What ways are there to disrupt spellcasting in 5e?

[Unoriginal]

It's mostly aimed at the very specific scenario where the caster is going to be able to Teleport before your reaction attack goes off. I'd be more willing to make exceptions if a player has invested in this feat, rather than when a player is trying to emulate this feat with clever words.

It generally does quite a bit in helping you slay mages, giving them disadvantage on a concentration check by itself is a powerful feature in my opinion.

Rule of thumb for me: if you think your clever words can replicate a feat or a class feature, they're not actually that clever.


Plenty of things can be emulated, though in more difficult and/or less effective ways.

[Aquillion]

Rule of thumb for me: if you think your clever words can replicate a feat or a class feature, they're not actually that clever.

Plenty of things can be emulated, though in more difficult and/or less effective ways.

Mage Slayer doesn't require that you spend an action to ready an attack. Readied Actions do, of course!

I'm not sure why people are confused on this point. There's no reason to even bring Mage Slayer up, since clearly it offers a massive advantage over using Ready Actions the way people have outlined in this thread.

Nobody, as far as I'm aware, is suggesting that you can prevent a spell with a Readied Action unless you actually have some ability that would change the situation to make the spell impossible, eg. casting Silence. And those tend to be even more costly, since you have to risk a spell slot when you ready it. You seem to be fixated on answering a question - "can you ready an action to hit someone in order to cancel their spell" - which nobody is asking, since everyone is clear that just hitting them will only prevent them from casting if it actually kills them.

So I'm not sure why you brought up Mage Slayer at all.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Mage Slayer doesn't require that you spend an action to ready an attack. Readied Actions do, of course!

I'm not sure why people are confused on this point. There's no reason to even bring Mage Slayer up, since clearly it offers a massive advantage over using Ready Actions the way people have outlined in this thread.

One of the reasons that Mage Slayer is at least relevant for comparison is that the most hotly debated part of this isn't even to use the Readied Action to emulate Mage Slayer exactly (which, again and again ad nauseam I repeat that I find to be acceptable in some cases) but they're trying to use Readied Action in a way that is decidedly more effective than the Mage Slayer feat is allowed to be. It's more effective than Counterspell.

I think it's a flimsy argument if "action and reaction" is weighted on the same tier as "3rd level spell slot and reaction" or "I took this feat with one of my limited ASI just to have this reaction".

since everyone is clear that just hitting them will only prevent them from casting if it actually kills them.

Not everyone is clear that you're able to even use Readied Action in this way, there are so many signs pointing towards "No" that I would generally (again, to repeat, that there are exceptions) not allow "when they begin casting a spell" to be a suitable trigger.

[Unoriginal]

Mage Slayer doesn't require that you spend an action to ready an attack. Readied Actions do, of course!

I'm not sure why people are confused on this point. There's no reason to even bring Mage Slayer up, since clearly it offers a massive advantage over using Ready Actions the way people have outlined in this thread.

Nobody, as far as I'm aware, is suggesting that you can prevent a spell with a Readied Action unless you actually have some ability that would change the situation to make the spell impossible, eg. casting Silence. And those tend to be even more costly, since you have to risk a spell slot when you ready it. You seem to be fixated on answering a question - "can you ready an action to hit someone in order to cancel their spell" - which nobody is asking, since everyone is clear that just hitting them will only prevent them from casting if it actually kills them.

Several persons have defended that hitting people mid-cast would at least have a chance to stop the casting.

So I'm not sure why you brought up Mage Slayer at all.

I wasn't the one who brought it up.

[Misterwhisper]

It's mostly aimed at the very specific scenario where the caster is going to be able to Teleport before your reaction attack goes off, the oft used "White Room Scenario" that people use to universally discredit this feat. While it does work that way with a straight reading, I'd be more willing to make exceptions if a player has invested in this feat, rather than when a player is trying to emulate this feat with clever words.

It generally does quite a bit in helping you slay mages, giving them disadvantage on a concentration check by itself is a powerful feature in my opinion. I don't personally think that it's a bad feat.

