Readied attacks vs spells

[Keravath]

This came up tangentially in another thread and since I had never thought about it I wondered what other folks think.

1) You can use your reaction to cast counterspell after a caster begins casting their spell but before it completes.
2) The process of casting a spell that takes longer than an action requires concentration but concentration is only required to keep magic active not to cast a spell requiring one action or less to cast.
3) Characters can ready actions with perceptible triggers.


Questions:

Can a character make a readied action to "attack when creature X begins casting a spell"?

I would tend to say yes since unless the spell has no noticeable components the trigger should be perceptible.

Is the spell cast before the readied attack is taken?

The trigger for readied actions is allowed to complete before the readied action is triggered.

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

CAN the trigger be specified as "starting" to cast a spell? When is that complete?

I am less confident of this one. However, since counterspell uses similar wording, is a reaction, and does allow the spell to be cast before the target spell finishes - then readied action might be able include a trigger that allows the action to be taken before the spell is cast. On the other hand, counterspell is magical, particularly fast and designed for this purpose. Allowing triggers "when a creature starts" something, would allow the casting of a readied spell or attack to land before the target successfully completed casting their spell. I don't have a philosophical issue with this, I am just curious how it should be run.

What effect does a readied attack hitting a creature casting a spell have?

As far as I can tell, the only effect it would have is to cause damage or if it is a readied spell to force a save or do whatever the spell does. The only time when casting a spell requires concentration is for spells requiring more than one action to cast.

For the rest, concentration starts after the spell is cast to keep the magic active - "Some spells require you to maintain concentration in order to keep their magic active. If you lose concentration, such a spell ends." ... however, this is to maintain the effects of the spell, not to explicitly cast it and the magic of a spell isn't active until after it is successfully cast. So, casting a spell requiring concentration will prevent concentration on another spell but concentration on the new spell does not seem to be required until after the spell is successfully cast.

As a result, taking damage while casting a spell as a result of a reaction readied attack/spell would not force the caster to make a concentration check unless the spell requires a longer casting time than one action.

[Psyren]

I did find a Jeremy tweet where he believes readied silence can stop a spell from going off. Since the "begins casting" needs to be the trigger there, it suggests that readying an attack works too.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/656971281997234176

[Mellack]

Why would you even do this? As you said, all it does is do damage. You can have more options and probably do more damage by just attacking on your turn. Just curious as to why you would even need to get into this ruling.

[RSP]

If it matters to you, JC, I believe, at one point stated Concentration is required at the start of casting a new spell that requires it.

So if abiding by this, you couldn’t maintain Concentration on one spellsgile casting a second Concentration spell.

It’s not delineated RAW, as far as I’m aware, when Concentration starts, but JC’s tweets are often used for RAI.

[Psyren]

Why would you even do this? As you said, all it does is do damage. You can have more options and probably do more damage by just attacking on your turn. Just curious as to why you would even need to get into this ruling.

The idea behind this is that a martial can potentially interrupt a spell using the Ready action + their reaction. Without this ruling, the only way to stop a 1 Action spell from going off is Counterspell, which most martials can't do.

[NaughtyTiger]

Why would you even do this? As you said, all it does is do damage. You can have more options and probably do more damage by just attacking on your turn. Just curious as to why you would even need to get into this ruling.

I would like to ready an action to shut the door if anyone starts casting a spell...

[Keravath]

Why would you even do this? As you said, all it does is do damage. You can have more options and probably do more damage by just attacking on your turn. Just curious as to why you would even need to get into this ruling.

The readied silence spell by the previous poster is a good example. Another post I read seemed to indicate that some folks thought a concentration check would be needed if a character casting a spell took damage while casting. Another post indicated that they thought it impossible to use a trigger of "beginning to cast a spell" since the spell would have to complete BEFORE the reaction could be taken.

An attack is just one example - the points I was looking at were can you trigger a held action based on "starting to cast" and what would the effects of that held action be if it was a spell or attack that was used.

Finally, a hasted rogue using their action to ready for an off turn sneak attack or any other attack, could inflict sufficient damage to kill the caster in the process of casting the spell. Does the caster die preventing the spell from being cast or does the spell complete?

(Lots of fairly decent questions actually ... since sufficient damage could kill the caster preventing the spellcasting IF "starting to cast" is a valid trigger).

[Mellack]

The readied silence spell by the previous poster is a good example. Another post I read seemed to indicate that some folks thought a concentration check would be needed if a character casting a spell took damage while casting. Another post indicated that they thought it impossible to use a trigger of "beginning to cast a spell" since the spell would have to complete BEFORE the reaction could be taken.

An attack is just one example - the points I was looking at were can you trigger a held action based on "starting to cast" and what would the effects of that held action be if it was a spell or attack that was used.

Finally, a hasted rogue using their action to ready for an off turn sneak attack or any other attack, could inflict sufficient damage to kill the caster in the process of casting the spell. Does the caster die preventing the spell from being cast or does the spell complete?

(Lots of fairly decent questions actually ... since sufficient damage could kill the caster preventing the spellcasting IF "starting to cast" is a valid trigger).

Ah, ok, the point was can you ready off of "starting" something. That is a debate I do not want to get in. I would just say to talk to your particular DM as to if they allow it.

[Psyren]

Crawford seems to think so.

As a DM I would allow it, because again, without that then only Counterspell can ever interrupt a 1 Action spell and martials are screwed again.

[Valmark]

Given that Counterspelling and opportunity attacks work by interrupting the creature's casting/movement I see no reasonable way to say that you have to wait for a creature to finish casting before taking your readied whatever if the trigger is the casting.

That said, unless the spell takes Concentration you won't disrupt it- unless you make the caster incapable of casting spells, like a monk Stunning a caster mid-casting.

[Ryton]

For this, I would recommend also tweaking the Mage Slayer feat to explicitly occur before the spell has been fully cast.

[NaughtyTiger]

For this, I would recommend also tweaking the Mage Slayer feat to explicitly occur before the spell has been fully cast.

yes. mage slayer as written is such a waste.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Given that Counterspelling and opportunity attacks work by interrupting the creature's casting/movement I see no reasonable way to say that you have to wait for a creature to finish casting before taking your readied whatever if the trigger is the casting.


I'm not going to wade in on the broader topic, but Counterspell and OAs specifically state that they interrupt. The Ready action specifically says that it doesn't interrupt its trigger. That's the difference. You can't reason from a specific instance to a general rule. In this case, there doesn't seem to be a clearly-stated general rule, just a bunch of specific rules for specific cases.

[Psyren]

I'm not going to wade in on the broader topic, but Counterspell and OAs specifically state that they interrupt. The Ready action specifically says that it doesn't interrupt its trigger. That's the difference. You can't reason from a specific instance to a general rule. In this case, there doesn't seem to be a clearly-stated general rule, just a bunch of specific rules for specific cases.

The point though is that "starts casting" appears to be a valid trigger, as noted by Jeremy saying Silence can interrupt a spell. If the silence had to wait for the spell to finish it wouldn't do anything, the verbal component has been provided at that point.

[greenstone]

Can a character make a readied action to "attack when creature X begins casting a spell"?
The trigger must be perceivable.

So, what exactly do you percieve when someone starts to cast a spell? What does it look like? Sound like?

[sithlordnergal]

The trigger must be perceivable.

So, what exactly do you percieve when someone starts to cast a spell? What does it look like? Sound like?

Depends heavily on the spell. Usually it involves specific hand movements, saying specific words, and either pulling out specific components or making use of a focus in some way. All things you can percieve.

[RSP]

I'm not going to wade in on the broader topic, but Counterspell and OAs specifically state that they interrupt. The Ready action specifically says that it doesn't interrupt its trigger. That's the difference. You can't reason from a specific instance to a general rule. In this case, there doesn't seem to be a clearly-stated general rule, just a bunch of specific rules for specific cases.

It’s a RAW grey area. If the trigger was “when the enemy casts a spell” then they cannot interrupt the casting of the spell. But if the trigger is “when they start casting a spell” then they can’t interrupt the start of the casting but whenever the start of the casting moves to “middle of the casting” then they would get their Reaction, as they’ve waited for the trigger to finish and didn’t interrupt it.

This all goes into not having a whole lot of info on what does or doesn’t qualify as a valid trigger.

I’ve read threads here on a Hasted Rogue getting a 2nd Sneak Attack by Readying their attack on the trigger of “when my turn is over”, which is a ridiculous in-game concept, as “turns” not only don’t exist in the in-game world, but also, they all generally occur over the same 6 second span.

[Contrast]

In this case, there doesn't seem to be a clearly-stated general rule, just a bunch of specific rules for specific cases.

Chapter 8 of the DMG has this to say:


Adjudicating Reaction Timing
Typical combatants rely on the opportunity attack and the Ready action for most of their reactions in a fight. Various spells and features give a creature more reaction options, and sometimes the timing of a reaction can be difficult to adjudicate. Use this rule of thumb: follow whatever timing is specified in the reaction’s description. For example, the opportunity attack and the shield spell are clear about the fact that they can interrupt their triggers. If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action.

[Psyren]

The trigger must be perceivable.

So, what exactly do you percieve when someone starts to cast a spell? What does it look like? Sound like?

What does someone casting Counterspell perceive? How are they able to use theirs before the spell goes off?

[ad_hoc]

If you can use your readied action before triggers by just inserting "at the start of" to whatever it is you are reacting to then the rule in the Ready action that it occurs after the trigger is meaningless.

It is munchkinery word play to abuse the rules. Nothing more.

[Valmark]

If you can use your readied action before triggers by just inserting "at the start of" to whatever it is you are reacting to then the rule in the Ready action that it occurs after the trigger is meaningless.

It is munchkinery word play to abuse the rules. Nothing more.

Note that in the quoted rule 'happens after the trigger' is only valid if you don't specify when it happens when you ready the action. So if one readied something to go off 'at the start of' the rule you're mentioning isn't taken into consideration.

Speaking of which, I didn't know that was a clause. It makes even less sense to forbid the reaction mid casting.

[RSP]

If you can use your readied action before triggers by just inserting "at the start of" to whatever it is you are reacting to then the rule in the Ready action that it occurs after the trigger is meaningless.

It is munchkinery word play to abuse the rules. Nothing more.

Why’s that? In-game, it seems very likely characters would go off of stuff like initial movements rather than waiting for a completed action.

For instance, “if they start casting a spell” is a valid in-game approach for adventurers to be wary of, rather than “I’ll wait until they cast something, possibly killing or incapacitating myself or my friends”, in terms of the Ready Action.

Why would you think Adventurers who are well aware of what Magic can do, would wait on that?

[jas61292]

While I'd like attacking there to be more counterplay for spells, I for one would not allow most reactions, such as readied attacks, to interrupt them. Reactions take place after their trigger, not during them, unless specifically stated, and I don't think one should be able to circumvent this rule by just saying the trigger is when the action begins.

A person readying an attack for when the enemy casts a spell is going to react the moment they see a spell being cast. They are not going to wait until it's finished to react. But the fact is that by rule, their action happens afterwards. Simply saying the word "begins" to try and cheese that feels like an abuse of the rules, and I could see it opening up a can of worms that I don't want to have to deal with in other scenarios.

Just as you can't ready an action before combat to circumvent initiative, you should not be able to use a the word "begins" to circumvent the reaction timing rules.

[Ryton]

If you can use your readied action before triggers by just inserting "at the start of" to whatever it is you are reacting to then the rule in the Ready action that it occurs after the trigger is meaningless.

It is munchkinery word play to abuse the rules. Nothing more.

So, to extrapolate on your position using a hypothetical situation, if a tavern was on fire, and the nearby paladin wanted ready an action to heroically catch a commoner trying to escape the blaze by jumping out of a second story building, that would be blatant munchkinery? After all, catching the commoner after they fall, but before they take the fall damage (which the rules clearly and explicitly say happen immediately after the jump) would be interrupting that action, so clearly the player of the paladin must be trying to abuse the rules.

Am I correct in my assessment of your stance?

[Valmark]

While I'd like attacking there to be more counterplay for spells, I for one would not allow most reactions, such as readied attacks, to interrupt them. Reactions take place after their trigger, not during them, unless specifically stated, and I don't think one should be able to circumvent this rule by just saying the trigger is when the action begins.


You have it backwards- if you don't specify when you take the readied action then it defaults to after the trigger.

[RSP]

But the fact is that by rule, their action happens afterwards. Simply saying the word "begins" to try and cheese that feels like an abuse of the rules, and I could see it opening up a can of worms that I don't want to have to deal with in other scenarios.

Just as you can't ready an action before combat to circumvent initiative, you should not be able to use a the word "begins" to circumvent the reaction timing rules.

What “rule” are you referring to? I’m unaware of anything RAW that declares the trigger cannot be the start of something.

I’m also not sure what “can of worms” you’re worried about. Keep in mind we’re discussing the use of a Ready Action, which means the character in question already had the chance to act before the spell, got in position to attack and what not, and is literally holding their weapon within range of the target, in anticipation of having to use it.

