If the casting time is 1 minute you need to spend that entire minute casting the spell and doing nothing else except maybe movement.
Also note that while you are casting you are concentrating on performing that spell and will have to make concentration checks if you take damage with the possibility of losing the spell before it's even cast and will have to start again.
One minute is a long time in combat. 10 rounds at 6 seconds to the round. So for ten consecutive rounds you are using your action each turn to cast the spell.
One minute is a long time in combat. 10 rounds at 6 seconds to the round. So for ten consecutive rounds you are using your action each turn to cast the spell.
That's why my specialized list of 'Combat Rituals' never really became popular :)
If the casting time is 1 minute you need to spend that entire minute casting the spell and doing nothing else except maybe movement.
Not quite. As DavetheLost mentions below, you need to spend you Action each round casting the spell. You still have your Reaction, and any Bonus Actions you might have, available.
One minute is a long time in combat. 10 rounds at 6 seconds to the round. So for ten consecutive rounds you are using your action each turn to cast the spell.
If the casting time is 1 minute you need to spend that entire minute casting the spell and doing nothing else except maybe movement.
Not quite. As DavetheLost mentions below, you need to spend you Action each round casting the spell. You still have your Reaction, and any Bonus Actions you might have, available.
One minute is a long time in combat. 10 rounds at 6 seconds to the round. So for ten consecutive rounds you are using your action each turn to cast the spell.
This is an interesting point. What sort of bonus actions or reactions would be available to someone in the middle of casting a spell that would not halt the spell casting?
Casting a spell as a Reaction, for example, does not specify that you cannot cast another spell that turn. And for Longer Casting Times, it specifies that you must maintain concentration while doing the casting of the longer spell. But concentration just specifies that you lose concentration if you cast another spell that requires concentration.
So...if I'm 2 rounds into casting a spell with a casting time of 1 minute, can I use my reaction in the middle of casting that spell to cast a non-concentration reaction spell, and then continue on to round 3 of my 10 round spell casting?
You'd be able to do that yes. Counterspell for example is perfectly acceptable to cast while casting something else - like counterspelling a counterspell aimed at you.
You'd be able to do that yes. Counterspell for example is perfectly acceptable to cast while casting something else - like counterspelling a counterspell aimed at you.
See, that just seems to fly in the face of everything else the game wants spells to be.
Apparently, spells are so carefully crafted that I have to get the somatic and verbal components just so--say the wrong thing or make the wrong hand movement, and the spell doesn't go off, right? But apparently I can press a magical pause button in the middle of those careful hand movements, cast an entire other spell, and then come back to finish those oh-so-careful hand movements?
So in effect I can perform the V and S components of a spell incorrectly, as long as the 'incorrect' part is 'adding the entire V and S components from another unrelated spell into the middle of the original spell'. But I can't just stop, do nothing for a round, and then resume. That would 'interrupt' my spell casting too much. lol
The thing is reaction spells are practically instantaneous being cast very quickly.
In the case of Counterspell it is Somatic only so you could write it off as a quick flick of the wrist on the hand not doing the somatic for your original spell and it interrupts nothing. Or you could say it’s so quick to cast it doesn’t impede casting of the original.
See the part under "Is there a limit on the number of spells you can cast on your turn?". It specifically mentions an example of counterspelling counterspell (Edit:) while casting a fireball.
If you cast a spell as a bonus action you cannot cast another spell that turn except a cantrip with a casting time of one action. PHB page 202.
Per Sage Advice, cited above, you can cast spells as a reaction on a turn when you use your action to cast a spell.
The Sage Advice seems to say that if you have multiple actions in your turn you can use each one to cast a spell. It doesn't speak to the situation of casting a spell during the casting of a spell with an extended casting time. I would ask your DM about this before it comes up in play.
It looks like as long as you can maintain concentration you can freely use your bonus actions, reactions, and movement as permitted by the other rules and restrictions.
