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

[Lanefan]

The only issue swith freeze is it can't be "directly harmful", so if the creature would take falling damage I probably would not let it fly as DM,

Pun intended?

although if they are immune to falling damage or not high enough to take any it would be good.

I'd let it happen in any case; it's not the spell causing harm, it's the fall. (and in general that's the sort of nerf I'd like to see be taken out of spells anyway)

"Land" works very well for flying creatures.

Another creative use that works well is "daydream" to break concentration on a spell.

Daydream - never thought of that one. Nice.

 

[ECMO3]

Pun intended?

No actually it wasn't ..... wish I could claim that!

 

[M_Natas]

I fail to see how you conclude that such drastic measures are required.

In setting, it is rare to find that most of your time is spent in combat where such reactions would be worrying. And often enough, the party is either in control of or aware of when combat will take place.

Like..it's not typically the monsters that are kicking the doors in on the PCs.

Even assuming that spell interruption rules apply globally to all PCs and monsters (which isn't a necessary implementation), they would only apply specifically in combat and then only specifically when the caster is within melee range of a monster (assuming existing reaction attack parameters).

So the usefulness of spells would be unchanged outside of combat (where they offer leagues of capability beyond what a martial can do), and unchanged in combat at range (where they also offer leagues of options beyond what a martial can do).

For my money, this is most of the time spent in D&D already. And the remaining circumstance, being within melee range of a monster, isn't a circumstance most casters were seeking out anyway.

And note again that this would be assuming that we give the same reaction to every character everywhere. We don't have to do that. We can make it a PC option only, we can give it to some monsters and not others. We can vary the trigger parameters of the reaction and the execution methodology. Like, nothing is set in stone here.

In summary, I think you are overreacting to a potential (and specific) change to mechanics that only apply in a niche circumstance, a circumstance that is already avoided, and that already has tools available to mitigate the risks when it cannot be avoided.

Balance is uttermost important in combat, so the changes there are the ones that count.
And in my play experience it happens quite often, that casters are within meelee range of monsters, especially because I usually have all caster parties.

 

[M_Natas]

.

Good! Martials are supposed to be more efficient in battle - it's their job. And if you insist on going into battle without having any martials along, that's an up-front strategic fail.

Casters contribute before the battles, after the battles, and to avoidance of battles.

So you want to enforce your preferred playstyle (martials above all else in battle) and makemitnimpossible to have other playstyles, that she supported right now (all caster parties).

 

[ECMO3]

Balance is uttermost important in combat, so the changes there are the ones that count.

I don't agree with that at all. It is extremely rare that balance between PCs exists in actual combat encounters in games I play and in games I watch online. I can't actually think of a single combat encounter that was actually balanced.

For one thing situational factors are far more influential in combat encounters than the PC class design.

I do agree casters are in melee often, but I will also note it is not all the time and not even regularly at some tables. Even if you accept the hypothesis that a reaction attack would better balance classes, it would be extremely situational in implementation and as noted if spells are OP, they are still OP at range when they can't be interrupted.

Finally I will note this will result in a lot of gimmicks to burn enemy reactions -
Willie the Wizard: " I am moving so I am standing next to Bob the Barbarian and Frank the Fighter casting a spell from within their reach"
DM: "Ok Bob and Frank both use reactions to disrupt it and Bob succeeds"
Willie: "Ok it was Prestidigitation I was casting - Rick the Rogue, since Bob used his reaction you don't have to disengage now and Pete the Paladin, you can walk right past Frank to get to the BBEG in back"

That kind of play will undoubtedly happen with such a construct and it will make the game less immersive.

 

[ezo]

For one thing situational factors are far more influential in combat encounters than the PC class design.

Totally agree.

Combats cannot, and should not IMO, be balanced between classes. Sometimes, martials will have more impact, othertimes casters can shift an encounter with a single, well-timed spell.

5E (generally) plays will with a mix of classes, but can do just as well with all martials or all casters, or even with a single class. Subclasses go an incredibly long way towards balancing things out in such cases.

Finally I will note this will result in a lot of gimmicks to burn enemy reactions -
Willie the Wizard: " I am moving so I am standing next to Bob the Barbarian and Frank the Fighter casting a spell from within their reach"
DM: "Ok Bob and Frank both use reactions to disrupt it and Bob succeeds"
Willie: "Ok it was Prestidigitation I was casting - Rick the Rogue, since Bob used his reaction you don't have to disengage now and Pete the Paladin, you can walk right past Frank to get to the BBEG in back"

That kind of play will undoubtedly happen with such a construct and it will make the game less immersive.

Yeah, it already happens and one of the annoying things about 5E.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Balance is uttermost important in combat, so the changes there are the ones that count.
And in my play experience it happens quite often, that casters are within meelee range of monsters, especially because I usually have all caster parties.

"Quite often" is a far cry from "100% of the time".

And balance outside of combat is one of the most significant complaints that has been raised about the balance between martials and casters. That for many martials, they basically turn off their class features until initiative is rolled.

Perhaps this may be a contributing factor for why you usually have all caster parties.

 

[M_Natas]

"Quite often" is a far cry from "100% of the time".

And balance outside of combat is one of the most significant complaints that has been raised about the balance between martials and casters. That for many martials, they basically turn off their class features until initiative is rolled.

Perhaps this may be a contributing factor for why you usually have all caster parties.

But if balance outside of combat is the problem, than having an InCombat-Rulechange Will not help.

Quite the opposite.
This rule will prevent casters from using spells during combat (because who wants to risk a spell that can be interrupted) leaving them more spell slots outside of combat, when there is no chance of failure.

 

[Gammadoodler]

But if balance outside of combat is the problem, than having an InCombat-Rulechange Will not help.

Quite the opposite.
This rule will prevent casters from using spells during combat (because who wants to risk a spell that can be interrupted) leaving them more spell slots outside of combat, when there is no chance of failure.

Yep. Never said that it would. Just that "Combat is the only thing that matters" is a bad argument.

Instead it does a tiny bit to solidify niches between combat and noncombat.

And again. It would not prevent all casting in combat. It would make casting in combat riskier, but only in very specific circumstances. Circumstances which would depend wholly on the specific implementation of the reaction.