In some cases (a level 5+ martial with Extra Attack), the Ready attack will be worse than having made the attack on their own terms.

This is really just for niche cases where the PCs think there’s a chance of the enemy surrendering so they prepare to act if that isn’t the case. If not, they’ve already just used the Attack Action on their turn.

I’m not sure why people think it’s bad or against the rules to allow this: seems completely RAI to me.

The converse is even kind of ridiculous: the character is faster to act than the target (rolled higher initiative) and is positioned to strike, with weapon raised, but must wait while the target does stuff for ~6 seconds before they can actually swing.

How is that more realistic in-game than allowing the “start of” trigger? Making them wait the 6 seconds seems way more in the vein of “rules lawyer-y” and “munchkin” “cheese” than not.

[Psyren]

So, to extrapolate on your position using a hypothetical situation, if a tavern was on fire, and the nearby paladin wanted ready an action to heroically catch a commoner trying to escape the blaze by jumping out of a second story building, that would be blatant munchkinery? After all, catching the commoner after they fall, but before they take the fall damage (which the rules clearly and explicitly say happen immediately after the jump) would be interrupting that action, so clearly the player of the paladin must be trying to abuse the rules.

Am I correct in my assessment of your stance?

+1 to this question.

And I would add - without this rule or access to counterspell, is there any way for a martial (say an archer) to interrupt a caster?

[NaughtyTiger]

If you can use your readied action before triggers by just inserting "at the start of" to whatever it is you are reacting to then the rule in the Ready action that it occurs after the trigger is meaningless.

It is munchkinery word play to abuse the rules. Nothing more.


Do you apply same rigour to movement?

I ready an action to cut the rope when the goblin steps onto the bridge, does my action take place when she first steps on the bridge or at the end of her 60ft dash?
I ready an action to hide in shadows if a guard comes around the corner, does the guard come completely into the room, see me, then I try to hide?


You have it backwards- if you don't specify when you take the readied action then it defaults to after the trigger.
This is a great comment.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Do you apply same rigour to movement?

I ready an action to cut the rope when the goblin steps onto the bridge, does my action take place when she first steps on the bridge or at the end of her 60ft dash?
I ready an action to hide in shadows if a guard comes around the corner, does the guard come completely into the room, see me, then I try to hide?

Category error: movement is not an Action. Thus, considerations that apply to Actions don't necessarily apply to movement.

Note: this is not me supporting ad_hoc's reasoning--I'm still neutral on that point. Merely that this comparison fails on its own merit, at least without further reasoning as to why those two can be compared safely.

[jas61292]

What “rule” are you referring to? I’m unaware of anything RAW that declares the trigger cannot be the start of something.

Don't have my books right with me, but a quick internet search says that this is from the DMG:

"Various spells and features give a creature more reaction options, and sometimes the timing of a reaction can be difficult to adjudicate. Use this rule of thumb: follow whatever timing is specified in the reaction’s description. For example, the opportunity attack and the shield spell are clear about the fact that they can interrupt their triggers. If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action."

And while some have indicated that you get to choose the timing for your readied action, that last clause specifically denies that, indicating that the Ready action is an example of an action where no timing is specified and thus always occurs after its trigger finishes. And I don't even want to get into the argument that using "when they begin doing X" as a trigger somehow means that it goes off when they "finish beginning," because that is ridiculous and stupid and gets into a level of granularity that this game does not support.

If you want further clarification, the following is from Xanathar's:

"If you’re unsure when a reaction occurs in relation to its trigger, here’s the rule: the reaction happens after its trigger completes, unless the description of the reaction explicitly says otherwise."

The entire point of these sections is to say that a reaction happens after what it is reacting to. Not when the person making the reaction decides they want it to happen. It happens after. This is the general rule, and only if a specific reaction type specifies otherwise (such as those outlined in the passage from the DMG) does it happen at some other time.

Again, I don't have my books on me, so I apologize if the exact wording I found online is incorrect, but it definitely is, at least in a general sense, what I remember those books to say.

[Psyren]

Don't have my books right with me, but a quick internet search says that this is from the DMG:

"Various spells and features give a creature more reaction options, and sometimes the timing of a reaction can be difficult to adjudicate. Use this rule of thumb: follow whatever timing is specified in the reaction’s description. For example, the opportunity attack and the shield spell are clear about the fact that they can interrupt their triggers. If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action."

And while some have indicated that you get to choose the timing for your readied action, that last clause specifically denies that, indicating that the Ready action is an example of an action where no timing is specified and thus always occurs after its trigger finishes. And I don't even want to get into the argument that using "when they begin doing X" as a trigger somehow means that it goes off when they "finish beginning," because that is ridiculous and stupid and gets into a level of granularity that this game does not support.

If you want further clarification, the following is from Xanathar's:

"If you’re unsure when a reaction occurs in relation to its trigger, here’s the rule: the reaction happens after its trigger completes, unless the description of the reaction explicitly says otherwise."

The entire point of these sections is to say that a reaction happens after what it is reacting to. Not when the person making the reaction decides they want it to happen. It happens after. This is the general rule, and only if a specific reaction type specifies otherwise (such as those outlined in the passage from the DMG) does it happen at some other time.

Again, I don't have my books on me, so I apologize if the exact wording I found online is incorrect, but it definitely is, at least in a general sense, what I remember those books to say.

None of that is relevant to RSP's post though. Yes, a Readied action has to occur after its trigger, everyone agrees on that. The question is, how finely can we define said trigger to be. Jeremy's tweet indicates that the trigger for a spellcast does NOT have to be the spell going off successfully.

[PhoenixPhyre]

None of that is relevant to RSP's post though. Yes, a Readied action has to occur after its trigger, everyone agrees on that. The question is, how finely can we define said trigger to be. Jeremy's tweet indicates that the trigger for a spellcast does NOT have to be the spell going off successfully.

His tweet indicated that he is ok with the trigger for the spellcast being that. Not that the rules somehow require that. The acceptable granularity is, as far as I can tell, entirely up to the DM/table.

[jas61292]

His tweet indicated that he is ok with the trigger for the spellcast being that. Not that the rules somehow require that. The acceptable granularity is, as far as I can tell, entirely up to the DM/table.

This is 100% correct, in my opinion. The rules themselves give very little guidance, and so it is almost entirely on the DM.

That being said, I personally believe that the rules, while they do not say so explicitly, tend to indicate that actions are very atomic and cannot normally be broken up, with most such effects that do allow for it explicitly being worded as exceptions, such as the example reactions listed in the DMG quote from my last post. Similarly, the rules on moving between attacks is a specifically listed exception to the rule right before it that movement can be before or after your action. If actions were not atomic and could be freely broken up by default, they would have just worded it as "movement can take place before, during or after your action," instead of listing a general rule directly followed by an exceptions to it.

Now again, this is just my personal interpretation. I am not saying that the rule themselves actually come out and say that actions can never be broken up unless something specifically says otherwise. I am just saying that the way things tend to be worded makes me believe that this is the intention, and, in accordance with the fact that acceptable reaction triggers are up to the DM, I would rule that a reaction cannot react to a single part of an otherwise atomic action, in order to go earlier that it otherwise would be able to.

[NaughtyTiger]

Category error: movement is not an Action. Thus, considerations that apply to Actions don't necessarily apply to movement.

Note: this is not me supporting ad_hoc's reasoning--I'm still neutral on that point. Merely that this comparison fails on its own merit, at least without further reasoning as to why those two can be compared safely.

I agree: Actions are a meta- and not perceivable; therefore, actions can't be triggers.
Movement, gesturing, uttering arcane gibberish is perceivable. Humans and gnomes can identify the transition from not movement (not gesture, not gibber) to movement ( gesture, gibber)

The PHB recognizes: "movement before action", "movement after action", and "movement between attacks".
The PHB does not explicitly say that "movement before action" is not an atomic step.

So asking whether ad_hoc's interpretation of atomic applies to segments of movement allows me to "further reason as to whether those two can be compared"


You see, asking a clarifying question is not a category error, it is a step in rational discussion

[RSP]

Don't have my books right with me, but a quick internet search says that this is from the DMG:

"Various spells and features give a creature more reaction options, and sometimes the timing of a reaction can be difficult to adjudicate. Use this rule of thumb: follow whatever timing is specified in the reaction’s description. For example, the opportunity attack and the shield spell are clear about the fact that they can interrupt their triggers. If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action."

And while some have indicated that you get to choose the timing for your readied action, that last clause specifically denies that, indicating that the Ready action is an example of an action where no timing is specified and thus always occurs after its trigger finishes. And I don't even want to get into the argument that using "when they begin doing X" as a trigger somehow means that it goes off when they "finish beginning," because that is ridiculous and stupid and gets into a level of granularity that this game does not support.

If you want further clarification, the following is from Xanathar's:

"If you’re unsure when a reaction occurs in relation to its trigger, here’s the rule: the reaction happens after its trigger completes, unless the description of the reaction explicitly says otherwise."

The entire point of these sections is to say that a reaction happens after what it is reacting to. Not when the person making the reaction decides they want it to happen. It happens after. This is the general rule, and only if a specific reaction type specifies otherwise (such as those outlined in the passage from the DMG) does it happen at some other time.

Again, I don't have my books on me, so I apologize if the exact wording I found online is incorrect, but it definitely is, at least in a general sense, what I remember those books to say.

And nothing goes against those rules. The trigger being discussed isn’t “when they finish casting a spell”, it’s “when they start casting a spell”. That’s what the trigger is.

The character/player determines the trigger of the Ready Action. For reference here’s the RAW:

“First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction. Then, you choose the action you will take in response to that trigger, or you choose to move up to your speed in response to it. Examples in- clude “If the cultist steps on the trapdoor, I’ll pull the lever that opens it,” and “If the goblin steps next to me, I move away.”

Why isn’t “starting to cast a spell” a “perceivable circumstance”?

Also note the examples given: “if the cultist steps on the trapdoor” is a viable trigger, and you don’t have to wait “until the cultist is completed with their movement (or Action)” but actually interrupts what the cultist is doing.

Only the in-game perceivable trigger needs to be completed, not the meta Action that needs to be completed.

[Psyren]

His tweet indicated that he is ok with the trigger for the spellcast being that. Not that the rules somehow require that. The acceptable granularity is, as far as I can tell, entirely up to the DM/table.

Right, and RAW isn't clear so RAI is next in line, that's how it works. "Begins casting" is as perceptible as "finishes casting."

[PhoenixPhyre]

Right, and RAW isn't clear so RAI is next in line, that's how it works. "Begins casting" is as perceptible as "finishes casting."

There is no hierarchy of rules. There are defaults, but the actual rules are up to the table. The text, defaults, and developer opinions are all input for that process. In this case, there is no default. The only option is to ask the table how they want to play.

[jas61292]

And nothing goes against those rules. The trigger being discussed isn’t “when they finish casting a spell”, it’s “when they start casting a spell”. That’s what the trigger is.

The character/player determines the trigger of the Ready Action. For reference here’s the RAW:

“First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction. Then, you choose the action you will take in response to that trigger, or you choose to move up to your speed in response to it. Examples in- clude “If the cultist steps on the trapdoor, I’ll pull the lever that opens it,” and “If the goblin steps next to me, I move away.”

Why isn’t “starting to cast a spell” a “perceivable circumstance”?

Also note the examples given: “if the cultist steps on the trapdoor” is a viable trigger, and you don’t have to wait “until the cultist is completed with their movement (or Action)” but actually interrupts what the cultist is doing.

Only the in-game perceivable trigger needs to be completed, not the meta Action that needs to be completed.

While this is broadly true, trying to use "starting to cast a spell" is not only trying to get around what I perceive as the spirit of the rule and the entire reason the "reactions come after their triggers" section was even printed, but it also requires you to get into breaking up atomized actions into discrete parts in a way that the game does not support.

If you say you react to them "starting to cast a spell," then by rule your reaction goes off once they finish "starting to cast a spell." Not when they have started casting. When they have "finished starting". At what moment have they "finished starting"? Spells do not have discrete beginnings, middles and ends. The only way, by the rules, that we know a casting has "finished starting", is when it has ended. This is not the same as the example of the cultist stepping on a trap door, because we know exactly when that happens, and it has nothing to do with them using the rest of their movement or an action. And that is because the trigger is an event. Not the start of an event, but an event in full.

Ultimately, I'm not saying that you or any DM is wrong for allowing such a thing. I'm just saying that I think that this feels cheesy, because it is trying to break things down in a way that the game is not designed for. If you want to react to a spell being cast, then, imo, you react to the spell being cast. Not some fraction thereof.

[NaughtyTiger]

If you say you react to them "starting to cast a spell," then by rule your reaction goes off once they finish "starting to cast a spell." Not when they have started casting. When they have "finished starting". At what moment have they "finished starting"? Spells do not have discrete beginnings, middles and ends. The only way, by the rules, that we know a casting has "finished starting", is when it has ended. This is not the same as the example of the cultist stepping on a trap door, because we know exactly when that happens, and it has nothing to do with them using the rest of their movement or an action. And that is because the trigger is an event. Not the start of an event, but an event in full.


