What ways are there to disrupt spellcasting in 5e?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Oh, you're interpreting it as "the attack action" rather than "he tries to attack" as a descriptive phrase.

Yeah, there's that pesky trouble with relying on context to deal with a word that has both a general and "term of art" usage within a single discussion or text.

The study you're citing isn't about the sort of situation we're discussing. Both parties have ranged weapons at varying degrees of readiness. (Drawn, safety off, one aimed and the other

The 5-7 yards truism you originally cited was for one party armed with a ranged weapon, not at the ready, and the other party needing to close distance to attack at "hand to hand range".

In the study you cited, it took the officers an average of 0.39 seconds to fire in reaction to the target's movement. In comparison, elite athletes, from a sprinter's stance, just purely starting a sprint and making no allowance to attack another person, take about twice that long to cover 5 yards at the start of a 40 yard or 50 meter sprint. At that range, the travel time of the bullet is so short as to be effectively instant.

So, as noted, the 5-7 yards figure you originally cited is NOT applicable to a shooter already aimed and ready to fire.

It was an alternate line of attack once I realized what you were going at.

Cases:
* Target at range (melee capable only), shooter ready. Either just attack or Ready to attack when the target moves. Works properly.
* Target at range or in melee, shooter not ready. 5-7 yard rule applies. No readied attack is going to work either way.
* Target in melee or ready with ranged weapon, shooter ready. Quoted article applies (ie aggressor wins or there's a tie).

There really aren't other cases where the Ready action doesn't work as it should--either you trigger on movement (which can interrupt by default, as movement is not an action) or you aren't going to be able to do that with any reasonable chance of success in-fiction.

[Rukelnikov]

You can. You roll initiative, the combat starts, and if you act first (assuming the target isn't surprised), you can shoot or wait further, or whatever. However, if the target acts first, then yes, he can open the door and enter before you get to shoot. You've missed the right moment for some reason. It happens. Even seen a race participant miss the start? Same thing.

You could have shot at any time. It was your choice not to.

But I didn't wanna shoot at any time, I'm not that trigger happy, only if he stepped in front of the secret door.

Anyways, I guess it's not that much of a problem, there aren't that many creatures immune to surprise, and, in general, surprise will account for it.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Not if he has Alert, or is somehow immune to surprise.

We have separate 20-page threads for the can of worms that is Alert on an unaware ambush victim winning initiative.

[JoeJ]

But I didn't wanna shoot at any time, I'm not that trigger happy, only if he stepped in front of the secret door.

Anyways, I guess it's not that much of a problem, there aren't that many creatures immune to surprise, and, in general, surprise will account for it.

That's not a problem. He steps in front of the secret door and you shoot. Surprise is determined, initiative is rolled, and everybody's actions and movement are resolved in turn order. The only way you could fail to go first is if the target both was not surprised for some reason and wins initiative.

[Tanarii]

That's not a problem. He steps in front of the secret door and you shoot. Surprise is determined, initiative is rolled, and everybody's actions and movement are resolved in turn order. The only way you could fail to go first is if the target both was not surprised for some reason and wins initiative.

For example, Alert feat, Barbarian level 7, or Weapon of Warning. All of which are effectively a sixth sense, so that works just fine.

Attempting to Ready outside of combat is just players trying to sidestep the system and gain an unfair advantage. Or DMs I suppose. But if they tried to get away with it, their players would be howling on the interwebs & forums about it.

[JoeJ]

For example, Alert feat, Barbarian level 7, or Weapon of Warning. All of which are effectively a sixth sense, so that works just fine.

If you want an in-world explanation of how a character with one of those abilities could possibly know they were under attack from an invisible archer (without invoking spider sense), it's worth noting that a missile fired by the invisible archer becomes visible the moment it's no longer on the archer's person. Most people wouldn't notice that in time to react, but a character with the right feat, class ability, etc. might.

[Tanarii]

without invoking spider sense)

Any particular reason you wouldn't want to invoke spider sense? It's appropriate for all of those.

[JoeJ]

Any particular reason you wouldn't want to invoke spider sense? It's appropriate for all of those.

No special reason. This is just something that could as easily be explained without it if one wanted to.

[BoringInfoGuy]

I can understand EXPECTING the Ready Action to let you split a throat before before an enemy can cast a spell or attack with their crossbow or finish some other triggered action.

