Readying a spell to interrupt spellcasting?

[Aetis]

As the title says.

For example, is it allowed for a wizard to ready action to cast magic missiles to interrupt someone's spellcasting?

[With a box]

Injury

If while trying to cast a spell you take damage, you must make a Concentration check (DC 10 + points of damage taken + the level of the spell you’re casting). If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between when you start and when you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).

You can use force missile to force a concentration check. And if you are above 9th, The expected value of concentration cheak your enemy is 27.5. (minus 3.5 per one less missile)

[Khedrac]

Readied actions are D&D's wonderful main example of effect coming before cause, only not doing so...

Readied actions technically take place before the action that triggers them, so yes, you can ready a standard action spell to interrupt another's casting - and it's just possible that someone else has readied one to interrupt yours.

This is similar to Attacks of opportunity in that you work backwards from the original trigger action to determine the start of the event sequence, then roll forwards to see what actually happens

[ericgrau]

Yeup, and far more PCs and monsters should ready more actions to disrupt casters. Should be standard tactics. Magic missile is one of the more reliable ways. Don't understand why DMs coddle casters then go to crazy bans that make them unplayable for less experienced players. There is a middle ground of casters playing nice and their foes making it challenging but not impossible for them to function.

[Necroticplague]

Yeup, and far more PCs and monsters should ready more actions to disrupt casters. Should be standard tactics. Magic missile is one of the more reliable ways. Don't understand why DMs coddle casters then go to crazy bans that make them unplayable for less experienced players. There is a middle ground of casters playing nice and their foes making it challenging but not impossible for them to function.

Well, typically, I find that simply killing the spellcaster on my turn is preferable to trying to interrupt him on his, especially if the possibility of spells where you can't recognize them being cast until they take effect are in place (ones without components, easier at higher levels due to still and silent spell).

[DeltaEmil]

Well, typically, I find that simply killing the spellcaster on my turn is preferable to trying to interrupt him on his, especially if the possibility of spells where you can't recognize them being cast until they take effect are in place (ones without components, easier at higher levels due to still and silent spell).Well, if your readied action trigger simply is "I attack him if he casts a spell", it won't matter if he casts it as a quickened still and silent spell, because you still make the readied attack.

The problem rather is that when you're readying your action, the caster simply takes a 5-foot step or a move action to move outside your attack range, and then casts the spell, making your readied action useless if you're relying on melee attacks. Ranged attacks are often weaker than melee attacks, and if the caster walks behind cover, that means the readied ranged attack also fails to be useful. Or worse, the caster simply doesn't cast a spell at all, but does something else, like painting your face in silly colors, or lobs alchemical fire on you, or uses a magic item to put you out of commission.

[Zaq]

Or worse, the caster simply doesn't cast a spell at all, but does something else, like painting your face in silly colors, or lobs alchemical fire on you, or uses a magic item to put you out of commission.

Eh, yes and no. While it's true that you might lose your action if the target doesn't cast a spell, all of those things that you listed are weaker than spells. The caster was going to cast a spell, but as a result of your actions, they didn't. That's not quite as ideal as if you interrupt the spell and force it to fizzle, but preventing a spell from being cast is still not a bad use of an action. (It gets a little dicey if there's a magic item involved that's actually strong enough to "put you out of commission," but most magic items that are strong enough to do that do so by duplicating spells, so I guess that's a gray area. Still, in the hands of a caster, spells tend to be more dangerous than magic items.)

The real problem with readying actions is that it slows the game way down, especially if you use it with any regularity. Plus, a lot of things don't work as intended when you use readied actions to use them on whoever's turn you want, and it can quickly turn into an arms race between the players and the GM, which never ends well. It's less bad in 3.5 than in 4e, for example, but it's still awkward and should probably be used sparingly.

[Calimehter]

The problem rather is that when you're readying your action, the caster simply takes a 5-foot step or a move action to move outside your attack range, and then casts the spell, making your readied action useless if you're relying on melee attacks.

Is this the part where I start campaigning for the legality of readied partial charges? ;P

While we are on the subject . . . is there a consensus out there about whether or not a foe can tell if you have readied an action? A spellcaster is probably going to do things a bit different if he is aware that his immediate opponent has readied an action (versus just thinking his opponent hasn't acted yet in the initiative sequence).

[DeltaEmil]

While we are on the subject . . . is there a consensus out there about whether or not a foe can tell if you have readied an action? A spellcaster is probably going to do things a bit different if he is aware that his immediate opponent has readied an action (versus just thinking his opponent hasn't acted yet in the initiative sequence).I would generally allow it (if the target can see the enemy reading an action, of course). Just like player characters know if an enemy has readied its action against the target. However, no need to tell them what the triggering action is, just like the NPCs might not know what the triggering action is that the player characters are waiting for.

[Flickerdart]

Well, if your readied action trigger simply is "I attack him if he casts a spell", it won't matter if he casts it as a quickened still and silent spell, because you still make the readied attack.
Which works great because the caster can just cast Feather Fall or something, take your hit, and then cast his real spell.

You also need to actually be able to tell something is happening to trigger the action, so if the spell is Still and Silent (so the caster is literally not moving) you'll need to identify that they're casting somehow. After all, you can't ready an action for "attack the enemy when he's thinking about pink elephants."

[Zaq]

It's far from RAW, but I'd be inclined to allow a free-action skill check to see that an opponent has readied an action (though not necessarily what kind of action, and of course not really in response to what). Sense Motive is the obvious choice, but there's also Martial Lore, Spellcraft/Psicraft, and maybe even Spot, though Spot might be harder than the others.

But of course, that would be a houserule, not anything you could find in the books. And I'm not sure what the DC should be, either.

[DeltaEmil]

Which works great because the caster can just cast Feather Fall or something, take your hit, and then cast his real spell.

You also need to actually be able to tell something is happening to trigger the action, so if the spell is Still and Silent (so the caster is literally not moving) you'll need to identify that they're casting somehow. After all, you can't ready an action for "attack the enemy when he's thinking about pink elephants."Sure you can. No need to make it more difficult for the underdog, since readied actions are weak anyway. It's up to the one who wants to do the readied action to select a reasonable trigger condition, and then hope for it to happen.