Stepping on a trap door doesn't have a discrete beginning, middle, or end either.

But, we know exactly when "a cultist steps on the trap door.

Is it when his first foot touches but before he puts his weight on it?
Is it when both feet are firmly planted on the door?
No, it is when the player and DM agree that enough of him is on the door to fall through when the lever is pulled.

We know exactly when "starting to cast a spell happens"
When the player and DM agree that there is enough perceptible casting.
When in the narrative, they start uttering gibberish, waving their fingers, and digging in their pouch, and the first glow of power starts to built up.

[jas61292]

We know exactly when "a cultist steps on the trap door.
Is it when his first foot touches but before he puts his weight on it?
Is it when both feet are firmly planted on the door?
No, it is when the player and DM agree that enough of him is on the door to fall through when the level is pulled.

We know exactly when "starting to cast a spell happens"
When the player and DM agree that there is enough perceptible casting.
When in the narrative, they start uttering gibberish, waving their fingers, and digging in their pouch, and the first glow of power starts to built up.

But that's not what the rules say. We don't need to know when someone starts casting. We need to know when they have finished starting.

We know when a cultist has finished stepping on a trap door. Its when he is standing on top of it. It does not matter whether it starts when his foot barely touches or when he first begins the step or when his weight is all the way down. All of that is irrelevant. What matters is when he has finished stepping onto it, and that is pretty darn obvious.

The same is also true for casting a spell. We know very well when someone has finished casting a spell. Its effect goes off. Its a discrete action, and when it is done, it is done.

But that cannot be said for "starting to cast a spell." We have no idea when someone has finished starting because that is not a discrete event. Yes, the caster waving their fingers and muttering has started casting a spell. But have they finished starting? Who knows. "Finished starting" practically a nonsense phrase, but it is what actually matters here. And the only reason it is even being discussed is because people want to try and use open ended rules to get around their own intended limits.

[RSP]

While this is broadly true, trying to use "starting to cast a spell" is not only trying to get around what I perceive as the spirit of the rule and the entire reason the "reactions come after their triggers" section was even printed, but it also requires you to get into breaking up atomized actions into discrete parts in a way that the game does not support.

Why doesn’t the game support breaking up Actions?

Your theory doesn’t really make sense as “reactions come after their triggers” isn’t written to support “atomic Actions”, as you suggest, but is just logical: the alternative being that Reactions occur before their triggers, which just doesn’t make sense as now a Ready attack can kill a character before that character actually does the perceivable circumstance which triggered the attack in the first place.

I imagine that if the devs intended Ready to only be done after a completed Action, the rule would have been written as “First, you decide what perceivable Action will trigger your reaction,” not what is actually the RAW of “First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction.”

“Perceivable circumstance” in no way is equal to “Perceivable completed Action” yet this seems to be the basis of your argument.



If you say you react to them "starting to cast a spell," then by rule your reaction goes off once they finish "starting to cast a spell."

Correct, if “starting to cast a spell” is the trigger, then the Ready Action occurs immediately following that. When is that? “Ask your DM” is the answer, but I imagine before “finished casting a spell”, logically.



Spells do not have discrete beginnings, middles and ends. The only way, by the rules, that we know a casting has "finished starting", is when it has ended. This is not the same as the example of the cultist stepping on a trap door, because we know exactly when that happens, and it has nothing to do with them using the rest of their movement or an action. And that is because the trigger is an event. Not the start of an event, but an event in full.

No, the trigger does not have to be “an event in full” (however you’re defining that), but a”perceivable circumstance”, RAW. Starting to cast a spell is very much a perceivable circumstance, one that occurs before the ending of casting a spell. If it wasn’t, there could be no Counterspell.



Ultimately, I'm not saying that you or any DM is wrong for allowing such a thing. I'm just saying that I think that this feels cheesy, because it is trying to break things down in a way that the game is not designed for.

The rules do not support your assertion that the game is not designed to have circumstances occur during an Action. The game is very much designed in having all actions (lowercase, not just “Actions”), occurring during all turns within the same round, for all characters, to happen during the same ~6 seconds. There’s no way circumstances aren’t occurring at the same time and during each characters Actions (it’s merely the resolution of Actions we deal with outside of that in-game ~6 seconds).

To put that another way, in-game circumstances are what are perceivable as triggers for Ready. Those circumstances occur throughout the many characters involved in a combat’s Actions. The Rogue doesn’t spend 6 seconds doing their turn, only to then stand still for a minute while the other 10 characters take their turns, in-game. Rather, all 13 characters are acting within the same 6 seconds, therefore the circumstances occurring as a result of the Actions will overlap.

And again, the RAW specifies the circumstances are triggers, not Actions.

[PhantomSoul]

Stepping on a trap door doesn't have a discrete beginning, middle, or end either.

But, we know exactly when "a cultist steps on the trap door.

Is it when his first foot touches but before he puts his weight on it?
Is it when both feet are firmly planted on the door?
No, it is when the player and DM agree that enough of him is on the door to fall through when the lever is pulled.

We know exactly when "starting to cast a spell happens"
When the player and DM agree that there is enough perceptible casting.
When in the narrative, they start uttering gibberish, waving their fingers, and digging in their pouch, and the first glow of power starts to built up.

While I see the intended point, there is a difference between different types of actions/verbs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telicity, which interacts with mechanics quite nicely actually), and I treat the "after the trigger" to be crucially (a) not during the trigger, and (b) superseded by what gets allowed as a trigger. (Where a non-character-controlled trigger like Contingency isn't necessarily the same as a character-controlled trigger like a Reaction because of who/what interprets the condition.) But the big decision points to me are (a) it's largely mechanics interacting with mechanics, and (b) the abuse sniff test, which, as noted above, it's not really passing. I similarly don't have a "starts attacking" option that lets you sneak in before the other creature's attack. If you're casting a spell longer than one action, in game terms you've gone beyond a "time/event unit", though. Similarly, you can use those units for repeating actions; if your trigger is "a creature falls", you can do it when they start falling (or first enter your range) and then at the start of your next turn if they're still falling (e.g. it's a long drop and you're staying within range). You don't get to wait X number of turns; you make the decision and then you stick with it until the situation changes (they stop and restart falling or you're mechanically at a new unit of time, which for reactions is a round starting on your turn). All ruling, of course, but 5e without rulings is unplayable!

I did change the Mage Slayer Feat, though; there I feel you're investing sufficiently that breaking the default and getting a special ability (with special outcome) fits.

[RSP]

But the big decision points to me are (a) it's largely mechanics interacting with mechanics, and (b) the abuse sniff test, which, as noted above, it's not really passing.

If you don’t mind expounding, what is abusable? Using Ready to Attack is not as good as just attacking, which is what’s being discussed.

How is foregoing 2+ attacks, for 1 attack that may not even occur (because the circumstance that would trigger it did not occur) an abuse?

[Psyren]

There is no hierarchy of rules. There are defaults, but the actual rules are up to the table. The text, defaults, and developer opinions are all input for that process. In this case, there is no default. The only option is to ask the table how they want to play.

Well obviously what a random message board has to say on a topic can't supersede my GM's ruling. But there's a chance a GM on the fence might come to a thread like this one looking for opinions. "Go ask your GM" is a conversational dead end, and if you don't feel like discussing something beyond that then that's completely fine, but clearly others of us do.


While this is broadly true, trying to use "starting to cast a spell" is not only trying to get around what I perceive as the spirit of the rule and the entire reason the "reactions come after their triggers" section was even printed, but it also requires you to get into breaking up atomized actions into discrete parts in a way that the game does not support.

If you say you react to them "starting to cast a spell," then by rule your reaction goes off once they finish "starting to cast a spell." Not when they have started casting. When they have "finished starting". At what moment have they "finished starting"? Spells do not have discrete beginnings, middles and ends. The only way, by the rules, that we know a casting has "finished starting", is when it has ended. This is not the same as the example of the cultist stepping on a trap door, because we know exactly when that happens, and it has nothing to do with them using the rest of their movement or an action. And that is because the trigger is an event. Not the start of an event, but an event in full.

Ultimately, I'm not saying that you or any DM is wrong for allowing such a thing. I'm just saying that I think that this feels cheesy, because it is trying to break things down in a way that the game is not designed for. If you want to react to a spell being cast, then, imo, you react to the spell being cast. Not some fraction thereof.

1) The game is explicitly designed for this, otherwise Counterspell - the entire spell - would be impossible. Casting therefore cannot be an "atomic action."

2) Clearly the designer of the rules doesn't agree with what you think the spirit or the design of the game is.

[jas61292]

1) The game is explicitly designed for this, otherwise Counterspell - the entire spell - would be impossible. Casting therefore cannot be an "atomic action."

No. The game is explicitly designed to have general rules and specific exceptions. Counterspell is a specific exception. The general rule is that reactions happen after their trigger. A single exception, or even a dozen or more, existing does not invalidate the base rule. The key with exceptions is that they are specifically laid out. If an exception meant the base rule never applied, they would not list the base rule in the first place.

[NaughtyTiger]

But that's not what the rules say. We don't need to know when someone starts casting. We need to know when they have finished starting.

"finished starting", i love english


I would like to ready an action to grab Bob if he starts to fall off the ledge.
But I assume you won't allow that because it is abuse.
We need to know when they have finished starting to fall.

I would like to ready an action to shut the door the enemy is not casting a spell.
When do i shut the door?
We need to know when they have finished "not casting a spell".
The only way they finish "not casting a spell" is to cast a spell.

[RSP]

No. The game is explicitly designed to have general rules and specific exceptions. Counterspell is a specific exception. The general rule is that reactions happen after their trigger. A single exception, or even a dozen or more, existing does not invalidate the base rule. The key with exceptions is that they are specifically laid out. If an exception meant the base rule never applied, they would not list the base rule in the first place.

Counterspell is not an exception. Counterspell does indeed occur after its “trigger”, which is after seeing a creature casting a spell.” If Counterspell was an exception, as you say, it would occur before seeing someone casting a spell. However, it does, in fact, occur after the Reaction trigger of seeing someone casting a spell.

For reference, here’s the RAW:

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

[PhantomSoul]

Counterspell is not an exception. Counterspell does indeed occur after its “trigger”, which is after seeing a creature casting a spell.” If Counterspell was an exception, as you say, it would occur before seeing someone casting a spell. However, it does, in fact, occur after the Reaction trigger of seeing someone casting a spell.

For reference, here’s the RAW:

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

Methinks the exception here is that the casting hasn't completed :)

[jas61292]

"finished starting", i love english

I would like to ready an action to shut the door the enemy is not casting a spell.

When do i shut the door?

We need to know when they have finished "not casting a spell".

The only way they finish "not casting a spell" is to cast a spell.

And this is why DMs exist. The idea of using something not happening as a trigger may not be explicitly against any rules, but it is absurd and non-sensical. The only reasons one would even think to state such a thing are because one is either trying to get around the fact that reactions explicitly happen after their triggers, or because they think stating something so ambiguous will mean their DM will allow them to act out of turn whenever they feel like.

Listen, I've said from the start that the readied action triggers are very much an area of the game up to DM discretion. But if the intent was to allow reactions to go before or interrupt triggers, they would not have explicitly stated that reactions go after and do not interrupt triggers. I find it absurd to suggest otherwise.


Counterspell is not an exception. Counterspell does indeed occur after its “trigger”, which is after seeing a creature casting a spell.” If Counterspell was an exception, as you say, it would occur before seeing someone casting a spell. However, it does, in fact, occur after the Reaction trigger of seeing someone casting a spell.

For reference, here’s the RAW:

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

The exception is in when it happens, not what triggers it. It is still triggered by something happening, it is just different in that it goes off before the thing that triggered it. This is even more obvious if you look at an example such as an Attack of Opportunity. The trigger there is someone moving out of your reach. But the reaction is attacking them, and despite you not getting your reaction until they move, the reaction explicitly happens before they move (otherwise they would be out of reach and you would miss). Ultimately, its a meta thing. You are not literally reacting to something before it happens. The mechanics are just resolved out of order, because in these instances, that is the only order that could make sense.

[RSP]

Methinks the exception here is that the casting hasn't completed :)

What rule is that? No rule, so far as I’m away, says Reactions cannot occur during Actions.

So I’m not sure how we have exceptions to a rule that doesn’t exist.

[Psyren]

No. The game is explicitly designed to have general rules and specific exceptions. Counterspell is a specific exception. The general rule is that reactions happen after their trigger. A single exception, or even a dozen or more, existing does not invalidate the base rule. The key with exceptions is that they are specifically laid out. If an exception meant the base rule never applied, they would not list the base rule in the first place.

There is no base rule saying that casting a spell is an "atomic action." That term does no appear anywhere in the rules that I can see.

[jas61292]

There is no base rule saying that casting a spell is an "atomic action." That term does no appear anywhere in the rules that I can see.

What appears in the rules is that, except for specific exceptions, of which the Ready action is not one, reactions come after their triggers.