It’s a reasonable expectation, but not how it works, with the reaction happening after the trigger has finished.

Realizing that a rule does not work the way you initially thought is part of the process of learning the system so you can play the game.

What irks me is when players try to game the system instead.

If saying my trigger is “when the wizards casts a spell” means the spell goes off before my reaction than I’ll just say “when the wizards BEGINS casting a spell” so that my reaction goes off before the spell is finished!

Sorry, not buying it. If your Readied Action is triggering off a spell being cast, you are already paying attention to when the wizard starts casting the spell. Trying to specify that you are using the beginning of casting a spell as the trigger to turn a reaction into an interruption is like saying you want to negate an enemie’s cover bonus to AC by saying you are only targeting the part of the enemy you can see.

I agree, if you are using a Ready action then being smart about the trigger and readied action is important. But semantic shenanigans do not bypass basic game mechanics.

Unless that is what your table is into. For me, hard pass.

[TheUser]

Ok so far the abridged series of arguments with regards to readying an action in an attempt to disrupt spell casting:

Pro-disruption with readied action seem to think a readied action can interrupt spellcasting
Con do not.


Pro:
Casting spells is a very delicate procedure with complex motions, obscure materials and/or highly trained vocal precision. Even a minor disruptions to these will cause a spell to not complete. The readied action to interrupt has to do the following: succeed on a roll and potentially have a failed concentration check by the target to resist. Unlike other forms of reaction based disruption (counterspell) this has two possible chances to fail, costs an action to attempt and when it succeeds it doesn't cost the target a spell slot (since they were unable to fulfill one or more of the components the spell never completes and a slot is therefore not used).

Con:
Readied actions occur -after- the trigger finishes. Hence the spell casts.
Pro:
The trigger can be a part of an action or beginning of any percievable circumstance e.g. "when the target begins casting a spell" and hence once they have begun casting that trigger has finished and an opportunity to attack them (or "grapple" them with a palm to the mouth) and disrupt a spell component exists.

Con:
Actions are atomic and cannot be interrupted with a readied action.
Pro:
No part of RAW would indicate this whatsoever and various other reactions would seem to indicate interrupting an action mid process is entirely possible making actions divisble by many different degrees, particularly with regards to using reactions.

Con:
These reactions are rules specific whereas the readied action says the triggering circumstance must finish.
Pro:
bro, I just finished explaining actions are definitely not atomic, based on an aggregate of multiple features/spells and a lack of RAW stating as such. Nowhere in the text of D&D does it state actions are indivisible. A triggering circumstance can be the beginning of the casting. Once spell casting has begun that is the trigger finished.

Con:
There is no way to be 100% certain someone has begun casting as opposed to waving their arms around and talking.
Pro:
XGTE tells us directly and Counterspell indirectly, that even when a player is focused on entirely something else, they have the clarity to recognize when a spell with a verbal, somatic or material component is being cast within 60ft and are able to react to it... but a player who spends their entire turn using an action to focus on that target does not?

Con:
Counterspell is rules specific. You need to have it to have this level of perception. Also it is magic. Also it resolves an effect -after- the spell finishes casting causing it to fail.
Pro:
XGTE made it pretty clear that everyone recognizes spells being cast; the notion that PCs need to be level 5+ to know what spell casting looks like is pretty asinine.
Readied Actions are also very specific about what it allows and when they resolve and by RAW can definitely interrupt casting. Moreover counterspells manifesting a result -after- the spell is cast is a better example of a rules specific interaction; the spell completes so that the target being countered still expends a spell slot.

Con:
Why would anyone ever need counterspell now?
Pro:
So they can more easily and reliably disrupt casters while still having access to their action on their turn?

Can you tell what side of this debate I am on?


Honestly this debate is silly.

Ask yourself this: within the context of your fantasy setting, an obvious robed caster enters the king's court armed with no weapons or material components.

Combat has not begun but already two guards armed with crossbows have their sights trained on the caster to ensure that the king is not bewitched or threatened.



Can the guards realistically ready their attack before combat has begun?

Will the caster simply talking trigger their attacks?

Is the window of opportunity between invoking a 1 action spell with a vocal and somatic component long enough to be interrupted by a guard pulling the trigger and having a crossbow bolt lodge into the wizards throat/hands? What about someone standing next to the wizard ready to restrain them/cup a hand over their mouth.