[Deophaun]

It's up to the one who wants to do the readied action to select a reasonable trigger condition, and then hope for it to happen.
Conditions. You are not limited to only one.

[DeltaEmil]

Conditions. You are not limited to only one.You're kinda right, as the rules say conditions. But then it follows up by saying that condition.

To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, any time before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition.So first, it's plural, but then, it's singular.

Why can't it just be clear, damn it...

[Aetis]

So why isn't just taking improved init and bunch of direct damage spells as a mage a thing?

Outside high levels, even a simple unadjusted fireball forces an unbeatable concentration check on the enemy caster.

[Flickerdart]

Sure you can. No need to make it more difficult for the underdog, since readied actions are weak anyway. It's up to the one who wants to do the readied action to select a reasonable trigger condition, and then hope for it to happen.
Are you seriously arguing that you should be allowed to ready actions for conditions you cannot know occur? I can't even count all the ways that would be hilariously exploitable.

[Denver]

You're kinda right, as the rules say conditions. But then it follows up by saying that condition.
So first, it's plural, but then, it's singular.

Why can't it just be clear, damn it...

Possibly because a Readied Action could have multiple conditions to trigger, but once it has triggered, there is only one condition it needs to be an extant condition.

[Crake]

So why isn't just taking improved init and bunch of direct damage spells as a mage a thing?

Outside high levels, even a simple unadjusted fireball forces an unbeatable concentration check on the enemy caster.

Might I direct you toward the mailman (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/1765181)?

Why interrupt their spell when you can force a fortitude save vs daze instead?

[DeltaEmil]

Are you seriously arguing that you should be allowed to ready actions for conditions you cannot know occur? I can't even count all the ways that would be hilariously exploitable.If you want to waste your standard action to prepare for a condition that will probably never happen during the encounter, then so be it (and the GM would just tell you to stop being asinine anyway, as per DMG 1 page 25-26).

[Flickerdart]

If you want to waste your standard action to prepare for a condition that will probably never happen during the encounter, then so be it (and the GM would just tell you to stop being asinine anyway, as per DMG 1 page 25-26).
Or instead you can interpret the rule sensibly and not require the DM to intervene.

[DeltaEmil]

And interpreting the rules sensibly simply means yes, you can ready your attack against somebody who casts a still and silent spell. Just like you can ready an attack against a manifester using a psionic power that has been manifested with no display.

[Necroticplague]

And interpreting the rules sensibly simply means yes, you can ready your attack against somebody who casts a still and silent spell. Just like you can ready an attack against a manifester using a psionic power that has been manifested with no display.

Why is that sensible? Under the mentioned conditions, you have no way of knowing that they are actually casting/manifesting anything (at least, not until the spell/power has already been cast, but at that point you can't interrupt it), so how could you act based on them having done so?

[With a box]

Why is that sensible? Under the mentioned conditions, you have no way of knowing that they are actually casting/manifesting anything (at least, not until the spell/power has already been cast, but at that point you can't interrupt it), so how could you act based on them having done so?

Maybe spellcasters glows when they cast spells like in oots.

[DeltaEmil]

It happens, just like when somebody tries to stand up, but you hit them before they're standing up with your attack of opportunity, despite them not having stood up yet. You ready an attack against the target when he or she's casting a spell, so it happens once the target casts a spell, no matter if the spell is quickened, stilled and silent all at the same time, or has not been modified by any of those metamagic feats. Unless it cannot happen because the target's out of range or something like that, of course.

And I will do the Devil to grant more options to those "poor poor*" spellcasters to allow them to cast their spells safely while they're being targeted with a readied attack, if they already have tons of options to cast spells safely anyway with for example the ability to cast defensively, simply walk out of range, or teleport abruptly away, or whatever fancies them.

*That was of course meant to be sarcastic.

[atemu1234]

Maybe spellcasters glows when they cast spells like in oots.

Maybe they do a tap dance on the spell components too.

No RAW suggests either of these.

[Flickerdart]

It happens, just like when somebody tries to stand up, but you hit them before they're standing up with your attack of opportunity, despite them not having stood up yet.
Show me a stilled, silent standing-up.

[With a box]

Maybe they do a tap dance on the spell components too.

No RAW suggests either of these.

well, there is for psionic.


When a power is manifested, a display may accompany the primary effect. This secondary effect may be auditory, material, mental, olfactory, or visual. No power’s display is significant enough to create consequences for the psionic creatures, allies, or opponents during combat. The secondary effect for a power occurs only if the power’s description indicates it. If multiple powers with similar displays are in effect simultaneously, the displays do not necessary become more intense. Instead, the overall display remains much the same, though with minute spikes in intensity. A Psicraft check (DC 10 + 1 per additional power in use) reveals the exact number of simultaneous powers in play.

but I agree with spellcasters.

[atemu1234]

well, there is for psionic.


but I agree with spellcasters.

:smallbiggrin: This is hilarious. Meet Ascher, the tapdancing Psion Bard! I'm going to need to write this one up.

[Necroticplague]

well, there is for psionic.


but I agree with spellcasters.

The situation I was responding to mentioned powers without displays.

[Flickerdart]

well, there is for psionic.


but I agree with spellcasters.
Manifesters can choose to suppress these displays with a trivial check, too.

[DeltaEmil]

Show me a stilled, silent standing-up.A prone creature using Iron Heart Surge to end its prone condition while in a zone of silence?

[Necroticplague]

A prone creature using Iron Heart Surge to end its prone condition while in a zone of silence?

Maneuvers require you to be able to move freely, so it sure isn't stilled (Though by RAW, you also wouldn't get an AoO because he's not using the Stand Up from Prone action, which is what provokes, not the act of going from prone to not-prone itself).

[Flickerdart]

A prone creature using Iron Heart Surge to end its prone condition while in a zone of silence?
Prone is not a condition with a duration (measured in rounds, or otherwise), and cannot be Iron Heart Surged.

