Shocking Grasp v. Mage Slayer

[Easy_Lee]

Resolved A mage slayer may use his reaction to attack anyone casting a spell within 5' of him. The spell shocking grasp prevents the target from taking reactions for a round. So what happens when a mage slayer PC gets shocking grasped by the big bad caster?

In this thread, three possible interpretations were identified:

Reaction occurs during the casting, "when" the caster casts the spell, acting similar to the Protection fighting style, Counterspell, or Shield.
Reaction occurs after the spell is cast but before its effect. Effects such as Protection show us that some actions are broken into multiple steps, and that reactions can occur in between some of these steps.
Reaction occurs after the casting and the effect, resolving after the caster's actions is complete.

Number three above has been confirmed as the intent via Twitter by Crawford. They intended Mage Slayer to happen after the spell is cast and the effect's resolution.

Example: an enemy mage casts shocking grasp on a Mage Slayer monk, who is standing next to a fighter with the Protection fighting style:

The wizard casts and the effect is resolved,
The attack occurs
The fighter imposes disadvantage on the attack via Protection
The attack roll occurs
If the attack his, the monk loses his reaction
If the attack did not hit, the monk may react with a reaction attack

The general reaction timing rule seems to be that, unless a reaction must always occur at a particular time in order to work, such as the Protection fighting style, then it happens after the triggering action.


This causes issues for players who assumed that Mage Slayer was reacting to the casting of a spell, rather than the effect going off.

According to the intent, you are not meant to react to the somatic or verbal casting of a spell, not taking advantage of the caster's distraction while he speaks and gestures, but are attacking after the effect goes off.
By RAW, Mage Slayers are able to react to spells that they were not even aware of, and may even react to spells cast near-instantaneously as a reaction or bonus action.
Casting a ritual does not provoke a reaction each turn, but only one at its completion.

The above seem odd to me, so I would use this houserule:

Mage Slayer
If a caster within your reach spends his action to cast a spell or maintain a ritual, you may make an opportunity attack during the casting. You must be aware that the spell is being cast. If your attack would render the caster unable to act (such as by rendering him unconscious), he completes his casting action before succumbing to the condition. No concentration check by the caster is required to complete the spell.

*The terms "opportunity attack" and "reach" are used to make the intent clear. Opportunity attacks consume one's reaction and may be used by other effects such as sentinel and war caster. Reach may be extended by certain weapons and effects, and makes it clear that you need an open line of attack to the caster.

[Kryx]

2. Spell is cast and the effect occurs - > no reaction
This one is correct. Reaction is after it resolves unless otherwise specified. Mage Slayer does not specific otherwise.

Mage slayer has been called out by Crawford or Mearls as happening after.

[Easy_Lee]

This one is correct. Reaction is after it resolves unless otherwise specified. Mage Slayer does not specific otherwise.

Mage slayer has been called out by Crawford or Mearls as happening after.

Interesting. Most attacks resemble the first, in that the attack goes off, a reaction (if any) occurs, and then damage is assigned. The existence of spells and effects like hellish rebuke, which occur after damage rather than after being attacked (such as with effects like giant killer), suggests this difference.

But with spells, you suggest that the spell effect happens when the spell is cast, while (I assume) any damage done by the spell occurs after (as per an attack).

[DivisibleByZero]

But with spells, you suggest that the spell effect happens when the spell is cast, while (I assume) any damage done by the spell occurs after (as per an attack).

You assume incorrectly.
Reactions happen after the trigger, unless otherwise specified. After the trigger means that the trigger is complete before the reaction.
What you describe is an interrupt, and those will only happen if the ability specifically states that it will happen.

And damage isn't done after an attack, so your "as per" is incorrect. Damage is done during an attack. I don't stab you with a dagger, and then wait three seconds for the dagger to penetrate your body.

[Kryx]

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/518792711869325312

it depends on the reaction - readied actions specifically occur after the trigger


When the trigger occurs, you can either take your reaction right after the trigger finishes or ignore the trigger.


I think there is a Crawford tweet about it somewhere as well.

[Easy_Lee]

Basically, this is a MTG sort of question. It does not seem like much but actually us quite a big deal for a mage slayer user. Let's say someone teleports away. As written, there's no doubt that the teleport happens, but does the mage slayer get his hit in first?

I thought that shocking grasp would be the easiest spell to establish some kind of ruling from.

[Kryx]

Basically, this is a MTG sort of question.
There is a ruling. Both of us above stated it. Reactions happen after unless otherwise specified.

Mage Slayer would happen after the teleport spell is cast at which point the caster will likely be out of reach and the reaction cannot be used.

[Easy_Lee]

There is a ruling. Both of us above stated it. Reactions happen after unless otherwise specified.

Mage Slayer would happen after the teleport spell is cast at which point the caster will likely be out of reach and the reaction cannot be used.

From viewing the full conversation, Mike said this when asked if attack granted by sentinel occurs before or after the attack that triggers it: "I'd say it's before - it's similar to an opportunity attack; that triggers before the creature leaves your reach."

In addition to disagreeing with your assertion that reactions occur after resolving the action that triggers them, this also suggests that Mearls has a weak understanding of the rules, since it disagrees with the general rule about reactions occurring after the action that triggers them.

That said, the fact that the PHB makes distinction between being hit and taking damage, as I showed above, suggests that an action and the effects of that action are independent.

[CNagy]

From viewing the full conversation, Mike said this when asked if attack granted by sentinel occurs before or after the attack that triggers it: "I'd say it's before - it's similar to an opportunity attack; that triggers before the creature leaves your reach."

In addition to disagreeing with your assertion that reactions occur after resolving the action that triggers them, this also suggests that Mearls has a weak understanding of the rules, since it disagrees with the general rule about reactions occurring after the action that triggers them.

That said, the fact that the PHB makes distinction between being hit and taking damage, as I showed above, suggests that an action and the effects of that action are independent.

Crawford has stated that reactions come after their trigger with very few notable exceptions: A normal Opportunity Attack (because you have to attack them while they are still within your reach or what is the point?) and Shield (which requires you to be hit by an attack before you cast it, but the casting can retroactively turn the hit to a miss). There might be a couple others but those are the ones I remember.

Edit:
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/518800697983127552

Paraphrasing: Crawford gives us the book ruling, Mearls tells you how he would run it as a DM.

[Easy_Lee]

Right, but that doesn't establish whether casting a spell and its effect are separate triggers, as is the case with attacks (making an attack is separate from the damage, leading to the possibility of a double knockout for effects like giant killer or retaliation). That's the part I wish to definitively establish.

[CNagy]

Right, but that doesn't establish whether casting a spell and its effect are separate triggers, as is the case with attacks (making an attack is separate from the damage, leading to the possibility of a double knockout for effects like giant killer or retaliation). That's the part I wish to definitively establish.

Making an attack is not separate from damage. The PHB states that making an attack has 3 parts: choose a target, determine modifiers, and resolve the attack. Those three parts make up the whole of "making an attack" and resolving the attack includes both making the attack roll and resolving the damage, if any. If the trigger is "makes an attack," then that trigger hasn't happened until all the steps in making an attack, including resolution, have occurred.

[Kane0]

I'd rule mage slayer to have the attack take place as the spell is cast rather than after it is complete (but not distupting the spell unless you happen to reduce the caster to 0 hp). I have yet to find if that creates more problems than it solves.

[Kryx]

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/518800697983127552
There is the quote I was looking for! Thanks!

People can rule it differently, but that's the RAW and I presume RAI as I haven't heard otherwise.

[Easy_Lee]

Making an attack is not separate from damage. The PHB states that making an attack has 3 parts: choose a target, determine modifiers, and resolve the attack. Those three parts make up the whole of "making an attack" and resolving the attack includes both making the attack roll and resolving the damage, if any. If the trigger is "makes an attack," then that trigger hasn't happened until all the steps in making an attack, including resolution, have occurred.

As I said above, the fact that some things (ex: defensive duelist) trigger off of being hit by an attack, while others (ex: hellish rebuke) trigger from being damaged by an attack suggests otherwise. Defensive duelist occurs after the attack, but before damage is dealt, showing that these are separate triggers. This is further supported by the existence of damage trigger abilities and spells, as I said.

We could say that defensive duelist is special, and that attacks and the damage they deal are normally the same, but that's inconsistent and not really supported by RAW. In fact, the shield spell acts the same way, as does deflect missiles, so we would have to apply the same special rule. It's much easier, I think, to simply recognize attacks and damage rolls as separate steps.

We could then apply that logic to spell attacks, since they are also subject to abilities like shield and defensive duelist, showing that spell attack and spell damage triggers are separate (just like their relevant dice rolls). The question then is whether the effects of the spell go off at the same time as the damage, whether they are instantaneous with the casting, or whether they occur at another step altogether.

I don't think there's a definite answer, I'm just searching for supported opinions and relevant text / rulings.

Thematically, I would think mage slayer occurred when one noticed anorher in the act of casting a spell with somatic or verbal components and a cast time of one action or longer, and that it would go off during the casting. But that's not how it works.

[CNagy]

As I said above, the fact that some things (ex: defensive duelist) trigger off of being hit by an attack, while others (ex: hellish rebuke) trigger from being damaged by an attack suggests otherwise. Defensive duelist occurs after the attack, but before damage is dealt, showing that these are separate triggers. This is further supported by the existence of damage trigger abilities and spells, as I said.

I think you are assuming more than is supported by the rules. Defensive Duelist is special; it's basically a feat version of the Shield spell. And Hellish Rebuke doesn't necessarily suggest a split between attack and damage so much as it is making clear that you have to take damage to trigger it: i.e. you can't get hit by something you have immunity to, or mitigate all the damage through a Battle Master's parry, etc, and the have Hellish Rebuke trigger.

It all comes down to specific overrides general. General rules as written: making an attack has three parts, the entirety of which make the attack. Specific feats, spells, abilities, etc, might allow you to interrupt that process, but those specific instances are not clarifying the rules such that you get to add their specific circumstances to similar situations with other feats and spells. When they break the rules, they do it for themselves.

[Demonic Spoon]

DMG p. 252



...
If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action.

[Easy_Lee]

DMG p. 252

Not debating the trigger; I'm debating whether the trigger and the effect are separate.

[Safety Sword]

DMG p. 252

That's pretty definitive.


Not debating the trigger; I'm debating whether the trigger and the effect are separate.

You're adding "steps" that aren't there. When you resolve the trigger, you resolve it to completion. That includes any damage rolls, application of resistances or immunities to the damage and placement of any damage that may be caused.

[Easy_Lee]

You're adding "steps" that aren't there. When you resolve the trigger, you resolve it to completion. That includes any damage rolls, application of resistances or immunities to the damage and placement of any damage that may be caused.

Alright, let me be more clear.


Defensive duelist: "another creature hits you with an attack, you can use your reaction to add your proficiency bonus to your AC for that attack, potentially causing the attack to miss you."
Shield: "1 reaction, which you take when you are hit by an attack...you have a +5 bonus to AC, including against the triggering attack"
Parry: "another creature damages you with a melee attack..."

Being hit with an attack and taking damage from an attack are two separate things. Some effects can occur in response to an attack hitting, preventing that attack from landing. Furthermore, some triggers work off of being hit by an attack, which are usually used to make a reaction attack or prevent that attack's damage, while others work off of being damaged by an attack. Furthermore, since separate die rolls are involved, it makes sense that these two would be separate. Therefore, an attack and the damage that results from the attack are separate triggers. This is clear. That's not what I'm debating here because it's already established.

What I am debating: is the same true of spells? Do spells have a separate spell cast (similar to an attack hitting) and effect (similar to the damage for an attack)?

In the example above, let us say that we are standing adjacent to an ally, our ally has sentinel, and we have mage slayer. A mob walks up and casts shocking grasp, targeting us.

What we know: sentinel user gets a reaction attack, which occurs directly after the foe makes the attack and before damage is rolled.
What I'm debating: whether the full effect of shocking grasp goes off before the mage slayer's attack of opportunity, or after.

And finally, something that just occurred to me, why it may not matter: a basic opportunity attack occurs when opponents leave your reach. Leaving one's reach is not even its own action; in fact, movement at all is no longer an action. But the opportunity attack not only interrupts that movement, but occurs just before the target can leave your reach, which can prevent the movement altogether if sentinel is used. Thus, it seems the intent is that reaction attacks in response to a trigger always go off, regardless of what has to happen to make that so.

[ChubbyRain]

Simplicity wins.

Shocking Grasp is a general rule (spell) while Mage Slayer is a specific rule (feat). You have to ask to make sure you can take Mage Slayer, you don't don't have to ask to take Shocking Grasp (though a DM might ban it for some stupid reason).

Mage Slayer wins. Mage Slayer was created to stop things like Shocking Grasp from working.

Ruling it any other way means you are saying a cantrip can get around this feat but a level 9 spell can have issues.

Simplicity wins.

[Kane0]

It sounds like this is revolving around the definition of 'trigger'. Is a trigger an action, an event, a part of an action or an event or potentially any of the above?

Edit: Also, what ChubbyRain said. Presumably one wouldn't take Mage Slayer to let a mage get their spell off in their face and then get a free attack against him, they would take it to slay a mage before (or as) he mages.

[Easy_Lee]

It sounds like this is revolving around the definition of 'trigger'. Is a trigger an action, an event, a part of an action or an event or potentially any of the above?

Basically, yes. I haven't found any singular sources for that, though it can have a pretty big impact on mage slayer.

[Kane0]

I'm not sure you're going to get a straight answer on this until some errata or FAQ comes along, it seems a very specific thing that 5e appears to be trying very hard to avoid (unlike 3.x).

Personally i'd say a trigger is something that happens, and that something need not be a complete action (or bonus action, for that matter). It could be an attack roll, an action being announced/initiated, a damage roll, a saving throw, whatever. It can be as specific as needed, ie 'when a creature within 5' of me begins to cast a spell', the adjudicate as necessary.

When my players ready an action to attack if the enemy attacks, I let them attack first regardless of if 'the action resolves'. If it was a situation where the enemy was equally prepared i'd ask for initiative, not expect a ready.
But I digress.

[Safety Sword]

In all of the specific cases you outline the rules define how to deal with it.

In the absence of that specific guidance you deal with it as the DMG suggests on pg 252. The cases where damage is the trigger are also defined (Hellish Rebuke being the obvious one).

It doesn't say anywhere that Mage Slayer interrupts or stops casting or that is what the purpose of the feat is, it just gives you another option to use your reaction to make an attack when a spell is cast within 5 ft of you.

So, resolve the spell that is cast. Then resolve the Mage Slayer's reaction attack. If that spell happens to limit the use of Mage Slayer, tough biscuits. Actions in combat that stop you or limit you from using your spells and abilities happen all the time, this one is no different.

Remember, you have advantage on the saving throw anyway, so you're more than likely going to save.


I'm not sure you're going to get a straight answer on this until some errata or FAQ comes along, it seems a very specific thing that 5e appears to be trying very hard to avoid (unlike 3.x).

Personally i'd say a trigger is something that happens, and that something need not be a complete action (or bonus action, for that matter). It could be an attack roll, an action being announced/initiated, a damage roll, a saving throw, whatever. It can be as specific as needed, ie 'when a creature within 5' of me begins to cast a spell', the adjudicate as necessary.

When my players ready an action to attack if the enemy attacks, I let them attack first regardless of if 'the action resolves'. If it was a situation where the enemy was equally prepared i'd ask for initiative, not expect a ready.
But I digress.

Well done on your house rule. Continue as you will. That's not how ready actions are written in the rules, but it's your game and you seem to think differently to the rules. It's not RAW or RAI but off you go.

[Kane0]

Well done on your house rule. Continue as you will. That's not how ready actions are written in the rules, but it's your game and you seem to think differently to the rules. It's not RAW or RAI but off you go.

I believe readies and reactions can and do interrupt, in specific enough circumstances. I don't think that's much of a stretch of the imagination, no?

[Safety Sword]

I believe readies and reactions can and do interrupt, in specific enough circumstances. I don't think that's much of a stretch of the imagination, no?

You can believe anything you want. Just show me the rule in the book and I'll even believe with you.

[Hawkstar]

Mage slayer has been called out by Crawford or Mearls as happening after.
In other words... Wow, what a useless feat!

[Lanced Crescent]

Remember, you have advantage on the saving throw anyway, so you're more than likely going to save.

Just a point of information, I double checked and Shocking Grasp does not allow a saving throw against its effect if it hits. It actually gives you advantage on the attack roll if the target is wearing metal armor.

So yeah.

[Talyn]

At my table, I'd rule that Mage Slayer gets to "go first," getting their attack in before the damage and secondary effects of the spell go off. I can see why some people would argue that is not RAW, but I sincerely believe that my interpretation is RAI.

Otherwise, as Hawkstar just mentioned, Mage Slayer becomes significantly less useful (though disrupting concentration more effectively is pretty awesome in and of itself).

[Easy_Lee]

At my table, I'd rule that Mage Slayer gets to "go first," getting their attack in before the damage and secondary effects of the spell go off. I can see why some people would argue that is not RAW, but I sincerely believe that my interpretation is RAI.

Otherwise, as Hawkstar just mentioned, Mage Slayer becomes significantly less useful (though disrupting concentration more effectively is pretty awesome in and of itself).

A similar issue comes up with teleportation spells. There are many possible ways to rule it, though the way a standard OA works is the way I would personally go; the action occurs as the target is leaving, but before it is able to get away. The spell is cast, the mage slayer hits the target once before they go, then the target goes. For a shadow monk using a stunning strike on his reaction attack, the target might arrive at its destination stunned for one round. This seems like the most RP-friendly interpretation, to me at least.

[CNagy]

Something being less useful than you initially thought is not a sign that the rules are or aren't a certain way. Reactions take place after the trigger unless specified otherwise. Forcing a disadvantage on Concetration saves is already a nice ability, especially since it is the only aspect of Mage Slayer that doesn't stipulate that you need to be within 5'.

There is nothing actually in Mage Slayer that implies anything other than you get to take an attack after a spellcaster casts a spell within 5' of you. Casting a spell is described in the PHB and much like making an attack, dealing damage or manifesting an effect is part of the whole action. If something in that resolution prevents you from taking your reaction to make the attack--tough luck. If Mage Slayer was intended to occur before the spell manifests an effect, it would be written closer to the wording on Counterspell. If it could potentially kill an enemy spellcaster, thus interrupting the spell, it would definitely stipulate that. As it stands, per Mearls, Counterspell is the only thing in the PHB that can interrupt a spell.

Teleport evades Mage Slayer. It resolves, thus triggering your ability to spend a reaction and make an attack, but by then the caster is no longer within your reach. Shocking Grasp short-circuits Mage Slayer, preventing you from using your reaction for anything--including making a melee attack against the spellcaster. Eldritch Blast with Repelling invocation blows Mage Slayer away, since by the time it resolves the caster is no longer within reach. Etc. Etc.

[Easy_Lee]

Teleport evades Mage Slayer. It resolves, thus triggering your ability to spend a reaction and make an attack, but by then the caster is no longer within your reach. Shocking Grasp short-circuits Mage Slayer, preventing you from using your reaction for anything--including making a melee attack against the spellcaster. Eldritch Blast with Repelling invocation blows Mage Slayer away, since by the time it resolves the caster is no longer within reach. Etc. Etc.

In the case of attack spells which would preclude mage slayer, I must let you know that the text, at least as far as we can extrapolate, does not agree with that interpretation. If we go back to the abilities shield, defensive duelist, parry, deflect arrows, and so on, we can see that these abilities occur after an attack hits, but before it does damage. Thus, there is a window between those two rolls during which a reaction can take place; that much is indisputable. If we know that some reactions can happen during that window (and we do know that), then there is nothing to say that other reactions cannot take place during that window.

I may have answered my own shocking grasp question by now, but I am still interested about other types of spells that might effectively disengage from the target. Is there a window between the spell cast and effect, as there is between an attack hitting and dealing damage? I would be interested to see a developer sit down and discuss this; not in the form of a limited tweet, but an actual discussion, so that I could see what they were thinking when they wrote these rules. We can chalk it up to one more aspect of 5th edition that must be adjudicated by the DM, rather than being a thing which players can expect to be consistent in most games.

Notably, a strict RAW reading of mage slayer leads us to believe that it works against spells one cannot see or hear being cast, casters behind solid barriers, and all sorts of other nonsense since it does not specify that the user must be aware of the spell. Obviously, this is not the intent, nor would it be a good ruling in my opinion. However, I do not think that it is fair to take a mage slayer's reaction away from him when he is dealing with a caster, for whom the reaction is intended, casting a spell that he is very aware of and should have ample time to punish.

To some degree, I realize that it comes down to opinion. Who should you side with, the caster or the martial? The NPC or the PC? My general approach is to side with the PC over the NPC, and the specialist over the generalist. A mage slayer is a specialist, which is one of the reasons why this one is of particular concern to me.

[Safety Sword]

At my table, I'd rule that Mage Slayer gets to "go first," getting their attack in before the damage and secondary effects of the spell go off. I can see why some people would argue that is not RAW, but I sincerely believe that my interpretation is RAI.

Otherwise, as Hawkstar just mentioned, Mage Slayer becomes significantly less useful (though disrupting concentration more effectively is pretty awesome in and of itself).

