What can you do between attacks? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Keravath

2019-06-26, 09:38 AM

Unless otherwise stated, actions cannot take place in other actions. Because other wise there'd be no point in the exceptions for Extra Attack & Movement, Reaction timing description, and bonus actions specifying that some having timing. QED.

Umm no. There is nothing in the rules that constrains when bonus actions are taken. There isn't even a statement that you can't take an action while taking another action.

For example ... there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with a fighter using their first attack, deciding to use action surge to dash or disengage, then move to engage another target. There is NOTHING In the rules that prevents the fighter from taking another action while in the midst of the attack action. Please don't make things up and cite them as rules (unless of course there is a rules quotation that I have missed that you would like to cite?).

Just because the rules explicitly describe allowing movement between the first attack of the attack action and making any extra attacks granted by class features does NOT mean that is the only thing allowed. The description of bonus action timing in the RULES says that if you have a bonus action available it can be taken at ANY time during your turn.

"BONUS ACTIONS
Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus
action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a bonus action. You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take.

You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you
have more than one available.

You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action."

You CHOOSE when to take the bonus action. Any specification of timing depends on the specific bonus action - Shield Bash requires taking the Attack Action, Monk Flurry of Blows specifically states "immediately after you take the attack action" and so on ... but for a rogue, or a monk using a ki point to dodge, they can do that at any time. For example, a monk could attack, expend a ki point bonus action to dodge, get op attacked at disadvantage, then move and complete their extra attack while still dodging.

ThePolarBear

2019-06-26, 09:55 AM

Does anyone know of a rule that would prevent taking a bonus action?

"You are unconscious." and rules about it. /joke

More seriously: you should start from what bonus actions are and when you are allowed to take them, since the general is that you do not have a bonus action at all to begin with. You build the castle from there. It's not that there needs to be something preventing you to take them, it's about something granting you the ability to use them. Usually that's a feature, and that feature tells you what you can do with it and when you can do it. When a feature is silent on timing, you rely on general bonus action timing.

Dalebert

2019-06-26, 10:04 AM

More seriously: you should start from what bonus actions are and when you are allowed to take them, since the general is that you do not have a bonus action at all to begin with.

Absolutely. For instance, shield bash from shield master doesn't Grant one until you take the attack action. Crawford says that condition is met after the first attack. Thus you could be bashing between two different attacks from your attack action and fulfill the reqts of that particular bonus action. If some rule says otherwise, where is it? Crawford doesn't seem to know of it. Does anyone else?

JackPhoenix

2019-06-26, 10:18 AM

Absolutely. For instance, shield bash from shield master doesn't Grant one until you take the attack action. Crawford says that condition is met after the first attack. Thus you could be bashing between two different attacks from your attack action and fulfill the reqts of that particular bonus action. If some rule says otherwise, where is it? Crawford doesn't seem to know of it. Does anyone else?

No, JC says the condition is met once you take all your attacks, but he, as a GM, would allow you to take the BA attack after you make at least one attack, despite the RAW being different.

General rule for Attack action is that you make an attack when you take the action. That's simple, there's no "between".
Specific rule for Extra Attack (and similar abilities) allow you to make two attacks instead of one when you take Attack action. Less simple, but unlike what some people claimed in the past, it's not "you can make x attacks during your turn" or whatever. You make two attacks, immediately, that's it.
Specific rule about movement allows you to move between attacks if you have more than one. That's a specific exception that allows you to do specific thing, not general exception allowing you to do whatever you want. It also specifies weapon attacks, so you can shoot multiple normal projectiles from a sling and move between attacks, but you can't do the same if you're shooting Magic Stones, as those are spell attacks.

Dalebert

2019-06-26, 11:12 AM

No, JC says the condition is met once you take all your attacks...

Reference needed. When does he say that?

...but he, as a GM, would allow you to take the BA attack after you make at least one attack...

Yes, he does say that. That's his interpretation of the rules he helped write. His tweets are not automatically RAW and that's all that means, but they're not automatically a house rule either. You and he disagree on this which is fine. I just would like to know why you insist there's RAW to contadict his interpretation. That's all.

...despite the RAW being different.

Again, reference needed. When does he say that?

In this tweet ( https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105183657877135360 ) and in a reply, he clarifies that RAI was you making one attack fulfills the reqt and that's how he runs it. He simply acknowledges that others have different interpretations.

You make two attacks, immediately, that's it.

Reference needed.

Look, I get the principle that the rules say what you CAN do; not what you can't. I've even made that point myself before when folks are trying to justify crazy shenanigans. But as had been pointed out already, bonus action are already exceptions. You don't even get one until some feature grants one. And so each bonus action specifies what grants it and when you can do it. Barring some rule that says otherwise, why are we not going by that? (Some rule that people insist exists yet can't reference.)

Demonslayer666

2019-06-26, 11:28 AM

How about in the description of a Bonus Action, PHB 189, where is specifies you can take it when you want on your turn:
"You choose when to take a Bonus Action during Your Turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take Actions also prevents you from taking a Bonus Action."

So Cunning Action and Shield Bash are a yes, because they don't specify a timing.

Flurry of Blows requires you to do it after you take the attack action. Seems to me like it must be completed first.

JackPhoenix

2019-06-26, 01:53 PM

Reference needed. When does he say that?

Yes, he does say that. That's his interpretation of the rules he helped write. His tweets are not automatically RAW and that's all that means, but they're not automatically a house rule either. You and he disagree on this which is fine. I just would like to know why you insist there's RAW to contadict his interpretation. That's all.

Again, reference needed. When does he say that?

In this tweet ( https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105183657877135360 ) and in a reply, he clarifies that RAI was you making one attack fulfills the reqt and that's how he runs it. He simply acknowledges that others have different interpretations.

In the very chain of tweets you've linked. RAI (that isn't actually stated anywhere in the book) or any GM's rulings (even if the GM in question is one of the developers... see pretty much every Mearls' SA tweet) are irrelevant to actual RAW.

Dalebert

2019-06-26, 02:33 PM

In the very chain of tweets you've linked. RAI (that isn't actually stated anywhere in the book) or any GM's rulings (even if the GM in question is one of the developers... see pretty much every Mearls' SA tweet) are irrelevant to actual RAW.

Those are straw men. I conceded WAY back that Crawford's tweets don't make something RAW. The case I'm making isn't at all dependent on that.

In my OP I stated that people make claims and assertions about things you can't do, e.g. take a bonus action between attacks, without a reference in the rules to support such claims. I've since asked for references for various claims you've made in this thread, including statements you've attributed to Crawford, and you still haven't provided a single one, so I still see no counter argument to Crawford's interpretation which, in this case, makes perfect sense to me.

sophontteks

2019-06-26, 03:09 PM

Those are straw men. I conceded WAY back that Crawford's tweets don't make something RAW. The case I'm making isn't at all dependent on that.

In my OP I stated that people make claims and assertions about things you can't do, e.g. take a bonus action between attacks, without a reference in the rules to support such claims. I've since asked for references for various claims you've made in this thread, including statements you've attributed to Crawford, and you still haven't provided a single one, so I still see no counter argument to Crawford's interpretation which, in this case, makes perfect sense to me.
JC has taken several stances on this. He originally ruled that you can bash before any attack, then he ruled that it must be after the full attack action. Then he ruled that he, as a DM, would allow it after a single attack.

The last official stance from JC is that it can only be done after the full attack action is completed.

RAW is "If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you using your shield."

The problem is that people interpret what this quote means differently. We can spend all day agrueing this, but it won't get anywhere. There's no need calling one argument weak. They are all based on the rules as written. The rule here just wasn't written well.

The rule that says you can't shield bash in the middle of an attack action is in the description of the feat. Unless you interpret the wording differently. Then it doesn't. Consult with your DM.

Dalebert

2019-06-26, 03:20 PM

The last official stance from JC is that it can only be done after the full attack action is completed.

What makes it "official"? I sincerely don't know. All I know is his tweets are no longer considered RAW and possibly never should have been treated as such.

I appreciate that you're taking a diplomatic stance here. Understand where I'm coming from though. This is the ruling I enforced last night because I understood it to be the most broadly accepted interpretation--that you can't shield bash until you've completed your attack action. I stood my ground and the player got so upset that he changed characters insisting he wouldn't have taken the feat with such limitations. He was arguing for being able to bash first before taking any of his attack action attacks.

I've since looked into it and found what seems like broad support for bashing after one attack meaning you can then take the rest of your attacks after. So far this still seems reasonable to me. Whatever I ultimately decide, I just want to have the RAW to reference in support of that interpretation. This is an AL game and that seems like a reasonable and supportable decision. If I'm going to give a flat "no" and go with the strictest interpretation possible, I just would like something more than baseless assertions and claims or that Jeremy Crawford said that "officially" without knowing what that means and therefore being unable to explain to a player what that means.

AdAstra

2019-06-26, 03:47 PM

I mean, you have the RAW from the book, and unfortunately, it's not very clear with its ordering, and it's absolutely not clear whether or not you can take any action in the midst of any other action. If you want a strict interpretation, there kinda isn't one, since the RAW isn't strict. There's only the (multiple) official interpretations to go off of. My opinion, it's not broken either way, but having to at least start the Attack action makes the most sense by far. I also feel you've given sufficient evidence to suggest that characters can do things in the middle of actions even if not explicitly stated.
Go with your gut, but right now I'm leaning toward the idea that as long as you commit to taking the Attack action by actually starting it, thus preventing any weird causation chains if you're somehow rendered unable to take the Attack action, you can take the bonus action shove.
Basically, there is no concrete RAW on this issue, go with what you feel makes sense.

Snowbluff

2019-06-26, 04:48 PM

"BONUS ACTIONS
Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus
action.

This is actually very interesting. I wonder what other implications the Bonus Action being specifically a kind of the regular action exist.

Chronos

2019-06-26, 05:01 PM

E’Tallitnics

2019-06-26, 05:03 PM

I've long wondered where it's written that when you take an Action in combat, any Action, that you must carry it out immediately before anything else can happen.

sophontteks

2019-06-26, 05:50 PM

How about a case where the bonus action isn't conditional? Let's say we've got a rogue 2/fighter 5. He can take the Hide action as a bonus action just because he's a rogue, regardless of whether he's attacking, casting a spell, or using his action to crochet a scarf. Can he make one attack, move 10' to get behind some total concealment, hide, move more, and then attack again? A lot of people would say "no", citing the rule that you can't break up an action. But where is that rule?
Where is the rule citing that you can?

Using objects and moving are explicitly called out as being able to be used during or between attacks, unlike bonus actions. If the general rule was that anything could be used between attacks, why the need to call out movement and using objects specifically?

ThePolarBear

2019-06-26, 06:03 PM

But where is that rule?

The rule doesn't exist. But it is also true that the rules of the game are built as a flowchart of sort. There is an assumed process that the rules expect you to follow and the exceptions are, as usual, pointed out.

Where is the rule citing that you can?

For bonus actions that do not have timing, the bonus action section. You can use them at any point during your turn. "in between attacks durign my turn" is a point during my turn. In fact, strictly rulewise and absolutely not something that i would allow, you could potentially (as in, for a very specific and imho twisted and against common sense reading) Misty Step between an attack roll and a damage roll.

sophontteks

2019-06-26, 06:13 PM

The rule doesn't exist. But it is also true that the rules of the game are built as a flowchart of sort. There is an assumed process that the rules expect you to follow and the exceptions are, as usual, pointed out.

For bonus actions that do not have timing, the bonus action section. You can use them at any point during your turn. "in between attacks durign my turn" is a point during my turn. In fact, strictly rulewise and absolutely not something that i would allow, you could potentially (as in, for a very specific and imho twisted and against common sense reading) Misty Step between an attack roll and a damage roll.
That is your interpretation, but you are making assumptions on what is meant by any point, and not addressing why other things are specifically called out as able to be used between or during attacks.The presence of these specific rules make this a very hazy interpretation that could go either way.

JC wrote a good book, but he did not do a great job writing a concrete RAW text. There are people from legal professions who could have written the rules in such a way that we did not have to make assumptions, but as it is RAW isn't what its cracked up to be for 5th edition. It's hardly even worth arguing over what is RAW. It's better to just play with some common sense, and always keep the rule of cool in mind.

EDIT: To illustrate what I mean. A great example is monk's flurry vs. Shield Bash.
In Flurry the rule is written as "AFTER" the attack action.
In Shield Bash it is written as "IF" the attack action is taken.
He says they both have the same intention.

If they did, he should have wrote then in the exact same way. He didn't. We can't logically follow RAW as the author himself intended, because the book was not written in a logical and consistent manner.

EDIT EDIT: Taking it further, with JC going back on previous rulings we can't even trust that he knew what his own intentions were in the first place.

ThePolarBear

2019-06-26, 06:42 PM

That is your interpretation

That's what is, black on white, in multiple parts of the various manuals. It starts on page 6, PHB.

but you are making assumptions on what is meant by any point

What? I'm simply stating that the rules, once taken in their entirety, build up to a flowchart of sorts. Each feature that is an exception is pointed out. What am i assuming? That some specific feature that should go here has to go there, instead? Prehaps, i guess?

Don't you agree that there is an order in which you are meant to do things in 5th edition?

and not addressing why other things are specifically called out as able to be used between or during attacks.

Because it's self-evident. You need to specify when something that is not the general rules flow can be done, so you know when you can do it and when it goes against the general that it gets to modify.

"On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action."
"You decide whether to move first or take your action first."
"You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action."
"If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks."

If you don't see how everything is built from one general statement into increasingly complex, more specific rules that build what the assumed flow of how a turn is conducted, i can't make you able to.

The presence of these specific rules make this a very hazy interpretation that could go either way.