[DeltaEmil]

Prone is not a condition with a duration (measured in rounds, or otherwise), and cannot be Iron Heart Surged.Sure it can. The one to decide how long the prone duration lasts happens to be the one who's prone.

@Necroticplague: Good call. Well, in that case, we'll have to rely on magic again (booo!), like a contingencied servant horde appearing when you fall prone, and then lifting you up with their combined invisible mindless and shapeless Strength score (let's hope we're not some obese Colossal iron creature thingy).

[Egneil]

My only question about this topic is how visible is initiative? Can a player know any other initiative but their own?

If they can, then a player could ready an action for if their opponent doesn't visibly take an action at their initiative.

[Flickerdart]

Sure it can. The one to decide how long the prone duration lasts happens to be the one who's prone.
That's not what a duration is. By your logic, you can IHS damage, because the damaged individual can decide to rest and recover.

[DeltaEmil]

That's not what a duration is. By your logic, you can IHS damage, because the damaged individual can decide to rest and recover.Hit point damages are not listed under conditions.

[Curmudgeon]

Well, if your readied action trigger simply is "I attack him if he casts a spell", it won't matter if he casts it as a quickened still and silent spell, because you still make the readied attack.
Maybe you're thinking that Ready works like Contingency. However, there's no magical condition detection capability in Ready; it's simply a quick response plan, and the trigger necessarily relies on the character's senses to detect.
If the triggered action is part of another character’s activities, you interrupt the other character. Spellcasting with no components is definitely a D&D action, but it's not in any way active. Ready requires activities, not just actions.

[DeltaEmil]

Spellcasting with no components is definitely a D&D action, but it's not in any way active. Ready requires activities, not just actions.Explain more. Casting a spell, even if it's stilled, is still an activity.

[Deophaun]

Spellcasting with no components is definitely a D&D action, but it's not in any way active. Ready requires activities, not just actions.
It must take a might epic blade to be able to split such a fine hair.

[lsfreak]

Casting a spell triggers an AoO whether or not it's stilled, silent, and eschewed. I'd take that as precedence for knowing someone is casting a spell even absent any components.

[Denver]

In some ways, this boils down to whether the game needs to recognize the proper conditional for the Ready Action, or if the character has to recognize the proper conditional.

Consider the idea of a character preparing a Ready Action to "attack that person if he begins to cast a spell." What if the target of the ready action uses a Bluff check to attempt to convince character that the Ready Action trigger is occurring? Under the idea that the character has to recognize what "begins to cast a spell" looks like, then the Ready Action character must make a Sense Motive roll to detect the deception, and if she fails, then she uses her Ready Action as if the spellcaster had cast a spell.

However, if we go with the former idea - that the game simply has to recognize the correct trigger - then that same situation would likely work out differently. The spellcaster would attempt their Bluff check, and the character with the Ready Action would simply sit there, as using the skill Bluff is most certainly not a spell.

This division could get even wilder if the campaign had Charlatans (Dragon Magazine 335) in the mix. One of the main functions of that class is to use bluff just to convince people that she is a real spellcaster. If Ready Action works under the model that the game must recognize the proper conditional, then some of the functionality of the Charlatan is destroyed, but not through any use Spellcraft or Bluff or Detect Magic, but simply through the idea that the game communicated the correct information to the character who needed it.

I would call this an example of drawing either conclusion down to its logical conclusion to see if any apparent contradictions can arise. In this case, I think we can see that allowing a Ready Action to trigger merely when that condition exists could lead to logical contradictions. The character must use her senses to discern the action, insofar as it makes the most sense.

Edit: Granted, so long as the rule is consistent, of course, then it can be considered "fair." But even in that consistency - for my assessment - the former consistency is less desirable than the latter one.

[Psyren]

Well, if your readied action trigger simply is "I attack him if he casts a spell", it won't matter if he casts it as a quickened still and silent spell, because you still make the readied attack.

I don't buy this. If you don't detect the triggering condition, your readied action shouldn't go off - no more than if, say, your character is blind but you ready an action based on seeing the color red.


Are you seriously arguing that you should be allowed to ready actions for conditions you cannot know occur? I can't even count all the ways that would be hilariously exploitable.

This.

[ZamielVanWeber]

I agree with Flickerdart and Psyren. A spell without material, somatic, or verbal components (or a power with a suppressed display) has literally nothing for you to go on; the spellcaster may as well be on the other side of a brick wall for all you know because you cannot, using any nonmagical sense, detect that a spell is being cast until the spell is complete under those conditions (it is part of why spellsinger is such a fun class).

You do still get an AoO by RAW, but RAW is silly and let's you heal people by drowning, so its issues are well known.

[Troacctid]

Spell-like abilities have no components and explicitly provoke attacks of opportunity. What are you reacting to in a spell-like ability that you couldn't react to in a stilled silent spell?

[Zaydos]

Psionic powers also don't have components but allow for attacks of opportunity.

My guess is all of them require you to cease what you're doing and concentrate on casting the spell (it's a purely mental action).

Strangely these things provoke attacks of opportunity when paralyzed where you're helpless so I don't understand how you drop your guard.

[Egneil]

I don't buy this. If you don't detect the triggering condition, your readied action shouldn't go off - no more than if, say, your character is blind but you ready an action based on seeing the color red.

But couldn't a blind warrior with ranks in spellcraft and knowledge of where a spellcaster was be able to ready an action to hit the spellcaster at what would be the most opportune moment to disrupt a spell?

Alternatively, is it possible to set the triggered condition to an action that can be conceptualized but not detectable? Like trying to hit an invisible creature in a square you expect him to move to at a certain time.

[bjoern]

It's far from RAW, but I'd be inclined to allow a free-action skill check to see that an opponent has readied an action (though not necessarily what kind of action, and of course not really in response to what). Sense Motive is the obvious choice, but there's also Martial Lore, Spellcraft/Psicraft, and maybe even Spot, though Spot might be harder than the others.

But of course, that would be a houserule, not anything you could find in the books. And I'm not sure what the DC should be, either.

I regularly ask my DM to let me make a spell craft check as his baddies are casting a spell. If I can pass the check, and recognize what spell is coming my way, I can use my immediate action accordingly.

