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

[billd91]

Now that I think about it, did concentration work differently in 3.5 and PF1? I remember in PF1 there was a way to avoid triggering an attack of opportunity when casting, but it required a concentration check meaning that it was not guaranteed.

And I also remember that succeeding a concentration check when you took damage was pretty hard. Maybe Paizo made the check defensive casting more effective and upped the difficulty of succeeding a check when you take damage?

Not sure if anyone actually answered your question. Concentration was a bit different in PF1 in the sense that it was based on your casting stat and level, not a skill that could be invested/not invested in and the skill was deprecated.
Defensive casting was similar to 3.5 in the sense that the spell was cast without provoking an AoO, but the DC was adjusted higher. Instead of adding the spell level to the difficulty, you added twice the spell level. That made the higher level castings much less of a gimme.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Not every martial character takes Mage Slayer, even though they could (assuming Feats are available in their games). This implies that they don't want the ability that badly- other things take priority, even for Fighters and Rogues who get extra Feats to work with.

If Mage Slayer was given to every martial, every caster would likely want the Feat to counter it (I can't imagine why they wouldn't, at least). This would make it a Feat tax. Feat taxes are bad for the system (especially so long as Feats are considered optional content).

From this, it may be possible to conclude that Mage Slayer is far less valuable to martials than "anti-Mage Slayer" would be to casters. So you'd be giving martials a small buff in exchange for giving casters a larger nerf.

I don't think this would bring the classes into balance, since the whole point of this house rule is to achieve that. Put another way, how often do you encounter foes that Mage Slayer would be useful against?

It's campaign-dependent, but there are far more monsters and foes who can't cast spells than those that can. What this house rule is looking at is buffing all monsters and players by giving them Mage Slayer.

It's a pretty big paradigm shift against the PC's, in exchange for a small buff. Because D&D is a team game, and making it harder for a party's casters to use their magic to aid in battle makes the game that much harder for martials- don't be fooled into thinking this only affects some players!

Also, that buff will become even less impactful if 2024 monster design follows the trends seen in Monsters of the Multiverse, where "spell attacks" and not actual spells become more prominent (this will affect Counterspell as well).

I know the prevailing thought is that 5e is too easy, so I'm sure a lot of people won't think that making the game harder for players will be a problem. But nothing in the game is built with the idea that spellcasters can't cast spells the vast majority of the time.

In fact, if anything, you want casters to cast spells more often, not less, so you can drain them of their resources. It's been my experience that players aren't going to cast spells if they think they'll lose them- I saw this in AD&D where even a small amount of Magic Resistance made magic-users loath to use their spell slots.

Further, very few players open themselves up to opportunity attacks if they can avoid it. Especially arcane casters, who have less hit points than other characters. So what happens when having a single enemy next to a caster effectively turns them off until someone has to come kill the monster for them, which might open them up to opportunity attacks in kind?

The way I see it, either your groups already use tactics that prevent enemies from getting close to their pointy hats and very little changes, or the game grinds to a frustrating halt as a play pattern 5e wasn't really built around is enforced.

There's a lot of nuance that comes along with this houserule that has to be accounted for.

Alright, said my peace, you can commence with disagreeing with and dissecting my point of view now.

Without speaking to everything, I think there is a distinction to be made between giving every martial PC a "Mage Slayer" effect, and giving every melee NPC that effect.

I don't think there is a need for these things to be correlated. This could easily be constricted to certain kinds of enemies. Give them a 'martial' type or something. This allows combats to have more diverse types of threats with more of a paper, scissors, rock set of relationships that can be dialed up or down.

 

[Pedantic]

Not sure if anyone actually answered your question. Concentration was a bit different in PF1 in the sense that it was based on your casting stat and level, not a skill that could be invested/not invested in and the skill was deprecated.
Defensive casting was similar to 3.5 in the sense that the spell was cast without provoking an AoO, but the DC was adjusted higher. Instead of adding the spell level to the difficulty, you added twice the spell level. That made the higher level castings much less of a gimme.

The change to the "cast defensively" DC was a big (and sensible) nerf, the other changes were essentially the same as giving caster PCs a free skill point. Concentration in theory had other uses, but in practice was entirely about maintaining spells.

