Interrupting a spell impossible w/Core rules?

[DrSpunj]

Re: Re: Interrupting a spell impossible w/Core rules?

First, let me thank everyone for their replies. You've all brought up points that entered my discussion about the topic with another player who is concernec about the possible imbalance.

Second, I can now come clean (if it wasn't already apparent) and say that I don't agree with the rules change by this other DM/player. I think the core rules give an advantage to the mage, but are not so skewed that wide-ranging changes to Readied Actions like he has done are needed.

Seems pretty overpowered. You could use this against anyone, not just spellcasters, and get two attacks per round.

Correct, which is why I don't agree with his change and am looking to see if the core rules need addressed, and if so the best way to do it.

Not quite. The mage will trigger an AoO and possibly take damage (which most spellcasters can ill-afford), but they will also trigger the Readied Action. If the fighter didn't move before making the Ready Action, they can still do a Partial Charge with their Readied Action.

But as Dr. Zoom pointed out because the typical fighter is in medium-armor his Partial Charge only gets him 20', so he won't be in position to melee attack and interrupt the spell. So if the mage realizes the fighter is slower, this becomes one method to always cast his spell, without any chance of failure.

At this point the fighter should either concentrate on just killing the spellcaster or switch to missile weapons.

Both very viable tactics, but neither addresses the specific problem (as this DM/player sees it) of how to interrupt a spell.

In one-on-one battles this can be an effective tactic for the wizard, but it still leaves them vulnerable on the round they actually cast a spell (because they can only do a single move after that, and the fighter can catch up and attack them).

Our "mini-research" (as in, with miniatures) didn't bear this out. If they start next to each other and the mage double moves for 60' around an obstacle or a corner, the armored fighter can only double move for 40' and can't run around the corner (though if he can run in a straight line he could go 80', 60' in heavy armor, either way, he'd catch up and the point would be moot) so he falls a bit behind. This gives the mage a chance to cast one spell then move 30' again which puts enough distance between them that the fighter has to charge or run to close (if the mage ducked around another obstacle or corner the fighter is left further and further behind, though hopefully by this time the mage isn't where he needs to be to cast his spells so the fighter's done his job).

You cannot always prevent a spellcaster from casting, any more than you can always prevent a fighter from attacking. A fighter can make life difficult for a spellcaster, but they shouldn't be able to completely shut them down with a simple readied action.

Also, reducing the enemy spellcaster to only casting spells every other round and driving them further and further from their companions can be a very effective tactic in and of itself.

I wholeheartedly agree! These have been my arguments the entire discussion with him.

I don't really think it needs to be "fixed". In general, ranged attacks are more effective for suppressing a spellcaster than melee attacks, unless you are in an enclosed area where they can't move away from you easily.

Again, very good points. However, I am surprised working through all the scenarios we could think of that a smart mage really has very little chance of inducing an AoO with his casting, and can even avoid a majority of a Readied Fighter's melee attacks. I think overall this is a small imbalance that doesn't really bother me, but our group is kind of having to address it because 2 of our 6 players have taken issue with it. It also, as you can imagine given his house rule above regarding Readied Actions, has far-ranging effects on the campaign he DMs.

Now, we did think of Trips, however we were surprised to realize that they don't help as a melee attack. If the fighter closes and chooses to trip the mage they can't have Readied an Action. On the mage's turn they stand up (MEA), take a 5' step back and cast their spell, again with no chance of failure. A Trip would stop the mage from moving away if you Tripped them with your AoO in situation #3. I suppose that would mean the mage only had a Standard Action left? since they *tried* to move already? Or do they have their entire set of actions left since they were interrupted at the beginning of their move?

While Grapple is an excellent option, Dr. Rictus points out it's risk. Combat involving a mage is usually group combat and the grappling fighter is likely going to make himself an easy target for the mage's flunkies. According to core rules anyone outside a grapple who's melee targeting an opponent in a grapple has several small benefits. The grappling target loses their Dex bonus (which is not so small with sneak-attacking flunkies) and the core rules don't list any chance of accidentally hitting anyone else involved in the grapple (we've house ruled this to be 25% like Bull Rush).

Ranged weapons are an excellent option (especially with Quick Draw apsuman!), but again this discussion is centered around a melee fighter interrupting a mage's spell that he's standing right next to.

We're debating about making one change to the rules. It applies to situation #3. If a mage moves away and then casts a spell, the AoO by the fighter (induced by the move) forces a Concentration damage check as if the blow landed during the casting of the spell.

Thanks again for the responses. Please keep them coming.

DrSpunj

 

[apsuman]

Readied action = partial action = 1 shot with bow

Whoops! My Bad.

