starting and stopping spellcasting

[Gotterdammerung]

A friend was telling me about an argument that arose in a game he was running.

He had readied an action to disrupt spellcasting with one of his bad guys. And when the party sorcerer announced that he was casting a spell, the bad guy shot at him. The sorcerer then said he was casting greater mirror image as an immediate action to counter the attack. The argument was 2 fold.

It brought up the questions

Can greater mirror image fool an arrow that is already in flight?

and

If you cast an immediate action spell in the middle of casting a normal spell, does it ruin the original spell?

The GM ruled that by stopping to cast G mirror image, the sorcerer had abandoned his original spell and therefore it was lost.

He also ruled that an arrow already in flight was already aimed at the true sorcerer, so mirror image would have no effect anyway.

He later asked me about it, trying to confirm that he had made a sound choice. I told him that both were reasonable interpretations and that i would look around.

I poked around a bit, to see if i could find anything definitively ruling one way or the other on the matter, and i didn't find anything.

I was about to dig some more when i thought "hey, a random number of extra brains is better than one!"

So i am posting the scenario here.

I am mainly looking for definitive rules that answer the dispute.

But if you feel like also chiming in with your opinion on how you think it should work, that's cool.

[supermonkeyjoe]

RAW is a little tricky but RAI grater mirror image would grant the miss chance immediately, otherwise there is literally no point to it being an immediate action!

[bassmasterginga]

maybe it is an immediate so that you can do it in response to someone, say, charging you or a group of enemys coming from an unexpected direction.

In a 4e game i ran we came across all kinds of RAW that just didn't make logical sense. I finnaly ruled that whenever someone did something physicly questionable the reason it worked was because "magic and {Scrubbed}"

[Gwendol]

Against an arrow in flight? That, by RAW can't possibly work?

If the arrow is aimed at the character, in flight, and beats AC, it will strike no matter of mirror images. The images are there to confound the archer, but have no effect if the attack has already been launched.

[Urpriest]

Against an arrow in flight? That, by RAW can't possibly work?

If the arrow is aimed at the character, in flight, and beats AC, it will strike no matter of mirror images. The images are there to confound the archer, but have no effect if the attack has already been launched.

You're assuming the arrow is in flight, though. That's how the OP referred to it, but the description doesn't agree.

Immediate actions go off before their trigger (it's the only way some of them make sense). Think of it like an interrupt in Magic. So the arrow gets shot after Greater Mirror Image is cast.

[Fax Celestis]

They also take almost no time and effort to use (and in fact can be cast with 'but a thought'). As such, having it cause your other spell to be lost is unnecessary (and in fact is not proscribed anywhere within RAW).

[Flickerdart]

Readied and immediate actions take place before the events that trigger them. So:
Sorcerer: I'mma cast a spell.
Archer: He's about to cast a spell, I better shoot him!
Sorcerer: That guy's about to shoot me, go go gadget GMI!
*illusory duplicates begin casting*
Archer: Which one do I shoot?

[Raendyn]

DM ruled correctly for a wrong reason.

In order for others to comfuse you with the images you must merge with them while moving. So the archer that had you on "locked" mode can't confuse you with the images if you don't move at least once after the casting of the spell.

Also, as for the Immediate action thing, the spell lasts min/CL which translates to ( it is not a minor temporal thing) it is a immidiate action just for faster buffing.

Also as for the "taking actions that need a lesser amount of time while you are already taking other actions" WotC has posted on their boards that taking 2 actions simultaneously is not possible"

So, RAW 2 interpretations exist,
a: you can't take immediate actions while already doing something.
b: you can but your original action is wasted.

A ready action can interupt an immediate action!!!
ready: "I will attack when he cast"
immediate action casting starts(we don't care why)
ready action occurs and may interupt the immediate.

though if it is not interupted then the images appear as normal & if the caster takes a move action then any later attack has the normal miss chance.

[Flickerdart]

In order for others to comfuse you with the images you must merge with them while moving. So the archer that had you on "locked" mode can't confuse you with the images if you don't move at least once after the casting of the spell.
Wrong.

"Mirror image creates 1d4 images plus one image per three caster levels (maximum eight images total). These figments separate from you...When you and the mirror image separate, observers can’t use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image."

The key activity that leads to people being unable to tell which one you are occurs when you cast the spell.



Also, as for the Immediate action thing, the spell lasts min/CL which translates to ( it is not a minor temporal thing) it is a immidiate action just for faster buffing.
Um, what. An immediate action is an immediate action, regardless of the spell's intent.



Also as for the "taking actions that need a lesser amount of time while you are already taking other actions" WotC has posted on their boards that taking 2 actions simultaneously is not possible"
That's because you're not taking actions while taking actions. See my chronology for how the rules adjudicate this.

