A word about readying

[Dmdork]

First off, apologies if this was covered already.
Am I correct in thinking there is no RAW on readying actions that interrupt a creatures actions like in the middle of the creature's action?
Example#1: I ready an action to shoot an arrow at the wizard as soon as he 'starts' casting a spell, possibly interrupting the spell and fizzling it.
Now the PHB and the DMG are clear on 'after the trigger', which is what this particular ready action sounds like. So, would that play out like:
1.wizard starts casting the spell
2.casts the spell
3.the spell takes effect
4.the trigger occurs.

Is there some way to re-word that ready action so the trigger would occur before the spell takes effect?

[Toadkiller]

Well, there is simply no rule for “flubbing” a spell at all, other than counterspell. So this would be basically giving everyone counterspell for free.

[90sMusic]

If you ready an action, you dictate what occurs for you to take that action. I have always allowed players to use their action as soon as an enemy "begins" to do something if that is what they designate as the trigger. Would be silly to politely let them finish their 3 melee swings on your buddy and THEN shoot them.

However, you can't interrupt spells like that. The only conceivable way you could ever ready an action to stop a spell would be readying a silence spell and using it as soon as the enemy begins casting, then stopping the spell from working if it requires verbal components. Something like that maybe. But you can't just hit someone to stop a spell going off because it would destroy the game's balance. Casters would never get off a single spell ever again as every enemy would just ready attacks to interrupt them.

Under very special circumstances, I might allow a readied action to try to interrupt a spell with somatic components by using a contested athletics check, like initiating a grapple but the end result is simply whether you disrupted their hand gestures. So no damage, no grappling, purely using your action to try to interrupt them like siblings grabbing each other's hands to piss each other off purely to stop your proper gesturing for casting. But i'm very generous with my players, and even I wouldn't let this fly all the time.

Bottom line is, you aren't meant to stop casting unless you counterspell.

[Thrudd]

The trigger for a ready action can be any "perceivable circumstance". You could absolutely say "If I see that guy's mouth or hands start moving, I shoot an arrow at him." However, the rules provide no way to interrupt a spell with a casting time of 1 action (which is most of them). So you'll get to attack, but the spell will still happen. At best, the DM could rule that your readied attack happens simultaneously or slightly earlier, and if you do enough damage to knock out the caster, the spell won't happen. But taking damage in general does not prevent a spell from getting cast (since most spells are basically instantaneous now) - it only disrupts concentration.

It would definitely be an understandable house-rule to allow a readied attack to interrupt a single action spell as it was being cast. A round is six seconds long - that's potentially six seconds of chanting and waving your hands around, which is enough time for someone to smack you before you're done. There's no guarantee of a hit, the person readying the action is potentially wasting their action for that round waiting for something that might not happen, and I'd say the caster would still get a concentration check as they do at other times when trying to maintain a spell - so even if they got hit the spell might not be stopped.

On the other hand, you might interpret a single action spell as being basically a single word and a single movement somatic component - since in those six seconds characters also potentially have time to move around before and/or after performing their action. In this case, I'd say 1 action spells can't be interrupted - the best you can do is attack simultaneously with the spell going off.

[Slipperychicken]

I'd allow characters to ready their actions to interrupt spellcasting, and that the mage slayer reaction attack also forces a concentration save. Grappling should force concentration saves for somatic component spells (opposed by the grapple roll), and being restrained should disable somatic components entirely.

Think about it: A character who is doing the readied action is not only delaying his action, but he doesn't know what spell is coming at him (or even *if* a spell is coming at all), and if the spell comes, he needs to both hit the caster with an attack and hope for the spellcaster to fail a saving throw.


Between the trigger ruling and the business about how grappling doesn't interfere with spellcasting at all, I think it's currently far too hard for mundanes to interfere with spellcasting. They need to have some ways to deal with magic-users, and rulings like this (i.e. grappling, restraining, ready-attacking, and mage slayer) all give them that.

[StoicLeaf]

I'd allow characters to ready their actions to interrupt spellcasting, and that the mage slayer reaction attack also forces a concentration save. Grappling should force concentration saves for somatic component spells (opposed by the grapple roll), and being restrained should disable somatic components entirely.

Think about it: A character who is doing the readied action is not only delaying his action, but he doesn't know what spell is coming at him (or even *if* a spell is coming at all), and if the spell comes, he needs to both hit the caster with an attack and hope for the spellcaster to fail a saving throw.


Between the trigger ruling and the business about how grappling doesn't interfere with spellcasting at all, I think it's currently far too hard for mundanes to interfere with spellcasting. They need to have some ways to deal with magic-users, and rulings like this (i.e. grappling, restraining, ready-attacking, and mage slayer) all give them that.

noooooooo don't open that can of worms!

[Dmdork]

noooooooo don't open that can of worms!
Exactly. I like all these DMs calls, but they're kinda all over the place. I was looking for simpler more definitive interpretations.

Question #2: I go through the door and ready an action to close the door when the wizard starts casting a spell at me.

Wouldnt that fizzle most spells directed at the me? Would the wizard would burn his action?

Questions #3: When the attacking Loazrdfolk moves within 10 feet of me (so, five feet from adjacent to me) I move back 30.

Now the lizardman may run outta room and not get his attack, cuz he can't reach me. Is that a 'clean' ready action?

[Kane0]

"If this guy so much as flinches, imma stab him"
I'd let the readied player make the attack before the caster finishes casting the spell, forcing concentration to complete it.

[Rynjin]

If you ready an action, you dictate what occurs for you to take that action. I have always allowed players to use their action as soon as an enemy "begins" to do something if that is what they designate as the trigger. Would be silly to politely let them finish their 3 melee swings on your buddy and THEN shoot them.