 

[James Gasik]

Although, amusingly, once Paizo made Concentration harder, they very quickly backpedaled by making Traits and magic items that boosted Concentration checks so you ended up right back where you were in 3.5.

Almost as if they realized it was a bad idea but didn't want to come out and admit it....

 

[Lanefan]

What if, instead of provoking an opportunity attack (since that really isn't what opportunity attacks are for in 5e), casting a 1 action spell on your turn gave enemies advantage on attacks made against you until the start of your next turn?

While a good idea, that still doesn't interrupt the casting itself, and thus defeats the purpose of all this.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

What if, instead of provoking an opportunity attack (since that really isn't what opportunity attacks are for in 5e), casting a 1 action spell on your turn gave enemies advantage on attacks made against you until the start of your next turn?

that would be WAY worse for melee casters then just taking an opportunity attack, lmao.

 

[Lanefan]

While I largely agree with what you say here, a few points leap to mind.

First, all of this piece...

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR BASED ON GAME BALANCE (VERBOSE AS I DON'T THINK ECMO3 HAS ENGAGED IT YET - APOLOGIES IF HE HAS AND I MISSED IT BUT I'M PUTTING THIS HERE BECAUSE I HAVEN'T SEEN THE WHOLE THING ARTICULATED START TO FINISH)

Observation 1: Spellcasters have access to many spells capable of rendering martial characters unable to utilize their abilities in a single action (casting the spell).
Observation 2: Martials have access to only one method of rendering casters unable to utilize their abilities ("reducing HP to zero") which can only succeed with a single action in very limited circumstances ("caster HP lower than martial's single-action damage-dealing capacity").
Obvservation 3: Casters also have access to many spells capable of rendering other casters unable to utilize their abilities in a single action (Feeblemind, Hold Person, etc.).
Observation 4: Martials also have access to only one method of rendering other martials unable to utilize their abilities (reduce HP to zero) which can only succeed with a single action in very limited circumstances (and these circumstances are less likely to be true for martial targets than caster targets (martials usually have better AC and HP and thus are both less likely to be hit and less likely to have HP lower than the attacker's single-action damage-dealing capacity).

Premise 1: Game balance ought to be defined as equality of potential - in other words, "if one character is capable of rendering the other character unable to use their abilities in a single action, ALL characters should be capable of rendering all other characters unable to use their abilities in a single action."

Conclusion 1: Based on Observations 1 and 3 and Premise 1, Caster vs. Caster interactions are balanced.
Conclusion 2: Based on Observations 2 and 4 and Premise 1, Martial vs. Martial interactions are balanced.
Conclusion 3: Based on Observations 1 and 2 and Premise 1, Caster vs. Martial interactions are NOT balanced.
Conclusion 4: Based on Conclusion 3, the rules as written provide for power imbalance between Casters and Martials and are therefore unsatisfactory if a balanced game is desired.

Proposed Solution 1: No character should have the ability to render another character unable to use their abilities with a single action. Since Martials do not have this ability, no changes to martials are needed under this solution. This means casters' spells must be reduced dramatically in power so they are no longer capable of rendering others unable to use their abilities or, more likely, these spells must be stripped from casters' spell lists entirely - by definition, this is a drastic overhaul of the magic system.

Proposed Solution 2: All characters should have the ability to render another character unable to use their abilities with a single action. This means not only do martials need to be given the ability to incapacitate casters with a single action, they ALSO must have the ability to incapacitate martials with a single action. This would require a radical overhaul of the weapon combat and HP system.

Proposed Solution 3: Add "counterplay" whereby there is an opportunity to prevent a character who is capable with a single action of rendering another character unable to use their abilities from successfully executing the use of that action... in other words, you don't have to overhaul either the magic system or the weapon combat and HP system; instead, you simply introduce a way for the character on the disadvantaged side of the problematic interaction (caster throwing an incapacitating spell at the martial character) to prevent the interaction from occurring.