Specific rules are specific for a reason. They apply only to what it is stated. This doesn't make the rest of the flow "hazy".
Not saying that the book is perfect by any means, by the way, or that there aren't places where it could be clearer or that it is mistake free.

There are people from legal professions who could have written the rules in such a way that we did not have to make assumptions

Stop trying to look for something that was never meant to be there from the inception.

It's hardly even worth arguing over what is RAW. It's better to just play with some common sense, and always keep the rule of cool in mind.

Agreed

Edit:

EDIT: To illustrate what I mean. A great example is monk's flurry vs. Shield Bash.
In Flurry the rule is written as "AFTER" the attack action.
In Shield Bash it is written as "IF" the attack action is taken.
He says they both have the same intention.

No. First of all, he wrote that the intent for SM is that you can make the bash after just one attack. (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105204044610428929) This is one of the latest tweets on the argument.

Intent can be different from what is written in text, so even if SM was written "after you sip orange juice during winter", it could still be "after just one attack". I ca

Flurry of Blows is "immediately after you take the Attack Action". I can't think of a clearer way to make it clear that, even if the rules say that you usually can move after the action, you REALLY REALLY REALLY can't do anything between after "you take". Can't move, whisper... anything. It has to be immediate.

SM, even when taken at pure "as written" level, doesn't have the same strict requirement. So even going with "take" as "after completing" as far as meaning goes, you are in no way restricted in the same way as Flurry of Blows does. And quite clearly the intention is not the same.

And, without going into further arguments on conditionals: that construction used in SM is used when there's implication. To be an implication, one thing has to happen before the other. "if" and "after" are sequentially the same, here, from a linguistic point of view.

If they did, he should have wrote then in the exact same way. He didn't. We can't logically follow RAW as the author himself intended, because the book was not written in a logical and consistent manner.

The intent is not the same, so the conclusion is unwarranted.

We can't logically follow RAW as the author himself intended, because the book was not written in a logical and consistent manner.

You can't follow RAW as the author himself intended since, at times, RAW doesn't reflect the intent to begin with. You can logically follow RAW, but at times you are met with problems, at time errors and mistakes. You can use logic, in some parts, to reach some conclusions. At times, you are required to use common sense. At others you have to rule on something that is by its own nature either arbitrary or illogical. As long as it is internally consistent, everything is fine.

You are not expected to follow RAW strictly anyway to begin with, and are explicitly warned about this in the DMG.

I can understand being bummed that some things are not clear. I'm sorry you don't find things suited for your taste.

EDIT EDIT: Taking it further, with JC going back on previous rulings we can't even trust that he knew what his own intentions were in the first place.

Or we can believe in what he said, and take that he made a mistake. At least, if you are referring to the SM thing.

Tanarii

2019-06-26, 07:59 PM

Okay, your doing that thing I mentioned where you declare it but I asked for the rule. I know some people hold that opinion.Its not an opinion. Its a statement that needs to be disproven. A base assumption for a starting point. Unless there is a rule saying you can split actions, there is no reason to assume you can, so ae start with the assumption you cannot. Then when there are rules stating when you can split actions under specific circumstances, the base staring point is proven to be correct. As I said QED: the fact that there are rules showing when you CAN split actions proves the rule that generally you cannot.

Its a classic case of the exception proving the rule.

Keravath

2019-06-26, 08:14 PM

Its not an opinion. Its a statement that needs to be disproven. A base assumption for a starting point. Unless there is a rule saying you can split actions, there is no reason to assume you can, so ae start with the assumption you cannot. Then when there are rules stating when you can split actions under specific circumstances, the base staring point is proven to be correct. As I said QED: the fact that there are rules showing when you CAN split actions proves the rule that generally you cannot.

Its a classic case of the exception proving the rule.

Sorry what?

You state as an assumption that you can't split actions and then say that must be the rule because no where in the rules does it discuss splitting actions?

How about I state as an assumption that I CAN split actions then it must also be the rule because no where in the rules does it indicate that you can't split actions and in fact the rules contain examples where you CAN split actions.

Furthermore, the wording of various rules including bonus actions states that if you have a bonus action available then you can take it at ANY time during your turn. ANY time during your turn must INCLUDE during other actions. So clearly, the rules state that you can split actions since otherwise you could not take a bonus action at ANY time during your turn and instead the rules would have indicated when you could take a bonus action rather than at ANY time during your turn.

Edit: Just curious ... but are you trolling? Pretty effective if you were ... :)

Evaar

2019-06-26, 08:28 PM

How about I state as an assumption that I CAN split actions then it must also be the rule because no where in the rules does it indicate that you can't split actions and in fact the rules contain examples where you CAN split actions.

His point is that the examples you imply at the end of this sentence, where it's specified the places that you can "split" your action, are the exception that proves the rule that otherwise an action cannot be split.

This holds generally with the way 5e rules are written. To use an example I just discussed in another thread, the Message cantrip doesn't say anything about the target needing to speak a language you can understand in order for it to reply to you. However, other features like Awakened Mind from the Great Old One Pact specifically state things like, "You don't need to share a language with the creature for it to understand your telepathic utterances..." That's the exception to the unwritten rule that, in order to communicate magically, you must share a language. It's assumed unless otherwise specified.

With Extra Attacks and Movement, it is otherwise specified. With most Bonus Actions, it is not. Thus, no "splitting" actions unless otherwise specified.

But with all of that said, this is such a nuanced issue that many DMs will disagree and allow characters to do it differently. That's fine and almost certainly not game-breaking. If anything, it's probably more fun. But purely by RAW, that's not in the books.

LudicSavant

2019-06-26, 09:55 PM

Well, per PHB pg190 you can talk at any time as you take your turn. So you can argue about what you can do between attacks between attacks!

Seriously though, Sage Advice has flipped its position on this one a few times. So... ask your DM.

Dalebert

2019-06-26, 10:49 PM

Aimeryan

2019-06-27, 12:04 AM

Where is the rule citing that you can?

Using objects and moving are explicitly called out as being able to be used during or between attacks, unlike bonus actions. If the general rule was that anything could be used between attacks, why the need to call out movement and using objects specifically?

Is it actually a 'need', though? Stating explicitly that you can do something is not saying you can not do something if you do not state it, just that you haven't explicitly pointed it out.

Furthermore, since the general of action atomicity is left up to the DM; if a DM were to rule no to the general, then the specific exceptions like movement and bonus actions would still apply - specific overrules general. This gives reason beyond just being helpful without implying that the general is no - its a safety net for such a ruling.

DrKerosene

2019-06-27, 02:42 AM

To those who insist a bonus action between attacks must be explicitly called out as possible, do you allow counterspell while casting another spell?

I have two answers.
RAW. If they cast a bonus action spell in that turn, then no. If they don’t cast any bonus action spells that turn, then yes.
IRL. I’d probably allow it, just to burn through more of their spell slots faster.

Is it actually a 'need', though? Stating explicitly that you can do something is not saying you can not do something if you do not state it, just that you haven't explicitly pointed it out.
I tried saying something in another thread. I said that 8 hours of sleep does not always automatically qualify as a “long rest” mechanically. And that a Player declaring what they are doing is part of why I said that.

Tanarii

2019-06-27, 05:44 AM

His point is that the examples you imply at the end of this sentence, where it's specified the places that you can "split" your action, are the exception that proves the rule that otherwise an action cannot be split.

This holds generally with the way 5e rules are written.
Exactly. If I start by assuming an unwritten rule of "actions can be split up and taken one within the other", then when I get to specific rules stating you can do so, I instead hit a contradiction. 5e is exception designed, and here's a rule with no purpose, if my starting assumption is correct.

That's my "logic" and I'm sticking with it.

Dalebert this is, of course, an opinion. But it's a "logical" one, using the term in the modern sense of "makes sense to me". :smallamused:

Edit: in regards to counter spell, I thought it specifies an exception as to when you can cast it: when you see another spell being cast.

Edit2: yeah, counterspell says "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of Casting a Spell." So it can be cast when you're casting your own spell. And on their turn, it happens before they finish casting their own spell, which would be the default timing if it was a normal reaction without this clause.

Xetheral

2019-06-27, 06:21 AM

Tanarii

2019-06-27, 06:24 AM

Not really. There's still no purpose to it if you can already split up your action with other things. So it still causes a contradiction if I start by assuming the unwritten rule is you can split up actions.

Either way, we're all assuming an unwritten rule. Either that the default is you can split up actions, or that you cannot. We can just test those assumptions by the exceptions provided.

Dalebert

2019-06-27, 06:51 AM

Exactly. If I start by assuming an unwritten rule of "actions can be split up and taken one within the other", then when I get to specific rules stating you can do so, I instead hit a contradiction. 5e is exception designed, and here's a rule with no purpose, if my starting assumption is correct.

This is exactly my point all along. It's an assumption. There's no written rule. You're taking a case when explicit permission was given to break up your attacks as an exception while I see it as a precedent. You're calling it an exception to some assumed rule that a key designer has since said was not actually the intent, and yet you continue to apply that intent.

Edit2: yeah, counterspell says "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of Casting a Spell." So it can be cast when you're casting your own spell.

Yes obviously it can be cast during someone else's casting but WHILE casting your own spell without interrupting it and causing it to fail? Nowhere in the rules does it explicitly say you CAN do that and yet many times over the designers have clarified their INTENT is that you can. Again, there's no evidence for an "assumed" rule (or intent) about not breaking up your attacks with another action, and in fact there's hard evidence that was not the intent and it's definitely not a written rule.

Bonus actions call be taken at any time barring specific conditions in the action. Bashing with SM says "when taking the attack action" which is explicit permission to do so during the attack. An argument can be made for doing it first as in "a bash can be made as an additional attack you gain when taking the attack action" and I feel I'm being conservative but reasonable to require an attack first making it clear that you've taken the action. Flurry of Blows is more restrictive and states "after".

Tanarii

2019-06-27, 07:00 AM

This is exactly my point all along. It's an assumption. There's no written rule. You're taking a case when explicit permission was given to break up your attacks as an exception while I see it as a precedent. You're calling it an exception to some assumed rule that a key designer has since said was not actually the intent, and yet you continue to apply that intent.

Either way, we're all assuming an unwritten rule. Either that the default is you can split up actions, or that you cannot. We can just test those assumptions by the exceptions provided.
Quoting my relevant response from my next post. You're also making an assumption about an unwritten rule. One that makes an explicit exception called out in the rules pointless.

Dalebert

2019-06-27, 07:04 AM

Tanarii

2019-06-27, 07:08 AM

I disagree that it was pointless. It's an example demonstrating how the attack action is not a discreet thing when you have extra attacks. It was useful as a precedent. It makes no sense as an exception to a non-existent rule.
If 5e was a precedent-based system, you might have a point. But since it's exception based, I'm forced to continue to disagree.

I mean, I'd do that anyway, but in this case I've come up with some justification that makes me feel ... uh, justified. :smallamused:

Asmotherion

2019-06-27, 07:22 AM

DrKerosene

2019-06-27, 07:32 AM

Edit: in regards to counter spell, I thought it specifies an exception as to when you can cast it: when you see another spell being cast.

Edit2: yeah, counterspell says "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of Casting a Spell." So it can be cast when you're casting your own spell. And on their turn, it happens before they finish casting their own spell, which would be the default timing if it was a normal reaction without this clause.

Okay, but this:
Bonus Action

A spell cast with a Bonus Action is especially swift. You must use a Bonus Action on Your Turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven’t already taken a Bonus Action this turn. You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a Casting Time of 1 action.

Which is right above the rules for reaction spell casting. I’ll just direct you to the top response that summarizes how I would rule a PC trying to use Counterspell during their turn when you’ve already cast a Bonus Action spell, this: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/125982/if-your-bonus-action-spell-is-counterspelled-are-you-still-restricted-to-casting

Xetheral

2019-06-27, 07:34 AM

Not really. There's still no purpose to it if you can already split up your action with other things. So it still causes a contradiction if I start by assuming the unwritten rule is you can split up actions.

Fair enough--there's room to disagree here. I would also disagree that a (redundant) clarification qualifies as a contradiction, particularly in a text purposefully written in a non-technical way.

Either way, we're all assuming an unwritten rule. Either that the default is you can split up actions, or that you cannot. We can just test those assumptions by the exceptions provided.

I'm not sure agree with this either, but it may be an issue of nomenclature. Would you consider "gravity" to be an unwritten rule only proved by the existence of the "reverse gravity" spell? Or would you consider "gravity" to not be a rule at all, but instead part of the general idea that the D&D world mimics our own? I would decidedly lean towards the latter.

Similarly, because the D&D world mimics our own, I would assume that one can move while doing other things (and I wouldn't consider that an "unwritten rule"). For example, I would assume that one can move while pushing a heavy cart up a hill because that can be done in the real world. If you instead assume that doing so requires an unwritten rule that movement can take place during an action, and then decide that unwritten rule doesn't exist, you're left with the problem that, while in combat, improvised actions like pushing a heavy cart can only take place before and/or after movement, which means the cart can't be moved at all.

But again, this could just be a difference in terminology where you're using the term "unwritten rule" very broadly to include foundational assumptions, whereas I'm reading it to mean "a rule the designers intended to be part of the game but mistakenly failed to include".

Tanarii

2019-06-27, 08:17 AM

FI'm not sure agree with this either, but it may be an issue of nomenclature. Would you consider "gravity" to be an unwritten rule only proved by the existence of the "reverse gravity" spell? Or would you consider "gravity" to not be a rule at all, but instead part of the general idea that the D&D world mimics our own? I would decidedly lean towards the latter.Sure. I don't belive there's any rule about gravity. Just falling damage.

