What ways are there to disrupt spellcasting in 5e?

[ThePolarBear]

Too long to answer each individually, plus, I have already covered most (if not all) of them on different posts.

It really isn't. It's more on what a Ready Action requires, what start means, and apply it to casting.

For you, what does "start casting" mean? When does someone start casting?

The starting of something is instantaneous "when the chronometer starts counting", first it wasn't and then it is, thus it started.

Once it is counting, it has finished beginning to count.

But you have to provide a perceivable occurrence! "Start" is not that! "When the counter reaches 00.00.01" is!

[TheUser]

I figured it out.

The people in this thread are conflating the word "trigger" with "triggering action"

By the wording of RAW the player who readies the action with a specific trigger has dilineated the finishing of the trigger with the intent of their readied action.

If I said "I shoot the wizard when they begin casting a spell with a readied action."

And the DM says "the wizard casts wall of fire"

And I say "I have already shot him mid cast"

Even if the DM says "you must wait until the trigger finishes"

The answer is clear.

"Once casting had begun the trigger finished, as clearly dilineated by my readied requirements; the rule doesn't say "once the triggering action finishes" it says "once the trigger finishes" if the words "they have begun casting" can be used to describe the current situation, then my trigger has finished, ergo, I shot that wizard right after casting began in an attempt to disrupt the verbal and somatic components of his spell."

If this window of opportunity is too narrow by the DM's strict sense of narrative then I will likely find another table as we have a very different idea of how long a spell takes to cast.

The only leg to stand on left for the anti spell disruption people is that a turn within a round represents the 6 seconds that is supposed to transpire simultaneously, so by virtue of the fact that damage throughout the round doesn't force concentration saves on spells that have no concentration requirements we could assume spell casters are battle hardened enough that casting under extreme duress is part of their training.

Albeit the people who are attacking them are making attempts to kill them as opposed to interrupt the casting process. For what that's worth.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I figured it out.

The people in this thread are conflating the word "trigger" with "triggering action"

By the wording of RAW the player who readies the action with a specific trigger has dilineated the finishing of the trigger with the intent of their readied action.

If I said "I shoot the wizard when they begin casting a spell with a readied action."

And the DM says "the wizard casts wall of fire"

And I say "I have already shot him mid cast"

Even if the DM says "you must wait until the trigger finishes"

The answer is clear.

"Once casting had begun the trigger finished, as clearly dilineated by my readied requirements; the rule doesn't say "once the triggering action finishes" it says "once the trigger finishes" if the words "they have begun casting" can be used to describe the current situation", then my trigger has finished, ergo, I shot that wizard right after casting began in an attempt to disrupt the verbal and somatic components of his spell."

If this window of opportunity is too narrow by the DM's strict sense of narrative then I will likely find another table as we have a very different idea of how long a spell takes to cast.

The only leg to stand on left for the anti spell disruption people is that a turn within a round represents the 6 seconds that is supposed to transpire simultaneously, so by virtue of the fact that damage throughout the round doesn't force concentration saves on spells that have no concentration requirements we could assume spell casters are battle hardened enough that casting under extreme duress is part of their training.

Albeit the people who are attacking them are making attempts to kill them as opposed to interrupt the casting process. For what that's worth.

No, this isn't at all what we're arguing. This is at least not what I'm arguing.

I am arguing that "beginning to cast" and "casting" do not have a perceivable difference in fiction (or in the rules) to make such a distinction between triggers. It requires metagame knowledge for your character to perceive such a trigger, as the difference only truly exists in specific rules of the book and not in the fiction that those rules aim to build. If your intention is to attack them with their spellcasting as a trigger, the action will happen after. Your players careful wording does not make what your character percieves different.

By the time your character can perceive a spell is being cast, reacting to it in time is decided by what you're reacting to it with. Readied Action will happen after the spell has been cast and does not cause it to fail, reactions like Counterspell and Magic User's Nemesis interrupt the spell and cause it to fail.

If you're attempting to stop a spellcaster from casting a spell using your Readied Action, you should have killed them using the attack action instead. The original premise of this ridiculous notion that you could "interrupt" the casting of a spell like this served the purpose of 3 things:
-You want to have the caster waste their resources that would have been used to cast the spell
-You want to interrupt a spell as a martial without the use of counterspell
-You want to play the rules lawyer and treat "after" as "before" because your wording was specific enough

EDIT: But I take the evidence that you and I have had this very same discussion before, on page 1 & 2 of this same thread, as indication that you have not "figured it out" as you say.

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

So you act on inperceivable trigger to attempt to do something that can't be done? No wonder you have to look for a new table with a GM who uses houserules to your liking.