All characters with Mage Slayer have the ability to read minds so they know when to attack instinctively? Makes perfect sense...

That noise you hear is your sarcasm alarm.


In the case of attack spells which would preclude mage slayer, I must let you know that the text, at least as far as we can extrapolate, does not agree with that interpretation. If we go back to the abilities shield, defensive duelist, parry, deflect arrows, and so on, we can see that these abilities occur after an attack hits, but before it does damage. Thus, there is a window between those two rolls during which a reaction can take place; that much is indisputable. If we know that some reactions can happen during that window (and we do know that), then there is nothing to say that other reactions cannot take place during that window

The abilities you describe have the ability to change the damage dealt but nothing specifies that they have to be be resolved before the damage is determined.

The only one that is really different is the shield spell which has the chance to modify the AC of the caster after the attack roll which may or may not turn a hit into a miss.

There is nothing in the rules to say that damage rolls happen after reactions occur. In fact, to speed up play many groups roll to attack and determine damage at the same time. If you miss you ignore the damage dice.

I think that you're stretching to try and make Mage Slayer do more than it is intended to do. It's not an interrupt ability, it's not anything except another way to spend your reaction when certain circumstances are met with some other advantages against spell casters thrown in. It doesn't allow you to change the way any other ability or rule works.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

All characters with Mage Slayer have the ability to read minds so they know when to attack instinctively? Makes perfect sense...

That noise you hear is your sarcasm alarm.

I'm not sure I agree with the assertion that Mage Slayer goes off before the spell effect, but you're being pretty ridiculous here. There is precedent for interrupts that happen 'in the middle' of an event. In the interpretation of Mage Slayer that is being suggested, the Mage Slayer would attack while the spell caster is casting a spell but before it finishes.

This no more requires mindreading than hitting someone while they're moving before they finish or blocking an attack after the person starts swinging but before it hits, because casting a spell is fast but not instantaneous and usually involves outward signs-- chanting or gestures or grabbing material components or even just concentrating really hard on something other than paying attention to the guy with the sword right next to you.

[Capac Amaru]

All characters with Mage Slayer have the ability to read minds so they know when to attack instinctively? Makes perfect sense...

That noise you hear is your sarcasm alarm.

All characters with Mage Slayer have the ability to read *the actions of spell casters in the process of casting* so they know when to attack instinctively. Makes perfect sense.*

Fix'd.

[Safety Sword]

I'm not sure I agree with the assertion that Mage Slayer goes off before the spell effect, but you're being pretty ridiculous here. There is precedent for interrupts that happen 'in the middle' of an event. In the interpretation of Mage Slayer that is being suggested, the Mage Slayer would attack while the spell caster is casting a spell but before it finishes.

This no more requires mindreading than hitting someone while they're moving before they finish or blocking an attack after the person starts swinging but before it hits, because casting a spell is fast but not instantaneous and usually involves outward signs-- chanting or gestures or grabbing material components or even just concentrating really hard on something other than paying attention to the guy with the sword right next to you.


All characters with Mage Slayer have the ability to read *the actions of spell casters in the process of casting* so they know when to attack instinctively. Makes perfect sense.*

Fix'd.

All great opinions that don't mesh with those pesky rules in the Players Handbook.

The ability doesn't intend for you to be able to finish an attack whilst a spell is being cast, or that's what the ability would say. I'm sure they could have written it like that if they wanted to. But they didn't.

[Capac Amaru]

How about leaving it up to chance? Battles are messy. The Mage Slayer reaction attack could hit the the spell caster at any point during the spell.

Roll 1D3.

1. spell interrupted (spell fizzles, attack succeeds)
2. spell misfire (spell fires in a random direction, affects a random target/s, or if targeting self affects both caster and Mage Slayer :smallwink:)
3. spell success (spell as per usual, attack succeeds unless prevented by the spell)

[Kryx]

Agreed with CNagy and safety sword.

You're free to houserule it otherwise, but the raw and rai are very clear.

But just because something isn't as you expect doesn't mean you should houserule. Shocking grasp vs mage slayer is a legitimate strategy and one of the only ways to avoid it as a caster.

[Kane0]

How about leaving it up to chance? Battles are messy. The Mage Slayer reaction attack could hit the the spell caster at any point during the spell.

Roll 1D3.

1. spell interrupted (spell fizzles, attack succeeds)
2. spell misfire (spell fires in a random direction, affects a random target/s, or if targeting self affects both caster and Mage Slayer :smallwink:)
3. spell success (spell as per usual, attack succeeds unless prevented by the spell)

Or perhaps 1d3:
1) Mage gets spell off, Mage slayer gets free swing afterwards
2) Mage slayer gets his attack after the spell is cast, but before it takes effect
3) Mage slayer is on the ball, and gets his free swing before the mage finishes casting (does not force concentration check)
If rolling a d3 is too slow, compare initiative bonuses/rolls. If caster has higher init, #1 happens. If mage slayer has higher init, #3 happens. If both have the same init, #2 happens.

[Capac Amaru]

Agreed with CNagy and safety sword.

You're free to houserule it otherwise, but the raw and rai are very clear.

But just because something isn't as you expect doesn't mean you should houserule. Shocking grasp vs mage slayer is a legitimate strategy and one of the only ways to avoid it as a caster.

I thought the main way of avoiding Mage Slayer was for mages to avoid CC in the first place? If a mage lets a Mage Slayer get that close he deserves everything he gets.

[Kryx]

I thought the main way of avoiding Mage Slayer was for mages to avoid CC in the first place? If a mage lets a Mage Slayer get that close he deserves everything he gets.
That may be your opinion, but the rules disagree.

[calebrus]

Hey, look! Another example of certain people ignoring parts of the RAW and then claiming that they are ambiguous or contradictory! Shocking!
The rules are clear. Mage Slayer offers a reaction attack. Said reaction attack happens after the trigger (not during it), because you are reacting to something (not interrupting something). It couldn't be any more clear.
And there is no distinction between an attack and a damage roll. The examples you are trying to use are exceptions. Dealing damage is part of the attack, not a separate occurrence.

Mage Slayer
When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell, you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against that creature.

Reactions
If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action.

Making an Attack
1. Choose a target.
2. Determine modifiers.
3. Resolve the attack.

Instantaneous spells
The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant.

Shocking Grasp, instantaneous.
Misty Step, instantaneous.
That means it is completed/resolved before the reaction attack.
The fact that Shocking Grasp instantaneously removes the Mage Slayer's ability to take reactions means that by the time he would be allowed his reaction he can no longer take it.
The fact that Misty Step almost certainly removes the caster from the Mage Slayer's range means that by the time the Mage Slayer gets his reaction attack, the caster is no longer 5 feet away, and thus no reaction attack is granted.
It is not unclear in any way.

If you want to house rule that Mage Slayer becomes an interrupt, feel free to do so, but don't try to convince anyone that it isn't clear. It's very clear.

[Kryx]

Hey, look! Another example of certain people ignoring parts of the RAW and then claiming that they are ambiguous or contradictory! Shocking!
It's becoming more and more common. :(

[ShikomeKidoMi]

All great opinions that don't mesh with those pesky rules in the Players Handbook.

The ability doesn't intend for you to be able to finish an attack whilst a spell is being cast, or that's what the ability would say. I'm sure they could have written it like that if they wanted to. But they didn't.

Er... Why are you quoting me? I said I was unconvinced, just that the 'mind-reading' jab was uncalled for.

[holygroundj]

Why does someone have to get snarky during a disagreement? Since 5e is "ruling, not rules" it's a perfectly legitimate course of discussion to ask what exactly is a trigger. Since there are rules that split damage off from a triggering action (shield, etc) it's valid to ask whether the rule is that damage is part of the triggering action, or a seperate step.

Since I don't take the feat, I don't have a horse in this race, but It seems like, rai there might be, but raw there's not unless a specific rule implies it, and then it is only for that rule (a la shield). Still, no need to get snotty.

[CNagy]

If we know that some reactions can happen during that window (and we do know that), then there is nothing to say that other reactions cannot take place during that window.


This is the crux of why you are getting it wrong. Not being expressly forbidden from doing something is not the same as possible permission to do it. This idea that the rules are not spelled out plainly, that spells, abilities, feats, etc, are puzzle pieces that aid you in determining the full scope of the rules is nonsense.

The rules are what they say they are. And then you have exceptions. You can have an exception, or hundreds of exceptions, but they are still exceptions. And because of exceptions, reactions can occur at any time. If I have an ability that allows me to fire a bow or crossbow at someone once per round as a reaction when they speak in combat, that reaction occurs right after they speak. But it is an exception, neither allowed for or covered by the normal rules and certainly not available for use by any other attack or action that doesn't specifically state that it can be. Exceptions do not create rules or clarify rules, they defy rules for their own use.

[Kryx]

Why does someone have to get snarky during a disagreement?
Calebrus is typically brash, but his point is valid in that the things he pointed out are becoming more and more common here.

Rules should be questioned and examined, but you'll see in this thread ignoring/obfuscating of the base rules. People should be free to post how they think it works, but they should have evidence of why.
They can also post how they'll rule it, but doing so before a solid understanding of the base rules is established is a bit silly. Most of these "I feel it should be this way" rulings that people make are 3.X comfort rather than being open to how 5e has constructed it.


That said I think the argumentative approach is a poor approach and is bad for the overall community. I try to avoid it.

[Easy_Lee]

Just wanted to point out: that word a lot of people keep using, "exception," shows up in the specific beats general paragraph, but not in many other places. I would also like to point out that shield, defensive duelist, parry, deflect missiles, and so on constitute a significant portion of all possible ways one can react. Saying that all of these things are exceptions is a bit silly. They aren't exceptions to the way the game is played, they are abilities.

Regardless, i think the real problem is that, unlike MTG, there is no clearly defined order of operations in 5e. Instead, everything seems to go off whenever the DM or players in question feel that it should. I won't insult any of you by saying that your ruling is objectively wrong.

[Kryx]

Saying that all of these things are exceptions is a bit silly.
The devs have said exactly this.


there is no clearly defined order of operations in 5e.
Yes there is. You just don't seem to want to accept it. It's been clearly defined above several times.

[Xetheral]

Rules should be questioned and examined, but you'll see in this thread ignoring/obfuscating of the base rules. People should be free to post how they think it works, but they should have evidence of why.

I've never had a player take mage slayer, and haven't yet decided where I stand on the timing issues it presents. Both sides are making compelling arguments--and backing them up--and I have seen nothing suggesting that anyone is "ignoring/obfuscating" the rules. Just because you view an issue as clear-cut doesn't mean that those who disagree with you are posting in bad faith.

[ChubbyRain]

Yes there is. You just don't seem to want to accept it. It's been clearly defined above several times.

No it hasn't.

Have 100 people read the 5e rules and read the 4e rules on reactions/interrupts. They will come back with a clearer understanding of the 4e rules.

The 4e rules are laid out great, though people get to many of them in a way, but you know when something happens.

Interrupts and Reactions.

OA need to be "Interrupts" as does parry, defensive duelist, and whatever else.

Readied actions need to be reactions.

If 5e was "clearly defined" we wouldn't need devs explaining stuff and to have special rules as to why OA work even.

[Xetheral]

Yes there is. You just don't seem to want to accept it. It's been clearly defined above several times.

I disagree. The rules state that, in general, reactions happen after the trigger. However, numerous abilities have to be inferred to be exceptions to this rule in order to function.

Given that people's impressions of the intended function of mage slayer differ, I do not find it at all surprising that people will disagree on whether mage slayer is also one of these exceptions.

[Kryx]

I have seen nothing suggesting that anyone is "ignoring/obfuscating" the rules.
Here is an example:

there is no clearly defined order of operations in 5e.

The rules for reactions are very clearly defined. The devs have confirmed that reactions happen after unless stated otherwise. Mage slayer does not state otherwise. Therefore it happens after unless the devs come by and correct it.

There is no confusion. The order of operations per the rules is clearly defined.



4e rules.
I agree reaction vs interrupt would've been a better convention, but this is what we have.
What we have is also clearly stated by the devs.



Given that people's impressions of the intended function of mage slayer differ, I do not find it at all surprising that people will disagree on whether mage slayer is also one of these exceptions.
Does Mage Slayer specify the timing to be different? No? Then it isn't different. That's how the rules work in this case. They are clear.

[ChubbyRain]

I agree reaction vs interrupt would've been a better convention, but this is what we have.
What we have is also clearly stated by the devs.


The devs are not the rules. A lot of times they will even say "this is how I would rule it" such as with Mage Slayer versus Subtle Spell (subtle spell wins). This goes against what is written in the books since not only does mage slayer NOT say anything about knowing a spell is cast, but mage slayer is a more specific rule.

The devs are not always right, not just because they don't know their own game, but because a lot of the time they tell how they would run the game, not how the game should be ran. (Edit: thus it isn't a right/wrong answer)

You can't say the 5e rules are clear when they aren't even clear to the team that made them. You get opposite ideas of how things are ran all the time with them.

There needs to be an errata to make things clear.

I used to be very Dev heavy but over time I saw that not only do they not understand their own game (because a team made it and not just one person) but half the time it seems like they have no sense of balance or fun in mind when they do make a ruling.

[Kryx]

The devs are not the rules.
Mearls is not the rules. Crawford is, but that is not this discussion.



There needs to be an errata to make things clear.
In my opinion what is in the DMG is errata as the PHB was not super clear. DMG states it as posted earlier in this thread:

If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action.
The issue is this was not in the PHB which is where the confusion comes from.

If you don't trust the devs then trust the DMG.


Side topic:

such as with Mage Slayer versus Subtle Spell (subtle spell wins). This goes against what is written in the books since not only does mage slayer NOT say anything about knowing a spell is cast, but mage slayer is a more specific rule.
That was a garbage strict RAW ruling in the first place imo. Mage Slayer doesn't give a 6th sense.
There are many other places in 5e where a strict RAW ruling is unintended.

[ChubbyRain]

Mearls is not the rules. Crawford is, but that is not this discussion.

However the DMG states it as well, as posted earlier in this thread:

The issue is this was not in the PHB which is where the confusion comes from.

Crawford is not the rules.

Say it with me.

Crawford is not the rules.

On mage slayer versus subtle spell Crawford even says "this is how I would run it".

And that's a nice quote, however it doesn't help your case. The devs have so many errors in the phb/monster manual (off the top of my head) that it just isn't funny. There are too many exceptions to that rule, without there being specific timing put in place.

With that idea, parry doesn't parry. The maneuver heals the damage, it doesn't prevent it. Because the timing is after you were damaged and then you reduce the damage.

Right there we have a complete issue with the general rule that is backwards than what most people think. You would think that Parry would prevent damage, but because of the rules, Parry actually (without magic) heals Superiority Die + Dex Mod damage.

Tell me.more about how clear or concise the rules are...

Side Note:

If you want to argue that RAW wins one debate you must argue RAW wins all debates. It isn't something you can change back and forth. Either RAW is correct all the time or RAW is flawed and can be wrong. If RAW can be wrong on one account it can be wrong on other accounts.

Crawford even said " his is how I would run it" thus Mage Slayer, by RAW, doesn't need the user to know a spell is cast.

So is Crawford still the rules or not?

[calebrus]

I've never had a player take mage slayer, and haven't yet decided where I stand on the timing issues it presents. Both sides are making compelling arguments--and backing them up--and I have seen nothing suggesting that anyone is "ignoring/obfuscating" the rules. Just because you view an issue as clear-cut doesn't mean that those who disagree with you are posting in bad faith.

People that are claiming that there is any sort of confusion or interpretation are indeed ignoring/obfuscating the rules.

Here, let me take my previous post and cite it for you.


A) Mage Slayer
When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell, you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against that creature.

B) Reactions
If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action.

C) Making an Attack
1. Choose a target.
2. Determine modifiers.
3. Resolve the attack.

D) Instantaneous spells
The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant.

A) PHB pg 168
B) DMG pg 252
C) PHB pg 192-3
D) PHB pg 203

Using things which specifically break these very clear rules as your basis to argue that it isn't clear (or that there might be room for different situations) ignores the fact that these rules even exist simply because exceptions exist.
That's ignoring rules. That's obfuscating rules.
Therefore, we can follow along with what I said afterward:


Shocking Grasp, instantaneous.
Misty Step, instantaneous.
That means it is completed/resolved before the reaction attack.
The fact that Shocking Grasp instantaneously removes the Mage Slayer's ability to take reactions means that by the time he would be allowed his reaction he can no longer take it.
The fact that Misty Step almost certainly removes the caster from the Mage Slayer's range means that by the time the Mage Slayer gets his reaction attack, the caster is no longer 5 feet away, and thus no reaction attack is granted.
It is not unclear in any way.

If you want to house rule that Mage Slayer becomes an interrupt, feel free to do so, but don't try to convince anyone that it isn't clear. It's very clear.

[ChubbyRain]

People that are claiming that there is any sort of confusion or interpretation are indeed ignoring/obfuscating the rules.

Here, let me take my previous post and cite it for you.



A) PHB pg 168
B) DMG pg 252
C) PHB pg 192-3
D) PHB pg 203

Using things which specifically break these very clear rules as your basis to argue that it isn't clear (or that there might be room for different situations) ignores the fact that these rules even exist simply because exceptions exist.
That's ignoring rules. That's obfuscating rules.
Therefore, we can follow along with what I said afterward:


That's fine but wrong for one simple reason.

It invalidates Mage Slayer.

The devs screwed up on writing (more than once) and mage slayer (and reactions in general) are wrong.

Why? Because it is no fun taking a feat only for that feat to be useless.

And fun is the most core of all D&D rules.

Fix: You no longer have reaction. Each creature gets one interrupt per round.

You may interupt a trigger, thus going before the trigger is completed, when you have an ability that allows you to do as such. This may make you lose spells or the ability in question.

Now reword all reactions to interrupt their triggers.

Parry no longer heals damage but prevents damage. Mage Slayer no longer has to be a jumbled mess. And sentinel can be used to defend (as your attack interiors the target's attack) a hell of a lot better.

[Kryx]

It invalidates Mage Slayer.
So we agree on the RAW. Now please show me how Mage Slayer is invalidated.

It does entirely what it was intended to do: Punish mages for casting within 5ft.

There are a few exceptions like shocking grasp and teleport which allow the mage some options if he knows the enemy has mage slayer, but that doesn't invalidate Mage Slayer at all.

@Chubby: your post is quite a departure from 5e. I think you should open a separate thread if you'd like others to comment on your ideas for how to "fix" reactions.

[calebrus]

That's fine but wrong for one simple reason.

It invalidates Mage Slayer.

It doesn't invalidate Mage Slayer.
It makes it so that Mage Slayer isn't a perfect counter to a caster. It's still a damn good one, but it isn't perfect.
And even if you do believe the exaggerated claim that the rules somehow invalidate the feat, which is not true at all, then that doesn't make the rules wrong, like you claim it does.
The rules are clear.
You don't have to like them, and you are free to house rule them to your liking, but you simply cannot argue that they are incoherent or ambiguous or confusing, because they are 100% perfectly crystal clear.

[Xetheral]

The rules for reactions are very clearly defined. The devs have confirmed that reactions happen after unless stated otherwise. Mage slayer does not state otherwise. Therefore it happens after unless the devs come by and correct it.


There are many other places in 5e where a strict RAW ruling is unintended.

Out of curiosity, what makes you so sure that Mage Slayer isn't one of those "many other places"?

Also, I disagree that the rules for reactions are very clearly defined. In my mind, the default rules for reactions are clearly defined, but they've done a horrible job delineating what is and is not an exception to those rules. Therefore, there is room for argument over whether Mage Slayer is such an exception.


People that are claiming that there is any sort of confusion or interpretation are indeed ignoring/obfuscating the rules.

By claiming that a poster is "ignoring/obfuscating" the rules, you're making a claim as to their intent. I see nothing in anything you've posted that supports such a claim.

[calebrus]

Out of curiosity, what makes you so sure that Mage Slayer isn't one of those "many other places"?

Also, I disagree that the rules for reactions are very clearly defined. In my mind, the default rules for reactions are clearly defined, but they've done a horrible job delineating what is and is not an exception to those rules. Therefore, there is room for argument over whether Mage Slayer is such an exception.


By claiming that a poster is "ignoring/obfuscating" the rules, you're making a claim as to their intent. I see nothing in anything you've posted that supports such a claim.

What makes us so sure that MS isn't one of those many exceptions is the simple fact that MS isn't called out as one of those exceptions by its own wording, which is where those exceptions are EXCLUSIVELY made clear.
Does the wording of MS make it clear that it is an exception? No? Then it isn't.
What makes us absolutely sure beyond a shadow of a doubt is the fact that reading the rules exactly as written has been confirmed by MM to be how we should read them. (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/10/11/mage-slayer-ready/)

And it is statements just like those that you just made which are trying to obfuscate and/or ignore the clearly defined rules.
That's the very definition of backward and misguided rules lawyering, and rules lawyering comes with intent included. So yes, the people arguing against the clearly defined RAW have indeed shown intent.

House rule it all you want to, but do not argue that the perfectly 100% crystal clear RAW (which has been confirmed as being the correct way to read it) is unclear. Because it isn't. Not one tiny little bit. Not at all. Not in any way, whatsoever.

