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

[ECMO3]

what? how did you come to the conclusion that getting another action doesn't make the movements of each action faster? how are you fitting them both in the same turn, then? and* why aren't you ALWAYS taking two actions then? this conclusion makes no sense.

Because like I said it does not take 6 seconds to swing a sword or open a door.

If the action is a fixed length of time then by necessity a first level character swinging a sword takes exactly the same time as someone casting a leveled spell as an action, since they are both 1 action.

 

[Trireme]

how they enforced this was with the rules for a spellcaster, making it so you had to declare spellcasting at the beginning of the round and it was cast when your turn would come up

Not quite.

Everyone had to declare their actions at the beginning of the round in those editions. Spellcasters weren't any different. Non-spellcasters didn't get to wait around until a spellcaster's player declared their action was casting a spell, then target them specifically to interrupt casting.

 

[ECMO3]

Maybe I've missed something, but as far as I am aware, there are only three ways to interrupt spells in 5e.

Yes, in fact you missed two ways to disrupt a caster, both of these normally happen as actions on your (the disrupters) turn.

1. The first is covered under Ready on page 193 of the PHB. If a caster has readied a spell you can attempt to disrupt it by breaking his concentration before the trigger occurs.

2. The second is on page 202 of the PHB under Longer Casting Times. Any time a caster is casting a spell with a longer casting time than 1 action you can dirupt it by breaking concentration.

The underlying question in the original post is not "CAN a martial character interrupt spellcasting" - the OP concludes the RAW do not support that in 5e - but rather "SHOULD a martial character be able to interrupt spellcasting."

But the rules do support it.

ECMO3, my sense is that you have already made up your mind about the conclusion you would like to reach ("casters should be uninterruptable") and are ignoring all arguments to the contrary, because you are not actually addressing the lines of reasoning people are using to come to a "yes they should" conclusion.

Absolutely not. You gave examples of how they already are able to be interupted, and I gave you two more.

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).

Any discussion on balance must consider the level and the specific classes. At early levels optimized martials are more powerful than most optimized casters through the first two levels (except Druids and Clerics) and depending on specific classes we are comparing at some martial classes are ahead of some full casters classes beyond level 10.

So if we are going to do this based on balance, it should be a thing for some casters, at some levels, but not a thing for them at other level. Making it easier to disrupt all casters would make the game MORE unbalanced at lower levels.

This prevents a real problem for both immersion and game design; to really balance the game we would need to make it so a 9th level Wizard casting a 1st level Magic Missile can be interrupted by the goblin standing next to her, while a 1st level Wizard not only can't be interrupted casting the same spell but also gets an extra dice for damage to "balance" the game and make up for the fact she is weaker than the Monk in the party.

Meanwhile the 1st level Cleric should get disrupted as it is the most powerful class at 1st level, and should continue to get disrupted until level 14, when all of a sudden an optimized Monk is more powerful than she is .... but wait the fighter is not more powerful than her so maybe she should still be disrupted?

That said the observations you make above are not really true.

Observation 1 and Observation 3 "Casters have access to many spells ...." A first level Sorcerer has access to two level spells total (3 with certain subclasses), so this statement is patently false for a 1st level Sorcerer and mostly false for a lot of other casters (virtually all of them at 1st and 2nd level).

Observation 2 and Observation 4: Martials have more than one method of making casters unable touse abilities. Improvise an action is available to all classes and can be used to prevent casters from using their abilities (both spells and others) or other martials from using their abilities. Further the disarm action can severely gimp another martial, especially since you can pick up his weapon off the ground. Finally, many other things doable by martials using equipment available. A net for example can be used to restrain an opponent an unlimited number of times a day.

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.

Even though the observations are generally false, these conclusions are true at certain levels but they are untrue at other levels.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Because like I said it does not take 6 seconds to swing a sword or open a door.

except that's not related to the idea that taking two actions in one turn means each of (or even just one of, really) those actions are faster then normal. again, if they're not, why can't you always take two actions in a turn? the fact that you normally only get one and only special abilities can grant you another implies those abilities must be changing the nature of those actions in some way - such as by making at least one of them faster.

If the action is a fixed length of time then by necessity a first level character swinging a sword takes exactly the same time as someone casting a leveled spell as an action, since they are both 1 action.

...yes. yeah. yes. this was my entire point (well, a bit less strict then "exactly", but still). that actions are of similar lengths of time, and so your assumption that the somatic component for burning hands being simply fanning your hands was faulty.

 

[ECMO3]

Much of the above post holds water, but I have a quibble I've already brought up before. I think even ECMO3 admits that casters pull ahead of martials in the long run.

It is not nearly this simple. It depends how you define martial, which specific classes and subclasses you are talking about and the specific build choices made.

If by martial you mean 100% non-caster (i.e. not Paladin, Ranger, Eldritch Knight, Shadow Monk, Arcane Trickster and not using any feats or races that give you spell) AND you assume they have equal and average ability rolls, AND if there is not disproprtionate magic items. If this is the case - I will readily admit that most optimized full casters are better than most optimized non-casters above level 7 if all these caveats are true.

That is a heck of a lot of caveats though and it assumes a lot that is not typical in most games. In particular, very few players actually build optimized characters in any class and relatively few build complete non-casters. When you put that all together class is not a significant driver of imbalance in most games at any level. The others things mentioned above are bigger drivers.

Also the reverse is true as well below 5th level, put all those caveats together and most optimized full casters are weaker than most optimized non-casters below 5th level.

Why, then, is the burden of spending a feat placed on the martials to interrupt casters, rather than the casters needing to spend a feat to avoid such interruptions?