Being unable to disrupt spellcasting by damage is RAW, it's not "one leg to stand on left". Even if it was, it's still one leg more than what your argument has.

[TheUser]

No, this isn't at all what we're arguing. This is at least not what I'm arguing.

I am arguing that "beginning to cast" and "casting" do not have a perceivable difference in fiction (or in the rules) to make such a distinction between triggers. It requires metagame knowledge for your character to perceive such a trigger, as the difference only truly exists in specific rules of the book and not in the fiction that those rules aim to build. If your intention is to attack them with their spellcasting as a trigger, the action will happen after. Your players careful wording does not make what your character percieves different.

By the time your character can perceive a spell is being cast, reacting to it in time is decided by what you're reacting to it with. Readied Action will happen after the spell has been cast and does not cause it to fail, reactions like Counterspell and Magic User's Nemesis interrupt the spell and cause it to fail.

If you're attempting to stop a spellcasting from casting a spell using your Readied Action, you should have killed them using the attack action instead. The original premise of this ridiculous notion that you could "interrupt" the casting of a spell like this served the purpose of 3 things:
-You want to have the caster waste their resources that would have been used to cast the spell
-You want to interrupt a spell as a martial without the use of counterspell
-You want to play the rules lawyer and treat "after" as "before" because your wording was specific enough

EDIT: But I take the evidence that you and I have had this very same discussion before, on page 1 & 2 of this same thread, as indication that you have not "figured it out" as you say.

As someone who has been in many hand to hand fights (extensive martial arts background), the term "telegraphing" comes up a lot.

Essentially, you can tell when a person is going to start techniques that requires over half a second to prep instead of a third to a quarter of a second and use your reaction time to smash that person with a quick technique because you are waiting for them to throw that slow technique; in essence you have readied yourself for their slow wind up and stifle it with your own much quicker one.

Want an example? a rear leg "front-kick" has a lot of telegraphing, a lead leg skip-front-kick can be used to stuff that person and completely stagger the kick.

Did I metagame my opponent? Yes. Because I have observed that they have a slow rear leg front-kick they try to use and I can interrupt it with my own faster movements. The readied action, in and of itself, is a metagame action. So labelling attempts to use it in such a manner is entirely accurate but also devoid of any relevance since it is part of the feature's design...

This kick example by the way, has fractions of a second timing windows; they would not even comprise an entire action in the scope of the D&D world.

If you think that "starting a spell" is an imperceptible circumstance that a person cannot notice in time between when it starts and when it finishes you're simply not well versed enough in how quick a person's reaction time is especially when they have chosen to direct their attention to waiting for that specific circumstance.

Moreover you've chosen to ignore the rules in XGTE over what constitutes "perceivable" casting components.

That, or you're simply clutching to the worlds worst argument because this is the stance you've adopted from the beginning in an attempt to prove that -you- are right, and not what is narratively accurate.

[ProsecutorGodot]

If you think that "starting a spell" is an imperceptible circumstance that a person cannot notice in time between when it starts and when it finishes you're simply not well versed enough in how quick a person's reaction time is especially when they have chosen to direct their attention to waiting for that specific circumstance.

Moreover you've chosen to ignore the rules in XGTE over what constitutes "perceivable" casting components.

That, or you're simply clutching to the worlds worst argument because this is the stance you've adopted from the beginning in an attempt to prove that -you- are right, and not what is narratively accurate.

Nope, I did not ignore them. Nowhere in those additional rules does it specify that those being percievable means that the act of using them is somehow seperate from the rest of the spellcasting process.

You can absolutely percieve those, it's just not percievably different from "casting a spell". The wording in XGTE supports this interpetation.

But what about the act of casting a spell? Is it possible for someone to perceive that a spell is being cast in their presence? To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component. The form of a material component doesn’t matter for the purposes of perception, whether it’s an object specified in the spell’s description, a component pouch, or a spellcasting focus.

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

It doesn't say anywhere here that you can percieve the beginning of the casting, but that you percieve "a spell being cast in your presence" though I suppose the developers just lack the skill level to word the rules in that way.

The trigger results in the same thing and you always act after the trigger using a Readied Action. I've not once argued that you are unable to percieve spellcasting components. My argument has always been that you can't percieve their intent to use them seperately from them already being in use.

EDIT: We had this discussion on page 12 already.

[TheUser]

Nope, I did not ignore them. Nowhere in those additional rules does it specify that those being percievable means that the act of using them is somehow seperate from the rest of the spellcasting process.

You can absolutely percieve those, it's just not percievably different from "casting a spell". The wording in XGTE supports this interpetation.

It doesn't say anywhere here that you can percieve the beginning of the casting, but that you percieve "a spell being cast in your presence" though I suppose the developers just lack the skill level to word the rules in that way.