If an action granted by the Ready action, by rule, comes after its trigger, then if for any given trigger X and reaction Y, there is a way to word it such that Y only happens when X happens, but comes before X, then this contradicts the rule. They would not have printed the rule saying X comes before Y if you can make Y come before X any time you want by just using the word "starts." Its utterly absurd and ridiculous to assume otherwise.

[NaughtyTiger]

I would not allow that trigger.
that is a valid, but not exclusive interpretation


Also not a trigger I would allow. It's not a perceivable action or state change. It's a default state of things. You can do it on your turn.
you can perceive when someone stops doing something.
you can perceive when someone stops doing nothing.
you can perceive changes in state.

once something is started it is finished starting. this is a tautology.
started and finished are state changes by their very nature.



They would not have printed the rule saying X ... Its utterly absurd and ridiculous to assume otherwise.
This statement ignores the fact the game designers have reversed their opinions on what they have written many times thoughout even 5e's short history.

[PhantomSoul]

What rule is that? No rule, so far as I’m away, says Reactions cannot occur during Actions.

So I’m not sure how we have exceptions to a rule that doesn’t exist.

I mean that if the rule is interpreted as "reactions follow their triggers" (which is how it's phrased), then reading counterspell induces an exception: it's triggered by "casting" a spell. Not "starting to cast"; "casting".

If you waited for the end of casting -- following the general rule established in the DMG that the reaction follows its trigger --, then Counterspell wouldn't work. Hence Counterspell getting a specific exception.

[Ryton]

Also not a trigger I would allow. It's not a perceivable action or state change. It's a default state of things. You can do it on your turn.

Forgive me, but from the context I can't discern the subject of this statement. Which is not a perceivable action: casting a spell, or shutting a door?

[PhantomSoul]

Forgive me, but from the context I can't discern the subject of this statement. Which is not a perceivable action: casting a spell, or shutting a door?

"When the enemy is not casting a spell". Shutting the door is the action taken as a reaction, not the trigger, and the phrasing quoted wasn't "casting a spell", but "not casting a spell". ("Casts a spell" would in this case accomplish the same, but I think it's quite reasonable to refuse a trigger that is already true at the time of readying as a cheat card.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

One more philosophical question--

If your trigger is "begins casting a spell", then how do you know when it's triggering? You can wave your hands around, performing all the motions, providing all the components and not cast a spell at all. Perceptibly, you've cast a spell. But really, you haven't. So do you trigger it on hand motions? Then what about ones without somatic components or people who like to talk with their hands? On arcane words? Then does it trigger when the target starts saying anything? Remember, in this paradigm you can't wait until they've actually said anything, because that's too late. You have to do it basically as soon as they open their mouth. Because the verbal components may only be a single word, and by then the spell is cast. And if you interrupt the spell before it's cast, does it actually burn the resources (consumed components, spell slots, action)?

Basically, allowing this sort of "starts X" thing for something like spells becomes a rabbit hole to which there are no good fixed answers.

Counterspell provides explicitly what it means and costs resources. And doesn't actually interfere with casting at all--the spell is cast but has no effect. You cast counterspell after the spell is cast but before the spell takes effect. So it happens after its trigger is complete (the spell is cast), but nullifies the effects. That's very different than interfering before the spell was cast at all.

As a DM, this idea raises way more questions than it answers and seems rife for abuse. So my stance is a rebuttable presumption that it's not really a designed-in or well-supported use and probably shouldn't work.

---

The question of whether this leaves counterspell as too strong is a separate one with, I think, a separate answer. You can provide a specific "non-magical counterspell" action that defines its own terms. Hijacking Ready to do that seems, in my opinion, to cause more issues than it solves. Especially since it only works against concentration spells unless you can deal enough damage to incapacitate the enemy in that single attack (in which case, just smack them down now instead of waiting).

[RSP]

The exception is in when it happens, not what triggers it. It is still triggered by something happening, it is just different in that it goes off before the thing that triggered it.

No, it’s not. It’s trigger isn’t “when someone has cast a spell”, it’s “when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell.” Nothing in that trigger suggests it’s after the spell has been cast. It uses the active “casting a spell”, not the past tense.

So once the trigger occurs (you see a creature casting a spell), the Reaction occurs. Same as if you Ready an Attack to occur on the trigger of “when you see a creature within [weapon range] of you casting a spell.”

Kind of odd, but I’m actually going to quote you, quoting the rules, as reference here:



"Various spells and features give a creature more reaction options, and sometimes the timing of a reaction can be difficult to adjudicate. Use this rule of thumb: follow whatever timing is specified in the reaction’s description. For example, the opportunity attack and the shield spell are clear about the fact that they can interrupt their triggers. If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action."

"If you’re unsure when a reaction occurs in relation to its trigger, here’s the rule: the reaction happens after its trigger completes, unless the description of the reaction explicitly says otherwise."

Notice, nowhere in these rules does it say “Action” (outside of the fact that it’s part of the word “reaction”) nor does it say Reactions cannot occur during Actions.

It says they occur “after their triggers”. And we already know triggers for the Ready Action are “perceivable circumstances” (not perceivable completed Actions, as you suggest).

For whatever reason, you keep deciding to add into the RAW that “triggers can only be completed Actions”, but that’s just not what the rules say.

[NaughtyTiger]

there is a difference between different types of actions/verbs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telicity,
telicity relevance requires assumptions that you haven't stated


I treat the "after the trigger" to be crucially (a) not during the trigger, and (b) superseded by what gets allowed as a trigger.

no one disagrees


(b) the abuse sniff test, which, as noted above, it's not really passing.
judgemental opinion, but sure.



I similarly don't have a "starts attacking" option that lets you sneak in before the other creature's attack.


you aren't sneaking in before the other attack, you were holding off on your previous attack. In the narrative, you already of the bow drawn, finger tensed on the trigger, spell completely cast... waiting for the other guy to knock arrow/draw bow/aim/release.




if your trigger is "a creature falls", you can do it when they start falling

exactly! because it is reasonable to know when a creature "finished starting"


You don't get to wait X number of turns; you make the decision and then you stick with it until the situation changes (they stop and restart falling or you're mechanically at a new unit of time, which for reactions is a round starting on your turn)

you don't get to wait X number of turns because the readied action is only for 1 turn.
but on your turn, you may forgo acting that turn and ready an action to wait for ... again.


All ruling, of course, but 5e without rulings is unplayable!

exactly

sorry, this took a while to parse

[RSP]

I mean that if the rule is interpreted as "reactions follow their triggers" (which is how it's phrased), then reading counterspell induces an exception: it's triggered by "casting" a spell. Not "starting to cast"; "casting".

If you waited for the end of casting -- following the general rule established in the DMG that the reaction follows its trigger --, then Counterspell wouldn't work. Hence Counterspell getting a specific exception.

No, it’s triggered “when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell.”

So the trigger is complete when you see a creature actively (not past tense) casting a spell. Once that occurs (even though the “Cast a Spell” Action is not completed), the trigger is completed and Counterspell takes effect.

Again, the trigger must be completed; it has nothing to do with the metagame knowledge of what Action is occurring.

[PhantomSoul]

No, it’s not. It’s trigger isn’t “when someone has cast a spell”, it’s “when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell.” Nothing in that trigger suggests it’s after the spell has been cast. It uses the active “casting a spell”, not the past tense.

So once the trigger occurs (you see a creature casting a spell), the Reaction occurs. Same as if you Ready an Attack to occur on the trigger of “when you see a creature within [weapon range] of you casting a spell.”

Kind of odd, but I’m actually going to quote you, quoting the rules, as reference here:



Notice, nowhere in these rules does it say “Action” (outside of the fact that it’s part of the word “reaction”) nor does it say Reactions cannot occur during Actions.

It says they occur “after their triggers”. And we already know triggers for the Ready Action are “perceivable circumstances” (not perceivable completed Actions, as you suggest).

For whatever reason, you keep deciding to add into the RAW that “triggers can only be completed Actions”, but that’s just not what the rules say.

Yeah, after the trigger... and if "casting" is the trigger, you'll note it's progressive (which I'm guessing is what you meant by active), meaning it's an ongoing thing. Going after the progressive means the progressive event is in the past, so "after they are casting" = "after they cast". Hence Counterspell requiring the exception it receives! (Or the careful phrasing it receives, depending on how you interpret casting vs. effects.)



exactly! because it is reasonable to know when a creature "finished starting"


Actually, this is because "falling" has two tellic values: it's when you start falling (to fall = to no longer be controlled/standing/stable/etc) and the event of descent (to fall = to drop). Thus an ambiguity.

[NaughtyTiger]

Actually, this is because "falling" has two tellic values: it's when you start falling (to fall = to no longer be controlled/standing/stable/etc) and the event of descent (to fall = to drop). Thus an ambiguity.

could you explain how you feel "telicity" applies here?

[RSP]

One more philosophical question--

If your trigger is "begins casting a spell", then how do you know when it's triggering? You can wave your hands around, performing all the motions, providing all the components and not cast a spell at all. Perceptibly, you've cast a spell. But really, you haven't. So do you trigger it on hand motions? Then what about ones without somatic components or people who like to talk with their hands? On arcane words? Then does it trigger when the target starts saying anything? Remember, in this paradigm you can't wait until they've actually said anything, because that's too late. You have to do it basically as soon as they open their mouth. Because the verbal components may only be a single word, and by then the spell is cast. And if you interrupt the spell before it's cast, does it actually burn the resources (consumed components, spell slots, action)?

Basically, allowing this sort of "starts X" thing for something like spells becomes a rabbit hole to which there are no good fixed answers.

Counterspell provides explicitly what it means and costs resources. And doesn't actually interfere with casting at all--the spell is cast but has no effect. You cast counterspell after the spell is cast but before the spell takes effect. So it happens after its trigger is complete (the spell is cast), but nullifies the effects. That's very different than interfering before the spell was cast at all.

As a DM, this idea raises way more questions than it answers and seems rife for abuse. So my stance is a rebuttable presumption that it's not really a designed-in or well-supported use and probably shouldn't work.

---

The question of whether this leaves counterspell as too strong is a separate one with, I think, a separate answer. You can provide a specific "non-magical counterspell" action that defines its own terms. Hijacking Ready to do that seems, in my opinion, to cause more issues than it solves. Especially since it only works against concentration spells unless you can deal enough damage to incapacitate the enemy in that single attack (in which case, just smack them down now instead of waiting).

Counterspell no more defines what is entailed in casting a spell as Ready would - it simply says when you see someone casting a spell. The assumption from that, with the Spellcasting chapter rules, is that one knows when a spell that has S and V components, is being cast.

[PhantomSoul]

could you explain how you feel "telicity" applies here?

One sense of the verb has an inherent end point (when you're no longer "grounded" -- thus a clear time point for a trigger) and the other sense of the verb doesn't (there's no point at which falling is "successfully achieved", but instead landing has that; thus by the time you're after the trigger, the target has already landed and needs healing an not Feather Fall so the spell would be useless).

[RSP]

Yeah, after the trigger... and if "casting" is the trigger, you'll note it's progressive (which I'm guessing is what you meant by active), meaning it's an ongoing thing. Going after the progressive means the progressive event is in the past, so "after they are casting" = "after they cast". Hence Counterspell requiring the exception it receives! (Or the careful phrasing it receives, depending on how you interpret casting vs. effects.)

No, the trigger isn’t the casting, it’s when you see the active casting. Once you see it occurring, the trigger is completed. If you only see it after the casting is completed, then there is no Counterspelling.

Hence, not an exception.

[jas61292]

The whole counterspell stuff is really just a distraction. The rule says reactions happen when they say they happen. The whole part about happing after the trigger is finished is only when the timing is not specified. Counterspell lays out everything you need to know for it to function, so it is in a different boat than the Ready action, which is specifically mentioned as not having a spelled out timing, and thus subject to that rule.

[PhantomSoul]

No, the trigger isn’t the casting, it’s when you see the active casting. Once you see it occurring, the trigger is completed. If you only see it after the casting is completed, then there is no Counterspelling.

Hence, not an exception.

You continue to see casting until you close your eyes, look away, turn off the lights, or they stop casting :)

[RSP]

You continue to see casting until you close your eyes, look away, turn off the lights, or they stop casting :)

The trigger is “when you see” which is an instantaneous moment that then ceases: everything after that is now “after you have seen…”


The whole counterspell stuff is really just a distraction. The rule says reactions happen when they say they happen. The whole part about happing after the trigger is finished is only when the timing is not specified. Counterspell lays out everything you need to know for it to function, so it is in a different boat than the Ready action, which is specifically mentioned as not having a spelled out timing, and thus subject to that rule.

You brought up the Counterspell example; however, it’s rules are no more “laid out” than Ready. As I previously posted, you could use basically the same exact wording as your Ready Action perceivable circumstance and everything would flow the same.

Both follow the rules (which you originally posted): rules that in no way state that they require a completed Action.