[Curmudgeon]

Casting a spell triggers an AoO whether or not it's stilled, silent, and eschewed. I'd take that as precedence for knowing someone is casting a spell even absent any components.
Casting a spell does not trigger an attack of opportunity; it merely provokes one. The assumption is that opponents are probing each others' defenses on an ongoing basis, and letting your guard down (by concentrating on casting a spell) lets one of those probing attacks possibly get through. Ready, in contrast, requires an actual observable trigger.

[mvpmack]

Casting a spell does not trigger an attack of opportunity; it merely provokes one. The assumption is that opponents are probing each others' defenses on an ongoing basis, and letting your guard down (by concentrating on casting a spell) lets one of those probing attacks possibly get through. Ready, in contrast, requires an actual observable trigger.

It's reasonable to assume that if a fighter can observe an opponent lowering his defenses, a spellcaster can observe the same.

[georgie_leech]

I dunno, I don't have much of a problem saying that you can detect a Silent Still Spell. The caster is obviously doing something to cast the spell, otherwise it would be a free or swift action. Maybe it's glaring particularly hard or something, but I'd certainly allow a player that Readied an Action (in other words, the character is paying extra attention for a certain event) to notice subtle cues like that.

[Flickerdart]

Maybe it's glaring particularly hard or something, but I'd certainly allow a player that Readied an Action (in other words, the character is paying extra attention for a certain event) to notice subtle cues like that.
I can sit here and Ready an Action against neutrinos all I like, but that won't help me spot one.

[Curmudgeon]

It's reasonable to assume that if a fighter can observe an opponent lowering his defenses, a spellcaster can observe the same.
The Fighter never observes the opponent lowering their defenses; they simply manage to get a free attack in.
The melee combat rules assume that combatants are actively avoiding attacks. A player doesn’t have to declare anything special for her character to be on the defensive. Even if a character’s miniature figure is just standing there on the battle grid, you can be sure that if some orc with a falchion attacks the character, she is weaving, dodging, and even threatening the orc with a weapon to keep the orc a little worried for his own hide.

Sometimes, however, a combatant in a melee lets her guard down. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity
There's nothing there which says the lowering of defenses is observed.

[mvpmack]

I can sit here and Ready an Action against neutrinos all I like, but that won't help me spot one.

A character who threatens the spellcaster can identify that a spell is being cast. If someone who merely threatens the caster can observe the spell being cast, how can a character who is watching the caster with intent to discern the caster's actions not identify it?

[Egneil]

I can sit here and Ready an Action against neutrinos all I like, but that won't help me spot one.

I don't think that this is quite the same magnitude as staring at someone and looking for tells. But this does raise the question of if you can make readied actions against an invisible opponent, even if you know that they're there.

On the one hand they have absolutely no visual cues, (even less than a wizard using a stilled, silenced spell). But it would be rather broken if all you needed to do to avoid readied actions was improved invisibility.

[Tryxx]

This thread made me re-read the Counterspell and Spellcraft rules (only place I know that really uses readied actions offhand). I didn't realize Silenced and Stilled spells were impossible to identify while being cast, and as such impossible to counterspell. Funilly enough it doesn't mention the spell effect, so better make sure that Invisible spell doesn't have any components. You'd think Invisible Spell, Non-Verbal Spell, and especially Deceptive Spell would mention it.

(I'm assuming you still have to identify the spell even if you're casting Dispel Magic.)

[Troacctid]

But it would be rather broken if all you needed to do to avoid readied actions was improved invisibility.

Would it, though? I mean, how often do people ready actions in the first place? And if you have total concealment from them, you're already avoiding most things they could do to you. It doesn't sound broken to me at all--at least not any more broken than improved invisibility on its own.

[mvpmack]

The Fighter never observes the opponent lowering their defenses; they simply manage to get a free attack in.
There's nothing there which says the lowering of defenses is observed.

It's extremely pedantic to use those lines to assume that one can react to something without observing it.


I don't think that this is quite the same magnitude as staring at someone and looking for tells. But this does raise the question of if you can make readied actions against an invisible opponent, even if you know that they're there.

On the one hand they have absolutely no visual cues, (even less than a wizard using a stilled, silenced spell). But it would be rather broken if all you needed to do to avoid readied actions was improved invisibility.

You can't cast a targeted spell at something you can't see anyway. If your target is improved invisible, he still has to speak verbal components (so you can guess he's casting a spell, but you have to endure miss chance to hit him even if you guess the right square to aim at). If he's improved invisible and casting a silent spell, it's reasonable to assume that there's no way you can identify a spell is being cast unless you can see through the invisibility effect.

[Curmudgeon]

A character who threatens the spellcaster can identify that a spell is being cast.
I don't think so. Can you back that up with a 3.5 rules quote?

[Flickerdart]

A character who threatens the spellcaster can identify that a spell is being cast. If someone who merely threatens the caster can observe the spell being cast, how can a character who is watching the caster with intent to discern the caster's actions not identify it?
A stilled, silent spell does not require components, but there's nothing written anywhere that says the caster cannot then choose to perform other sounds or gestures (ideally obscene ones) during the casting. Is the wizard casting a spell, or just mooning you? You'd get an AoO either way, but it's impossible to know whether he's going to let loose a stinking cloud or a stinking cloud.

[mvpmack]

I don't think so. Can you back that up with a 3.5 rules quote?

Not exactly, however no reasonable interpretation of the rules would state that one cannot identify the action that provoked the attack of opportunity. Even in an unreasonable circumstance, you can simply use process of elimination to identify that the provoking action is either casting a spell, activating a spell-like ability or using a magic item. It is not an action to identify that your opponent is not:
> moving
> using a skill (if you want to be extremely pedantic, you could ask about every specific skill which does provoke, such as heal or open lock)
> making an attack that would provoke (unarmed, disarm, sunder, etc)
> drinking a potion

Only the most ridiculous interpretations of rules would claim that you do not get to know what the action which triggered your attack of opportunity was.