The trigger results in the same thing and you always act after the trigger using a Readied Action. I've not once argued that you are unable to percieve spellcasting components. My argument has always been that you can't percieve their intent to use them seperately from them already being in use.

EDIT: We had this discussion on page 12 already.

I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt by hoping your argument rested on something else...

just to be crystal clear

You are arguing that a PC can percieve some act (spellcasting) but not when said act starts?

I just... I have no words for the mental gymnastics in play here.

[CorporateSlave]

As someone who has been in many hand to hand fights (extensive martial arts background), the term "telegraphing" comes up a lot.

Essentially, you can tell when a person is going to start techniques that requires over half a second to prep instead of a third to a quarter of a second and use your reaction time to smash that person with a quick technique because you are waiting for them to throw that slow technique; in essence you have readied yourself for their slow wind up and stifle it with your own much quicker one.

Want an example? a rear leg "front-kick" has a lot of telegraphing, a lead leg skip-front-kick can be used to stuff that person and completely stagger the kick.

Sounds to me like you have, in real life, the hand to hand combat equivalent of the Monster Slayer Ranger's "Magic User's Nemesis" class feature. That's the issue with all your examples. It's not that interrupting a 1 Action spell being cast is impossible. Nobody is saying that. What we are saying is that by 5e RAW, there are a few specific exceptions based on magic spells or trained abilities that do allow it, much as you can interrupt a kick in a way I almost certainly could not, lacking that specific training.

Your real world examples are convincing real world examples...for the real world. In-game, many, many rules fall apart when "real world" examples are thrown at them. Game rules are created for game balance, not 100% real world accuracy.

You are arguing that a PC can percieve some act (spellcasting) but not when said act starts?

No, what we (I at least) am saying is, a PC without a special spell or training might be able to perceive that (although, by RAW there is nothing saying a standard PC can separate "casting" from "beginning to cast" even if that does't make common sense), but effectively lacks the ability/training to act before it is complete.

PHB 5e core concept: Specific beats general. (certain specific things allow you to break general rules)
General RAW: Makes ZERO reference to any way of disrupting a 1 Action (or faster) spell being cast.
General RAW: Makes EXPLICIT reference to how to disrupt a Longer Casting Time spell being cast.
Couterspell: Grants SPECIFIC ability to disrupt any spell being cast, regardless of casting time.
Magic User's Nemesis: Grants SPECIFIC ability to disrupt any spell being cast, regardless of casting time.

Some people may be trying to justify this with mental gymnastics regarding the semantics of (#facepalm) real world spell casting processes. I'm just sticking to the RAW here, which as I've summarized above is pretty conclusive. The RAW does not grant every average Joe a way to do this. If it had meant to, it could have done so very, very easily. Again...it DID do this in past editions. It was removed from 5e. It will take a house rule to put it back...its not RAW anymore.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt by hoping your argument rested on something else...

just to be crystal clear

You are arguing that a PC can percieve some act (spellcasting) but not when said act starts?

I just... I have no words for the mental gymnastics in play here.

I am arguing that your character cannot gain a mechanical benefit from your players choice of wording. "beginning to cast" and "casting" do not have a perceivable difference that would offer you any chance to react "after they begin" as opposed to "after they cast". There are no rules that offer any evidence to the contrary.

I actually responded to a comment in the same way on page 6, I suppose both sides are just being entirely dismissive at this point:

You can make an arcana check as a reaction to identify a spell being cast. Anyone can do this.

Yes, and then you can't make the same reaction also attack them in an attempt to stop/hinder their casting.

You either get to identify that a spell is being cast or attack not knowing for sure if a spell is being cast.

I don't wanna do the check. But my ability to do so proves, in-game, my character is aware that a spell is being cast, and can react to that situation.

That's such a ridiculous argument that I truly do not know how to respond to it.

How does your ability to make an active check guarantee that you have already succeeded in making an active check that you are choosing not to take?

That's akin to saying "My + To Hit is high enough that I'm able to hit, anyone can roll a natural 20 as well so I'm just going to take the 20 and roll damage"

We're recycling content here folks, lets get some new layers added to this disagreement so we can be baffled further by how absurd it is that someone disagrees with us.

[CorporateSlave]

We're recycling content here folks, lets get some new layers added to this disagreement so we can be baffled further by how absurd it is that someone disagrees with us.

Ha! Yeah, right? I've yet to see anyone addressing my key points, and instead cycling back to various insistences about timing and real world equivalents. But I guess when that's all you've got...