Similarly, because the D&D world mimics our own, I would assume that one can move while doing other things (and I wouldn't consider that an "unwritten rule"). For example, I would assume that one can move while pushing a heavy cart up a hill because that can be done in the real world. If you instead assume that doing so requires an unwritten rule that movement can take place during an action, and then decide that unwritten rule doesn't exist, you're left with the problem that, while in combat, improvised actions like pushing a heavy cart can only take place before and/or after movement, which means the cart can't be moved at all.Are we talking about rules, or the way the in-universe world operates? You seem to be confusing the two. The former is the abstraction. The rules aren't a simulation.

Chronos

2019-06-27, 08:51 AM

Aimeryan

2019-06-27, 09:39 AM

Just to clarify, Tanarii, do you hold that is it RAW that actions are atomic, or do you hold that it is RAI?

Willie the Duck

2019-06-27, 10:17 AM

They give examples of splitting up the attack action. You can take that as the only time possible OR as a precedent, an example to demonstrate that the attacks can potentially be broken up. And in bonus actions it says they can be taken at any time or they will specify when you can take them. The default is whenever. SM feat says "when you take the attack action". That could even imply they're simultaneous but hardly anything in the rules is so again, after one attack seems fine. The problem with doing it before is something could prevent the attack action.

And btw, is it stated anywhere in the PHB that you can take a reaction in the MIDDLE of casting a spell? I don't think so and yet it is now generally accepted you can counterspell while casting because the designers said that's the intent. To those who insist a bonus action between attacks must be explicitly called out as possible, do you allow counterspell while casting another spell?

Dalebert, I think your ask is simply too great for the rigors of the ruleset in question. I appreciate both the desire for this and the challenge you’ve had just explaining to people what you’re trying to ferret out. The ‘no, don’t tell me it must be so because XYZ, tell me why it’s so’ bit is a hard departure from the normal ‘let’s argue over it’ way that most of the rules debates tend to go.

The biggest problem is that the designers specifically went with a natural language approach, meaning that greater wordspace went to places where polishing edges than defining the main for that bears the edges. There’s also an assumption that we’re all big boys&girls and can figure out the obvious stuff ourselves. That the rogue can’t dash away in between someone rolling a successful attack against them and them rolling damage dice isn’t stated because, to the designer’s mind, it doesn’t need to be (as Tanarii stated, falling damage has a rule but gravity doesn’t). That’s the kind of thing that makes an attempt to look for a genuinely exhaustive, ‘take me through every step in the process’-level process an exercise in frustration.

Second to that, the dirty, insidious, vaguely jarring subtext is that the pure ruleset, as written, doesn’t actually have to be coherent, exhaustive, and sensical. One might assume such in a case, and we’ve seen that above (the ‘exception proves the rule’ concept is predicated on the clause that the rule must exist if the exception is stated, because it’s ridiculous to include the exceptional reference if there isn’t a general rule that it is an exception to. However, there isn’t actually a requirement that it not be ridiculous). Every time we make an argument that ‘it must be X, because the contrapositive doesn’t make sense’ we are making the assumption that there was a goal of making sense (and that the designers succeeded at that goal). Even leaving behind that the designers might not have succeeded at perfectly wording the ruleset to what they intended to say, they didn’t necessarily intend the pure ruleset to be 100% sensical because they were assuming that people would apply various layers of common sense (gravity exists beyond the falling rules, there isn’t a space for a dash action between a weapon hit and a weapon damage, because they are part of the same physical event, etc.) on top of it.

Exactly. If I start by assuming an unwritten rule of "actions can be split up and taken one within the other", then when I get to specific rules stating you can do so, I instead hit a contradiction. 5e is exception designed, and here's a rule with no purpose, if my starting assumption is correct.

That's my "logic" and I'm sticking with it.

Dalebert this is, of course, an opinion. But it's a "logical" one, using the term in the modern sense of "makes sense to me". :smallamused:

And I think this is the level of granularity we can get to with the ruleset in question. ‘It must be the case because the contrary case creates a contradiction or leaves in existence a rule or statement with no purpose’ isn’t exactly the level of what I’d call a proof, but it’s sufficient for reasonable interpretation of designer intent. Still, something is nagging at me. We all say that D&D is exception-based (I’d hazard in general no one would argue against that, although I am prepared to be surprised). However, other than every analyst (and the designers, perhaps) saying so, how do we know that? Wouldn’t that also be emergent from the text we’re analyzing, and if we found an instance where exception-based rule design isn’t evidenced, we run into an exception in the exception-based design? Within the framework of Dalebert’s ‘no really, show me the steps’-level ask, shouldn’t that assumption also be up for verification?

Xetheral

2019-06-27, 11:20 AM

Are we talking about rules, or the way the in-universe world operates? You seem to be confusing the two. The former is the abstraction. The rules aren't a simulation.

I'm saying that, just like there doesn't need to be an unwritten rule for gravity, there doesn't need to be a rule (written or not) saying you can walk and take an action at the same time. Accordingly, I disagree with your claim that one must inevitably choose between two conflicting unwritten rules.

Dalebert

2019-06-27, 12:35 PM

Okay, but this:

Which is right above the rules for reaction spell casting. I’ll just direct you to the top response that summarizes how I would rule a PC trying to use Counterspell during their turn when you’ve already cast a Bonus Action spell, this: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/125982/if-your-bonus-action-spell-is-counterspelled-are-you-still-restricted-to-casting

Not disputing that. I think you missed my point. Disregard bonus action spells a moment. If necessary, just imagine a standard fireball. Consider the following analogy.

Scenario A:
* Bob starts casting Fireball.
* Sue counterspells Fireball.
* Bob counterspells Sue's counterspell WHILE still in the middle of casting Fireball and then finishes casting Fireball.
* The designers have validated this scenario despite nowhere in the rules explicitly stating you can cast a spell in the middle of another spell and it is now broadly accepted.

Scenario B:
* Bob chooses the attack action and attacks once.
* Bob uses Shield Master to bash (bonus action)
* Bob completes the attack action with his second attack.

Scenario A is fine but B is not. Why? Because they gave an example of doing things in between attacks but they didn't list this and every other case of things you may be able to do between attacks. Also Crawford has explicitly stated on the record scenario B was intended to be allowed and yet the ban on it must have been intended because they listed an example but didn't explicitly list this specific example.

Yes, that is how absurd the argument sounds to me.

JackPhoenix

2019-06-27, 02:49 PM

Not disputing that. I think you missed my point. Disregard bonus action spells a moment. If necessary, just imagine a standard fireball. Consider the following analogy.

Scenario A:
* Bob starts casting Fireball.
* Sue counterspells Fireball.
* Bob counterspells Sue's counterspell WHILE still in the middle of casting Fireball and then finishes casting Fireball.
* The designers have validated this scenario despite nowhere in the rules explicitly stating you can cast a spell in the middle of another spell and it is now broadly accepted.

Scenario B:
* Bob chooses the attack action and attacks once.
* Bob uses Shield Master to bash (bonus action)
* Bob completes the attack action with his second attack.

Scenario A is fine but B is not. Why? Because they gave an example of doing things in between attacks but they didn't list this and every other case of things you may be able to do between attacks. Also Crawford has explicitly stated on the record scenario B was intended to be allowed and yet the ban on it must have been intended because they listed an example but didn't explicitly list this specific example.

Yes, that is how absurd the argument sounds to me.

A isn't fine, because that's not how things work. Bob isn't "in the middle of casting Fireball" when he casts Counterspell. Bob casts Fireball. Sue counterspells Bob's Fireball, causing it to (retroactively, the same way Shield works) have no effect. Bob counterspells Sue's Counterspell, again, causing it to retroactively have no effect. But the Fireball and the first Counterspell were both cast before they were counterspelled.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/11/11/does-a-failed-spellcasting-because-of-counterspell-still-count-as-a-trigger-for-mage-slayers-attack/
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/12/20/a-interrupts-with-counterspell-an-ongoing-spellcasting-process-of-b-b-losts-his-spell-slot/

Evaar

2019-06-27, 03:55 PM

Arial Black

2019-06-27, 07:16 PM

The reason they explicitly put in the rule about movement between attacks was because it worked differently in previous editions, and they wanted to make sure that people weren't confused by how it used to work.

It's certainly not because it's an exception to the unwritten "flowchart rule". If the game really worked using a flowchart, that wouldn't even be a rule; it'd be a framework. A rule can have exceptions, but exceptions to a framework don't even make sense. It's not meaningful to talk of things happening within other things in a flowchart, and you can't even say "well, this is an exception to the flowchart". If you have anything at all happening within something else, then you just plain can't have a flowchart at all.

QFT.

'Movement between attacks' is not an exception to an (unwritten and non-existent!) 'rule' about not splitting actions! It is a clarification that in 5e, unlike in the previous editions, you CAN move both before, after, and even during your attack action.

It was absolutely required, as a clarification, otherwise the players of previous editions would assume this rules aspect had not changed and you could only move either before or after your attack.

It is a clarification, not an exception, and therefore does not 'prove' that 'actions are indivisible'!

Arial Black

2019-06-27, 07:57 PM

A isn't fine, because that's not how things work. Bob isn't "in the middle of casting Fireball" when he casts Counterspell. Bob casts Fireball. Sue counterspells Bob's Fireball, causing it to (retroactively, the same way Shield works) have no effect. Bob counterspells Sue's Counterspell, again, causing it to retroactively have no effect. But the Fireball and the first Counterspell were both cast before they were counterspelled.

No! Both you and JC are wrong about this. Yes, JC can (and frequently is) wrong about his own rules.

Counterspell is cast as a reaction. Reactions need a trigger. For counterspell, the trigger is, "when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell".

According to the rules from the Spellcasting chapter in the PHB, the process of casting a spell is one of Cause and Effect:-

* Cause: "A spell's components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it". "If you can't provide one or more of the spell's components, you are unable to cast the spell".

* Effect: the spell effect begins, and lasts for its duration.

VSM components -> spell effect

There can be no overlap between Cause and Effect here, because until the Cause has been (successfully) completed there is no effect!

Note that there are other requirements too. Even if you provide those VSM components perfectly, nothing will happen if you don't expend an appropriate spell slot (or charge, or one use of a special ability, as the case may be).

It takes time to complete this process. You have to say the magic words, perform the mystic gestures, and provide the bat poop. This doesn't take zero time! It takes a finite, though unspecified, time from starting the process, all through the process, until the process is complete. Assuming the components are completed successfully, the spell effect begins and lasts for its duration.

It also requires you to expend that slot/charge/daily use, whether or not the spell is cast successfully. Thus, interfering with the casting process (i.e. the VSM components) means that the slot/charge/daily use is lost even though the spell effect never occurred.

While the VSM components are happening (which is before the effect even begins to exist) you are 'casting the spell'. Once the VSM components have been (successfully) completed (and the spell effect begins), the spell has 'been cast'.

Counterspell's trigger is not the spell effect beginning! That would require dispel magic to neutralise. Counterspell's trigger is seeing the VSM components being performed. That's why Subtle Spells cannot be counterspelled, because that metamagic allows you to cast a spell without any VSM components; replaced by an act of will and 1 Sorcery Point.

So, the baddie wants to cast fireball on your party, and starts saying the magic words, performing the mystic gestures, and milking his bat familiar! Before he can complete his chanting, you cast counterspell, in reaction to seeing him 'casting a spell'.

If your counterspell works, it causes him to fail to successfully complete the required VSM components. He uses his slot/charge/daily use, but the spell effect never even begins.

From counterspell: "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell....On a success, the creature's spell fails and has no effect (as in, no spell effect occurs)".

The upshot is that in the scenario where you begin to cast fireball and the enemy counterspells it, you can counterspell his counterspell, even though that means you are casting one spell whilst in the middle of casting another.

JackPhoenix

2019-06-27, 10:25 PM

Yeah.... no. That's not how it works.

Counterspell is cast as a reaction. Reactions need a trigger. For counterspell, the trigger is, "when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell".
I don't know why the bolded part is there. Bolding random words doesn't make you right... just look at any sorcerer king thread.

According to the rules from the Spellcasting chapter in the PHB, the process of casting a spell is one of Cause and Effect:-

* Cause: "A spell's components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it". "If you can't provide one or more of the spell's components, you are unable to cast the spell".

* Effect: the spell effect begins, and lasts for its duration.

VSM components -> spell effect

There can be no overlap between Cause and Effect here, because until the Cause has been (successfully) completed there is no effect!

Note that there are other requirements too. Even if you provide those VSM components perfectly, nothing will happen if you don't expend an appropriate spell slot (or charge, or one use of a special ability, as the case may be).
The "cause" isn't "VSM components". It's "a spell was cast". VSM components are optional... not every spell has all of them, and there are ways to ignore some of them. The effect also may not occur immediately after the spellcasting: if you Ready a spell, the spellcasting process happens when you use your action, but the effect doesn't happen until the triggering condition pass. Or possibly doesn't happen at all, if the caster's concentration gets broken, triggering condition never happens, or the caster doesn't want to (or can't) use his reaction.

It takes time to complete this process. You have to say the magic words, perform the mystic gestures, and provide the bat poop. This doesn't take zero time! It takes a finite, though unspecified, time from starting the process, all through the process, until the process is complete. Assuming the components are completed successfully, the spell effect begins and lasts for its duration.
Indeed. And that time is covered by the action (or reaction) required by the spell. When you spend the action, the spell is cast. The only exception occurs when spell has longer casting time. Which is actually the only situation where you can interrupt the spell during the process of casting. Notably, the required resources (consumed components and spell slot, if appropriate) aren't expended in such case.

It also requires you to expend that slot/charge/daily use, whether or not the spell is cast successfully. Thus, interfering with the casting process (i.e. the VSM components) means that the slot/charge/daily use is lost even though the spell effect never occurred.
If you can't provide necessary components, you're not expending anything, you aren't casting a spell at all. No slots (or whatever) are being used.