It is not a "very specific" scenario it is quite an extensive list of spells that ignore mage slayer completely.

Shocking Grasp
Darkness
Fog cloud
Hold Person
Invisibility
Greater Invisibility
Charm Person or any spell with the charm effect
Sleep
color spray
Hideous Laughter
Blindness
Misty Step
Suggestion maybe depending on what you suggest
Dominate person
power word stun
power word kill
Wall of stone
wall of force
Flesh to stone
Force Cage - the instant lose button to all melee characters
Polymorph other
Time Stop

Those are just off the top of my head and just spells on the wizard list in the PHB

A caster does not have to know that you have the feat to protect against it, any smart caster is going to assume their enemies have it and act accordingly.

If you are standing in their face with a melee weapon in your hand why would they cast fireball or lightning bolt when they could just cast darkness and leave you standing there, or force cage and take you out of the fight 100% of the time.

[ProsecutorGodot]

It is not a "very specific" scenario it is quite an extensive list of spells that ignore mage slayer completely.

Why am I so thoroughly unable to write a sentence without spelling out every conceivable exception.

Replace "Teleport" with any spell you listed and any spell, feature, fruit, animal you didn't list. It doesn't change what my point was.

Thank you for your extensive listing of effects that prevent you from using the reaction granted from Mage Slayer.

[CorporateSlave]

A lot of people are focusing on the semantics to determine what's legal, but that's not going to improve the game as a whole. I'd like to hear what you guys have to say about it being an active choice to decide how things should be.

The OP asked about RAW ways (feats or abilities) to disrupt spell casting other than Counterspell. He was asking a rules question, not a philosophical "how to improve the game" question. However, since you have asked that question, I shall answer it to the best of my opinion: In fact, that's sort of why I wrote this bit earlier on:

Hey, 5e was also developed with a "the DM can do what they want anyway" philosophy. But even beyond the RAW of the question, I feel (as in, my personal opinion is), allowing just about anything to disrupt a spell really steals the thunder from the few spells and abilities that do allow this according to the RAW. "Save your 9th level spell slot wizard! No need for Counterspell, when the Lich casts Wish our rogue will simply accomplish the same disruption with a 1/20th gp crossbow bolt!"

I don't think going against the RAW in this case is remotely fair, and I don't think it improves the game, in fact I think it spoils some of it (by effective removing a lot of the value from things like Counterspell) and potentially cripples caster classes. How? Well, if I were DM, only the dumbest of monsters would not have someone(s) Readying an Attack to shoot or stab a PC caster every single time they cast a spell. Because if we're going "in game real world logic" in a world with magic where its as easy as any well timed arrow to potentially disrupt a spell's casting, the various populations would have figured this out a long time ago and it would be a standard combat practice. Only an idiotic militia/army/gang/clan wouldn't have a few bowmen trained to know what "starting to cast a spell" looks like, and to hold their shots until they see it taking place. Awww..is that being a mean DM? I guess enemy wizards shouldn't have access to Counterspell either? The same rules and tactics apply to NPC enemies and PCs alike.

It certainly would be an insane power boost to Subtle Spell! Not to mention making War Caster and Resilient CON essentially a double "Feat tax" on casters (assuming a CON check would be called for to avoid the disruption, similar to how longer casting time spells are actually handled in the RAW), if they want any chance of spells firing off in combat.

You can complain about trying to stick to RAW, but just maaaybe the game designers wrote it that way as a game balance device? I've seen plenty of house rulings that "fixed" some aspect of the 5e that actually ended up ruining the campaign with PC power creep, and it ended up being un-fun for everybody. That's not to say the designers got everything right...but after all "right" can be pretty subjective when it comes to game mechanics.

[NaughtyTiger]

Wow, I don't think that's called for in the slightest. Especially since you're the one throwing "Houserule" and "it's not RAW" around.

which part is uncalled for?

House rule is not an insult.
RAW is not an praise.

It is that I hold Unoriginal to his own definition of RAW?

If it's not written, it is not RAW, by definition. Your friend's definition was not correct.
But it's not because it's not RAW that it doesn't exist.