I for one am not arguing it might make sense "in the real world," but I thought I was debating Rules As Written, not Rules As I Feel They Should Be Because Real Minotaurs Would Do It This Way. I mean would a real world ancient dragon (*sigh) be 100% combat effective at 1 hp, exactly as powerful as when it was 300+ hp? No matter how you justify hp (physical damage, stamina, will to fight, etc), it makes no real world sense that every "bloodied" creature beaten to the edge of unconsciousness/death is consistently just as good at fighting as when it was fresh and rested. But its the RAW, written that way to avoid having to make mathematical calculations of percentages and whatnot that would break combat down into 6 second rounds that take 1-2 hours to resolve. And to allow both PC's and NPC's alike to remain relevant right up until the point they go down...and lets not even get started on encumbrance.

Real world analogies are garbage justification for fantasy game rules interpretation. Analogies in general are disingenuous because they are always carefully selected to support one's position and are never the same situation (if they were, they would not be analogies!).

Do you "feel like" your PC should be able to draw both swords at once, and not one at a time? Then the DM probably "feels like" you should have taken the Dual Wielder Feat. Sure I can strap two swords on my belt and put a hand on both, they draw them together at once. But its not me we are talking about. Or you. It is PC's existing and acting only in a game world ruled by the 5e RAW.

[TheUser]

Sounds to me like you have, in real life, the hand to hand combat equivalent of the Monster Slayer Ranger's "Magic User's Nemesis" class feature. That's the issue with all your examples. It's not that interrupting a 1 Action spell being cast is impossible. Nobody is saying that. What we are saying is that by 5e RAW, there are a few specific exceptions based on magic spells or trained abilities that do allow it, much as you can interrupt a kick in a way I almost certainly could not, lacking that specific training.

Your real world examples are convincing real world examples...for the real world. In-game, many, many rules fall apart when "real world" examples are thrown at them. Game rules are created for game balance, not 100% real world accuracy.



No, what we (I at least) am saying is, a PC without a special spell or training might be able to perceive that (although, by RAW there is nothing saying a standard PC can separate "casting" from "beginning to cast" even if that does't make common sense), but effectively lacks the ability/training to act before it is complete.

PHB 5e core concept: Specific beats general. (certain specific things allow you to break general rules)
General RAW: Makes ZERO reference to any way of disrupting a 1 Action (or faster) spell being cast.
General RAW: Makes EXPLICIT reference to how to disrupt a Longer Casting Time spell being cast.
Couterspell: Grants SPECIFIC ability to disrupt any spell being cast, regardless of casting time.
Magic User's Nemesis: Grants SPECIFIC ability to disrupt any spell being cast, regardless of casting time.

Some people may be trying to justify this with mental gymnastics regarding the semantics of (#facepalm) real world spell casting processes. I'm just sticking to the RAW here, which as I've summarized above is pretty conclusive. The RAW does not grant every average Joe a way to do this. If it had meant to, it could have done so very, very easily. Again...it DID do this in past editions. It was removed from 5e. It will take a house rule to put it back...its not RAW anymore.

So unless the PHB gives me a specific example of how I can do something it is no longer within the realm of possibility in D&D?

RAW doesn't say that I can use a hand over someone's mouth to stop vocal components either; the example it gives is that you can gag someone. Am I as a PC no longer able to stop a caster from using spells unless I carry around a piece of cloth to stop them from using vocal components? Will a garrote no longer suffice? What is the action I use to gag someone? Technically I am using a piece of cloth so is it an improvised weapon that deals 1d4+strength mod...cloth damage?

What do I have as a recourse to interfere with Verbal Somatic and Material components of spells? The PHB lists very few specific options for how I can restrict a caster from using those components, are those my only options now?

The PHB doesn't really list that many ways to interfere with them so am I to assume that they are not to be interfered with?

[Max_Killjoy]

Except only one side of the debate needs an answer to all of these questions (how long it takes to cast a spell, how long it takes to cast a readied spell as a reaction, how long it takes to recognize that a spell is starting, how long it takes to react to a spell starting, whether the caster is prevented from casting a spell or just has to start over, etc.), answers that pretty clearly aren't part of the rules. That's a pretty good argument in favor of the other side.

If those answers aren't part of the rules, then it's a pretty good argument that the rules are disconnected, disassociated, incomplete, and potentially broken.

[Max_Killjoy]

No. Some posters have provided quotes about the Ready Action having such a wording included in the text. "Claim" is something unsupported by proof.

First, your claim is that the quotes actually mean what you say they mean.

Second, you also have a claim regarding what is a valid trigger and whether it can be clarified to "trip" before the action is complete.

[Unoriginal]

If those answers aren't part of the rules, then it's a pretty good argument that the rules are disconnected, disassociated, incomplete, and potentially broken.