[MesiDoomstalker]

I agree with Flickerdart at least for the timing and order of it all. The readied action "shoot someone casting a spell" is triggered when the Sorcerer starts casting. The Sorcerer sees(?) the archer about to shoot him and uses his immidiate action to activate GMI which interrupts the attack action and is completed before the attack action resumes again. So thus the attack action has to deal with the multiple images. On the other hand, I'd say the Sorcerer lost his initial spell as the prepped action is to interrupt, I.E. hit during the casting of a spell so casting a spell requires you to stop concentrating on casting the spell you were trying to cast initially. The archer was successful to a degree as he prevented the Sorcerer from completing his initial spell but may/may not have been successful in damaging the Sorcerer and the Sorcerer did get GMI up.

[Fax Celestis]

Also as for the "taking actions that need a lesser amount of time while you are already taking other actions" WotC has posted on their boards that taking 2 actions simultaneously is not possible"

[...]

A ready action can interupt an immediate action!!!
ready: "I will attack when he cast"
immediate action casting starts(we don't care why)
ready action occurs and may interupt the immediate.

Not true.

Readied actions, AoOs, and immediate actions immediately precede their triggers. If you use an immediate action in response to a readied action (as the example above), the play action is:
1. wizard casts spell
2. archer activates readied action
3. wizard responds to readied action with immediate action.

while the gameplay timeline is:
1. wizard casts greater mirror image
2. archer fires
3. wizard casts spell

[Flickerdart]

A ready action can interupt an immediate action!!!
ready: "I will attack when he cast"
immediate action casting starts(we don't care why)
ready action occurs and may interupt the immediate.

This is possible - if the readied action is used on the immediate action spell. However, one cannot use their readied action on both the standard-action and the immediate-action spells. If, on the other hand, the sorcerer cast GMI first, the archer could try and interrupt it by shooting him, but then he would have no action readied to interrupt the primary spell.

The lesson learned from this is: if your opponents like to ready actions, and you don't have Quicken Spell, cast Feather Fall every round and let that be interrupted before proceeding with a real spell.

[MesiDoomstalker]

This is possible - if the readied action is used on the immediate action spell. However, one cannot use their readied action on both the standard-action and the immediate-action spells. If, on the other hand, the sorcerer cast GMI first, the archer could try and interrupt it by shooting him, but then he would have no action readied to interrupt the primary spell.

The lesson learned from this is: if your opponents like to ready actions, and you don't have Quicken Spell, cast Feather Fall every round and let that be interrupted before proceeding with a real spell.

Step 1: Cast Featherfall as a sacrificial spell to eat the readied action.
Step 2: Cast Invisibilty.
Step 3: ???
Step 4: PROFIT!!!!

[Psyren]

My issue with this isn't the timing, it's the casting while casting. (Insert Xzibit meme here.)

"To cast a spell, you must concentrate." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#concentration) This is stated twice: "Additionally, you must concentrate to cast a spell." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#choosingASpell)

Then we add in: "You can’t cast a spell while concentrating on another one." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#duration) While that rule is found in the section on spells with a duration of concentration, it should still apply to casting while casting since you have to concentrate to do that as well.

So we have one of two outcomes - either (1) the sorcerer couldn't GMI at all because he was already casting, or (2) he can, but doing so will disrupt the slower spell he was casting first.

[Raendyn]

well there was a misunderstading here, my bad.

When i said that the archer would interupt the immediate i ment that the immediate action was intended to be used for an other reason & not the ready action of the archer himself.

archer: ready:attack when he cast
fighter: charge the sorc
Sorc: immediate action to avoid the fighter
this trigers the ready & it might interupt the immediate action.

edit: Psyren mate I love the fact that you always have the links to anything. If only I had this talent...:smallwink:
Don't ninja my outcomes :smallfurious::smalltongue: !!

[Fax Celestis]

My issue with this isn't the timing, it's the casting while casting. (Insert Xzibit meme here.)

"To cast a spell, you must concentrate." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#concentration) This is stated twice: "Additionally, you must concentrate to cast a spell." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#choosingASpell)

Then we add in: "You can’t cast a spell while concentrating on another one." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#duration) While that rule is found in the section on spells with a duration of concentration, it should still apply to casting while casting since you have to concentrate to do that as well.

So we have one of two outcomes - either (1) the sorcerer couldn't GMI at all because he was already casting, or (2) he can, but doing so will disrupt the slower spell he was casting first.

Neither outcome is correct. An immediate action requires very little time, and specifically takes place immediately before the triggering action, in exactly the same fashion as an AoO and a readied action. The wizard cast GMI before the archer's shot, which took place before he cast his initial spell.

[Flickerdart]

well there was a misunderstading here, my bad.

