I understand your point about the narrative sense, but for me it seems overstated. Partly because you're coming at this with one fixed fiction in mind and we don't need to accept that fiction. We can adopt a fiction in which a mage can weave multiple spell threads at at time. Say I'm Hallow-ing (1 hour cast time) a haunted church and a ghost takes a swipe at me. Holding the threads of Hallow in one metaphorical hand I fling up a Shield with my Reaction.
If you're Hallow-ing a haunted church without some friends around to cover you in the event that the church's occupants put up some resistance then you probably deserve to get hit.
When I'm Hallow-ing that church, I'm using my action in each of my turns for an hour to do so. It feels natural to me to be able to do other stuff, like cast Counterspell at the Necromancer when she tries to break my Hallow with her Counterspell.
Where what's natural to me is that you're completely focused on what you're doing to cast the Hallow, to the point that the odds of you even noticing someone casting Counterspell (or any other spell, for all that) are miniscule at best and zero most of the time.
And yes, what I'm saying would make Counterspell more powerful, as it would always trump whatever else was being cast.
It's a reasonable assumption based on the history of the game, but mechanically no longer true in 5e.
Poor design, in that case and IMO.
Also, it points to a contradiction in the narrative sense you want to propose. Say it is round 4 and I am Concentrating to maintain the Bless I cast in round 1. Can I cast Healing Word? If I can, you now have two kinds of concentrating - concentrating to cast a spell which blocks casting other spells, and concentrating to maintain a spell which does not. I do not see the value in that added complexity. Or you say that if I am Concentrating on Bless I cannot cast anything else. That greatly ups the price of the Concentration tag on a spell,
Exactly. You either keep your concentration spell going or drop it to cast something else. Concentration as written, at least in my view, probably goes overboard in reining in casters.
or changes your narrative to envision more than one kind of concentrating.
Yeah, perhaps...and that way might lie madness, I think.
This adds complexity. For example let's look at Shield. As a Wizard I am engaged by an Orc. I want to use my Move to back off so that I can cast Scorching Ray without disadvantage. Also, I dislike being this close to an Orc! My intent is to cast Shield when I trigger the AoO from the Orc. Can I cast Shield while moving?
One of the real bad moves made by 3e first, then continued by 4e and 5e, is the idea of being able to cast spells
at all while in melee. In this case, were it up to me, I'd be saying you can't cast anything while under attack (which if you're casting in response to the Orc attacking you, you most certainly are) as you'll automatically be interrupted.
Keeping that question in mind, say I break up my movement so that I move 15' then cast Scorching Ray and then move a further 15'. That's my turn finished. Let's say I didn't end up casting Shield because the Orc missed anyway.
How would you know that the Orc missed? You said your casting of Shield was being triggered by the Orc taking an AoO - which means you're committed to it once he attacks but before you know the outcome - or so says the narrative, anyway. In any case...
Later in that same round, an Eye of Gruumsh casts a Command on our 8 Wisdom Fighter that I need to Counterspell. I'm no longer casting Scorching Ray, right? And I still have my reaction. So can I Counterspell that Command?
As Counterspell is specifically written as a reaction, I'd have to say yes.
The RAW resolves all this in a simple way. Have I used my Reaction this round? No! Great - cast Counterspell. That's far simpler than, Have I used my Reaction this round? No? Branch to Am I still in my turn? Yes? Branch to Am I casting another spell? etc? And what about if I'm not casting but I used my action to trigger my Wand of Magic Missiles? Still no Counterspell? Or attack with a staff? Counterspell is okay?
The RAW resolves it in a simple way, yes; but in what I see as a wrong simple way.
Lan-"
undoing the good work of a generation of game designers"-efan
It's not all good work, unfortunately, and it's the bad bits I'd like to undo as they come up.
Lan-"and speaking of bad bits of design, I think that brings us right back to - among other things - the 5e resting rules"-efan