While the VSM components are happening (which is before the effect even begins to exist) you are 'casting the spell'. Once the VSM components have been (successfully) completed (and the spell effect begins), the spell has 'been cast'.
Yes. And the spellcasting process (again, not "VSM components") happens when you spend the required action. Counterspell doesn't prevent that.

Counterspell's trigger is not the spell effect beginning! That would require dispel magic to neutralise. Counterspell's trigger is seeing the VSM components being performed. That's why Subtle Spells cannot be counterspelled, because that metamagic allows you to cast a spell without any VSM components; replaced by an act of will and 1 Sorcery Point.
Some subtle spells can be counterspelled. They still have M component. Funnily enough, a caster with Counterspell can somehow tell the difference between just holding your rod and holding your rod while casting a spell, even if you use Subtle metamagic to remove the need to fiddle with it.

So, the baddie wants to cast fireball on your party, and starts saying the magic words, performing the mystic gestures, and milking his bat familiar! Before he can complete his chanting, you cast counterspell, in reaction to seeing him 'casting a spell'.

If your counterspell works, it causes him to fail to successfully complete the required VSM components. He uses his slot/charge/daily use, but the spell effect never even begins.
Counterspell doesn't interfere with spellcasting components in any way. All it does is causing the spell to have no effect.

From counterspell: "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell....On a success, the creature's spell fails and has no effect (as in, no spell effect occurs)".
Indeed. The spell fails and has no effect, however, that doesn't mean the spell wasn't cast. The action was spent, any components were provided, and potentially consumed (in the case of certain M components), and the spell slot (or charge, or daily use, or nothing at all, depending on spell) was expended.

Aimeryan

2019-06-28, 06:38 AM

Counterspell occurs during casting, not after the spell is cast. 'Casting' is a present progressive verb, not a past perfect/discontinuous verb.

The discussion seems to be about whether a spell can be cast within a spell, with the current point being that as long as you can indeed Counterspell a Counterspell while casting another spell then the answer is yes. However, I feel this is circular; you can only Counterspell a Counterspell while casting another spell as long as the DM rules that actions are not atomic - hence, this does not prove the rule but is instead the result of the rule.

There is no written rule for whether actions are atomic or not; it will remain a DM ruling until this changes.

ThePolarBear

2019-06-28, 07:30 AM

However, I feel this is circular; you can only Counterspell a Counterspell while casting another spell as long as the DM rules that actions are not atomic - hence, this does not prove the rule but is instead the result of the rule.

DM rulings however are disconnected from the presence of a rule or not. A DM has the possibility to rule however they wish to, even completely disregarding the rules, and this leads that your reasoning only proves that once you consider what a DM can do and not what the rules say, you are not going to have an answer on what the rules say or what the results of the rules are with the exception of "a DM can choose whatever". The only rule that matters at that point is "A DM can choose whatever".

5e is an exception based system. While i agree you are not going to cast counterspell while casting a spell if the DM tell you "no", by the reaction rules you can take reactions when immediately after the trigger completes, and Counterspell builds upon those rules for its own specific.

Even if there was a rule that prevented casting while casting, Counterspell, and reactions, could be more specific and a case could be made anyway based on wording.
There isn't, however, a rule that prevents this from happening just for that reason. What there is is a base of general rules that are written to be riddled by exceptions. Nothing prevents you from casting a spell unless you can't provide all the necessary steps to do so and the conditions are right. "Not being in the process of casting a spell" is not one of those conditions or necessary steps.

RSP

2019-06-28, 08:06 AM

You can use a free actιon; examples incluse drawing a weapon in your empty hand/getting something out of your bag (Alchemist's fire for example) or getting something from the ground (a pebble to use for a sling for example).

I feel this example has been ignored for some reason, but it’s a good one.

Likewise, if a Cleric is casting a Ritual spell during combat (for whatever reason), their Action and, indeed, the full ~6 seconds of the round (as they’ll be casting for 10 mins+), is taken up. Can they still cast Healing Word? Can they still cast Spiritual Weapon, and in subsequent rounds do the BA Attack?

Nothing in the RAW says they can’t, it just requires your Concentration and Action over that span of time.

Chronos

2019-06-28, 08:26 AM

RSP

2019-06-28, 11:31 AM

The bonus action spell rule would prevent that. But if the cleric had some non-spell bonus action available (likely as a result of multiclassing), then they could still use that. They could also continue moving while casting.

Possibly; it all depends on how you read “You can’t cast another spell during the same turn..”

So as not to deviate from the point, assume the Cleric cast SW prior to the Ritual Casting, and is only using the BA to make the Attack.

Dalebert

2019-06-28, 02:12 PM

A isn't fine, because that's not how things work. Bob isn't "in the middle of casting Fireball" when he casts Counterspell.

First line of counterspell: "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell."

So per the RAW that's exactly what's happening.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/11/11/does-a-failed-spellcasting-because-of-counterspell-still-count-as-a-trigger-for-mage-slayers-attack/
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/12/20/a-interrupts-with-counterspell-an-ongoing-spellcasting-process-of-b-b-losts-his-spell-slot/

Are we back to ignoring the RAW in favor of tweets? Because Crawford also tweeted that you can shield master bash between attacks. Regardless neither of those disputes the fact that counterspell interrupts, i.e. happens during the casting of the other spell.

Arial Black

2019-06-29, 12:03 AM

Yeah.... no. That's not how it works.

You're simply wrong here, Jack.

You're saying that a spell is successfully cast, and then counterspell comes into play, preventing the existing spell effect from occurring.

But counterspell works by interrupting the process of casting, so that the target spell's effect never even begins, because it causes the spellcasting process to fail.

I'm constantly amazed by the weird things some posters honestly believe!

DrKerosene

2019-06-29, 01:46 AM

You're simply wrong here, Jack.

You're saying that a spell is successfully cast, and then counterspell comes into play, preventing the existing spell effect from occurring.

But counterspell works by interrupting the process of casting, so that the target spell's effect never even begins, because it causes the spellcasting process to fail.

I'm constantly amazed by the weird things some posters honestly believe!

Yeah, it very clearly states that readied actions (which are “Reactions”) take place after the trigger. On page 192 of the PHB:

When the trigger occurs, you can either take your reaction right after the trigger finishes or ignore the trigger. Remember that you can take only one reaction per round.

Silly Jack, thinking a Reaction Spell would follow the same rules as taking any other kind of Reaction.
It’s not like Sentinel can retroactively prevent movement, so why would Counterspell undo a spell that just happened? [/end of sarcasm]

But seriously, where does it say Counterspell “causes the spellcasting process to fail”? I want a page number (and a book). I don’t see that text in my PHB’s spell section.

Counterspell causes the spell to fail. Just the spell, not the spellcasting process. You’ve already been wrong about saying the Subtle Spell Metamagic ignores Material Components. I want citations, or I’ll assume you’re trying to get people to participate in recreating this: https://imgur.com/gallery/k3JEi

ThePolarBear

2019-06-29, 02:27 AM

Yeah, it very clearly states that readied actions (which are “Reactions”) take place after the trigger. On page 192 of the PHB

And Counterspell says it in an attempt at interruping something that is ongoing. You know, Specific > General.

But seriously, where does it say Counterspell “causes the spellcasting process to fail”? I want a page number (and a book).

"You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. lf the creature is casting a spell of 3rd levei or lower, its spell fails and has no effect."

It says that the spell fails. 228, PHB. As written, it is a consequence of a successful interruption of the spellcasting since the spell is only of 3rd level or below. If the spell is of higher level, there's a roll to determine if the interruption is successful.

Counterspell causes the spell to fail. Just the spell, not the spellcasting process.

"You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell."

If the spellcasting process has been successfully interrupted, the spell fails. Queue mechanics to determine the interruption.
Silly us to read the spell as a cause/effect, i guess.

DrKerosene

2019-06-29, 07:41 AM

"You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. lf the creature is casting a spell of 3rd levei or lower, its spell fails and has no effect."

It says that the spell fails. 228, PHB. As written... I’m glad to see that you are able to provide quotes and page references. Instead of just saying “no u wrong”.

Silly us to read the spell as a cause/effect, i guess.-Absorb Elements triggers as a result of taking elemental damage (and changes how much).
-Shield triggers as a result of being hit (and changes it to a miss).
-Sentinel feat can trigger as a result of movement (and then can prevent it by changing their movement speed to 0).
-Counterspell triggers after a spell has been cast (and you want that spell to not happen).

All of those are specific reactions that take place after an effect and then change it.

If your interpretation of Counterspell takes place before the enemy caster cast finished their spell, then how do you know what spell you are Counterspelling? If the mage hasn’t finished casting for you to then declare you want to attempt to Counterspell that particular spell, then you’re just blindly throwing out a Counterspell hoping it is used against a Fireball spell and not a Firebolt Cantrip.

The flavorful wording of the spell is nice, but dysfunctional with how you’re trying to interpret it.

Otherwise, how many Counterspells can be used to Counterspell other Counterspells? How many interruptions can be interrupted? This seems exactly like the 3.5e Attack Of Opportunity Chains: http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041102a

Edit:

"You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell."
If the spellcasting process has been successfully interrupted, the spell fails. Queue mechanics to determine the interruption.
And according to Ariel Black, that mechanical interruption is:
Thus, interfering with the casting process (i.e. the VSM components) means that the slot/charge/daily use is lost even though the spell effect never occurred.The VSM components.

I was under the impression Counterspell just makes the final output of a spell “fail” instead of the usual result, but please explain to me which part of VSM is specifically meddled with by a Counterspell, as according to Ariel Black who you are defending. I appreciate your use of page numbers, keep it up.

Tanarii

2019-06-29, 08:34 AM

Still, something is nagging at me. We all say that D&D is exception-based (I’d hazard in general no one would argue against that, although I am prepared to be surprised). However, other than every analyst (and the designers, perhaps) saying so, how do we know that?
"Exception-based" comes from "Specific vs General". Which is on the third page of the PHB introduction.

Specific Beats General
This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.
Exceptions to the rules are often minor. For instance, many adventurers don’t have proficiency with longbows, but every wood elf does because of a racial trait. That trait creates a minor exception in the game. Other exam- ples of rule-breaking are more conspicuous. For instance, an adventurer can’t normally pass through walls, but some spells make that possible. Magic accounts for most of the major exceptions to the rules.

Chronos

2019-06-29, 09:06 AM

Quoth DrKerosene:

If your interpretation of Counterspell takes place before the enemy caster cast finished their spell, then how do you know what spell you are Counterspelling?
You don't. You just have to take a guess as to whether the enemy caster is doing something you really won't like. Sure, Counterspell would be more powerful if you could tell, but there's no rule that says that everything has to be super-powerful.

E’Tallitnics

2019-06-29, 09:49 AM

Tanarii

2019-06-29, 10:06 AM

E’Tallitnics

2019-06-29, 10:14 AM

You don't. You just have to take a guess as to whether the enemy caster is doing something you really won't like. Sure, Counterspell would be more powerful if you could tell, but there's no rule that says that everything has to be super-powerful.

Counterspell can stop a Wish from happening! Arguably making it (a 3rd-Level spell) the single most powerful spell known in the D&D multiverse.

The fact that RAW the caster of Counterspell doesn’t know what spell is being cast seems to be a nice counterbalance.

Aimeryan

2019-06-29, 10:28 AM

DM rulings however are disconnected from the presence of a rule or not. A DM has the possibility to rule however they wish to, even completely disregarding the rules, and this leads that your reasoning only proves that once you consider what a DM can do and not what the rules say, you are not going to have an answer on what the rules say or what the results of the rules are with the exception of "a DM can choose whatever". The only rule that matters at that point is "A DM can choose whatever".

5e is an exception based system. While i agree you are not going to cast counterspell while casting a spell if the DM tell you "no", by the reaction rules you can take reactions when immediately after the trigger completes, and Counterspell builds upon those rules for its own specific.

Even if there was a rule that prevented casting while casting, Counterspell, and reactions, could be more specific and a case could be made anyway based on wording.
There isn't, however, a rule that prevents this from happening just for that reason. What there is is a base of general rules that are written to be riddled by exceptions. Nothing prevents you from casting a spell unless you can't provide all the necessary steps to do so and the conditions are right. "Not being in the process of casting a spell" is not one of those conditions or necessary steps.

I don't think there is anything in that I disagree with, but I might have missed something.

You are correct that a DM can forgo ruling the general and only rule the specific, one rule at a time. In this case there is no general rule in play and so it comes down to 'whatever the DM decides for that case'.

However, at some point most DMs will, perhaps without realising, make a general rule about whether or not you can take an action within an action by precedent. This will usually happen by not stating the 'in this case...' and instead simply replying with a 'yes' or 'no', which then forms a general rule as consistency plays out - players will call on a DM if consistency is not held up (unless it is just that kind of game).

So, you end up with things like:

- 'Can I attack with my action surge while I'm dodging?' 'DM: Yeah, go ahead.'

- 'I use my bonus action to disengage, move to the weakened Orc, and use my action to attack. *Rolls d20*. Does 17 hit?' 'DM: Yup, roll for damage'. '12.' 'DM: The Orc is barely able to remain standing, but is not dead just yet.' 'Alright, I'll use my remaining movement to back away.' 'DM: That provokes an... oh wait, still disengaging, carry on.'

