D&D 5E Interrupting spellcasting

[Psikerlord#]

Certainly, but my concern is that when combined with the concentration rule and "save ends," it creates a situation of double-jeopardy for spellcasters, with multiple opportunities to disrupt their actions and negate the spell. Interrupting a spell was a lot more important when you were stuck with it for a predetermined duration once it was cast.

Also, a round is currently six seconds. Trying to interrupt a spell that can be cast that quickly seems like it'd be just as difficult to interrupt as a regular melee attack.

Yep, interrupting spells was for older editions when magic was rarer (no cantrips) and more powerful. With the current, more common but weaker magic, adding damage interrupts on top would break the rough balance of the game.

 

[rollingForInit]

I might allow someone to use Ready Action to hit a spellcaster when the person starst casting a spell with the intention of disrupting it. If the attack hit, I'd say, half damage (since you're aiming to disrupt specifically), but the spellcaster has to make a concentration check or have the spell fail.

Action-wise it seems pretty bad, most of the time. You'd spend your Action on possibly disrupting a spell if can reach the spellcaster in question. When you could be attacking regularly. Mostly it'd just be better to attack to kill.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yep, interrupting spells was for older editions when magic was rarer (no cantrips) and more powerful. With the current, more common but weaker magic,

At-will cantrips don't make spells any more or less common or less powerful. That 5e casters have cantrips to fall back on makes the danger of spells being interrupted /less/ of a limitation for them, not more of one, since if they find they /must/ cast in melee, they can always just cast a cantrip (which, even under a variant probably wouldn't provoke & be interrupted, and, even if it could, doesn't risk a spell slot). Saying that magic was 'more powerful' is also a little iffy. Yes, low-level spells don't scale damage with caster level like they did in 3.5 and earlier. But, they also don't have a cap on their scaling, like they did in 2e & 3e. And, saving throws became very easy at higher levels prior to 3e, while in 3e save DCs scaled with slot, much as damage scales now, while in 5e, save DCs character level. So 'power'-wise it's really a mixed bag.

Letting Ready interrupt and disrupt spells would be a minor change that'd add a little more tactics to the game, but not be particularly baneful to casters. (Ready has several issues that make it a poor tactic: if it's not triggered, you've sacrificed your action for nothing; limits what you can do with that action, &c.) Casters would have to be only slightly more cautious.

Having spells provoke would just make casters more melee-shy, which is something that's been the case in /every/ prior edition. But it's not like avoiding melee is hard, and a caster could still move away, provoking an AoO, but running no risk of his spell being interrupted.

adding damage interrupts on top would break the rough balance of the game.

Any balance there may be is already routinely borked by shorter-than-intended adventuring days, anyway. In 5e, balance is moderated by the DM much more than the system, and a variant like this would probably help balance more than it would hurt - since how aggressive enemies are in trying to interrupt casting would be very much under the DM's control, round-by-round.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

I'd allow it via the ready action. Player can say he attacks Wizard A after he started concentrating on casting the spell, then I'd apply the concentration rules similar to if the Wizard uses a ready action to use a spell. Of course this comes with the risk of wasting the action in case the wizard doesn't cast a spell or the PC does not perceive it.

 

[Psikerlord#]

At-will cantrips don't make spells any more or less common or less powerful. That 5e casters have cantrips to fall back on makes the danger of spells being interrupted /less/ of a limitation for them, not more of one, since if they find they /must/ cast in melee, they can always just cast a cantrip (which, even under a variant probably wouldn't provoke & be interrupted, and, even if it could, doesn't risk a spell slot). Saying that magic was 'more powerful' is also a little iffy. Yes, low-level spells don't scale damage with caster level like they did in 3.5 and earlier. But, they also don't have a cap on their scaling, like they did in 2e & 3e. And, saving throws became very easy at higher levels prior to 3e, while in 3e save DCs scaled with slot, much as damage scales now, while in 5e, save DCs character level. So 'power'-wise it's really a mixed bag.