Is spell casting a delicate enough procedure that a concentration check should be rolled if damage is taken while spellcasting?


For me the answers are all pretty clear with regards to versimillitude.

Will I hold a DM's feet to the fire if they decide differently? No. But I will definitely make my case.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Pro:
The trigger can be a part of an action or beginning of any percievable circumstance e.g. "when the target begins casting a spell" and hence once they have begun casting that trigger has finished and an opportunity to attack them (or "grapple" them with a palm to the mouth) and disrupt a spell component exists.

To touch on this, what exactly is the perceivable difference in fiction between beginning to cast and casting a spell at you? If there is such a difference, why would it even specify that the reaction happens after the trigger?

Do you think it's intended for the players choice of wording to make such a drastic difference in the characters ability to react? Did the devs leave such a loophole in so that those "clever" players who find it can reap the benefits while those unaware are doomed to react slower?

I can't help but see it as metagaming. A pretty nasty form of it as well. It's not very realistic for two identical characters in game to react at different speeds in response to the same trigger because the player of one chose his wording more "cleverly".

So I agree, this debate is very silly. There is a side that is legitimately arguing that their character is capable of reacting faster in game because their choice of words at the table were very specific.

[opaopajr]

Enough with the condescending crap.

Logic and common sense says you can have turns out of combat. you can have actions out of combat. you can cast 1 action spells out of combat.
If you see a rocky ledge, you can say, I am getting ready to grab Bob if the ledge gives out... you don't roll inititiave to cross a fracking bridge.

You can even Dash, Hide, Use Objects, and Help out of combat, too! Miraculous, I know.

(The laughable legalese is fun in this topic.)

[Max_Killjoy]

To touch on this, what exactly is the perceivable difference in fiction between beginning to cast and casting a spell at you? If there is such a difference, why would it even specify that the reaction happens after the trigger?

Do you think it's intended for the players choice of wording to make such a drastic difference in the characters ability to react? Did the devs leave such a loophole in so that those "clever" players who find it can reap the benefits while those unaware are doomed to react slower?

I can't help but see it as metagaming. A pretty nasty form of it as well. It's not very realistic for two identical characters in game to react at different speeds in response to the same trigger because the player of one chose his wording more "cleverly".

So I agree, this debate is very silly. There is a side that is legitimately arguing that their character is capable of reacting faster in game because their choice of words at the table were very specific.