[PhantomSoul]

The trigger is “when you see” which is an instantaneous moment that then ceases: everything after that is now “after you have seen…”

I don't see a problem with that, but it could still be deemed incomplete! (The event of seeing isn't done and the event of seeing casting certainly isn't)

(This did partly start with playing devil's advocate for Counterspell, which I think is specified out of clarity and not necessarily as an exception, but the event of "seeing casting" hasn't finished until either seeing is done or casting is done, so if it's after the trigger, as written in the rules, and not after the trigger begins / becomes true, then it's reasonable to treat Counterspell as specifying an exception and not specifying just for clarity.)

[RSP]

Counterspell is the (specific) exception that proves the (general) rule.

Using the phrase correctly that is. As in this specific exception proves the general rule works the other way. People often think the phrase means the opposite of what it means.

What general rule are you referring to?

[Psyren]

reactions come after their triggers.

For the millionth time, nobody is debating this.

The issue is not "where do reactions occur." The issue is "what constitutes a trigger?" That is the unclear part of the rules.

You and others believe the only possible trigger from a 1 action spell occurs when the spell goes off. The rest of us - including both Crawford and whoever designed Counterspell - do not. It's that simple.

[PhantomSoul]

For the millionth time, nobody is debating this.

The issue is not "where do reactions occur." The issue is "what constitutes a trigger?" That is the unclear part of the rules.

You and others believe the only possible trigger from a 1 action spell occurs when the spell goes off. The rest of us - including both Crawford and whoever designed Counterspell - do not. It's that simple.

Counterspell is probably best not to cite either way, since it could be a clarification or it could be a specifying an exception. (It's 5e, the day things are too comprehensible or clear they'll make a new edition!)

[Psyren]

Counterspell is probably best not to cite either way, since it could be a clarification or it could be a specifying an exception. (It's 5e, the day things are too comprehensible or clear they'll make a new edition!)

I'm citing counterspell not because of its timing, but because it proves that "start casting but not finish casting" must be a perceivable phenomenon.

[PhantomSoul]

I'm citing counterspell not because of its timing, but because it proves that "start casting but not finish casting" must be a perceivable phenomenon.

There's been an alternative already in the thread (that Counterspell plays on the difference between casting and effect, affecting the latter but not the former), and another subset proposing that there is a visible start but it's not an acceptable trigger for the table (again, not that a start can't be perceptible).

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm citing counterspell not because of its timing, but because it proves that "start casting but not finish casting" must be a perceivable phenomenon.

I don't see that--with counterspell you finish casting (having selected targets and expended the spell slot). It happens after the spell is cast but before the effect takes place. Or at least that's a valid reading. Which makes it not an exception to the timing rules at all.

[RSP]

I don't see that--with counterspell you finish casting (having selected targets and expended the spell slot). It happens after the spell is cast but before the effect takes place. Or at least that's a valid reading. Which makes it not an exception to the timing rules at all.

No. Counterspell must be cast during the casting, not after the casting is completed, per the wording of the Reaction. It doesn’t, however, affect the casting of the target spell, only the effect.

For reference, here’s the pertinent part:

“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.”

So the interruption is during “the process of casting a spell”, similar to the Reaction wording of the trigger: it has to be during the active casting, not before, not after. However, it causes the target spell to fail and have “no effect.”

[PhoenixPhyre]

No. Counterspell must be cast during the casting, not after the casting is completed, per the wording of the Reaction. It doesn’t, however, affect the casting of the target spell, only the effect.

For reference, here’s the pertinent part:

“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.”

So the interruption is during “the process of casting a spell”, similar to the Reaction wording of the trigger: it has to be during the active casting, not before, not after. However, it causes the target spell to fail and have “no effect.”

Ok, that means that reading is stronger, but there's another factor.

Counterspell is a specific exception to the general rules (all spells are, by the declaration of the Spells chapter). Thus, you can't infer anything about the Ready action or its requirements from reading counterspell--the two do not interact in any way (because they don't say they do). Counterspelling does not require using the Ready action, nor does it even mention that action. No hidden rules--rules tell you what they do. They don't hide general rule statements in elliptically-phrased sections of specific exceptions.

Heck, it doesn't even say that "being in the process of casting a spell" is perceptible for any other purpose than counterspell--it likely is, but you can't get that from counterspell itself.

This (false) idea that you can infer general rules from specific ones is at the root of most rules arguments, along with the insistence on ignoring context and reading word (or phrase) by word (or phrase).

Note: I'm not saying that the rules forbid Readying against that trigger. Only that they don't require it, and that allowing it (IMO) causes more issues than not allowing it, including encouraging munchkins to weasel word their actions. The latter is enough, in my book, to say it won't fly for me. Trying to sneak something past the DM by cleverly wording your action is a betrayal of trust, just like adding the wrong number when you make a roll would be. And that goes for everything--tell me what you intend and I will do my best to implement that, if it's possible to do so. Try to trick me into letting you get away with something and I'm not going to be happy. If it happens multiple times, I'll ask you to change the behavior or leave the table. You can't generate extra effects by saying you're attacking the monster's head, after all.

If you want a non-spell way to disrupt spellcasting, talk to me and we can likely figure something out. Don't try to cheese it in by exploiting weasel wording and ambiguity.

[jas61292]

Let me try this a different way. Lets think about it from the perspective of a character in the world.

As a player, lets say your decide to ready an action to attack if a specific enemy casts a spell. Not starts to cast or anything. Just plain old casts. What is going on with the character? Are they just going to sit there, see the enemy casting a spell and do nothing, waiting around to make sure that the spell goes off before they try to attack? No, they see the enemy sorcerer pull out their wand and start waving it around and chanting, and they swing their sword at them. Sure, by the rules the spell goes off before the attack, but that does not mean they sit there idly waiting until the spell is complete. It just means that by the time the recognize a spell is being cast and they start attacking it is too late for them to get a hit in first.

In order for an action that is readied for when someone "starts casting" to be any different, then either the fact that you included the word "starts" somehow makes your character react faster, which is nonsensical, or you are arguing that by not including the word "starts" your character does indeed just sit there as they see the specified hostile action being taken, and does nothing until they are sure it is done, which is also nonsensical.

Basically, my point is that, using actual in game logic, there cannot be any functional difference between "casts" and "starts casting," as they represent the character reacting to the exact same things. And we know for certain that saying "casts" means you go after the spell is cast, so "starts casting" has to also be after the spell is cast.

[Psyren]

In order for an action that is readied for when someone "starts casting" to be any different, then either the fact that you included the word "starts" somehow makes your character react faster, which is nonsensical,

But it's not. You chose the right trigger in that instance. Your character isn't faster, they just chose the correct stimulus to react to. Waiting until the spell is done to try disrupting it is the nonsensical act.

[ad_hoc]

Here are a couple scenarios.

A uses ready action with trigger 'B begins attacking me' to move away'
B starts to swing their sword at A
A moves away provoking an OA from B.
B somehow makes a new attack even though they are already currently swinging their sword.
A moves away.
B finishes first attack and swings at air.

Similar scenario but have B casting a spell and then OA with Warcaster and they cast a spell while they are casting a different spell all with VSM components.

A readies an action to close a door at the start of a spell being cast.
B starts to cast fireball.
A closes the door.
B finishes casting fireball. What happens? Well before a spell can be cast the target(s) need to be identified and valid. And then the parameters are set. So by the rules the fireball could still be cast on the other side of the door because the magic was already set at the start of casting. Or what if you make a rule where it only happens at the end (there is no such rule of casting sequence because the game assumes it doesn't matter) and the other side of the door is no longer a valid target. Is the spell lost? Does the caster get to retarget? Do they have to target as close as they can? These questions all have no answers because it isn't something that is supposed to be done.

[RSP]

Ok, that means that reading is stronger, but there's another factor.

Counterspell is a specific exception to the general rules (all spells are, by the declaration of the Spells chapter).

What general rule are you referring to?

Counterspell isn’t an exception to any rule. Reactions tell you when they occur: Counterspell isn’t an exception to that.

Please cite the general rule you think Counterspell is an exception to.



If you want a non-spell way to disrupt spellcasting, talk to me and we can likely figure something out. Don't try to cheese it in by exploiting weasel wording and ambiguity.

I’m not sure what advantage you think is being achieved by using Ready to Attack. I don’t think anyone is arguing doing so disrupts non-Concentration casting, and Concentration spells would require a Con Save regardless of whether the DM had the Ready Attack occur during casting or immediately afterward.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Your theory doesn’t really make sense as “reactions come after their triggers” isn’t written to support “atomic Actions”, as you suggest, but is just logical: the alternative being that Reactions occur before their triggers, which just doesn’t make sense as now a Ready attack can kill a character before that character actually does the perceivable circumstance which triggered the attack in the first place.

I imagine that if the devs intended Ready to only be done after a completed Action, the rule would have been written as “First, you decide what perceivable Action will trigger your reaction,” not what is actually the RAW of “First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction.”

“Perceivable circumstance” in no way is equal to “Perceivable completed Action” yet this seems to be the basis of your argument.

Is RSP the artist formerly known as rsp29a?
I agree with this. In fact I stated this to ad_hoc in the other thread.

The trigger has to be perceivable circumstance, not a perceivable Action from the PHB.

Ad_hoc, and others are advocating for a word substitution in the PHB, that is also, frankly, abusable.

Mad Martigan is hidden in a ritual chamber awaiting the evil sorceress whom is going to cast a spell to bring doom. Mad Martigan has Readied an attack, the Trigger of which is when the Sorceress casts the spell.

Unfortunately for Mad Martigan, the evil sorceress is casting Planar Binding, which takes an hour to cast.

Under ad_hoc's ruling, the Readied Attack Action won't actually take place for an hour, until the spell casting has been completed.

That doesn't strike me as a Sound outcome.

In 5e, I have very rarely seen someone take a Ready Action, once initiative has been rolled. Typically, people announce Readied actions, (in the games I have played in), before combat begins.

The group is on a path that traverses a narrow ravine, that happens to be perfect location for an ambush...the players recognize this, and announce Readied Actions for their characters before entering the ravine.

"If I see rocks start to fall, I run".

How is this abuse?

The consequence of ad_hoc's ruling is: readying an action to attack someone casting a spell that has a casting time greater than one action, results in the character doing nothing but waiting for an extended period of time, including up to an hour.

[Gurgeh]

A uses ready action with trigger 'B begins attacking me' to move away'
B starts to swing their sword at A
A moves away provoking an OA from B.
B somehow makes a new attack even though they are already currently swinging their sword.
A moves away.
B finishes first attack and swings at air.
The designers are on the record saying that this is exactly how Counterspell works (i.e., you can interrupt your own spellcasting to counter an enemy's Counterspell) - so while it's obviously weird it's consistent with known mechanics.

[RSP]

Is RSP the artist formerly known as rsp29a?
[

It is. Figured I’d save everyone having to type “29a” when referencing my posts.


No, they see the enemy sorcerer pull out their wand and start waving it around and chanting, and they swing their sword at them. Sure, by the rules the spell goes off before the attack, but that does not mean they sit there idly waiting until the spell is complete.

What rule are you referring to here? Please quote as I have yet to see any rule state that the attack happens after the spell is cast.



And we know for certain that saying "casts" means you go after the spell is cast, so "starts casting" has to also be after the spell is cast.

How do we know this? Cite source please.

[NaughtyTiger]

As a player, lets say your decide to ready an action to attack if a specific enemy casts a spell. Not starts to cast or anything. Just plain old casts. What is going on with the character? Are they just going to sit there, see the enemy casting a spell and do nothing, waiting around to make sure that the spell goes off before they try to attack? No, they see the enemy sorcerer pull out their wand and start waving it around and chanting, and they swing their sword at them.

No...
The player ...
Gives up his full action and movement this turn for a chance to use a limited action/movement next turn

The character ...
nocked the arrow,
Drew the bow,
And stares with laser focus looking for aigns of a caster...
Then sees the mumbling and gesticulating... And releases

Or
The player's cleric
Fully casts a spell, waiting only for release.

Or
The player's fighter
Has her sword drawn fir 1 swing at the villain within 5ft of her.

But you claim the enemy sorcerer can pull out their wand and start waving it around and chanting, target, release faster than my ranger can loose the readied arrow, than the cleric can loose the cast spell, than the fighter can swing his drawn sword and the mage next to her.

[ad_hoc]

The group is on a path that traverses a narrow ravine, that happens to be perfect location for an ambush...the players recognize this, and announce Readied Actions for their characters before entering the ravine.


You can't ready outside of combat.




The consequence of ad_hoc's ruling is readying an action to attack someone casting a spell that has a casting time greater than one action, results in the character doing nothing but waiting for an extended period of time, including up to an hour.
[/quote]

The question isn't whether the character wants to interrupt the spell with a readied attack the question is whether they can. And if it has a casting time of 1 action or reaction then they cannot.

The trigger

The enemy starts and finishes their spell by the time the arrow flies at them.

Trying to Zeno's Paradox units of time to game the system creates a mess.

You could have a chain reaction of readied actions where each one triggers 'at the start' of the last one. This isn't Magic: The Gathering.