Letting Ready interrupt and disrupt spells would be a minor change that'd add a little more tactics to the game, but not be particularly baneful to casters. (Ready has several issues that make it a poor tactic: if it's not triggered, you've sacrificed your action for nothing; limits what you can do with that action, &c.) Casters would have to be only slightly more cautious.

Having spells provoke would just make casters more melee-shy, which is something that's been the case in /every/ prior edition. But it's not like avoiding melee is hard, and a caster could still move away, provoking an AoO, but running no risk of his spell being interrupted.

Any balance there may be is already routinely borked by shorter-than-intended adventuring days, anyway. In 5e, balance is moderated by the DM much more than the system, and a variant like this would probably help balance more than it would hurt - since how aggressive enemies are in trying to interrupt casting would be very much under the DM's control, round-by-round.

I'll just say I disagree. I've been reading and playing a lot of OSR and earlier edition lately, and older magic was more powerful and more rare. Some fights you dont cast a spell at all. 5e cantrips do enough lifting that the "proper" spells have been dialled back. It is a different playstyle and in hindsight I personally think a mistake. There is too much magic in 5e for my tastes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'll just say I disagree. I've been reading and playing a lot of OSR and earlier edition lately, and older magic was more powerful and more rare. Some fights you dont cast a spell at all. 5e cantrips do enough lifting that the "proper" spells have been dialled back. It is a different playstyle and in hindsight I personally think a mistake. There is too much magic in 5e for my tastes.

I played AD&D from 1980 on and ran it from 1984 through 1995. I think I know what it was like. Magic-users started with fewer spells/day than 5e wizards, but had more at higher level. The relative 'power' of individual spells between the two is muddy, though, and I've already gone into some of the diverse factors pulling the comparison in opposite directions. I wouldn't definitively say spells are 'less powerful' in 5e across the board. Spell slots, though, are less likely to be wasted in 5e (because of the hyper-flexibility of neo-Vancian casting), and can be conserved more easily because there are cantrips to fall back on, so are a lot more likely to be used optimally. Those factors both argue towards the risk of loosing slots to spell interruption being quite a bit more manageable in 5e than back in 1e.

One of the more appalling trends in D&D history has been the way magic has become less and less limited with each edition. In 1e, casting in melee was all but unheard of, the rules (if you could even decipher them) were usually interpreted quite unfavorably for the caster, any interruption ruined the spell and you lost memory of it. 2e may have softened them a bit. 3e dailed it back a lot, the rules were simpler, so you knew whether an AoO would be involved or not. You could avoid an AoO by making a concentration check or often simply by taking a 5' step. Even if you were hit while casting, you could make a concentration check, and concentration was a skill you could max to the stratosphere. If all circumstances and checks went against you, your spell didn't go off, but you didn't lose it. 4e made it even easier. Spells were exactly like attacks. Close/Touch (and, hypothetically, melee) spells didn't provoke, Ranged/Area ones did - but they couldn't be interrupted other than by death or a debilitating rider, you took your lumps and finished your spell. It seemed inconceivable that 5e could make it any easier on casters, but it did it's actually easier to cast a spell in melee than to use a bow. Neither provoke anymore, but the ranged weapon attack gets disadvantage, while the spell faces no consequences, at all for being cast in melee.

There is too much magic in 5e for my tastes.

Going back to spells being interruptible - and slots lost when interrupted - would be a small step back in the direction of 'less magic.'

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Is there a mechanism in 5e (other than Counterspell) to keep a spellcaster from casting?
I am thinking of old editions where you ready an action to attack and force a concentration check.

Cheers.

The PHB says you can take other kinds of actions than the ones listed in the PHB. If you wanted to Ready an action to gag a spellcaster (stick a sock in his mouth) as soon as he opened his mouth and started talking, I'd let you. Probably I would model it on Grappling. Same thing goes if you wanted to grab and control both of his hands. That doesn't technically stop all spellcasting (Subtle Spell would still work) but in the common case it's just as good.