When i said that the archer would interupt the immediate i ment that the immediate action was intended to be used for an other reason & not the ready action of the archer himself.

archer: ready:attack when he cast
fighter: charge the sorc
Sorc: immediate action to avoid the fighter
this trigers the ready & it might interupt the immediate action.

edit: Psyren mate I love the fact that you always have the links to anything. If only I had this talent...:smallwink:
Don't ninja my outcomes :smallfurious::smalltongue: !!
There is no fighter. This has no bearing on the temporal discussion at hand.

[charcoalninja]

Not sure if this holds true for 3.5 as I'm unclear on how their immediate actions work, but in 4e you can't take immediate actions on your turn for precisely this reason.

Thus sorc casts spell, sorc gets shot because its his turn and he can't use an immediate action on his turn.

[Psyren]

Neither outcome is correct. An immediate action requires very little time, and specifically takes place immediately before the triggering action, in exactly the same fashion as an AoO and a readied action. The wizard cast GMI before the archer's shot, which took place before he cast his initial spell.

It depends on exactly how the archer worded his readied action. If he worded it in such a way that he fired a shot at the sorcerer before he started casting, then I agree with you. If he fired after the sorcerer started casting, but before the spell went off, then the sorcerer had already started his spell and would therefore lose it when he cast the second spell.

As an analogy, say the sorcerer in question was casting a 1-round casting-time spell, and the archer fired at him normally on his turn. The sorcerer could stop casting it to throw up an immediate-action protection just as he's doing now, but doing so would fizzle the slower spell.'


EDIT: Raendyn, I saw your question to me, but I'm away from my MoI at the moment so I'll have to answer you later on.

[Flickerdart]

It depends on exactly how the archer worded his readied action. If he worded it in such a way that he fired a shot at the sorcerer before he started casting, then I agree with you. If he fired after the sorcerer started casting, but before the spell went off, then the sorcerer had already started his spell and would therefore lose it when he cast the second spell.

As an analogy, say the sorcerer in question was casting a 1-round casting-time spell, and the archer fired at him normally on his turn. The sorcerer could stop casting it to throw up an immediate-action protection just as he's doing now, but doing so would fizzle the slower spell.'


EDIT: Raendyn, I saw your question to me, but I'm away from my MoI at the moment so I'll have to answer you later on.
The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialInitiativeActions.htm) RAW, even if you readied an action for the "middle" of a spell, you would fire it before the spell happened, not during it.

[Psyren]

Then in this case, I agree - since the sorcerer isn't actually casting two spells at once, neither is wasted.

One of the vagaries of real-time action in a turn-based game. :smallwink:

[mootoall]

The "Almost no thought" text for immediate actions should override the "Spellcaster must concentrate" text for spellcasting in general, especially since immediate actions didn't exist when the spellcasting rule was written. The caster should both have gotten its GMI up, and, contingent on whether or not the arrow hit anyway, not been disrupted.

[Psyren]

The "Almost no thought" text for immediate actions should override the "Spellcaster must concentrate" text for spellcasting in general, especially since immediate actions didn't exist when the spellcasting rule was written. The caster should both have gotten its GMI up, and, contingent on whether or not the arrow hit anyway, not been disrupted.

This, I disagree with. What you're proposing allows for situations like casting an immediate action spell while concentrating on another, or being able to cast a long-casting time spell and use your swifts to cast various quickened ones. This greatly lessens the drawbacks of such spells, especially at higher levels.

The OP's situation only works because, as Flickerdart explained, the faster spell goes off before he even started the slower one - not because the faster spell needs so little focus that they wouldn't interfere with each other.

[Fax Celestis]

This, I disagree with. What you're proposing allows for situations like casting an immediate action spell while concentrating on another, or being able to cast a long-casting time spell and use your swifts to cast various quickened ones. This greatly lessens the drawbacks of such spells, especially at higher levels.

"Concentration" is a specific action. It requires a standard action. You still have your swift/immediate to do what you please.

[Psyren]

"Concentration" is a specific action. It requires a standard action. You still have your swift/immediate to do what you please.

Indeed, but you specifically can't cast a spell while concentrating on another one. You can take other swifts/immediates that aren't spellcasting, such as reallocating your essentia.

[erikun]

For the second point, immediate actions take place before their triggering actions. As such, Greater Mirror Image would go off before the arrow was fired, and would be active before the attack was made.

For the first, things are a bit trickier. By RAW, no two actions can happen at the same time, and so firing the arrow (readied action) interrupts and happens before casting the spell. Even though the damage has the potential to interrupt the spell. Despite the damage being "resolved" and over with before the Sorcerer begins casting. Yes, it is that odd. I would say that it is well within the DM's rights to declare that the arrow was fired after the Sorcerer began casting, thus creating a conflict between the two spells, but you could argue the rules against it.