- 'I use my first attack on the near dead wolf.' *rolls hit, damage, wolf dies* 'Hmm, if I move over to those two wolves my quickened greenflame blade might kill the one already wounded and I can use my remaining attack on the other, but if not I'll want to finish it off with the attack.' 'DM: Ok, roll to hit with greenflame blade.' *rolls hit, damage* 'DM: The blade lashes out in an arc of blood. The wolf gathers itself to carry on the fight for a moment before falling limply to the floor.' 'Hah, any less damage and I think it may not have been enough.' 'DM: Go ahead and roll to hit with your last attack on the other wolf if you like.'

~~~

Yeah, it very clearly states that readied actions (which are “Reactions”) take place after the trigger.

The problem with 'after the trigger' is that it still interacts with atomicity. If the DM rules that actions are atomic in general then only specific exceptions overrule that. This means 'after the trigger', whereby the trigger is something within an action, can still be forced to come after the action unless specifically excepted.

Again though, to restate, there is no general rule that actions are atomic or not. The DM will have to rule this (formally or by precedent).

Nagog

2019-06-29, 11:16 AM

That is your interpretation, but you are making assumptions on what is meant by any point, and not addressing why other things are specifically called out as able to be used between or during attacks.The presence of these specific rules make this a very hazy interpretation that could go either way.

JC wrote a good book, but he did not do a great job writing a concrete RAW text. There are people from legal professions who could have written the rules in such a way that we did not have to make assumptions, but as it is RAW isn't what its cracked up to be for 5th edition. It's hardly even worth arguing over what is RAW. It's better to just play with some common sense, and always keep the rule of cool in mind.

While I agree with the Rule of Cool substituting in where RAW is lacking (and in my own games, sometimes overriding RAW), it already states in the Bonus Action rules that it can be taken whenever the player chooses, as long as any timing constraints listed in the BA's description are fulfilled. That is the RAW. The specifics of Shield Bash are irrelevant to the OP's question.

Arial Black

2019-07-03, 01:15 AM

I’m glad to see that you are able to provide quotes and page references. Instead of just saying “no u wrong”.

I didn't feel I needed to provide a page number, since I was quoting the spell itself. How was I to know you hadn't read the spell description? Still, that explains why you are so....wrong about a spell.

-Absorb Elements triggers as a result of taking elemental damage (and changes how much).
-Shield triggers as a result of being hit (and changes it to a miss).
-Sentinel feat can trigger as a result of movement (and then can prevent it by changing their movement speed to 0).
-Counterspell triggers after a spell has been cast (and you want that spell to not happen).

No! Quoting the spell itself (on p228 of the PHB; I know you like your page numbers!), the trigger is not "after the spell has been cast (past tense, with the spell effect now begun)". The trigger is, "when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell (present tense, when the magic words are being spoken, the mystic gestures performed, and the bat poop provided). The reason counterspell works is because its effects take place before the VSM components have been completed! And, according to the rules for casting spells (p203, PHB), "A spell's components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it.....If you can't provide one or more of a spell's components, you are unable to cast the spell".

No successfully completed VSM components = no spell effect.

So, you see a caster begin casting a spell (i.e. providing the components), and that triggers your reaction counterspell.

Although the general rules for reactions is that they occur after the trigger completes, the trigger in this case is not "the entire VSM casting process from start to finish", because if you waited that long then the spell would already be successfully cast, counterspell would do nothing, and you would need dispel magic in order to deal with the existing spell effect, assuming that there was still an existing spell effect to dispel! No, the trigger is, "the caster beginning to perform the required VSM components", and since the trigger is 'the beginning' of the process, that trigger has already happened ('the beginning') as soon as you see it, and the end of that process has not yet been reached, so the spell has not yet been successfully cast.

If your interpretation of Counterspell takes place before the enemy caster cast finished their spell, then how do you know what spell you are Counterspelling?

You don't. Nobody claimed otherwise.

If the mage hasn’t finished casting for you to then declare you want to attempt to Counterspell that particular spell, then you’re just blindly throwing out a Counterspell hoping it is used against a Fireball spell and not a Firebolt Cantrip.

Yep.

And according to Ariel Black, that mechanical interruption is:The VSM components.

To be precise, the 'spellcasting process' is being interrupted.

I was under the impression Counterspell just makes the final output of a spell “fail” instead of the usual result...

We got that. :smallsmile:

...
but please explain to me which part of VSM is specifically meddled with by a Counterspell, as according to Ariel Black who you are defending. I appreciate your use of page numbers, keep it up.

The VSM components, although a required part of spellcasting (unless replaced by Subtle spell/magic item/etc; although those exceptions are irrelevant here because counterspell only works on spells that DO have V, S, and/or M components), the VSM components are not the WHOLE of what is required for spellcasting! You need to have the spell known or prepared (or have a magic item or spell-like ability or what have you), and expend an appropriate slot (or use per day or charge or whatever).

To understand this, picture Grog the Stupid Fighter, who has no casting ability whatsoever: no known or prepared spells, no slots, no magic items, no racial abilities, nothing. Grog could, in theory, correctly say the right magic words, perfectly make the right gestures, and provide a plentiful amount of bat poop, and would the effects of a fireball appear?

No! If it were that easy, then anyone could cast fireball at first level!

So, to prevent a spell being successfully cast, you could mess with ANY of that! You could have a readied silence spell to prevent the caster successfully completing the verbal component, you could have a readied antimagic field within which spells can't be cast.

We are not informed exactly how counterspell interferes with the casting process, we only know that it does. We know that, because the spell description of counterspell says that it does, and spells do exactly what it says on the tin.

This lack of explanation should not surprise us, since spells don't say how they effect The Weave exactly, they don't tell us what the magic words or the mystic gestures actually are, they just tell us which spells have which components. Our characters know the magic words of the spells they cast, but us players don't know and don't need to know.

And the reason they do tell us which spells have which components, and don't need to tell us what the actual words and gestures are, is so that we can adjudicate situations which might mess with spellcasting. Gagged? No casting spells with verbal components for you, my lad! What's that? You're casting counterspell, which doesn't have a verbal component? Then go ahead. I should have tied your hands so you couldn't perform somatic components, and counterspell does require those.

I know that, because I read the spell description on p228 of the PHB, as well as Chapter 10: Spellcasting, beginning on p201 of the PHB.

DrKerosene

2019-07-03, 04:52 AM

No! Quoting the spell itself (on p228 of the PHB; I know you like your page numbers!), the trigger is not "after the spell has been cast (past tense, with the spell effect now begun)". The trigger is, "when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell (present tense, when the magic words are being spoken, the mystic gestures performed, and the bat poop provided). The reason counterspell works is because its effects take place before the VSM components have been completed! And, according to the rules for casting spells (p203, PHB), "A spell's components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it.....If you can't provide one or more of a spell's components, you are unable to cast the spell".

No, the trigger is, "the caster beginning to perform the required VSM components", and since the trigger is 'the beginning' of the process, that trigger has already happened ('the beginning') as soon as you see it, and the end of that process has not yet been reached, so the spell has not yet been successfully cast.
I bolded and colored the parts you are fabricating. You seem to be fixated on the VSM components.
I'll post the body of Counterspell, do you deny that it says absolutely nothing about VSM components?

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.
Go ahead, show me where it says anything about VSM.

To be precise, the 'spellcasting process' is being interrupted. Good to see you're changing what you're saying.

...the VSM components are not the WHOLE of what is required for spellcasting! You need to have the spell known or prepared (or have a magic item or spell-like ability or what have you), and expend an appropriate slot (or use per day or charge or whatever). If there are unknown aspects of casting a spell that Grog lacks, perhaps Counterspell interacts with those. Like smoothing the weave just as the spell effect would normally manifest. I agree it seems easier to handwaive how it works, rather than making up additional details about how Counterspell works.

So, to prevent a spell being successfully cast, you could mess with ANY of that! You could have a readied silence spell to prevent the caster successfully completing the verbal component, you could have a readied antimagic field within which spells can't be cast.Nope (we're going in a circle now). The enemy mage finishes their spell, then your readied action Silence goes off after. Which is probably only useful against spells that require instructions like Suggestion or Summon Greater Demon.

We are not informed exactly how counterspell interferes with the casting process, we only know that it does. We know that, because the spell description of counterspell says that it does, and spells do exactly what it says on the tin. Thank you for agreeing with me about how Counterspell specifically does not interact with VSM. That seemed hard to agree on.

Our characters know the magic words of the spells they cast, but us players don't know...Evidently.

I know that, because I read the spell description on p228 of the PHB, as well as Chapter 10: Spellcasting, beginning on p201 of the PHB.And you had originally made up some extra words where you thought Counterspell specifically interacts with the ability for a mage to speak the verbal components, freely gesture the somantic components, or did something to the material components. But that has been sorted out, so all is well.

Swosh

2019-07-03, 05:39 AM

Arial Black is right. This is expanded upon in Xanthar's Guide to Everything.

"To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component. The form of a material component doesn’t matter for the purposes of perception, whether it’s an object specified in the spell’s description, a component pouch, or a spellcasting focus.

If the need for a spell’s components has been removed by a special ability, such as the sorcerer’s Subtle Spell feature or the Innate Spellcasting trait possessed by many creatures, the casting of the spell is imperceptible. If an imperceptible casting produces a perceptible effect, it’s normally impossible to determine who cast the spell in the absence of other evidence."

So, ergo its the VSM components that's lets you perceive that a spell is being cast, which makes you able to cast Counterspell.

"* - which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell"

Kyutaru

2019-07-03, 06:05 AM

I’m still wondering where it’s written that once a player announces their Action for their turn that it must happen immediately.

I’m also wondering where it’s written that once their announced Action starts that they can do nothing else until said Action has been completed.

Because both of those things aren’t “common sense” and both radically alter how events unfold.

I'm still wondering why people are treating this like Magic the Gathering or a tabletop competitive war game. If I want to swing on the chandelier while attacking a skeleton, no one is telling me I can't do two things at once with my multiple limbs. The rules are guidelines for what can be done in the game but they don't go into detail of the sum total of actions that can be done either. Interrupting an action with another action or doing two actions at the same time is more than plausible if both can reasonably be done simultaneously. I don't need to let go of the guy I'm grappling to kick a lever.

opaopajr

2019-07-03, 06:22 AM

Don't read into it that which isn't textually there. It's easier that way. Stop seeking permission when there is already no explicit restriction. :smallcool:

Tanarii

2019-07-03, 08:39 AM

I'm still wondering why people are treating this like Magic the Gathering or a tabletop competitive war game. If I want to swing on the chandelier while attacking a skeleton, no one is telling me I can't do two things at once with my multiple limbs. The rules are guidelines for what can be done in the game but they don't go into detail of the sum total of actions that can be done either. Interrupting an action with another action or doing two actions at the same time is more than plausible if both can reasonably be done simultaneously. I don't need to let go of the guy I'm grappling to kick a lever.
I'm wondering why some people are confusing resolving the rules with what's going on in game. They aren't a simulation, this is not a physics engine for the in-game universe. It's an abstraction, rules for resolution.

Willie the Duck

2019-07-03, 09:11 AM

I'm still wondering why people are treating this like Magic the Gathering or a tabletop competitive war game. If I want to swing on the chandelier while attacking a skeleton, no one is telling me I can't do two things at once with my multiple limbs. The rules are guidelines for what can be done in the game but they don't go into detail of the sum total of actions that can be done either. Interrupting an action with another action or doing two actions at the same time is more than plausible if both can reasonably be done simultaneously. I don't need to let go of the guy I'm grappling to kick a lever.

Well, it is the premise of the thread. Sometimes just asking, 'What is the RAW of ______' is enough to get people who absolutely thoroughly do. not. care. about RAW to fight to the proverbial death over the matter.

To be fair to the forumites here, the designers also can't help themselves. They made clear that this was going to be the natural language/ruling over rules/you know what we mean/use your best judgment edition, and then almost immediately set about answering the finer minutia of extremely split hairs within the ruleset on Twitter.

Kyutaru

2019-07-03, 10:56 AM

As it says on page 235 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide, “The rules serve you, not vice versa.”

Because of the lack of weapons within Fifth Edition, some gamers have made use of third-party publications and some have simply made up their own rules. However, the rules as written allow a lot of leeway and, as is always the case for 5e, beg for gamers to utilize their own imaginations.

For instance, on page 146 of the PHB it specifically states the “table shows the most common weapons used in the worlds of D&D …” So, those listed are weapons that can be found relatively easily, but are by no means the only weapons available. Gamers are not only allowed to create their own rules for weapons but are encouraged to do so.

Why anyone started splitting hairs on Twitter over rules meant to be taken lightly is mind-boggling. None of the conclusions arrived at are useful or mean anything because 'Ask your DM' will inevitably be the end result. Good luck arguing the point by using someone's subjective views from Twitter.

Xetheral

2019-07-03, 11:15 AM

I'm wondering why some people are confusing resolving the rules with what's going on in game. They aren't a simulation, this is not a physics engine for the in-game universe. It's an abstraction, rules for resolution.

Because there is some element of simulation in the rules, even though people disagree as to how much to emphasis to put on that aspect. It's not like we resolve combat by playing tic-tac-toe or some other method that is entirely divorced from what is going on in the game.

I'm curious how you would resolve the swinging-on-a-chandelier-while-attacking example, if you permit movement before, after, and between attacks, but not during an attack. Do you forbid the action declaration because the rules as you interpret them don't allow moving while attacking? Or do you resolve it as (1) swings before attack, (2) stops moving and attacks, (3) continues swinging after attack, and then describe it in-game as a continuous swing?

If the former, then I think Kyutaru's observation that you're treating D&D like Magic the Gathering or a competitive war game is apt. If the latter, then we're agreeing that in the game world the swashbuckling hero is not required to stop mid-swing in order to attack, and just quibbling over whether or not the swashbuckler needs to stop moving during the attack purely for mechanical purposes, which I would argue is a distinction without a difference.

ThePolarBear

2019-07-03, 05:58 PM

I’m still wondering where it’s written that once a player announces their Action for their turn that it must happen immediately.

Because you do not announce anything? You describe what you want to do, the DM chooses how to solve it, solve it, DM narrates the results. That's the main loop of the game. (p 6 phb, by the way.)

I’m also wondering where it’s written that once their announced Action starts that they can do nothing else until said Action has been completed.

Again, see above. Rules come and go, but that's the basics of the game. And remains valid.

Because both of those things aren’t “common sense” and both radically alter how events unfold.

It should be common sense... I mean, you do not split "attack roll" and "damage roll" willy nilly, right? Either you have a reason to split them, inserting something in between... or you solve them one after the other. That's the exact same reasoning. It gets a bit more complex than the main loop, but in the end you always go back to that one simple rule.

-Absorb Elements triggers as a result of taking elemental damage (and changes how much).
-Shield triggers as a result of being hit (and changes it to a miss).
-Sentinel feat can trigger as a result of movement (and then can prevent it by changing their movement speed to 0).

All of those are specific reactions that take place after an effect and then change it.

Those three? Two do, one isn't really "result of movement" or even a reaction, at all. It builds upon something that is result of movement, usually.
And doesn't ALWAYS prevent it. It activates on an Opportunity attack, which usually precedes the movement, but isn't always so. For example, PAM allows a character to make an exceptional Attack of Opportunity that triggers AFTER a specific movement has been completed, and yet Sentinel still triggers off it.

-Counterspell triggers after a spell has been cast (and you want that spell to not happen).

As provided, Counterspell triggers on the casting, not on something that has been completed. So, no.

If your interpretation of Counterspell takes place before the enemy caster cast finished their spell, then how do you know what spell you are Counterspelling?

As other have said... you don't. Xanathar makes it clear.
"Interpretation"... i think there's very little leeway between "this is the verb as written" and "this is a mistake that has been made" to claim it's an "interpretation" here.

The flavorful wording of the spell is nice, but dysfunctional with how you’re trying to interpret it.

It's absolutely perfect for how i interpret it, and not for how you want it to work.
And we can find confirmation in the text of the spell itself, in other places (namely the rules for spell identification in Xanathar) and tweets also give us a perspective of the intent behind the spell.

For me, it works as it should. It's not dysfunctional.

Otherwise, how many Counterspells can be used to Counterspell other Counterspells? How many interruptions can be interrupted? As many as needed?

And according to Ariel Black

I'm not them. So, don't really need to defend their point of view, opinion, claims, facts, or anything really.

Ariel Black who you are defending.

I'm not. I'm answering to you, to clear up some confusion.

but I might have missed something. [...]In this case there is no general rule in play and so it comes down to 'whatever the DM decides for that case'.

I don't believe this to be true, at all.
I think that there's no rule that says "you can't split actions!", because it's simply true.
I think that there's no rule that says "you can split actions!", because this is ALSO simply true.
I think that, for how the game is presented, you are put into a game where the basic back and forth is one where one chooses what they want to attempt and their DM adjudicates how, if possible, and the mechanics to solve. Then you solve, and the DM narrates. This is where you have your "you can't split actions!". You choose what you want to attempt - to attack a goblin - the DM chooses how to solve - you follow the rules for the attack action - you solve - which involves rolling dice - and the DM narrates - "you killed the goblin with a slash".
The game isn't so simple, however, when everything else comes together. You DO have things that can go in between "I use a manouver!" "I have bardic inspiration!" and so on. And this is where you have your "you can split actions!".

Neither those generals are true, and would be redundant if stated as i stated them above. Yet there is an assumed continuity of play that is implicit in the game.
It's not that you can't cast spell while casting spells. It's just that usually there's nothing that can interject in the process, so when you solve the spellcasting, you go from A to Z uninterrupted.

However, at some point most DMs will, perhaps without realising, make a general rule about whether or not you can take an action within an action by precedent.

Which is within their right, but it's also completely useless to answer the original question as posed and, i believe, completely against what is actually already there. You can take the "precedent" as inspiration, but it should not count as "precedent" since the system itself doesn't really work that way.

- 'Can I attack with my action surge while I'm dodging?' 'DM: Yeah, go ahead.'

You already can. Dodging is something a character does. It's not an Action a player takes. The Dodge Action pretty much ends as soon as you take it, since it's nothing more than "you gain this benefit". Done, solved.

- 'I use my bonus action to disengage, move to the weakened Orc, and use my action to attack. *Rolls d20*. Does 17 hit?' 'DM: Yup, roll for damage'. '12.' 'DM: The Orc is barely able to remain standing, but is not dead just yet.' 'Alright, I'll use my remaining movement to back away.' 'DM: That provokes an... oh wait, still disengaging, carry on.'

Which is the exact same example. Disengage: You do not provoke attacks of opportunity... solved, done. Next?

'I use my first attack on the near dead wolf.' *rolls hit, damage, wolf dies* 'Hmm, if I move over to those two wolves my quickened greenflame blade might kill the one already wounded and I can use my remaining attack on the other, but if not I'll want to finish it off with the attack.' 'DM: Ok, roll to hit with greenflame blade.' *rolls hit, damage* 'DM: The blade lashes out in an arc of blood. The wolf gathers itself to carry on the fight for a moment before falling limply to the floor.' 'Hah, any less damage and I think it may not have been enough.' 'DM: Go ahead and roll to hit with your last attack on the other wolf if you like.'

And Bonus Actions without a timing can go whenever, so we have a specific exception on the normal cycle of resolution of attacks and of the Attack Action. So i see no problem at all.

[...]The form of a material component doesn’t matter for the purposes of perception, whether it’s an object specified in the spell’s description, a component pouch, or a spellcasting focus.

Let me ask you: if the form of the material component is of no consequence on determining perception - so only the presence or absence of one is important - how does it follow that one can, rulewise, distinguish between an old man holding a staff and an old man holding a staff, but casting a spell?

Because that's what the rule tells us about. The second is recognizeable as casting a spell, and the first one is "not casting a spell".

So, how can you say that "casting a spell" is "spell components and nothing else"?

Answer is... it's a fallacy. If there are components present, the spellcasting process can be identified as such. The components are not the spellcasting process, which is left undefined, but PREREQUISITE to casting a spell and their handling is part of casting a spell. Not the entirety of it - which should be obvious, since usually this includes also "spending a slot", which really doesn't translate well into imagery.

Their presence causes the spellcasting process to be identifiable as such, but it isn't a strict implication of them BEING the spellcasing process, or them being what you perceive.

You perceive the spell being cast - whatever that means.

Aimeryan

2019-07-04, 06:46 AM

I don't believe this to be true, at all [snip]

I am having difficulty following you; you seem to agree and disagree at the same time. Lets break it down, in regards to action atomicity:
There is no general rule - agree?
There are specific rules that would overrule a general rule if put in place - agree?
The DM can make up specific rules, whether or not they set down a general rule - agree?
The DM can set down a general rule without being so structured about it - agree?

If you agree to all of those then we are in agreement.