No, it's not. It's a pretty good argument that the rules don't give you the things you like to have/need to have to maintain your personal suspension of disbelief/interest in what's going on, but that doesn't make it incomplete or "potentially broken".

5e is not a simulationist system. It acknowledges this, and has no issue with not being simulationist.

There's nothing wrong about not liking a system, but that is a feature of the system, not a bug.

[ProsecutorGodot]

So unless the PHB gives me a specific example of how I can do something it is no longer within the realm of possibility in D&D?

RAW doesn't say that I can use a hand over someone's mouth to stop vocal components either; the example it gives is that you can gag someone. Am I as a PC no longer able to stop a caster from using spells unless I carry around a piece of cloth to stop them from using vocal components? Will a garrote no longer suffice? What is the action I use to gag someone? Technically I am using a piece of cloth so is it an improvised weapon that deals 1d4+strength mod...cloth damage?

What do I have as a recourse to interfere with Verbal Somatic and Material components of spells? The PHB lists very few specific options for how I can restrict a caster from using those components, are those my only options now?

The PHB doesn't really list that many ways to interfere with them so am I to assume that they are not to be interfered with?

Ah, I see how you could miss this one. It's right here.

How to Play
The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern.

1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions.

Or for combat, right here:

Actions in Combat
When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise. Many monsters have action options of their own in their stat blocks.

When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.

So you can absolutely try to improvise the action, and a willing DM will help you do it. If they don't think that what you're trying to do can reasonably succeed though, it's either going to be exceedingly difficult or entirely impossible.

[Aimeryan]

As someone who has been in many hand to hand fights (extensive martial arts background), the term "telegraphing" comes up a lot.

Essentially, you can tell when a person is going to start techniques that requires over half a second to prep instead of a third to a quarter of a second and use your reaction time to smash that person with a quick technique because you are waiting for them to throw that slow technique; in essence you have readied yourself for their slow wind up and stifle it with your own much quicker one.

Want an example? a rear leg "front-kick" has a lot of telegraphing, a lead leg skip-front-kick can be used to stuff that person and completely stagger the kick.

Did I metagame my opponent? Yes. Because I have observed that they have a slow rear leg front-kick they try to use and I can interrupt it with my own faster movements. The readied action, in and of itself, is a metagame action. So labelling attempts to use it in such a manner is entirely accurate but also devoid of any relevance since it is part of the feature's design...

This kick example by the way, has fractions of a second timing windows; they would not even comprise an entire action in the scope of the D&D world.

If you think that "starting a spell" is an imperceptible circumstance that a person cannot notice in time between when it starts and when it finishes you're simply not well versed enough in how quick a person's reaction time is especially when they have chosen to direct their attention to waiting for that specific circumstance.

Moreover you've chosen to ignore the rules in XGTE over what constitutes "perceivable" casting components.

That, or you're simply clutching to the worlds worst argument because this is the stance you've adopted from the beginning in an attempt to prove that -you- are right, and not what is narratively accurate.

Yup, this is pretty much spot on.

If the DM wanted to make it a perception check that would be reasonable in my view. I would probably key the difficulty off the spell components involved -verbal, somatic, material- with the more components involved the easier the check.

[Max_Killjoy]

It doesn't say anywhere here that you can percieve the beginning of the casting, but that you percieve "a spell being cast in your presence" though I suppose the developers just lack the skill level to word the rules in that way.

You put that in blue, but reading these threads about rules disputes, and discussions about the silliness of "ruling by tweet", and reading the PHB, so far I think it's a perfectly valid statement to make in total seriousness.

The trigger results in the same thing and you always act after the trigger using a Readied Action. I've not once argued that you are unable to percieve spellcasting components. My argument has always been that you can't percieve their intent to use them seperately from them already being in use.

"Already in use" != "spell casting is completed".

The unanswered question is whether there's enough time between the start of the spell being cast, and the spell actually going off / taking effect, for someone to interrupt the spellcaster's process.

It's not answered by the game's rules, either in what I've read or in anything that anyone has quoted here. It's been made quite clear that "an action" is not a measure of time.

[NaughtyTiger]

IWe're recycling content here folks, lets get some new layers added to this disagreement so we can be baffled further by how absurd it is that someone disagrees with us.

okay, that's funny, cuz you jumped right back in 3 posts later, recycling stuff too. we all succumb to the urge. i should have bowed out 8 pages ago.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The unanswered question is whether there's enough time between the start of the spell being cast, and the spell actually going off / taking effect, for someone to interrupt the spellcaster's process.

It's not answered by the game's rules, either in what I've read or in anything that anyone has quoted here. It's been made quite clear that "an action" is not a measure of time.