Two spells cannot be cast at the same time, period, outside having multiple minds or some other ability to cast more than one spell at once.


The "Almost no thought" text for immediate actions should override the "Spellcaster must concentrate" text for spellcasting in general, especially since immediate actions didn't exist when the spellcasting rule was written.
This seems irrelevant. "Almost no thought" doesn't mean no thought, and even if it did, it does not override the specific specific restriction of "You can’t cast a spell while concentrating on another one." Simply put, as long as the Sorcerer is casting their first spell, they do not have the ability to cast another spell at the same time, Immediate or no.

You could cast the other spell, though, if the immediate action wasn't in the middle of the current spellcasting. (see above)

[Gotterdammerung]

First off, the red herring approach to readying to disrupt, does not work. You can not fool the archer by casting feather fall. The readied action rules clearly state that you "may choose" to take your readied action in response to a trigger. You can't force them to take their action. Now if the guy with the readied action lacks spell craft to know whats being cast he might shoot at a feather fall, so you can trick them into wasting it, but then again he doesn't have to take the shot and its up to the GM to fairly access what the monster would do. A guy with spell craft will most likely not waste his readied action, and does not have to.

Secondly, using the readied rule about the action taking place before the trigger action as an all encompassing rule makes it irrelevant. Consider if this rule were ironclad. Then readying to disrupt spell casting and readying to counterspelll would never work. I start casting a spell, BBEG takes his readied action and counterspells it, I argue that his counterspell happened B4 I even started casting therefore there is nothing to counter. That's where the logic takes us. It is obvious that this rule was intended only to track initiative and priority orders. In the very next sentence it explains that in the case of another guy triggering the ready, the readied action interrupts the other creatures turn. You can't interrupt something that hasn't even started yet.
I think it is very clear, by the RAW, that a readied action takes place before the trigger action, but still is treated as having interrupted the trigger action.

I think by raw,
The sorcerer started to cast, then was interrupted by an arrow, then somehow cast a mirror image b4 the arrow was released (even tho he had no way of guessing that perfect timing but hey its raw). Therefore, he got his mirror image up, but had to abandon casting the original spell.

I think if you interpret the situation more literally, then the GM ruled correctly on both accounts.

[Flickerdart]

First off, the red herring approach to readying to disrupt, does not work. You can not fool the archer by casting feather fall. The readied action rules clearly state that you "may choose" to take your readied action in response to a trigger. You can't force them to take their action. Now if the guy with the readied action lacks spell craft to know whats being cast he might shoot at a feather fall, so you can trick them into wasting it, but then again he doesn't have to take the shot and its up to the GM to fairly access what the monster would do. A guy with spell craft will most likely not waste his readied action, and does not have to.
Take a look, if you will, at the Monster Manuals. You will see that remarkably few enemies listed therein have Spellcraft. While I am aware that someone with the skill will be able to realize you're casting something fishy (though even then there are skill tricks and feats that obfuscate what you are doing) most opponents you face will not have this option. I'm not sure why you're saying it won't work then going on to say it does.



Secondly, using the readied rule about the action taking place before the trigger action as an all encompassing rule makes it irrelevant. Consider if this rule were ironclad. Then readying to disrupt spell casting and readying to counterspelll would never work. I start casting a spell, BBEG takes his readied action and counterspells it, I argue that his counterspell happened B4 I even started casting therefore there is nothing to counter. That's where the logic takes us. It is obvious that this rule was intended only to track initiative and priority orders. In the very next sentence it explains that in the case of another guy triggering the ready, the readied action interrupts the other creatures turn. You can't interrupt something that hasn't even started yet.
I think it is very clear, by the RAW, that a readied action takes place before the trigger action, but still is treated as having interrupted the trigger action.

Again, yes, the readied action happens before the spell. You say so yourself. And yes, it interrupts, even though it happens before. This is known.



I think by raw,
The sorcerer started to cast, then was interrupted by an arrow, then somehow cast a mirror image b4 the arrow was released (even tho he had no way of guessing that perfect timing but hey its raw). Therefore, he got his mirror image up, but had to abandon casting the original spell.

I think if you interpret the situation more literally, then the GM ruled correctly on both accounts.
This is incorrect. Since you yourself admit that the arrow is fired before the original spell is cast, there is no "abandoning" anything.

You have refuted yourself.

[Gotterdammerung]

Take a look, if you will, at the Monster Manuals. You will see that remarkably few enemies listed therein have Spellcraft. While I am aware that someone with the skill will be able to realize you're casting something fishy (though even then there are skill tricks and feats that obfuscate what you are doing) most opponents you face will not have this option. I'm not sure why you're saying it won't work then going on to say it does.