Somatic components for a spell requires one free hand. Since Counterspell only requires somatic and not material or verbal, while casting another spell (even one that has somatic) you can use your other hand to quickly sign the somatic component necessary to Counterspell. Imagine reciting the verbal and somatic components in one hand, out of the corner of your eyes you see someone signing the somatic portion to Counterspell, so you quickly, with your other hand, sign a counter-Counterspell to continue your original spell.
Keep in mind that does mean if you are Counterspelling while casting another spell (that has somatic components) you would need both hands free.
The thing is reaction spells are practically instantaneous being cast very quickly.
In the case of Counterspell it is Somatic only so you could write it off as a quick flick of the wrist on the hand not doing the somatic for your original spell and it interrupts nothing. Or you could say it’s so quick to cast it doesn’t impede casting of the original.
See the part under "Is there a limit on the number of spells you can cast on your turn?". It specifically mentions an example of counterspelling counterspell (Edit:) while casting a fireball.
Oh I believe you that it's possible under the rules--it seemed to be to me right away too.
I just think that's not a good rule. If one of my players was involved in a long duration spell--say, summoning a demon--and I don't mean a ritual where you have to draw a pentagram and then light some candles and such, I mean a 1 minute spell where presumably you are chanting and making intricate hand movements the whole time--and the player said "I'd like to cast half the spell, and then pause to eat a cheeseburger, and then resume the spell", I'd say no. This is casting a spell, not writing an essay. You can't stop in the middle of it to eat a cheeseburger (unless that was part of the S component :). You also can't cast 1 round of the spell, then take a nap, then cast another round, then wait a day, then cast another round of it, etc. Nor would I let someone in the middle of casting that spell to pause in their chanting to recite some poetry. (If the spell had no V component, that's a different story.)
And so if it doesn't make sense to let someone pause in their spell casting for something like conversation or eating, it doesn't make sense to allow a pause in spellcasting for something much more complex than eating or conversation. I get that reaction spells are supposed to be fast, but they still have components--and doing those components would interrupt the current spell being cast. And that's what I just don't like as a rule.
Nor do I think it's necessary for game balance, or even for mechanics. It doesn't seem like something they are forced into ruling. They could easily have said with one sentence that casting one spell during the casting of another spell is not allowed. Done. Doesn't really weaken spellcasters meaningfully as classes either, I don't think.
All the descriptive language in the PHB about the fabric of spells and reality and blah blah talks about how careful and intricate this process is. But apparently it can be interrupted by mixing the casting of two spells together. Doesn't sound super careful to me. :/
You're assuming spells with cast times beyond "1 Action" involve performing somatic and verbal components continuously throughout the cast time. That's not an unreasonable assumption, but it's not a necessary one. Given that you are, in fact, allowed to take Reactions and Bonus Actions while casting a long spell, I'd say a more correct assumption is that long spells might involve somatic and verbal components throughout their cast time, but not necessarily continuously. The only thing that is specified as being needed continuously is Concentration. Apart from that, you only need to spend your Action. If it helps, imagine the caster initiates the spell casting, and a magic orb of glowing energy appears before them, right as they finish the first turn's worth of casting. They then need to speak arcane words and/or perform eldritch gestures each turn, feeding magic energy into the orb, to sort of "power up" the spell. If they fail to do so (i.e. fail to spend their action casting), or are distracted (i.e. lose Concentration), the magic fizzles and the spell is lost. They are otherwise free to move, moving the glowing orb with them, or perform quick actions (i.e. Reactions and/or Bonus Actions), as long as they spare enough time to speak the words and/or perform the gestures. At the end of the cast time, the spell is fully "powered up", and its effect materialize.
The common fiction of a caster having to continuously speak and gesture without break while a spell is being cast is common, but it does not accurately represent how spellcasting works in D&D 5e. Of course, you are free, as a DM, to implement such a house rule. Do bear in mind it somewhat devalues longer cast time spells, which in turn devalues spellcasters, to a point. Long cast time spells are probably not common enough in combat to make much of a difference, though.