[Kryx]

MS isn't called out as one of those exceptions by its own wording, which is where those exceptions are EXCLUSIVELY made clear.
Does the wording of MS make it clear that it is an exception? No? Then it isn't.
Exactly this.

[CNagy]

That's fine but wrong for one simple reason.

It invalidates Mage Slayer.

The devs screwed up on writing (more than once) and mage slayer (and reactions in general) are wrong.

Why? Because it is no fun taking a feat only for that feat to be useless.

And fun is the most core of all D&D rules.


Once again: something not being as good as you thought it was or should be does not make it screwed up or incorrect.

Mage Slayer does exactly 3 things: it makes you a pain to spellcasters at any range (you force disadvantage on their Concentration saving throws from damage dealt by you with no stipulation on range by RAW,) it protects you from their spells when you are up-close (advantage on saves), and gives you an opportunity to punish them for casting (option to spend your reaction for an attack.)

That's useless? All of that right there? The possibility of attacking when you don't normally otherwise get to? Forcing disadvantage on Concentration (or cancelling out War Caster advantage)? Sure, advantage on saves from spells cast by creatures within 5 feet of you is the weakest of the 3 abilities, but it is still advantage on a saving throw, against spells. And you call all this useless...

[Xetheral]

There are many other places in 5e where a strict RAW ruling is unintended.Out of curiosity, what makes you so sure that Mage Slayer isn't one of those "many other places"?What makes us so sure that MS isn't one of those many exceptions is the simple fact that MS isn't called out as one of those exceptions by its own wording, which is where those exceptions are EXCLUSIVELY made clear.
Does the wording of MS make it clear that it is an exception? No? Then it isn't.


Exactly this.

So, you're basing your surety that Mage Slayer is intended to be read according to strict RAW on... the wording of Mage Slayer? That appears to be circular.


And it is statements just like those that you just made which are trying to obfuscate and/or ignore the clearly defined rules.
That's the very definition of backward and misguided rules lawyering, and rules lawyering comes with intent included. So yes, the people arguing against the clearly defined RAW have indeed shown intent.

While I can't speak for anyone else's intent, I certainly can share my own: I have in no way "tri[ed] to obfuscate and/or ignore the clearly defined rules". So your claim, as it pertains to me, is wrong.


What makes us absolutely sure beyond a shadow of a doubt is the fact that reading the rules exactly as written has been confirmed by MM to be how we should read them. (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/10/11/mage-slayer-ready/)

Your twitter quote pertains to a closely-related topic (interrupting spells via mage slayer), but is not exactly on-point to the current conversation (shocking grasp v. mage slayer). It is therefore very relevant to the discussion, but it is not dispositive.


House rule it all you want to, but do not argue that the perfectly 100% crystal clear RAW (which has been confirmed as being the correct way to read it) is unclear. Because it isn't. Not one tiny little bit. Not at all. Not in any way, whatsoever.

I completely understand that you believe there is no room for disagreement with your position.

[calebrus]

Your twitter quote pertains to a closely-related topic (interrupting spells via mage slayer), but is not exactly on-point to the current conversation (shocking grasp v. mage slayer). It is therefore very relevant to the discussion, but it is not dispositive.

Wrong again.
Let me copy/paste the tweet here for others that may not be able to see it.

Kalervo Oikarinen @luminapina
-- Mage slayer/ready action hits while casting a spell. Should there be a concentration check for all spells, excl. maybe cantrips?
Mike Mearls @mikemearls
-- readied action takes place after trigger, so first spell then attack. No check needed.

Follow along with me here.
The question incorrectly assumed that Mage Slayer or a readied action hits while casting a spell.
The answer given corrected that incorrect assumption and clarified that readied actions take place after the trigger (which is exactly what the DMG pg 252 states). Both Mage Slayer's reaction and a readied action give the same exact answer to that question, because DMG pg 252 also states that any reaction without a specified timing occurs after the trigger. MS's reaction attack has no other specified timing, therefore it follows these rules as well.
This means that MS's reaction occurs after shocking grasp has resolved.

Not only is it relevant to the discussion, it is exactly the answer to this discussion.
And just so we're clear about this: That wasn't MM stating how he'd rule something. That wasn't MM giving his RAI. That was MM citing and paraphrasing the rules from the DMG on page 252.

[Kryx]

So, you're basing your surety that Mage Slayer is intended to be read according to strict RAW on... the wording of Mage Slayer? That appears to be circular.
Mage Slayer would have specified if it was intended to break from the normal reaction rules. It didn't, so therefore it follows the normal rules. Nothing circular about that.

There is the possibility that it was intended to happen immediately. I personally find that unlikely, but if you believe it was intended that way then that's your choice. What Calebrus and I are saying is that you shouldn't claim that as RAW or even RAI. It's clearly a houserule.



I completely understand that you believe there is no room for disagreement with your position.
Disagree if you have evidence. Currently those disagreeing have nothing but "I feel it isn't working as I want it to work" and are purposefully ignoring/obfuscating rules.

[Easy_Lee]

Not only is it relevant to the discussion, it is exactly the answer to this discussion.

The question was never "does mage slayer go off before the spell completes." I think that I laid that one out pretty clearly: some of us feel it should, but it does not. The question was if there is a delay between the spell being cast and its effect occurring, as there is with other "instantaneous" effects such as movement happening exactly when one moves (can provoke reaction interrupting the movement) and the delay between an attack hitting and dealing damage (reactions can go here).

The argument you, and some others, keep making is that these things are exceptions, and that all non-exceptions must occur after the initiating effect. The problem with that logic is that "an opponent casts a spell" does not have to mean that the full effect of the spell occurred, just that it was cast. In the case of shocking grasp, you cast the spell to make a melee attack, and that melee attack then does damage. This can be interpreted to have a window, just as it can be interpreted to not have a window. You can use the word instantaneous to mean there is no window, just as I can point out that there is a casting time and it involves an attack action to show that there is a window.

I won't tell you that you're wrong, just as I would assume that you would have the respect not to try to force everyone to agree with your interpretation either. This one is going to vary by table, and how the DM and players in question feel that mage slayer ought to work.

Of course, that depends on this issue coming up. If the issue doesn't come up, if an NPC never tries to cast shocking grasp or a teleport or repelling blast or whatever in the presence of a mage slayer, then as Person_man pointed out in another thread, this issue will have no standing.

[calebrus]

In the case of shocking grasp, you cast the spell to make a melee attack, and that melee attack then does damage. This can be interpreted to have a window, just as it can be interpreted to not have a window.

No, it cannot be interpreted to have a window.
Read page 192 and 193 and 194 of the PHB.
You want it to have a window, but that doesn't mean that a window exists.

[Easy_Lee]

No, it cannot be interpreted to have a window.
Read page 192 and 193 of the PHB.
You want it to have a window, but that doesn't mean that a window exists.

See my reply, which you only partially quoted:

You can use the word instantaneous to mean there is no window, just as I can point out that there is a casting time and it involves an attack action to show that there is a window.

I won't tell you that you're wrong, just as I would assume that you would have the respect not to try to force everyone to agree with your interpretation either. This one is going to vary by table, and how the DM and players in question feel that mage slayer ought to work.

[Kryx]

I won't tell you that you're wrong, just as I would assume that you would have the respect not to try to force everyone to agree with your interpretation either. This one is going to vary by table, and how the DM and players in question feel that mage slayer ought to work.
This is the obfuscation we were talking about.

You may feel that mage slayer ought to work in a different way than it does, but Calebrus and I are telling you the RAW. Propose a houserule for how you think it should, but don't try to confuse the issue like you've done many times now.

[calebrus]

See my reply, which you only partially quoted:

I did read it, but the rest of it was irrelevant.
Pages 193 and 194 of the PHB state that Making an Attack consists of:
1. Choose a target. <insert text here>
2. Determine modifiers. <insert text here>
3. Resolve the attack. <insert text here>

The attack is resolved as part of the attack action. There is no window between the attack and its effect.
Since reactions occur after the trigger unless otherwise specified, all three of those things have occurred before the reaction happens. If all three of those things occurred, the spell was resolved before the reaction attack. If the spell was resolved before the reaction attack, then shocking grasp disallows the Mage Slayer from taking his reaction.

There is no window. You obviously want a window.
That's fine. House rule it to have a window. But don't argue that the rules leave it open, because they do not.

[Easy_Lee]

This is the obfuscation we were talking about.

You may feel that mage slayer ought to work in a different way than it does, but Calebrus and I are telling you the RAW. Propose a houserule for how you think it should, but don't try to confuse the issue like you've done many times now.

Which part of the PHB outright states that there is no delay between a spell being cast and its effect, and what part of several abilities occurring during the window between an attack and an effect have I not made clear?

[calebrus]

Which part of the PHB outright states that there is no delay between a spell being cast and its effect,

That would be the description of instantaneous spells on page 203 of the PHB, and the definition of the word instantaneous itself.
Instantaneous: occurring or done in an instant or instantly.
Instantly: at once; immediately.

It is instant. There is no window. That's what instant means.


and what part of several abilities occurring during the window between an attack and an effect have I not made clear?

All of your examples are exceptions to the way that reactions normally occur, because they specify in their descriptions that they work differently than the rules on page 252 of the DMG state. They are completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Mage Slayer is not one of those exceptions.

[Easy_Lee]

That would be the description of instantaneous spells on page 203 of the PHB, and the definition of the word instantaneous itself.
Instantaneous: occurring or done in an instant or instantly.
Instantly: at once; immediately.

It is instant. There is no window. That's what instant means.

If you scroll up a little, I actually addressed that argument before you even made it...

Think I'll bow out of this one; it's going in circles. Have a nice day everyone.

[holygroundj]

even though it is an exception, the shield spell specifically points to the existence of a gap between an attack hitting and damage being applied. If that gap doesn't exist, then the shield spell simply does not work.

Even though it is an exception, Opportunity Attacks resolve before the triggering event finishes, because if the triggering event is leaving your reach, and the OA can only happen after the even finishes, then you can never make an OA, as the enemy is now beyond your reach.

There is no gap written into the general rules. But I believe there needs to be, not to make Mage Slayer better, but because of how many things can interact with that gap.

[calebrus]

even though it is an exception, the shield spell specifically points to the existence of a gap between an attack hitting and damage being applied. If that gap doesn't exist, then the shield spell simply does not work.

Even though it is an exception, Opportunity Attacks resolve before the triggering event finishes, because if the triggering event is leaving your reach, and the OA can only happen after the even finishes, then you can never make an OA, as the enemy is now beyond your reach.

There is no gap written into the general rules. But I believe there needs to be, not to make Mage Slayer better, but because of how many things can interact with that gap.

There is no gap as far as reactions are concerned. The gap only exists in your mind so that interrupts can work. Mage Slayer's attack is not an interrupt, it is a reaction. No gap exists. There is no window.

[holygroundj]

There is no gap as far as reactions are concerned. The gap only exists in your mind so that interrupts can work. Mage Slayer's attack is not an interrupt, it is a reaction. No gap exists. There is no window.

There are no such things as interupts in the rules either, so therefore regular OAs and the shield spell doesn't work as damage is applied in the resolution of an attack.

[Kryx]

{scrubbed}

[calebrus]

There are no such things as interupts in the rules either, so therefore regular OAs and the shield spell doesn't work as damage is applied in the resolution of an attack.

PHB page 190:
If the reaction interrupts another creature's turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction.

So yes, there is such a thing as an interrupt. All interrupts are reactions, but not all reactions are interrupts. Just like all OAs are reactions, but not all reactions are OAs.
The shield spell and regular OAs work because they are exceptions to the normal reaction rules. Their timing is specified.
Mage Slayer is not such an exception. Its timing is not specified (see the rule on page 252 of the DMG).
You guys may want it to be an exception, and you are free to house rule that it becomes an exception (and thus an interrupt). But by the rules the Mage Slayer's attack is not an interrupt; its timing is not specified. Therefore it happens after the trigger has resolved.
Resolved means completed, which means completely, which means the entire spell's effect has occurred before the reaction attack happens.
If such a spell's effect creates a situation where the reaction is no longer applicable, either by moving the caster out of range or by removing the attacker's ability to take a reaction, then that effect has already completed and thus no reaction can be made.
It really is that simple.

[holygroundj]

Oh. I get what you're saying. I was confused when you said there wasn't a gap. And you're right, raw there really isn't. Interupts pause the action, so to speak, in order to create a "gap" so that the intended effect happens correctly.

Yes. I need the gap to exist at all times, in my mind, for the rules to be consistent, and that is the ruling I would make.

However, I can now agree with your presentation of the RAW, and shocking grasp and teleporting away negates the Mage Slayer's ability to effect an attack.

However, my houserule would be to create the gap between triggering action and damage.

[calebrus]

However, my houserule would be to create the gap between triggering action and damage.

And you are well within your rights to create such a house rule. I imagine lots of tables will play by that ruling.
It is the people arguing that the RAW is ambiguous (or confusing, or unclear, or allowing multiple interpretations) that I am contending.
The rules couldn't be more clear.

All of you are free to house rule as you will, but do us a favor and admit that this is what you're doing, like holyground has. Arguing that it is RAW is simply wrong.

[CNagy]

Oh. I get what you're saying. I was confused when you said there wasn't a gap. And you're right, raw there really isn't. Interupts pause the action, so to speak, in order to create a "gap" so that the intended effect happens correctly.

Yes. I need the gap to exist at all times, in my mind, for the rules to be consistent, and that is the ruling I would make.

This might be another sticking point on the road to understanding. There are two ways to look at rules consistency.

If you group things as either being the rules or exceptions to the rules, the rules are (largely) consistent. The game plays the same way over and over again until something comes along and tells you to do it differently. But if something doesn't say it works differently than normal, even if it looks like it really should, then you go by the rules as normal.

If you consider the rules and the exceptions to all collectively be "the rules," then forget it; the rules are not consistent and nothing short of epic house ruling will ever make them consistent. I fell into this trap myself in trying to explain Opportunity Attacks that technically take place before their trigger into a coherent system that would not allow the absurdity of using an Opportunity Attack with Polearm Master to attack someone before they actually entered your reach (also an Opportunity Attack, yet if it resolves the same way you are attacking someone before you can reach them--potentially stopping them outside your reach if you have Sentinel as well). It can't be done--at the end of the day, it is rule by fiat; things work the way they say they work not due to some complex yet coherent machine. They work simply because they say they do.

[LordVonDerp]

Hey, look! Another example of certain people ignoring parts of the RAW and then claiming that they are ambiguous or contradictory! Shocking!
The rules are clear. Mage Slayer offers a reaction attack. Said reaction attack happens after the trigger (not during it), because you are reacting to something (not interrupting something). It couldn't be any more clear.
And there is no distinction between an attack and a damage roll. The examples you are trying to use are exceptions. Dealing damage is part of the attack, not a separate occurrence.

Mage Slayer
When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell, you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against that creature.

Reactions
If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs afhaits trigger finishes, as in the Ready action.



If you want to house rule that Mage Slayer becomes an interrupt, feel free to do so, but don't try to convince anyone that it isn't clear. It's very clear.

I hate when people split hairs, but still...

"When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell,"
I'd call that very specific timing. The attack occurs when the spell is cast, as opposed to after the spell is cast.

Of course one can easily rule otherwise.

[Kryx]

"When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell,"
I'd call that very specific timing. The attack occurs when the spell is cast, as opposed to after the spell is cast.
"Casts a spell" is not the same as "starts to cast a spell". "Casts a spell" is when the spell is actually cast - which requires the spell to complete casting before the trigger is realized.

There is no hair splitting at all.

[Talderas]

"Casts a spell" is not the same as "starts to cast a spell". "Casts a spell" is when the spell is actually cast - which requires the spell to complete casting before the trigger is realized.

There is no hair splitting at all.

Cast is a terrible word in the English language. Outside of third person pronouns both past and present verb usage is "cast". For third person pronouns it's "casts" for present tense and "cast" for past tense, which is useful in this case. We can take the subject of the rule's sentence and replace it with "he" to determine the tense which the term cast is operating in. Since it's casts, we know it's a present tense verb. Since it is a present tense term we know that it is reference the act occurring rather than the act having occurred. Therefore, mage slayer should trigger during the casting of the spell but before the spell takes effect. Had it used the term "cast" it would be murkier and you could argue either way.

3rd edition having a glossary was a good thing and barring a specialized glossary we have to treat the words as they are in the English language.

[calebrus]

I hate when people split hairs, but still...

"When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell,"
I'd call that very specific timing. The attack occurs when the spell is cast, as opposed to after the spell is cast.

Of course one can easily rule otherwise.

That's not timing, that's the trigger.
I'll offer three examples of abilities with both trigger and timing, and then we'll compare to Mage Slayer.

Shield: Casting time: 1 reaction, which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell
An invisible barrier of magical force appears and protects you. Until the start of your next turn, you have a
+5 bonus to AC, including against the triggering attack, and you take no damage from magic missile.
Trigger: you are hit by an attack or magic missile spell
Timing: Including against that attack, which means before the attack roll is resolved
If <this situation> occurs, you can do <this>, and it happens <at this point>.

Defensive Duelist: When you are wielding a finesse weapon with which you are proficient and another creature hits you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction to add your proficiency bonus to your AC for that attack, potentially causing the attack to miss you.
Trigger: you get hit with a melee attack
Timing: for that attack, which means before the attack roll is resolved
If <this situation> occurs, you can do <this>, and it happens <at this point>.

Counterspell: Casting time: 1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature withing 60 feet of you casting a spell
You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell.
Trigger: you see a spell being cast
Timing: you interrupt the casting
If <this situation> occurs, you can do <this>, and it happens <at this point>.

Mage Slayer: When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell, you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against that creature.
Trigger: a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell
Timing: None specified, so it happens after the spell is completed, just like page 252 of the DMG states.
If <this situation> occurs, you can do <this>, with no mention of when it happens.

As per DMG pg 252: Reactions: If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action.

AT BEST it is perfectly clear that no timing is specified.
AT WORST the timing is unclear, and even then, if we are to consider it unclear, it is clearly stated that it happens after the trigger finishes.
Either way, it happens after.
This has been confirmed.
Anything else is an house rule. Period.

[Kryx]

Cast is a terrible word in the English language. Outside of third person pronouns both past and present verb usage is "cast". For third person pronouns it's "casts" for present tense and "cast" for past tense, which is useful in this case. We can take the subject of the rule's sentence and replace it with "he" to determine the tense which the term cast is operating in. Since it's casts, we know it's a present tense verb. Since it is a present tense term we know that it is reference the act occurring rather than the act having occurred. Therefore, mage slayer should trigger during the casting of the spell but before the spell takes effect. Had it used the term "cast" it would be murkier and you could argue either way.
Wut.

"Somtimes he casts spells" follows your same logic and is in the past tense. Your rule doesn't seem to apply here, nor do I think the designers went to this extent when choosing the word. 5e is not meant to be read like a legal document as 3.X was.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Wow, some of yinz put way to much thought into this stuff.

I'm not sure if I would stay at a table with a player or DM who argued like this. Or if I found out they were online posting such... Massive responses.

I used to be that way and it only leads to the dark aide of being a gamer.

[Safety Sword]

The issue I'm having with this is that a poor interpretation of the reaction rules and an assumption that Mage Slayer "should" interrupt spells is causing people to make baseless claims about how the feat works.

It doesn't change the timing of reactions, it doesn't add a damage rolling step after a reaction is taken, it doesn't stop Shocking grasp from doing what it says it does.

Whether you think it should, or your opinion is contrary to the way the rule is written or your mother rules it differently at breakfast does not change the fact that they are all opinions that are not based in the rules of the game.

It's a house ruling if you change it. And you ARE changing it, even if only to what you think it should be.

It has been outlined by several posters and multiple times above. It is obviously clear how the rules determine this situation. If you disagree, that's fine.

Your magic elf game has house rules in this situation. My enchanted dwarf game uses the rules in the D&D Player's Handbook.

[Scarab112]

Pg 201 "In casting a spell, a character carefully plucks at the invisible strands of raw magic suffusing the world, pins them in place in a particular pattern, sets them vibrating in a specific way, and then releases them to unleash the desired effect—in most cases, all in the span of seconds."

This would imply that casting a spell, even an instantaneous one, takes up time.

In addition to this, Instantaneous is listed as the Duration of the spell, rather than under casting times, in which Actions, Bonus Actions, and Reactions. This would imply that the casting of the spell and the effects and duration of the spell are indeed two separate events.

[Yagyujubei]

All characters with Mage Slayer have the ability to read minds so they know when to attack instinctively? Makes perfect sense...

That noise you hear is your sarcasm alarm.



The abilities you describe have the ability to change the damage dealt but nothing specifies that they have to be be resolved before the damage is determined.

The only one that is really different is the shield spell which has the chance to modify the AC of the caster after the attack roll which may or may not turn a hit into a miss.

There is nothing in the rules to say that damage rolls happen after reactions occur. In fact, to speed up play many groups roll to attack and determine damage at the same time. If you miss you ignore the damage dice.

I think that you're stretching to try and make Mage Slayer do more than it is intended to do. It's not an interrupt ability, it's not anything except another way to spend your reaction when certain circumstances are met with some other advantages against spell casters thrown in. It doesn't allow you to change the way any other ability or rule works.