However, you can't interrupt spells like that. The only conceivable way you could ever ready an action to stop a spell would be readying a silence spell and using it as soon as the enemy begins casting, then stopping the spell from working if it requires verbal components. Something like that maybe. But you can't just hit someone to stop a spell going off because it would destroy the game's balance. Casters would never get off a single spell ever again as every enemy would just ready attacks to interrupt them.

Are you joking or just completely unaware that this worked in previous editions and did not in ANY way result in "casters never getting a single spell off ever again".

[Thrudd]

Exactly. I like all these DMs calls, but they're kinda all over the place. I was looking for simpler more definitive interpretations.

Question #2: I go through the door and ready an action to close the door when the wizard starts casting a spell at me.

Wouldnt that fizzle most spells directed at the me? Would the wizard would burn his action?

Questions #3: When the attacking Loazrdfolk moves within 10 feet of me (so, five feet from adjacent to me) I move back 30.

Now the lizardman may run outta room and not get his attack, cuz he can't reach me. Is that a 'clean' ready action?

Yes, those seem like straightforward ready actions that would work as expected.

The only room for interpretation. just as before, would be exactly how long a spell takes to cast, whether it's fast enough to be able to defeat any attempt at interruption. If it's a single sound and motion, roughly the same speed as the swing of a weapon, then it would be a near thing - that's like saying I close the door when the guy starts shooting the gun at me. Sometimes you'd get it closed on time and sometimes you wouldn't - so maybe a saving throw or dex check would be in order to see what happens. Once the DM decides exactly how long a spell that can be cast as a single action takes and the specifics of how it works, the ruling on these sorts of ready actions could be determined.

The readied movement is definitely by-the-book and I don't think there'd be any question that it would work as you'd expect.

[Specter]

This is generic, but in terms of spells, you can say 'when I see him performing any components, I attack'. Seeing him do gestures/voices comes before the spell, so you can actually attack him before casting happens.

If you just want to disrupt someone in general, say 'if they move aggressively, I'll attack'. That covers a lot of stuff.

[Elbeyon]

To keep things fair. If a spell can be interrupted an attack should be able to get interrupted.

[Spacehamster]

Would effectively make casters worthless so nope would not allow it, only thing
that can be interuppted is concentration.

[Kane0]

Heh heh heh, "worthless"...

[Rynjin]

To keep things fair. If a spell can be interrupted an attack should be able to get interrupted.

To make things fair, a spell and an attack would have to be equivalent in impact/power/usefulness, first.

Like even ignoring any other caster/martial arguments, the game itself doesn't even think a spell and an attack are equivalent; At BEST, a spell is worth two attacks, or three if we count Fighters given that one spell and 2-3 attacks take the same action.

[holywhippet]

On a related topic, can you identify a spell as it is being cast? I don't think arcana can do that by RAW but if you have counterspell it would be nice to be able to decide if a spell is important enough to spend a slot to counter it.

[Elbeyon]

To make things fair, a spell and an attack would have to be equivalent in impact/power/usefulness, first.

Like even ignoring any other caster/martial arguments, the game itself doesn't even think a spell and an attack are equivalent; At BEST, a spell is worth two attacks, or three if we count Fighters given that one spell and 2-3 attacks take the same action.I mean all their attacks. If it's a fighter that gets five attacks, they get interrupted and have to skip their action that turn.

[Saiga]

But martials already have ways of disabling melee attacks - grappling + prone (doesn't completely disable but makes all attacks unlikely), restraining, disarming, staying out of effective range.

They don't have the means to prevent spellcasting by RAW, so it's completely different to look for a way to make that happen. And there's precedent for spellcasters to lose a spell if they're struck - it's the exact same as if they readied a spell and took damage before they could finish casting it. There's no precedent for having a Fighter make a concentration check to avoid losing his attack action from being struck once, and it's not very logical.

[Kane0]

Slightly unrelated, remember the days when casting a spell with a hostile dude next to you was a ticket for a free smack in the face?
If I remember right wizards, clerics and other primary casters were largely considered the best classes available that time and not at all unplayable.

[Elbeyon]

But martials already have ways of disabling melee attacks - grappling + prone (doesn't completely disable but makes all attacks unlikely), restraining, disarming, staying out of effective range.

They don't have the means to prevent spellcasting by RAW, so it's completely different to look for a way to make that happen. And there's precedent for spellcasters to lose a spell if they're struck - it's the exact same as if they readied a spell and took damage before they could finish casting it. There's no precedent for having a Fighter make a concentration check to avoid losing his attack action from being struck once, and it's not very logical.This would just be one more?

Uh, grappling, prone, restraining, disarming and staying out of the effective range are some good ways to avoid spellcasters. What precedent? Are you talking about the feat that allows a character to interrupt a spellcaster? Cause, that requires a feat. I'm pretty sure this thread exist because there is no precedent/rules for stopping a spell this way.

I'd disagree on it being illogical. "A person has to back away because their only route to attack is being intercepted by an arrow." I guess, if the fighter was willing to get auto-hit by the attack they wouldn't be interrupted. Though that has it's own issues. I'd probably lower their attack roll by the damage they took.

[Saiga]

The precedent I'm talking about is the one I literally described right after saying so: If a caster readies a spell, he has to maintain concentration on it. If he's struck before actually releasing the spell and fails the saving throw, he loses the spell. The only change here is allowing a readied attack to hit a caster before they finish casting a spell, because we already have rules for what happens to casters who are struck mid-cast.

However, a martial who readies an attack, and is then attacked, does not have any risk of losing their attack. So it makes no sense to then try and create a rule about interrupting melee attacks.