We're also not inputting computer code here. A Ready Action for 'casting a spell' would be reasonable for a DM to have the Ready happen after the action even though the caster requires more actions to complete the spell.

The contention in the thread is that it is reasonable for a Ready action to interrupt anything as long as the player puts 'starts' in the front of their trigger which negates the rule of Ready that it happens after the trigger.

[ad_hoc]

The designers are on the record saying that this is exactly how Counterspell works (i.e., you can interrupt your own spellcasting to counter an enemy's Counterspell) - so while it's obviously weird it's consistent with known mechanics.

Counterspell breaks the rule. That doesn't mean all spells can be cast while casting other spells.

Shield also allows you to get hit and then retroactively avoid getting hit. That doesn't mean that it is something that you can just do.

[Thunderous Mojo]

You can't ready outside of combat.

Is this true for just the Ready Action or all the Actions listed in the PHB under the header of Actions in Combat?

The Search Action is also listed as an Action in Combat.
Can one not Search unless Combat occurs?

An Action type being useable in combat, does not necessitate that said Action is only useable in combat.


The contention in the thread is that it is reasonable for a Ready action to interrupt anything as long as the player puts 'starts' in the front of their trigger which negates the rule of Ready that it happens after the trigger.

This seems to be a computer code like conclusion.
The Trigger has to be Perceptible, and the condition of "start of"
has to be relevant. It isn't "just semantics"...to create a "I win button".

Again, you are inserting the definition of PHB defined Actions in Combat, into text that doesn't say that....and you have never addressed your insertion of text.

To saliently defend your assertion of how the Ready action works, would you please address your insertion of words that do not appear in the text.

[ad_hoc]

Is this true for just the Ready Action or all the Actions listed in the PHB under the header of Actions in Combat?

The Search Action is also listed as an Action in Combat.
Can one not Search unless Combat occurs?

An Action type being useable in combat, does not necessitate that said Action is only useable in combat.


Ready is non-sensical outside of combat.

Outside of combat you just do the thing. In the example if the characters see rocks falling they can choose what they do when they see that. They don't need to 'Ready' to do something.

Characters are assumed to be looking out for danger and want to be ready to react to things at all times. Initiative is a way to resolve the conflict of both sides trying to be ready to respond to each other.




This seems to be a computer code like conclusion.
The Trigger has to be Perceptible, and the condition of "start of"
has to be relevant. It isn't "just semantics"...to create a "I win button".

Again, you are inserting the definition of PHB defined Actions in Combat, into text that doesn't say that....and you have never addressed your insertion of text.

To saliently defend your assertion of how the Ready action works, would you please address your insertion of words that do not appear in the text.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Ready is non-sensical outside of combat.

Characters are assumed to be looking out for danger and want to be ready to react to things at all times. Initiative is a way to resolve the conflict of both sides trying to be ready to respond to each other.

Ahh no..."Sometimes you want to get the jump on a foe or wait for a particular circumstance before you act"...from the PHB.

A Pre-Combat Readied Action might Trigger before Initiative is rolled, or before your Initiative Order.

I have a better sense from your posts regarding your style of play, so I imagine this type of a Ready action may not be needed in your game, even if you did allow it.


I have no idea what you're talking about.

I would recommend you review RSP's posts in this very thread.
RSP stated the same points, with greater eloquence, and more elegantly than myself. Baring that check out the PHB.

You ruling adds words that don't actually appear in the text.

[NaughtyTiger]

B finishes casting fireball. What happens? Well before a spell can be cast the target(s) need to be identified and valid. And then the parameters are set. So by the rules the fireball could still be cast on the other side of the door because the magic was already set at the start of casting. Or what if you make a rule where it only happens at the end (there is no such rule of casting sequence because the game assumes it doesn't matter) and the other side of the door is no longer a valid target. Is the spell lost? Does the caster get to retarget? Do they have to target as close as they can? These questions all have no answers because it isn't something that is supposed to be done.

no, the rules don't say fireball can still be cast on the other side of the door because ...
yoy as the DM decided that by filling in gaps and conflicts in the rules with your rulings.

elsewhere you observed that this isn't MTG.

exactly, this is DND
players can't abuse the game.
players and DM are not opponents
the game doesn't fully define the rules and interactions
there is a single arbiter of weird rule interactions and
your rulings aren't wrong if they dont match another table

you offer this scenario is a gotcha catch-22, but it has holes and tenuous assumptions.

[RSP]

The question isn't whether the character wants to interrupt the spell with a readied attack the question is whether they can. And if it has a casting time of 1 action or reaction then they cannot.


You keep stating this, but have yet to show any rule supporting it. Please cite a rule if you think this is true, RAW.

If you’re just stating your houserule, cool, but then stop telling other people what they cannot do.


Counterspell breaks the rule. That doesn't mean all spells can be cast while casting other spells.


What rule is being broken? Please cite.


I’m really not sure why you keep saying Counterspell is an exception to a rule that you’ve yet to be able to cite.

You’ve cited rules regarding the timing of Reaction, rules which don’t support Counterspell being an exception.

Please either tell us what rule Counterspell is the exception to, or stop saying it’s an exception. You can’t have an exception, without a rule to be excepted from.

[Keravath]

While this is broadly true, trying to use "starting to cast a spell" is not only trying to get around what I perceive as the spirit of the rule and the entire reason the "reactions come after their triggers" section was even printed, but it also requires you to get into breaking up atomized actions into discrete parts in a way that the game does not support.

If you say you react to them "starting to cast a spell," then by rule your reaction goes off once they finish "starting to cast a spell." Not when they have started casting. When they have "finished starting". At what moment have they "finished starting"? Spells do not have discrete beginnings, middles and ends. The only way, by the rules, that we know a casting has "finished starting", is when it has ended. This is not the same as the example of the cultist stepping on a trap door, because we know exactly when that happens, and it has nothing to do with them using the rest of their movement or an action. And that is because the trigger is an event. Not the start of an event, but an event in full.

Ultimately, I'm not saying that you or any DM is wrong for allowing such a thing. I'm just saying that I think that this feels cheesy, because it is trying to break things down in a way that the game is not designed for. If you want to react to a spell being cast, then, imo, you react to the spell being cast. Not some fraction thereof.

Can you cite a reference for the bolded part? As far as I am aware there is no statement anywhere in the 5e rules that actions are intrinsically atomic. Reactions CAN be taken in the midst of other actions - just look at shield or counterspell among others. In addition, the bonus action rules explicitly state that it can be taken at ANY time during your turn as long as you have a bonus action to take. I don't think the 5e rules support the statement that actions are atomic.

[RSP]

There's no statement that they aren't. Every counter example is a specific exception. And in 5e, with its specific beats general paradigm, It's very much a case of the exceptions prove the (unwritten) rule.

Except you can’t have a RAW “unwritten” rule.

So you’re trying to argue that an “unwritten rule is a rule as written” which makes zero sense.

Further, you can’t have exceptions to a rule that doesn’t actually exist, which is what you’re admitting to when saying “unwritten rule” - an unwritten rule is just an assumption on your part of what you think the RAI are.

So essentially you’re saying we’re wrong to follow the RAW because you’re assuming the rules are supposed to be something else.

The RAW supports Actions not being atomic: so many things can be done during Actions like BA, Reactions and even other Actions. Ready can be done during perceived circumstances, rather than anything dealing with the meta knowledge of Actions.

Supported RAI makes much more sense than unsupported RAI, and the support in the RAW is for RAI to be Actions are not atomic.

[PhantomSoul]

Except you can’t have a RAW “unwritten” rule.

So you’re trying to argue that an “unwritten rule is a rule as written” which makes zero sense.

Further, you can’t have exceptions to a rule that doesn’t actually exist, which is what you’re admitting to when saying “unwritten rule” - an unwritten rule is just an assumption on your part of what you think the rules are.

So essentially you’re saying we’re wrong to follow the RAW because you’re assuming the rules are supposed to be something else.

The RAW supports Actions not being atomic: so many things can be done during Actions like BA, Reactions and even other Actions. Ready can be done during perceived circumstances, rather than anything dealing with the meta knowledge of Actions.

Supported RAI makes much more sense than unsupported RAI, and the support in the RAW is for RAI to be Actions are not atomic.


Or rather, RAW says nothing, so you must assume action groups generally pattern as atomic (so specifications are assumed to be exceptions to a general assumption) or you must assume action groups are not atomic (so specifications are assumed to be clarifications that are in line with a general assumptions).

It's 5e -- assumptions might be an even bigger part of the game than rulings.

[RSP]

Or rather, RAW says nothing, so you must assume action groups generally pattern as atomic (so specifications are assumed to be exceptions to a general assumption) or you must assume action groups are not atomic (so specifications are assumed to be clarifications that are in line with a general assumptions).

It's 5e -- assumptions might be an even bigger part of the game than rulings.

Except in this case we do have RAW: the rule being discussed states explicitly that it occurs after a “perceivable circumstance”.

People are stating as a counter to that explicit RAW that we need to ignore that and follow their assumption that the rule being discussed actually is supposed to be “perceivable Action” (which makes zero sense in-game as there are no Actions in the in-game world to perceive).

They’re using an “unwritten rule” to support their statements, except unwritten rules don’t actually exist, so they’re trying to support their assumptions with further assumptions, and telling us we’re wrong to follow what actually does exist in the RAW.

[PhantomSoul]

Except in this case we do have RAW: the rule being discussed states explicitly that it occurs after a “perceivable circumstance”.

People are stating as a counter to that explicit RAW that we need to ignore that and follow their assumption that the rule being discussed actually is supposed to be “perceivable Action” (which makes zero sense in-game as there are no Actions in the in-game world to perceive).

They’re using an “unwritten rule” to support their statements, except unwritten rules don’t actually exist, so they’re trying to support their assumptions with further assumptions, and telling us we’re wrong to follow what actually does exist in the RAW.


But is it after the trigger occurs (which is the phrasing) or after the trigger becomes true? These aren't always the same. And then there's the question of valid triggers as has repeatedly come up in the thread and countless others.

Basically, it's 5e as usual: ask your table/DM. And ideally compile a document for reference for table rulings, because this is unlikely to be the first, last or only one!

[Contrast]

They’re using an “unwritten rule” to support their statements

In fairness I suspect the real argument going on here isn't about rules in so much as it is between people who'd prefer that the game shouldn't be about rewarding careful legalistic phrasing and punishing players who don't think like that and on the other side people who want readied actions to be more useful.

[RSP]

But is it after the trigger occurs (which is the phrasing) or after the trigger becomes true? These aren't always the same. And then there's the question of valid triggers as has repeatedly come up in the thread and countless others.

Basically, it's 5e as usual: ask your table/DM. And ideally compile a document for reference for table rulings, because this is unlikely to be the first, last or only one!

A RAW valid trigger is a “perceivable circumstance” per the rule.

The trigger is done once that perceivable circumstance occurs.

I don’t have any issue with people houseruling differently than the RAW. Why would I?

My issue is that they’re now telling others they need to follow that houserule and trying to use an assumed “unwritten rule” as evidence that their houserule needs to be followed.

[Psyren]

In fairness I suspect the real argument going on here isn't about rules in so much as it is between people who'd prefer that the game shouldn't be about rewarding careful legalistic phrasing and punishing players who don't think like that and on the other side people who want readied actions to be more useful.

I'd rather reward precise phrasing than punish martials even more.

[Thunderous Mojo]

In fairness I suspect the real argument going on here isn't about rules in so much as it is between people who'd prefer that the game shouldn't be about rewarding careful legalistic phrasing and punishing players who don't think like that and on the other side people who want readied actions to be more useful.

If by Legalistic you intended to mean those that have read the text of the PHB, and are applying the rules with fidelity...then I agree.

If, however, you meant Legalistic as someone that is trying to twist the text, by potentially misconstruing the text, or adjudicating rules based primarily their own personal assumptions of how the game should be;

Then I will point out, that one supporter of a particular side in this debate, has already conceded that their position is largely based off their assumptions of how the game should be played.

If a DM that is using the ad_hoc ruling, brings up this fact in Session 0, as a player I would have no problem with it. A fun game, trumps a minor dispute regarding the Ready Action.

If, however, this hypothetical DM, springs this interpretation mid-game, and then insists, that I am absolutely abusing the system..case shut..then we are going to have a conversation..and probably a lengthy one, that is potentially heated.

That is my largest objection, some people have misread the rule or decided to substitute their own version of the rule, and then have proceeded, in very thinly veiled terms, to call those who succeeded on their reading comprehension ability checks: Cheaters.

I find this to be very poor form, indeed.

[NaughtyTiger]

In fairness I suspect the real argument going on here isn't about rules in so much as it is between people who'd prefer that the game shouldn't be about rewarding careful legalistic phrasing and punishing players who don't think like that and on the other side people who want readied actions to be more useful.

if you really wanted to be fair and less demonizing you could characterize both sides accurately

both sides are rules lawyering; thus both sides are making "careful legalistic phrasing" arguments.
which camp introduced a wiki about "telicity"?
who said that "If they fall" would be too late. "If they slip" might catch them?


the difference is one side is making it a moral argument.
i mean seriously look at which camp is arguing about malice.
the against-"starts casting" folks accuse the pro- camp of "punishing players" or "abusing the system"

this "fairness" post is no different from a "bless your heart" backhand.

