D&D 5E Interrupting spellcasting

[Yardiff]

This is an extreme example but doable in the 5e system....

An int 1, dex 1 wizard can not fail to cast a spell on a horse at full gallop. Cant mispronounce a verbal component, cant fumble a somatic gesture or fumble while taking out a material component.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Wasting your round to cast a single spell that doesn't end up going off is a serious fun-killer.

Nod. It also makes spells more available/dependable, reducing a (balance) reason for them to be so wildly powerful. Simply ratcheting spells down some more would also be a way of addressing the issue. Casters could theoretically be balanced (and fun) using only cantrips and rituals (cantrips providing magic in action/combat scenes, rituals in non-combat scenes), for instance - if we were more concerned about fun than classic feel.

So the idea of introducing casting interruption is to have the foes interrupt the PC casters more than vice-versa, or do you expect the PCs to use it more often?

Entirely dependent on what classes the players choose and what enemies the DM places, I'd think.






(OK, so it's vanishingly unlikely you'd ever get an all-non-caster party...)

 

[Gadget]

I'm curious to here how magic is so dominant from many posters. My experience has been limited so far, but I would have thought the smaller number of slots overall (not quite as bad as a low level AD&D magic user iirc), not auto scaling, concentration mechanic, and extreme curtailing of save-or-suck spells (concentration, save every round, etc.). I know this is offset somewhat by the very flexible neo-vancian casting, at will cantrips and such, but I would have thought it would have made more of an effect to reign in the LFQW.

Is it mainly multi-classing to cherry pick key spells abilities (two level warlock dip, combined with spell points from sorc, etc.)? If so, it seems to me that the solution is to restrict such dipping and builds, multi-classing is an optional rule after all.

Or is it that many games find it difficult to follow the standard 6-8 encounters a day to maintain balance? I would image wizards and such getting a boost from games that did not meet, or only rarely met, that criteria.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm curious to here how magic is so dominant from many posters. My experience has been limited so far, but I would have thought the smaller number of slots overall (not quite as bad as a low level AD&D magic user iirc) not auto scaling, concentration mechanic, and extreme curtailing of save-or-suck spells (concentration, save every round, etc.).

Clearly you're speaking relative to 3e, which was arguably the peak of "magic dominance," with full-casters occupying the top two Tiers and non-casters rising no higher than Tier 4. And, sure, 5e pulled back from that extreme, some.

I know this is offset somewhat by the very flexible neo-vancian casting, at will cantrips and such

It is rather thoroughly offset.

Fewer spells/day, for instance? Relative to 3e, neo-vancian casters enjoy the most potent flexibility advantages of both prepped & spontaneous casting plus viable at-will combat options, plus non-combat rituals that don't even consume slots. So, sure, you don't have a bunch of bonus spells from high caster stat, but you 'waste' fewer spell slots to prepping the wrong spell, you never lose spells to interruptions, don't need to expend slots on out-of-combat ritually-cast spells, and have scaling, magical cantrips to fall back on when a spell isn't quite called for instead of plinking away at 1/2 BAB with a crossbow.

Scaling? True, damage scales with slot instead of caster level. OTOH, save DCs scale with character level instead of slot level.

, but I would have thought it would have made more of an effect to reign in the LFQW.

Relative to 3e (when it was, again, the very peak of the phenomenon), sure, slightly, but it's still very much a thing.


But sure, magic could be expected to be 'less dominant' in 5e than it was in 3e.

 

[Gadget]

Relative to 3e (when it was, again, the very peak of the phenomenon), sure, slightly, but it's still very much a thing.

Thank you for your response, I guess I had not considered it in that way.

It has been a long time since I played AD&D, but I was under the impression that higher level spell slots are even more of a premium in 5e than in AD&D. I also remember that in AD&D, once you got a spell off, it was sure to make a difference (with the exception of spell resistance, high level fighter types great saves, etc.). My impression is that in 5e, with its saves every round and such, the effect is much less. Also IIRC, opponent hit points were much less in AD&D, making blasting a more effective tactic.

Sometimes I look at the spell list in 5e and I see so many "trap" options (Witch Bolt, Crown of Madness, Mordenkainen’s Sword, Jump, the list goes on), that I wonder if there is just a few "effective" spells everyone sticks to to make a decent caster. Charm Person was quite powerful and long lasting back in the day (if you could land it and the target failed their saving throw), Invisibility lasted quite a long time and only ended when you attacked or cast an offensive spell, and save-or-suck spells--well, you saved (once) or it sucked to be you. Of course, it took a long time to "come on line" as a wizard in AD&D (it seemed darn near impossible to survive that long), and spell casting had a lot of draw backs, depending on how your group understood and interpreted the rules (spell scribing costs, % chance to learn a spell, randomly rolled spells, spell interruption, casting times). But a lot of these "gottchas" were kind of arcane and glossed over in many groups, and by golly, when you did get a spell off, it sure did something. Usually.

Thank you for being patient with me.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It has been a long time since I played AD&D, but I was under the impression that higher level spell slots are even more of a premium in 5e than in AD&D.

Oh, 5e has fewer /slots/ of very high level spells at very high level (not that AD&D got played at those levels a lot), while AD&D had fewer than 5e at low level... but that's spontaneous slots in 5e, not AD&D memorized spells.

I also remember that in AD&D, once you got a spell off, it was sure to make a difference (with the exception of spell resistance, high level fighter types great saves, etc.).

Those are some big exceptions. Also, not once you got the spell off, but if - you could be interrupted, no concentration check, spell's just lost. And AD&D did have spells with a concentration duration, like 5e does, but more restrictive & less forgiving.

