how to do so with limiting your exposure. You mentioned this before, I believe?
 

CreamCloud0

One day, I hope to actually play DnD.
I don't see how that would improve the game.
For the same reasons this thread was created, it would help equalise the playing field between magic users and martials, but given that, if I’ve been following this thread correctly, you seem to favour some form of perspective of magical supremacy I understand why you wouldn’t consider this ‘an improvement’
Why not?

If it is a heavy weapon it would definitely expose someone more than casting a spell would.
Directly attacking someone with a weapon leaves you more vulnerable to them than focusing on correctly making the intricate and precise motions required to manipulate the fickle building blocks of reality? I’d have to disagree on that matter.
This already exists RAW for spells that take longer than an action to cast.

It sounds like you are suggesting that spells should all (or mostly) take more than one action to cast. I think that would be a separate discussion as I think you are changing the basic definition of what a spell is in 5E.
There might be existing rules but I’m not talking about a spell that requires concentration, or casts over a minute, or requires multiple actions to cast, im just talking about spellcasting that takes the one action on your turn but doesn’t immediately occur on your turn, it occurs a handful of places down the initiative order, in which time it would be possible for attackers to disrupt your casting.

Say there’s an initiative order of such: wizard-18 bandit A-15 bandit B-7
The wizard could cast a spell on their turn with a delay of 6, it’s one action and they end their turn as usual, bandit A would take their turn before the spell actually finished casting on initiative-12 and could choose to attack the wizard to try disrupt the spell before it’s completed, or move out of targeting range, or whatever else they want to do on their turn.
 

ECMO3

Hero
Would it? Who knows... That can certainly be your view, but doesn't seem to be for the people supporting this concept.

Because a Maul is a stick with a very heavy head on it.

That is why IRL when you are are going to hit someone with a baseball bat you typically grab it from one-third of the way up so you can swing it a lot faster.

Again, we can judge just how "exposed" someone would be wielding a greatsword, such as a claymore, which honestly really wasn't very much. Used with both hands, such swords could be used with deftness, comparitively, of course.

A Greatsword is a lot better than a Maul (which is why I chose a maul in the example), but I can put my thumbs together and fan my fingers much, much easier than anyone alive can swing a claymore and with far less impairmant on my ability to dodge an attack..

I can see an argument for making different rules for different weapons, and 1E did this, but I can't see an argument for spell somatics causing an AOO when swinging a Maul or shooting a Bow or even swinging a Greatsword don't.

But we do not know and cannot judge just how much exposure casting a spell creates, especially when it has somatic or even material components.

So then why do you judge that it is more exposure than swinging a Greatsword ... or even a Longsword?
Based on the rules Somatic components vary from "forceful gesticulation" to "an intricate set of gestures."

Certainly "forceful gesticulation" is less exposure than most attacks. An intricate set of gestures is ambiguous, however some spells do describe the Somatic components (Burning Hands, Fireball, Ice Knife, Steel Wind Strike ...) and the description of those would indicate it is a lot less than many attacks.

It really has to simply be a judgement call by each group.

Not really. There are rules saying what a spell is, there are rules stating what somatic components are, there are rules regarding interupting spells. If you are not playing by those rules it is Homebrew, not a judgement call.
 
Last edited:

ECMO3

Hero
For the same reasons this thread was created, it would help equalise the playing field between magic users and martials,

If the argument is balance it is really a completely separate discussion and this would not improve balance at all levels. It would actually make balance worse at low levels. At low levels (tier 1) martials are already generally more powerful than magic users (Clerics and Druids excepted).

It could help balance at higher levels but such an implementation for balance would mean a level 1 wizard can cast Charm Person without causing an AOO (because causing an AOO would further unbalance the game), but if a level 9 Wizard tries that he suffers an AOO.

Directly attacking someone with a weapon leaves you more vulnerable to them than focusing on correctly making the intricate and precise motions required to manipulate the fickle building blocks of reality? I’d have to disagree on that matter.

Swinging a Maul ABSOLUTELY leaves you more vulnerable than making a "forceful gesticulation" and more than the movements described in every spell I know of that actually describes the caster's movements.

Many action spells do not describe the specific movements made by the caster and for those there is a level of ambiguity, but nothing implies they would expose one more than swinging a Maul or even a Longsword.

There might be existing rules but I’m not talking about a spell that requires concentration, or casts over a minute, or requires multiple actions to cast, im just talking about spellcasting that takes the one action on your turn but doesn’t immediately occur on your turn, it occurs a handful of places down the initiative order, in which time it would be possible for attackers to disrupt your casting.

If it takes one action it occurs on your turn by definition. This is the same as saying attack on your turn but you don't score damage until later, so if someone paralyzes you or takes you to 0 hit points or moves you out of range you no longer damage the opponent.

At the end of the day you are arguing for spells to take longer to cast.
 


Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top