[PhantomSoul]

if you really wanted to be fair and less demonizing you could characterize both sides accurately

both sides are rules lawyering; thus both sides are making "careful legalistic phrasing" arguments.
which camp introduced a wiki about "telicity"?
who said that "If they fall" would be too late. "If they slip" might catch them?


Telicity was about it being ambiguous (edit: and initially popped up to highlight that interpretations will vary in example contexts contrary to the alternative claim) and how people could reasonably interpret things differently in different contexts (with Feather Fall specifically benefiting from clarification or exception regardless of interpretation). You know, the ambiguity that has been noted across multiple pages now and showing one source of it. But really, it's not like this is a solvable issue and it's not like this topic won't have a new thread in two months: the text doesn't give you the explicit details you need so you have to decide how to run it. It's 5e, business as usual!

[Contrast]

I'd rather reward precise phrasing than punish martials even more.

I'm not really sure either options helps martials substantially here - spellcasters get all the same options martials do. It feels like the situations where you know a spell is coming and are willing to forgo your additional attacks to attempt to disrupt concentration will be sufficiently rare I don't count it is as a particularly substantial boost in power.

Am I missing some interaction here?


If by Legalistic you intended to mean those that have read the text of the PHB, and are applying the rules with fidelity...then I agree.

If, however, you meant Legalistic as someone that is trying to twist the text, by potentially misconstruing the text, or adjudicating rules based primarily their own personal assumptions of how the game should be;


if you really wanted to be fair and less demonizing you could characterize both sides accurately

both sides are rules lawyering; thus both sides are making "careful legalistic phrasing" arguments.

I feel like my comment is being misconstued - my comment about legalistic phrasing was never meant to refer to anything anyone had said or is going on in this thread. It was about when you're actively in the process of playing the game at a table having to stop and construct a clear readied action trigger and then make sure your DM agrees your trigger means what you think it means lest you fall back on the unclear timing clause and end up going after.

I totally get people who think that seems like a faff and don't want it to be part of the game. I also totally get people who just say 'it'll usually be obvious from context what they're trying to achieve and it makes readied actions less niche'.

Fortunately I literally can't remember the last time someone used a readied action so its not something I've ever had to come down in a stance on :smalltongue:

[PhantomSoul]

I feel like my comment is being misconstued - my comment about legalistic phrasing was never meant to refer to anything anyone had said or is going on in this thread. It was about when you're actively in the process of playing the game at a table having to stop and construct a clear readied action trigger and then make sure your DM agrees your trigger means what you think it means lest you fall back on the unclear timing clause and end up going after.

I totally get people who think that seems like a faff and don't want it to be part of the game. I also totally get people who just say 'it'll usually be obvious from context what they're trying to achieve and it makes readied actions less niche'.

Fortunately I literally can't remember the last time someone used a readied action so its not something I've ever had to come down in a stance on :smalltongue:

I've seen them used moderately often (but not constantly, which seems like a good thing!), and usually the DM reiterates/paraphrases the condition and might check intent if ambiguous, and the game goes on. If the trigger didn't seem reasonable, it got dealt with directly with no real slow-down, and maybe it was quickly discovered that a reasonable trigger accomplished what they were actually going for. Avoiding the slowdowns and confusion of playing endlessly on exact phrasing seems like a win to me!

[NaughtyTiger]

I feel like my comment is being misconstued - my comment about legalistic phrasing was never meant to refer to anything anyone had said or is going on in this thread.


So when you wrote

In fairness I suspect the real argument going on here isn't about rules in so much as it is between people who'd prefer that the game shouldn't be about rewarding careful legalistic phrasing and punishing players who don't think like that and on the other side people who want readied actions to be more useful.

You were referring to an folks on a different thread?

And how did we misconstrue the accusation that we want to punish players?

.

[RSP]

In fairness I suspect the real argument going on here isn't about rules in so much as it is between people who'd prefer that the game shouldn't be about rewarding careful legalistic phrasing and punishing players who don't think like that and on the other side people who want readied actions to be more useful.

For me it’s about the rules.

There’s the side I’ve been arguing, which is supported by the rules.

There’s the other side, which is houserules and, supposedly, “unwritten rules of the RAW”, which, yes, is an oxymoron.

[RSP]

As a supporter of part of one of these sides, I appreciate the phrasing of this that makes me understand the other side in a less demonizing way.

Why do you feel the need to demonize those who are on the other side of an argument in the first place?

[Psyren]

I'm not really sure either options helps martials substantially here - spellcasters get all the same options martials do. It feels like the situations where you know a spell is coming and are willing to forgo your additional attacks to attempt to disrupt concentration will be sufficiently rare I don't count it is as a particularly substantial boost in power.

Am I missing some interaction here?


If you think "i want to try interrupting that buff/summon/control/debuff spell he's casting" is rare, I'm not sure what to tell you, other than "many such spells exist."

I mean, even if you hit them, they only have to save vs half the damage. Counterspell is still superior, but at least the martial gets something.

[jas61292]

For me it’s about the rules.

There’s the side I’ve been arguing, which is supported by the rules.

There’s the other side, which is houserules and, supposedly, “unwritten rules of the RAW”, which, yes, is an oxymoron.

And this is the beauty of 5e. I myself would say that my side is supported by the rules, and the other side is trying to ignore blatant rule contradictions to get more power out of something than the rules allow for.

[RSP]

And this is the beauty of 5e. I myself would say that my side is supported by the rules, and the other side is trying to ignore blatant rule contradictions to get more power out of something than the rules allow for.

Please cite the rules that support your argument then.

Also, I’m curious how “more power” is gotten out of following the RAW. Please explain that as well.

[NaughtyTiger]

And this is the beauty of 5e. I myself would say that my side is supported by the rules, and the other side is trying to ignore blatant rule contradictions to get more power out of something than the rules allow for.

more moral judgements.

abuse
punish players
ignoring blatant to get more power


it's funny, RSP has been asking for explicit which rules yall refer to...
my favorite answers are "assumptions" and "unwritten"


so your assumptions and rulings are correct, but RSPs assumptions, rulings, and RAW quotes are blatant power grabs and dishonest.

[ad_hoc]

The rule is that the reaction happens after the trigger.

Putting 'at the start of' in front of triggers to circumvent that rule would void it entirely.

If it was okay there wouldn't be a rule saying it wasn't okay.

Why have a rule if it has no impact on play?

[Thunderous Mojo]

The rule is that the reaction happens after the trigger

Agreed. Imagine a game played in Theater of the Mind; "I Ready an Attack against the Elf if they start to cast a spell".

If you mean Atomic Actions...well again consider the rule also has to work for Theater of the Mind games, as well as the fact that the ruling you are advocating for, has been shown to have issues in play.

Practically speaking, your ruling isn't easy to use, as you need to make exceptions for spells with casting times greater than an Action, and frankly would invalidate the PHB example of an adventurer opening a trapdoor when a goblin steps on it, and thus requires yet another exception, for movement.

All of these exceptions are needed to stop a martial character from taking a gamble that a spell caster might be about to cast a Concentration spell, and they might disrupt it.

This is a rare event, too say the least. In most situations it would probably be a poor choice of deeds.

The ruling you are advocating for, beyond not being supported by the text, (and your ruling not coming off as supportive of the ToTM playstyle), doesn't even lead to smoother gameplay.

Thanks for the discussion.
Good Luck, Be Well, and Good Gaming to you.

[RSP]

Yup. What I'm seeing is the primary rule being ignored is that reactions happen after their trigger finishes, by trying to define a trigger as just part of a trigger.

The trigger finishes, not the Action finishes. By saying “triggers have to be Actions” this is just you trying to replace the RAW with your houserules.


The rule is that the reaction happens after the trigger.

Putting 'at the start of' in front of triggers to circumvent that rule would void it entirely.

If it was okay there wouldn't be a rule saying it wasn't okay.

Why have a rule if it has no impact on play?

First, what rule says it’s not okay to use the words “at the start of” as part of the Ready Action trigger? You literally just stated there’s a rule that says this: “If it was okay there wouldn't be a rule saying it wasn't okay.” Please cite it.

You constantly claim things are in the rules which clearly aren’t (in case it wasn’t clear, I do not believe the RAW contains a rule saying “It’s not okay to put ‘at the start of’ in front of your triggers” as you state there is). Please either cite these rules, or stop telling us they exist when they clearly don’t; we can check this stuff.

Moving on, we know “the trigger” in this case is a “perceivable circumstance” (literally what the rules say). So the Reaction happens after a perceivable circumstance.

Whom do you think needs to perceive that circumstance? That is, is this something the in-game character must perceive, or is it something the Player must perceive?

I find it ridiculous to assume it’s anyone but the in-game character (but let me know if you think it’s meant to be stuff like “if the DM reaches for the d20, I’ll attack the goblin” - also, the examples back up that it’s the in-game character, but again, let me know if you agree or disagree and think it’s the actual Player who’s planning on pulling the trapdoor lever when they see a cultist invade their game room, as opposed to their character).

In-game characters don’t know about the meta knowledge of the game system (this is the whole point of role-playing). They aren’t “making a contested d20 roll while taking the Attack Action when they attempt to Grapple”, but are living the situation in which they’re just trying to grab their opponent.

So if the perceivable circumstance is in-game, and in-game doesn’t have Actions, how come the perceivable circumstance has to be a completed Action (which doesn’t exist in the same world of the perceivable circumstance)?

The answer is: the in-game world doesn’t use Actions, hence why the RAW of 5e doesn’t say the characters have to perceive Actions in the in-game world to react to (much less completed Actions). The in-game characters react to that which they can actually perceive, which has nothing to do with Actions.

Further, if Actions have to be atomic, as you claim (without providing any rules to back this up), how does Ready even exist? Ready, as an Action, starts on one character’s turn but isn’t completed until after the Reaction taken, which, by rule and example, regularly occurs during other characters turns?

So how can anything else occur during the Ready Action, including the perceivable circumstance (that according to you has to be another completed Action) that triggers the ending of the Ready Action, if Actions are atomic and other Actions cannot occur during them?

In your made-up-rule of “Atomic Actions”, once Ready is declared, the table just stops and the game ceases while everyone waits for the Ready Atomic Action to end, which is impossible as Ready waits for other Actions to occur and fully end, before Ready can end. If Actions are atomic, you cannot have other Actions occurring during Ready.

Moreover, let’s look at this example, and for this, I’ll use the exact same example they use in the rules: “If the cultist steps on the trapdoor, I’ll pull the lever that opens it,” is my trigger and stated Reaction prepared with Ready.

The cultist in this example has two attacks via Multiattack. We’re on their initiative order. They approach an NPC commoner, killing it with their first attack. Then continue using their movement to walk across the trapdoor and approach my PC, who’s waiting to pull the level for the trapdoor.

Except the cultist is still within their Action of Multiattack, so they get to stroll right over and past the trapdoor and up to my PC, attacking them and finishing their Multiattack.

Now that their full Multiattack Action is completed, my PC can finally use their Reaction to pull the level, which no longer has anyone standing atop it.

That’s really how you believe the Ready rules work?!?

[Bacon Elemental]

I really don't see why there has to be so much bile over a topic where one of the lead designers of the system said "yeah I think its perfectly fine if you wanna interpret this ambiguous rules hole like that".

There is no "pure/ironclad" RAW interpretation because there are two possible interpretations of the rules as written and both contradict each other. Both interpretations are fairly reasonable in most circumstances, and I dont know why people are getting fired up and throwing terms like cheater, exploit, and munchkin about.

[RSP]

I really don't see why there has to be so much bile over a topic where one of the lead designers of the system said "yeah I think its perfectly fine if you wanna interpret this ambiguous rules hole like that".

There is no "pure/ironclad" RAW interpretation because there are two possible interpretations of the rules as written and both contradict each other. Both interpretations are fairly reasonable in most circumstances, and I dont know why people are getting fired up and throwing terms like cheater, exploit, and munchkin about.

Interpreting “perceivable circumstance” as “must be a completed Action” is not a reasonable interpretation of the RAW: it necessitates changing what the RAW says, and, as shown in my previous post, even contradicts the RAW examples given.

[ad_hoc]

I really don't see why there has to be so much bile over a topic where one of the lead designers of the system said "yeah I think its perfectly fine if you wanna interpret this ambiguous rules hole like that".

There is no "pure/ironclad" RAW interpretation because there are two possible interpretations of the rules as written and both contradict each other. Both interpretations are fairly reasonable in most circumstances, and I dont know why people are getting fired up and throwing terms like cheater, exploit, and munchkin about.

One interpretation is that the rule is a rule.

The other interpretation is that the rule doesn't exist.

[RSP]

One interpretation is that the rule is a rule.