Grappling, prone and restraining don't actually do anything to prevent spellcasting by RAW, and disarming only prevents spells with an M component. As it stands, melee attacks are easier to mitigate and avoid than spell casting.

To make this unilateral, all that needs is to allow readied triggers to go before the trigger for them resolves. So you can struck a caster before he's finished a spell, and he makes a concentration check just like if he was struck while holding a spell. You can strike a melee character before he makes his attack, and he continues making his attack unhindered just like if he was struck while readying an attack.

That is being fair with the current rules.

[Tanarii]

Now the PHB and the DMG are clear on 'after the trigger', which is what this particular ready action sounds like. So, would that play out like:
1.wizard starts casting the spell
2.casts the spell
3.the spell takes effect
4.the trigger occurs.
Correct. Ready actions happen right after the trigger happens. In most cases, this will not interrupt the triggering action, but rather be right after it. Because actions are often effectively atomic (ie cannot be subdivided)

In some cases actions clearly are not atomic. Multiple attacks, movement (which isn't an action, but also isn't atomic). But casting a spell is atomic. 'Cast the spell' is 'spell takes effect', they're the same thing. So 2 & 3 in your steps are actually one step.

Of course, it doesn't really matter unless you can kill them with the attack. In which case, unless you were unable to make the attack prior to that point, you might has well have made it on your turn. Or set the trigger to be as soon as you could make the attack.


On a related topic, can you identify a spell as it is being cast?No. It is not built in to any Ability check or Skill.

And yes. Because your DM might rule it an ability check, specify the ability score, set a DC, and maybe pick a proficiency to apply. (IMC no way, and IMO It should not be Arcana, because that applies to Lore, not practical applications of magic.)

IMO counter spell is intentionally balanced around that you cannot determine the level of the spell being cast that you are trying to interrupt. That and there is no hint anywhere that you can identify a spell being cast.

It also makes no sense to me. Unless your DM determines otherwise, there's no reason to assume that every caster in the world casts spells the same way. Two casters from the same class may cast the exact same spell very differently. The SAME caster may cast it differently every time he casts it. Different words to specify targets, direction, height off the ground. Plus use a focus one time and use a material components another. Etc.


Slightly unrelated, remember the days when casting a spell with a hostile dude next to you was a ticket for a free smack in the face?
If I remember right wizards, clerics and other primary casters were largely considered the best classes available that time and not at all unplayable.For sure. A major reason Clerics were primarily buff and post-combat healing. And that the front line of multiple Fighters or Clerics was critical to having a single wizard in the party for artillery. And Archers (mostly Thieves) couldn't fire into a melee without potentially hitting allies, so they actually needed to draw a melee weapon and get stuck in it.

Sadly, this isn't the way players wanted wizards to work. That's why we ended up with 3e's martial vs casters arguments, and the changing of the way spellcasting worked. and we had to invent the guy at the gym fallacy to explain away the superhero warriors or rogue skill checks needed to balance out the casters. Also somehow Epic level play (11-20) became expected level of play, but level 6 plus epic level spells stayed instead of moving back to the new epic levels. Then how powerful spells were had to be cut back, and so did spell slots.

Despite arguments about level 6+ spells being too powerful, and the entire game being rejiggered around many times, it's still apparently unacceptable to wizard-like casters (behind the line casters) and archers to fix it all by giving them some simple tactical limitations. At least I'm assuming this is the case, because otherwise the designers wouldn't keep moving further away from it.

[Elbeyon]

The precedent I'm talking about is the one I literally described right after saying so: If a caster readies a spell, he has to maintain concentration on it. If he's struck before actually releasing the spell and fails the saving throw, he loses the spell. The only change here is allowing a readied attack to hit a caster before they finish casting a spell, because we already have rules for what happens to casters who are struck mid-cast.

However, a martial who readies an attack, and is then attacked, does not have any risk of losing their attack. So it makes no sense to then try and create a rule about interrupting melee attacks.

Grappling, prone and restraining don't actually do anything to prevent spellcasting by RAW, and disarming only prevents spells with an M component. As it stands, melee attacks are easier to mitigate and avoid than spell casting.

To make this unilateral, all that needs is to allow readied triggers to go before the trigger for them resolves. So you can struck a caster before he's finished a spell, and he makes a concentration check just like if he was struck while holding a spell. You can strike a melee character before he makes his attack, and he continues making his attack unhindered just like if he was struck while readying an attack.

That is being fair with the current rules.No. That's not precedent. That's how readying a spell works. Which is not the same as casting a spell. They are entirely different things.

Uh. No. There are no rules about interrupting spells being cast. There is only the ready action. If you can make new rules about intrupting casting there should be rules about interrupting attacks/actions in general.

Depends on the spell. Spellcasters are just as effect by those conditions. The conditions don't say casting is impossible, but the conditions are equal to everything. As a caster you do not want those conditions. In fact, many of those conditions you would be wishing you were a fighter.

You can change when ready actions trigger, but it won't change anything because the obvious. Casting a spell and readying a spell aren't the same thing. When casting a spell there is no interruption. No more so than interrupting a sword swing.

Being fair by the current rules means not inviting more rules. Else, they wouldn't be the current rules.

If we're inventing new rules they should be fair and apply to everyone.

[PhantomSoul]

Question #2: I go through the door and ready an action to close the door when the wizard starts casting a spell at me.

Wouldnt that fizzle most spells directed at the me? Would the wizard would burn his action?

If the spell targets a point/object/creature that you can see (specifying that last part), then closing the door is a whole lot of better for realism and it also decreases the ability to abuse the ruling (because being able to do it gets much more context-specific, and as a bonus it's nice getting players to think about the environment).