Problems with Proposed Solutions 1 and 2: Overhauling any complex system is a huge lift and, more importantly, is likely to introduce a number of unintended consequences (some of which may be worse than the original problem we are trying to solve). Solution 1 is problematic as it essentially reduces combat to "whacking on a big bag of hit points until they fall to zero" because all other methods of incapacitation of a foe are removed - which makes for dull gameplay. Solution 2 is problematic as it is likely to reduce any fight to "who wins initiative wins the fight" since every character is capable of incapacitating any other character on their first action. That leaves Solution 3 as the only viable solution.

And... Solution 3 looks VERY MUCH like "casting a spell (i.e., initiating the problematic, unbalanced interaction) should grant (provoke) the disadvantaged side an ability to prevent the interaction (an opportunity to disrupt the spell, probably by an attack)."

Potential Caveats:

• Adding additional counterplay requires additional bookkeeeping.
• The martial character is using an unlimited resource (attacks) to counter the caster's resources (spell slots) and this may make the counterplay difficult to balance - if countering the caster's spells is too easy, it swings the balance in favor of the martial since s/he can deny the caster ALL their spell slots; similarly, if countering spells is too hard, we have not solved the initial imbalance we were looking to solve.

...seems to assume we're only talking about casting being done while in melee reach of an attacker, which I personally think should be outright impossible (except for a very few specific spells when cast by specific caster types) unless one's intent is to do nothing other than generate a wild surge and hope for the best.

What about ranged attacks, and how they might interrupt spells being cast from beyond melee reach?

SO WHAT?

There is a history in D&D of martials being able to spoil spells. In 1e, 2e, and BECMI, even taking a single point of damage made a caster lose their spell (though a caster that wins initiative usually got their spells off unmolested). In 3E, casters got the ability to "Cast through damage" with Concentration checks. In 5e, Concentration checks were only applied to ongoing effects that require concentration (I didn't play 4e much, so I don't know what the rule is there). The unassailable fact is that casters have been moving from "easy to interrupt casting" to "hard to interrupt casting" to "what's interrupting casting?" in the rules-as-written over time.

Agreed.

There's two other related aspects to this as well, one in favour of casters and one not so:

--- most if not all of the spells that in 0-1-2e had significant risks attached have been neutered such that those risks are hugely mitigated or gone entirely. Teleport can't kill you instantly. Fireballs don't expand to fill a certain volume and maybe fry you and your allies. Lightning bolts don't rebound and maybe not go where you wanted. Polymorph (Other) doesn't risk turning the recipient fully into that creature, nor does it risk the recipient dying. Etc.
--- the effects and durations of many spells have been watered down or reduced, either by the concentration mechanic or by outright nerfing. Effects (damage dice, duration, etc.) also don't automatically scale with caster level like they once did.

The combination of making casting unreliable (i.e. easily interrupted if care isn't taken) and putting those risks back in allows room for those effects, durations, and scaling to be restored; casting becomes unreliable but you get way more bang for your buck when you do get a spell away. High risk, high reward.

MY PERSONAL PREFERENCES (IF ANYONE CARES)

6. For using Counterspell, I prefer the following tweaks to the RAW:

• When you attempt to cast Counterspell, you make a Knowledge: Arcana check (a Knowledge: Religion check may be substituted for spell cast by a Divine Caster) with a DC of 10 plus the spell's level to see if the character recognizes the spell. If the Counterspeller succeeds on the Knowledge check, they are told what spell being is cast (though they are NOT told whether or not the spell is being upcast).
• OPTIONAL: The DM makes the Knowledge roll in secret; on a Critical Failure the player is told the wrong spell; on a Failure the player is told they do not recognize the spell, on a Success the player is told the spell, and on a Critical Success the player is told both the spell and the level of the spell slot used (i.e., revealing if upcast).
• If the Counterspeller has the ability to cast the spell themselves (e.g., a Wizard with the spell in their spellbook qualifies whether or not he actually has that spell currently prepared, but a Wizard that does NOT have the spell in the spellbook does NOT even if he can cast spells of the appropriate level) OR if the Counterspeller has seen the target cast this spell before, the Knowledge check is made with Advantage.
• Following the Knowledge check, the Counterspeller declares the spell they are attempting to counter and the level of spell slot they are using to cast the Counterspell (i.e., at this point they declare whether or not they are upcasting Counterspell).
• If they do not correctly name the spell the caster is attempting to cast, the Counterspell automatically fails; if they do name the spell, resolve the Counterspell attempt as written (this does allow PCs to "get lucky" and "guess the spell" even if the Knowledge: Arcana check fails - particularly if going against an opponent known for a certain spell; it also provides a nice incentive for characters to research/develop their own custom spells, thus having the side effect of giving a mechanical reason in-world for wizards to be searching up new knowledge).
• OPTIONAL: A character who knows Counterspell and uses prepared spell slots may substitute an appropriate "offsetting" spell in lieu of Counterspell (DM's discretion; for example, a spell that deals cold damage could be used to counter a spell that deals fire damage, a spell that deals radiant damage might be used to counter a "darkness" or "blindness" effect, and a spell that induces magical silence might be able to counter a spell that deals thunder damage).