Class features and spells don't give you the ability to do something you already could do better. Otherwise they'd be redundant. Thus, the existence of counterspell and the other quoted features provides strong (to me) evidence that interrupting spells by "ordinary" means is not allowed. No amount of "clever" wording will let you get a class feature for free. Period, full stop. And trying means you're munchkining, which is just plain wrong.

And in an exception-based game, you need explicit allowances, not prohibitions. The basic rules don't say you can, and there are no specific rules (abilities, class features, etc) that give you this particular ability other than the quoted ones, so you can't (unless the DM decides otherwise, as for everything). That's the most basic rule of them all. Specific beats general.

[ProsecutorGodot]

"Already in use" != "spell casting is completed".

The unanswered question is whether there's enough time between the start of the spell being cast, and the spell actually going off / taking effect, for someone to interrupt the spellcaster's process.

It's not answered by the game's rules, either in what I've read or in anything that anyone has quoted here. It's been made quite clear that "an action" is not a measure of time.

And how does finding out a timeframe even help you in this case?

We don't know how long it takes to cast a spell*, we don't know how long it takes to run 30ft, we don't know how long it takes to decide that you're going to run twice as fast as usual in the next 6 seconds, we don't know how long it takes to swing a greataxe.
*except spells are one of the few things that were are given an actual timeframe of, going as specific as "seconds or fractions of seconds"

What exactly do we need to know these for though? We know that it takes 1 action to cast a spell with a casting time of 1 action. We know that it takes 1 action to dash, we know that it takes one action to swing your sword once (or more than once). If we're asking a question about the rules, we don't need to know abstractions of those rules. It's just not relevant.

If you want to play a game system where the minutia involved gets down to that specific level of detail, where your turn is decided in seconds and each and every possible action is designated a time that it would take, play that one.

Or more likely, make that one, because it doesn't exist to my knowledge.

okay, that's funny, cuz you jumped right back in 3 posts later, recycling stuff too. we all succumb to the urge. i should have bowed out 8 pages ago.

It was intentional, seeing as it was in response to a hypothetical that has already been answered. I was actually trying to find the comment that had posted the how to play rules before but I couldn't find it.

I do agree though, I've been trying to bow out of this thread for days and I still end up coming back. The discussion has well and truly been done to death. I know I personally have said some variation of "but all of this has already been said" several times in this thread.

It bears repeating though, old ideas keep getting resurrected as a "new argument" and then we all go straight back into the same loop.

Really nothing "new" has been added to this thread since page 3.

EDIT: Also, for those interested, you can find where Max_Killjoy and I first discussed the relevancy of "time to take an action" on page 6 and 7.

[NaughtyTiger]

And how does finding out a timeframe even help you in this case?

We don't know how long it takes to cast a spell*, we don't know how long it takes to run 30ft, we don't know how long it takes to decide that you're going to run twice as fast as usual in the next 6 seconds, we don't know how long it takes to swing a greataxe.
*except spells are one of the few things that were are given an actual timeframe of, going as specific as "seconds or fractions of seconds"

What exactly do we need to know these for though? We know that it takes 1 action to cast a spell with a casting time of 1 action.

We do know that a player has time to identify the spell being cast, communicate the spell being cast, and another player cast counterspell based on that information. (per XtgE optional rules)
We do know that on round one of combat, it takes longer to complete a spell than whoever went first in initiative (assuming caster initiated combat and didn't win initiative)
Half the posters in this thread know that on subsequent rounds of combat, the spells are suddenly much faster and readied actions can't attack first.
(heck, even I can't stay out of the argument)

It bears repeating though, old ideas keep getting resurrected as a "new argument" and then we all go straight back into the same loop.

I agree completely, but i can't stop. its a compulsion.

this is it. i promise no more...

[ProsecutorGodot]

I agree completely, but i can't stop. its a compulsion.

this is it. i promise no more...

We can fight it together.

[CorporateSlave]

So unless the PHB gives me a specific example of how I can do something it is no longer within the realm of possibility in D&D?

No, only if that "something" would break a general rule.

[jh12]

If those answers aren't part of the rules, then it's a pretty good argument that the rules are disconnected, disassociated, incomplete, and potentially broken.

No it isn't. It's a sign that the rules don't pretend to be a real-time combat simulator.

If a character with GWM gets a critical hit on his final attack of his turn, do you argue that he doesn't get his bonus action attack because he's already used up all 6 seconds of his turn? Or do characters who don't take a bonus action get to start earlier next round because they had extra time left over?

[ThePolarBear]

First, your claim is that the quotes actually mean what you say they mean.

Right. Because the definition of "finish" is not enough, right?

Or if you prefer:

The trigger is a perceivable occurrence.
The reaction goes after the trigger finishes
The reaction goes after the perceivable occurrence finishes.