It would depend on whether the DM thinks you need line of sight at the start of the casting, at the end of the casting, or throughout (the book says you have a clear path, but as far as I know not when; PHB204), and it could also be that the spell goes off, but is now centered on the door (ex. for a line effect spell that's now the target, or for a sphere effect spell that's now the center). Some spells might also not care about the door -- depending on the DM, maybe Eldritch Blast would knock the door open with its force damage (probably blunting or negating a hit), for example.

If you think it 'burns the action', does the caster still expend a spell slot in your mind?

[TheUser]

Firstly, this is completely ok from a narrative perspective; waiting for a caster to attempt casting a spell before trying to shoot a crossbow bolt into them to interrupt their casting makes perfect sense and is done in many stories.

I see no reason that a readied action could not be used to attempt to interrupt a spell (the attack can miss and the target doesn't always fail it's concentration save). The reality of the situation is that casters have many tools at their disposal to disable attackers and attackers should be encouraged to consider what tools they have against casters. After level 5 this becomes costly to martials because it begins to cut into their ability to attack more.

I have no qualms getting rough with my PC's. The idea is that there should be challenges that they must overcome and this one just adds a layer of strategic thought to the process.

To the person who says that this makes counterspell useless; no.
Readying an attack to interrupt casting requires an action and a reaction and requires two rolls in the favor of the readied attacker.
Counterspell just requires an action and potentially 1 roll.

More than anything this should encourage your casters to take cover from ranged attacks or use the prone condition, it should also encourage your martials to provide body cover and peel for their caster friends. This isn't some trump all anti-caster tool. It's a way to a) make mooks more threatening and b)give an enhanced sense of immersion to your players.

[Contrast]

Questions #3: When the attacking Loazrdfolk moves within 10 feet of me (so, five feet from adjacent to me) I move back 30.

Now the lizardman may run outta room and not get his attack, cuz he can't reach me. Is that a 'clean' ready action?

Just for clarity as most people I play with don't do this - you can ready an action. You can of course ready the dash action but RAW you can't ready another type of action and then move as part of it.


After level 5 this becomes costly to martials because it begins to cut into their ability to attack more.

I assume you mean the potential lost opportunity attack from using their reaction. In my current campaign I'm pretty sure the only person to get any opp attacks off is the polearm master. Ranged characters aren't going to be getting those anyway and are the most likely ones to be in a position to ready attacks at the spellcaster.



To the person who says that this makes counterspell useless; no.
Readying an attack to interrupt casting requires an action and a reaction and requires two rolls in the favor of the readied attacker.
Counterspell just requires an action and potentially 1 roll.

For clarity, counterspell is a reaction casting time so no action required. Critically however it requires a minimum 3rd level spell slot. Compared to the ranger/fighter readying some bow shots which requires...nothing. It doesn't make the spell useless, it just makes the opportunity cost of taking and using the spell much worse.


More than anything this should encourage your casters to take cover from ranged attacks or use the prone condition, it should also encourage your martials to provide body cover and peel for their caster friends. This isn't some trump all anti-caster tool. It's a way to a) make mooks more threatening and b)give an enhanced sense of immersion to your players.

I'm not sure exactly how this improves immersion. It makes spellcasting more like it is in real life? :smallconfused: I agree this makes your spellcasters more defensively minded but shouldn't they be doing those things anyway what with their terrible AC and low hit points? Now they get to die AND not cast any spells :smalltongue:

[Tanarii]

Just for clarity as most people I play with don't do this - you can ready an action. You can of course ready the dash action but RAW you can't ready another type of action and then move as part of it. Readying the Dash action is pointless. Dash doesn't let you move, it just increases your movement on your turn.

You can, however, ready movement directly, per the Ready action. (Since there is no action to move, this is necessary.)

[Contrast]

Readying the Dash action is pointless. Dash doesn't let you move, it just increases your movement on your turn.

You can, however, ready movement directly, per the Ready action. (Since there is no action to move, this is necessary.)

Huh. I must have remembered this wrong as I totally did not recall the 'or you choose to move up to your speed in response to it' being in the ready section. There you go.

That said - dash action 'you gain extra movement for the current turn'. Can't see any reason that wouldn't work. I guess vaguely relevant that you can do either for things like Mobile unless I am still missing something.

Edit - Sage Advice agrees both work (Link (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/29/if-you-ready-the-dash-action-can-you-then-move-up-to-twice-you-speed/))

[Mjolnirbear]

No. That's not precedent. That's how readying a spell works. Which is not the same as casting a spell. They are entirely different things.

Uh. No. There are no rules about interrupting spells being cast. There is only the ready action. If you can make new rules about intrupting casting there should be rules about interrupting attacks/actions in general.

Depends on the spell. Spellcasters are just as effect by those conditions. The conditions don't say casting is impossible, but the conditions are equal to everything. As a caster you do not want those conditions. In fact, many of those conditions you would be wishing you were a fighter.

You can change when ready actions trigger, but it won't change anything because the obvious. Casting a spell and readying a spell aren't the same thing. When casting a spell there is no interruption. No more so than interrupting a sword swing.

Being fair by the current rules means not inviting more rules. Else, they wouldn't be the current rules.

If we're inventing new rules they should be fair and apply to everyone.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure there are rules about disrupting spells as they're being cast: spells with casting times longer than one action. Whether it's a ritual or a spell that takes ten minutes, you have to maintain concentration to finish casting, even if the spell doesn't otherwise require concentration.

I've conflated 3e and 5e rules before, but I'm almost positive this is in errata or a tweet. And if this is true then yes, you can interrupt a spell being cast, if you can make them fail à concentration check.

