Is it right to attack someone while they are preparing spells?

[oxinabox]

As a DM is it right to attack someone while they are preparing spells?

A wizard or other prepared caster spends an hour each day preparing spells.
it they have more than one source liek a mystic theurge they spend multiple hours preparing spells.
Potentailly by the multiclass rules a Cleric/Wizard/Archivist can exist and would spend 3 hours preparing spells.
This is a really odd multiclass since a Archivist can cast all cleric spells (and learn more) but anyway totally legal.
a plai Mystic Theurge isn't odd and they must spend 2.

Can i spring an encoure on them then? should i?
How many spells would have ready?

[Gaiyamato]

They also require 8 hours of rest etc.

So getting spells back for the day effectively takes up 10 hours of each 24.

I would only do this in a very intense campaign or part of the campaign. Maybe at the peak of part of the plot while they are deep in enemy territory etc.

But it is not a real taboo. Night raids are kind of a staple in d&d. Hence why parties set watches. ;)

[kamikasei]

This is something the game glosses over. There's no calculation offered for how many of your spells you've prepared if you're interrupted halfway through the process. It always takes an hour regardless of how many slots you're filling, and if you leave some blank (even if you leave almost all of them blank) it then only takes fifteen minutes to fill as many more of them as you want later (if you're a wizard, perhaps if you're an archivist also).

The assumption is that the party will be given the opportunity to prepare without interruption in the morning, the non-casters standing watch or trading off or just everyone being sealed in a rope trick. If you want to play a game where safety is harder to come by and characters have to be a little more paranoid, you'd need to come up with some rules yourself for the effects of interrupted preparation time. If you've been handwaving this issue so far, I'd see it as violating an unspoken agreement to start interrupting them now. You might be better off interrupting their rest - there are rules for that already, making it less aggravating to figure out what the players have to do to deal with it.

[Coidzor]

Hmm... Let's do a rubric of dividing the time up within the hour.

Let's say... oh... 60 minutes/X, where X = number of spellslots individually multiplied by their spell-level(at least .5 in case of cantrips/orisons unless you wanna just give those free.).

So having 3 1st level spells would mean 60 minutes/ 3*1 = 20 minutes per spell. Hmm, but that gets muddled up if one goes with... 60 minutes/ 3*1 + 2*2 + 1*3. 3+3+4=7... 60/7... shouldn't equally get divvied up unless we want a gross oversimplification.

Well I just failed to remember my algebra. I think that's what would be appropriate to this situation...


If interrupted in the middle of preparing the spell, possibly allow the chance to continue the spell being prepared (if it's "close enough") and just cast it automatically if one succeeds a DC 10+spell level or spell level+minutes remaining of preparation CL check?

[Gaiyamato]

Use a modification of the 2.5 rules.

[Kaiyanwang]

I'd rule that if the hour or 15 mins of preparation is not ended, there are not spells.

So, yes, is right and yes, is amusing (for the DM).

Do it rarely, and better if makes sense (as an example, for the PCs the place is enough good to rest if the terrain is horizontal).

[Curmudgeon]

It's entirely fair. Generally this preparation is done at first light, which is a very good tactical choice for a surprise assault.

If the player has provided a list of the order of spell preparation just figure out what percentage they've had a chance to complete, rounding down to quarter chunks (15 minute intervals).

Preparing some smaller portion of her daily capacity takes a proportionally smaller amount of time, but always at least 15 minutes, the minimum time required to achieve the proper mental state.

Otherwise pick the spells randomly.

[oxinabox]

My camapign world kinda safe, I'm playing with new players.
Last time they didn't set a watch (other than a tracing elf)
I didn't Coup de grae any of them.
I'm too nice.

Next time i should be like:

"Rocks fall, everybody dies"
PCs: "but we're in the middle of the ocean...?"
Me: "umm...freak weather formation, Rocks fall, everybody dies . roll new characters"

edit:

If the player has provided a list of the order of spell preparation just figure out what percentage they've had a chance to complete, rounding down to quarter chunks (15 minute intervals).

Currently player are so new, spell preparation is almost done in real time (not quiet).
He'll be better now that i shoed him that on the spell summery he can put numbers next to each spell he prepared to indicate how many he prepared of it

[kamikasei]

I'd be annoyed if this kind of thing was introduced without warning - as mentioned, I'd see it as violating an unspoken agreement. I suggest you ease them in to it - give them a sleepless night or two and an ambush while they're not otherwise under any great threat - something they can easily deal with without their spells, but enough to make them aware that they do need to start paying attention to the security of their resting places.

