Interrupting a spell impossible w/Core rules?

[ouini]

scadgrad wrote:

...Your DM seems to think that the mere fact that some brute waving a sword in front of you should be able to prevent you from doing anything other than dying...Why he fails to see the tradeoff for wearing Med to Hvy armor rather than Light armor (in terms of Readied Actions) totally escapes me.

Hyperbole aside, I agree with your reiteration of many people's point in this thread. Though I begin to think no amount of my repeating his point will allow it to sink it.

Yes. There is a very strong argument that the game is quite balanced as-is. That much, he gets.

His point has more to do with unjustified sacrifices of realism. He thinks anyone waving a sword in your face would at least be a distraction for your doing something other than preventing getting wounded.

He thinks that a person trying to do just that -- use a sword to distract you from doing anything but preventing getting wounded, should be given a chance to (drum roll please): distract you from doing anything other than preventing getting wounded.

Surely no one in your group is masochistic enough to actually play a Wizard or Sorcerer are they?

I play a wizard in his game. Hell, I play an encumbered wizard with a 15' move base in his game, and have no trouble with his rule. It may not be core, but it's balanced.

 

[apsuman]

scadgrad wrote:Hyperbole aside, I agree with your reiteration of many people's point in this thread. Though I begin to think no amount of my repeating his point will allow it to sink it.

Yes. There is a very strong argument that the game is quite balanced as-is. That much, he gets.

His point has more to do with unjustified sacrifices of realism. He thinks anyone waving a sword in your face would at least be a distraction for your doing something other than preventing getting wounded.

He thinks that a person trying to do just that -- use a sword to distract you from doing anything but preventing getting wounded, should be given a chance to (drum roll please): distract you from doing anything other than preventing getting wounded.

I play a wizard in his game. Hell, I play an encumbered wizard with a 15' move base in his game, and have no trouble with his rule. It may not be core, but it's balanced.

Ok, I will state some of my points again as nobody addressed them, and I am that egotistical.

I understand your DM's assertion that a fighter type wiht a sword in his hand is a threat to anyone in striking range -- and indeed, that is realistic.

However, a mage with prepared spells is also a threat to anyone in their striking range. Surely if mages really existed, this too would be "realistic".

Now, my big leap of faith. Why is it that that your DM wants to make it easier for a a fighter to stop a mage but not for a mage to stop a fighter? (also, the game already takes into account how well a character reacts to a threat, it is called his armor class).

Given that in 3e the spells are prepared, not memorized, they are mostly cast already, the wizard simply completes the spell for it to activate. They can do it quickly enough that they get a full move if that's all they do.

The initiative system makes us think serially, but the actions in combat are suppose to be parallel. A fighter can make a single attack at his highest BAB and still get a 30' move. Keep in mind that the DnD combat system is abstract, so one attack (that is one d20 "to hit" roll) might be just one powerful slash with his sword that hits his opponent and damages him through the armor, or he might feign and parry with quick jabs with the pointy end of his sword to strike an especailly sensitive spot, but either way he does that fast enough that he still gets a 30' move.

Now the wizard can cast a spell and get the 30' move, implying that the wizard completing his spell is just as fast as that one "to hit" attempt by the fighter. I imagine a fighter's single attack as a pretty quick thing, so should be the mage's spell completion.

I am impressed that they have rules to make the attempt o disrupt the spell at all it happens so fast.

So, while you DM might be very well intentioned, I think two things:

1. His rule solves a non-existant problem by creating one larger that is more imbalanced.

2. His rule is more unrealistic than the threat from the fighter.

g!

 

[scadgrad]

scadgrad wrote:Hyperbole aside, I agree with your reiteration of many people's point in this thread. Though I begin to think no amount of my repeating his point will allow it to sink it.

Yes. There is a very strong argument that the game is quite balanced as-is. That much, he gets.

His point has more to do with unjustified sacrifices of realism. He thinks anyone waving a sword in your face would at least be a distraction for your doing something other than preventing getting wounded.

He thinks that a person trying to do just that -- use a sword to distract you from doing anything but preventing getting wounded, should be given a chance to (drum roll please): distract you from doing anything other than preventing getting wounded.

I play a wizard in his game. Hell, I play an encumbered wizard with a 15' move base in his game, and have no trouble with his rule. It may not be core, but it's balanced.

Hyperbole? Nope. Just stating the facts. The rules for spellcasting are fine.

The rules DO allow that sword waving fighter to be disruptive. That's what the various AoOs represent. The difficulty of Casting Defensively is also representative of this threat. This is not 1E or 2E and spells are cast VERY quickly, perhaps 1-3 seconds in most cases.

I salute you Sir for playing a Wizard in a very Wizard-Hostile game world, but the rule is anything but balanced.

Fighters should absolutely wreck havoc w/ those extra partial attacks and I believe from reading this thread that most agree that the House Rule isn't warranted at all. The whole point of 'unjustified sacrifices of realism' is difficult to defend when the entire game system is terribly abstract.

Have fun...

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Anyone else amused by the concept of sacrifices to realism, when we're talking about the ability to disrupt a magic spell being cast.