I'd turn that on it's head and say that the reason players feel the need to make that argument is that the rules, at least as some here are saying, force them to, via the contrivance of "you can't react until the trigger is completely finished, and only in-system atomic events are triggers in combat".

~~~~

On the combat vs not discussion, the hard separation of rules between combat and out-of-combat that some are pushing reminds me of the old Final Fantasy style games with the silliness of wandering around until encountering a monster, and then "fade to combat".

[NaughtyTiger]

I'd turn that on it's head and say that the reason players feel the need to make that argument is that the rules, at least as some here are saying, force them to, via the contrivance of "you can't react until the trigger is completely finished, and only in-system atomic events are triggers in combat".

This^.

At our tables, when someone does the Ready Action, there is discussion about when they want the effect to happen. (yeah, it slows the table, but it's rare so cool) by the end of the discussion, the DM and players modify the wording of the trigger until they both agree.
there are reasonable DMs that say, nah, i won't accept that trigger, but maybe this one.

there are super legalistic DMs that "trap" the players into poorly worded triggers. that causes savvy players to word their trigger like a wish from a genie, spelling out all the edge cases.

[mephnick]

Have you people actually been arguing about something that has an objective answer for 2 straight years?

[NaughtyTiger]

Have you people actually been arguing about something that has an objective answer for 2 straight years?

um. no. we are disagreeing about a lot of things that have been subjective since 2014 and will continue to be until 6e

[TheUser]

To touch on this, what exactly is the perceivable difference in fiction between beginning to cast and casting a spell at you? If there is such a difference, why would it even specify that the reaction happens after the trigger?

...because it is impossible to react to something that hasn't happened. The percievable difference between "beginning to cast a spell" and "casting a spell" would infer you aren't waiting around to let them finish....

Do you think it's intended for the players choice of wording to make such a drastic difference in the characters ability to react? Did the devs leave such a loophole in so that those "clever" players who find it can reap the benefits while those unaware are doomed to react slower?

Labelling something as a "loophole" when it is the express design of the feature seems pretty dumb. Using Readied Actions already begets an advanced level of play. Using it as it is designed seems less like a "loophole" and more "working as intended"

I can't help but see it as metagaming. A pretty nasty form of it as well. It's not very realistic for two identical characters in game to react at different speeds in response to the same trigger because the player of one chose his wording more "cleverly".

The DM has the power to help the player here by clarifying.
"I ready an attack for if they cast a spell."
"Do you want the trigger to be as soon as they start casting or when they finish? Is your intent to disrupt their cast?"
Is it metagamey that in a world of fantasy and magic where magic has precise invocations that enemies might wait for a caster to make an attempt to cast only to try and stop them with attacks? It's not metagamey if you percieve it as part of the fiction. Ask yourself: is this something people would do when fighting eachother in this setting. My thoughts are most definitely yes.

So I agree, this debate is very silly. There is a side that is legitimately arguing that their character is capable of reacting faster in game because their choice of words at the table were very specific.

In otherwords, "I resent the fact that this advanced feature of the game is executed on better by insightful, intelligent players or that DM's don't assist the less experienced players to understand the desired outcome of their players' readied actions."

[JackPhoenix]

The DM has the power to help the player here by clarifying.
"I ready an attack for if they cast a spell."
"Do you want the trigger to be as soon as they start casting or when they finish? Is your intent to disrupt their cast?"

Sure, the GM has the power to make houserules.

Ask yourself: is this something people would do when fighting eachother in this setting. My thoughts are most definitely yes.

No, because people would figure it doesn't work. They would attempt to kill the enemy spellcaster before he gets a chance to even start casting spells, they wouldn't wait until he does.

In otherwords, "I resent the fact that this advanced feature of the game is executed on better by insightful, intelligent players or that DM's don't assist the less experienced players to understand the desired outcome of their players' readied actions."

What "advanced feature of the game"? Disrupting spellcasting by readied attacks isn't "feature of the game", advanced or not, it's "houserule".

[Coffee_Dragon]

Sorry, not buying it. If your Readied Action is triggering off a spell being cast, you are already paying attention to when the wizard starts casting the spell. Trying to specify that you are using the beginning of casting a spell as the trigger to turn a reaction into an interruption is like saying you want to negate an enemie’s cover bonus to AC by saying you are only targeting the part of the enemy you can see.

Spot on. The game putting non-interruption as the default for reactions doesn't include an assumption that nobody's trying their best until the players split the right hairs.

[Coffee_Dragon]

On the combat vs not discussion, the hard separation of rules between combat and out-of-combat that some are pushing reminds me of the old Final Fantasy style games with the silliness of wandering around until encountering a monster, and then "fade to combat".

What would be gained in old Final Fantasy style games by exporting combat mode abstractions out into the wandering parts?

[JoeJ]

"Do you want the trigger to be as soon as they start casting or when they finish? Is your intent to disrupt their cast?"

You're too late to act when they start. By the time your action is ready, they're already started. Characters in the fiction are not taking turns; they're all going at the same time. Initiative indicates who finishes a fraction of a second first.

If you want to act first (and win initiative), act on your turn. If you wait until another character's turn, your readied action takes place immediately they finish casting their spell (or whatever else you're reacting to).