[Contrast]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure there are rules about disrupting spells as they're being cast: spells with casting times longer than one action. Whether it's a ritual or a spell that takes ten minutes, you have to maintain concentration to finish casting, even if the spell doesn't otherwise require concentration.

I've conflated 3e and 5e rules before, but I'm almost positive this is in errata or a tweet. And if this is true then yes, you can interrupt a spell being cast, if you can make them fail à concentration check.

You are correct, in the casting time section of 'Casting a spell' in the PHB, casting a multi-turn spell requires you to spend your action casting and uses your concentration. On which note it never occurred to me before that casting a ritual breaks concentration spells. Tome warlocks rituals breaking their hex concentration is sad times :smallfrown:

RAW this is explicitly only for spells with more than an action casting time.

[Elbeyon]

With these rules, readying to attack a caster becomes the go to strategy when attacking a caster. It's not something that will happen rarely. Prep a generous trigger action, every attack has a chance to interrupt a spell. There is little to no drawback for doing so if you have only one attack. Why attack the caster when you can attack them and make him skip a turn?

[Saiga]

The "if you only have one attack" is a pretty big if since most martials have access to Extra Attack.

Not only that, but it uses your reaction AND bonus action to pull off.

So it's only the 'go to' strategy if you never have more than one attack, nor a use for your bonus action or reaction. And if you're a melee character, opportunity attacks always give you a potential reaction.

Hell, in this case to foil the attempt the caster just has to move out of reach of them since they only have one reaction.

[Elbeyon]

The "if you only have one attack" is a pretty big if since most martials have access to Extra Attack.

Not only that, but it uses your reaction AND bonus action to pull off.

So it's only the 'go to' strategy if you never have more than one attack, nor a use for your bonus action or reaction. And if you're a melee character, opportunity attacks always give you a potential reaction.

Hell, in this case to foil the attempt the caster just has to move out of reach of them since they only have one reaction.They eventually get access to Extra Attack. Plenty of game's start out low level.

A use for a bonus action or reaction really vary. Some classes won't have a need for them. Not many creatures trigger a reaction, hardly ever really.

A bit hard to escape a 600 foot range before you cast a spell.

Sure, there may or may not be some desire to do something else, but making a spellcaster fumble their spell is incredibly powerful.

Plenty of people would give up extra attacks to make the spellcaster lose a turn and do damage. The ability is worth a class feature by itself. It's stronger than a feat.

This isn't some small option that might come up in a blue moon. This would be one of the most powerful options in the game.

[Tanarii]

Plenty of people would give up extra attacks to make the spellcaster lose a turn and do damage. The ability is worth a class feature by itself. It's stronger than a feat.
Right. That's the sealing deal for me. Even Mage Slayer, the specifically anti-caster Feat, doesn't do that. It just gives a reaction attack to casting a spell. Unless they're casting a spell of longer than one round (so concentration), or they just cast a (always) concentration spell, and your hit disrupts it.

[Saiga]

It's powerful... but it requires two successive skill checks in your favour. One of which (DC 10 Con check) is incredibly easy for the spellcaster to make, and isn't affected by any of your modifiers.

It's a lot to give up for something that isn't guaranteed to go off. Counterspell does the same thing with just your reaction, and is more likely to succeed. It's a third level spell, so it should be worth the resource expenditure, but it is still far better than this at-will option which is appropriate.

@Tanarii - If you have a general rule update like "reaction attacks take place before the spell finishes resolving" then Mage Slayer gets the same ability and becomes better than readying an attack for not requiring you to set up before-hand.

So, I wouldn't allow "ready to prevent spellcasting" unless I also allowed Mage Slayer to potentially interrupt casting in the same way.

I'm also inspired by games like Magic, where effects used in response to a trigger resolved before the triggering ability resolves.

[Slipperychicken]

To keep things fair. If a spell can be interrupted an attack should be able to get interrupted.

We already have actions for hindering normal attacks. They're called 'dodge' and 'dash'.

[Saiga]

Weapon attacks and spells are already so different it's asinine to say a new rule is only "fair" if it applies to both in the same way.

Why doesn't taking a bonus action attack prevent someone from taking the attack action in the same turn? Why do cantrips get additional riders that at-will attacks don't? Because they're fundamentally different.

[Rynjin]

They eventually get access to Extra Attack. Plenty of game's start out low level.

A use for a bonus action or reaction really vary. Some classes won't have a need for them. Not many creatures trigger a reaction, hardly ever really.

A bit hard to escape a 600 foot range before you cast a spell.

Sure, there may or may not be some desire to do something else, but making a spellcaster fumble their spell is incredibly powerful.

Plenty of people would give up extra attacks to make the spellcaster lose a turn and do damage. The ability is worth a class feature by itself. It's stronger than a feat.

This isn't some small option that might come up in a blue moon. This would be one of the most powerful options in the game.

Seriously the level of melodrama over even suggesting this be allowed is headscratching (and hilarious). It worked in 3e/3.5/Pathfinder and the sky didn't fall down. There was not some epidemic of every martial ever using their every action to shut down casters, and casters were not by any means suddenly rendered worthless by this simple rule.

There is no basis for all this hysteria.

[jas61292]

I think the whole idea of allowing people to interrupt spells with attacks is dumb, and its obviously contrary to RAW. Reactions are supposed to react to actions. Unless otherwise specified you should never be allowed to react to something before it is done. If something is not explicitly an in game action, then when the reaction to it happens has to be a judgement call, but if something is explicitly an action, I will never allow someone to ready an action in response to it "beginning." That is you reacting to the action, and, per RAW, the action will finish.