[Person_Man]

At the start of every campaign I ask PCs how they want to handle end of the day rituals. Do they care about hunting, setting up camp, setting up traps around the camp, setting a watch, etc. If they do (usually because they enjoy immersion roleplaying - these are the guys with every mundane item listed on their equipment list) then I always make sure to have someone/something attack them in the middle of the night (and that thing doesn't outsmart their preparations unless there's a very believable reason to). If they don't, then I don't. The point of D&D is to have fun, roleplay a character, and play strategic combat (in that order, IMO). If adding some new level of strategic combat (preventing casters from regaining spells, and/or attacking them when they're weakest) forces them to do something that they don't enjoy (be paranoid and set up elaborate preparations before they rest) then I don't do it.

[Gaiyamato]

I'd be annoyed if this kind of thing was introduced without warning - as mentioned, I'd see it as violating an unspoken agreement. I suggest you ease them in to it - give them a sleepless night or two and an ambush while they're not otherwise under any great threat - something they can easily deal with without their spells, but enough to make them aware that they do need to start paying attention to the security of their resting places.

I'd agree with this.

[Kaiyanwang]

I'd be annoyed if this kind of thing was introduced without warning - as mentioned, I'd see it as violating an unspoken agreement. I suggest you ease them in to it - give them a sleepless night or two and an ambush while they're not otherwise under any great threat - something they can easily deal with without their spells, but enough to make them aware that they do need to start paying attention to the security of their resting places.

If you assume a living gameworld, a thing like this could happen. Attacks can happen at any time of the day.

More, maybe orcs learned that human priests prey on the early morning, so if you attack them at that moment you are likely to take them not prepared.

"Wher'z CoDzilla, puny human? WHAAAAAGH!"

Of course, from a gaming and a realism prospective, if it happens too often starts to be annoying.

[oxinabox]

I was just wondering if it's taboo.

If this was a land campign.
I like the idea of setting up tempariary fortifications.
withevery camp.
I think that's done in sparhawk (eddings( i know it';s done in some fantasy...
Depends on the group though.
I'm easing these guys in so i'll do nothing to them.

Not until they've got a dragon under there belt.
Which at the starting lvl should be soonish, give it 5 or so seasons...

oooh what about my other group, wait 4e no spell prep, damn.
they would have enjoyed the challenge

[Leon]

Don't do it all the time but by all means do it.
Unless they are somewhere really secure then there is no reason to not have something occasionally turn up when they don't want it to (even "safe" isn't always safe - staying at a Inn and its raided by bandits etc)

[Renx]

Is it said anywhere that the 1 hour is cumulative for classes and has to be uninterrupted? Personally I hate artificial restrictions like this when they interrupt the story (sorry, can't hang out with you, my Queen, I need to go prepare spells) and allow (and expect) leeway with them. A cleric should spend a minimum of 15-20 minutes in his holy time, then receive spells after their rest period. Wizard? An hour-ish of study, but I'd be willing to accept that he studies whenever available and count that time somewhat against the preparation (if it's roleplayed, even more awesome). Mystic theurge? Not sure about their fluff but some amalgam of both would do nicely.

If you want some penalty system, make them study for twice the amount of time of the interruption at the end. Interruptions are sort of a given in any semi-fluff-filled environment. Who in their right mind would suggest that interrupting a wizard by knocking on his door and bringing food would stop the 1-hour period? Hmm... would make for some awesome barmaid skills, though.

Whatever you do, check the players' opinion (hell, if you ask them what should happen, they can be considered forewarned that they should guard their wizards when they're preparing spells ) All in all, I think that people play D&D because they want to bash monsters, cast spells and solve problems. Not manage minutes.

[kamikasei]

If you assume a living gameworld, a thing like this could happen. Attacks can happen at any time of the day.

Of course. And I'm fine with that. I'm just not fine with playing along through the game cheerfully ignoring this and a host of other realism issues, then having it sprung on us when the DM decides he wants to screw us over. I'd rather it be made clear in advance that we're playing in a game where these things are worth worrying about. If we haven't been doing so up until now, I'd rather we be made aware of it by having a handful of wolves attack our camp in the night and prompt us to keep a proper watch from then on, rather than having an ancient Red swoop down and eat us while I'm getting my light spells ready for the day.

[Coplantor]

Well, you could use a vriation of ADnD spell preparing rules, where every spell takes 10min*spell lvl to be prepared, of course, that means that every 9th level spell would take an hour and a half to be prepared.