It is that I thought "Let's see what the actual rules say" was condescending?

So having Counterspell gives a character the ability to detect that an actual spell is being cast? With 100% accuracy?

Unless you can point to a rule in PHB or DMG that says otherwise, then per Rules as Written, yes.

Does that mean that a DM is wrong for adding a method for Counterspell to be wrong? Not at all.
In fact, my stance in the referenced thread is that it is RAW unless specifically prohibited, cuz DM makes the rules is the first rule...

[Max_Killjoy]

Unless you can point to a rule in PHB or DMG that says otherwise, then per Rules as Written, yes.

That seems more "rules as implied" or "rules as inferred".

How is it RAW if it's not Written in the Rules?

[ProsecutorGodot]

which part is uncalled for?

Well with the additional context here, it's more or less taking a personal beef from a previous thread and continuing it here. You also (in my opinion) are misrepresenting their stance because the way you described it does not convey what I read from their posts.

Unless you can point to a rule in PHB or DMG that says otherwise, then per Rules as Written, yes.

Does that mean that a DM is wrong for adding a method for Counterspell to be wrong? Not at all.
In fact, my stance in the referenced thread is that it is RAW unless specifically prohibited, cuz DM makes the rules is the first rule...

Make careful note that "character" is being used in this question. The player might be aware that Counterspell is being used appropriately, the character isn't guaranteed to know anything.

If it's not written, it's not RAW. If there's no proof for something to exist (such as a "casting" phase of spells that exists outside of applicable reactions) then it's not RAW. That's how that phrase is defined, whether you like the phrase or not, it is recognized that way by the game designers.

That seems more "rules as implied" or "rules as inferred".

How is it RAW if it's not Written in the Rules?

I agree with this, this seems to be what you're basing your definition off of.

[NaughtyTiger]

That seems more "rules as implied" or "rules as inferred".
How is it RAW if it's not Written in the Rules?

Is it rude to say "ask Unoriginal" since that is really his stance?
But, if I am going to argue RAW with Unoriginal, I have to use his definition of RAW.

Let's be clear, my stance is: RAW

is NOT disobeying the text as written.

[PhoenixPhyre]

"The rules don't say I can't" is not how it works. This is an exception based game--you have to have explicit allowances to do anything not covered directly by the main rules. The rules don't say I can't shoot lasers out of my eyes and incinerate everyone. They don't say I can't attack 365 times in a round. They say I can attack once, but don't say I can't do more! So those are all RAW!

I don't care about RAW at all, but this kind of munchkinry is what gives rules-lawyers a bad name. It's magic-word thinking that would get a real lawyer sanctioned by the court. It's fallacious reasoning that all revolves around finding "clever" ways of getting around the obvious intent and meaning of the words.

And as soon as you have to interpret anything, you're outside of RAW. That's why RAW by itself (and what's inside and outside) is totally pointless.

[NaughtyTiger]

Well with the additional context here, it's more or less taking a personal beef from a previous thread and continuing it here.

it is absolutely not a personal beef. Unoriginal is a helluva contributor, and I respect that.

You also (in my opinion) are misrepresenting their stance because the way you described it does not convey what I read from their posts.

I don't know how I am misrepresenting his stance.

Make careful note that "character" is being used in this question. The player might be aware that Counterspell is being used appropriately, the character isn't guaranteed to know anything.

I don't understand how this affects whether or not you can use a Rxn without satisfying a Trigger.

If it's not written, it's not RAW. If there's no proof for something to exist (such as a "casting" phase of spells that exists outside of applicable reactions) then it's not RAW. That's how that phrase is defined, whether you like the phrase or not, it is recognized that way by the game designers.

I think we are agreeing.
It isn't written that Counterspell will only trigger if it is a real spell.
It isn't written that Counterspell can trigger if it is a fakes spell.
I said "I don't believe ineligible triggers are covered by RAW."

[NaughtyTiger]

ways of getting around the obvious intent and meaning of the words.