~~~

You already can. Dodging is something a character does. It's not an Action a player takes. The Dodge Action pretty much ends as soon as you take it, since it's nothing more than "you gain this benefit". Done, solved.
[...]
Which is the exact same example. Disengage: You do not provoke attacks of opportunity... solved, done. Next?
[...]
And Bonus Actions without a timing can go whenever, so we have a specific exception on the normal cycle of resolution of attacks and of the Attack Action. So i see no problem at all.

Ah, that argument. In that case, any action could be explained the same way; use the Attack action, get attack action benefits.

As for the Bonus Action, that is not exactly what is written:

You can choose when to take a bonus action during your turn...
This does not give de jure to interrupting atomic actions - see my previous post on this. For example, you can't take Bonus Actions any time you are dead, unconscious, etc. - this is because the rules say you cannot take actions during that time. If a DM rules that actions cannot be taken during actions, you cannot take your bonus action during that time, either.

ThePolarBear

2019-07-04, 09:31 AM

I am having difficulty following you; you seem to agree and disagree at the same time. Lets break it down, in regards to action atomicity:

There is no general rule - agree?

Yes and no. There is no rule that says "Actions cannot be split" or "All actions can be split". But there are rules that tell you what to do when something happens, and, if you are following that rules, you simply do that. Which means that, in general, if you can do something you are told you can. If you can't do something, you are told you can't. If there's no rule about it, it doesn't mean that the thing you are trying to interrupt has to be changed in ways that were not thought of (even if it is a possibility). The things you are trying to interrupt will however still have a resolution method associated with it, and each "thing's resolution method" is the general rule on how to deal with the situation.

There's no rule that deals with action atomicity in general as an explicit permission or prohibition, but each action has its own process that is explicit and that is the rule for the action itself.

Clearer?

"Action atomicity" is a needless concept in and of itself, because there's no rime or reason of what an "Action" even is if not "something of importance that occupies a significant part of a turn", not a direct quote.

There are specific rules that would overrule a general rule if put in place - agree?

I don't understand how an hypotetical helps here. But as always specific > general.

The DM can make up specific rules, whether or not they set down a general rule - agree?

Absolutely irrelevant for "there are rules about this in 5e" is not answered by "Ask your DM". That's pertinent to each single game, not as the ruleset provided. A DM can do whatever anyway.

The DM can set down a general rule without being so structured about it - agree?

See above.

Ah, that argument. In that case, any action could be explained the same way;

If i were a pigeon, i could fly. But since i'm not, i can't fly because i'm a pigeon.
Yes, they could be explained, if it was possible. It's just not the case, so it's not even a counterargument.
Each action has its own rules. Those could be equal in this aspect. It's just not that way.

use the Attack action, get attack action benefits.

Attack Action=make one attack. Not "gain the benefit of the possibility of making one attack". It doesn't "bestow", it "compels".

As for the Bonus Action, that is not exactly what is written: This does not give de jure to interrupting atomic actions

I choose to do so when i want. There's something prenventing me that is more specific? Then i can't. But "You choose when" IS "you choose when", no string attached.

For example, you can't take Bonus Actions any time you are dead, unconscious, etc. - this is because the rules say you cannot take actions during that time.

And the same rules for bonus action clearly tell us that you can't take bonus actions when you can't take actions. Being dead, unconscious and whatnot is a specific rule that overrules a general one. So, there's no problem on this front.

If a DM rules that actions cannot be taken during actions...

... is a different cup of tea, a different tree to bark at, and whatever. What a DM does is not a 5e rule. That he can do whatever is. And this is not part of the discussion, and you can drop it. It doesn't help discussing the problem.

Aimeryan

2019-07-04, 01:56 PM

Alright, seems we are in agreement about everything except the dodge, disengage, attack actions. I don't see anywhere that these actions are instantaneous, nor that they have a duration. Its not RAW; these seem to be unsupported statements. I can see that they could be ruled either way, however, I would stay consistent and apply it to all actions equally - and they still wouldn't be RAW.

As to the pertinence, it is important to eliminate potential areas we may disagree on. Furthermore, the examples are relevant to sustaining that the DM has not put a general rule in place that actions are atomic - if the DM had then the examples would not occur as I wrote them.

Arial Black

2019-07-05, 10:13 AM

I bolded and colored the parts you are fabricating. You seem to be fixated on the VSM components.
I'll post the body of Counterspell, do you deny that it says absolutely nothing about VSM components?

Go ahead, show me where it says anything about VSM.

Good to see you're changing what you're saying.

If there are unknown aspects of casting a spell that Grog lacks, perhaps Counterspell interacts with those. Like smoothing the weave just as the spell effect would normally manifest. I agree it seems easier to handwaive how it works, rather than making up additional details about how Counterspell works.

You still seem to think that the spell is first successfully cast, and then counterspell comes into play. It's obvious that you don't understand the difference between 'casting a spell' and 'the spell has been cast'.

It's a Cause/Effect relationship. 'Casting a spell' involves several things, including V, S, and/or M components (or substitutes for these, like Subtle Spell/magic item/intrinsic ability), having the spell known or prepared, using an appropriate slot (although other things can sometimes substitute for those). Only when ALL of this has been started, gone through correctly, and completed successfully, does the spell effect start. If ANYTHING messes with ANY of that, the spell is simply NOT cast at all! The 'spellcasting' fails.

This is detailed in Chapter 10: Spellcasting, in the PHB.

So the VSM components are occurring during the spellcasting process.

->if those components are observed by a creature within 60 feet who is able to cast counterspell, then that creature may do so, since this is the precise trigger for the spell! Because seeing someone 'casting a spell' IS seeing someone provide VSM components, as acknowledged in Xanathar's.

->since the 'spellcasting' part MUST be completed BEFORE the spell can be 'cast', then the provision of the VSM components MUST also occur BEFORE the spell effect begins.

Spells do what they say on the tin. The spell effect of counterspell reads, "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell". Things to note: first, the casting process is interrupted; you don't wait until the process is completed and then counter it! That would be shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. Second, you attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell; you are not targeting the spell itself, not least because the spell itself hasn't begun to exist yet!

So, you are messing with the spellcasting process being performed by a creature who is performing VSM components in order to cast a spell. And as the spell description says, "On a success, the spell fails and has no effect". 'Fails' means the attempt to cast a spell fails. 'Effect' refers to 'spell effect', and since the spell 'fails and has no (spell) effect then the spell effect (i.e. the spell itself) never comes into being.

Nope (we're going in a circle now). The enemy mage finishes their spell, then your readied action Silence goes off after. Which is probably only useful against spells that require instructions like Suggestion or Summon Greater Demon.

Well, if you're foolish enough to word your reaction as, "I wait until he's finished saying the magic words and then cast silence in order to prevent him saying the magic words", then you have just contributed to the evolution of the species by removing your foolish self from the breeding population! Those casters best fitted to survive will word their trigger as, "As soon as he begins chanting the magic words, I will release my readied (and, according to the rules, already cast) silence in order to prevent him from successfully completing the verbal component and thus prevent him from successfully casting that spell".