[Zeful]

I'd be annoyed if this kind of thing was introduced without warning - as mentioned, I'd see it as violating an unspoken agreement. I suggest you ease them in to it - give them a sleepless night or two and an ambush while they're not otherwise under any great threat - something they can easily deal with without their spells, but enough to make them aware that they do need to start paying attention to the security of their resting places.

You are adventurers that routinely make more enemies than allies any given day, and you don't expect any kind of asymmetrical warfare? Okay...

As a DM I see no problem with night raids as the casters settle down to prepare their spells. But apparently I'm weird about these things. I don't see a problem with the stealing a wizard's spellbook, hitting the party with Disjunction, or siccing rust monsters on them, all of which are apparent no-nos with this "unspoken" or "gentlemen's" agreement.

[Serpentine]

I see absolutely no problem with it Think about it in-game, it would make perfect sense for your monsters/enemies to attack them in their sleep or at some other vulnerable time.

There's a reason why I always check what order my party keeps watch

[kamikasei]

I can't help but feel I'm being strawmanned here. Many people play games where many realistic details or hazards are glossed over for the sake of a fun game. Others play in fairly ruthless games where the DM will mercilessly exploit any vulnerabilities they leave open. Many play both kinds of games at different times. My point is that if you've been playing the former, it's kind of a jerk move to suddenly switch to the latter.

That's what I mean by an unspoken agreement - and note that I did not say "gentlemen's agreement". That implies that there are certain things "gentlemen" don't do. I said only unspoken agreement, which carries no implication that playing differently is somehow worse, just that it's bad to introduce something everyone else at the table had assumed was being eschewed.

Also, such other tactics as you describe are very much a matter of a "gentlemen's agreement" and not an unspoken one as I've been describing. They are the "these are really unfun things to have done to you, so play nice and I won't break them out" elements of the game. Again, many are perfectly happy to have them in play and just play more carefully. You seem to be confusing this attitude with my idea that if certain "realistic" aspects of the game have been glossed over up to now, it's bad form to suddenly introduce them in order to screw over players who weren't taking precautions against them.

[Claudius Maximus]

I find it to be a very reasonable tactic from an in-character view. Everyone who knows a Wizard knows how spell preparation works, including that it's a window of vulnerability. Similarly, it shouldn't be too hard of a Knowledge (Religion) check to know when a cleric of a particular deity has to pray for spells. Attacks during these times by intelligent foes shouldn't be rare. My players can be attacked at any point, and they know it, and I hardly consider my game ruthless.

[Zeful]

I can't help but feel I'm being strawmanned here. Many people play games where many realistic details or hazards are glossed over for the sake of a fun game.

Huh? How would glossing over those things make for a fun game?

That's what I mean by an unspoken agreement - and note that I did not say "gentlemen's agreement". That implies that there are certain things "gentlemen" don't do. I said only unspoken agreement, which carries no implication that playing differently is somehow worse, just that it's bad to introduce something everyone else at the table had assumed was being eschewed.

I don't see a difference. Just because I'm not using an element now, doesn't mean it's not there. If they assume that I'm going to ignore tactically bad decisions, then it's their fault if their not prepared for the consequences.

You seem to be confusing this attitude with my idea that if certain "realistic" aspects of the game have been glossed over up to now, it's bad form to suddenly introduce them in order to screw over players who weren't taking precautions against them.

That's probably true, but I really don't understand the difference. How do you gloss over these "realistic aspects"? I've always got these things in mind as both a player and a DM. You make it sound like I can't use a valid tactic unless I've used it before, which I frankly find ludicrous, because at the start of the game I haven't used any tactics, meaning I'm allowed none. I'm willing to chalk that up to an simple inability to understand what you mean though.

[wizuriel]

I would say it depends on the area.

If your in a fairly safe land just travelling than it would be bad luck to be attacked at night by something seriously. Though even than an animal stumbling near your camp ground smelling tasty humanoid flesh might attack.


meanwhile if your in a forest tracking down some kind of bandit band I would expect them to attack at night. Even if they don't know the party has spell casters the bandits would probably feel safer attacking at night to slow the party down or get a quick kill. They would be more disruptive and not really fight unless the odds are considerably in their favour.

[JeenLeen]

I think it would be a good one-time event, maybe in the future a few sessions later. It is a cheap move, but reasonable and a good challenge. I had a night raid once where the enemy got past our guard's spot and coup de grace'd the fighter. The casters were low on spells from battles the day before, and those who wore full plate weren't wearing it at the time. It was challenging--we almost Word of Recalled out--but fun.

