Should Magic Spells/Powers be Interruptible?

[GMMichael]

I think it's bad that there's no way for a fighter to make a wizard stop being able to cast spells (except beating them dead), but there are plenty of ways for a wizard to make a fighter stop being able to fight.

Part of me says that this is a major consideration: is a game still fair if wizards can stop fighters from fighting, but not vice-versa?

But another part of me says that comparing fighters to wizards is like apples to oranges. Whoever said that magic has to be fair? That gets muddier if the fighter has access to one or more forms of magic - like a ring of (magic) protection.

From an action economy standpoint, it's a different discussion. If the monster's big, special move (or wizard's 3rd level spell) takes three actions to complete, but the PC interrupts the first action with her own action, then both characters are only out by one action, right? The tactical decision by the PC was, "do I want to attack, save an action for attacking, or burn an action to attempt to disrupt this special move before it occurs?" For the GM (or game designer) it's, "is the game less cool or fair if combo actions aren't guaranteed to occur?"

@GrimCo , doesn't Pathfinder do it the other way around? The spell takes only one action (unlike the above three) but is interruptible, while the fighter gets multiple attacks/actions in a round? I suppose there were some full-round-spells, which would be really annoying to attempt to cast.

Now I'm leaning toward yes, interruptible, BUT depending on what the power is, and the nature of the opponent. Maybe a squishy wizard wants a sturdy Wall of Force in the way, while Godrick the Grafted doesn't give a flying dookie if you slice off his leg while he's charging you. I think that opens up some territory for wizard perks like Instant Spellcasting, or it gives the GM room to make situational calls (per @Theory of Games ). The former is the D&D route, with lots of neatly interlocking rules, while the latter doesn't work so well for PCs and GMs who like things in black and white...

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

My two cents: Interrupting a spell should have approximately the cost and difficulty of deflecting an arrow (that would otherwise hit), blocking a sword-stroke (ditto), disarming an opponent, or breaking an opponent's weapon. It should have a lesser cost & difficulty for a spell directed specifically at you, and a greater one for stopping an area-effect spell or if the caster has to pay a cost beyond just the lost action.

An ordinary attack doing ordinary damage should not also interrupt spellcasting by the target unless it's part of a rule set that also causes an archer to drop an arrow, or a swordsman to lose his attack on a hit for damage.

 

[James Gasik]

The problem I see with this line of thinking is, once you say "yes, of course, magic should be interruptible", I can imagine players asking if other things can be. Can I interrupt someone using a bow or crossbow? Interrupt a sword slash? Sunder or Disarm weapons? Target the wings of a flying creature to bring it down?

Some of those options do exist, but they often require specialized features- the Battlemaster needs to use a Maneuver to disarm foes, to parry an attack requires either a Fighting Style or a Feat, and so on. Currently, the closest we get to this is Mage Slayer, which actually cannot interrupt anything, but can punish someone for spellcasting and gives you another shot at disrupting concentration.

Making a way to actually interrupt spells into a Fighting Style, Maneuver, or Feat (or something similar) would be perfectly fine, but how many people would actually go out of their way to get such an option as opposed to other things they could do?

 

[Umbran]

So do we really need interruption rules? Do they just slow a game down? Are they essential for keeping casters/villains in check?

This issue cannot be decided on its own - it is part of overall design of the mechanics, and how those interact with narrative.

Broadly, if your game has something like a short "round" over which individual actions are typically resolved, and an action (of any type - spell or otherwise) takes more than one such round, then I'd expect it to be interruptible.

If it takes multiple rounds to climb a wall, and someone drops a big rock on you, you are apt to be interrupted and fall, right? Well, if it takes multiple rounds to cast a spell, and someone drops that same rock on you, well, just narratively, I'd kind of expect the spellcasting to have to stop.

But issues of whether you lose the spell/spell slot/mana/etc. when that happens also enters into consideration, in terms of balance

 

[grimmgoose]

I'll add my echo to the concept of, "if the spellcaster can interrupt a spell, the martial should be able too".

Not doing so widens the gap of "haves" and "have nots" even further than it already is. If you're looking for a reason outside of gameplay, I imagine casting a complicated spell involving specific phrasing, components, and gestures is very hard to do when there's a giant orc in your face with a battle-ax.

 

[J.Quondam]

Interrupting spells is a pretty basic trope of fantasy, so generally speaking, yes. But the details really depend on the specifics of the game mechanics and the setting.

 

[James Gasik]

I'll add my echo to the concept of, "if the spellcaster can interrupt a spell, the martial should be able too".

Not doing so widens the gap of "haves" and "have nots" even further than it already is. If you're looking for a reason outside of gameplay, I imagine casting a complicated spell involving specific phrasing, components, and gestures is very hard to do when there's a giant orc in your face with a battle-ax.

The question then becomes, "what is the equivalent of a 3rd-level spell slot for a non-caster". Because that's the going rate for Counterspell.

Now one could say that Martial Counterspell doesn't have to be equal in power to Magic Counterspell, and it could be easier to pull off, but then the question becomes "why have Counterspell?". Because if countering spells is something anyone can do with a weapon, then the casters could do it as well.

And if "Martial Counterspell" can't be performed by magical characters (even an Eldritch Knight), that raises more questions, at least in the narrative.

 

[grimmgoose]

The question then becomes, "what is the equivalent of a 3rd-level spell slot for a non-caster". Because that's the going rate for Counterspell.

Now one could say that Martial Counterspell doesn't have to be equal in power to Magic Counterspell, and it could be easier to pull off, but then the question becomes "why have Counterspell?". Because if countering spells is something anyone can do with a weapon, then the casters could do it as well.

And if "Martial Counterspell" can't be performed by magical characters (even an Eldritch Knight), that raises more questions, at least in the narrative.

Great point, but I think it's fairly simple: don't be in melee range.

Counterspell, the 3rd level spell slot, allows you to be within 60 feet. The proposed martial-counter spell would be significantly reduced to 5-feet. I would imagine it would also simply require a concentration check (typically DC 10), which I would imagine would be very easy for most spellcasters to achieve. This is different from counterspell, which can amount to saying "no, you don't".

I don't think that's an issue at all, and it's still very simple.

edit: in truth, it's along the lines of 5E's current spellcaster-vs-martial modus operandi, which is that a martial can in theory do everything a spellcaster can do, just less effectively yet without spending a resource.

 

[aco175]

I was thinking that the OP topic was about counterspell and the new monster powers. I'm not a big fan of counterspell, but it should be ok once in a while as long as it can be done to the PCs.

The question then becomes, "what is the equivalent of a 3rd-level spell slot for a non-caster". Because that's the going rate for Counterspell.

I could see using fireball as a base. A fireball deal 20-25 points of damage which is generally about a fighter does in my games with two attacks at 5th level. I guess a fighter could skip their attacks in order to counter a spell and if the counter fails, maybe get one attack to deal damage. Not sure if this option would make them want to though.

 

[James Gasik]

As an aside, if new monster designs in 2024-25 are like those found in Monster's of the Multiverse, fewer monsters will use actual spells (instead using "spell attacks") and the ability to counter spells may be vastly more useful for enemies than for players.