How do you deal with Counterspelling a Counterspell, or do you allow it at all?

 

[The Sigil]

While I largely agree with what you say here, a few points leap to mind.

First, all of this piece...

...seems to assume we're only talking about casting being done while in melee reach of an attacker, which I personally think should be outright impossible (except for a very few specific spells when cast by specific caster types) unless one's intent is to do nothing other than generate a wild surge and hope for the best.

What about ranged attacks, and how they might interrupt spells being cast from beyond melee reach?

As mentioned above, I have no issue with holding a ranged or spell attack to disrupt an enemy caster. I generally don’t have a problem with a player that also wants to take the Mage Slayer feat though I think it is limited for all the reasons others have suggested and as long as you allow interruptible spells I don’t find it a “mandatory” feat for a martial by any means.

--- most if not all of the spells that in 0-1-2e had significant risks attached have been neutered such that those risks are hugely mitigated or gone entirely. Teleport can't kill you instantly. Fireballs don't expand to fill a certain volume and maybe fry you and your allies. Lightning bolts don't rebound and maybe not go where you wanted. Polymorph (Other) doesn't risk turning the recipient fully into that creature, nor does it risk the recipient dying. Etc.
--- the effects and durations of many spells have been watered down or reduced, either by the concentration mechanic or by outright nerfing. Effects (damage dice, duration, etc.) also don't automatically scale with caster level like they once did.

This is a very good point. Casting has become much safer for the caster over the years. One supposes the meta game reason for this is players of casters are more risk averse but an in world explanation would be that over 40 years of study, more would be learned about magic and it would be come much more reliable, if less exciting (think of the first 40 years of development of, say, electricity where it went from a somewhat dangerous commodity that was not well understood to something that is mostly safe, understood and reliable, if a little less boundary-pushing).

How do you deal with Counterspelling a Counterspell, or do you allow it at all?

Good question. Like any other spell, you get a Knowledge:Arcana check to recognize it, though if the check fails, it is very likely to be guessed as the spell you name when you declare your own Counterspell since you are reacting to a reaction and only a few spells can be cast as a reaction (e.g., Shield).

Remember too that I allow situational substitution of spells for counterspells and I require you to name the spell you wish to counter. I should note that I in all situations I happen to count “Dispel Magic” among spells with “Offsetting effects” that can be substituted in for Counterspell proper per my substitution rules, so a dedicated Counterspeller in my campaigns usually knows both Dispel Magic and Counterspell so as to force opponents onto a 50-50 guess at best to Counter the Counter.

Similarly, if I am using the offsetting spells variant (e.g., using a Fireball as a Counterspell to nullify an Ice Storm), anyone attempting to Counter the Counter has to name the actual spell being used (to continue the example in this paragraph, the would be Counterer of the Counterspell must name “Fireball” and not “Counterspell” as the target).

To wit:

• Mage A casts Ice Storm.
• Mage B recognizes (or guesses) Ice Storm and casts Fireball to counter it (DM adjudicates this is an appropriate spell to use to counter due to elemental opposition) naming “Ice Storm” as the spell to be countered; naming any other spell does not interrupt Mage A’s cast.
• Mage C casts Dispel Magic as a counter spell to Mage B‘s casting action (DM adjudicates this is an appropriate spell to use to counter the casting of a spell as its effect nullifies magic in an area). If Mage C names “Fireball” the spell is countered; naming any other spell (including “Counterspell”) does not interrupt Mage B’s cast.
• Mage D casts Counterspell to counter Mage C’s casting action. If Mage D names “Dispel Magic” the spell is countered; naming any other spell (including “Counterspell”) does not interrupt Mage C’s cast.