I think that the camps that say "Ready an action when he starts casting" and expect the action to occur after the spell finishes are being earnest.
I think that the camps that say "Ready an action when he starts casting" and expect the action to occur before the spell finishes are being earnest.
If both groups are being earnest, then the intent and meaning of the words is not obvious.

[Unoriginal]

I admit that NaughtyTiger is correct that there are no rules that specifically states that a Reaction can be triggered by a fake trigger.

The Ready action do precise that it's a perceivable trigger, meaning that what can mess with one's perception can mess with it, and the rules I quoted do indicate it is possible to mis-target something, but this does not make any extrapolation based on those existing rules RAW.

Of course, pure RAW doesn't matter much in actual game, but NaughtyTiger was correct to say that the RAW is silent on the question, as it was a debate about RAW.

I also admit that I was condescending, and wish to apologize for it.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I admit that NaughtyTiger is correct that there are no rules that specifically states that a Reaction can be triggered by a fake trigger.

The Ready action do precise that it's a perceivable trigger, meaning that what can mess with one's perception can mess with it, and the rules I quoted do indicate it is possible to mis-target something, but this does not make any extrapolation based on those existing rules RAW.

Of course, pure RAW doesn't matter much in actual game, but NaughtyTiger was correct to say that the RAW is silent on the question, as it was a debate about RAW.

I also admit that I was condescending, and wish to apologize for it.

In that case, I'd also like to apologize for misinterpreting the situation.

[NaughtyTiger]

Wow. I am liking the good vibes. I feel like a jerk now.

[tieren]

Scenario 1:
I attack the NPC mage, he doesn't die and casts a spell at me.

Scenario 2:
I ready an attack to hit the mage only if I see something that looks like spell casting, he starts to cast a spell, I use the readied attack he doesn't die and casts a spell at me.

I don't think either of these scenarios is serious enough to matter debate. I suppose there could be a fringe case of a mage/rogue popping out of hiding every round to cast a spell, but you could ready the attack for when they pop up as well as for when they take any other action.

This whole discussion only matters for those who go the extra step to think that attacking someone during the casting of a spell has any different effect on the spell being cast that attacking them on your turn before they go doesn't, and there is no RAW support for that.

It is also illogical to assume it takes 6 seconds to cast 1 action spells. In one (6 second) turn, I can walk 5 feet away from an enemy, get hit by a sword strike as an AoO, climb up a vertical 10 foot ledge, walk another 5 feet, pull back a curtain, then fire off a one action cantrip before also casting misty step to get out of there.

[Aquillion]

One of the reasons that Mage Slayer is at least relevant for comparison is that the most hotly debated part of this isn't even to use the Readied Action to emulate Mage Slayer exactly (which, again and again ad nauseam I repeat that I find to be acceptable in some cases) but they're trying to use Readied Action in a way that is decidedly more effective than the Mage Slayer feat is allowed to be. It's more effective than Counterspell.

I think it's a flimsy argument if "action and reaction" is weighted on the same tier as "3rd level spell slot and reaction" or "I took this feat with one of my limited ASI just to have this reaction".

Again, more effective how? Spending an action is a huge cost, and all you're getting is that you maybe, depending on how you word your reaction, get to hit them while they're still casting or before the spell is complete rather than after (something that 99% of the time will only matter if you can kill them.)

Mage Slayer is still clearly superior in the vast majority of cases.

Not everyone is clear that you're able to even use Readied Action in this way, there are so many signs pointing towards "No" that I would generally (again, to repeat, that there are exceptions) not allow "when they begin casting a spell" to be a suitable trigger.

Not the point. The argument here is mostly between:

1. You can use a readied action to hit a caster before they finish casting. This does not disrupt their spell; all it does is do some damage.

...and...

2. You can use a readied action to hit a caster after they finish casting.

You seem to be arguing against a hypothetical "you can use a readied action to disrupt a spell" and misconstruing anyone who argues for 1 as arguing for that, which isn't an argument anyone is making.

Several persons have defended that hitting people mid-cast would at least have a chance to stop the casting.