And you had originally made up some extra words where you thought Counterspell specifically interacts with the ability for a mage to speak the verbal components, freely gesture the somantic components, or did something to the material components. But that has been sorted out, so all is well.

I sincerely hope it has been sorted out. The relationship between 'casting a spell' and the 'spell effect' resulting from a successfully cast spell (and therefore the total lack of a 'spell effect' if a spell was not successfully cast) is made clear in Chapter 10: Spellcasting. As is the relationship between 'casting a spell' and the requirement to provide the VSM components in order to 'cast a spell' (and therefore the failure to 'cast a spell' if the VSM components are not completed successfully). A system even further clarified (as if any were needed!) in Xanathar's Guide, which reminds us that 'seeing a creature casting a spell' IS 'seeing a creature provide VSM components'.

Arial Black

2019-07-05, 10:16 AM

Arial Black is right.

I wish I knew how to make this my signature. :smallsmile:

Tanarii

2019-07-05, 10:54 AM

Because there is some element of simulation in the rules, even though people disagree as to how much to emphasis to put on that aspect. It's not like we resolve combat by playing tic-tac-toe or some other method that is entirely divorced from what is going on in the game.But not nearly as much as people try to make out. For example, we don't even know how many attacks, ripostes, parry, etc are involved in a single attack roll. Nor does the in game activity order necessarily need to follow the abstraction resolution order in all cases.

I'm curious how you would resolve the swinging-on-a-chandelier-while-attacking example, if you permit movement before, after, and between attacks, but not during an attack. Do you forbid the action declaration because the rules as you interpret them don't allow moving while attacking? Or do you resolve it as (1) swings before attack, (2) stops moving and attacks, (3) continues swinging after attack, and then describe it in-game as a continuous swing?I'd resolve it as move attack move attack or move attack attack move. I fail to see the problem. (2) doesn't happen in game. This is actually a great example of abstraction ... the character doesn't stop swinging in game and launch a flurry of blows just because they are resolved that way.

But this example fall down in another fashion given the Shield Master question. With that feat, the question becomes one of in-game cause and effect vs abstraction resolution order of operations. It's entirely possibly in general terms for the rules to resolve it as attack-BAshove-AttackAdv, and the in game activity to be the PC knocks the humanoid on its ass, then misses it (first attack) then hits it (second attack at advantage).

There may be specific situations where you have to describe the in game activity in the same order as resolution just so mapping of the abstraction and in game continuity don't get too weird, but it works fine in many, even most, situations.

DrKerosene

2019-07-05, 01:10 PM

Because you do not announce anything? You describe what you want to do, the DM chooses how to solve it, solve it, DM narrates the results. That's the main loop of the game. (p 6 phb, by the way.)
Yeah, who declares their intent to swing from a chandelier and try to land on someone, or seduce a BBEDragon, or attack an NPC and try to get Surprise? No one ever declares what they want to do.

Your Turn
On Your Turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action.
You decide whether to move first or take your action first. Your speed— sometimes called your walking speed—is noted on your character sheet.
The most Common Actions you can take are described in the “Actions in Combat” section. Many Class Features and other Abilities provide additional options for your action.
You can forgo moving, taking an action, or doing anything at all on Your Turn.Also, it seems hard to choose a target to attack without declaring it for the DM to adjudicate if you succeed, or your Party members to adjust plans accordingly. Obviously no one declares using Shield or Counterspell, instead they describe what they would like to do.

Again, see above. Rules come and go, but that's the basics of the game. And remains valid.Those sure are.

Those three? Two do, one isn't really "result of movement" or even a reaction, at all. It builds upon something that is result of movement, usually.
And doesn't ALWAYS prevent it. It activates on an Opportunity attack, which usually precedes the movement, but isn't always so. For example, PAM allows a character to make an exceptional Attack of Opportunity that triggers AFTER a specific movement has been completed, and yet Sentinel still triggers off it. And Counterspell doesn't ALWAYS prevent the targeted spell from being cast. Should I start fabricating that the answer is because that particular use of Counterspell was too slow? Nothing is specifically saying that's not how it works.

It's absolutely perfect for how i interpret it, and not for how you want it to work. Well, can't argue with perfection, clearly anyone on the other side of your viewpoint should just throw up their hands.

As many as needed? Alright. How long does it take to cast Counterspell? It doesn't really matter, it's an imaginary number anyways, so I'll just say X-Seconds. Four mages use Counterspell on eachother. Next round they do it again, but we change the order of who uses Counterspell on who. Are you insisting that the last person to use their reaction to cast Counterspell in a round is finishing their spell before the other three mages who already declared they cast Counterspell? If each caster requires the same amount of time to cast Counterspell, the person starting their Counterspell later is finishing it later. I see no where in the text that it says Counterspell has to finish being cast before the spell you are countering, just that the targeted spell can fail. So this next bit you say, that I'm bolding and coloring blue, is an irrelevant limiter you are adding, as far as I can tell:

As provided, Counterspell triggers on the casting, not on something that has been completed. So, no. So I repeat, how does one Counterspell finish being cast before another Counterspell (that was cast earlier in the round)? This just seems grayer and greyer with all Turns happening in the same 6-second Round.

I'm not them. So, don't really need to defend their point of view, opinion, claims, facts, or anything really. I asked them to explain their reasoning, and Player Three you joined the conversation. Birds of a feather. Picking your battles. Whatever aphorism you feel is most appropriate for seeming to have jumped on a bandwagon.

I'm not. I'm answering to you, to clear up some confusion. Your perfect interpretation has changed my entire worldview. Truly.

Well, if you're foolish enough to word your reaction as, "I wait until he's finished saying the magic words and then cast silence in order to prevent him saying the magic words", then you have just contributed to the evolution of the species by removing your foolish self from the breeding population! Those casters best fitted to survive will word their trigger as, "As soon as he begins chanting the magic words, I will release my readied (and, according to the rules, already cast) silence in order to prevent him from successfully completing the verbal component and thus prevent him from successfully casting that spell".

Again, using the readied action to cast Silence can not happen "before" the triggering effect. Here are a few simple threads about your exact scenario. RAW is "no, readied action Silence does not work the way you are saying, Ariel Black". 1: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/44846/is-it-possible-to-interrupt-spellcasting 2: https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/4wrd16/can_you_interrupt_a_spell_with_a_readied_action/ 3: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/73013/timing-of-the-ready-action-when-the-trigger-is-associated-with-spell-casting

You know the interrupting cow knock-knock joke? Anyone saying "Interrupting cow who?" can be interrupted between the words "Cow" and "Who" by the other person saying "Moo" really loudly for several seconds. The second person finishes saying "Moo" (interrupting) after the first person finished the last word of "Interrupting cow who", but an interruption technically occurred.

If you'd like, I should be able to provide time-stamps to a couple youtube videos of Critical Roll, or Chris Perkin's Dice Camera Action, where someone declares they use Counterspell after the DM declares an NPC uses a spell (or spell like ability). If you really need a video of what it looks like in play. I cannot recall any series where the DM meticulously makes sure to not declare what spell is being cast, so that Players with Counterspell have to blindly guess, but if you can provide any links, I'd be happy to have my viewing content expanded.

Xetheral

2019-07-05, 10:53 PM

But not nearly as much as people try to make out. For example, we don't even know how many attacks, ripostes, parry, etc are involved in a single attack roll. Nor does the in game activity order necessarily need to follow the abstraction resolution order in all cases.

But the amount of emphasis to put on the simulation aspect is entirely a question of preference. There isn't a universal standard against which "too much" or "too little" can be gauged. So you can say there is less simulation at your table than at mine, or that you prefer D&D with less simulation than I prefer at my table, but I don't see how you can say that there is less simulation at my table than I think there is.

I'd resolve it as move attack move attack or move attack attack move. I fail to see the problem. (2) doesn't happen in game. This is actually a great example of abstraction ... the character doesn't stop swinging in game and launch a flurry of blows just because they are resolved that way.

So it sounds like the end result in-game at both your table and at my table is the same: the character swings on the chandelier and, mid-swing, without stopping, makes an attack. So what purpose is there behind your approach of requiring the player to resolve it mechanically as move-attack-move, rather than just resolving it as moving and attacking simultaneously? You appear to be adding an extra layer of abstraction that dosen't affect the outcome. Why?

But this example fall down in another fashion given the Shield Master question. With that feat, the question becomes one of in-game cause and effect vs abstraction resolution order of operations. It's entirely possibly in general terms for the rules to resolve it as attack-BAshove-AttackAdv, and the in game activity to be the PC knocks the humanoid on its ass, then misses it (first attack) then hits it (second attack at advantage).

There may be specific situations where you have to describe the in game activity in the same order as resolution just so mapping of the abstraction and in game continuity don't get too weird, but it works fine in many, even most, situations.

Again, I don't see any purpose to adding an extra level of abstraction to allow shield master to resolve in-game in a different order than it is resolved mechanically. If you're ok with the BA shield bash coming first in-game (and the consequences thereof) then why require it to be resolved in a different order? Conversely, if you're not ok with the shield bash coming first mechanically, why permit it to nevertheless come first in-game?

JackPhoenix

2019-07-06, 06:24 AM

You still seem to think that the spell is first successfully cast, and then counterspell comes into play. It's obvious that you don't understand the difference between 'casting a spell' and 'the spell has been cast'.

Spell was cast. That's what the action (or reaction) required for spellcasting does. Not succesfully, though: that's what Counterspell does.

It's a Cause/Effect relationship. 'Casting a spell' involves several things, including V, S, and/or M components (or substitutes for these, like Subtle Spell/magic item/intrinsic ability), having the spell known or prepared, using an appropriate slot (although other things can sometimes substitute for those). Only when ALL of this has been started, gone through correctly, and completed successfully, does the spell effect start. If ANYTHING messes with ANY of that, the spell is simply NOT cast at all! The 'spellcasting' fails.

And all of that is irrelevant. You can't really mess with any of that... if you're unable to provide VSM components, don't know the spell or don't have slot, you can't cast the spell at all. The spellcasting doesn't "fail", there's no spellcasting in the first place!

So, you are messing with the spellcasting process being performed by a creature who is performing VSM components in order to cast a spell. And as the spell description says, "On a success, the spell fails and has no effect". 'Fails' means the attempt to cast a spell fails. 'Effect' refers to 'spell effect', and since the spell 'fails and has no (spell) effect then the spell effect (i.e. the spell itself) never comes into being.

No, it doesn't mean "attempt to cast a spell fails". If it did, the description would say so. It means the SPELL fails. For a spell to be able to fail, it must be cast in the first place. "The spell has no effect" part would be redundant if no spell was cast.

Well, if you're foolish enough to word your reaction as, "I wait until he's finished saying the magic words and then cast silence in order to prevent him saying the magic words", then you have just contributed to the evolution of the species by removing your foolish self from the breeding population! Those casters best fitted to survive will word their trigger as, "As soon as he begins chanting the magic words, I will release my readied (and, according to the rules, already cast) silence in order to prevent him from successfully completing the verbal component and thus prevent him from successfully casting that spell".

Reaction comes after the trigger was finished. It doesn't matter how you word your readied spell, the spell you try to "interrupt" comes first. Once you recognize the enemy started "chanting the magic words", those words were already spoken. You can't see the future to know what the enemy is about to say, and you can't stop them from speaking retroactively, unless you use an ability that specifically allows that.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-07-06, 08:21 AM

A reminder that no matter the existence of any specific abilities allow you to interrupt another action tells us nothing about the general rule. You cannot extrapolate from a specific rule (especially a spell, which are all specific exceptions to the general rules) to the general. That's not how 5e works at all.

So whether counterspell happens before or after the spell is cast is irrelevant. The spell does not happen one way or another, and that fact says nothing at all about any other Reaction, Bonus action, or Action. Abilities have no bearing on other abilities unless they explicitly say so. The fact that one ability lets you act with timing X does not mean that another ability has to let you act with timing X as well. On the flip side, however, it also does not mean you cannot. It's just null.

ThePolarBear

2019-07-06, 01:49 PM

Yeah, who declares their intent to swing from a chandelier and try to land on someone, or seduce a BBEDragon, or attack an NPC and try to get Surprise? No one ever declares what they want to do.

You have to. You, as a player, have no power of determination, not even on what is usually delegated to you for simplicity - like movement. Let's take it as an example.

Each time at a table you take your mini and move it where you character is going to be, you are simply placing the mini on the place you WANT to reach because, at any moment, your DM might tell you that you "actually" do not reach, because something that you are unaware of happens.
You, as a player, can NEVER determine anything but what you want to "TRY", even in the simplest of situations.

And maybe you are also missing what weight "declare" had here: an announcement your character want to take, at some point in the turn, the attack action, specified in a binding manner: "I'm going to attack the ork after i move, and that's enough for me to "have taken" the attack action".

It simply doesn't work that way: the attack action is "make one attack", not "you can, until the end of turn, choose when to make one attack".
No action is written as a "declaration" in these terms.

Also, it seems hard to choose a target to attack without declaring it for the DM to adjudicate if you succeed, or your Party members to adjust plans accordingly. Obviously no one declares using Shield or Counterspell, instead they describe what they would like to do.[/quote]

Yeah, and that's not what i was writing about. It was not about comunication around a table.

And Counterspell doesn't ALWAYS prevent the targeted spell from being cast.

You are missing the point, DrKerosene. Counterspell might fail due to the mechanics inherent to the spell, true. But the effect of Sentinel you described as happening before a movement isn't happening "after" or "before" something else BECAUSE Sentinel is a reaction. The effect you are describing happens after you hit with an AoO. It's not a Reaction per se, nor it happens before something else per se - the reaction that Sentinel builds upon might.