"Casting a spell" is the trigger.
The reaction goes after the trigger finishes.
The reaction does after "casting a spell" finishes.

When does casting a spell end? When you are no longer casting a spell.

Did i REALLY need to provide this?

Second, you also have a claim regarding what is a valid trigger and whether it can be clarified to "trip" before the action is complete.

In regards to the validity: I provided why "start" is not a valid trigger. You might have missed it.
And in regards to "before" the action: the reaction goes after the trigger. The trigger is a percievable occurrence. Which is, in common terms, something that "happens". There's "action" in there, but i never once mixed "action" with "Action". So i do not need to provide proof for a point i never made to begin with.

[Max_Killjoy]

Class features and spells don't give you the ability to do something you already could do better. Otherwise they'd be redundant. Thus, the existence of counterspell and the other quoted features provides strong (to me) evidence that interrupting spells by "ordinary" means is not allowed. No amount of "clever" wording will let you get a class feature for free. Period, full stop. And trying means you're munchkining, which is just plain wrong.

And in an exception-based game, you need explicit allowances, not prohibitions. The basic rules don't say you can, and there are no specific rules (abilities, class features, etc) that give you this particular ability other than the quoted ones, so you can't (unless the DM decides otherwise, as for everything). That's the most basic rule of them all. Specific beats general.

Which still doesn't answer the question of how long it takes to cast a "1 action" spell, which would then be compared to how long it takes to recognize it, react, and attempt to interrupt. "Because those are the rules" is never an actual answer, it's just a way to avoid addressing the real questions via an appeal to authority (and an avoidance that 5e seems deliberately built on.)

Or to come at this from a less aggravated place, in order for me to answer the core question of this thread, I need information that 5e intentionally does not provide. Maybe others are happy to answer from "the rules" as their only basis, in a vacuum, but I am not.

It's like in high school, I did much better in Physics than I did in Calculus, despite the AP Physics class having a lot of very complicated math. Why? Because when I got a bad answer out of my work in Physics, I immediately knew it didn't make sense, I had something (reality) to compare it to, and I could go back and see where I messed up.

[Aimeryan]

Right. Because the definition of "finish" is not enough, right?

Or if you prefer:

The trigger is a perceivable occurrence.
The reaction goes after the trigger finishes
The reaction goes after the perceivable occurrence finishes.

"Casting a spell" is the trigger.
The reaction goes after the trigger finishes.
The reaction does after "casting a spell" finishes.

When does casting a spell end? When you are no longer casting a spell.

Did i REALLY need to provide this?



In regards to the validity: I provided why "start" is not a valid trigger. You might have missed it.
And in regards to "before" the action: the reaction goes after the trigger. The trigger is a percievable occurrence. Which is, in common terms, something that "happens". There's "action" in there, but i never once mixed "action" with "Action". So i do not need to provide proof for a point i never made to begin with.

The problem you guys are having is you are ignoring what each other is saying. The trigger the other side is using is not 'casting a spell'; it is 'starts to cast a spell'. The trigger for that finishes the moment it occurs, since that is what start means.

Start is a valid trigger unless the DM decides otherwise; your opinion doesn't change that for any game but one you DM. When you perceive something to happen is not the same as when someone else perceives something to happen. It is true that someone may miss the trigger, i.e., they don't perceive it - if you wanted to check for whether someone perceives something, there's a check for that.

[CorporateSlave]

The unanswered question is whether there's enough time between the start of the spell being cast, and the spell actually going off / taking effect, for someone to interrupt the spellcaster's process.

It's not answered by the game's rules, either in what I've read or in anything that anyone has quoted here. It's been made quite clear that "an action" is not a measure of time.

It's not answered by the game's rules, because it's not relevant to the game's rules. You clearly have an issue with this (sort of thing) and consider it a flaw in 5e. Fair enough, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

The game's rules don't make general allowances for this, but do make a few specific exceptions to allow it. To me this feels less like a flaw, and more like a game mechanic feature for the sake of simplification and balance...and to make spell casting in combat more viable.

The question of time remains unanswered because there is no definitive answer in the game's rules...because there doesn't need to be! If there was meant to be, there would be. There used to be in older editions. It was removed from 5e. Even the OP knew this. Timing just isn't relevant to how the rules are written.