OR maybe since in order to make a spells happen, you have to do some sort of somatic or verbal trigger first, so when I see you waggle your fingers or start chanting your spell, I punch you in the face with my axe.

as for everything else, it seems easy_lee is saying that "because this option exists, and the wording for (x) doesn't say it works otherwise, then perhaps it could/should work this way"

and the rest of you are saying "if the wording doesn't expressly say that (x) can do this certain thing then it absolutely can't even in grey/vague ruling situations"

personally I'm inclined to go with easy_lee on this one, because I think it feels more thematically appropriate and isn't overpowered at all.

[LordVonDerp]

"Casts a spell" is not the same as "starts to cast a spell". "Casts a spell" is when the spell is actually cast - which requires the spell to complete casting before the trigger is realized.

There is no hair splitting at all.

Nor is it the same as "finishes casting a spell"

[Safety Sword]

OR maybe since in order to make a spells happen, you have to do some sort of somatic or verbal trigger first, so when I see you waggle your fingers or start chanting your spell, I punch you in the face with my axe.

as for everything else, it seems easy_lee is saying that "because this option exists, and the wording for (x) doesn't say it works otherwise, then perhaps it could/should work this way"

and the rest of you are saying "if the wording doesn't expressly say that (x) can do this certain thing then it absolutely can't even in grey/vague ruling situations"

No, what we're saying is that the rules tell you how to resolve it and you can't just say "Well I think it should.." and make it so WITHOUT saying it's a house rule. Which is exactly what Easy_Lee has done by adding a phantom "damage rolling phase".

It doesn't need to be changed because it is clear and works pretty well as written.


personally I'm inclined to go with easy_lee on this one, because I think it feels more thematically appropriate and isn't overpowered at all.

That's nice. Enjoy your house rule. I hope you realise that you have made Mage Slayer much more powerful. Whether it is overpowered is going to depend on how often it is used and the circumstances of your game.

[Yagyujubei]

here's the thing though, the rules clearly separate "casting time" and "duration". You keep citing the "instantaneous" tag that many spells have, but that's in reference to the duration of the spell once it's cast and NOT the entirety of the spell from start of cast to effect.

The rules seem to pretty clearly specify:

Casting time: Most spells require a single action to cast, but some require a bonus action, reaction, or much longer to cast.

Duration:
instantaneous: "it's magic only lasts for an instant"

from the wordings here I'd say it's no stretch to assume that there is some amount of time between the start of casting, to the actual spell going off. Otherwise there wouldn't be a casting time section.

and mage slayer states that you can make an OA "when an enemy casts a spell" and NOT "after an enemy casts a spell" so who's to say that it doesn't happen before or at the same time as the resolution of the spell?

you can be as condescending as you want, but the ruling isn't nearly as cut and dry as you seem to think it is. That's my interpretation of the wording in PHB, and I have no desire to argue with someone so entrenched in their belief that they don't listen so I'll also leave it at that. laterz

[calebrus]

you can be as condescending as you want, but the ruling isn't nearly as cut and dry as you seem to think it is.

It really is though. If you don't think it's cut and dry, then that means that you would call it uncertain.
Is that correct?

If that is correct, then I'll direct you to DMG pg 252:
Reactions: If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action.

If the timing is not perfectly clear to you, then it happens after. If there can be any debate at all about the timing, such as the one in this thread, then it happens after.
That is what the rules state. So yes, it really is as clear cut and dry as we seem to think it is, because as soon as someone wants to dispute it, our position is cemented as correct.

The irony here is that the people arguing against it happening after are proving us correct simply because they're arguing.

[Safety Sword]

and mage slayer states that you can make an OA "when an enemy casts a spell" and NOT "after an enemy casts a spell" so who's to say that it doesn't happen before or at the same time as the resolution of the spell?


The rest of what you posted is largely smoke screen gear, so I'll just reply to the relevant bit that I quote above.

Mage Slayer does not say you can make an opportunity attack. It says you can use your reaction to make an attack. So, clearly the rules for reactions apply.

Reactions happen after the event that triggers them. They do not interrupt the action that triggers, happen before or during said event. Always after unless there is a specific rule that says otherwise.

So to answer your question: What's to say it doesn't happen before or at the same time as the resolution of the spell? The rules.

[Chadamantium]

I would like to know, if mage slayer does go off in between the start and resolving of casting(or houseruling it to be so), does a concentration save happen?

[Xetheral]

This might be another sticking point on the road to understanding. There are two ways to look at rules consistency.

If you group things as either being the rules or exceptions to the rules, the rules are (largely) consistent. The game plays the same way over and over again until something comes along and tells you to do it differently. But if something doesn't say it works differently than normal, even if it looks like it really should, then you go by the rules as normal.

If you consider the rules and the exceptions to all collectively be "the rules," then forget it; the rules are not consistent and nothing short of epic house ruling will ever make them consistent. I fell into this trap myself in trying to explain Opportunity Attacks that technically take place before their trigger into a coherent system that would not allow the absurdity of using an Opportunity Attack with Polearm Master to attack someone before they actually entered your reach (also an Opportunity Attack, yet if it resolves the same way you are attacking someone before you can reach them--potentially stopping them outside your reach if you have Sentinel as well). It can't be done--at the end of the day, it is rule by fiat; things work the way they say they work not due to some complex yet coherent machine. They work simply because they say they do.

This is quite insightful. I think you may well have identified the source of at least part of the disconnect between the various posters in this thread.

Personally, I fall into the latter of your two groups, and it never occurred to me until your post that there was any other way of looking at it. I do indeed define "the rules" as everything between the covers of the books (other than flavor and fluff), including normal cases and their exceptions.

I don't think this approach is a "trap" though, and don't think I'm liable to switch any time soon, but I greatly appreciate your pointing out that there is another perspective.

[Kane0]

I would like to know, if mage slayer does go off in between the start and resolving of casting(or houseruling it to be so), does a concentration save happen?

Probably not. Since its all up in the air at that point, best ask your DM.

Personally i'd default to no, since he isn't done yet and there isnt a precedent i know of for concentration checks while a spell is being cast.

[Kryx]

there isnt a precedent i know of for concentration checks while a spell is being cast.
Nothing allows you to attack when someone else is casting a spell.

Which is another reason the argument of mage slayer being an interrupt doesn't have any ground to stand on.

[DivisibleByZero]

Probably not. Since its all up in the air at that point, best ask your DM.

Personally i'd default to no, since he isn't done yet and there isnt a precedent i know of for concentration checks while a spell is being cast.

Our table actually does this via the speed factor variant and an house rule.
Between the time you begin casting (on your initiative count) and the time the spell completes (on your count minus spell level) you can be interrupted. If you are hit during that window, you roll a Con save as per normal. Failure means your spell was interrupted and you lose that action for your turn (but not the slot).
Those rules only apply to spells that have a casting time of 1 action or more.
Spells cast as a bonus action or reaction are too fast to interrupt in this way.

[Talderas]

Wut.

"Somtimes he casts spells" follows your same logic and is in the past tense. Your rule doesn't seem to apply here, nor do I think the designers went to this extent when choosing the word. 5e is not meant to be read like a legal document as 3.X was.

That phrase doesn't follow the same logic, mostly because I didn't feel like fully conjugating out cast for you. Casts is the present indicative form for cast for a third person pronoun. Your phrase is not indicative but rather conditional which would follow the structure "sometimes he would cast spells" which is still present tense. More importantly all the past tenses of cast follow "has cast" rather that "cast".

The trigger for mage slayer is the casting of the spell. That is what the words written indicate. What the rules are not clear on is whether the effects of the spell are included. There's been some comment to spells having an instantaneous duration which is nothing more than a red herring. Instantaneous is a word of duration not timing. Either each step in spellcasting is a triggerable event or the whole sequence is the trigger. There is no doubt that the sequence is Casting -> Cast -> Effect and each step has its own duration. For Knock it's casting (1 action), cast (instantaneous), and effect (instantaneous).

[Xetheral]

The trigger for mage slayer is the casting of the spell. That is what the words written indicate. What the rules are not clear on is whether the effects of the spell are included. There's been some comment to spells having an instantaneous duration which is nothing more than a red herring. Instantaneous is a word of duration not timing. Either each step in spellcasting is a triggerable event or the whole sequence is the trigger. There is no doubt that the sequence is Casting -> Cast -> Effect and each step has its own duration. For Knock it's casting (1 action), cast (instantaneous), and effect (instantaneous).

For added fun, casting a spell with an attack roll has an entire attack sequence, different parts of which might trigger a reaction, such as Protection fighting style. This could lead to the odd circumstance where the spell's attack triggers a reaction, but somehow the spell itself hasn't yet.

[CNagy]

This is quite insightful. I think you may well have identified the source of at least part of the disconnect between the various posters in this thread.

Personally, I fall into the latter of your two groups, and it never occurred to me until your post that there was any other way of looking at it. I do indeed define "the rules" as everything between the covers of the books (other than flavor and fluff), including normal cases and their exceptions.

I don't think this approach is a "trap" though, and don't think I'm liable to switch any time soon, but I greatly appreciate your pointing out that there is another perspective.

I didn't mean to imply that the thinking itself is a trap, but rather the assumption or conviction that the entirety of the rules will be internally consistent, and the gymnastics required to try and achieve that consistency. When you include everything between the covers, you end up with irreconcilable contradictions that exist side by side, in the end, simply because the book says they do. Attempting to make all the rules play nicely together ends up creating things like the gap theory from this thread.

If this whole situation were a line of people, those of us who see rules and exceptions as separate see a line of people that occasionally has a rude or crafty person cutting in. The gap idea suggests that these people are standing several feet apart from one another, so that the people who are allowed to cut in line can slot in neatly--but it takes it a step further, it says "the guy who would take this spot isn't here, but a similar guy is; why can't he take this spot?"

In other words, if the gap between X and Y is shown to exist by this thing that says it goes there, why can't I put something there that feels like it should go there even if it doesn't actually say it does? The RAW answer to that is "because it doesn't say it can be used like that."

[Talderas]

If this whole situation were a line of people, those of us who see rules and exceptions as separate see a line of people that occasionally has a rude or crafty person cutting in. The gap idea suggests that these people are standing several feet apart from one another, so that the people who are allowed to cut in line can slot in neatly--but it takes it a step further, it says "the guy who would take this spot isn't here, but a similar guy is; why can't he take this spot?"

What you see as one person others are seeing as two people with a gap between them.

[CNagy]

What you see as one person others are seeing as two people with a gap between them.

Pithy, but no. We're not arguing about parts. There is no argument that some things specifically happen after an attack roll but before damage. We all understand it is a sequence of steps. The specific trumps general rule makes it clear that specific wording can shoe-horn an action in anywhere, including places where there normally wouldn't be actions. What is being argued is whether specific wording is required or not; whether once you've identified a spot where one action interrupts the sequence, you can try and justify similar actions that do not share the same explicit wording acting in that same spot.

And then there is you, arguing grammar.

But let's look at that argument. Casting > Cast > Effect. That cast there in the middle? That's past tense. Mage Slayer says "casts a spell" in the present tense (as you pointed out.) Your sequence of events has Mage Slayer's trigger occurring sometime before Cast, which in your sequence is Casting. But if Mage Slayer intended for it's trigger to be the casting of a spell, it would probably say that--like Counterspell, whose trigger is "when you see a creature casting a spell."

Now we contrast casts a spell with makes an attack, which has already been mentioned to have a three step structure that includes determining targets, calculating modifiers, and resolving. So an attack, as spelled out in the book, includes damage if applicable. A spell that uses an attack roll, by the book, is an attack (pg 194, if you are making an attack roll, you are making an attack). A spell attack, therefore, includes damage if applicable. That damage is part of, it not entirely, the spell effect. Is choosing targets part of the effect, though? Is deciding who is going to get the fire shot at them the same as shooting the fire at them? Or is it part of the casting? If it is part of the casting, then the structure of an attack tells us that "casts a spell" includes the spell effect the way "makes an attack" includes the attack damage.

[Talakeal]

Its fairly obvious to me that the RAW is you cannot interrupt a spell that is being cast.

On the other hand, I can see a good argument for the RAI giving you the ability to interrupt spells as that is how it has worked in previous editions and 5e does allow certain interrupts.

Given 5Es attitude of rulings not rules I don't think you are going to get a clear answer on the "right" way to play other than "talk it over with your DM".

[Talderas]

But let's look at that argument. Casting > Cast > Effect. That cast there in the middle? That's past tense. Mage Slayer says "casts a spell" in the present tense (as you pointed out.) Your sequence of events has Mage Slayer's trigger occurring sometime before Cast, which in your sequence is Casting. But if Mage Slayer intended for it's trigger to be the casting of a spell, it would probably say that--like Counterspell, whose trigger is "when you see a creature casting a spell."

Whether or not "cast" is an actual step isn't pertinent regarding mage slayer if its inclusion is causing confusion I apologize. Grammar is relevant, despite what you might think, because without it the concept of RAW and RAI just do not exist at all. If grammar is ignored then the rules pretty much mean whatever you think they mean based on whatever incorrect personal knowledge you have regarding grammar and definitions. The wording used for mage slayer leaves but one proper context. It's referencing the act of casting the spell. Counterspell, as you have provided as an example, is just one anecdote of language that may be the standard for identifying that stage but what Counterspell most certainly does is validate that the delineation between casting and spell effect exists. What Counterspell does do is use proper grammar to identify the exact same event that the grammar of mage slayer identifies.

I would caution against using "casts" as completion of casting a spell and its effect going off precisely because of the rules and Counterspell. If "casts" is used to indicate that a spell has finished casting then the spell only serves to deny an action to a caster since Counterspell triggers during the casting. Spell slots are only expended when one casts a spell so Counterspell would trigger, the spell would be interrupted, and the caster does not lose a spell slot since the casting never completed while the counterspelling has sacrificed an action and a spell slot to delay the casting of the spell in question. That is a prohibitively high cost.


Now we contrast casts a spell with makes an attack, which has already been mentioned to have a three step structure that includes determining targets, calculating modifiers, and resolving. So an attack, as spelled out in the book, includes damage if applicable. A spell that uses an attack roll, by the book, is an attack (pg 194, if you are making an attack roll, you are making an attack). A spell attack, therefore, includes damage if applicable. That damage is part of, it not entirely, the spell effect. Is choosing targets part of the effect, though? Is deciding who is going to get the fire shot at them the same as shooting the fire at them? Or is it part of the casting? If it is part of the casting, then the structure of an attack tells us that "casts a spell" includes the spell effect the way "makes an attack" includes the attack damage.

There are effects which can trigger on attack rolls or damage rolls. There's even effects which trigger prior to applying modifiers on attack or damage rolls. There's effects which trigger when you make an attack.

[Kajorma]

This has been a really interesting thread to me. (Just coming in as someone who has not really played much 5e)

I went back and forth with the arguments presented, but this one pretty much settled it for me:

It really is though. If you don't think it's cut and dry, then that means that you would call it uncertain.
Is that correct?

If that is correct, then I'll direct you to DMG pg 252:
Reactions: If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action.


(I just quoted the closest time this was said, as it was said often)

The fact that the cast time is 1 action really does negate the "instantaneous" argument, but that just brings us back to square 1:
The timing is unclear.

[DivisibleByZero]

This has been a really interesting thread to me. (Just coming in as someone who has not really played much 5e)

I went back and forth with the arguments presented, but this one pretty much settled it for me:


(I just quoted the closest time this was said, as it was said often)

The fact that the cast time is 1 action really does negate the "instantaneous" argument, but that just brings us back to square 1:
The timing is unclear.

You left the best part out of that quote.

The irony here is that the people arguing against it happening after are proving us correct simply because they're arguing.

I laughed. It's funny because it's true.

[Gwendol]

Whether or not "cast" is an actual step isn't pertinent regarding mage slayer if its inclusion is causing confusion I apologize. Grammar is relevant, despite what you might think, because without it the concept of RAW and RAI just do not exist at all. If grammar is ignored then the rules pretty much mean whatever you think they mean based on whatever incorrect personal knowledge you have regarding grammar and definitions. The wording used for mage slayer leaves but one proper context. It's referencing the act of casting the spell. Counterspell, as you have provided as an example, is just one anecdote of language that may be the standard for identifying that stage but what Counterspell most certainly does is validate that the delineation between casting and spell effect exists. What Counterspell does do is use proper grammar to identify the exact same event that the grammar of mage slayer identifies.

I would caution against using "casts" as completion of casting a spell and its effect going off precisely because of the rules and Counterspell. If "casts" is used to indicate that a spell has finished casting then the spell only serves to deny an action to a caster since Counterspell triggers during the casting. Spell slots are only expended when one casts a spell so Counterspell would trigger, the spell would be interrupted, and the caster does not lose a spell slot since the casting never completed while the counterspelling has sacrificed an action and a spell slot to delay the casting of the spell in question. That is a prohibitively high cost.



There are effects which can trigger on attack rolls or damage rolls. There's even effects which trigger prior to applying modifiers on attack or damage rolls. There's effects which trigger when you make an attack.

A very good argument. Casting a spell requires a few things (the ability to supply the necessary components), and a specified casting time. To say that the reaction occurs only after the casting is completed (no matter how long) is not a given to me, or as it seems, to quite a few others.

[Safety Sword]

A very good argument. Casting a spell requires a few things (the ability to supply the necessary components), and a specified casting time. To say that the reaction occurs only after the casting is completed (no matter how long) is not a given to me, or as it seems, to quite a few others.

However it seems to you, the RAW is clear.

By all means, get out your red pen and house rule it the way you like, but the rule as it stands is that you can't interrupt spells that are being cast. Quite a few people can see that too, not that it matters in the slightest.

The number of people that share an opinion has no relevance on its correctness.

[Xetheral]

The number of people that share an opinion has no relevance on its correctness.

But it has a very strong bearing on whether or not there is consensus.

[Gwendol]

However it seems to you, the RAW is clear.

By all means, get out your red pen and house rule it the way you like, but the rule as it stands is that you can't interrupt spells that are being cast. Quite a few people can see that too, not that it matters in the slightest.

The number of people that share an opinion has no relevance on its correctness.

That's definitely not true. Spells with a casting time longer than an action requires concentration to successfully cast, and anything that breaks concentration will interrupt the casting. I take issue with the wording of Mage Slayer, that indicates the trigger is "casts a spell". Because of the different casting times, the reaction to the event will happen at ill-defined times. Also, in-game the feat makes little sense: what in the casting is it that causes the reaction? The surge of magic at the completion of the casting?

The wording of the feat suggests the PC has somehow studied or practiced fighting against spellcasters: knowing how to hurt them to break their concentration, some insight in the effects of magic and how to avoid them, and (in my mind) honed reflexes to strike out at an enemy casting a spell.
It's true the casting can't be interrupted for the action casting time spells (or shorter), but to say the reaction happens after the casting is complete, irrespective of casting time, just doesn't make sense.

[Capac Amaru]

A wizard casts a 15 min cast time ritual spell, but he is standing next to an NPC with Mage Slayer.

The Mage Slayer uses his reaction to attack the wizard.

Does the attack hit the wizard and threaten his concentration?

Or does the Mage Slayer have to wait 15 minutes for the casting to 'complete' before his reaction attack triggers?

[calebrus]

The wording of the feat suggests ....

The wording of the feat suggests nothing.
The wording of the feat tells you exactly how it works, and in that wording it tells you that it is a reaction and it says nothing about interrupting anything.


A wizard casts a 15 min cast time ritual spell, but he is standing next to an NPC with Mage Slayer.

The Mage Slayer uses his reaction to attack the wizard.

Does the attack hit the wizard and threaten his concentration?

Or does the Mage Slayer have to wait 15 minutes for the casting to 'complete'?

During that 15 minutes there are exactly 150 rounds that the mage slayer has to attack the caster. I'm pretty sure the caster will be dead long before he gets the spell off.

[Gwendol]

The wording of the feat suggests nothing.
The wording of the feat tells you exactly how it works, and in that wording it tells you that it is a reaction and it says nothing about interrupting anything.



During that 15 minutes there are exactly 150 rounds that the mage slayer has to attack the caster. I'm pretty sure the caster will be dead long before he gets the spell off.

Cue the wording of "Counterspell":
Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell

Counterspell is intended to interrupt spell casting, and yet has the exact same trigger as Mage Slayer (except for it working at range). Claiming that Mage Slayer reactions only take place after the spell-casting is resolved invalidates Counterspell. I doubt that is designer intent.

[ProphetSword]

Cue the wording of "Counterspell":

Counterspell is intended to interrupt spell casting, and yet has the exact same trigger as Mage Slayer (except for it working at range). Claiming that Mage Slayer reactions only take place after the spell-casting is resolved invalidates Counterspell. I doubt that is designer intent.

No, it doesn't. The tense is different. Mage Slayer says "when a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell." Counterspell says "when you see them casting a spell." Counterspell then specifies directly that it interrupts the spell being cast... which is something Mage Slayer does not do.

[Gwendol]

It's close enough to me. Both triggers describe the same action triggering the reaction, and give no more indication as to why treat them differently.

[Gwendol]

Counterspell then specifies directly that it interrupts the spell being cast... which is something Mage Slayer does not do.