On the other hand when Counterspell happens it always happens at a certain time, whether successful or not, BECAUSE it is a reaction and it has a certain timing associated with it.

Should I start fabricating that the answer is because that particular use of Counterspell was too slow? Nothing is specifically saying that's not how it works.

"Nothing says it's not how it works" as an argument ends up with Fireballs resurrecting people.

Personally i prefer "the interference was not strong enough with the level of skill displayed".
In your game you can justify it as you wish.
What the rules expect is a different matter. And do not give a specific reason other than "spell slot too low and check unsuccessful".

Well, can't argue with perfection, clearly anyone on the other side of your viewpoint should just throw up their hands.

Or should not try to speak for someone that is not "oneself". You attempted to say that something doesn't work FOR ME. That's not how it works. FOR ME, it works perfectly.

Alright. How long does it take to cast Counterspell? It doesn't really matter, it's an imaginary number anyways, so I'll just say X-Seconds.

If it's irrelevant, it's irrelevant.

Four mages use Counterspell on eachother. Next round they do it again, but we change the order of who uses Counterspell on who. Are you insisting that the last person to use their reaction to cast Counterspell in a round is finishing their spell before the other three mages who already declared they cast Counterspell?

Rulewise? They are finishing to cast counterspell IN A TURN, not even a round. Yes, they do. Does it pose a problem for you? Change it for your game. However you still have to acknowledge what is there, in the rules.

If each caster requires the same amount of time to cast Counterspell

Why should be like that? We do not even know if they use the same gestures at all. They are probably not even in the same position. Why should they require the same amount of time? You are applying YOUR logic to something that is not a shared experience. I might agree, from a personal standpoint. Rulewise, that is not the case. The amount of time to perform counterspell is not stated and might not be equal. Furthermore, you agree it's "how much" is unimportant. So why discussing it?

I see no where in the text that it says Counterspell has to finish being cast before the spell you are countering, just that the targeted spell can fail.

You interrupt something in process with another process. You solve the second before resuming the first. Basic reaction resolution.
And again "it's not there" is a terrible argument.

So this next bit you say, that I'm bolding and coloring blue, is an irrelevant limiter you are adding, as far as I can tell:

I'm sorry, are you calling "correct verb use" irrelevant? "is -ing" something describes something that is still currently in progress. Not something that has ended, not even JUST ended.
And context here? I'm talking on when you can cast counterspell, not when counterspell ends.

So I repeat, how does one Counterspell finish being cast before another Counterspell (that was cast earlier in the round)?

The second Counterspell wasn't cast, it was in the process of being cast. The second Counterspell interrupts the first that interrupted the original spell. You are nesting resolution processes. The second Counterspell "finishes" first, then the second possibly fails, and the original spell either is cast successfully or unsuccessfully.
It works the same way as pistol duels in Far West movies. One of the many is simply faster and gets solved first.

I asked them to explain their reasoning, and Player Three you joined the conversation.

Yeah, it's a public forum. If you do not want 3rd party opinions you have many options. I'm not defending their whole point, and that should have been clear from other answers i gave. I can still answer to you, and point out where i find flaws of reasoning and why i do.

Birds of a feather. Picking your battles. Whatever aphorism you feel is most appropriate for seeming to have jumped on a bandwagon.

Yeah, "seeming". Your impression was fallacious, and i pointed out that. I do not agree with their whole point, so i'm not going to defend their point.

Your perfect interpretation has changed my entire worldview. Truly.

No need to try to flame. Not even with that username ;D. It's up to you to do what you want with what i wrote.

RSP

2019-07-07, 09:53 AM

Because you do not announce anything? You describe what you want to do, the DM chooses how to solve it, solve it, DM narrates the results. That's the main loop of the game. (p 6 phb, by the way.)

Curious how you differentiate between a player “announcing” their intent, and “describe” their intent.

Per the rules, players certainly tell the DM what they want to do. Why do you think this equals “you [the player] do not announce anything”?

Arial Black

2019-07-11, 01:22 PM

Again, using the readied action to cast Silence can not happen "before" the triggering effect. Here are a few simple threads about your exact scenario. RAW is "no, readied action Silence does not work the way you are saying, Ariel Black". 1: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/44846/is-it-possible-to-interrupt-spellcasting 2: https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/4wrd16/can_you_interrupt_a_spell_with_a_readied_action/ 3: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/73013/timing-of-the-ready-action-when-the-trigger-is-associated-with-spell-casting

You provide quotes which, you assert, show that "...readied silence does not work the way you are saying...".

So I read the quotes you provided and, guess what? They show that readied silence does work the way I'm saying! Did you not read the quotes that you provided?

From the first:- "This tweet from Jeremy Crawford supports my interpretation:

Can silence interrupt a spell caster? I.e. cleric readies silence, trigger is enemy begins spell casting.

As DM, I'd allow a readied silence spell to interrupt the casting of a spell with a verbal component."

From the second:- "Spells require verbal, material, and/or gestural components. If a rogue sees the wizard begin the process (moving lips, waving fingers, etc), then it's reasonable to say it triggers the reaction."

This is based on the rules for readied actions (do you need the page number?) which makes clear that, "First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction".

Although we aren't told what the specific magic words must be uttered to cast any spell with a verbal component, we DO know that there ARE magic words to be spoken! We, the players don't know (or need to know) what those words actually ARE, but our characters DO know! At least, the one's who can cast spells and/or are proficient in Arcana.

Let's say that the Verbal component for the infestation cantrip is the phrase, "May the fleas of a thousand dingoes infest your armpits!". Now, there's more to casting this cantrip than saying that phrase; you need to correctly make the specific mystic gestures associated with that specific spell (whatever they are), and provide the material component (a living flea), and you need to know that cantrip. However, ALL of these things must be provided and completed in order for the spell effect (i.e. 'the spell') to occur.

Therefore, if the caster manages to get out the words, "May the fleas of a thou...!" and THEN the silence comes into being, that verbal component is never completed and therefore the infestation spell never even begins.

And, crucially, someone beginning to say that phrase IS a 'perceivable circumstance'. Therefore, as soon as that phrase begins then the trigger has been met and your readied silence goes off.

The trigger is not, "when the final word of the verbal component has been completed"! The trigger is "when the verbal component starts".

And note further that triggers for readied actions are not 'Actions', they are 'perceivable circumstances'. Triggers are not 'game rules', but 'in-game events'.

Sure, the trigger goes before the reaction; no-one is saying otherwise. But the trigger is not "the entire verbal component", but "the start of the verbal component". As soon as the verbal component begins, that trigger has already occurred! My reaction comes AFTER the verbal component begins but BEFORE the verbal component is complete.

From your third:- "With respect to casting a spell as a trigger it seems that the player/creature can choose 2 possible timings:

"when a spell is cast" meaning the spell is completed and the reaction can then be taken, or
"when a spell starts being cast" meaning when the caster pulls out his components/focus and waves his hands etc."

You get to choose which of those is your trigger. If your caster chooses to wait until the verbal component has been completed before he tries to prevent the verbal component from being completed, then congratulations! You have gained bonus experience points for accurately role-playing your PCs wisdom score of 4. The bad news is that your PC died from the spell he couldn't be bothered to stop.

Incidentally, the only VSM component required to cast counterspell is a somatic component. As always, the rules don't bother telling us what that specific mystic gesture actually is, but it my games I like to think that it involves a vertically extended middle finger. YMMV. :smallsmile:

BoringInfoGuy

2019-07-12, 01:09 AM

@Arial Black

The tweet where JC said “As DM, I'd allow a readied silence spell to interrupt the casting of a spell with a verbal component.” was posted in October of 2015, relatively soon after 5e was released.

The most recent Sage Advice Compendium has added this to it’s first page:

[NEW] Official Rulings
Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium by the game’s lead rules de- signer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter). The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else
at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. Jeremy Crawford’s tweets are often a preview of rulings that will appear here.
A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.

The Sage Advice Compendium was last updated this year. If you read through it, you will not find any rulings that a Readied Silence can interrupt a Spell cast.

You WILL find JC commenting on the three ways to look at the rules. Rules as Written, Rules as Intended, and Rules as Fun.

“What we wrote”, “what we wanted to write”, and “screw it, that sounds cool”.

Even back in 2015, JC said “AS A DM” Not per RAW. Why would he say he would allow something that is not RAW? Well, this quote from the SAC explains it.

We expect DMs to depart from the rules when running a particular campaign or when seeking the greatest happiness for a certain group of players. Sometimes my rules answers will include advice on achieving the RAF interpretation of a rule for your group.
I recommend a healthy mix of RAW, RAI, and RAF!

For JC to say he would allow something AS A DM is not the same as saying that something is supposed to be RAW or even RAI. I don’t think is was meant to be taken that way, even back in 2015. But since many people did, we now have a new rule in the Compendium that the Compendium is the only source of official rulings.

If JC truly thought RAW allowed using Silence as a Readied Action to interrupt casting, it would be in the Compendium.

As for the adding an adjective to a trigger so that a Readied Action can go off during the trigger instead of after? That was heavily debated in a thread called “What ways are there to disrupt spellcasting in 5e?”, where it was a relevant topic of discussion.

This thread is asking “What can you do between attacks”.

Relevant to the thread would be discussing if / when you can take Reactions between attacks, not what adjectives could alter the timing of Ready Action enough to turn it into an interrupt.

Arial Black

2019-07-12, 01:43 AM

@Arial Black

The tweet where JC said “As DM, I'd allow a readied silence spell to interrupt the casting of a spell with a verbal component.” was posted in October of 2015, relatively soon after 5e was released.

The most recent Sage Advice Compendium has added this to it’s first page:

The Sage Advice Compendium was last updated this year. If you read through it, you will not find any rulings that a Readied Silence can interrupt a Spell cast.

You WILL find JC commenting on the three ways to look at the rules. Rules as Written, Rules as Intended, and Rules as Fun.

“What we wrote”, “what we wanted to write”, and “screw it, that sounds cool”.

Even back in 2015, JC said “AS A DM” Not per RAW. Why would he say he would allow something that is not RAW? Well, this quote from the SAC explains it.

For JC to say he would allow something AS A DM is not the same as saying that something is supposed to be RAW or even RAI. I don’t think is was meant to be taken that way, even back in 2015. But since many people did, we now have a new rule in the Compendium that the Compendium is the only source of official rulings.

Long story short: you're saying that not everything JC says is Gospel. What you are not doing is providing any evidence for your assertion that a readied action cannot interrupt spellcasting!

If JC truly thought RAW allowed using Silence as a Readied Action to interrupt casting, it would be in the Compendium.

Rubbish! As if the Compendium has exhaustive rules on how every spell interacts with every other spell in all different circumstances!

As for the adding an adjective to a trigger so that a Readied Action can go off during the trigger instead of after? That was heavily debated in a thread called “What ways are there to disrupt spellcasting in 5e?”, where it was a relevant topic of discussion.

This thread is asking “What can you do between attacks”.

Relevant to the thread would be discussing if / when you can take Reactions between attacks, not what adjectives could alter the timing of Ready Action enough to turn it into an interrupt.

Yes, readied actions can trigger between attacks if they are worded such that they do. It's a no-brainer. The rules say the trigger is a perceivable in-game circumstance, weapon attacks are perceivable, therefore the trigger could easily be "immediately after the first attack". The rules say you can, there are no rules that say you cannot; it's not even a difficult question to answer.

BoringInfoGuy

2019-07-12, 11:28 PM

Long story short: you're saying that not everything JC says is Gospel. What you are not doing is providing any evidence for your assertion that a readied action cannot interrupt spellcasting!

Almost correct. Full context is that tweets from JC are no longer a viable source to use as the basis in ANY arguments on the basis of “This is RAW, JC said so!” This is relevant knowledge for RAW based rules discussions on forums like this one.

So while I am providing evidence that your line of argument was flawed, you misconstrue the intent. I am deliberately not arguing about the viability of Ready Action Spellcasting Interruption, just the use of JC tweets to support the argument either way.

Rubbish! As if the Compendium has exhaustive rules on how every spell interacts with every other spell in all different circumstances!

No, not rubbish. The latest update Sage Advice Compendium made all tweets or other rules related statements officially unofficial.

Any ruling from a tweet or other source that JC wanted to keep as an Official Ruling now needs to be included in the Sage Advice Compendium.

That did not create a sudden requirement that the SAC needs to list how every spell interacts with every other spell in all circumstances. Do you need to know how Cure Wounds interacts with Spiritual Weapon? No.

However, it does very much mean if JC wanted that 2015 tweet (or any other) to be considered an Official Ruling, it must be added to The Sage Advice Compendium. Not added? Not official. Period.

Yes, readied actions can trigger between attacks if they are worded such that they do. It's a no-brainer. The rules say the trigger is a perceivable in-game circumstance, weapon attacks are perceivable, therefore the trigger could easily be "immediately after the first attack". The rules say you can, there are no rules that say you cannot; it's not even a difficult question to answer.
How difficult the question is to answer is not the point. How RELEVANT the question is to the topic was the point.

I pointed out there was already a thread that covered the ground of Ready Action spell interruptions.

It’s probably not at the necromancy point if you want to add your arguments there.

Or you could always start a new thread, dedicated to just that topic. Maybe it will get to another 22 pages as people rehash the same arguments back and forth.

Tl;dr
JC Tweets are no longer official rulings, and are not useful when trying to make “This is RAW” arguments.

The specific argument whether you can use a Readied Action Silence Spell to interrupt a spell being cast is an irrelevant topic for this thread. Its discussion would be better elsewhere.

And speaking of off topic, this is all I will say on either topic in this thread.