The other interpretation is that the rule doesn't exist.

What rule are you referring to? You’ve yet to cite, hence, perhaps, why some believe said rule doesn’t exist.

[RSP]

Yeah, that's a pretty good summary.

Are you referencing the rule you have already stated is an “unwritten rule”? Because if you’re stating an unwritten rule is RAW, that right there is reason to believe said rule doesn’t exist: because, RAW, it doesn’t.

Please state the rule you’re referring to so we can examine it in regards to the questions of this thread.

[jas61292]

Are you referencing the rule you have already stated is an “unwritten rule”? Because if you’re stating an unwritten rule is RAW, that right there is reason to believe said rule doesn’t exist: because, RAW, it doesn’t.

Please state the rule you’re referring to so we can examine it in regards to the questions of this thread.

The "unwritten rule" is supplement reasoning, but the core reasoning is the written rule. Reactions happen after triggers. Period. Trying to legalistically state the trigger to make a character reacting to an identical thing somehow act before the trigger is in violation of the rule.

[RSP]

The "unwritten rule" is supplement reasoning, but the core reasoning is the written rule. Reactions happen after triggers. Period. Trying to legalistically state the trigger to make a character reacting to an identical thing somehow act before the trigger is in violation of the rule.

No one is arguing that Ready’s Reaction can occur before the trigger. The two arguments, so far as I understand them, are

- the trigger is a “perceivable circumstance” (this is literally what the RAW states), which, once that circumstance is perceived in its occurrence, the Reaction happens.

- the trigger must be an Action and the Reaction occurs only after that Action is completed in its entirely (this statement has yet to be supported by any RAW, and has only been “supported” by what was described as the poster as an “unwritten rule” - which by definition cannot be RAW)

[NaughtyTiger]

One interpretation is that the rule is a rule.

The other interpretation is that the rule doesn't exist.

or an honest summary:

One interpretation is that the rule "Readied actions occur after the trigger that the player specified" is the rule

The other interpretations is that the rule "Readied actions occur after the action associated with the trigger that the player specified" is the rule

[JNAProductions]

How I would rule it (and what I believe to be hewing closer to RAW) is that you could interrupt a spell with a Readied Action. It would require some slightly finicky wording (if you say "If they cast a spell, I'll attack them," it would happen after they cast a spell-but if you said "When they start casting, I'll attack them," then you'd interrupt them) but not a ridiculous legalise or anything. Furthermore, though this is not RAW, I would have the attack (should it hit and do damage) provoke a Concentration save, even if the spell isn't Concentration itself. Just to give a reason to do this.

To those who say "You cannot interrupt a spell," I'd like to know what this would break-how is it going to make the game less fun?

And also, on the point that "What if someone mimicked spellcasting, but wasn't actually casting a spell?" I'd say that, if it looks like they're casting to the PC, the readied action triggers.

[Mjolnirbear]

And nothing goes against those rules. The trigger being discussed isn’t “when they finish casting a spell”, it’s “when they start casting a spell”. That’s what the trigger is.

The character/player determines the trigger of the Ready Action. For reference here’s the RAW:

“First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction. Then, you choose the action you will take in response to that trigger, or you choose to move up to your speed in response to it. Examples in- clude “If the cultist steps on the trapdoor, I’ll pull the lever that opens it,” and “If the goblin steps next to me, I move away.”

Why isn’t “starting to cast a spell” a “perceivable circumstance”?

Also note the examples given: “if the cultist steps on the trapdoor” is a viable trigger, and you don’t have to wait “until the cultist is completed with their movement (or Action)” but actually interrupts what the cultist is doing.

Only the in-game perceivable trigger needs to be completed, not the meta Action that needs to be completed.

I mean, all that happens then is that the casters suddenly only have one word for a somatic component and one gesture, so that by the time you notice, the casting is done. Or more correctly, maybe you notice the movement or the word before its done, but it takes a second to distinguish Hi! from arcane verbal components, which delay is impossible to avoid, thus they completely cast your spell.

Because if attackers can munchkin the vague rules around triggers despite two rules clearly stating the intent is that the trigger happens after the action, the casters can munchkin the vague rules around components into one-syllable triggers too fast to react to.

The after-the-trigger rule exists for a reason. If it can be completely eliminated by mere wordplay, then what is the point to having the rule at all?

If the argument is to determine how RAW or RAI apply here, then the mere existence of two rules clearly stating reaction after trigger really need to be the basis of your decision as a GM.

Now from the perspective of "martials should be able to counter casters", I have a couple of thoughts:

* can casters interrupt an attack or other class feature? No, unless a rule explicitly says so, such as with Shield.
* can casters prevent a martial from attacking? Absolutely, in a million different ways

So for me, there are two solutions.
1. The Mage Slayer feat now permits, explicitly, interrupting a spell being cast, an option anyone can take
2. The focus should be on preventing casting, not interrupting it. I did this by having Restrained prevent casting a spell with somatic components (unless they succeed at a check) and added options in the grapple rules to permit restraint. You can also prevent it by being out of line of sight, a magic item that casts silence, a magic item that restrains. And also, blindfolding, gagging, and shacking a caster so they can only cast spells with no components

[NaughtyTiger]

two rules clearly stating the intent is that the trigger happens after the action,

please quote the rules that clearly state the intent is it happens after the action

hint, if it doesn't say "intent" or "action" then it isn't clearly stating the intent is that it occurs after an action.



oh, and the use of "munchkin" is the 5th moral judgement.

[Mjolnirbear]

please quote the rules that clearly state the intent is it happens after the action

hint, if it doesn't say "intent" or "action" then it isn't clearly stating the intent is that it occurs after an action.



oh, and the use of "munchkin" is the 5th moral judgement.

It has already been quoted in this thread. Twice. With sources in three books. You ready an action, state your desired trigger, the reaction happens after the trigger. The timing is after. Not 'in the midst of'. It's clear that interrupting is not intended with this rule. Shield can interrupt. Ready cannot. Your intent is to interrupt a spell being cast. Saying 'start casting' does not change your intent, which is to interrupt the spell. You are using the word 'start' specifically to get around the rule saying you cannot use ready to interrupt something by changing 'interrupt the spell' to 'interrupt the beginning of casting' *with the effect of interrupting the spell.*

Of COURSE I call that munchkining. I don't really care if you think I'm insulting you. You are attempting to manipulate the rules in a way that permits you to do something *explicitly called out* as not permitted, by changing the wording. This is what gives rules lawyers a bad name.

Because if you can evade a rule by monkey's-pawing the wording, then the rule has no purpose at all. Your intent is to interrupt a spell being cast, even if you declare "the start of casting". Things that interrupt are specifically called out as exceptions, and that the intent is that readied actions cannot interrupt.

Furthermore, you failed to address the consequences of your choice: casters would pick verbal components with a single syllable. Unless you chose the trigger as "as soon as they start speaking" by the time you realise the word they said is a component, it'd be finished. I, as a player, would force it to happen after regardless. Because nothing in the rules says a verbal component needs to be six seconds of speech. I guarantee I can finish a single syllable faster than it would take your ranger to recognize it was a spell, release the arrow, and the arrow to hit me.

If what you want is to equalize the disparity between martials and casters, keep in mind casters cannot, as a rule, interrupt a martial's class features (with obvious exceptions). Anyone's class features, really. Why should martials get to do it?

I further offered options for martials do what casters *can* do, which is preventing actions. If you can prevent casting by gagging the caster, you get what you want. If you can prevent casting by blocking line of sight, you get what you want. If you can prevent casting by binding their fingers so they can't move, you get what you want. Those are RAW options you can do to prevent a spell from hitting you. In addition to two houserule ones I also proposed. Because I want what you want: martials able to counter spellcasting and spell casters.

What I don't want is munchkining rules lawyers twisting the intent of the rules in order to gain a perceived advantage that a) will only last until all casters adopt the "word and point" mono syllable casting style, b) begins a confrontational rules arms race at my table, and c) trying to get a class feature, counterspell, free without resources.

Your table, your rulings. But don't try to convince me you are supported by the RAI. You are obviously trying to evade the RAI.

[Bacon Elemental]

Of COURSE I call that munchkining. I don't really care if you think I'm insulting you. You are attempting to manipulate the rules in a way that permits you to do something *explicitly called out* as not permitted, by changing the wording. This is what gives rules lawyers a bad name.


I hate to get into it, but your own position in this thread has itself been repeatedly supported by twisting the meaning of an action's trigger to mean whatever is most convenient at the current stage in the 3-step cycle of this argument. Heavy handed thundering moralisation ill suits this discussion, especially when, and I really can't stress this enough, the chief designers input on the matter was more or less "Eh, whatever works".

[RSP]

It has already been quoted in this thread. Twice. With sources in three books. You ready an action, state your desired trigger, the reaction happens after the trigger. The timing is after.

Nothing in the RAW says the trigger has to be an Action. You’re claiming the trigger has to be an Action. That’s you being wrong about the RAW that’s been quoted.

If you have a different rule that you’re referring to, no, it hasn’t been quoted yet.

Again, no one is arguing whether the Ready Action occurs after the trigger. The question is whether it occurs after the “perceivable circumstance” (note: I put this in quotes because it’s literally a quote from the RAW on what the trigger is.



Of COURSE I call that munchkining. I don't really care if you think I'm insulting you. You are attempting to manipulate the rules in a way that permits you to do something *explicitly called out* as not permitted, by changing the wording. This is what gives rules lawyers a bad name.

Please quote where the rules explicitly call out that it’s not permitted that the trigger is a “perceivable circumstance.”

Note: again, the RAW specifically says that is exactly what the trigger is, so I imagine you’ll have a hard time showing that.


I mean, all that happens then is that the casters suddenly only have one word for a somatic component and one gesture, so that by the time you notice, the casting is done.

Please quote where this is stated. Also, this would then likewise rule out casting Counterspell ever. Both would involve seeing the casting, both would be reactions, which RAW are “an instant response to a trigger of some kind.”

So either you have an “instant response” with your Reaction upon seeing the casting, or you don’t.

All you’ve done is artificially manipulate the timing of Actions to try and support your non-RAW houserule.

[Contrast]

So when you wrote

You were referring to an folks on a different thread?

And how did we misconstrue the accusation that we want to punish players?

To reiterate, it was a reference to players in a game needing to be careful to be precise in the wording of the their triggers (and losing out on effectiveness if they aren't the type of person who is going to think to carefully word their trigger), nothing to do with anything any individual has said in this thread or the way they've said it.

Apologies if I'm being unclear as this is apparently the second time I've failed to get my intent across :smalleek:


If you think "i want to try interrupting that buff/summon/control/debuff spell he's casting" is rare, I'm not sure what to tell you, other than "many such spells exist."

I mean, even if you hit them, they only have to save vs half the damage. Counterspell is still superior, but at least the martial gets something.

Right but concentration already exists so just attacking people is a counter, no need to ready - correct me if I'm wrong but hitting someone in the middle of casting a non-concentration spell won't do squat? The only advantage I see to readying is if you know they're going to target a specific concentration spell at a specific individual and for particular reasons you don't want the spell to land (for example, Hold Person on someone concentrating on Haste). I would chalk it up as quite rare that the party is in a position where a martial is going to be so confident of that situation occuring they're willing to give up attacks to try the counterplay. If you ready an action to attack them midcast and then they just hit you with a Fireball you're going to be pretty sad.

As I said, if I'm missing something or have got the wrong end of the stick on something, I'd love to know.

Edit - Hmm I guess rogues aren't losing out on attacks either way. If they're a ranged rogue relying on Hiding rather than Careful Aim I suppose they could Ready to attack a lot, though they'd still be at risk of their target doing something other than casting a spell.

[Psyren]

Nothing in the RAW says the trigger has to be an Action. You’re claiming the trigger has to be an Action. That’s you being wrong about the RAW that’s been quoted.

If you have a different rule that you’re referring to, no, it hasn’t been quoted yet.

Again, no one is arguing whether the Ready Action occurs after the trigger. The question is whether it occurs after the “perceivable circumstance” (note: I put this in quotes because it’s literally a quote from the RAW on what the trigger is.



Please quote where the rules explicitly call out that it’s not permitted that the trigger is a “perceivable circumstance.”

Note: again, the RAW specifically says that is exactly what the trigger is, so I imagine you’ll have a hard time showing that.



Please quote where this is stated. Also, this would then likewise rule out casting Counterspell ever. Both would involve seeing the casting, both would be reactions, which RAW are “an instant response to a trigger of some kind.”

So either you have an “instant response” with your Reaction upon seeing the casting, or you don’t.

All you’ve done is artificially manipulate the timing of Actions to try and support your non-RAW houserule.

RSP is being a lot more patient and eloquent about this than I am, so I'm going to just +1 this entire post.



Right but concentration already exists so just attacking people is a counter, no need to ready - correct me if I'm wrong but hitting someone in the middle of casting a non-concentration spell won't do squat?

It does look like the only way to disrupt a non-concentration spell is counterspell, but I could be wrong on that.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: Closed for review