Overall, casting has just gotten easier with each edition, 5e included.

Also IIRC, opponent hit points were much less in AD&D

Similar at low levels, much less at higher levels - in 1e AD&D. In 2e they got beefed up.

Sometimes I look at the spell list in 5e and I see so many "trap" options

Nothing new there. In 5e, if you do prep a 'trap' spell and it never comes up, you can still use all your slots on other spells.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Sometimes I look at the spell list in 5e and I see so many "trap" options (Witch Bolt, Crown of Madness, Mordenkainen’s Sword, Jump, the list goes on), that I wonder if there is just a few "effective" spells everyone sticks to to make a decent caster.

The good news is that you've probably already discovered most of the trap spells and there are not just a few effective spells that everyone sticks to. Some spells stand out as "wow, someone dropped the ball here", but most of them are pretty useful and serve a good purpose, though of course there are always the overachievers in the list.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

This will be an unpopular opinion in this thread. I'm reading a lot about AD&D sensibilities and how some DMs want to have 5e feel a certain way. That's fine and all, but I think people are overlooking the primary reason why WotC removed the option to interrupt spells in this way: It's not fun for the caster. Wasting your round to cast a single spell that doesn't end up going off is a serious fun-killer.

Something to think about.

I won't presume to know WotC removed it, but I think it really depends on the players, as well as how interesting it is. This system is also used when attempting to cast a spell you are still learning, and also when using counterspell (although that works a little different).

It doesn't happen as often as you might think, but it alters the tactics that the players use in combat. We really enjoy it. More importantly, for folks like us it lets us enjoy AD&D with the more elegant rule system of 5e.

--

In my system, if you are interrupted, then you roll on a Wild Magic Surge table. This can be affected by modifiers, bonuses make it less likely to fail and lower rolls get progressively worse.

Wild Magic Surge
d20 Effect
1-2 The spell creates a random effect. Roll on the Wild Magic Surge table (PHB 104).
3-4 The spell backfires and affects the caster instead. If the target is the caster, the spell misfires instead.*
5-6 The spell misfires, roll on the Misfire table.
7-10 The spell fizzles, roll on the Spell Fizzles table.
11-20 The spell functions normally.

*If a backfire is not possible due to the nature of the spell, then roll on the Spell Misfire table and target the caster.

Spell Fizzles
Your Action is used, the energy fizzles and sputters (can cause any harmless visual effect desired); and:
D6 Effect
1 The spell slot is used.
2 The spell slot is not used.
3 You cast the pyrotechnics spell in a random direction in front of you. The spell slot is not used.
4 You cast the pyrotechnics spell in a random direction in front of you. The spell slot is used.
5-6 The spell creates a random effect. Roll on the Wild Magic Surge table (PHB 104).

Spell Misfire
The energy of the spell is catastrophically released.
D6 Effect
1-2 The spell releases its energy as a line 10 ft. long per level of the spell. Roll 1d6:
--1) fire
--2) force
--3) lightning
--4) necrotic
--5) radiant
--6) thunder
--Damage is equal to 2d6 per level of the spell. Creatures that make a successful Dexterity saving throw take half damage.
3-4 The spell violently explodes.
--Creatures in a 30 ft. radius:
--• Take 2d4 damage per level of the spell (no saving throw).
--• Must make a Strength saving throw or be knocked back 10 feet and prone. Creatures immune to force damage do not need to make the saving throw.
5 The spell violently explodes.
--The caster:
--• Takes 2d4 damage per level of the spell (no saving throw).
--• Must make a Strength saving throw or be knocked back 10 feet and prone. Creatures immune to force damage do not need to make the saving throw.
6 The spell creates a random effect. Roll on the Wild Magic Surge table (PHB 104).

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Sometimes I look at the spell list in 5e and I see so many "trap" options (Witch Bolt, Crown of Madness, Mordenkainen’s Sword, Jump, the list goes on), that I wonder if there is just a few "effective" spells everyone sticks to to make a decent caster. Charm Person was quite powerful and long lasting back in the day (if you could land it and the target failed their saving throw), Invisibility lasted quite a long time and only ended when you attacked or cast an offensive spell, and save-or-suck spells--well, you saved (once) or it sucked to be you. Of course, it took a long time to "come on line" as a wizard in AD&D (it seemed darn near impossible to survive that long), and spell casting had a lot of draw backs, depending on how your group understood and interpreted the rules (spell scribing costs, % chance to learn a spell, randomly rolled spells, spell interruption, casting times). But a lot of these "gottchas" were kind of arcane and glossed over in many groups, and by golly, when you did get a spell off, it sure did something. Usually.

Thank you for being patient with me.

Or you made do with what you had to work with. As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as a "trap" spell. Since the new spells you gain are what you find in my campaign, you might get a conjure earth elemental instead of conjure elemental. Not quite as useful, but it's what you've got. Researching and/or learning spells takes time (and I have rules for them, researching takes longer), so you go with what you've got until you find something better. It's not like you can just hop on Amazon and order whatever spells you're looking for.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yeah, we run a yearly convention (this is the 42nd year) and just switched the rules over to 5e. We did a series off playtests with the variants we wanted to best keep the feel including spell points, but we eventually discarded them because people were using a lot more high level spells, which had a commensurate bigger impact for the action economy, plus it lead to more 5 minute adventuring days as the casters used their big guns a few times and then were out. But we were looking for least common denominator issues, doesn't mean that's how it goes down at your table.

So the idea of introducing casting interruption is to have the foes interrupt the PC casters more than vice-versa, or do you expect the PCs to use it more often?

Yeah, spell points is a HUGE boost to caster ability to nova - very destabilizing. I would recommend against using it.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app