Thanks.


g!

 

[Archer]

Flying or boots of strinding and springing will up the base speed of the fighter. If the wizard has room to move 30' and your speed is 20' then you won't interrupt the spell. As other people said you could trip on the AoO and then you can move and attack at +4.

Blocking spellcasting should not be automatic.

 

[IceBear]

If you take a MEA to stand up from the trip, do you still get your 5ft step?

IceBear

 

[mikebr99]

What character levels are we talking about here??

1st level?? Then the Mage died during the first AoO...

Something higher? Then the Fighter may (ie. will) have something up his sleeve to help him stay with the Mage... boots, potions, a cohort...

 

[DrSpunj]

If you take a MEA to stand up from the trip, do you still get your 5ft step?

IceBear

That's one of my questions in that scenario! I'm not sure if standing up as a MEA counts as a Move thereby negating a 5' step. If it does negate the 5' step then Trips become a lot more useful.


As to mikebr99's comments:
This is at all levels. For better or worse we're basing a lot our comparison's using the standard NPCs outlined in the DMG on pgs. 52-57.

Yes, the fighter does get Boots of Speed at level 13, but the mage gets expeditious retreat and haste long before that. Anything you give the fighter I can also give to the mage, at any level. We're trying to determine whether the mage can be reasonably interrupted from casting a spell while limiting as many variables as possible. Honestly, I don't think it's a huge imbalance, but looking over the core rules, the FAQ and talking about things it does seem very difficult for fighter standing next to mage to interrupt his spells.

I'm not looking to eliminate all of them, and I agree with Caliban and others that stopping the mage from casting even half their spells by keeping them running around and all is a very excellent strategy. But at the root of all of it, it does seem like the fighter (who is the expert melee combatant) should have a bit of an easier time interrupting a mage's spell, especially when he's standing right next to the mage and has a higher initiative.

I'm posting to make sure that our group didn't overlook anything in our discussions. apsuman's Quick Draw was a good thought, but I think we covered most of the other points.

Thanks for your help.

DrSpunj

 

[Lord Ben]

Well, if you're relying on mobility for your tactics you shouldn't wear medium or heavy armor.

 

[AuraSeer]

You're putting that poor fighter in a very bad position. He is constrained to move more slowly than his opponent; he must use only melee weapons; his opponent has unlimited freedom of movement. In that kind of situation, he'll always lose to a more flexible opponent.

Picture this medium-armored fighter versus a light-armored rogue. The fighter has only his sword, while the rogue has a shortbow. The rogue can always stay out of reach, firing every second or third round, while the fighter spends all his time moving and still can't catch up. As long as the rogue has enough arrows, the fighter will always end up dead, without ever managing to attack.

Give the fighter a longbow, however, and things are suddenly very different. He can interrupt a caster's spell at extreme ranges, and his high iterative attacks make that snipey rogue very unhappy.

Every fighter should carry a missile weapon for emergencies.

 

[ouini]

DrSpunj said:

...in his world he has house ruled Readied Actions only "cost" a MEA so that someone standing next to a caster can not only swing at them, but is also able to ready an attack to interrupt the spellcaster if they try to cast a spell. This gives the "disrupter" (even at 1st level) two possible attacks per round, but he made this change because under core rules it is very difficult for a typical medium-armored fighter to interrupt a spellcaster's spell.

I'm in his campaign, too, and actually, the rule he implemented is that a player can "spend" an MEA to ready an MEA (or 5' step, if the player hasn't moved, yet). Players -cannot- "spend" an MEA to ready a standard action such as an attack. Drspunj thinks, and I agree, that changing such a sweeping rule is like using a sledge to kill a fly. The rule changes the mechanics of combat in a lot of ways. But it's not unbalanced, just -different-.

This was done so fighters could attack, then get ready to move with spellcasters. The problem he had with the rules was that characters (especially fighters), under the core rules, have little or (if their enemy is smart) absolutely zero chance of successfully disrupting a spellcaster by being in their face with a weapon. Even if that's all they're trying to do.


A few people had Caliban's sentiment:

You cannot always prevent a spellcaster from casting, any more than you can always prevent a fighter from attacking.

The problem was that you can -never- prevent a spellcaster from casting by using a plain old melee weapon, no matter how determined you are to do so, unless you specialize with feats. This just bugged the hell out of him.

 

[Xarlen]

Reach weapon.

Wear light armor, and have a reach weaon.

Even if the mage moves back 5' feet, he's still in danger. Move five feet, so never let him get out of range. If he runs, then you can just chase him and still get your weapon on him.