I know you can leave some spell slots blank to prepare them later in the day and it not another full hour, so I imagine letting the caster have a percentage of their spells readied makes sense. Curmudgeon's calculation seems fitting.

Also, a wizard or cleric can hold a spell in their mind until it is cast or until they release it to prepare a new spell. So it's plausible that any spells remaining from the day before are still ready-to-cast. I guess it depends on how the character prepares spells (or how the DM says spell preparation works): does he drop all spells he plans to replace ahead of time, or does it drop a spell as he prepares a new one?
A cautious player would do the latter; but your players won't necessarily be cautious until they get a raid during spell prep.

Edit: I do agree that it should be done by an enemy planning to attack during spell prep. It could happen randomly, but having an in-game reason for the enemy's raid other than coincidence would make me happier if it happened in my game. The DM doesn't need a reason, but it's good if he has one.

[bosssmiley]

As a DM is it right to attack someone while they are preparing spells?

Of course it is.

Think of it in terms of the psychology of the creatures you are DMing:

Pointy Hat Make Fire. Fire Hurt. Pointy Hat Is Not Your Friend. Kill Him First.

You are doing the players a disservice if their enemies are being played as too stupid to take out the wizard first. When is a wizard at his weakest? During spell prep. QED.

And that's why there are two types of wizard in D&Dland: the paranoid, and the dead.

[Yahzi]

As a DM is it right to attack someone while they are preparing spells?

Is there any better time to attack them?

Try thinking like a monster. Is it right for the monsters to attack the party when the party is surprised, wounded, and out of spells? Well, doh!

That's the whole point of minions. The BBEG knows his little guys can't actually kill the party. But they can make them waste their spells. And once they do, then (and only then) does the BBEG move in for the kill.

(BTW, this is why you need fighters. A wizard can win any one encounter at the cost of spells, but a fighter can win lots of encounters with low-level critters, often without even losing hit-points.)

It's up to the players to manage their resources (spells, etc.) properly. It's up to the DM to manage the resources of the monsters as best as the monsters could.


Edit: Er... what bosssmiley said.

Huh? How would glossing over those things make for a fun game?

In the same way it made for a popular novel in Twilight.

Note I didn't say I liked it; just that a lot of people seemed to, despite even a shred of coherence.

[kamikasei]

Huh? How would glossing over those things make for a fun game?
...
That's probably true, but I really don't understand the difference. How do you gloss over these "realistic aspects"? I've always got these things in mind as both a player and a DM. You make it sound like I can't use a valid tactic unless I've used it before, which I frankly find ludicrous, because at the start of the game I haven't used any tactics, meaning I'm allowed none. I'm willing to chalk that up to an simple inability to understand what you mean though.

Many groups view only certain aspects of the game as entertaining enough to spend time and attention on: mostly, meeting people who want other people dead, killing those people, taking their stuff (I'm being flippant, of course, and don't mean that only hack-and-slash players are selective in their focus). It's common enough that certain things, like, say, rest, preparation, rations, hygeine etc. are simply ignored: everyone assumes that you have food enough to get you from town to town, that you know how to crap in the woods, that you don't get scurvy or gum disease from your poor diet and dental care, etc. These things are simply glossed over and the game focuses on exploring the dungeon or slaying the dragon or securing that audience with the queen or seducing the prince regent or whatever.

If the group are used to playing like this, it's fairly obnoxious for the DM to suddenly pipe up when they're halfway across the desert trail to ask "by the way, let me see your sheets, I want to check how much food and water you all have". Of course, since no one has been paying attention to that, no one has any, and the DM declares that they're all dying of thirst. Fun! Point being, you can have a perfectly enjoyable game in which you keep track of rations and environmental hazards and such, but it's unlikely to be very enjoyable to suddenly switch to such a game in the middle of one where you've been paying it no mind. (Of course, you might switch from "okay, we've been in Generic Temperate Kingdom A where it's easy to reprovision and travel distances are short" to "now we're about to set off to the Land of Heat and Thirst and Ominous Bleached Bones" and declare "right, time to start tracking that stuff". That's a natural transition within the game.)

Similarly, if the group has gone on for a while assuming that they can always find a safe resting spot, get their night's sleep, and make their preparations uninterrupted - if the DM has never asked "where are you making camp?" or "what's the order of the watch?" or the like - if you have been glossing over it, it's obnoxious for the DM to suddenly make it an issue where everyone had been assuming it was being handwaved.