I'm not sure exactly how spells are realistic in the 1st place, and even if I accept in a RPG game they are realistic, how realistic it is for spells to be disruptable at all is highly dependent upon what that system defines as magic. I can think of a multitude of systems where magic simply can't be disrupted, because magic just doesn't work that way in that world. Now to say in 3e where the designers decided how hard it is to get a spell off that it isn't reralistic for a spellcaster to get a spell off because some hick with a sword is waving it at you is just wierd.

 

[kreynolds]

His point has more to do with unjustified sacrifices of realism.

He must be one of those guys that has to be constantly reminded that "It's just a game".

He thinks

Obviously, this is the root of his problem. I advise that he stops thinking.

 

[ouini]

scadgrad,
Sorry. When I wrote, "Hyperbole aside," I was referring to your point

...I'm standing 5' away from you in Tank Armor with a Long Sword so you can't cast any spells at me...

...which I was noting was a misrepresentation of his point.

Ironically, the rule he introduced in his own game doesn't address the problem he has with spellcasters well. But it doesn't add any imbalance to the game, it just changes the dynamic.

...most agree that the House Rule isn't warranted at all.

I'd guess most would argue the other side of the issue, and just as vehemently, if his house rule had been the standard for the last couple years.

Unrelated to the topic is apsuman's point:

Why is it that that your DM wants to make it easier for a a fighter to stop a mage but not for a mage to stop a fighter?

A chunk of metal moving with force, hurts. All creatures learn that in the first few years of life. You avoid it. Always. In combat or out. And that same forceful motion will bat whatever gestures you get in its way out of position.

By contrast, while some intricate hand gestures might hurt your feelings, it is extremely rare that they carry the physical force to wound you or knock your sword out of its path.

That, in a nutshell, is why swords interfere with spells, but spellcasting won't stop someone from swinging a weapon.



kreynolds, who has posted thousands of times about the rules, wrote presumeably tongue-in-cheek :

He must be one of those guys that has to be constantly reminded that "It's just a game".

 

[Oracular Vision]

If you substitute "bowman" for magic user in all the above arguments, you have the same problem. No one used bows in the front line of a fight, that's why bowman had extra shortswords for melee when the enemy got too close. But it happens in 3rd edition all the time. The central problem, one that has no easy answer, is that some people feel you shouldn't be able to cast spells easily or use a ranged weapon easily when there is a sword-wielding fighter actively hitting you. The pathetic AoO and "ready action" rules never seem to actually prevent spellcasting or use of the bow. Combat casting, concentration checks, and the 5-foot step all make sure it never happens. In the DMG, it says that combat should be considered as fluid and real-time, with initiatives being used as a game mechanic to determine who moved first. All actions occur simultaneously in that 6 seconds. But that's not what happens in reality.

Grappling spellcasters and sundering the bow or crossbow seem the only way to prevent this, and that does not happen much either in games I have seen.

Basically, you like it or you don't, some don't, thats all.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

If you substitute "bowman" for magic user in all the above arguments, you have the same problem. No one used bows in the front line of a fight, that's why bowman had extra shortswords for melee when the enemy got too close. But it happens in 3rd edition all the time. The central problem, one that has no easy answer, is that some people feel you shouldn't be able to cast spells easily or use a ranged weapon easily when there is a sword-wielding fighter actively hitting you. The pathetic AoO and "ready action" rules never seem to actually prevent spellcasting or use of the bow. Combat casting, concentration checks, and the 5-foot step all make sure it never happens. In the DMG, it says that combat should be considered as fluid and real-time, with initiatives being used as a game mechanic to determine who moved first. All actions occur simultaneously in that 6 seconds. But that's not what happens in reality.

Grappling spellcasters and sundering the bow or crossbow seem the only way to prevent this, and that does not happen much either in games I have seen.

Basically, you like it or you don't, some don't, thats all.

Excellent points.

As for the fact that you rarely see spellcasters grappled there are sound reasons for that. In the case of wizards and sorcerors, they are half dead (or worse) after a single solid whack with a big sword. Therefore the wizard is immediatley forced on the defensive if he wants to live; he is likely to double move to safety or cast an escape spell defensively and flee. The short term tactical effect is often the same whether you attack or grapple: the wizard's offensive spells are curtailed. Heck, if you roll a lucky crit the wizard is a big fat target from every PC who can muster a ranged attack; that enemy wizard may never get a next action.

IMHO the reason you do not see wizards grappled often is because the players recognize it is not really necessary to achieve their tactical goal.

Grappling is extremely useful against clerics because their AC, HPs, and defensive spells make it difficult to cut them down quickly.

 

[maddman75]

Given that no one has actually cast a magic missile spell, either with someone swinging a sword at you or not, the claim that it is highly unrealistic is very subjective. If all that's involved is pointing a finger and saying 'zap', it would seem that only striking the very moment the spell is cast would disrupt anything.

More to the point - I rarely have anyone *try* to disrupt a spellcaster. If they move 5' back, let them have their spell, you make your save or you don't, if you do take your 5' step, do a full attack, and leave the spellcaster in little pieces.

If this works flavor-wise, that's one thing. But this isn't a flaw in the core rules.

 

[kreynolds]

kreynolds, who has posted thousands of times about the rules

Oh, all of my posts weren't all about the rules.

wrote presumeably tongue-in-cheek

Usually, I do, but this time I was dead serious. I can tell that your buddy would have a great ol' time with General Starlight.