No it doesn't. The description of the triggering event says nothing of the sort. Only that it is a reaction, and that the trigger is the visual clue that someone is casting a spell. The text in the spell description makes no indication of an exception taking place (contrary to say, shield). The trigger happens before the spell goes off and therefore the reaction interrupts.

[ProphetSword]

It's close enough to me. Both triggers describe the same action triggering the reaction, and give no more indication as to why treat them differently.

No, they don't describe the same thing at all. The tense is completely different. One says casting and one says casts. It's significant.

If you're a lifeguard, do you rescue a person when they are drowning or when a a person drowns?

Do you declare victory in a contest when someone is winning or when someone wins?

Does a funeral home bury a man when he is dying or when he dies?


The wording is very important.

Casting is in the midst of action of creating the magical effect (as in "He is casting a spell.").
Casts means you have completed the magical effect (as in "He casts the spell.").

[ProphetSword]

No it doesn't. The description of the triggering event says nothing of the sort. Only that it is a reaction, and that the trigger is the visual clue that someone is casting a spell. The text in the spell description makes no indication of an exception taking place (contrary to say, shield). The trigger happens before the spell goes off and therefore the reaction interrupts.

I am talking about the description that follows the trigger. The very first line of counterspell says:
"You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell."

Can you show me something similar in the description of Mage Slayer?

[Gwendol]

Is the fire casting a warm glow, or is it the fire that casts a warm glow? Try using a relevant example instead of shuffling the cards.

[Gwendol]

I am talking about the description that follows the trigger. The very first line of counterspell says:
"You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell."


Yes, and I'm saying that contrary to shield, for example, the interruption is given in this case as the text gives no indication of any exception taking place. How else are they going to describe the events? Using some made up word instead of interrupt? The sentence is a description of the triggering event, the reaction if you will. It does not say that the reaction takes place before the effect of the (enemy) spell is resolved, or anything of that sort. That the reaction interrupts the spell being cast is a given, not an exception.

[ProphetSword]

Yes, and I'm saying that contrary to shield, for example, the interruption is given in this case as the text gives no indication of any exception taking place. How else are they going to describe the events? Using some made up word instead of interrupt? The sentence is a description of the triggering event, the reaction if you will. It does not say that the reaction takes place before the effect of the (enemy) spell is resolved, or anything of that sort. That the reaction interrupts the spell being cast is a given, not an exception.

Counterspell interrupts a creature in the process of casting a spell.

Show me text in Mage Slayer that indicates that it does the same thing. Otherwise, it doesn't.

[Gwendol]

I don't think we're getting any closer than this. :smallsmile:

I'll end by noting you haven't objected to my examples of using casting and casts that don't involve changing the tense of the sentence. I'll take that as a minor victory.

[Talderas]

No, they don't describe the same thing at all. The tense is completely different. One says casting and one says casts. It's significant.

Just because the word used is different doesn't mean the tense has changed.


If you're a lifeguard, do you rescue a person when they are drowning or when a a person drowns?

You rescue him as he drowns. You rescue me as I drown. Drowning is both past and present tense and which one is dependent on the word preceding it. "I was drowning" is past tense. "I am drowning" is present tense.


The wording is very important.

Yes it's important. That's why you need to learn to properly conjugate your verbs for tense.

[ProphetSword]

That's nice and all, but none of that shows me where Mage Slayer specifies it is an exception to the rule in the DMG that allows it to interrupt a spell in the same manner as Counterspell. All this nonsense bickering about words doesn't change the way the rules work.

[Gwendol]

No, it doesn't. The tense is different. Mage Slayer says "when a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell." Counterspell says "when you see them casting a spell." Counterspell then specifies directly that it interrupts the spell being cast... which is something Mage Slayer does not do.

Nonsense bickering about words indeed.

There's been quite a few misgivings presented as facts in this thread, grammar and proper tense of verbs being one. I'm not going to give an exhaustive list, only cherrypick those presented on the previous page.

The DMG says: Reactions: If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action.

In the case of Mage slayer, it has a specified timing, and the timing is clear: if someone within melee reach casts a spell, you get to hit them then and there. This goes hand in hand with the feat actually meaning something also in the case of different casting times (typically longer than an action).


Personally i'd default to no, since he isn't done yet and there isnt a precedent i know of for concentration checks while a spell is being cast.

Except for spells with a casting time longer than an action, and the use of counterspell against spells of higher level.


Nothing allows you to attack when someone else is casting a spell.

Except counterspell or readying an action (provided the trigger is worded right)


By all means, get out your red pen and house rule it the way you like, but the rule as it stands is that you can't interrupt spells that are being cast.

Which, again, is not true.

Pointless bickering indeed.

[Lanced Crescent]

... as he drowns.

To me, that means he has already drowned, very similar to the present perfect tense, i.e., "has done it", "has argued his case successfully", etc.

The other function of the base (not necessarily "present") tense is to describe a routine occurrence or action: rain falls in autumn time, fresh saplings grow in spring, etc. I think that is what you mean when you suggest that the base tense can suggest an ongoing process. Clearly, that is not what Mage Slayer's wording describes.

This all boils down to what "casts" actually means. If I start mumbling random sounds, am I casting? Or am I merely preparing to cast, and the actual casting is when I release magical energy?

If casting is getting out the components and stuff, then Mage Slayer occurs immediately after that, which means it might interrupt you releasing the spell energy.

If casting *is* releasing the spell energy, then it's too late to interrupt anything.

[Talderas]

Nonsense bickering about words indeed.

There's been quite a few misgivings presented as facts in this thread, grammar and proper tense of verbs being one. I'm not going to give an exhaustive list, only cherrypick those presented on the previous page.

The DMG says: Reactions: If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action.

In the case of Mage slayer, it has a specified timing, and the timing is clear: if someone within melee reach casts a spell, you get to hit them then and there. This goes hand in hand with the feat actually meaning something also in the case of different casting times (typically longer than an action).

The bickering of the words and the timing they indicate is relevant when one considers whether an action has discrete steps that occur during it and whether said discrete steps are sufficiently broken to permit reactions to occur between these steps. If there are no discrete steps then the definitions and grammar do not matter since the unit must be taken as a whole rather than it's individual steps however if these individual steps do exist then the grammar and definitions are very relevant as they are indicative of timing and which step is triggering the reaction.

[Gwendol]

If casting *is* releasing the spell energy, then it's too late to interrupt anything.

That's not really relevant musings. Casting the spell is providing the necessary components (M, S, V). I can't see how or why this is not clear.

[Lanced Crescent]

That's not really relevant musings. Casting the spell is providing the necessary components (M, S, V). I can't see how or why this is not clear.

If it were clear, there would be no disagreement.

As has been mentioned, the problem is the word "casts". That means right after it has been initiated.

If providing the material components is casting, then cool, Mage Slayer interrupts. If not, then it doesn't.

It's the difference between winding up to throw a ball and actually throwing it. You don't swing a baseball bat when the pitcher is just preparing to throw, even if that preparation is a prerequisite to throwing.

Edit: I just realized this means Counterspell can be interpreted as a bullet shoots other bullet scenario. Hmm.

[DivisibleByZero]

Casting the spell is providing the necessary components (M, S, V). I can't see how or why this is not clear.

And both the PHB and the DMG state that unless the timing is clearly described otherwise, a reaction happens after the trigger. Mage Slayer does not clearly state otherwise, and therefore happens after the spell is finished. I can't see how or why this is not clear.

[Lanced Crescent]

And both the PHB and the DMG state that unless the timing is clearly described otherwise, a reaction happens after the trigger. Mage Slayer does not clearly state otherwise, and therefore happens after the spell is finished. I can't see how or why this is not clear.

Yeah. It's the word "casts". The word means you've already finished casting. I should have just stuck with that reasoning, but I got carried away trying to create a foot for the other interpretation to stand on.

I think it's clear too. RAW, Mage Slayer occurs after a spell has been cast.

[ProphetSword]

If Mage Slayer interrupts the casting, what happens to the spell being cast? Are there rules for what happens when a mage gets hit while casting? From what I can see, there aren't, which makes me believe it isn't a situation that is supposed to happen. One would think that if the intention was that you could interrupt the spell, there would be rules about what happens when it occurs.

D&D 5e seems to be built on a foundation of easy and fast rules. Introducing a lot of things that interrupt a lot of other things or create a ton of exceptions seems contrary to that goal, which is why the few things that actually do it are spelled out clearly.

[Lanced Crescent]

If Mage Slayer interrupts the casting, what happens to the spell being cast? Are there rules for what happens when a mage gets hit while casting? From what I can see, there aren't, which makes me believe it isn't a situation that is supposed to happen. One would think that if the intention was that you could interrupt the spell, there would be rules about what happens when it occurs.

D&D 5e seems to be built on a foundation of easy and fast rules. Introducing a lot of things that interrupt a lot of other things or create a ton of exceptions seems contrary to that goal, which is why the few things that actually do it are spelled out clearly.

I think there's a stipulation about having to maintain concentration for spells that take longer than one action to cast.

Since no such stipulation exists for spells that take one action or less, than I suppose that means they can't really be interrupted by things that break concentration, i.e. damage, though that might strike you as odd.

Edit: Unless the person casting dies, of course.

[Talderas]

I think there's a stipulation about having to maintain concentration for spells that take longer than one action to cast.

Since no such stipulation exists for spells that take one action or less, than I suppose that means they can't really be interrupted by things that break concentration, i.e. damage, though that might strike you as odd.

Edit: Unless the person casting dies, of course.

If the spellcasting and effect are two discrete steps then the mage slayer would react after casting finished but prior to the effect coming into being. Note that the spell was successfully cast, so assuming that the targets are still valid when it finished the effect will still occur. IE, killing a casting with mage slayer after he finishes casting Fireball would still result in the fireball coming into effect, but killing a caster with mage slayer after he finishes casting dimensional door would result in the spell no longer coming into effect or transporting a corpse.

Some other oddities. The rules for expending spell slots in the PHB specify when you cast a spell. If the spell slot is expended at the end of casting then that means that counterspell does not cause the caster to expend his spell slot since we have determined that this interrupts DURING the casting. It would also mean that the exception rule under casting times longer than 1 action would be extraneous.

[DivisibleByZero]

Some other oddities. The rules for expending spell slots in the PHB specify when you cast a spell. If the spell slot is expended at the end of casting then that means that counterspell does not cause the caster to expend his spell slot since we have determined that this interrupts DURING the casting. It would also mean that the exception rule under casting times longer than 1 action would be extraneous.

Except that Counterspell doesn't say that it prevents the original trigger spell from being cast. If that happened, then it creates a paradox. Instead, it says that the spell fails and has no effect.
You cast your spell, but the counterspell negated its effect.

[Gwendol]

And both the PHB and the DMG state that unless the timing is clearly described otherwise, a reaction happens after the trigger. Mage Slayer does not clearly state otherwise, and therefore happens after the spell is finished. I can't see how or why this is not clear.

I disagree strongly: the trigger for the mage slayer reaction is clearly stated thus the reaction may interrupt.

[Talderas]

Except that Counterspell doesn't say that it prevents the original trigger spell from being cast. If that happened, then it creates a paradox. Instead, it says that the spell fails and has no effect.
You cast your spell, but the counterspell negated its effect.

Precisely, hence why I brought it up. It would create a paradox. "When a character casts a spell, he or she expends a slot of that spell’s level or higher". That must be interpreted as the spell slot being expended when the casting starts otherwise it creates the paradox I was pointing. If casts is actually a past tense phrase, as people seem to be arguing, then the slot would not be expended until after the spell has finished casting and thus the paradox is created. It would also mean that the exception rules presented for spells with a casting time longer than 1 action would be redundant as that specifically calls out that a spell slot is not used if concentration is broken while casting.

Why am I bringing these things up? They're all evidence of discrete steps in spellcasting and since these discrete steps can be individually identified and we have the language to refer to these discrete steps it means that the reactions would occur after the steps rather than the whole action.

[DivisibleByZero]

I disagree strongly: the trigger for the mage slayer reaction is clearly stated thus the reaction may interrupt.

You're right, the trigger is stated.
It says nothing about the timing, and therefore defaults to the general rules, which state that it happens after.

Someone explained it perfectly earlier. Let me find it.

edit:
Here we go.



PHB page 190:
If the reaction interrupts another creature's turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction.

So yes, there is such a thing as an interrupt. All interrupts are reactions, but not all reactions are interrupts. Just like all OAs are reactions, but not all reactions are OAs.
The shield spell and regular OAs work because they are exceptions to the normal reaction rules. Their timing is specified.
Mage Slayer is not such an exception. Its timing is not specified (see the rule on page 252 of the DMG).
You guys may want it to be an exception, and you are free to house rule that it becomes an exception (and thus an interrupt). But by the rules the Mage Slayer's attack is not an interrupt; its timing is not specified. Therefore it happens after the trigger has resolved.
Resolved means completed, which means completely, which means the entire spell's effect has occurred before the reaction attack happens.
If such a spell's effect creates a situation where the reaction is no longer applicable, either by moving the caster out of range or by removing the attacker's ability to take a reaction, then that effect has already completed and thus no reaction can be made.
It really is that simple.


That's not timing, that's the trigger.
I'll offer three examples of abilities with both trigger and timing, and then we'll compare to Mage Slayer.

Shield: Casting time: 1 reaction, which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell
An invisible barrier of magical force appears and protects you. Until the start of your next turn, you have a
+5 bonus to AC, including against the triggering attack, and you take no damage from magic missile.
Trigger: you are hit by an attack or magic missile spell
Timing: Including against that attack, which means before the attack roll is resolved
If <this situation> occurs, you can do <this>, and it happens <at this point>.

Defensive Duelist: When you are wielding a finesse weapon with which you are proficient and another creature hits you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction to add your proficiency bonus to your AC for that attack, potentially causing the attack to miss you.
Trigger: you get hit with a melee attack
Timing: for that attack, which means before the attack roll is resolved
If <this situation> occurs, you can do <this>, and it happens <at this point>.

Counterspell: Casting time: 1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature withing 60 feet of you casting a spell
You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell.
Trigger: you see a spell being cast
Timing: you interrupt the casting
If <this situation> occurs, you can do <this>, and it happens <at this point>.

Mage Slayer: When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell, you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against that creature.
Trigger: a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell
Timing: None specified, so it happens after the spell is completed, just like page 252 of the DMG states.
If <this situation> occurs, you can do <this>, with no mention of when it happens.

As per DMG pg 252: Reactions: If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action.

AT BEST it is perfectly clear that no timing is specified.
AT WORST the timing is unclear, and even then, if we are to consider it unclear, it is clearly stated that it happens after the trigger finishes.
Either way, it happens after.
This has been confirmed.
Anything else is an house rule. Period.




Why am I bringing these things up? They're all evidence of discrete steps in spellcasting and since these discrete steps can be individually identified and we have the language to refer to these discrete steps it means that the reactions would occur after the steps rather than the whole action.

They aren't evidence of discrete steps.
You cast a spell.
Someone uses their reaction to counterspell. That can't happen after the spell is completed, so it happens during the spellcasting.
Nowhere in Counterspell's description does it state that the triggering spell is not cast. It states that the triggering spell has no effect. There's a difference.
If you want to argue that an interrupt stops the trigger from occurring, point me to the 5e rules which state that. I'll help you out. There aren't any. That's a 3e mindset which has no bearing on a 5e discussion.

[Talderas]

You're right, the trigger is stated.
It says nothing about the timing, and therefore defaults to the general rules, which state that it happens after.

As I have said before. If we can clearly identify the triggers and an action can be subdivided into discrete steps then the reaction occurs after the triggering step. That's backed up by the DMG

"If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action."

The DMG does not specific "triggering action" it specifies "trigger". That is sufficiently permissive to allow triggers within discrete steps.

[DivisibleByZero]

You ninja'd my edit. Read it.
As far as the argument about "triggering steps," all you're doing is reinforcing the rule on page 252. If you have an argument against, then it can be considered unclear. If it's unclear, it happens after.
Period.

[Talderas]

You ninja'd my edit. Read it.
As far as the argument about "triggering steps," all you're doing is reinforcing the rule on page 252. If you have an argument against, then it can be considered unclear. If it's unclear, it happens after.
Period.

Far from reinforcing. The 252 interpretation you seem to be using is based on, as best as I can tell, the assumption that the trigger must be an action rather than an identifiable step of an action when the rule itself only states "trigger" rather than "triggering action". If it were the latter, then this argument would not be present as mage slayer would always trigger after the spell casts without any sort of specific exception. The DMG rule, however, only states trigger and that the reaction resolves after the trigger which means that if one can identify discrete steps in an action then a trigger step would cause the reaction to occur after it and before the next step in the action rather than at the end of the action.

Those are the rules as written and using a fallacious appeal to authority argument isn't going to get you anywhere.

[Easy_Lee]

Going to cut back in here since I can see that this thread is still going (I had hoped that it would resolve). My perspective:

Mechanically, I can see evidence for casting a spell and the spell's effect being two separate triggers, particularly with attack spells since attacks can be broken up into multiple triggers (as shown earlier). This is enough to muddle the issue. Regardless of how one feels about reactions occurring after the trigger, if the trigger itself, the order or operations, is unclear, then that rule does not matter.
From an RAI perspective, I can see the reason for the wording. I believe the intent is that mage slayer allows a reaction attack but does not allow the mage slayer to interrupt the spell. Interrupting spells during their casting could lead to balance concerns for spellcaster creatures, while merely attacking a creature for casting a spell is much less of a concern. Since d&d is not designed with PvP in mind, players using this against each other is inconsequential.
From an RP perspective, spells take time to cast. It makes much more sense that the reaction occur during the casting of the spell. Having the mage slayer politely wait until the spellcaster finishes breaks immersion. Similarly, having the mage slayer react to spells he cannot perceive also breaks immersion. Mage slayers ought not be reaching to subtle spells. That said, I can cite FR books where casters are interrupted mid-spell by attackers, so there is going to be some immersion breakage regardless.
From a game balance perspective, mage slayer is very limited compared to other sources of reaction attacks, such as sentinel. If a player takes a feature, the DM should not take away the player's ability to use that feature.
For the sake of simple, intuitive play, I think that reactions should occur at the same time as their triggers so that everyone gets to act and order never needs to be addressed.

For all of the above reasons, I would just treat mage slayer (and counterspell, for that matter) as going off at the exact same time as the spell. Unlike counterspell, mage slayer cannot stop the spell from happening.

[Gwendol]

I would agree except for the caveat of providing the necessary components. Say the reaction attack disarms the caster of the necessary focus, for example.

[Easy_Lee]

I would agree except for the caveat of providing the necessary components. Say the reaction attack disarms the caster of the necessary focus, for example.

I agree that it certainly could from an RP perspective, but from a balance perspective this may overpower the feat. It would be truly difficult to make a lich capable of threatening a mage slayer monk, for example. So as far as interrupting spells go, that might be something to be decided by the DM on the fly, though I generally would not do it.

[Safety Sword]

I would agree except for the caveat of providing the necessary components. Say the reaction attack disarms the caster of the necessary focus, for example.

OK, let's just let mage slayer do whatever you like then.

Now we're disarming casters of their material components? So why can't you extend that to weapons, or better yet actual arms?

Oh, right, that thing where none of this is the rules...

Mage Slayer quite clearly (if you read the rules and don't assume it should be anything it's not) states that you make an attack as a reaction against a creature that casts a spell within 5' of you.

Reactions happen after the event that triggers them. If it is unclear, it happens after the trigger. Mage Slayer does not point at an exception to the reaction rules.

Anything else is a house rule.

To answer the OP, Shocking Grasp works exactly as it says it does. So does Mage Slayer.

Smart casters prepare Shocking Grasp so people with swords don't kill them.

[Yagyujubei]

yes yes, ignore what everyone who disagrees with you is saying and repeat your broken record sermon. well done.

once again, I'd say Easy_Lee has the best grasp of how it should work in a game and why, and it's how we play it at my table. Call it against RAW all you want, but it's RAI that I'm interested, as going strictly by RAW can be abused so so much in so many circumstances, that I don't put much stake in it. RAI I think what Easy_Lee posted is exactly how it's supposed to work.

[DivisibleByZero]

yes yes, ignore what everyone who disagrees with you is saying and repeat your broken record sermon. well done.

once again, I'd say Easy_Lee has the best grasp of how it should work in a game and why, and it's how we play it at my table. Call it against RAW all you want, but it's RAI that I'm interested, as going strictly by RAW can be abused so so much in so many circumstances, that I don't put much stake in it. RAI I think what Easy_Lee posted is exactly how it's supposed to work.

And if that is your belief, then that's fine. We disagree with you, and so do the rules. No harm done.
But your RAI is in direct conflict with what the RAW says, and even in direct conflict with what the rules state regarding when the timing is unclear.

[Safety Sword]

yes yes, ignore what everyone who disagrees with you is saying and repeat your broken record sermon. well done.

once again, I'd say Easy_Lee has the best grasp of how it should work in a game and why, and it's how we play it at my table. Call it against RAW all you want, but it's RAI that I'm interested, as going strictly by RAW can be abused so so much in so many circumstances, that I don't put much stake in it. RAI I think what Easy_Lee posted is exactly how it's supposed to work.

Ignoring of course the fact that the feat could have been written in the way you suggest and wasn't, what evidence do you have that it is "supposed" to work that way? None of the rules suggest it at all.