Its not like if you just say "I ready an action to attack them when they cast a spell" you will politely wait for them to finish before shooting them. Now, you do react to them starting to cast. Its just the the mechanic says that because you are reacting to them, they finish first.

Now, that said, this is only my stance for actions that are instantaneous and are not broken up. If you want to react to someone attacking, and they have multiattack, I have no issue with the reaction attack coming after the first attack but before any extras, because, in real world (non-mechanical) terms, each attack is a separate action, and, in mechanical terms, even though they constitute a single action, they can be normally split up and done separately, with other things happening in between, giving precedence for something going between them.

But yeah.... in basic summary, the RAW is good and makes sense. You react to something. And that means that thing must happen first. Your reflexes don't suddenly get better by saying you react to the beginning of something, because that is always what you react to.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Mechanically, I consider actions to be atomic unless they explicitly say otherwise. Before someone casts a single-action spell, there is nothing to react to. While they do it, there is no room for reactions. Afterwards, applicable reactions can go off.

If someone has to, say, move to establish line of sight, then reactions with triggers like "shoot the next guy to pop out around the corner" can happen first because there's a window between moving and taking the action (similar to how you can react when someone moves to a certain point or distance - movement isn't an action). And if you're not actually in combat, you can shoot first if you win initiative.


But yeah.... in basic summary, the RAW is good and makes sense. You react to something. And that means that thing must happen first. Your reflexes don't suddenly get better by saying you react to the beginning of something, because that is always what you react to.

Edit to agree.

[RickAllison]

I would also point out that casting a 1-action spell does not entail six seconds of waving hands around. You can cast at least four spells in a round (cantrip, Action Surge cantrip, bonus action spell, War Caster) and monsters like the lich can bring that up to 5, and those spells are beyond running around and interacting with objects and the spells resolving. Remember that the resolving of the effects is time enough to send people flying, to fall prone, and other effects that do take a decent amount of time when we consider seconds.

The components that we are talking about with these single-action spells are ones that take next to no time to effect. They are things like pointing your finger at the target (Finger of Death), or putting your hands together (Burning Hands). What this means is that something as simple as a gesture constitutes a trigger for the readied action. I can spend an item interaction, if even that, and a few fake words and it is indistinguishable for the reaction from a real spell. Then you either trigger it or not, but you aren't canceling the actual spell.

[Mjolnirbear]

You are correct, in the casting time section of 'Casting a spell' in the PHB, casting a multi-turn spell requires you to spend your action casting and uses your concentration. On which note it never occurred to me before that casting a ritual breaks concentration spells. Tome warlocks rituals breaking their hex concentration is sad times :smallfrown:

RAW this is explicitly only for spells with more than an action casting time.

Interestingly, if you lose concentration on a spell of longer casting time while casting it, you get to keep the spell slot. So even if expanded to allow readied attacks to interrupt casting, the caster loses the action but not the spell slot, assuming he failed his concentration check.

That would imply that Counterspell doesn't prevent the casting but targets the magic of the spell. It is more penalising than an attack would be, wasting both the action and the resources of the target. Which is suitable for a level 3 spell.

This could also extend to other readied attacks. If a sleep spell is readied, and it consumes the target, then the target cannot cast spells.

I really like this. I always play casters, but even in 5e casters have the edge over martials. This helps even the gap a bit and gives martials and other classes tactical options.

[90sMusic]

Are you joking or just completely unaware that this worked in previous editions and did not in ANY way result in "casters never getting a single spell off ever again".

Wow, someone is extremely and spontaneously salty.

This isn't "previous editions" bub, this is 5th edition. The rules are different. If you want to follow old rules, go play an older version, it isn't complicated.

Let me clue you in how spellcasting worked in "previous editions". <- Nice being vague isn't it

It is true if you readied an attack to hit someone while casting, they'd have to make a concentration check to keep the spell. And it did dramatically hinder casters when fighting any intelligent enemies unless your DM simply didn't know. It was a huge penalty. Casters were also stronger in these "older editions" as well, while they are much closer to martials these days than they've ever been before, so getting those few spells off could be far more devastating.

You also had to cast defensively to avoid attacks of opportunity. You also had things like the 5-foot step to move out of range of someone without provoking so you could avoid casting defensively and risk losing the spell.

5th edition doesn't have all this crap, it was all removed with the newer and better version. In 5th edition, you cannot do this. Being salty about it doesn't change that fact.

Changing a rule like this in 5th edition would dramatically alter the balance of the game because taking this ONE single rule from an older edition and transplating it into 5th would disrupt everything without dragging all the other rules and counterplays with it. You'd have a high probability of negating a caster's action every round for every enemy on the field that could hit them at virtually no cost to the enemy as they would be dealing damage regardless. Two or three archers would all but guarantee that wizard never gets a spell off again.

Imagine how "fun" that would be for the casters to never get their spells off. Counterspells are brutal enough for players to deal with already, but every single attack? You'd be absolutely stupid to allow it. 5th edition isn't designed with that in mind.

[Saiga]

I think the whole idea of allowing people to interrupt spells with attacks is dumb, and its obviously contrary to RAW. Reactions are supposed to react to actions. Unless otherwise specified you should never be allowed to react to something before it is done. If something is not explicitly an in game action, then when the reaction to it happens has to be a judgement call, but if something is explicitly an action, I will never allow someone to ready an action in response to it "beginning." That is you reacting to the action, and, per RAW, the action will finish.

Its not like if you just say "I ready an action to attack them when they cast a spell" you will politely wait for them to finish before shooting them. Now, you do react to them starting to cast. Its just the the mechanic says that because you are reacting to them, they finish first.

