Do you mean the spell ice storm which produces hail? Or a common mundane weather event? The spell would interrupt casting if the spells damage caused a concentration check on the casting and the caster failed the check (assuming the spell requires concentration to cast or maintain, non concentration spells don’t require any concentration to cast and would not be affected by the spell).
the weather event would trigger the save only if the DM said so, or if it caused damage
No, RAW in 5e, the only interruption to casting a spell is via counterspell, but at the option of the DM, it could force a concentration check if it's a spell that needs concentrating: "The DM might also decide that certain environmental phenomena, such as a wave crashing over you while you're on a storm-tossed ship, require you to succeed on a DC 10 Constitution saving throw to maintain concentration on a spell."
Lyxen, this is tangential to the other thread, and sorry for the pedantry, but as I said above, if the spell requires concentration to cast (required for longer casting times and readied spells), then the damage from the spell (or natural effect) can interrupt the spell casting via the disruption of concentration, so it is possible for this to interrupt the casting of a spell
Lyxen, this is tangential to the other thread, and sorry for the pedantry, but as I said above, if the spell requires concentration to cast (required for longer casting times and readied spells), then the damage from the spell (or natural effect) can interrupt the spell casting via the disruption of concentration, so it is possible for this to interrupt the casting of a spell
You're being a bit over-inclusive with your answer here, which is what I think is causing some confusion.
Simply requiring concentration does not mean that damage can interrupt the casting of the spell. The spell also needs to have a casting time of longer than an action or reaction, or it needs to be held by the Ready action. It sort of sounds like you are saying that damage can interrupt the casting of any concentration spell, which is not the case.
Without the two scenarios above, there is zero opportunity for the damage to interrupt concentration. There are only two options.
The damage happens before the spell is cast (in which case, no check is made, as the spell hasn't started being cast yet and nothing is being concentrated on).
The damage happens after the spell is cast (in which case you could disrupt the concentration of the spell, but the initial cast has already succeeded)
If I cast Banishment with my action, the only way the casting gets interrupted is with a Counterspell (or a special feature worded similarly to counterspell).
Lyxen, this is tangential to the other thread, and sorry for the pedantry, but as I said above, if the spell requires concentration to cast (required for longer casting times and readied spells), then the damage from the spell (or natural effect) can interrupt the spell casting via the disruption of concentration, so it is possible for this to interrupt the casting of a spell
Just to be clear, you are saying that you would stop a caster in the middle of the Cast a Spell action to have him roll a concentration check??? If so, why???
If I cast Banishment with my action, the only way the casting gets interrupted is with a Counterspell (or a special feature worded similarly to counterspell).
Or, I ready a silence spell on the trigger that you start to cast a spell. Or I ready an attack on the same trigger that happens to kill you. I’m sure there are lots of other examples.
Lyxen, this is tangential to the other thread, and sorry for the pedantry, but as I said above, if the spell requires concentration to cast (required for longer casting times and readied spells), then the damage from the spell (or natural effect) can interrupt the spell casting via the disruption of concentration, so it is possible for this to interrupt the casting of a spell
You're being a bit over-inclusive with your answer here, which is what I think is causing some confusion.
Simply requiring concentration does not mean that damage can interrupt the casting of the spell. The spell also needs to have a casting time of longer than an action or reaction, or it needs to be held by the Ready action. It sort of sounds like you are saying that damage can interrupt the casting of any concentration spell, which is not the case.
Without the two scenarios above, there is zero opportunity for the damage to interrupt concentration. There are only two options.
The damage happens before the spell is cast (in which case, no check is made, as the spell hasn't started being cast yet and nothing is being concentrated on).
The damage happens after the spell is cast (in which case you could disrupt the concentration of the spell, but the initial cast has already succeeded)
If I cast Banishment with my action, the only way the casting gets interrupted is with a Counterspell (or a special feature worded similarly to counterspell).
My apologies, I thought the bolded text in my post was clear that I was talking about spells with longer casting times (and readied spells where concentration is required to hold the spells energy until a trigger is activated). Lyxen incorrectly stated "No, RAW in 5e, the only interruption to casting a spell is via counterspell" , which is incorrect as both of the above examples exist and are clearly spelled out in the rules:
Longer Casting Times
Certain spells (including spells cast as rituals) require more time to cast: minutes or even hours. When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so. If your concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don't expend a spell slot. If you want to try casting the spell again, you must start over.
When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but hold its energy, which you release with your reaction when the trigger occurs. To be readied, a spell must have a casting time of 1 action, and holding onto the spell's magic requires concentration. If your concentration is broken, the spell dissipates without taking effect
Damage from ice storm can stop (interrupt) the successful casting in either of these instances, providing the caster fails the concentration check from the damage.