[Tanarii]

You can even Dash, Hide, Use Objects, and Help out of combat, too! Miraculous, I know.

(The laughable legalese is fun in this topic.)

Dash is also used in a Chase. Interestingly, in a conversation that mirrors ready in combat, some people insisting the limitation on Dash actions only applies in Chase scenes, with others saying if you're using that many dash actions you're already in a chase scene and those rules must apply.

Help out of combat has its own similar but slightly different rules, in the ability checks chapter.

[NaughtyTiger]

You're too late to act when they start. By the time your action is ready, they're already started. Characters in the fiction are not taking turns; they're all going at the same time. Initiative indicates who finishes a fraction of a second first.

If you want to act first (and win initiative), act on your turn. If you wait until another character's turn, your readied action takes place immediately they finish casting their spell (or whatever else you're reacting to).

I am confident that this interpretation is yours and not expllicity stated in the book. Which means that both you and TheUser can have valid interpretations.

[JoeJ]

I am confident that this interpretation is yours and not expllicity stated in the book. Which means that both you and TheUser can have valid interpretations.

If you mean it's not explicitly stated that characters don't politely stand around doing nothing until it's their turn? And it's also not explicitly stated that characters always move faster when there are more of them in a particular combat (because all of their turns have to be finished within the same six-second round)? Yeah, those aren't explicitly stated. Nor IMO do they need to be.

[NaughtyTiger]

If you mean it's not explicitly stated that characters don't politely stand around doing nothing until it's their turn? And it's also not explicitly stated that characters always move faster when there are more of them in a particular combat (because all of their turns have to be finished within the same six-second round)? Yeah, those aren't explicitly stated. Nor IMO do they need to be.

i guess your point was that neither narrative (simaltaneous nor serial) is explicitly stated?

Fine, I will use your version of the fiction

You're too late to act when they start. By the time your action is ready, they're already started. Characters in the fiction are not taking turns; they're all going at the same time. Initiative indicates who finishes a fraction of a second first.

If you want to act first (and win initiative), act on your turn. If you wait until another character's turn, your readied action takes place immediately they finish casting their spell (or whatever else you're reacting to).

Initiative is Tim, BoB, Crunk.
If everything is happening at the same time, then Bob the caster has started his spell, and Tim the stabber has started his stabbing, and Crunk is picking his nose.


Tim has a higher initiative, so he gets to complete his stabbing first.
He is fast enough to finish killing Bob right now
But too fast to notice Bob has started casting a spell. and isn't allowed to wait the fraction of a second
So Tim doesn't kill Bob.

Bob has already started casting
(His turn is up) Bob is starting to finish casting, but before he finishes casting, Crunk is able to identify which spell Bob is casting yell it out, and maybe do something about it.

-----------------
the simultaneous narrative is, the guy with the higher initiative is too fast to identify what is going on but the guy with the lowest initiative isn't.
if everyone declared what they were going to do, and who they were going to do it to, THEN initiative was used to figure out what was going to happen, then that narrative is perfect.

"by the time your action is ready, they have already started" means that by the time your action is ready the trigger is met and you can attack before the spell is finished.

i ain't gonna sway you, you ain't gonna sway me, but we can keep going at it.

[jh12]

Tim has a higher initiative, so he gets to complete his stabbing first.
He is fast enough to finish killing Bob right now
But too fast to notice Bob has started casting a spell. and isn't allowed to wait the fraction of a second
So Tim doesn't kill Bob.

If Tim wants to kill Bob, and Tim does because Tim and Bob are fighting with pointy things and spells, why does Tim care whether Bob is casting a spell? Stab, Tim, stab.

He who hesitates is lost.

[NaughtyTiger]

If Tim wants to kill Bob, and Tim does because Tim and Bob are fighting with pointy things and spells, why does Tim care whether Bob is casting a spell?

Tim has a really good reason not to kill Bob unless Bob is casting a spell. Besides who said they were in combat yet.

[JoeJ]

i guess your point was that neither narrative (simaltaneous nor serial) is explicitly stated?

Fine, I will use your version of the fiction


Initiative is Tim, BoB, Crunk.
If everything is happening at the same time, then Bob the caster has started his spell, and Tim the stabber has started his stabbing, and Crunk is picking his nose.


Tim has a higher initiative, so he gets to complete his stabbing first.
He is fast enough to finish killing Bob right now
But too fast to notice Bob has started casting a spell. and isn't allowed to wait the fraction of a second
So Tim doesn't kill Bob.

Bob has already started casting
(His turn is up) Bob is starting to finish casting, but before he finishes casting, Crunk is able to identify which spell Bob is casting yell it out, and maybe do something about it.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. If Tim rolls highest on initiative, he goes first. If he chooses to delay until Bob acts, then he doesn't go first, but that was his choice. If Tim wants to stab Bob but then decides not to, that's on Tim.

Tim and Crunk both have a reaction they can use to try and identify the spell if they want. Why do you think there's some difference?

[jh12]

Besides who said they were in combat yet.

You did. You gave the Imitative order, you said Bob has started casting, and you said that Tim has started stabbing.

[Misterwhisper]

This kind of thing is one of the best positives for rogues.

They only get one attack normally and when you ready an action you only get one attack so a rogue can still pull off all their normal damage.

Also makes their reaction attacks much better.


I will have to say though that the idea that a level 20 fighter can ready only one attack but any caster can ready any spell they want is rather insulting.