If the martial is interested in interupting casters the player will presumably take the feat. If not then why is it something we need to offer?

I have only actually seen two players take the Mage Slayer feat, one was on a fighter I was playing that took it at 19th level in campaign where the BBEG was Vecna, a high level Wizard type.

 

[ezo]

FWIW, I've never seen a player (or myself) take the Mage Slayer feat... I know people obviously do, I'm just saying.

 

[ECMO3]

except that's not related to the idea that taking two actions in one turn means each of (or even just one of, really) those actions are faster then normal. again, if they're not, why can't you always take two actions in a turn?

Because you can only take one action in a turn (baring something like Haste or Action Surge). That is the rules and it has nothing to do with the speed of the action.

As I said I can open a door once as an action. That doesn't mean I don't have enough time to open two doors and if I action surge so I can do it twice, it does not mean the doors fly open faster.

the fact that you normally only get one and only special abilities can grant you another implies those abilities must be changing the nature of those actions in some way - such as by making at least one of them faster.

It does not imply it is making it faster at all. There is nothing to suggest it changes the speed of the action itself.

To use another example - as an action, I can pull a lever and the porticlous closes (from its own weight). If I take action surge so I can close one on the North and one on the South, the time it takes to close does not change based on the fact I used action surge and if I didn't use action surge I would only be able to close one of them.

...yes. yeah. yes. this was my entire point (well, a bit less strict then "exactly", but still). that actions are of similar lengths of time, and so your assumption that the somatic component for burning hands being simply fanning your hands was faulty.

No they can't be. It takes an action to draw a dagger from its sheath, or to close a door, or to swing a Maul ..... or to draw a dagger from its sheath and throw it (if you make an attack with it), or to don a shield, or to tie off a rope ..... All of these things obviously don't take the same about of time but all of them DO take one action.

Also I will point out the Command spell is ONE WORD. So if all spells that cost an action take the same amount of time, this is a heck of a low floor.

 

[ezo]

FWIW, actions, bonus actions, etc. all have nothing to do with "time required" to perform any of them, so any comparison of "time required" for one action vs. another is moot.

Also I will point out the Command spell is ONE WORD. So if all spells that cost an action take the same amount of time, this is a heck of a low floor.

Yep. Which is also why any attempt interrupting a spell should involve (IMO):

• What components the spell has (although this is a poor guideline).
• What spell level the spell is (not much better really).

Versus:

• Weapon properties (finesse, light, n/a, heavy, two-handed, reach).
• Weapon damage type (piercing, slashing, bludgeoning).

Then making the interrupting attack, requiring a reaction most likely, followed by a concentration check on a hit (heck, maybe even on a miss... since you are likely dodging...).

All of which adds complexity, of course.

But a spell such as command really should be nearly impossible to interrupt (being 1st-level and only a single word, which is the sole verbal component apparently). Only a weapon such as a shortsword or dagger (being finesse, light, and piercing) would probably have a chance, if even those.

So, all-in-all, any house-rule which is "simple" wouldn't be "realistic" IMO, and any house-rule which was "realistic" would not be worth the complexity IMO.

 

[Lanefan]

Observation 2 and Observation 4: Martials have more than one method of making casters unable touse abilities. Improvise an action is available to all classes and can be used to prevent casters from using their abilities (both spells and others) or other martials from using their abilities.

Can an improvised action be used as a reaction? If not, it won't do much about spellcasting...

Further the disarm action can severely gimp another martial, especially since you can pick up his weapon off the ground. Finally, many other things doable by martials using equipment available. A net for example can be used to restrain an opponent an unlimited number of times a day.

Entangling someone in a net pretty much hoses that person if what the person was trying to do was physically attack you somehow.

But if that person's casting a (combat) spell the odds are extremely high that spell will go off as planned; the caster can then cast another one next round, and really isn't hosed at all other than being unable to "move" in game terms.

I ain't seeing much balance there.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Because like I said it does not take 6 seconds to swing a sword or open a door.

If the action is a fixed length of time then by necessity a first level character swinging a sword takes exactly the same time as someone casting a leveled spell as an action, since they are both 1 action.

And then by 5th level a martial can make 2 attacks, while the caster can still cast 1 spell and fighters can make even more at later levels.

So from 5th level on, spells are slower than attacks. Not sure why you're focusing on a level that people spend maybe one session at.

FWIW, actions, bonus actions, etc. all have nothing to do with "time required" to perform any of them, so any comparison of "time required" for one action vs. another is moot.


Yep. Which is also why any attempt interrupting a spell should involve (IMO):

• What components the spell has (although this is a poor guideline).
• What spell level the spell is (not much better really).

Versus:

• Weapon properties (finesse, light, n/a, heavy, two-handed, reach).
• Weapon damage type (piercing, slashing, bludgeoning).

Then making the interrupting attack, requiring a reaction most likely, followed by a concentration check on a hit (heck, maybe even on a miss... since you are likely dodging...).

All of which adds complexity, of course.

But a spell such as command really should be nearly impossible to interrupt (being 1st-level and only a single word, which is the sole verbal component apparently). Only a weapon such as a shortsword or dagger (being finesse, light, and piercing) would probably have a chance, if even those.

So, all-in-all, any house-rule which is "simple" wouldn't be "realistic" IMO, and any house-rule which was "realistic" would not be worth the complexity IMO.

I feel like it is worth considering that "something" additional must happening even on purely verbal spells like Command.

If not, then the setting would be rife with people unexpectedly prostrating themselves due to stray single word imperatives.