Lyxen, this is tangential to the other thread, and sorry for the pedantry, but as I said above, if the spell requires concentration to cast (required for longer casting times and readied spells), then the damage from the spell (or natural effect) can interrupt the spell casting via the disruption of concentration, so it is possible for this to interrupt the casting of a spell
Just to be clear, you are saying that you would stop a caster in the middle of the Cast a Spell action to have him roll a concentration check??? If so, why???
Yes, in the specific instance I included in the post (bolded for ease of reference). Spells with longer casting times, and readied spells, require concentration before the spell completes and the effect takes place. If damage happens to the caster during the longer casting time, or during the time the spell is held by the ready action, the check occurs with the spell failing on a failed check.
Yes, in the specific instance I included in the post (bolded for ease of reference). Spells with longer casting times, and readied spells, require concentration before the spell completes and the effect takes place. If damage happens to the caster during the longer casting time, or during the time the spell is held by the ready action, the check occurs with the spell failing on a failed check.
Ah, I missed when you went from general to specific. But yes in those very specific cases then it makes sense to do a concentration check when/if damage happens.
In A D and D there is the spell Ice Storm. Ice Storm produces either sleet or hail. When Ice Storm is cast you choose which spell effect you want it to produce. Antiwizards of the coast have changed the original spell to what it is in version 5e. I am asking about the spell effect of Hail Storm which is 5e Ice Storm. I prefer to call it Ice Storm: Hail Storm or Ice Storm: Sleet Storm. It seems to me that the bludgeoning trama of hail should/might disrupt spell casting. Does such a spell effect as hail prevent a caster from casting a spell? Dropping a brick on my toe stops me every time.
Sleet Storm and Ice Storm are different spells in 5e. Your choice in naming and saying things like "as hail" is just confusing the issue. Just say "Ice Storm", that's all we need to know.
If the enemy caster was casting a spell with a casting time longer than an action and you cast Ice Storm causing the enemy mage to take damage, then they would have to make a Concentration check and on failure they fail to cast the spell. This is confirmed in the Rules as Written, and detailed in multiple posts above.
So it seems the answer to your question is: Yes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
In A D and D there is the spell Ice Storm. Ice Storm produces either sleet or hail. When Ice Storm is cast you choose which spell effect you want it to produce. Antiwizards of the coast have changed the original spell to what it is in version 5e. I am asking about the spell effect of Hail Storm which is 5e Ice Storm. I prefer to call it Ice Storm: Hail Storm or Ice Storm: Sleet Storm. It seems to me that the bludgeoning trama of hail should/might disrupt spell casting. Does such a spell effect as hail prevent a caster from casting a spell? Dropping a brick on my toe stops me every time.
Generally speaking: No. Taking continuous damage does not prevent spellcasting in 5e, and will bot interrupt spells with a casting time of 1 action or shorter.
It will trigger concentration checks to maintain concentration which can end concentration spells or interrupt readied spells or spells with casting times longer than 1 action (as icon pointed out).
If I cast Banishment with my action, the only way the casting gets interrupted is with a Counterspell (or a special feature worded similarly to counterspell).
Or, I ready a silence spell on the trigger that you start to cast a spell. Or I ready an attack on the same trigger that happens to kill you. I’m sure there are lots of other examples.
Reactions like Counterspell and Shield have special wording that allows them to interrupt the thing they are reacting to.
Most other reactions, including the Ready action, explicitly take place after the trigger. Casting a spell (with a casting time of 1 action) isn't a lengthy process with discrete stages that you can jump between. Much like readying an attack to deal damage, you either manage to cast silence before the spell is cast, or you cast silence after the spell is cast. There is no middle ground where the caster 'kinda sorta casts the spell, blowing their action and spell slot, but doesn't finish because you negated it with your silence/damage/whatever"
If I cast Banishment with my action, the only way the casting gets interrupted is with a Counterspell (or a special feature worded similarly to counterspell).
Or, I ready a silence spell on the trigger that you start to cast a spell. Or I ready an attack on the same trigger that happens to kill you. I’m sure there are lots of other examples.
Reactions like Counterspell and Shield have special wording that allows them to interrupt the thing they are reacting to.
Most other reactions, including the Ready action, explicitly take place after the trigger. Casting a spell (with a casting time of 1 action) isn't a lengthy process with discrete stages that you can jump between. Much like readying an attack to deal damage, you either manage to cast silence before the spell is cast, or you cast silence after the spell is cast. There is no middle ground where the caster 'kinda sorta casts the spell, blowing their action and spell slot, but doesn't finish because you negated it with your silence/damage/whatever"
Incorrect. The trigger I set for my readied action can be whatever I want it to be. If I make my trigger “the target casts a spell,” you’re absolutely right about the timing: the target would finish casting their spell, and then I would get my reaction. If my trigger is “the target starts casting a spell,” then I get to take my action when the target starts casting a spell but before they finish, because my trigger wasn’t “when the target casts a spell.”