Hopefully this example makes sense. I have considered allowing casters The option to select a Feat whereby if someone attempts to counter one of their spells, they can attempt to Counter the Counter directly (one Reaction only so in the example above Mage C would be the same person as Mage A but when Mage D targeted his “Counter the Counter” he would not be able to use a third spell as a second reaction to “Counter the Counter of the Counter” - though this Feat is a thought experiment only and has not been playtested.

 

[The Sigil]

One other tactic I would probably allow in a Counter the Counter of the Counter situation (or any situation that could draw a Counter really, not just a Counterspell duel) would be allowing any Character the ability to bluff casting a spell, including a counter spell (causing opponents to waste spell slots attempting to Counter the bluffed spell) as a Bluff vs. Knowledge: Arcana opposed check though non casters probably make that Bluff check with Disadvantage.

 

[Lanefan]

Good question. Like any other spell, you get a Knowledge:Arcana check to recognize it, though if the check fails, it is very likely to be guessed as the spell you name when you declare your own Counterspell since you are reacting to a reaction and only a few spells can be cast as a reaction (e.g., Shield).

Remember too that I allow situational substitution of spells for counterspells and I require you to name the spell you wish to counter. I should note that I in all situations I happen to count “Dispel Magic” among spells with “Offsetting effects” that can be substituted in for Counterspell proper per my substitution rules, so a dedicated Counterspeller in my campaigns usually knows both Dispel Magic and Counterspell so as to force opponents onto a 50-50 guess at best to Counter the Counter.

Similarly, if I am using the offsetting spells variant (e.g., using a Fireball as a Counterspell to nullify an Ice Storm), anyone attempting to Counter the Counter has to name the actual spell being used (to continue the example in this paragraph, the would be Counterer of the Counterspell must name “Fireball” and not “Counterspell” as the target).

To wit:

• Mage A casts Ice Storm.
• Mage B recognizes (or guesses) Ice Storm and casts Fireball to counter it (DM adjudicates this is an appropriate spell to use to counter due to elemental opposition) naming “Ice Storm” as the spell to be countered; naming any other spell does not interrupt Mage A’s cast.
• Mage C casts Dispel Magic as a counter spell to Mage B‘s casting action (DM adjudicates this is an appropriate spell to use to counter the casting of a spell as its effect nullifies magic in an area). If Mage C names “Fireball” the spell is countered; naming any other spell (including “Counterspell”) does not interrupt Mage B’s cast.
• Mage D casts Counterspell to counter Mage C’s casting action. If Mage D names “Dispel Magic” the spell is countered; naming any other spell (including “Counterspell”) does not interrupt Mage C’s cast.

Hopefully this example makes sense. I have considered allowing casters The option to select a Feat whereby if someone attempts to counter one of their spells, they can attempt to Counter the Counter directly (one Reaction only so in the example above Mage C would be the same person as Mage A but when Mage D targeted his “Counter the Counter” he would not be able to use a third spell as a second reaction to “Counter the Counter of the Counter” - though this Feat is a thought experiment only and has not been playtested.

So you're using what amounts to a last-in first-out stack, then.

The problem with allowing this is that it blows away the idea of spells taking any in-game time to cast; and that spells require some in-game time to cast is the primary (if not only) rationale that viably allows them to be interrupted by anyone, martial or otherwise. Put another way, if spells take no time at all to cast then they're obviously happening too fast to be interrupted.

Now, if in your game you've specifically set it up such that Ice Storm takes longer to cast than Fireball (and so on through your example) then fine, but this falls apart the moment you then allow Ice Storm to counter Fireball. And if they take the same amount of time to cast (which as written 5e combat spells seem to mostly do) then by the time the responder has recognized the Ice Storm for what it is and has got away a Fireball, the Ice Storm has already resolved.

And before anyone jumps in with "but Jeremy Crawford said it works this way in sage advice", don't bother.