[mvpmack]

A stilled, silent spell does not require components, but there's nothing written anywhere that says the caster cannot then choose to perform other sounds or gestures (ideally obscene ones) during the casting. Is the wizard casting a spell, or just mooning you? You'd get an AoO either way, but it's impossible to know whether he's going to let loose a stinking cloud or a stinking cloud.

That's actually legitimate, but I'm pretty sure that mooning someone is an action and can't be done while casting a spell. You could talk while casting a spell though. Since we're deep in ridiculous rules interpretations though, unless you use Spell Thematics or Disguise Spell or some similar feat or skill trick it's not actually going to confuse anyone.

[Egneil]

This thread made me re-read the Counterspell and Spellcraft rules (only place I know that really uses readied actions offhand). I didn't realize Silenced and Stilled spells were impossible to identify while being cast, and as such impossible to counterspell. Funilly enough it doesn't mention the spell effect, so better make sure that Invisible spell doesn't have any components. You'd think Invisible Spell, Non-Verbal Spell, and especially Deceptive Spell would mention it.

(I'm assuming you still have to identify the spell even if you're casting Dispel Magic.)

As far as I can tell you don't need to identify a spell to counter it with Dispel Magic, you just have to overcome your opponent's caster level. The reasoning that I see is that Dispel Magic is taking the magic in their spell and tearing it apart, so in order to successfully cast their spell they have to overcome the disruptive energies.

[Flickerdart]

That's actually legitimate, but I'm pretty sure that mooning someone is an action and can't be done while casting a spell.
You'd be surprised.

While we're at it, Surrogate Spellcasting would let you use all sorts of obscenity as spell components, and Melodic Casting would let you gangster rap all your spells.

[mvpmack]

You'd be surprised.

While we're at it, Surrogate Spellcasting would let you use all sorts of obscenity as spell components, and Melodic Casting would let you gangster rap all your spells.

Melodic Casting doesn't really work that way, you still need to fire off the verbal components -- it just lets you do it while simultaneously singing or playing the flute. I'm not even going to touch that feat because the idea that you can't cast a stilled spell while using dance or playing a string instrument (unless you have Melodic Casting) is pretty stupid, and the ability to speak (in a strong voice, no less) while playing a wind instrument is also stupid.

Surrogate Spellcasting doesn't let you change the verbal or somatic components unless you're in a shape that can't perform the normal ones.

[Deophaun]

Here's the dirty little secret: Due to where readied actions wind up in the "stack," readying an attack for when someone begins to cast a spell won't disrupt it, because the attack happens before the spell starts being cast, which means the target still has not actually committed the action. Afterwards he can instead choose to hit you with his staff, or activate a wand. If he has movement left, he can still move away and cast a new spell.

No, the condition to disrupt a spell is when the spell comes into effect. Then it's too late for the caster to change his mind. He is committed, and since the caster is still actually casting the spell, a successful attack will force a Concentration check.

Coincidentally, this solves the basic issue of readying an attack in response to a Still Silent fireball with Eschew Materials, because you can detect what was supposed to trigger it. Strangely, you can also do this with a Still Silent Invisible Spell fireball with Eschew Materials if you would be in the blast range, because when a spell takes effect, everything happens at the same time (targets, saves, damage).

Now, could you do it if the spell in question was charm person?

[Curmudgeon]

Not exactly, however no reasonable interpretation of the rules would state that one cannot identify the action that provoked the attack of opportunity.
I'm not into arguing about "reasonable interpretation"; either it's a rule or it isn't. Just as a counterexample, how would you distinguish between someone casting a componentless spell they want to come into effect in a nearby square (maybe they're summoning a creature), and someone Searching that same square? As far as you can tell, both of these actions involve the character doing nothing but staring at a particular square for a full round, and in the process they let their guard down.

[Egneil]

Here's the dirty little secret: Due to where readied actions wind up in the "stack," readying an attack for when someone begins to cast a spell won't disrupt it, because the attack happens before the spell starts being cast, which means the target still has not actually committed the action. Afterwards he can instead choose to hit you with his staff, or activate a wand. If he has movement left, he can still move away and cast a new spell.

No, the condition to disrupt a spell is when the spell comes into effect. Then it's too late for the caster to change his mind. He is committed, and since the caster is still actually casting the spell, a successful attack will force a Concentration check.

Coincidentally, this solves the basic issue of readying an attack in response to a Still Silent fireball with Eschew Materials, because you can detect what was supposed to trigger it. Strangely, you can also do this with a Still Silent Invisible Spell fireball with Eschew Materials if you would be in the blast range, because when a spell takes effect, everything happens at the same time (targets, saves, damage).

Now, could you do it if the spell in question was charm person?

I would have to say yes, as an action readied against an action will always interrupt it. Therefor if the concentration check fails the spell fails as well, and it's effect cannot activate.

Also it is entirely possible to ready an action during the middle of the spell, and have the best of both worlds. With the wizard too far into the spell to salvage his turn, but not far enough too be in any grey areas.


I'm not into arguing about "reasonable interpretation"; either it's a rule or it isn't. Just as a counterexample, how would you distinguish between someone casting a componentless spell they want to come into effect in a nearby square (maybe they're summoning a creature), and someone Searching that same square? As far as you can tell, both of these actions involve the character doing nothing but staring at a particular square for a full round, and in the process they let their guard down.

Specifically eye movement, searching a square requires methodical movement of your vision whereas casting a spell only requires you to keep your target in line of sight. Any fighter worth their salt would keep track of the entire body and would identify the difference.

Alternatively the search skill has no specific listing for provoking an attack of opportunity, and skill usage in combat only provokes one usually so it's entirely up to the DM if you actually can make an attack of opportunity. At least with that skill in mind.

[Psyren]

Specifically eye movement, searching a square requires methodical movement of your vision whereas casting a spell only requires you to keep your target in line of sight. Any fighter worth their salt would keep track of the entire body and would identify the difference.

Where do the rules say this?

[Flickerdart]

Any fighter worth their salt would keep track of the entire body and would identify the difference.
Spot is not even a Fighter class skill.

[Egneil]

Where do the rules say this?