Now, that said, this is only my stance for actions that are instantaneous and are not broken up. If you want to react to someone attacking, and they have multiattack, I have no issue with the reaction attack coming after the first attack but before any extras, because, in real world (non-mechanical) terms, each attack is a separate action, and, in mechanical terms, even though they constitute a single action, they can be normally split up and done separately, with other things happening in between, giving precedence for something going between them.

But yeah.... in basic summary, the RAW is good and makes sense. You react to something. And that means that thing must happen first. Your reflexes don't suddenly get better by saying you react to the beginning of something, because that is always what you react to.

Yes, it's absolutely contrary to RAW. As has been outlined in the thread, actions are atomic and developer tweets have made it clear that reactions happen after their trigger has concluded.

I have no problem with this (aside from Counterspell and Attack of Opportunities being exceptions to this). But I also have no problem with a house rule that allows readied actions to interrupt their trigger, if it seems logical.

AoO hit the target before they get to leave your reach (or you'd just miss). Counterspell is a spell with a casting time of 1 reaction but can interrupt a spell of 1 action. So I think it's perfectly plausible to think an attack using your reaction could be just as fast as Counterspell at responding to attacks.

Giving that Extra Attack exists, and that making multiple attacks in a round is common (I'll see your four spells and raise you eleven weapon attacks - Fighter 20, PAM bonus, action surge, reaction attack, haste) it's easy to infer that a single attack would be quicker than casting a spell in certain circumstances.

So, how do you feel about Counterspell if that is your view on reactions? Keep in mind, by RAW you can even Counterspell another Counterspell.

[Mellack]

Just a note: Counterspell doesn't actually interrupt casting. It occurs after casting but before the spell takes effect. A minor difference, but that is why it uses up the spell slot of the spell counterspell targets. So even Counterspell cannot actually interrupt the casting of a spell, it is used instead to unravel the spell before it has the effect felt.

[Saiga]

That just sounds like it's interrupting a different part of the process. It's definitely happening before the creature's action is fully resolved.

[RickAllison]

That just sounds like it's interrupting a different part of the process. It's definitely happening before the creature's action is fully resolved.

Its actually very different. A real-life comparison would be knocking a gun out of someone's hands (the proposed interrupting attack) versus putting an obstruction in front of the barrel. The energy was expended, the attempt made, but it was arrested from doing what it was released to do. It isn't an interruption, but a magical block. And if you fail the ability check, then the block wasn't good enough to stop the effect.

[TheUser]

Just a note: Counterspell doesn't actually interrupt casting. It occurs after casting but before the spell takes effect. A minor difference, but that is why it uses up the spell slot of the spell counterspell targets. So even Counterspell cannot actually interrupt the casting of a spell, it is used instead to unravel the spell before it has the effect felt.

Why don't you go read and quote the ability before recalling wrongfully from memory....


Counterspell
Source: PHB.228 sorcerer warlock wizard level3 abjuration
3rd-level abjuration

Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell.

Range: 60 feet

Components: S

Duration: Instantaneous

You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. If the creature is casting a spell of 3rd level or lower, its spell fails and has no effect. If it is casting a spell of 4th level or higher, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell’s level. On a success, the creature’s spell fails and has no effect.

At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the interrupted spell has no effect if its level is less than or equal to the level of the spell slot you used.

[Potato_Priest]

I mean, you can think about being able to break concentrationw with an arrow like this and say "Yeah, that's really super unfair to casters." But the minute I think about wall of force, it goes right back to being acceptable again.

Like it or not, enemy casters very often have the tools to completely shut down a martial in a single action with far less chance of failure than the quite forgiving attack roll + concentration save. I wouldn't feel too bad at all for giving martials an at will but far weaker version that works on casters.

[ThePolarBear]

Am I correct in thinking there is no RAW on readying actions that interrupt a creatures actions like in the middle of the creature's action?

The RAW is that, unless otherwise specified, reactions happen immediately after the trigger has passed. IIRC.
The Ready action has to have as a trigger a "perceiveable occurrence".
Depending on this perceivable occurrence happening or not during an Action (as in game term Action - Attack Action, Cast a spell Action...) it might in fact interrupt an Action, but it might not interrupt the action (something that happens, someone that acts) that the trigger refers to.

Ex: If you Ready an action to trigger when someone draws a sword, if a creature draws a sword as part of the Attack Action the Attack Action is in fact interrupted before any attack is made because the trigger has happened before, but the drawing of a sword was completed before the reaction could be taken.


Example#1: I ready an action to shoot an arrow at the wizard as soon as he 'starts' casting a spell, possibly interrupting the spell and fizzling it.

Is something "starting" perceivable? For me the answer is always no.
You can, at most, perceive that something "has started".

Let me explaing why it is more than just semantics for me.

Let's take a concert as an example. We want to trigger "when the concert starts". But when does the concert actually start? At the first note played? What if that note is actually part of a sound check? Would that qualify? To actually have a perception of the concert starting you would need to have made sure that that was not a fluke, an error or whatever. You would have had to have let "some time" pass, and realize after that amount of time has passed that the concert "had started".

Let's take an attack... when does someone actually "starts attacking"? How can you tell that it's actually an attack that is being made before the attack is carried out?

Let's apply it to spells... when does a spell actually "starts"?

We know that, even if it's not a Ready action and as such it does not need to follow the same rules, "Casting a spell" is a valid trigger for Counterspell and Counterspell specifies that the "casting" has to be perceived via sight.
This means that casting a spell can be perceived via sight, but it wouldn't help as a Ready Action since it would trigger after the spell has already been cast.