You’re right that I take my action after the trigger occurs. That’s why the trigger is “starts to cast” and not “casts.”
Incorrect. The trigger I set for my readied action can be whatever I want it to be. If I make my trigger “the target casts a spell,” you’re absolutely right about the timing: the target would finish casting their spell, and then I would get my reaction. If my trigger is “the target starts casting a spell,” then I get to take my action when the target starts casting a spell but before they finish, because my trigger wasn’t “when the target casts a spell.”
You’re right that I take my action after the trigger occurs. That’s why the trigger is “starts to cast” and not “casts.”
Sure, you can try a vague trigger for 'starts to cast', but that doesn't really get around the main point. You won't interruptthe spell, in the sense that you will burn the action/spell slot (like counterspell would).
If you silence me "after I start" to cast the spell but before the spell is actually successfully cast, then the spell simply doesn't get cast. Silence doesn't cause Verbal spells to fail and have no effect. It means they can't be cast at all. I still have my spell slot and my action, because you made it impossible for me to even take the action at all.
The problem is that, although theoretically the trigger exist and is perceivable ("When he starts casting a spell", the one used by Counterspell), and would give some result (because counterspell shows that a casting can be interrupted)
Counterspell doesn't cause the spell to fail with a general rule. Its the specific magic of counterspell that causes the spell to fail. Other spells and features can't replicate that effect without also including specific language saying so. Specifically, silenceprevents spells from being cast at all. It doesn't cause spells to fail or have no effect. They simply can't be cast in the first place. If you can't cast the spell, you can't take the action and you can't burn the spell slot.
Note that, unofficially, JC has confirmed that, as a DM, he would allow a readied silence to interrupt the casting of a spell with verbal components.
Like with everything in D&D, a DM can make another ruling if they think its cool/fun/interesting. JC makes it very clear that he is not using RAW, or even RAI, but using Rule 0 / RAF in this case. If anything, that reinforces my point further, as JC is a huge fan of quoting his own rules when they actually apply.
I'm a big fan of Rule 0 and I might even allow the silence interruption trick myself (likely with an ability check), but I generally avoid Rule 0 on forums like this because it sort of defeats the point of a rules forum.
All of that depends on when during casting spell slots actually get expended, which is not well-defined, irrelevant to the point I’m making, and not something I’m interested in thinking about, haha. We agree on the part that matters to me, and I don’t necessarily disagree with you on anything else you mention; it’s just not what I’m here to discuss. Good, productive exchange, a rare thing on these boards.
Should Hail Storm disrupt the casting of a spell?
Do you mean the spell ice storm which produces hail? Or a common mundane weather event? The spell would interrupt casting if the spells damage caused a concentration check on the casting and the caster failed the check (assuming the spell requires concentration to cast or maintain, non concentration spells don’t require any concentration to cast and would not be affected by the spell).
the weather event would trigger the save only if the DM said so, or if it caused damage
Lyxen, this is tangential to the other thread, and sorry for the pedantry, but as I said above, if the spell requires concentration to cast (required for longer casting times and readied spells), then the damage from the spell (or natural effect) can interrupt the spell casting via the disruption of concentration, so it is possible for this to interrupt the casting of a spell
You're being a bit over-inclusive with your answer here, which is what I think is causing some confusion.
Simply requiring concentration does not mean that damage can interrupt the casting of the spell. The spell also needs to have a casting time of longer than an action or reaction, or it needs to be held by the Ready action. It sort of sounds like you are saying that damage can interrupt the casting of any concentration spell, which is not the case.
Without the two scenarios above, there is zero opportunity for the damage to interrupt concentration. There are only two options.
If I cast Banishment with my action, the only way the casting gets interrupted is with a Counterspell (or a special feature worded similarly to counterspell).
Just to be clear, you are saying that you would stop a caster in the middle of the Cast a Spell action to have him roll a concentration check??? If so, why???
Or, I ready a silence spell on the trigger that you start to cast a spell. Or I ready an attack on the same trigger that happens to kill you. I’m sure there are lots of other examples.