He provided a counterexample from outside the rules, as the rules state that you don't need any visual cues in order to perform an AoO. As long as you can threaten a square, it doesn't matter what kind of status you have. If an AoO is provoked against you, you have the option to get a free attack.


Spot is not even a Fighter class skill.

And spellcasting prevents the use of the bluff skill, aka the only skill that can reasonably prevent yourself from provoking an AoO.

[Psyren]

He provided a counterexample from outside the rules, as the rules state that you don't need any visual cues in order to perform an AoO.

Right, but your conclusion does not follow - two activities that look similar and both provoke are not necessarily perfectly distinguishable. For all their similarities, a readied action and an AoO are nevertheless not the same thing. An AoO can be triggered by a wide variety of unspecified conditions (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXaPnXxhMnU), but a readied action cannot.



And spellcasting prevents the use of the bluff skill, aka the only skill that can reasonably prevent yourself from provoking an AoO.

Concentration :smalltongue:

Actually, Sleight of Hand can potentially do this too - RC 117/RoS 133.

[Flickerdart]

And spellcasting prevents the use of the bluff skill, aka the only skill that can reasonably prevent yourself from provoking an AoO.
Spellcasting doesn't prevent the use of anything. Lots of skills allow you to make checks in the middle of other actions. Also, what do AoOs have to do with readied actions? Because they're completely different.

[Necroticplague]

He provided a counterexample from outside the rules, as the rules state that you don't need any visual cues in order to perform an AoO. As long as you can threaten a square, it doesn't matter what kind of status you have. If an AoO is provoked against you, you have the option to get a free attack.

Not quite true. You can't take an AoO against someone who has total concealment, even if you know where they are and they take an action that would otherwise provoke (like say, casting while invisible).

[Egneil]

Right, but your conclusion does not follow - two activities that look similar and both provoke are not necessarily perfectly distinguishable. For all their similarities, a readied action and an AoO are nevertheless not the same thing. An AoO can be triggered by a wide variety of unspecified conditions (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXaPnXxhMnU), but a readied action cannot.

I'll give you that they aren't the same thing, but the parallel I was making was that neither action has rules that require needing a visual cue. If the enemy takes the action to provoke your readied action, then it still goes off. And any grey areas in the rules require the DM to make decision.


Not quite true. You can't take an AoO against someone who has total concealment, even if you know where they are and they take an action that would otherwise provoke (like say, casting while invisible).

True enough, but the rules on total concealment explicitly state that. Nothing in the AoO rules states that you need a visual cue to exploit a provoked action.

[mvpmack]

I'm not into arguing about "reasonable interpretation"; either it's a rule or it isn't. Just as a counterexample, how would you distinguish between someone casting a componentless spell they want to come into effect in a nearby square (maybe they're summoning a creature), and someone Searching that same square? As far as you can tell, both of these actions involve the character doing nothing but staring at a particular square for a full round, and in the process they let their guard down.

If you want to be pedantic about this you're going to just have to accept the fact that the rules state this:


You can ready a standard action, a move action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, any time before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character’s activities, you interrupt the other character.

and


You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger "if she starts casting a spell." If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her Concentration check result).

The rules say nothing about needing to perceive the trigger. You can ready an action in response to "when he thinks about casting a spell" and by RAW I can take my action when the condition is fulfilled. I can choose any condition, and by RAW when it happens I'm allowed to take my action.

You can't interpret RAI for readied actions and then claim RAW for perception. It doesn't work that way.

[Psyren]

I'll give you that they aren't the same thing, but the parallel I was making was that neither action has rules that require needing a visual cue. If the enemy takes the action to provoke your readied action, then it still goes off. And any grey areas in the rules require the DM to make decision.

We certainly agree on that last sentence. If I were DMing, it'd be simple common sense that you could not act on a trigger you were unaware of, without some magical assistance at the very least (e.g. Battlemagic Perception for a counterspell.)

But as far as your first sentence, I'm still not sold. If visual cues were unimportant for an AoO, then spells like Phantom Battle (PHBII 120), or anything at all that grants total concealment (like fog or invisibility) would not work to stop them.



The rules say nothing about needing to perceive the trigger.

But this stance assumes that not needing to perceive a cue in order to act on it is somehow the default, and that is just as unsupported. It results in far more absurd outcomes - "I ready an action to Gate an army of demons into the throne room once my imp familiar down on the 7th circle of hell blows a whistle." "I ready an action to teleport across the continent to the High King's burial chamber the moment he breathes his last." "Throughout the parade, I ready an action to cast Resilient Sphere centered on myself each round in case there are any snipers I can't see or hear, all while waving and talking to my subjects." Without the perception requirement, the cosmos/metagame can inform you of anything, and it gets ridiculous fast.

[Curmudgeon]

The rules say nothing about needing to perceive the trigger.

Then, any time before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition.
response
-noun

2. Biology. any behavior of a living organism that results from an external or internal stimulus. What stimulates the readied action, if not perception of the trigger condition?

[mvpmack]

But this stance assumes that not needing to perceive a cue in order to act on it is somehow the default, and that is just as unsupported. It results in far more absurd outcomes - "I ready an action to Gate an army of demons into the throne room once my imp familiar down on the 7th circle of hell blows a whistle." "I ready an action to teleport across the continent to the High King's burial chamber the moment he breathes his last." "Throughout the parade, I ready an action to cast Resilient Sphere centered on myself each round in case there are any snipers I can't see or hear, all while waving and talking to my subjects." Without the perception requirement, the cosmos/metagame can inform you of anything, and it gets ridiculous fast.

There are some problems with this. Readying an action means that you're not doing anything until that action occurs, which is not technically a huge problem and does have metagame issues.

The problem is that we have people arguing RAI for this, but RAW for everything else. You can't have it both ways. There are feats that explicitly allow someone to disguise the fact that they are casting a spell, and Silent Spell/Still Spell do not have any text that suggests that they can be used in that way.

A reasonable interpretation of the rules is that an enemy can see you "casting a spell" even if you use those feats, since the rules for AOO clearly allow you to see some kind of opening that allows you to attack if the enemy is casting a silent, stilled spell. Unfortunately, there are people in this thread arguing RAW, so we have to accept that RAW doesn't require us to perceive the trigger to our readied action in order to react to it. If we argue RAI, then we can actually have a discussion.