If the game starts out like that or makes an actual transition to that and everyone is aware of it and can take it in to account, it's fine. If it switches abruptly at the DM's whim, it's not. In character, it's like the characters who the players had assumed were finding a convenient motel each night and pulling in for bed and breakfast are suddenly revealed to have simply been parking at the side of the road and lying in the ditch for the night, and apparently hadn't noticed until they woke up one morning to realize they were starving and had a coyote eating their foot.

I don't see a difference. Just because I'm not using an element now, doesn't mean it's not there. If they assume that I'm going to ignore tactically bad decisions, then it's their fault if their not prepared for the consequences.

A "gentlemen's agreement" implies that certain things are ungentlemanly, i.e. rude, uncouth, unseemly, improper, etc., and so since everyone involved is a gentleman they won't come up. Serious cheese is often treated like this: "Sure", says the DM, "you can use Gaterape if you don't mind your enemies using it too". Disjunction is often treated similarly too. It's a "do unto others" thing.

An unspoken agreement makes no judgment that its subject is bad, it's just not something you're bothering with. As mentioned above, it's not so much that the group blindly assume you'll ignore bad decisions, as that up to now you have done so and they've assumed it was something that just wasn't being dealt with.

[Zeful]

I see, thank you for the explanation.

[Jaltum]

I think the key thing, as a DM, is not to assume that if something hasn't been specified, the characters are being idiots.

If the DM is planning a night attack, or just wants to raise player alertness to the POSSIBILITY of one, s/he should ask questions like, "What's the watch order tonight?" It shouldn't be assumed that because the players haven't specified it that they haven't been keeping one, anymore than it should be assumed that because the players haven't been mentioning their bathroom breaks, their character has never peed.

"Roll a fort save. Oh, your bladder just burst, roll up a new character."

A game is always going to be an incomplete simulation.

[Devils_Advocate]

There's no calculation offered for how many of your spells you've prepared if you're interrupted halfway through the process. It always takes an hour regardless of how many slots you're filling, and if you leave some blank (even if you leave almost all of them blank) it then only takes fifteen minutes to fill as many more of them as you want later (if you're a wizard, perhaps if you're an archivist also).

NUH UH!

Spell Preparation Time
After resting, a wizard must study her spellbook to prepare any spells that day. If she wants to prepare all her spells, the process takes 1 hour. Preparing some smaller portion of her daily capacity takes a proportionally smaller amount of time, but always at least 15 minutes, the minimum time required to achieve the proper mental state.

Spell Selection and Preparation
Until she prepares spells from her spellbook, the only spells a wizard has available to cast are the ones that she already had prepared from the previous day and has not yet used. During the study period, she chooses which spells to prepare. If a wizard already has spells prepared (from the previous day) that she has not cast, she can abandon some or all of them to make room for new spells.

When preparing spells for the day, a wizard can leave some of these spell slots open. Later during that day, she can repeat the preparation process as often as she likes, time and circumstances permitting. During these extra sessions of preparation, the wizard can fill these unused spell slots. She cannot, however, abandon a previously prepared spell to replace it with another one or fill a slot that is empty because she has cast a spell in the meantime. That sort of preparation requires a mind fresh from rest. Like the first session of the day, this preparation takes at least 15 minutes, and it takes longer if the wizard prepares more than one-quarter of her spells.

I suggest the following: It takes 15 minutes of meditation immediately prior to preparing spells. The time needed to prepare a spell is proportionate to its level. Count 0-level spells as 1st-level spells for this purpose. It takes 45 minutes for a prepared spellcaster to prepare all of her spells. For example, a third-level generalist wizard with Int 15 gets 4 cantrips, 3 first-level spells, and 2 second-level spells per day. 4*1 + 3*1 + 2*2 = 11. So it takes 45/11 minutes, or just under 41 rounds, for the wizard to prepare a cantrip or first-level spell, and twice that long to prepare a second-level spell.

By RAW, the time required to achieve the mental state necessary to prepare spells overlaps with the time spent actually preparing them, but that seems silly.

Should a spell be lost if the caster is interrupted in the middle of preparing it, just as a spell is lost if the caster is interrupted in the middle of casting it? That could go either way; I'm inclined to say that yes, the spell is lost. Regardless, at most one spell is ruined by a single interruption. On the other hand, the caster needs another 15 minutes of meditation to begin preparing spells again.