Who? Where? I'm not seeing it anywhere in the last few pages. At best I said it might, if your DM is gracious, sometimes give them disadvantage on an attack roll if you hit them really hard, just because disadvantage is a nebulous concept that DMs can give fairly freely.

It's possible some people got confused with 3e? But I'm not really seeing many people arguing it.

(I think people may have been confused by the related debate over using reactions to cast spells or do other things that would block the spell in other ways - ie. Silence, Wall of Stone. But obviously those have a much higher cost.)


More broadly, from an in-universe standpoint... the question is whether, say. If I'm an assassin with a knife to the throat of a wounded mage. Can I threaten to finish him off if he starts to cast a spell? If he tried to cast a spell anyway, does it go off? I think that readied actions exist specifically for situations like that, ie. as long as I keep a readied action, I get to attempt to kill him at the first sign of magic, and his spell only goes off if he survives my attack.

The alternative involves inventing a totally new rule about "atomic actions" in order to... accomplish what? None of the applications for readied actions suggested here are overpowered or even particularly powerful, and they all reflect things you can logically do, so I don't see the purpose of using a fairly tortured rules interpenetration to make them impossible.

If you're worried about the hypothetical "I hit the wizard to cancel his spell" interpretation, that one is easy to dismiss (5e simply doesn't require concentration to cast a spell, ever; that's not how 5e magic works.) But banning "if you try to cast a spell, I'll stab you, and will get to stab first because I'm standing over you with a sword waiting for the first sign of magic" - an entirely legitimate, reasonable situation that the rules-as-written encompass - is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[NaughtyTiger]

Scenario 1:
I attack the NPC mage, he doesn't die and casts a spell at me.

Scenario 2:
I ready an attack to hit the mage only if I see something that looks like spell casting, he starts to cast a spell, I use the readied attack he doesn't die and casts a spell at me.

I don't think either of these scenarios is serious enough to matter debate. I suppose there could be a fringe case of a mage/rogue popping out of hiding every round to cast a spell, but you could ready the attack for when they pop up as well as for when they take any other action.

Agreed, however, the far more effective condition that several have proposed, was worthy of discussion..
Scenario 3:
I ready an Silence to hit the mage only if I see something that looks like spell casting, he starts to cast a spell, I use the readied Silence and doesn't casts a spell at me.

[Aquillion]

Agreed, however, the far more effective condition that several have proposed, was worthy of discussion..
Scenario 3:
I ready an Silence to hit the mage only if I see something that looks like spell casting, he starts to cast a spell, I use the readied Silence and doesn't casts a spell at me.

Yes. But keep in mind that a readied action Silence has a much higher cost than a readied-action attack (your spell is wasted if the reaction doesn't go off, and you can lose it to a concentration check if you get hit while it's readed.)

And, beyond that, it's not actually that much more powerful than casting Silence on your turn. The main advantage is that it avoids the target walking out of the silence effect before casting, but you're taking risks for that, especially if they realize what you're doing and just wait a turn before casting your big spell (I believe they'd get an Arcana check when you ready your action, since you cast it then and hold it.)

It's a situational trick, not something you want want to use to replace Counterspell (which doesn't require a readied action, doesn't involve risking the spell in advance, and can counter spells that lack verbal components.)

[NaughtyTiger]

Yes. But keep in mind that a readied action Silence has a much higher cost than a readied-action attack (your spell is wasted if the reaction doesn't go off, and you can lose it to a concentration check if you get hit while it's readed.)

And, beyond that, it's not actually that much more powerful than casting Silence on your turn. The main advantage is that it avoids the target walking out of the silence effect before casting, but you're taking risks for that, especially if they realize what you're doing and just wait a turn before casting your big spell (I believe they'd get an Arcana check when you ready your action, since you cast it then and hold it.)

It's a situational trick, not something you want want to use to replace Counterspell (which doesn't require a readied action, doesn't involve risking the spell in advance, and can counter spells that lack verbal components.)

Totes agree. But it side stepped the "attack can't disrupt a casting anyway" discussion, and focuses on the Ready Action part of the discussion (which is the part of the conversation I thought more interesting).