I was pointing out that it is impossible for you to force any creature to take its readied action. It is the creatures choice whether or not he takes his readied action, no matter how many times you provide him with a trigger circumstance.



Again, yes, the readied action happens before the spell. You say so yourself. And yes, it interrupts, even though it happens before. This is known.



This is incorrect. Since you yourself admit that the arrow is fired before the original spell is cast, there is no "abandoning" anything.

You have refuted yourself.

No i never said the arrow is fired before the spell is cast. It doesn't work that way. The arrow has to hit during the casting in order to disrupt the spellcasting. If the arrow was fired b4 the spell was even cast then no one could ever use an arrow to disrupt spell casting. No one could ever counterspell or anything like it, for that matter.

The rules change when dealing with another creature. It says so in the paragraph on ready. It presents some text on rules about ready but then says "the action occurs before the action that triggered it."

It then however says in the very next sentence, "If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action."

The readied action vs another creature interrupts. Interrupt means to to cause or make a break in the continuity or uniformity of a thing. In other words, you can not interrupt something that has not already happened. This specific rule is in contention with the generic rule of "the action occurs before the action that triggered it", because you can not interrupt something that hasn't happened yet. Specific supersedes general.

[Flickerdart]

That is not a change in the rules; it is a clarification. Note that it says activities and actions, meaning multiple. The text is talking about the character's turn, not splitting an action as you would an atom.

[Gotterdammerung]

it doesnt just say activites. It says "if the triggered action is part of another characters activities, you interrupt the other character." You interrupt the action that is part of the other players turn. But you still interrupt the action. You can not interrupt something that hasn't even begun. Therefore the 2 rules are in contention. And specific trumps general.

[olentu]

it doesnt just say activites. It says "if the triggered action is part of another characters activities, you interrupt the other character." You interrupt the action that is part of the other players turn. But you still interrupt the action. You can not interrupt something that hasn't even begun. Therefore the 2 rules are in contention. And specific trumps general.

Oh it never says that one interrupts the action one could just as easily be interrupting the activities that the character is currently taking.

[Flickerdart]

it doesnt just say activites. It says "if the triggered action is part of another characters activities, you interrupt the other character." You interrupt the action that is part of the other players turn. But you still interrupt the action. You can not interrupt something that hasn't even begun. Therefore the 2 rules are in contention. And specific trumps general.
This isn't what "specific trumps general" means. That only refers to things like an ability that bypasses immunity to compulsions being more specific than an ability that gives immunity to all mind-affecting spells. A rule does not contradict itself, especially in two adjacent sentences.

You are essentially bending the rules into a pretzel just to make them fit your strange worldview where immediate action spells are useless defensively.

[Gotterdammerung]

This isn't what "specific trumps general" means. That only refers to things like an ability that bypasses immunity to compulsions being more specific than an ability that gives immunity to all mind-affecting spells. A rule does not contradict itself, especially in two adjacent sentences.

You are essentially bending the rules into a pretzel just to make them fit your strange worldview where immediate action spells are useless defensively.

That is ridiculous. "Specific trumps general" can only mean one thing. Any time 2 rules contradict each other, the one that is more specific takes precedent.

It doesn't apply to certain things and not other things. It applies when it applies.


I'm not bending the rules at all. And i am definitely not making immediate actions useless. In my scenario the sorcerer was able to use his G mirror image to defend against the arrow. He just lost the spell he interrupted to cast it.


What is weird to me is that when faced with a rules question, you default to a "what is the most unrealistic way i can possibly interpret these words."
Its as if you think that an interpretation of a rule cant possibly be right unless it completely molests reality.

Sometimes rules aren't very realistic for the purposes of simplicity. But that is not always the case and should not be the default mindset. Many times there is a interpretation that preserves the rules and reality or at the very least arrives at a compromise between the two.

This is such a case.

[Gotterdammerung]

Oh it never says that one interrupts the action one could just as easily be interrupting the activities that the character is currently taking.

The "activities that the character is currently taking" is the exact same action that triggered the ready... duh.

[olentu]

The "activities that the character is currently taking" is the exact same action that triggered the ready... duh.

I do not see that requirement but surely if you are that set on requiring that it must be the case you must have some rules text that specifically states the manner in which the interruption is implemented. And I would suggest that you don't bother posting the same quote you did before as I will just say the same thing I did before and we will be right back here again.

[Coidzor]

First off, the red herring approach to readying to disrupt, does not work. You can not fool the archer by casting feather fall. The readied action rules clearly state that you "may choose" to take your readied action in response to a trigger. You can't force them to take their action. Now if the guy with the readied action lacks spell craft to know whats being cast he might shoot at a feather fall, so you can trick them into wasting it, but then again he doesn't have to take the shot and its up to the GM to fairly access what the monster would do.