Is there any specific perceivable occurrence that, as a DM, you would feel confident to judge as something that [is]:

inherently part of casting a spell,
can be perceived
cannot be mistaken for anything else but someone casting a spell,
finishes before the actual casting of the spell ends,
leaves enough time (gamey thinking) to actually let the reaction be taken before the spell ends?


If Yes, then you can interrupt a spellcaster casting a spell. This obviously mean that you are also defining how spellcasting actually happens in your world, at least to an extent.


Is there some way to re-word that ready action so the trigger would occur before the spell takes effect?

Unless the effect is "delayed", there's no time lapse between the spell being cast and it having effect, just like there is no time between an attack striking and damage being applied.



Question #2: I go through the door and ready an action to close the door when the wizard starts casting a spell at me.

For me, you can't perceive a wizard "starting" anything.


Questions #3: When the attacking Loazrdfolk moves within 10 feet of me (so, five feet from adjacent to me) I move back 30.
Now the lizardman may run outta room and not get his attack, cuz he can't reach me. Is that a 'clean' ready action?

Yes. Point is, what is the difference from you moving during your turn AND doing something useful? A Ready Action is still something you do, so the lizardmen could be keen enough to notice you are staring at him and putting your weight on your back leg, ready to spring.

Personally i use a rule that can be compressed, with losses in actual meaning and applicability cases, into "if it's something you can do on your turn, you can't Ready it".

For how i see it the Ready Action is for doing something that you would otherwise be unable to do in your turn because of the turn based structure of the game - like activating a trap under someone that would pass through it during his turn: you would never be able to do it in the turn based structure of the game.

You are unable to interrupt spellcasting with a strike - turn or no turn - so you shouldn't be able to do so with a Ready Action.
Now, removing a Focus from the hands of a caster, on the other hand, could be done at any time - do so during your turn so that you can actually prevent the cast from happening by picking it up, too.


Yes, it's absolutely contrary to RAW. As has been outlined in the thread, actions are atomic and developer tweets have made it clear that reactions happen after their trigger has concluded.

I have no problem with this (aside from Counterspell and Attack of Opportunities being exceptions to this). But I also have no problem with a house rule that allows readied actions to interrupt their trigger, if it seems logical.

AoO hit the target before they get to leave your reach (or you'd just miss). Counterspell is a spell with a casting time of 1 reaction but can interrupt a spell of 1 action. So I think it's perfectly plausible to think an attack using your reaction could be just as fast as Counterspell at responding to attacks.

Notice that Counterspell only has a S component. For how much we know, it could simply be a twist of an hand. Between such a rapd motion and an attack there's a whole lot of difference of time used. I know, it's really not "1 attack each 6 seconds" in "in character" terms. But it still is a reaction taken that, ready or not, probably takes more time than what a reaction - S only spell would.


Giving that Extra Attack exists, and that making multiple attacks in a round is common (I'll see your four spells and raise you eleven weapon attacks - Fighter 20, PAM bonus, action surge, reaction attack, haste) it's easy to infer that a single attack would be quicker than casting a spell in certain circumstances.

A single attack is probably faster. But even if readying, you are likely doing more than just standing there waiting for the right opportunity.


So, how do you feel about Counterspell if that is your view on reactions? Keep in mind, by RAW you can even Counterspell another Counterspell.

And you can build the faster Counterspell with enough casters counterspelling each other, since logically it must mean that each Counterspell is faster than the Counterspell it's counterspelling.

Or that you can move a single banana across continents with just Ready Actions in a single round.

I feel that D&D is a game that it's not meant to be 100% simulative - far from it in fact - and some choices are not meant to be logical or even realistic.

[Doug Lampert]

I would also point out that casting a 1-action spell does not entail six seconds of waving hands around. You can cast at least four spells in a round (cantrip, Action Surge cantrip, bonus action spell, War Caster) and monsters like the lich can bring that up to 5, and those spells are beyond running around and interacting with objects and the spells resolving. Remember that the resolving of the effects is time enough to send people flying, to fall prone, and other effects that do take a decent amount of time when we consider seconds.

The components that we are talking about with these single-action spells are ones that take next to no time to effect. They are things like pointing your finger at the target (Finger of Death), or putting your hands together (Burning Hands). What this means is that something as simple as a gesture constitutes a trigger for the readied action. I can spend an item interaction, if even that, and a few fake words and it is indistinguishable for the reaction from a real spell. Then you either trigger it or not, but you aren't canceling the actual spell.

Yep, "I ready an action to trigger as soon as the target moves or speaks" at someone in combat goes off NOW! Always. Because no one is ever standing around doing absolutely nothing, that's an abstraction for simplicity, the reality is that everyone is always acting. The caster is yelling something, advice, encouragement, warnings, spells; his hands are moving. This isn't I stand there like a wax dummy during your turn then I take my turn, it's combat.

For "ready for casting" to work you must (a) ignore the abstraction that casting is an atomic action and declare that you can do something during casting, and (b) you are absolutely dependent on the abstraction that casting is an atomic action and that the caster isn't constantly doing magical stuff in combat, you need it to be true that he's not always holding his components and spouting spells as fast as he can because you need the abstraction that actions are one at a time and atomic.

Which is it? "realistic combat" he's always acting and casting and you can't wait for him to start doing something. Or if you are using the abstraction and atomic actions are done one at a time, then casting is such an action and you can't interrupt it without a specific enabling rule.

[Dudewithknives]

As long as the spell force cage and teleport are in the game, people will have an opportunity to ready an action to stop spellcasting, in any game I run.

Force cage is an automatic, no save, can't miss, no concentration spell that is an auto lose to anyone who can not cast mid to high level spells.

Also, in a game where teleport exists, no caster who can cast it should ever be killed unless you can burn them down in 1 round.