Besides, the enemy caster walking out of Silence has bitten me before.

[jh12]

And, beyond that, it's not actually that much more powerful than casting Silence on your turn. The main advantage is that it avoids the target walking out of the silence effect before casting, but you're taking risks for that, especially if they realize what you're doing and just wait a turn before casting your big spell (I believe they'd get an Arcana check when you ready your action, since you cast it then and hold it.)

I agree with your broader point about the risks, but I don't see any reason why a caster with movement left shouldn't be able to move 21 feet so they're outside the cone of silence and finish casting their spell, further reducing the benefit of the Ready Action.

[NaughtyTiger]

I agree with your broader point about the risks, but I don't see any reason why a caster with movement left shouldn't be able to move 21 feet so they're outside the cone of silence and finish casting their spell, further reducing the benefit of the Ready Action.

Grappled or otherwise restrained, Opportunity Attacks, Cornered, ...

Maybe DM would rule that you have to stop chanting until you walk out of silence and RESTART casting..

[jh12]

Grappled or otherwise restrained, Opportunity Attacks, Cornered, ...

Fair enough, but it seems like most of those most of the time would have applied if you cast your spell on your turn instead of waiting so I don't think there's much benefit to the Ready Action.

Maybe DM would rule that you have to stop chanting until you walk out of silence and RESTART casting..

That's what I would assume would happen. I just don't see any reason why there wouldn't be time enough to restart and finish a spell on the same turn if it was disrupted.

[Rukelnikov]

Agreed, however, the far more effective condition that several have proposed, was worthy of discussion..
Scenario 3:
I ready an Silence to hit the mage only if I see something that looks like spell casting, he starts to cast a spell, I use the readied Silence and doesn't casts a spell at me.

There are other things that can be done and don't have the costs or readying a spell (which IMO is a huge investment since it takes your concentration).

I could ready a move to walk away, potentially breaking line of sight or walking out of the spells range.

[MaxWilson]

Besides, the enemy caster walking out of Silence has bitten me before.

N.b. Silence goes well with opportunity attacks which can prone/restrain/stun: Monks, wildshaped Moon Druids in Giant Constrictor form, conjured wolves, conjured snakes, etc. Also difficult terrain and Plant Growth. Anything which can impose movement costs.

[patchyman]

This whole discussion only matters for those who go the extra step to think that attacking someone during the casting of a spell has any different effect on the spell being cast that attacking them on your turn before they go doesn't, and there is no RAW support for that.

This is incorrect. Several posters have given the example of a spellcaster Readying a Silence spell, others have mentioned Readying a Wall of Stone that blocks line of sight and others have mentioned gagging a spellcaster to prevent the verbal component of a spell.

[Tanarii]

I think that readied actions exist specifically for situations like that,

Citation needed.

[Missing]

Is this really an issue though? If my character is in combat, skips an attack to Ready an action “when the guy in the back in robes looks like he starts to cast a spell”.

On his turn, the DM says “he begins to say something” or “he reaches for something on his belt”. By the definition of the Ready action, I can either use my readied action or let it go to waste. It is my choice as a player to interpret what the DM has described, as it always is.

Maybe I’m right, maybe I’m wrong, maybe the DM is a jerk, but in all cases, it’s my call based on what the DM has described.

My problem with that is the trigger. Personally I feel that "looks like he starts to cast a spell" is ill-defined as we have nothing in the rules that state exactly how casting a spell progresses. Is the initial phase purely mental, they focus on the magic, pull in and twist the weave then at the last moment make a swift gesture and a word or two while holding a focus/component pouch.

On a somewhat unrelated note, DO you get to choose not to use your readied action? If you say I shoot the first person through that door and an old lady come through first do you shoot her? Is the character on such a hair trigger that they don't have time to register that they shouldn't complete the action they readied?


On Counterspell I've always imagined it as being a spell of unraveling that goes off with/just after the other spell is released but possibly before it takes effect. Sometimes it might be powerful enough (slot or lower level spells or a successful roll) others it is not (failed roll).