I was pointing out that it is impossible for you to force any creature to take its readied action. It is the creatures choice whether or not he takes his readied action, no matter how many times you provide him with a trigger circumstance.

So by fairly assessing what the monster would do, the GM is having the creature that has readied an action to disrupt spellcasting chooses not to disrupt spellcasting because the GM knows that the character is casting featherfall but the creature has no way of knowing what spell is being cast, just that the caster looks like it's casting.

You're kinda just arguing the opposite and advocating GM cheating by saying that, buddy.


I think if you interpret the situation more literally, then the GM ruled correctly on both accounts.

Careful there, you're making yourself sound more interested in proving your GM right than getting to the bottom of this.

[Gotterdammerung]

So by fairly assessing what the monster would do, the GM is having the creature that has readied an action to disrupt spellcasting chooses not to disrupt spellcasting because the GM knows that the character is casting featherfall but the creature has no way of knowing what spell is being cast, just that the caster looks like it's casting.

You're kinda just arguing the opposite and advocating GM cheating by saying that, buddy.

Nope, I even specifically said that a GM should judge the situation fairly. But the decision belongs to the character who readied the action not the character who triggered the action.

And considering that a wizard who casts a decoy spell to waste the readied action is metagaming, I don't think you really have a leg to stand on. Seriously, its like saying "If a character readies an attack against a charge, you could just decide not to charge."




Careful there, you're making yourself sound more interested in proving your GM right than getting to the bottom of this.

He has already been proven wrong by the RAW in almost every interpretation, including mine. Why would i care about that? Why would he ask me about a rule in the first place if he thought i was a sniffling wanker who would placate him?

I am interested in an accurate interpretation of the rules and I don't care if the solution makes the GM wrong.

[Flickerdart]

And considering that a wizard who casts a decoy spell to waste the readied action is metagaming, I don't think you really have a leg to stand on. Seriously, its like saying "If a character readies an attack against a charge, you could just decide not to charge."
That's hilariously wrong.

Imagine you are a wizard. You have a mighty intellect, and that mighty intellect is currently being shot with arrows. It's nowhere near an intellectual feat of Holmesian proportions to notice that the archer is timing his shots to interrupt your spells, nor is it all that complicated to notice that he can only nock a new arrow so quickly. Therefore, it only makes sense to pop a decoy spell, make him loose his arrow prematurely and then follow up with the real deal.

[Gotterdammerung]

That's hilariously wrong.

Imagine you are a wizard. You have a mighty intellect, and that mighty intellect is currently being shot with arrows. It's nowhere near an intellectual feat of Holmesian proportions to notice that the archer is timing his shots to interrupt your spells, nor is it all that complicated to notice that he can only nock a new arrow so quickly. Therefore, it only makes sense to pop a decoy spell, make him loose his arrow prematurely and then follow up with the real deal.

My example was referring to the first time an arrow is shot to interrupt casting.
There is no precedent for the wizard to establish a pattern.

And the entire point was in response to someone acting like feather fall is the end all be all counter to archers with readied actions.

And even if the wizard analyzes the combat and decides that he will use feather fall as a decoy, there is nothing stopping the monster from also analyzing the combat and deciding to try something new after he has been tricked once. He might specifically try to let the first spell come through just to see what it is. He might also change his actions based on an observance. He might decide to only target the spells with the longer chant and hand wiggling.

But surmising the adaptive nature of combat has nothing to do with this topic.

In the OP example the readied arrow was the first time that tactic had been used in this combat. The sorcerer would not have known that the monster was readied to disrupt spellcasting. And casting featherfall to trick him would of been metagaming.

[Flickerdart]

My example was referring to the first time an arrow is shot to interrupt casting.
There is no precedent for the wizard to establish a pattern.

And the entire point was in response to someone acting like feather fall is the end all be all counter to archers with readied actions.

And even if the wizard analyzes the combat and decides that he will use feather fall as a decoy, there is nothing stopping the monster from also analyzing the combat and deciding to try something new after he has been tricked once. He might specifically try to let the first spell come through just to see what it is. He might also change his actions based on an observance. He might decide to only target the spells with the longer chant and hand wiggling.

But surmising the adaptive nature of combat has nothing to do with this topic.

In the OP example the readied arrow was the first time that tactic had been used in this combat. The sorcerer would not have known that the monster was readied to disrupt spellcasting. And casting featherfall to trick him would of been metagaming.
No, it would have been using experience from previous battles against archers. Sorcerers aren't goldfish.

[Coidzor]

Nope, I even specifically said that a GM should judge the situation fairly. But the decision belongs to the character who readied the action not the character who triggered the action.

Indeed you did expressly state that, I was pointing out how everything else you said was kinda going against the whole judging fairly thing.