What stimulates the readied action, if not perception of the trigger condition?

The triggering condition. Even the dictionary doesn't state perception as being necessary, and a dictionary is hardly a RAW source.

[Psyren]

There are some problems with this. Readying an action means that you're not doing anything until that action occurs, which is not technically a huge problem and does have metagame issues.

That's not what Ready means at all (you're thinking Delay.) Ready is just a standard action (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialInitiativeActions.htm#ready) - that means you have move, swift, immediate, and however many free actions you can get away with (such as speaking) all while you ready. So if you're, say, walking down the street at your speed and saying hello to people, you can be readying actions the entire time, every round.

And if you have extra standard actions somehow, you can even do other standard things while you ready.



The problem is that we have people arguing RAI for this, but RAW for everything else. You can't have it both ways.

No, people are arguing that your interpretation of RAW is no more valid than theirs, and results in far more ludicrous outcomes. RAW is not clear here, just as it is not in other aspects of the game, but I am going to lean towards the interpretation that does not rely on prescient or omniscient PCs to make sense.



There are feats that explicitly allow someone to disguise the fact that they are casting a spell, and Silent Spell/Still Spell do not have any text that suggests that they can be used in that way.

Those disguise two very specific indicators of spellcasting. You are still distracted/your eyes glaze over, however, and there is no metamagic for that (save Quicken, which evidently pares down the "distraction window" too far to take advantage of.) That does not mean that the person who AoO'ed you didn't have to see your lapse in concentration. Again, you don't get to AoO someone casting while invisible unless you can detect them, which suggests that detection of the trigger is a factor.

[georgie_leech]

Those disguise two very specific indicators of spellcasting. You are still distracted/your eyes glaze over, however, and there is no metamagic for that (save Quicken, which evidently pares down the "distraction window" too far to take advantage of.) That does not mean that the person who AoO'ed you didn't have to see your lapse in concentration. Again, you don't get to AoO someone casting while invisible unless you can detect them, which suggests that detection of the trigger is a factor.

So if there are things that could reasonably trigger an AoO, why couldn't those same actions act as a trigger for the Readied Action?

"The Wizard is doing something weird. HE'S CASTING A SPELL!!!!" *Thwack*

[Psyren]

So if there are things that could reasonably trigger an AoO, why couldn't those same actions act as a trigger for the Readied Action?

"The Wizard is doing something weird. HE'S CASTING A SPELL!!!!" *Thwack*

Because readied actions, unlike AoOs, require the triggering action to be stated ahead of time - and only that action will trigger the ready. As Curmudgeon pointed out upthread for instance, staring motionless at a square for 1 round could represent a number of different activities. Ambiguous triggers just happen to be a corner case the rules don't cover.

[The Grue]

Readied actions are D&D's wonderful main example of effect coming before cause, only not doing so...

Readied actions technically take place before the action that triggers them, so yes, you can ready a standard action spell to interrupt another's casting - and it's just possible that someone else has readied one to interrupt yours.

This is similar to Attacks of opportunity in that you work backwards from the original trigger action to determine the start of the event sequence, then roll forwards to see what actually happens

Just to add a helpful conceptual framework for anyone who's played MtG: the logic for readied action triggers is the same as for for placing cards on the stack. Resolve in reverse chronological order, starting with the last card/action to be played/readied respectively.

[Egneil]

We certainly agree on that last sentence. If I were DMing, it'd be simple common sense that you could not act on a trigger you were unaware of, without some magical assistance at the very least (e.g. Battlemagic Perception for a counterspell.)

But as far as your first sentence, I'm still not sold. If visual cues were unimportant for an AoO, then spells like Phantom Battle (PHBII 120), or anything at all that grants total concealment (like fog or invisibility) would not work to stop them.

I'm not saying they aren't important so much as I'm saying the rules for an AoO seem to assume that you can see your target. Which is why the rules on total concealment and quickened spells explicitly state that you can no longer provoke an AoO.

I think the main difference between an AoO and a readied action at this point is about how the rules are trying to abstract reality. An AoO is more about reacting to an opening in your opponent's guard, while a readied action is more about seeing and timing an opportune moment to take an action. (Regardless of how small that opening is.) However I will say that my thoughts aren't actually supported by the rules. Which as far as I understand them state that someone trying to cast a stilled and silenced spell is still giving enough visual cues to let someone else land a hit on them. And that someone else keeping track of a wizard(as in readying an action against them) can still react quickly enough to force a concentration check on even a quickened spell. (Interestingly enough, a quickened spell still has a beginning, middle and end. It just all happens in around 3~10 milliseconds.)


But this stance assumes that not needing to perceive a cue in order to act on it is somehow the default, and that is just as unsupported. It results in far more absurd outcomes - "I ready an action to Gate an army of demons into the throne room once my imp familiar down on the 7th circle of hell blows a whistle." "I ready an action to teleport across the continent to the High King's burial chamber the moment he breathes his last." "Throughout the parade, I ready an action to cast Resilient Sphere centered on myself each round in case there are any snipers I can't see or hear, all while waving and talking to my subjects." Without the perception requirement, the cosmos/metagame can inform you of anything, and it gets ridiculous fast.

However all of these examples can be disallowed by a DM, not because they break the rules for a readied action, but because they break the rules about line of effect and line of sight more. Both of which I understand to be fundamental enough to effect every rule in D&D.

However on a complete side-note, I would totally allow a player to ready an action with their imp in hell. But only if they succeed on a listen check. (with a Base DC of 666):smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

However all of these examples can be disallowed by a DM, not because they break the rules for a readied action, but because they break the rules about line of effect and line of sight more. Both of which I understand to be fundamental enough to effect every rule in D&D.

But you're contradicting yourself now. You say line of sight/line of effect affect every rule in D&D - yet somehow readied actions should circumvent both, and trigger based on knowledge the readying character couldn't possibly possess.