My apologies, I thought the bolded text in my post was clear that I was talking about spells with longer casting times (and readied spells where concentration is required to hold the spells energy until a trigger is activated). Lyxen incorrectly stated "No, RAW in 5e, the only interruption to casting a spell is via counterspell" , which is incorrect as both of the above examples exist and are clearly spelled out in the rules:
Damage from ice storm can stop (interrupt) the successful casting in either of these instances, providing the caster fails the concentration check from the damage.
Yes, in the specific instance I included in the post (bolded for ease of reference). Spells with longer casting times, and readied spells, require concentration before the spell completes and the effect takes place. If damage happens to the caster during the longer casting time, or during the time the spell is held by the ready action, the check occurs with the spell failing on a failed check.
Ah, I missed when you went from general to specific. But yes in those very specific cases then it makes sense to do a concentration check when/if damage happens.
In A D and D there is the spell Ice Storm. Ice Storm produces either sleet or hail. When Ice Storm is cast you choose which spell effect you want it to produce. Antiwizards of the coast have changed the original spell to what it is in version 5e. I am asking about the spell effect of Hail Storm which is 5e Ice Storm. I prefer to call it Ice Storm: Hail Storm or Ice Storm: Sleet Storm. It seems to me that the bludgeoning trama of hail should/might disrupt spell casting. Does such a spell effect as hail prevent a caster from casting a spell? Dropping a brick on my toe stops me every time.
Sleet Storm and Ice Storm are different spells in 5e. Your choice in naming and saying things like "as hail" is just confusing the issue. Just say "Ice Storm", that's all we need to know.
If the enemy caster was casting a spell with a casting time longer than an action and you cast Ice Storm causing the enemy mage to take damage, then they would have to make a Concentration check and on failure they fail to cast the spell. This is confirmed in the Rules as Written, and detailed in multiple posts above.
So it seems the answer to your question is: Yes.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Generally speaking: No. Taking continuous damage does not prevent spellcasting in 5e, and will bot interrupt spells with a casting time of 1 action or shorter.
It will trigger concentration checks to maintain concentration which can end concentration spells or interrupt readied spells or spells with casting times longer than 1 action (as icon pointed out).
Reactions like Counterspell and Shield have special wording that allows them to interrupt the thing they are reacting to.
Most other reactions, including the Ready action, explicitly take place after the trigger. Casting a spell (with a casting time of 1 action) isn't a lengthy process with discrete stages that you can jump between. Much like readying an attack to deal damage, you either manage to cast silence before the spell is cast, or you cast silence after the spell is cast. There is no middle ground where the caster 'kinda sorta casts the spell, blowing their action and spell slot, but doesn't finish because you negated it with your silence/damage/whatever"
Incorrect. The trigger I set for my readied action can be whatever I want it to be. If I make my trigger “the target casts a spell,” you’re absolutely right about the timing: the target would finish casting their spell, and then I would get my reaction. If my trigger is “the target starts casting a spell,” then I get to take my action when the target starts casting a spell but before they finish, because my trigger wasn’t “when the target casts a spell.”
You’re right that I take my action after the trigger occurs. That’s why the trigger is “starts to cast” and not “casts.”
Sure, you can try a vague trigger for 'starts to cast', but that doesn't really get around the main point. You won't interrupt the spell, in the sense that you will burn the action/spell slot (like counterspell would).
If you silence me "after I start" to cast the spell but before the spell is actually successfully cast, then the spell simply doesn't get cast. Silence doesn't cause Verbal spells to fail and have no effect. It means they can't be cast at all. I still have my spell slot and my action, because you made it impossible for me to even take the action at all.
Counterspell doesn't cause the spell to fail with a general rule. Its the specific magic of counterspell that causes the spell to fail. Other spells and features can't replicate that effect without also including specific language saying so. Specifically, silence prevents spells from being cast at all. It doesn't cause spells to fail or have no effect. They simply can't be cast in the first place. If you can't cast the spell, you can't take the action and you can't burn the spell slot.
Like with everything in D&D, a DM can make another ruling if they think its cool/fun/interesting. JC makes it very clear that he is not using RAW, or even RAI, but using Rule 0 / RAF in this case. If anything, that reinforces my point further, as JC is a huge fan of quoting his own rules when they actually apply.
I'm a big fan of Rule 0 and I might even allow the silence interruption trick myself (likely with an ability check), but I generally avoid Rule 0 on forums like this because it sort of defeats the point of a rules forum.
All of that depends on when during casting spell slots actually get expended, which is not well-defined, irrelevant to the point I’m making, and not something I’m interested in thinking about, haha. We agree on the part that matters to me, and I don’t necessarily disagree with you on anything else you mention; it’s just not what I’m here to discuss. Good, productive exchange, a rare thing on these boards.
Yep, same to you! And yea, since the discussion was already starting to drift off topic, that's a safe place to leave it.