And considering that a wizard who casts a decoy spell to waste the readied action is metagaming, I don't think you really have a leg to stand on. Seriously, its like saying "If a character readies an attack against a charge, you could just decide not to charge."

Well, generally speaking the GM's not going to announce that he's readying his NPC's actions for such a thing anyway, so I'd say that willingly expending a spell to draw out any enemies who might be readying actions to disrupt spellcasting before casting a spell they really wanted to get off and didn't have confidence in their concentration skill-roll would not qualify as metagaming unless you count any kind of action based upon rules knowledge as metagaming, in which case the term becomes kinda uselessly broad.

[Incanur]

The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialInitiativeActions.htm)

Because everybody in D&D is a goddamn tachyon. :smalltongue:

This thread illustrates why I hate 3.5 so much. The initiative rules create causal paradoxes.

[Fax Celestis]

Because everybody in D&D is a goddamn tachyon. :smalltongue:

This thread illustrates why I hate 3.5 so much. The initiative rules create causal paradoxes.

Only if you look at it from that perspective. If you look at it as making the game easier to play and making the ready action and immediate actions function easily, then it shines in a very different light.

[Incanur]

If you look at it as making the game easier to play and making the ready action and immediate actions function easily, then it shines in a very different light.

As someone who has run 3.5 D&D, I take issue with the notion that ready and immediate actions function easily. :smallsmile:

Out of curiosity, where do the rules say immediate actions resemble readied actions with regards to happening before the action of the character they're interrupting?

Wings of cover is particularly amusing in this respect with it's take-any-other-action clause.

BBEG: (Starts casting spell-o'-doom.)

PC: (Makes spellcraft check.) "I cast wings of cover to protect the party!"

BBEG: (Notices the defense and opts to smoke a cigar instead of wasting a spell slot.)

PC: "Wait, so why the hell did I just do that?"

[Fax Celestis]

As someone who has run 3.5 D&D, I take issue with the notion that ready and immediate actions function easily. :smallsmile:

Out of curiosity, where do the rules say immediate actions resemble readied actions with regards to happening before the action of the character they're interrupting?

Rules Compendium, IIRC.

[Incanur]

I looked through the Rules Compendium and didn't see it. :smallsigh: That makes things even more confusing.

[Mustard]

Wait, so does this mean that readying an action to disrupt casting wouldn't work at all? If you ready this action: "shoot the caster when he starts casting", and that indeed happens, due to the timing of readied actions, your shot occurs before the casting of the spell, doing damage, but as the caster hasn't begun to cast yet, it doesn't disrupt the spell?

I gather it's accepted that the shot disrupts, but by RAW that doesn't appear to be the case. Is the aforementioned readied action trigger "when he starts casting" just accepted parlance for "when he finishes casting"?

As to the idea of changing the spell as a decoy, I disagree with that. The caster's action is "cast spell X", and is irrevocably set to that, so no changing after seeing what the archer is doing. However, I agree that if the DM publicly announces that enemy archer #2's action is set to shoot the caster (for whatever reason -- as DM I'd just say, "he readies an action. Next!"), and the player controlling the caster hears this, that it's not necessarily metagaming to do the immediate action mirror image (as Flickerdart explained, though for perhaps slightly different reasons; I'd have to re-read that, but it's not actually that important right now).

[Psyren]

I looked through the Rules Compendium and didn't see it. :smallsigh: That makes things even more confusing.

I didn't see it either. You can do them at any time, but doing them before the action that would cause you to do them doesn't make sense to me.

[DoughGuy]

I think the saituation is being looked at in the wrong way. Looking at it in a RL way the caster moves in a way indicative of beginning to cast a spell. The archer notices this and aims at the caster (readied action). The caster notices the archers movemkents and instead of casting the original spell first he casts GMI (immediate action) before the archer releases the arrow. The archer then fires after the GMI is cast. While the arrow is still in flight the casters begins casting his spell (standard action) confident his GMI will fool the archer.

[Gotterdammerung]

I think the saituation is being looked at in the wrong way. Looking at it in a RL way the caster moves in a way indicative of beginning to cast a spell. The archer notices this and aims at the caster (readied action). The caster notices the archers movemkents and instead of casting the original spell first he casts GMI (immediate action) before the archer releases the arrow. The archer then fires after the GMI is cast. While the arrow is still in flight the casters begins casting his spell (standard action) confident his GMI will fool the archer.

A convenient interpretation. However, anyone readying a shot to interrupt a casters spell must actually hit the caster during the spellcasting. Not during the pre-cast interpretive dance that your wizard apparently does. We can also assume that if the GM is being fair with the monsters knowledge then anyone who actually readies to disrupt a spell, would know that you shoot him during the spell, not during the truffle shuffle that comes before the spell.

