Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 9220160" data-attributes="member: 2013">Stop. We BOTH know these are distinctions without a difference.No caster "readies" an incapacitating spell in combat, because the trigger condition may not come to pass and the foes is not incapacitated. Instead the caster simply casts the incapacitating spell as their action.Further, all "incapacitate your foe" spells take 1 action to cast (for reference, here is a list of all spells that take more than one action to cast: <a href="https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells?filter-class=0&filter-search=&filter-casting-time=4&filter-casting-time=5&filter-casting-time=6&filter-casting-time=7&filter-casting-time=8&filter-casting-time=9&filter-verbal=&filter-somatic=&filter-material=&filter-concentration=&filter-ritual=&filter-sub-class=" target="_blank">https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells?filter-class=0&filter-search=&filter-casting-time=4&filter-casting-time=5&filter-casting-time=6&filter-casting-time=7&filter-casting-time=8&filter-casting-time=9&filter-verbal=&filter-somatic=&filter-material=&filter-concentration=&filter-ritual=&filter-sub-class=</a> - none of these are spells that would be of great use in a general combat setting except though admittedly there are niche cases when some of them - like Resurrection - would be useful if you could cast them in 1 action in a combat setting).Neither of these is relevant to the discussion at hand.I have no problem conceding the point that martials are generally more effective at lower levels (because casters have such a paucity of spell resources at these levels that their spell slots can be expended within a single encounter) and at very low levels (1st and 2nd), martials generally have the ability to incapacitate a caster with a single hit.This statement is flat out wrong. As mentioned, the observations are "generally true" as casters have the ability to incapacitate in a single action starting at level 1. Even ONE spell that incapacitates is sufficient to make this a problem. At first level, Charm Person. Command ("Surrender" or worse "Autodefenestrate"), and Hideous Laughter are ALL available, meaning from the very beginning casters have access to the "incapacitate in a single action" ability.The fact that interrupting casters may not be needed at levels 1 and 2 (and this COULD be argued) makes the observations "generally true" and "occasionally false", NOT "generally false" and "occasionally true." (Similarly, the fact that a particular caster might have chosen "damage dealing spells" or "utility spells" instead of "incapacitating spells" does not mean casters in general do not have the ability to choose to incapacitate others with a single spell). Let's not fall victim to the Slothful Induction fallacy and fail to acknowledge the disparity in ability to incapacitate between casters and martials IS an issue at most levels.I've already said speaking to "immersion" speaks to subjective ideas about how magic SHOULD work, so there's not a lot of room for us to argue as that's an argument over opinion and there can be no right answer. Your "game design" objection raises a Straw Man argument; you're not arguing the points I raised, you're raising your own points and arguing against those instead. Since these aren't my arguments, I see no need to respond further to this line.Perhaps I missed it earlier in the thread; if I did, I apologize, but it was my understanding that your contention has been "there should be no way to disrupt a one action spellcast because it's not in the Rules as Written." If this statement means that you assert that "Improvise an Action" should be allowed to disrupt a spell, then I would submit we are in agreement on principle, we simply disagree as to the mechanical specifics about how "disrupting a spell" works, and while that might make for an interesting discussion, it is best served elsewhere as this thread is about "SHOULD there be a way to interrupt a one-action spellcast" and not HOW SHOULD that be implemented? EDIT: Actually, now that I think more about it I guess part of this thread IS "how should that be implemented?" I'm wrong on that point. Sorry! Please continue discussing "How Should?" in here and not just "Should?"Disarm a melee martial, for instance, and he's likely to draw a backup weapon on his turn - the dagger may do a d4 instead of his sword's d8, but that's on average simply giving him a net -2 to damage; he's still probably pretty lethal even with a dagger. I'd hardly call -2 to damage "severely gimped" ("Gimped?" Sure. "Severely gimped?" No.)I mean, situationally nets can be interesting but if nets were so amazing, everyone would be using them instead of swords. An opponent can destroy a net with a slashing attack (a pretty common damage type), a problem other weapons don't have. Also, note the net is pretty limited in effectiveness - it's best used exactly at a range of between 10 and 15 feet - inside of 10 feet (e.g., melee range ) you attack with disadvantage (unless you have the Crossbow Expert feat) and outside of 15 feet you attack with disadvantage because you're outside its short range.But again, while these distractions might be interesting, you still haven't addressed the root of the problem:Casters generally do have the ability to incapacitate martials with a single action, and (outside of very low levels) martials do not have the ability to reciprocate. This is the interaction that is problematic, not "both have the ability to incapacitate the other in one action" (caster vs. caster) or "neither has the ability to incapacitate the other in one action" (martial vs martial). Kindly remain focused on the issue a hand, please.</blockquote>

Verification