The rule is intended to allow you to attack casters that cast near you, not to allow you to stop their casting. The RAW and the RAI are the same.

So, to stop people "abusing" the RAW you change the rules to do things they were never intended to do? Good job?

[Yagyujubei]

And if that is your belief, then that's fine. We disagree with you, and so do the rules. No harm done.
But your RAI is in direct conflict with what the RAW says, and even in direct conflict with what the rules state regarding when the timing is unclear.

yeah that's your interpretation of the book sure. I think you're wrong.

[DivisibleByZero]

yeah that's your interpretation of the book sure. I think you're wrong.

"If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action."
No interpretation needed. It tells you very clearly what to do if the timing is unclear. And since there is disagreement about it, it can obviously be considered unclear, and therefore defaults to happening after the trigger finishes.
It's quite simple, and no interpretation is needed at all.

[Capac Amaru]

During that 15 minutes there are exactly 150 rounds that the mage slayer has to attack the caster. I'm pretty sure the caster will be dead long before he gets the spell off.

But will he? If The Mage Slayer uses his reaction to attack, but it doesn't happen until the 'trigger' casting is resolved (spell is completed), is the Mage Slayer then stuck in limbo for 15 minutes waiting for his reaction to occur? I'm pretty sure you aren't allowed to make any actions at all DURING your reaction.

As far as I can see this matches RAW, but is clearly against RAI.

[DivisibleByZero]

But will he? If The Mage Slayer uses his reaction to attack, but it doesn't happen until the 'trigger' casting is resolved (spell is completed), is the Mage Slayer then stuck in limbo for 15 minutes waiting for his reaction to occur? I'm pretty sure you aren't allowed to make any actions at all DURING your reaction.

As far as I can see this matches RAW, but is clearly against RAI.

What are you talking about?
The rules state that the reaction happens after the trigger. During those 15 minutes (which is 150 rounds), the Mage Slayer isn't standing there waiting for the trigger, he's taking his normal turns, which include 150 rounds of the Attack action.
The caster is long dead by the time the Mage Slayer would have gotten his reaction.

[ProphetSword]

But will he? If The Mage Slayer uses his reaction to attack, but it doesn't happen until the 'trigger' casting is resolved (spell is completed), is the Mage Slayer then stuck in limbo for 15 minutes waiting for his reaction to occur? I'm pretty sure you aren't allowed to make any actions at all DURING your reaction.

As far as I can see this matches RAW, but is clearly against RAI.

What?

The character with Mage Slayer may not be able to use his reaction to attack the mage, but he certainly isn't stuck in limbo. He can use his actions as normal when his turn starts, regardless of whether he used his reaction or not. Reactions aren't required to be completed before the turn continues.

In addition, the chances that an enemy mage will begin casting a spell that requires 15 minutes to cast while standing next to an armed enemy is...well...highly unlikely. As a DM, I would certainly never do it. Very few, if any, combats will last that long.

EDIT:
DivisibleByZero beat me by a few seconds.

[Yagyujubei]

"If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action."
No interpretation needed. It tells you very clearly what to do if the timing is unclear. And since there is disagreement about it, it can obviously be considered unclear, and therefore defaults to happening after the trigger finishes.
It's quite simple, and no interpretation is needed at all.

yeah but the timing is perfectly clear. when the target casts a spell. as multiple people have said. you can keep repeating this all you want, but the real crux of this argument is whether or not some amount of time elapses when someone "casts a spell".

I believe it does, and that it's supported by the text as well as RAI

[DivisibleByZero]

And the fact that you want to argue the timing proves that it is at the very least unclear, so your personal interpretation of the RAI may be that it happens before or during or whatever, but the fact that there is any debate about it at all means that rules state it happens after.
By arguing with us, you are proving our side correct.

[Yagyujubei]

And the fact that you want to argue the timing proves that it is at the very least unclear, so your personal interpretation of the RAI may be that it happens before or during or whatever, but the fact that there is any debate about it at all means that rules state it happens after.
By arguing with us, you are proving our side correct.

all it proves is that you and I disagree. The fact that it's unclear to you doesn't mean that it is indeed unclear. a person not understanding relativistic physics doesn't make the theories any less legitimate.

your logic is false, you and I arguing doesn't prove anything aside from that fact that we disagree.

[Capac Amaru]

What?

The character with Mage Slayer may not be able to use his reaction to attack the mage, but he certainly isn't stuck in limbo. He can use his actions as normal when his turn starts, regardless of whether he used his reaction or not. Reactions aren't required to be completed before the turn continues.

In addition, the chances that an enemy mage will begin casting a spell that requires 15 minutes to cast while standing next to an armed enemy is...well...highly unlikely. As a DM, I would certainly never do it. Very few, if any, combats will last that long.

EDIT:
DivisibleByZero beat me by a few seconds.

Mage Slayer is behind a curtain.

DM "The NPC Wizard begins to cast a spell"

MS "I use my reaction to attack the wizard"

What happens next?

Many people in this thread are saying that the reaction attack occurs after the completion of the 'trigger' spell cast.

I'm pretty sure a reaction needs to be resolved before the encounter can continue, either by success or failure. Success in this case would be waiting 15 mins and resolving the attack, or calling the attack a 'failure' because it can't be resolved within the allotted 'reaction' time frame.

Both of these questions demand an answer to 'how does either case make sense narratively?'.

Otherwise, the MS could use his reaction (which then joins a weird pending reaction queue), uses 15 mins worth of actions to leave the area at top speed, and then somehow smacks the wizard in the face from the next village.

[DivisibleByZero]

Mage Slayer is behind a curtain.

DM "The NPC Wizard begins to cast a spell"

MS "I use my reaction to attack the wizard"

What happens next?

Many people in this thread are saying that the reaction attack occurs after the completion of the 'trigger' spell cast.

I'm pretty sure a reaction needs to be resolved before the encounter can continue, either by success or failure. Success in this case would be waiting 15 mins and resolving the attack, or calling the attack a 'failure' because it can't be resolved within the allotted 'reaction' time frame.

Both of these questions demand an answer to 'how does either case make sense narratively?'.

Otherwise, the MS could use his reaction (which then joins a weird pending reaction queue), uses 15 mins worth of actions to leave the area at top speed, and then somehow smacks the wizard in the face from the next village.

Your entire scenario only lends even more credence to the correct and designer verified ruling that reactions happen after the trigger is complete.... just like the rule book says.

[Capac Amaru]

Your entire scenario only lends even more credence to the correct and designer verified ruling that reactions happen after the trigger is complete.... just like the rule book says.

So 15 minutes later the wizard is stabbed by the MS who has left the room, left the dungeon, exited the castle, and is skipping merrily through a field of flowers?

Or he's stuck there knife poised for 15 mins?

Or he stabs but the wizard doesn't take damage for 15 minutes?

Or wizard is stabbed and takes damage but it doesn't affect his concentration, even though a regular attack would?

[Easy_Lee]

And the fact that you want to argue the timing proves that it is at the very least unclear, so your personal interpretation of the RAI may be that it happens before or during or whatever, but the fact that there is any debate about it at all means that rules state it happens after.
By arguing with us, you are proving our side correct.

Again, the debate isn't whether the timing of the trigger is clear, at least not for me. The debate is whether the trigger precedes or includes the effect. In short, the debate is whether there are multiple triggers present.

Let me see if I can write this out in such a way that is clear:

Someone is casting a spell -> Counterspell
Someone has cast a spell?
The spell makes a spell attack -> Giant killer, sentinel, and so on go here
The attack hits -> Shield, defensive duelist, deflect missiles, and so on go here
The damage occurs -> Hellish Rebuke goes here
Someone has cast a spell?

1, 3, 4, and 5 are all triggers; that much we know for sure because of the existence of other reactions which take place at those times. The question is when the "casts a spell" trigger takes place; 2 or 6 above? It's not a question of timing, because it's clear that mage slayer follows the trigger. The question is where the trigger falls in the order of operations.

And again, my preference is to just do away with all of the timing crap and say that reactions are simultaneous with the triggering action; that way everyone gets their actions and reactions no matter what. That's the only solution that doesn't result in someone using this thread as a basis for why "casters are superior," or "casters suck and here's why," in another thread

[DivisibleByZero]

So 15 minutes later the wizard is stabbed by the MS who has left the room, left the dungeon, exited the castle, and is skipping merrily through a field of flowers?

Or he's stuck there knife poised for 15 mins?

Or he stabs but the wizard doesn't take damage for 15 minutes?

Or wizard is stabbed and takes damage but it doesn't affect his concentration, even though a regular attack would?

What?
None of the above.
The reaction attack is not granted until the spell is complete. That's what "the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes" means. If the Mage Slayer is standing next to a caster when that caster completes the casting of a spell (ie: when a caster casts a spell, and that trigger completes, meaning the casting is complete), then the Mage Slayer can use his reaction to make one weapon attack against the caster.
The 15 minutes are completely irrelevant. The competed spell is what's relevant.

[ProphetSword]

So 15 minutes later the wizard is stabbed by the MS who has left the room, left the dungeon, exited the castle, and is skipping merrily through a field of flowers?

Or he's stuck there knife poised for 15 mins?

Or he stabs but the wizard doesn't take damage for 15 minutes?

Or wizard is stabbed and takes damage but it doesn't affect his concentration, even though a regular attack would?

Or his reaction doesn't trigger at all at this point, which is completely valid, and combat continues as normal.

Don't understand why you don't understand this.

No one is entitled to a reaction unless something happens that allows one. It is perfectly normal to have whole rounds of combat without a single reaction on either side.

[Easy_Lee]

Or his reaction doesn't trigger at all at this point, which is completely valid, and combat continues as normal.

So you would rule that casting a ritual doesn't trigger a reaction attack? And here I would rule that casting a ritual or multi-round spell in the middle of combat triggers a reaction from everyone and their mothers, regardless of mage slayer.

[ProphetSword]

So you would rule that casting a ritual doesn't trigger a reaction attack? And here I would rule that casting a ritual or multi-round spell in the middle of combat triggers a reaction from everyone and their mothers, regardless of mage slayer.

It's fine that you would rule it that way. That's your right. There are no rules in the book that allow everyone to take a reaction to attack someone simply for casting a spell requiring longer than an action, but it's cool. Do what you want.

[Capac Amaru]

What?
None of the above.
The reaction attack is not granted until the spell is complete. That's what "the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes" means. If the Mage Slayer is standing next to a caster when that caster completes the casting of a spell (ie: when a caster casts a spell, and that trigger completes, meaning the casting is complete), then the Mage Slayer can use his reaction to make one weapon attack against the caster.
The 15 minutes are completely irrelevant. The competed spell is what's relevant.

So the Mage Slayer's special advantage against wizards casting spells is unusable against a wizard casting a ritual until he's finished.

Does that not seem patently absurd? "If only this wizard was casting 1 action per round spells, then I could get my reaction attack every round!"

Also, as per my previous example:

DM "The NPC Wizard begins to cast a spell"

MS "I use my reaction to attack the wizard"

DM "You strike at the wizard but it fails"

MS "I missed? But I haven't rolled to hit!"

DM "No, the attack fails because the spell hasn't completed casting, the spell is a ritual, it will be complete in 15 minutes. You can attack at your regular initiative until then."

MS "So you are saying my special ability to do extra damage to spellcasters is 150x less effective against an unaware wizard casting a non-combat ritual that takes 15 minutes than against a combat magic machine staring me in the face on the battlefield blasting out spells like some kind of magic machine gun?"

DM "RAW. Do you want to hide and wait for him to finish, or attack now?"

MS "I'm just gonna re-roll my character"

[DivisibleByZero]

So the Mage Slayer's special advantage against wizards casting spells is unusable against a wizard casting a ritual until he's finished.

Does that not seem patently absurd?

What seems patently absurd is the idea that anyone would begin casting a ritual in the middle of a combat that will be resolved in less than one minute.
Your entire scenario is patently absurd.

[ProphetSword]

So the Mage Slayer's special advantage against wizards casting spells is unusable against a wizard casting a ritual until he's finished.


He can still attack the mage with his regular action and possible bonus action (and so can everyone else). Mage Slayer just doesn't trigger until the spell is finished being cast. In this case, I imagine it probably would never trigger, since he will likely be dead long before he completes the spell or his concentration would be broken.

[Easy_Lee]

This thread is interesting in that it's very much an RP versus this is how I think the mechanics work debate. No one ever answered my question of which they think makes the most RP sense to them, in this thread or the other. I've seen some people argue that the RP side of things doesn't matter, though I find that claim dubious.

[DivisibleByZero]

Refresh our memories as to your "which makes the most RP sense," if you wouldn't mind?

[Capac Amaru]

What seems patently absurd is the idea that anyone would begin casting a ritual in the middle of a combat that will be resolved in less than one minute.
Your entire scenario is patently absurd.

Except my scenario was based on the wizard being unaware of his attacker.

Are you suggesting it would be impossible to ever catch a wizard casting a ritual unawares?


The Mage Slayer has trained himself, or been trained, to recognize the specific actions involved in spell casting and react against them with violence on an almost instinctual level. But he has to wait fifteen minutes before its 'allowed' because 'reasons'.

[DivisibleByZero]

Except my scenario was based on the wizard being unaware of his attacker.

He would become aware of his attacker the moment that another person used his attack action to attack him while he was busy casting his ritual.

[ProphetSword]

What seems patently absurd is the idea that anyone would begin casting a ritual in the middle of a combat that will be resolved in less than one minute.
Your entire scenario is patently absurd.

Especially being as ritual spells are also regular spells that can usually be cast with an action. If someone really needed to Detect Magic during combat, they could do so without trying to do so as a ritual.

[ProphetSword]

Except my scenario was based on the wizard being unaware of his attacker.

Are you suggesting it would be impossible to ever catch a wizard casting a ritual unawares?


The Mage Slayer has trained himself, or been trained, to recognize the specific actions involved in spell casting and react against them with violence on an almost instinctual level. But he has to wait fifteen minutes before its 'allowed' because 'reasons'.

I'm unsure why you would need a reaction when you can simply use a regular action to attack the wizard during the casting of this ritual. Given that actions are miles better than reactions and can include bonus actions, there's no reason to even worry about it.

[Capac Amaru]

I'm unsure why you would need a reaction when you can simply use a regular action to attack the wizard during the casting of this ritual. Given that actions are miles better than reactions and can include bonus actions, there's no reason to even worry about it.

More damage?

Reaction, Action, Bonus Action, Reaction...etc

Is more damage than

Action, Bonus action, Action...etc

A Mage Slayer catching a Wizard casting a ritual should = blood mist

and not 'herpaderp, not sure if magic spell or not until he finishes'

[Easy_Lee]

Refresh our memories as to your "which makes the most RP sense," if you wouldn't mind?

Sure thing.

D&D is a simulation of the novels, stories, and other adventures we've had in its many worlds. Crawford recently wrote an article on feats, there is another thread up for it, where he qualified that crossbow expert allows one to bonus action fire the same crossbow as triggers the bonus, but only if one has a free hand to load it. This makes reasonable sense, though the feat does not require a free hand. In short, I believe that the rules are there to simulate what makes the most sense. When the rules don't make sense, I think that we should just go with what does.

I posted above that it's the timing of the trigger, not the reaction that follows the trigger, which I created this thread to discuss. There are at least two places where the trigger should go, and I've talked a lot about why I believe it can go in more than once place.

But in short, I think that what makes the most sense at the time is how a DM should rule. For example, I would think that bonus action and subtle spells would not trigger a reaction attack. A bonus action is too quick to provide an opening, and a subtle spell gives no indication (at least by the text I've read) that it occurred at all, unless one is actively detecting magic. Those both go against the text and the martial in this case, but they're what makes sense to me.

But as far as regular spells go, what makes the most sense to you personally? Would you think that the spell goes off before the reaction can occur, or would you think that the mage slayer would go on the offensive the moment he saw the caster start gesturing? Does it depend on the spell and situation? My thought is that it's the specific situation, and what makes sense from an RP perspective, that should matter the most.

In short, I believe that DMs should adjudicate based on the situation, and that mage slayer need not be fixed. However, for the sake of simplicity, my normal response is to just say everything happens simultaneously, as I've said. Double KOs are cool when they happen, which is enough reason for me to go with the ruling that makes them possible.

Edit: Sorry for the wordiness. I wanted to be complete, if not concise.

[Safety Sword]

Again, the whole argument comes down to the rules say that Mage Slayer works after the trigger spell that allows the reaction and some people WANT it to be an interrupt to that spell.

It's not an interrupt. It uses the rules for reactions. It never is, was nor should it ever be an interrupt, unless you are house ruling it otherwise.

Many of us have tried to point out the flaw of this assumption that the feat grants you the ability to stop casters getting their spells off. It is not intended to do that and for good reason. The game is not trying to become the readied action rocket tag that D&D 3.5E became.

The fact that some people want it to interrupt is a bygone era of D&D talking.

It works like this:

Caster casts a spell within 5' of character with Mage Slayer Feat
Mage slayer Feat grants an attack as a reaction
Reactions occur after the triggering condition that generates them. Spell completes and has its effect, as normal. All facets of that spell are resolved.
Reaction attack is resolved.
Life goes on.


The rules for reactions state that they happen after the event that triggers them. If it's unclear when the reaction occurs there is another rule that states that it happens after the triggering event. So, that's twice that this granted attack happens after the spell is cast, if you're counting.

Mage Slayer does not state that this changes in any way. There is no way to assume that the rule works any differently just because you have this feat. Therefore the rules work as they are written.

I just can't see how there is any doubt in this any more. All of the scenarios are covered. If you decide to do this differently you are deviating from the rules (which is fine, House Rules are just that).

I would also suppose that as the Mage Slayer feat wasn't written as an exception to the rule that reactions go after triggers that it is intended to work in the manner described above. There are exceptions to this rule and they change the order in which the reaction is resolved, see Shield spell.

MAGE SLAYER COULD HAVE BEEN MADE AN EXCEPTION TO THE REACTION RULES BUT WASN'T, SO IT ISN'T AN EXCEPTION.

[DivisibleByZero]

Sure thing.

<snip>

Sure, if that's what makes sense to you.
For me, any spell that takes one action to cast takes about the same amount of time that swinging a sword takes, which is basically not much at all.
One action is one action is one action. And when the spell is complete, the MS'er gets to react to it.
That's what makes sense to me.

You're more then welcome to see it differently and house rule it all you want. I don't see the need to either look at it differently nor to house rule it.

[Easy_Lee]

Again, the whole argument comes down to the rules say that Mage Slayer works after the trigger spell that allows the reaction and some people WANT it to be an interrupt to that spell.

It's not an interrupt. It uses the rules for reactions. It never is, was nor should it ever be an interrupt, unless you are house ruling it otherwise.

Many of us have tried to point out the flaw of this assumption that the feat grants you the ability to stop casters getting their spells off. It is not intended to do that and for good reason. The game is not trying to become the readied action rocket tag that D&D 3.5E became.

The fact that some people want it to interrupt is a bygone era of D&D talking.

It works like this:

Caster casts a spell within 5' of character with Mage Slayer Feat
Mage slayer Feat grants an attack as a reaction
Reactions occur after the triggering condition that generates them. Spell completes and has its effect, as normal. All facets of that spell are resolved.
Reaction attack is resolved.
Life goes on.


The rules for reactions state that they happen after the event that triggers them. If it's unclear when the reaction occurs there is another rule that states that it happens after the triggering event. So, that's twice that this granted attack happens after the spell is cast, if you're counting.

Mage Slayer does not state that this changes in any way. There is no way to assume that the rule works any differently just because you have this feat. Therefore the rules work as they are written.

I just can't see how there is any doubt in this any more. All of the scenarios are covered. If you decide to do this differently you are deviating from the rules (which is fine, House Rules are just that).

I would also suppose that as the Mage Slayer feat wasn't written as an exception to the rule that reactions go after triggers that it is intended to work in the manner described above. There are exceptions to this rule and they change the order in which the reaction is resolved, see Shield spell.

MAGE SLAYER COULD HAVE BEEN MADE AN EXCEPTION TO THE REACTION RULES BUT WASN'T, SO IT ISN'T AN EXCEPTION.

You're not addressing my argument. I'm not contesting that the trigger precedes the reaction. I'm contesting that the trigger happens when you say it does. I've shown more than enough evidence for why I think the trigger precedes the effect, particularly concerning attack spells. If you have a problem with my logic, then please address that. If not, then I guess we can go in circles.

Edit: and if we're supposing, then I suspect that the real reason why mage slayer doesn't use counterspell's wording is because, if it did, there would be no reason for mage slayer not to force a concentration check or interrupt the spell. That would be too powerful, as it would be save-or-counterspell up to any caster level, any number of times per rest, for the cost of a feat. I suspect that's the only reason for the difference. Again, that's just what I suppose; you started the supposing.

[Safety Sword]

You're not addressing my argument. I'm not contesting that the trigger precedes the reaction. I'm contesting that the trigger happens when you say it does. I've shown more than enough evidence for why I think the trigger precedes the effect, particularly concerning attack spells. If you have a problem with my logic, then please address that. If not, then I guess we can go in circles.

I haven't seen one reference in any book that says that there are stages to casting a spell. You spend the action, it's done. That all happens before the reaction is generated. Your "evidence" is based on flawed supposition that there is a "casting time" within the action. I haven't seen that written anywhere either.