However on a complete side-note, I would totally allow a player to ready an action with their imp in hell. But only if they succeed on a listen check. (with a Base DC of 666):smallbiggrin:

^ Case in point - You have neither line of sight nor effect to your imp in this scenario (no portals are open yet) and, since he is on another plane, neither his telepathy nor your empathic link will work either. So without an alternate means of passing information, or a houserule of some kind, your player's readied action will never trigger.

[georgie_leech]

Because readied actions, unlike AoOs, require the triggering action to be stated ahead of time - and only that action will trigger the ready. As Curmudgeon pointed out upthread for instance, staring motionless at a square for 1 round could represent a number of different activities. Ambiguous triggers just happen to be a corner case the rules don't cover.

If the Readied Action depends on the character's perception, is it not possible for it to be triggered by the character's perception of the trigger, even if they're mistaken?

[Psyren]

If the Readied Action depends on the character's perception, is it not possible for it to be triggered by the character's perception of the trigger, even if they're mistaken?

That's a valid interpretation, but that's also a double-edged sword - it means the readying character can be faked out by a visually similar activity that has much lower cost. So an enemy spellcaster could absorb any counterspelling attempts by wiggling her fingers and spouting gibberish as a free action before casting the spell she actually intended, or pulling out a wandlike object (a tindertwig, sunrod or unlit torch?) and jiggling it around to bait a sunder before retrieving her wand. This might add to the game for some, but for me I think this is much simpler:

1) GM says what the action is (i.e. "she's trying to cast a spell") and I check if it matches my triggering condition.
2) I check if the subsidiary actions required to do the thing in that location and time are observable and recognizable by me; GM confirms.

If both are yes, readied action triggers, if not, not.

[Denver]

So an enemy spellcaster could absorb any counterspelling attempts by wiggling her fingers and spouting gibberish as a free action before casting the spell she actually intended, or pulling out a wandlike object (a tindertwig, sunrod or unlit torch?) and jiggling it around to bait a sunder before retrieving her wand.

I would think both of those would be Bluff attempts, and if the character who is attempting to observe spellcasting fails his Sense Motive check, then "[a] successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish."

And, it wouldn't be a free action, as "[a] Bluff check made to [...] create a diversion [...] is a standard action."
Additionally, drawing a wand would be a move action.

"Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands."

[Psyren]

I would think both of those would be Bluff attempts, and if the character who is attempting to observe spellcasting fails his Sense Motive check, then "[a] successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish."

And, it wouldn't be a free action, as "[a] Bluff check made to [...] create a diversion [...] is a standard action."
Additionally, drawing a wand would be a move action.

"Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands."

Creating a diversion to hide (the part you omitted) is a standard action.

I agree on the stick though, but Quick Draw fixes that, if you use a wandlike weapon (a baton?). At which point you can drop it after it has served its purpose, another free action.

[Denver]

Creating a diversion to hide (the part you omitted) is a standard action.

If you create a diversion without having the goal of hiding, would that still be a standard action?

Edit: Or, restated:

If a character attempted to create a diversion to Hide, but then never attempted a Hide check, would that be a standard action?

[Egneil]

But you're contradicting yourself now. You say line of sight/line of effect affect every rule in D&D - yet somehow readied actions should circumvent both, and trigger based on knowledge the readying character couldn't possibly possess.

How is this contradictory? My entire point was that your character had to be within the line of effect of the readied action trigger to be triggered. I mean the RAW for readied actions allow your character to travel through time, or at least have a firm enough grasp on what your opponent can do to prepare for the smallest opening in their action. Heck you don't even need to know if your opponent is a spellcaster to ready a counterspell against them, all you need to know for that is that spellcasting is a thing that can be done.(Which incidentally is the default state for basic D&D.) If your opponent happens to cast a spell before your round comes up again, then it doesn't matter what you know you saw an opening in their guard and you took it.(Cause that's what heroes do.)

The GM doesn't need to give descriptions of what the enemies are capable of. I mean you can have a wizard with the illusion of being clad in full-plate wielding a greatsword. If everyone thinks he's just another brute who hits things with a metal stick, then who in the party would ready an action against spellcasting against him. However even with the psychological defense your players can still make that readied action, and when that wizard opens up with a spell the character who readied that action would be able see it early enough to be able to react to it.


^ Case in point - You have neither line of sight nor effect to your imp in this scenario (no portals are open yet) and, since he is on another plane, neither his telepathy nor your empathic link will work either. So without an alternate means of passing information, or a houserule of some kind, your player's readied action will never trigger.

Well that's the thing, if I have characters capable of making a multi-hundred DC check, then I'm already in homebrew. Because even with rules-lawering it is impossible to roll that high on a d20 without having homebrew content.

Also depending on how you lay out your cosmology for your campaign, it could be possible to use the basic rules of a listen check to hear across dimensions. As the check itself has no range limitations, you only receive a higher DC the farther away the sound is from your current location. I think by the time your trying to listen to something a mile away the DC has gotten to around a few hundred, if not a few thousand. I went and looked this up, turns out trying to preform a listen check against a conversation one mile away would have a DC of 528. (As listen adds +1 to the DC for every 10 feet, across a mile's 5280 foot length.)

[Psyren]

If you create a diversion without having the goal of hiding, would that still be a standard action?

Edit: Or, restated:

If a character attempted to create a diversion to Hide, but then never attempted a Hide check, would that be a standard action?

This is another gap in the rules, yes. The only possible "diversions" per Bluff are feinting in melee combat or getting someone to stop observing you long enough to hide, so this one would be a DM call.

Of course, if I simply chant something without the finger-wiggling, you might think it's a Still Spell, and we're right back where we started.

(To be clear, I wouldn't actually do this, any more than I would do the imp-whistle thing. What I would do is laid out pretty clearly in post #87.)

[Sliver]

If you create a diversion without having the goal of hiding, would that still be a standard action?

Edit: Or, restated:

If a character attempted to create a diversion to Hide, but then never attempted a Hide check, would that be a standard action?

A diversion that isn't meant to hide is generally called a Feint. While the rules don't cover a situation that the Feint isn't in melee and done to deny your foe of his Dex bonus against you, the basic mechanic is there and it is a Standard as well.