I've generally avoided getting sucked into the "reality" of the situation for this very reason - it isn't relevant to the RAW. For every example of why there should be time to interrupt or why you should be able to perceive a spell being cast I could come up with a hypothetical reason why the converse is true. If you really want me to play that game...In combat, our minis stand still and frozen in their poses. But in the real world, it is likely they would be moving around, dodging back and forth, arms swinging around for balance, breathing heavy, shouting or grunting. 1 Action spells are often designed for combat, so its reasonable they are rather quick and unobtrusive in their casting methods. After all, you are able to accomplish casting this spell, moving 30', 6 seconds of intelligible speech, picking something up off the ground or opening a door, all while maintaining your defensive posture (AC) which most likely includes your DEX (i.e. ability to move relatively freely)...and that doesn't even count any Bonus Actions or Reactions you may be able to perform as well. Maybe it would be hard to pick out exactly when the juking stops and the spell casting begins, after all if casting is so easy to interrupt by an attack, you'd think mages would be creating these spells to make them harder to detect in a combat setting (at least, until it is too late) wouldn't you? Caster 50' away on the other side of a melee and you can expect to tell what words they are speaking? You're just imagining they stand still and start spending 6 seconds waving their arms about? Who knows? You are able to spot them reaching for their component pouch? Where did you read that's Step 1 Beginning to Cast a Spell? The component could be the last thing they do. Who knows? Maybe it varies from spell to spell? Maybe brandishing the arcane focus is the last thing that happens instead? Does it need to be the first? Is this addressed anywhere? Maybe the caster is picking the item out of their component pouch but hasn't started casting the spell yet? Maybe they are at an angle you making it hard to determine? Maybe even if you react right away it isn't in time to stop the spell, just go right after it? All the examples of real world hair trigger reflexes. Everybody has those? I'm an emergency responder, and I've seen plenty of people specifically trained to do things freeze and not react. What is the average person's braking distance when driving? This is a real thing, reflex time, reaction time, etc. What is your PC's reflex and reaction time? Is this governed by DEX or something? By your meta gaming abilities?

Of course, none of these questions or examples is any more relevant than those put forward by the "attack can interrupt casting" crowd. The game rules are simple (oversimplified maybe?), but intentionally so. You want to disrupt a spell being cast, pick a class with the ability or pick a spell with the ability.

"Because those are the rules" is never an actual answer, it's just a way to avoid addressing the real questions via an appeal to authority.

Well that's your opinion, certainly. If you're asking what the rules are (as the OP was), then "these are the rules" is the best and only answer, really. If you're trying to answer the "why" of the rule being the way it is (which would get into the minutia of the precise timing of an entirely imaginary event), you can argue the "real world" of it all you want, but rules are not written to be a perfect simulation of the real world. They are also written with game balance in mind, and saying that the only "real questions" here are those of physical timing, and that what the rules are is irrelevant and not an actual answer utterly fails to take this into account.

[CorporateSlave]

The problem you guys are having is you are ignoring what each other is saying. The trigger the other side is using is not 'casting a spell'; it is 'starts to cast a spell'. The trigger for that finishes the moment it occurs, since that is what start means.

I'm not ignoring it (although a lot of what I have written is ignored because there is apparently not a good way to counter it), I'm saying that per the RAW you can make whatever valid trigger you want. You want to say "starting to cast a spell" ok, fine. But since the rules don't break down 1 Action spell casting in that manner, the in game effect will be that the spell will not be interrupted and it will be cast, followed immediately by the effect of your attack (or whatever Readied Action you were using).

Look, if somebody wants to ask JC about this and it ends up in a future SA Compendium as official ruling that "sure, you can ready an Attack for the start of spell casting and possibly interrupt the casting if the caster fails a CON save." then great, that's now the RAW and lets roll with it!

If you want to say, "that makes no sense to me so I'm going to rule you can ready an Attack for the start of spell casting and possibly interrupt the casting if the caster fails a CON save." then great, that's your house ruling and you roll with it!

[Naanomi]

I'm not ignoring it (although a lot of what I have written is ignored because there is apparently not a good way to counter it), I'm saying that per the RAW you can make whatever valid trigger you want. You want to say "starting to cast a spell" ok, fine. But since the rules don't break down 1 Action spell casting in that manner, the in game effect will be that the spell will not be interrupted and it will be cast, followed immediately by the effect of your attack (or whatever Readied Action you were using).

Look, if somebody wants to ask JC about this and it ends up in a future SA Compendium as official ruling that "sure, you can ready an Attack for the start of spell casting and possibly interrupt the casting if the caster fails a CON save." then great, that's now the RAW and lets roll with it!

If you want to say, "that makes no sense to me so I'm going to rule you can ready an Attack for the start of spell casting and possibly interrupt the casting if the caster fails a CON save." then great, that's your house ruling and you roll with it!

The whole ‘fail with a CON’ save is an unnecessary piece of this... *if* you are allowed to use your readied action to go ‘mid-cast’ or even (in most cases) ‘before casting begins’; things like Stunning Fist can come into play without the creation of new mechanics