Edit: and if we're supposing, then I suspect that the real reason why mage slayer doesn't use counterspell's wording is because, if it did, there would be no reason for mage slayer not to force a concentration check or interrupt the spell. That would be too powerful, as it would be save-or-counterspell up to any caster level, any number of times per rest, for the cost of a feat. I suspect that's the only reason for the difference. Again, that's just what I suppose; you started the supposing.

I'm sure that they could have given a modified check, or no check if that's what they intended. They would just have to write what they want in the description. Suspect, suppose, intuit all you like, but the fact remains that those words are absent from the feat description and you can't just extrapolate extra functions or abilities into the feat just because they are absent.

[Easy_Lee]

I haven't seen one reference in any book that says that there are stages to casting a spell. You spend the action, it's done. That all happens before the reaction is generated. Your "evidence" is based on flawed supposition that there is a "casting time" within the action. I haven't seen that written anywhere either.

Well, let's address that bolded section. Spells are usually comprised of verbal and somatic components, and some use materials. That means that the caster is saying things, making gestures, and potentially pulling things out of a pouch. Do you think that the caster did all of those things instantaneously, in the blink of an eye?

In the case of attack spells, they can be dodged or deflected. We don't have to suppose here, because we know that if something can be dodged or deflected, then it wasn't instantaneous. This is how we know that lightning spells are not as fast as real lightning: they can be dodged.

And regarding three stages to spells, well I also haven't seen anything in the book that directly says there is a gap between an attack hitting and the attack dealing damage. And yet it's that gap which is used by deflect missiles, defensive duelist, shield, and so on. No one contests that those abilities interrupt an attack mid-hit, before it's had a chance to sink in and do damage, and potentially prevent that damage. Intuitively, that is a much smaller window than "I saw that guy waving his arms and saying some stuff so now I'm going to smack him." I really don't see how anyone can argue with that last point, to be honest. So if reactions can interrupt that small window, and if we have some evidence that the casting of a spell may have some time associated with it (we do), then I don't see why a reaction can't be shoved in there right as the spell is finished, being effectively simultaneous with the spell's effect.

A little off-topic, I've noticed that a lot of the people arguing in favor of the hypothetical caster creature in this thread are the same who argue that "martials suck, therefore WoTC sucks at balancing games," in other threads. Does anyone ever feel like we create our own problems to argue about? But I'm not one talk; people in glass houses and all that.

[Xetheral]

I haven't seen one reference in any book that says that there are stages to casting a spell. You spend the action, it's done. That all happens before the reaction is generated. Your "evidence" is based on flawed supposition that there is a "casting time" within the action. I haven't seen that written anywhere either.

At the very least, we know that spells that require attacks have stages, because attacks themselves have stages. (At the very least, the three stages on 194, but arguably step 3 has sub-stages.)

I don't think there is any doubt that Protection fighting style, for example, can resolve prior to the completion of Shocking Grasp. Protection Fighting Style takes place after its trigger ("a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you"), but prior to making the attack roll. (Unlike Shield and Defensive Duelist, Protection Fighting Style is not retroactive.)

[squab]

I just wanna say that if the Mage Slayer feat means that casters use Shocking Grasp instead of a more powerful spell with a martial is within melee distance of them, then Mage Slayer is actually a really powerful feat, because you don't even need to take the damn feat to benefit from it.

Anyways, imho, I'm assuming that something isn't part of the rules unless the rules explicitly say so. The rules also emphasize how something like this is, ultimately, the DMs call. Now that I think about it, arguing about 5th ed rulings on these forums is kinda useless because of that emphasis. Ultimately you should talk to your DM about it, not people on the forum.

[Safety Sword]

Well, let's address that bolded section. Spells are usually comprised of verbal and somatic components, and some use materials. That means that the caster is saying things, making gestures, and potentially pulling things out of a pouch. Do you think that the caster did all of those things instantaneously, in the blink of an eye?

In the case of attack spells, they can be dodged or deflected. We don't have to suppose here, because we know that if something can be dodged or deflected, then it wasn't instantaneous. This is how we know that lightning spells are not as fast as real lightning: they can be dodged.

And regarding three stages to spells, well I also haven't seen anything in the book that directly says there is a gap between an attack hitting and the attack dealing damage. And yet it's that gap which is used by deflect missiles, defensive duelist, shield, and so on. No one contests that those abilities interrupt an attack mid-hit, before it's had a chance to sink in and do damage, and potentially prevent that damage. Intuitively, that is a much smaller window than "I saw that guy waving his arms and saying some stuff so now I'm going to smack him." I really don't see how anyone can argue with that last point, to be honest. So if reactions can interrupt that small window, and if we have some evidence that the casting of a spell may have some time associated with it (we do), then I don't see why a reaction can't be shoved in there right as the spell is finished, being effectively simultaneous with the spell's effect.



You're confusing the perception of what a real life person would do to cast a spell and the game mechanics that allow you to resolve combat. Each spell might be a single word or a two word phrase, it's fluff. It very well might happen in the literal blink of an eye. None of that matters... whatever you think it is, it's resolved by spending an action. Once you have done that, it is immaterial whether real life logic says you could do anything.

As for dodging spells that have an attack roll, that again is just a way to resolve the combat. What you see as a dodge might be bad aim, a bump at the wrong time, a wrong inflection in the casting of the spell, etc etc.

Nothing in the game rules says anything about all of these "logical" steps you're adding to the mechanics of the game. It doesn't have to make sense in the real world to be how the rule is intended to work in the game.

D&D is not a combat simulation. But it does tell you the order that things are resolved in combat to resolve the mechanics.

I go back to my previous points. The game rules are clear on how to resolve this particular sequence of events. Logic has nothing to do with this magic elf game.

[Xetheral]

Now that I think about it, arguing about 5th ed rulings on these forums is kinda useless because of that emphasis. Ultimately you should talk to your DM about it, not people on the forum.

Many of us *are* the DM, making the advice "talk to your DM" itself rather useless.

And as DM's, some of us find it frustrating when the rules are unclear, thus we find it valuable to discuss apparent ambiguities with others to try to resolve them.

Sadly, because the designers appear to have confused "ambiguity" with "flexibility", many of these discussions are less helpful than they might otherwise be.

[Safety Sword]

Many of us *are* the DM, making the advice "talk to your DM" itself rather useless.

And as DM's, some of us find it frustrating when the rules are unclear, thus we find it valuable to discuss apparent ambiguities with others to try to resolve them.

Sadly, because the designers appear to have confused "ambiguity" with "flexibility", many of these discussions are less helpful than they might otherwise be.

I still maintain however, that with a reasonable reading of the rules, they do a remarkable job of resolving combat and keeping the balance between all of the various classes and monsters.

It's by far the best balanced edition of D&D since... well.. ever

Edit: I haven't actually found it necessary to make any rule changes. Then again, the people I play with don't want to mess with the rules to break the game in most cases and we're all reasonable about making sure we're all playing the same game.

[Easy_Lee]

You're confusing the perception of what a real life person would do to cast a spell and the game mechanics that allow you to resolve combat. Each spell might be a single word or a two word phrase, it's fluff. It very well might happen in the literal blink of an eye. None of that matters... whatever you think it is, it's resolved by spending an action. Once you have done that, it is immaterial whether real life logic says you could do anything.

As for dodging spells that have an attack roll, that again is just a way to resolve the combat. What you see as a dodge might be bad aim, a bump at the wrong time, a wrong inflection in the casting of the spell, etc etc.

Nothing in the game rules says anything about all of these "logical" steps you're adding to the mechanics of the game. It doesn't have to make sense in the real world to be how the rule is intended to work in the game.

D&D is not a combat simulation. But it does tell you the order that things are resolved in combat to resolve the mechanics.

I go back to my previous points. The game rules are clear on how to resolve this particular sequence of events. Logic has nothing to do with this magic elf game.

We're at an impasse, then, because I see D&D as an attempt at a fantasy simulator. I had thought that was the entire point, which is why I often default to "can I see this happening in a fantasy setting, do I have specific examples from FR?" when deciding whether I think a thing is reasonable. Where the rules don't reflect the fantasy, I would update the rules or interpret them in such a way to reflect it. As we all know, Pun-pun was mostly, if not fully, rules-compliant, as were 3.5e monks.

Balance is a concern, which is why I prefer the interpretation that lets everyone get to use their spells and features freely. When I metagame, when I write up my complex builds, it's to solve an area where I think the rules have failed to accurately capture the fantasy. In the case of mage slayer, I believe the fantasy, game balance, and simplicity of play all demand that it not be denied by spells like shocking grasp.

As I said before, I don't condemn any who disagree with my opinion on it. I don't even blame you, honestly. I'm just presenting things as I see them, as I think they should work, as I believe the mechanics reflect, and as I believe they were originally intended to reflect. In that, we are the same, since everyone in this thread is saying how they think things should work, and pulling up mechanics and passages which support their argument.

[Gwendol]

The trigger of MS reaction attack and counterspell are identical (for all practical purposes).
The timing of the trigger is not unclear, nor undefined. The enemy casts a spell (i.e. provides the necessary components), which triggers the reaction.
MS hits the caster. If the casting time is an action or less, the spell goes off anyway (because the rules say so). If the casting time is longer, a concentration check is needed (again, according to the rules).

About messing with casters: if the caster can't produce the necessary components for a spell, it doesn't work. There are many ways to acheive this through improvised actions.

[Safety Sword]

We're at an impasse, then, because I see D&D as an attempt at a fantasy simulator. I had thought that was the entire point, which is why I often default to "can I see this happening in a fantasy setting, do I have specific examples from FR?" when deciding whether I think a thing is reasonable. Where the rules don't reflect the fantasy, I would update the rules or interpret them in such a way to reflect it. As we all know, Pun-pun was mostly, if not fully, rules-compliant, as were 3.5e monks.

Balance is a concern, which is why I prefer the interpretation that lets everyone get to use their spells and features freely. When I metagame, when I write up my complex builds, it's to solve an area where I think the rules have failed to accurately capture the fantasy. In the case of mage slayer, I believe the fantasy, game balance, and simplicity of play all demand that it not be denied by spells like shocking grasp.

As I said before, I don't condemn any who disagree with my opinion on it. I don't even blame you, honestly. I'm just presenting things as I see them, as I think they should work, as I believe the mechanics reflect, and as I believe they were originally intended to reflect. In that, we are the same, since everyone in this thread is saying how they think things should work, and pulling up mechanics and passages which support their argument.

All of the absurdities and corner cases always have underlying ridiculous and flawed readings of the game rules. Usually sentences taken out of context, but sometimes theoretical scenarios that never appear in a real game. Powergamers love that stuff.

The fact that we have come to opposite ends of this argument doesn't surprise me. I tend to take the view that with 5E the developers knew what they were doing more than ever. I can see why they write rules the way they do. This wasn't always the case, and 3.5E did become known for it's inconsistencies. 5E is a different beast however, it's still small enough that every rule is properly considered. It may creep out as things are added, but for now, it's great the way it is. You like to fiddle with the rules to make them fit your ideas exactly, I just don't find it necessary. People have fun in different ways, I guess.

The fact that Mage Slayer has an obvious counter is balanced. Not all abilities or feats should always dominate the combat. Sometimes the counters should have counters! To be honest, in a real game, if you're parking next to a caster and forcing them to cast Shocking Grasp with their action to stop you getting one attack in... you're already beating them in most cases.

To respond to your last point, my issue is that you're making a leap which I don't see as necessary or in any way intended to get to your "fix". Most of what I've written in this thread is, as you and others have pointed out, repeating the fact that the rule works fine if you use it as it's written because I think that the intent is perfectly clear. I can't understand why you would want to add ambiguity to a set of rules that works perfectly fine as it stands.

In my opinion, Mage Slayer and reactions are two of the clearest rules in the game, as long as you're not bending the core assumptions or adding expectations that aren't explicitly mentioned.

Again, people have fun in different ways, I guess...

[squab]

The trigger of MS reaction attack and counterspell are identical (for all practical purposes).
The timing of the trigger is not unclear, nor undefined. The enemy casts a spell (i.e. provides the necessary components), which triggers the reaction.
MS hits the caster. If the casting time is an action or less, the spell goes off anyway (because the rules say so). If the casting time is longer, a concentration check is needed (again, according to the rules).

About messing with casters: if the caster can't produce the necessary components for a spell, it doesn't work. There are many ways to acheive this through improvised actions.

This.... isn't Magic: the Gathering. Where in the rules does it specify a difference between casting a spell and resolving a spell?

[Safety Sword]

This.... isn't Magic: the Gathering. Where in the rules does it specify a difference between casting a spell and resolving a spell?

This is one of those ideas that keeps getting brought up that is just blatantly not a rule.

You use an action to cast your spell. Your spell has a casting time of one action. It happens. Apply the spell description's effect.

Again, unless you have an ability that allows you to resolve it before the spell effect is resolved, the spell has already happened.

Yes, even then.

[DivisibleByZero]

This is one of those ideas that keeps getting brought up that is just blatantly not a rule.

You use an action to cast your spell. Your spell has a casting time of one action. It happens. Apply the spell description's effect.

Again, unless you have an ability that allows you to resolve it before the spell effect is resolved, the spell has already happened.

Yes, even then.

This, exactly.
Just because you have played other games, and even earlier editions of this game, where actions may have been broken up into segments and each different segment was a different thing that could be countered by the right ability, doesn't mean that this game plays that way. It doesn't. Some of you want it to, I understand that, and some of you remember when that was the case in earlier editions, I also understand that, but memories and desires don't make it so.

[Gwendol]

There seems to be a lot of confusion about what is in the rules.


OK, let's just let mage slayer do whatever you like then.

Now we're disarming casters of their material components? So why can't you extend that to weapons, or better yet actual arms?

Oh, right, that thing where none of this is the rules...


Disarming is definitely in the rules. The BM has a disarming maneuver, which is its own action, furthermore you can improvise actions as laid out on page 193 of the PHB. Disarm is typically a contest, which are further explained on page 195. In the DMG, p 271, the Disarm action option is presented.


This.... isn't Magic: the Gathering. Where in the rules does it specify a difference between casting a spell and resolving a spell?
On the casting of spells: If you look under chapter 10: spellcasting in the PHB, under the heading "what is a spell?", you'll see the explanation of what a spell is and what the spellcaster does to unleash the energy, or whatever. The description deliniates a clear sequence of events, ending in the unleashing of the magic (the effect of the spell). The casting of the spell precedes the unleashing of the magic. I'm not sure if this answers your question?

Furthermore, it is totally possible to mess with spellcasters by restricting their ability to supply the necessary components needed to cast the spell. It's on page 203, under the heading "components":
If you can’t provide one or more of a spell’s components, you are unable to cast the spell.. The rules then go on to explain in detail how that is done (gag or under the effect of silence for vocal, restricting the use of a free hand for somatic, the same for material, or removing access to the material).

On reactions:
a reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or someone else's.
Please note the word is trigger, not triggering action. The trigger can be any event, such as a spoken word, or the sun appearing over the ridge, or the sundering of a stone bridge. The rule of thumb given in the DMG is for those triggers that are not well defined. Mage Slayer is not one of them (since it has a specified triggering event), therefore the rule of thumb does not apply, and you don't treat the MS reaction as a ready action.
The rules for reactions tell us they happen immediately, and that the interrupted creature continues its turn normally after the interrupt.

The rules on this are fully consistent, and well supported, as far as I can tell.

[Talderas]

This thread is interesting in that it's very much an RP versus this is how I think the mechanics work debate. No one ever answered my question of which they think makes the most RP sense to them, in this thread or the other. I've seen some people argue that the RP side of things doesn't matter, though I find that claim dubious.

I see the rules supporting the trigger for mage slayer being the casting of the spell but preceding the spell's effects. Since the casting finishes prior to the reaction attack, as per the rules in the DMG, the spell's effects will still manifest outside of a few exceptions where the targeting of the casting is no longer valid. Thus I am totally fine with the outcome of a mage slayer killing a mage which just finished casting fireball only to have the fireball kill the mage slayer.

[squab]

So, again, back to my previous comment, could you source this whole timing delay between casting a spell and the effects of the spell happening? I would assume that if a caster, uh, casts fireball, then you immediately start rolling d6s and reflex saves. THEN Mage Slayer stabs him for casting a spell, unless the mage slayer dies from fireball. I have nothing against saying "they both happen at the same time so we'll roll them both in an arbitrary order, (because the order we roll simultaneous actions in is irrelevant)" but I'd really like to see a RAW quote for that as opposed to the DM ruling it that way. (Which is perfectly acceptable anyways.)

[DivisibleByZero]

could you source this whole timing delay between casting a spell and the effects of the spell happening?

They can't. The best you're going to get is: "well it's implied because X, Y and Z."
There is absolutely nothing in the rules which tells of any delay, and that's primarily because no such delay exists.

[Gwendol]

So, again, back to my previous comment, could you source this whole timing delay between casting a spell and the effects of the spell happening? I would assume that if a caster, uh, casts fireball, then you immediately start rolling d6s and reflex saves. THEN Mage Slayer stabs him for casting a spell, unless the mage slayer dies from fireball. I have nothing against saying "they both happen at the same time so we'll roll them both in an arbitrary order, (because the order we roll simultaneous actions in is irrelevant)" but I'd really like to see a RAW quote for that as opposed to the DM ruling it that way. (Which is perfectly acceptable anyways.)

I posted a reply to you two posts up. As far as I'm concerned there doesn't need to be a delay, only an ordered sequence of events. That sequence is described in the PHB, page 201. The caster casts the spell, then unleashes the magic.
The casting part triggers the MS reaction, which according to the rules for reactions happens instantly, after which typically the effects of the spell are resolved (since spells with an action or shorter casting times do not require concentration to cast).

[DivisibleByZero]

That sequence is described in the PHB, page 201. The caster casts the spell, then unleashes the magic.

Except that isn't what page 201 says.
It doesn't differentiate those "steps" as separate sequential events. You're reading it that way because you want to, but it doesn't actually say that.
All of those things combine to constitute casting a spell, just like making an attack roll.

Making an Attack
Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.
1. Choose a target. <insert text>
2. Determine modifiers. <insert text>
3. Resolve the attack. <insert text>
If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.

"... making an attack roll as part of a spell." As part of it. And it is resolved as part of it. The spells section doesn't separate the different things that you *might* have to do to cast the spell as separate sequential events. Making an attack has a specified sequence, but that sequence isn't separate; that sequence combines to create "Making an Attack."
Just like you're non-existent sequence combines to create "Casting a Spell." Unleashing the magic is a PART of that casting. You cannot CAST a spell WITHOUT unleashing that magic.
-Player- "I cast scorching ray."
-DM- "OK, who are you hitting with it?"
-Player- "Oh, no one. I'm not releasing the magic. I'm just casting the spell."
-DM- "Umm.... that's not how it works, bro."

If Making an Attack has a sequence that is specifically laid out and numbered, and that sequence is NOT considered separate events, then why would Casting a Spell, which does NOT have a sequence laid out and numbered (but has it briefly described) be considered separate events? The more detailed one that has specific rules isn't, so why would you think the less detailed one that doesn't have specific rules is?
You're reading things that aren't written.

Unleashing the magic is a part of the casting. You cannot cast a spell without unleashing that magic.
Until that magic has been unleashed, the caster is in the process of casting the spell. The spell has not been cast until it is complete and the magic has been unleashed.
If resolving an attack is a part of making that attack, then clearly resolving a spell is a part of casting that spell.

[Talderas]

Unleashing the magic is a part of the casting. You cannot cast a spell without unleashing that magic.

It is not part of the casting. You release the magic when you choose to. There's just less reason to choose this option instead of immediately releasing the magic. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to ready spells.

[DivisibleByZero]

It is not part of the casting. You release the magic when you choose to. There's just less reason to choose this option instead of immediately releasing the magic. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to ready spells.

That's not how Ready works.
You aren't casting a spell and waiting to release it. If that were the case, then you'd expend a slot no matter if the trigger occurred for your Ready or not. But you don't. Because that isn't what's happening.

Ready
Sometime you want to get the jump on your foe or wait for a particular circumstance before you act. To do so, you take the Ready action on your turn so that you can act later in a round using your reaction.

You aren't casting the spell and holding it.
You're forfeiting your turn and giving parameters. If those parameters are met, you use your reaction and then take your readied action.
I realize that it describes it the way that you did, but that's only to give concentration rules for it. If the spell were actually cast and complete, then you'd expend a slot even if the trigger didn't occur, which you do not.

[Talderas]

Ready
Sometime you want to get the jump on your foe or wait for a particular circumstance before you act. To do so, you take the Ready action on your turn so that you can act later in a round using your reaction.

You aren't casting the spell and holding it.

"When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but hold its energy, which you release with your reaction when the trigger occurs."

Straight from the text of the ready action.

[DivisibleByZero]

Straight from the text of the ready action.

I have already addressed this.

[Talderas]

I have already addressed this.

Casting the spell as normal necessitates expending a spell slot otherwise the spell would not be cast as normal. The spell does not have a casting time longer than 1 action so you do not get the exception for spell slots provided in the 1-action or longer cast time rules. The only difference between a readied spell and a normal spell casting is that in both cases you use your action on your turn but with the readied spell you have the option to use your reaction to manifest the effects should the trigger occur rather than the effects manifesting immediately after you finish casting.