[DoughGuy]

A convenient interpretation. However, anyone readying a shot to interrupt a casters spell must actually hit the caster during the spellcasting. Not during the pre-cast interpretive dance that your wizard apparently does. We can also assume that if the GM is being fair with the monsters knowledge then anyone who actually readies to disrupt a spell, would know that you shoot him during the spell, not during the truffle shuffle that comes before the spell.

There is no "pre-cast interpretive dance". I'm asssuming that in order to cast a spell the caster has to move his hands to get materials, make somatic gestures and generally do wizardy stuff. The archer goes to fires when the caster first begins reaching for his materials/moving his. The archer would want to fire as soon as possible because he doesnt know how long the spell will take to have an effect. He fires while the caster is readying himself to cast the spell but has already started concentrating on the spell hence interupting it and causing him to lose it.

[Fax Celestis]

I didn't see it either. You can do them at any time, but doing them before the action that would cause you to do them doesn't make sense to me.


A convenient interpretation. However, anyone readying a shot to interrupt a casters spell must actually hit the caster during the spellcasting. Not during the pre-cast interpretive dance that your wizard apparently does. We can also assume that if the GM is being fair with the monsters knowledge then anyone who actually readies to disrupt a spell, would know that you shoot him during the spell, not during the truffle shuffle that comes before the spell.

You are confusing "game mechanics" with "in-game reality". What happens in game and what happens on the table are frequently two very different things, even if they have the same result.

[Flickerdart]

As to the idea of changing the spell as a decoy, I disagree with that.
Nobody is suggesting changing the spell. You simply use your swift-action spell before your standard-action spell, and anyone without Spellcraft could very well be duped into interrupting the first, decoy, one.

[Gotterdammerung]

There is no "pre-cast interpretive dance". I'm asssuming that in order to cast a spell the caster has to move his hands to get materials, make somatic gestures and generally do wizardy stuff. The archer goes to fires when the caster first begins reaching for his materials/moving his. The archer would want to fire as soon as possible because he doesnt know how long the spell will take to have an effect. He fires while the caster is readying himself to cast the spell but has already started concentrating on the spell hence interupting it and causing him to lose it.

The moment a caster starts "concentrating on a spell" he has already begun casting the spell. And if he stops that concentration for any reason, he loses that spell.




You are confusing "game mechanics" with "in-game reality". What happens in game and what happens on the table are frequently two very different things, even if they have the same result.

I'm not confusing anything. The mechanics clearly state that when dealing with another character you interrupt the triggering action. And it makes sense as well, because if it didn't work that way, then the mechanics would break down. If the shot happens before the spell then it can't even force the concentration check for damage taken during casting. If the counterspell is cast before the triggering spell then there isn't any spell to counter. It states it clearly and to ignore that part of the rules creates quite a few game mechanic paradoxes.

[candycorn]

A friend was telling me about an argument that arose in a game he was running.

He had readied an action to disrupt spellcasting with one of his bad guys. And when the party sorcerer announced that he was casting a spell, the bad guy shot at him. The sorcerer then said he was casting greater mirror image as an immediate action to counter the attack. The argument was 2 fold.

It brought up the questions

Can greater mirror image fool an arrow that is already in flight?
If this occurred during the enemy sorceror's turn, then an Immediate action has the same timing as a swift action. Swift actions cannot interrupt other actions.

Source: Here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsincombat.htm#immediateactions)

[olentu]

The moment a caster starts "concentrating on a spell" he has already begun casting the spell. And if he stops that concentration for any reason, he loses that spell.





I'm not confusing anything. The mechanics clearly state that when dealing with another character you interrupt the triggering action. And it makes sense as well, because if it didn't work that way, then the mechanics would break down. If the shot happens before the spell then it can't even force the concentration check for damage taken during casting. If the counterspell is cast before the triggering spell then there isn't any spell to counter. It states it clearly and to ignore that part of the rules creates quite a few game mechanic paradoxes.

Like I said before you only interrupt the triggering characters activities not necessarily any specific action.

Additionally I recall that readied actions to disrupt spellcasting are listed as disrupting spellcasting and so will force a concentration check whether they come before during or after the spell is being cast. Similarly with counter spells.

[Psyren]

You are confusing "game mechanics" with "in-game reality". What happens in game and what happens on the table are frequently two very different things, even if they have the same result.

Do you have a page number cite from RC? Not that I disagree with you, but if we're talking about how RAW takes a silly approach to arrive at an in-game conclusion, well, it would help to have some RAW to go on (where immediate action interrupts are concerned.)

[Incanur]

I was reading through the Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil last night and noticed the Reactive Warding ability specifies that you can use an immediate action to through up a warding during a charge. Unlike the "any other action" clause from wings of cover, the opponent only has the option continue or stop movement. Which of these interpretations is the default for immediate actions, or is there no default?