I figure that if carrying a shield without proficiency can prevent spellcasting completely, it's perfectly fair for a giant barbarian bending back both your wrists to at least impair somatic components.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

One of the more appalling trends in D&D history has been the way magic has become less and less limited with each edition. In 1e, casting in melee was all but unheard of, the rules (if you could even decipher them) were usually interpreted quite unfavorably for the caster, any interruption ruined the spell and you lost memory of it. 2e may have softened them a bit. 3e dailed it back a lot, the rules were simpler, so you knew whether an AoO would be involved or not. You could avoid an AoO by making a concentration check or often simply by taking a 5' step. Even if you were hit while casting, you could make a concentration check, and concentration was a skill you could max to the stratosphere. If all circumstances and checks went against you, your spell didn't go off, but you didn't lose it. 4e made it even easier. Spells were exactly like attacks. Close/Touch (and, hypothetically, melee) spells didn't provoke, Ranged/Area ones did - but they couldn't be interrupted other than by death or a debilitating rider, you took your lumps and finished your spell. It seemed inconceivable that 5e could make it any easier on casters, but it did it's actually easier to cast a spell in melee than to use a bow. Neither provoke anymore, but the ranged weapon attack gets disadvantage, while the spell faces no consequences, at all for being cast in melee.

Magic is so dominant in 5E that I've considered re-imposing AD&D restrictions on spellcasting: can't cast a non-bonus-action spell while riding a horse or on a moving ship; can't move during a turn when you cast a spell; getting hit when you're trying to cast a spell forces a concentration check even if it's not a concentration spell (Fireball), or it fizzles.

My goal in doing this would not be really about spellcaster balance as about flavor (I find the idea casting Phantom Steed for ten minutes while riding another Phantom Steed full speed away from the Tarrasque... grotesque) and my AD&D prejudices; and it would at least make kiting less attractive and swing the ranged vs. melee balance closer to melee (you'll need melee bodyguards if you want to be a combat wizard), which is something that I do care about because right now there is very little reason for melee combatants to even exist.

I haven't actually done it because it would be a fairly radical change in 5E rules, and I generally prefer to take the game as it is whenever possible (reasons related to the Czege Principle), but I want you to know that other people have noticed the same trend you have and find it fairly reprehensible.

 

[Tony Vargas]

My goal in doing this would not be really about spellcaster balance as about flavor and my AD&D prejudices; and it would at least swing the ranged vs. melee balance closer to melee (you'll need melee bodyguards if you want to be a combat wizard), which is something that I do care about because right now there is very little reason for melee combatants to even exist.

For me it is about balance, and the other factors - how good non-casters had it, how powerful casting was - fluctuated even as casting got easier and easier. Unfortunately it fluctuated, it didn't just move in the opposite direction. If casting had been getting less overpowered & non-casters more capable while casting steadily got easier, it might've all just equaled out. Not how it went.

I haven't actually done it because it would be a fairly radical change in 5E rules, but I want you to know that other people have noticed the same trend you have and find it fairly reprehensible.

Thanks. 5e's attitude is one of being good with radical rule changes. Isn't there any sort of AoO or spellcastus interruptus module in the DMG? (I'm starting to wish I hadn't run the Next playtest so much, it's left me perpetually perplexed about exactly what rules and modules actually exist in which form in 5e.)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

5e's attitude is one of being good with radical rule changes. Isn't there any sort of AoO or spellcastus interruptus module in the DMG? (I'm starting to wish I hadn't run the Next playtest so much, it's left me perpetually perplexed about exactly what rules and modules actually exist in which form in 5e.)

I haven't noticed any such DMG module so far.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with radically changing 5E rules (I already use two major variants, spell points and AD&D/Speed Factor initiative). But my bar for introducing a radical rules change is fairly high, and I don't think I would do it in the middle of a campaign. For now it's just floating around in the back of my mind as an option to tinker with, and run test combats/games with.