You do not forfeit your turn when using the ready action. You use your action to have the opportunity to use a reaction to make the action at a later time. You are still permitted to take your move as well as a bonus action.

[Easy_Lee]

I have already addressed this.

Please do so again. I do not see how your previous post applies, and feel I may be missing something.

[Gwendol]

That's not how Ready works.
You aren't casting a spell and waiting to release it. If that were the case, then you'd expend a slot no matter if the trigger occurred for your Ready or not. But you don't. Because that isn't what's happening.

Ready
Sometime you want to get the jump on your foe or wait for a particular circumstance before you act. To do so, you take the Ready action on your turn so that you can act later in a round using your reaction.

You aren't casting the spell and holding it.
You're forfeiting your turn and giving parameters. If those parameters are met, you use your reaction and then take your readied action.
I realize that it describes it the way that you did, but that's only to give concentration rules for it. If the spell were actually cast and complete, then you'd expend a slot even if the trigger didn't occur, which you do not.

You are absolutely casting the spell on your turn, then choosing to hold the charge. You are not forfeiting your turn, but simply concentrating on holding the charge.
Losing concentration means losing the spell.

I'm not the one reading things in the way I want to.
You can cast the spell without releasing the spell effect, that's readying the spell.


I realize that it describes it the way that you did, but that's only to give concentration rules for it. If the spell were actually cast and complete, then you'd expend a slot even if the trigger didn't occur, which you do not.

LOL! Yeah, because "you cast it as normal" doesn't really mean what it says...

[Elderand]

And none of it is relevant, just because you can hold the charge on a spell while delaying doesn't change the fact that mage slayer doesn't say it's an interupt so it isn't.

[DivisibleByZero]

This argument is irrelevant and tangential.
I'll concede that the specific rules for readying a spell can be read by some to mean that there is a gap in that one specific situation, but only because the caster is actively choosing to create that gap.
I still disagree with that reading/interpretation, because of the spell slot issue. But that's neither here nor there.
In no other circumstance can a gap be read to exist, and once again it's irrelevant to the discussion because you're not going to ready a spell while standing next to an enemy.
Under every single other circumstance beyond readying a spell, the resolution of the spell is a part of the spell being cast.

[Easy_Lee]

Under every single other circumstance beyond readying a spell, the resolution of the spell is a part of the spell being cast.

Show the text that says so. And more importantly, explain to me why you want to deny the player his reaction.

[DivisibleByZero]

Show the text that says so. And more importantly, explain to me why you want to deny the player his reaction.

I'm not denying anything. The rules for reactions occurring after the trigger is complete are denying that reaction.

[Gwendol]

So, a player with mage slayer can't use his reaction vs an enemy casting a spell and choosing to hold the charge?

A reaction happens instantaneously to the trigger. The trigger in this case being the casting of the spell. The reaction takes place exactly the same way a counterspell does, before releasing the effect.

Really, I'm able to point at rules supporting my every point. But please, keep it up. It's getting amusing.

[DivisibleByZero]

A reaction happens instantaneously to the trigger.
<snip>
Really, I'm able to point at rules supporting my every point. But please, keep it up. It's getting amusing.

Go ahead and point at the rule supporting that statement. You won't be able to, because that statement is incorrect, and the rule stating so is in the DMG on page 252.
But please, keep it up, it's amusing.

[Easy_Lee]

I'm not denying anything. The rules for reactions occurring after the trigger is complete are denying that reaction.

You're not following my logic, I think. Let me try again. We know that spells can be cast. We also know that the spell effect need not directly follow the spell cast. Hence, that is at least one situation where the two are different triggers.

Where is your proof that this gap, this separation of spell and effect, does not always exist for the sake of reaction triggers?

[Elderand]

So, a player with mage slayer can't use his reaction vs an enemy casting a spell and choosing to hold the charge?

A reaction happens instantaneously to the trigger. The trigger in this case being the casting of the spell. The reaction takes place exactly the same way a counterspell does, before releasing the effect.

Really, I'm able to point at rules supporting my every point. But please, keep it up. It's getting amusing.

Straight from the dmg, page 252

If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes

Go ahead, explain how after really mean at the same time.

[Easy_Lee]

Straight from the dmg, page 252

If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes

Go ahead, explain how after really mean at the same time.

I've addressed that above. The debate isn't over whether mage slayer follows the trigger, it's about whether the trigger precedes the effect. Held spells are one case where the casts trigger absolutely precedes its effect. I see no reason why this would not always be the case, particularly since attacks hitting and dealing damage are separate triggers, as shown by other reactions.

[DivisibleByZero]

Where is your proof that this gap, this separation of spell and effect, does not always exist for the sake of reaction triggers?

Where is your proof that there is one?
My evidence is in the DMG on page 252. It happens after.

[Elderand]

You're not following my logic, I think. Let me try again. We know that spells can be cast. We also know that the spell effect need not directly follow the spell cast. Hence, that is at least one situation where the two are different triggers.

Where is your proof that this gap, this separation of spell and effect, does not always exist for the sake of reaction triggers?

How about this, if this so called gap was a real thing that always happened the rules would say so in the general rules for spellcasting, it doesn't, instead it's tucked under a very specific situation creating an exception for delay. If it were a general thing it would not be stated only under delay.

Another reason to think mage slayer is not an actual interruption is that EVERY SINGLE OTHER interruption mention it does so. Counterspel specificly mention it interupt spellcasting.

That's all there is to it, if mage slayer were meant to interrupt it would do so like every other interrupt does.

[Easy_Lee]

Where is your proof that there is one?
My evidence is in the DMG on page 252. It happens after.

After the trigger. The trigger. It says nothing of the separation between spell cast and spell effect, which we can derive from other mechanics as above and which is not refuted by 252.

And, again, do you really think that it makes any kind of sense that mage slayers would not wind up that attack the moment they see the caster begin casting? Again, why do you want that to be the case? You are destroying immersion with your odd attachment to certain mechanics and refusal to consider conflicts.

[Gwendol]

A reaction happens instantaneously to the trigger.


Go ahead and point at the rule supporting that statement. You won't be able to, because that statement is incorrect, and the rule stating so is in the DMG on page 252.
But please, keep it up, it's amusing.

Luckily, I don't have to look far. On page 190 of the PHB reactions are defined:
A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else’s.

Crawford has tweeted that some reactions can happen before the trigger (shield, OA), which interrupts the trigger, but the default is after. However, while after it is still an instant response. The trigger here is the casting of the spell, which is preceding releasing the spell effect, as evident by the fact that you can hold the charge when readying a spell.

The rules text in the DMG deals with unspecified timing, and interrupting the trigger. I don't claim MS reaction interrupts the trigger, because that would mean the casting wouldn't even begin before I hit. Nor does counterspell work that way I might add (the spell has no effect, but the casting of it is certainly completed). Instead it works exactly as advertised, an instant response to the trigger.

[DivisibleByZero]

After the trigger. The trigger. It says nothing of the separation between spell cast and spell effect, which we can derive from other mechanics as above and which is not refuted by 252.

And, again, do you really think that it makes any kind of sense that mage slayers would not wind up that attack the moment they see the caster begin casting? Again, why do you want that to be the case? You are destroying immersion with your odd attachment to certain mechanics and refusal to consider conflicts.

OK, so now a wind up is needed?

OK, then the caster casts misty step, then a non-existent delay happens, and the mage slayer sees it and winds up, then the caster releases the spell and disappears, then the mage slayer attacks the space where the caster used to be.

OK, then the caster casts his shocking grasp, then a non-existent delay happens, and the mage slayer sees it and winds up, then the caster releases the spell and prevents the mage slayer from finishing his attack after the wind up.

My immersion has not been disturbed at all. Thanks for clarifying the wind up that doesn't exist to make your delay that doesn't exist make more sense.
I'm satisfied now.


A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else’s.
OK, now go look up the word response. We'll wait.
It's a reaction. You can't react to something that hasn't happened yet, and you can't react to something simultaneously, because then it wouldn't be a reaction.

[Easy_Lee]

OK, so now a wind up is needed?

OK, then the caster casts misty step, then a non-existent delay happens, and the mage slayer sees it and winds up, then the caster releases the spell and disappears, then the mage slayer attacks the space where the caster used to be.

OK, then the caster casts his shocking grasp, then a non-existent delay happens, and the mage slayer sees it and winds up, then the caster releases the spell and prevents the mage slayer from finishing his attack after the wind up.

My immersion has not been disturbed at all. Thanks for clarifying the wind up that doesn't exist to make your delay that doesn't exist make more sense.
I'm satisfied now.


OK, now go look up the word response. We'll wait.

See Gwendol's response. The mage slayer is most likely attacking the caster during his spell, from an RP perspective. Since there is often a delay between the spell and effect going off, as evidence by held spells, and since the effect can even be interrupted, as shown by sentinel, shield, and others, we can assume that the mage slayer's reaction takes place just as the spell completes. This follows the intent of the feat: slaying mages. It also follows the general rule of reactions: following the trigger. Fortunately for the mage, he still gets his spell off.

That's how it happens. There's more than enough evidence for it at this point.

[DivisibleByZero]

That's how it happens. There's more than enough evidence for it at this point.

There's no evidence for it except what you guys are inventing. But have fun with your house rule based on RP. That's fine. Go with that. But do yourself a favor and admit that this is what you're doing.

[Talderas]

Straight from the dmg, page 252

If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes

Go ahead, explain how after really mean at the same time.

"Trigger" and "triggering action" are two separate phrases with vastly different implications. If the rule said "triggering action" then the action that has the trigger completes before the reaction is permitted unless otherwise indicated. The rules, unfortunately because it leads to this argument of ambiguity, use "trigger" which means after the trigger occurs the reaction takes place. An action, with multiple potential triggers, discrete steps, means that the reaction can occur prior to the final resolution of the action.

An action has the following. A leads to B. If the trigger is A then as soon as A is finished the reaction occurs, which means it precedes B because a must finish before B can be resolved (A -> Reaction -> B). Had the DMG rule stated that the reaction followed the triggering action then if A is the trigger the reaction would occur after B (A -> B -> Reaction).

The only purpose of the timing line is to indicate where the reaction occurs relative to the trigger.

[Easy_Lee]

There's no evidence for it except what you guys are inventing. But have fun with your house rule based on RP. That's fine. Go with that. But do yourself a favor and admit that this is what you're doing.

Strangely, I feel as though that might please you, but would not be doing me a favor.

Again, we have presented the evidence as it exists. Each table will make their own ruling, but we have provided many arguments for ours should they be needed.

[Elderand]

The mage slayer is most likely attacking the caster during his spell, from an RP perspective
Translated: Because I want mage Slayer to interrupt.


Since there is often a delay between the spell and effect going off
You have no demonstrated this, just stated it.


as evidence by held spells
One specific situation with special rules called out does not make a general rule. By that logic, all crows are albinos because I saw an albino crow once.


and since the effect can even be interrupted, as shown by sentinel, shield, and others
All of which specificly say they interrupt spell casting, which mage slayer doesn't. It's not evidence for your side, it's evidence you're wrong.


we can assume that the mage slayer's reaction takes place just as the spell completes.
We can say for certainty that's what you want it to do. We can't assume it's what's actually happening because most of the evidence is arrayed against your position, no matter how much you try to twist it around and the rest depend on illogical generalizaton.


This follows the intent of the feat: slaying mages.
That's the name of the feat, the intent is to get an extra attack whenever a mage cast.


It also follows the general rule of reactions: following the trigger.
You have yet to reasonably show that there is general difference between casting the spell and the spell being unleashed.


That's how it happens. There's more than enough evidence for it at this point.
That's how you want it to happen but there is precious little evidence for it, just one very specific situation you've generalised.


What's the evidence against ? Oh nothing much, just every single other interrupt being very specific in saying it does interrupt which mage slayer doesn't do.

[Easy_Lee]

Just to address this argument because it keeps popping up, rationalization is something people do after making a decision. You decide on a thing, then justify it afterwards. This is something that everyone does.

So, to those who keep saying, "that's just how you want it to work," I say the following. Not only are you being extremely insulting, you are also stating the obvious. Also, to criticise another for defending a point of view is hypocritical.

So let's agree to stop insulting each other.

[Gwendol]

I don't claim mage slayer interrupts the spellcasting, that's something you are doing. I appreciate if you stop putting words in my mouth.
I further claim counterspell doesn't interrupt spellcasting either, despite using the word "interrupt" in the spell description. Counterspell is cast before or simultaneously with the release of the spell effect, right after ther trigger "casting a spell", making it potentially fizzle. If you note in the text there is no further clarification on when the reaction happens, such as with actual interrupts (see OA's).

[Spojaz]

Good grief you guys. When you find someone replying individually to
each
and
every
line of a post, it is time to take a deep breath and just stop posting to the thread. Do you really think there is any point in this pedantic disagreement about an unclearly written piece of rules that hasn't been stated and restated yet?

[Gwendol]

Do you really think there is any point in this pedantic disagreement about an unclearly written piece of rules that hasn't been stated and restated yet?

No. :smallbiggrin:

[DivisibleByZero]

unclearly written

The irony is that this makes it 100% clear. Refer to DMG pg 252.
:biggrin:

[Gwendol]

Just because the trigger seems unclear in your mind doesn't mean your DM has to follow the rule of thumb you so fondly keep referring to. I've tried to elucidate the matter by carefully explaining my reasoning, using the rules to do so, but alas. You seem set in your ways.

[Easy_Lee]

The irony is that this makes it 100% clear. Refer to DMG pg 252.
:biggrin:

Again, trigger, not triggering action. There is a difference, that difference being that reactions do not wait until the creature who triggers them finishes his turn, or even his action.

[DivisibleByZero]

Just because the trigger seems unclear in your mind doesn't mean your DM has to follow the rule of thumb you so fondly keep referring to. I've tried to elucidate the matter by carefully explaining my reasoning, using the rules to do so, but alas. You seem set in your ways.

Summary:
I have been using the rules to explain why we don't follow the rules.
Priceless. :amused:

[Easy_Lee]

Summary:
I have been using the rules to explain why we don't follow the rules.
Priceless. :amused:

See my reply, just above your post.

[Gwendol]

Summary:
I have been using the rules to explain why we don't follow the rules.
Priceless. :amused:

Funny, but I'm not the one debating readying a spell without bothering to read the rules for it.

[Safety Sword]

Well, I'm done.

It's clear to me that you can make any ruling you like and make Mage Slayer do whatever you want as long as you read the rules in a ridiculous way, add phantom steps to the spell casting process and conveniently ignore the rules that oppose your flawed viewpoint.

This thread was really finished about 5 pages ago. The rest has been smokescreens and misdirections by people who want to change a rule to something they want because of the way they want it to work from D&D 2 editions ago but don't want to admit to changing a rule.

Just house rule it and be done with it. Consider me beaten with experience (see my signature).

[Xetheral]

If Making an Attack has a sequence that is specifically laid out and numbered, and that sequence is NOT considered separate events, then why would Casting a Spell, which does NOT have a sequence laid out and numbered (but has it briefly described) be considered separate events?

Making an attack *is* considered separate events. For evidence, consider the Protection Fighting Style. Unlike Shield, Protection Fighting Style is not mentioned as interrupting anything and yet it can still be used between the Attack and the attack roll.


This argument is irrelevant and tangential.
I'll concede that the specific rules for readying a spell can be read by some to mean that there is a gap in that one specific situation, but only because the caster is actively choosing to create that gap.
I still disagree with that reading/interpretation, because of the spell slot issue. But that's neither here nor there.
In no other circumstance can a gap be read to exist, and once again it's irrelevant to the discussion because you're not going to ready a spell while standing next to an enemy.
Under every single other circumstance beyond readying a spell, the resolution of the spell is a part of the spell being cast.

(Emphasis added.) When casting any spell with an attack roll, a gap exists long enough to trigger Protection Fighting Style. As above, note that Protection Fighting Style lacks any wording allowing it to act before its trigger.

[ProphetSword]

I don't believe, according to the rules, that Mage Slayer allows you to hit the spell caster before the spell is cast and the energy is released in most cases. However, I feel this is an exception:


"When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but hold its energy, which you release with your reaction when the trigger occurs."

That text clearly says that you cast the spell. If you cast the spell, the Mage Slayer takes a swipe at you. Choosing not to release the energy as you cast the spell doesn't mean the Mage Slayer has to wait until you do to get the reaction.

So, on this point, I will meet the other side halfway and agree.

As to everything else, I think folks should house rule the way that they think the feat works to make everyone at their table happy. At some point, we will get errata that will confirm or deny our positions and we will move on with our lives.

[Easy_Lee]

As to everything else, I think folks should house rule the way that they think the feat works to make everyone at their table happy. At some point, we will get errata that will confirm or deny our positions and we will move on with our lives.

I completely agree.

[ProphetSword]

Has anyone tried tweeting the designers to see what their position is on this particular argument? I'd be interested to see what they say about Shocking Grasp versus Mage Slayer. I feel that would give us RAI, as it would tell us what they intended in regards to how Mage Slayer works.

[calebrus]

Has anyone tried tweeting the designers to see what their position is on this particular argument? I'd be interested to see what they say about Shocking Grasp versus Mage Slayer. I feel that would give us RAI, as it would tell us what they intended in regards to how Mage Slayer works.

I have, (https://twitter.com/calebrus44/status/601470514553454592) but I don't expect a response any time soon because:
1) it is absolutely, perfectly, 100% clear (via DMG 252, and via previous tweets) that it happens after,
2) that it is not an interrupt of any kind,
3) that certain people are just reading what they want to read because of RP reasons or rules lawyer reasons or whatever.

The rules are clear. It could not be any more clear. It happens after. This is what the DMG states. This has already been confirmed via tweets. There is absolutely zero gray area here. It happens after, period.

[ProphetSword]

absolutely zero[/i] gray area here. It happens after, period.

As already mentioned, I agree with you (though, I mentioned that an exception exists in my mind when it comes to casting spells via the Ready action, but that's likely a matter for each DM to decide individually). Still, even if it works exactly as we believe, it would be nice to have confirmation.

Definitely let us know if anything comes from your post.

[calebrus]

As already mentioned, I agree with you (though, I mentioned that an exception exists in my mind when it comes to casting spells via the Ready action, but that's likely a matter for each DM to decide individually). Still, even if it works exactly as we believe, it would be nice to have confirmation.

Definitely let us know if anything comes from your post.

As I said, there has already been confirmation (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/10/11/mage-slayer-ready/).

Kalervo Oikarinen @luminapina
@mikemearls Mage slayer/ready action hits while casting a spell. Should there be a concentration check for all spells, excl. maybe cantrips?

Mike Mearls @mikemearls
@luminapina readied action takes place after trigger, so first spell then attack. No check needed.

Kalervo Oikarinen @luminapina
@mikemearls Okay, thank you. So Counterspell is the only way to interrupt the casting of spells with one action or shorter casting times?

Mike Mearls @mikemearls
@luminapina Correct, at least with what's available in the PHB.

If the timing is unclear, as this can certainly be considered, refer to page 252 of the DMG, which states it happens after. Mearls confirmed. And I'd like to point out that he isn't making a ruling on what he would do. He specifically calls out that this is what the PHB states.
Not only is this regarding mage slayer, but this is regarding mage slayer with a readied action.
If the mage slayer has a readied action and still doesn't interrupt, then you can be certain that a regular mage slayer reaction doesn't interrupt.

There is zero gray area here.
First spell, then attack. End quote.
It happens after.
Period.

edit:
But queue the other side, who will claim that Mearls isn't the rules guy, and that his response means nothing, and that he was answering about reactions and not mage slayer (which is a reaction as well....).
Because even when posed with a direct question, which was answered with a direct answer, it isn't what they want to hear, so they try to squirm out of and around it. This is nothing new. They've been doing it for seven pages now.

[Easy_Lee]

Notable to the above, the current Crawford and Mearls rulings on crossbow expert differ, just to give one example. Even different devs have different rulings on things, which is one reason why I'm not convinced that anything in 5e, let alone this, has a right answer.

[calebrus]

Case in point.
The rules state it. A designer confirmed it. But they still find ways to attempt to justify their own differing viewpoint. Thank you for proving my point so perfectly.

[Easy_Lee]

Case in point.
The rules state it. A designer confirmed it. But they still find ways to attempt to justify their own differing viewpoint. Thank you for proving my point so perfectly.

I'm not arrogant enough to say that my ruling is the "correct" one in an ambiguous situation. That does not mean that I cannot show you the text which supports my ruling, as many of us have throughout this thread. I will not hold it against you that you feel differently.

[calebrus]

I'm not arrogant enough to say that my ruling is the "correct" one in an ambiguous situation. That does not mean that I cannot show you the text which supports my ruling, as many of us have throughout this thread. I will not hold it against you that you feel differently.

The rules state it.
A designer confirmed it.
It is not ambiguous in any way. Claiming that it is ambiguous, after the rules disagree with you and the designers disagree with you, is indeed arrogance. Especially when the rules themselves tell you that if it is unclear (or ambiguous) IT HAPPENS AFTER!
You call it ambiguous. Well guess what? The rules tell you exactly what to do in that situation.
If you continue to argue it, that is arrogance, plain and simple.