You're assuming spells with cast times beyond "1 Action" involve performing somatic and verbal components continuously throughout the cast time. That's not an unreasonable assumption, but it's not a necessary one. Given that you are, in fact, allowed to take Reactions and Bonus Actions while casting a long spell, I'd say a more correct assumption is that long spells might involve somatic and verbal components throughout their cast time, but not necessarily continuously. The only thing that is specified as being needed continuously is Concentration. Apart from that, you only need to spend your Action. If it helps, imagine the caster initiates the spell casting, and a magic orb of glowing energy appears before them, right as they finish the first turn's worth of casting. They then need to speak arcane words and/or perform eldritch gestures each turn, feeding magic energy into the orb, to sort of "power up" the spell. If they fail to do so (i.e. fail to spend their action casting), or are distracted (i.e. lose Concentration), the magic fizzles and the spell is lost. They are otherwise free to move, moving the glowing orb with them, or perform quick actions (i.e. Reactions and/or Bonus Actions), as long as they spare enough time to speak the words and/or perform the gestures. At the end of the cast time, the spell is fully "powered up", and its effect materialize.
The common fiction of a caster having to continuously speak and gesture without break while a spell is being cast is common, but it does not accurately represent how spellcasting works in D&D 5e. Of course, you are free, as a DM, to implement such a house rule. Do bear in mind it somewhat devalues longer cast time spells, which in turn devalues spellcasters, to a point. Long cast time spells are probably not common enough in combat to make much of a difference, though.
Ooh, really solid points here, thank you :) The Reaction and Bonus Action issue I would just want to rule the same way as I've been saying--my intuition would be that making an attack of opportunity would interrupt spell casting as well.
I guess you'd really have to explain these longer spells as not involving continuous actions. Each round would have actions you'd have to take for the spell--it requires you spend your action on it. So now the casting would be 'chant/wave hands', then another small burst of chanting and waving hands, and etc etc. But each bit doesn't have to be connection.
I can even envision that now. The spell is 'hanging' in the fabric, and you keep adding little bits to it, until you finally get it complete. Basically like a mini-ritual. I'm okay with that explanation, I guess. And...it would leave open the ability to design slightly more impressive spells that in fact required no other actions/reactions/bonus actions taken during casting. Harder to do, but more payoff.
Hmm, okay. Thanks for that, makes me happier about this ruling.
By the way, not sure I understood what you meant by "you'd really have to explain these longer spells as not involving continuous actions", but if you meant the book should explain it, it does. The fact that long spells only require your Action (and Concentration) explains it. :)
If you meant you'd have to explain it to your players, then yeah, definitely. D&D 5e doesn't encompass all types of spellcasting seen in fiction; it uses a specific type. So players can get tripped up by trying to do things like they've seen in movies, or read in books. (In fact, up until at least 3rd edition (I never played 4th, so dunno about there), the old "I'm being attacked? I cast Shield to intercept the attack!" thing was impossible, since there was no reactive spellcasting. You had to guess when you were going to be attacked, and cast Shield preemptively!)
Also, the whole "powering up the spell that's hanging in the fabric" is not how it officially works. How it officially works is just: use your Action to cast each turn until you're done. That imagery I described is just one way that could be described. Fortunately, it also helps grok how Counterspell works, especially how it works against a Counterspell used against a spell you're casting! (The original spell is "hanging" there, the first Counterspell starts being cast, is "hanging" there at the other end, and before it's fully "powered up", you cast a second Counterspell, which materializes and disrupts the opposing Counterspell, which then never materializes, so your initial spell is able to get fully "powered up" and materializes.)
Also, the whole "powering up the spell that's hanging in the fabric" is not how it officially works. How it officially works is just: use your Action to cast each turn until you're done.
Well, this is just the difference between 'how it works' mechanically and 'how it works' in the world of the game. Those are different things. What I'm concerned with is when how-it-works-mechanically doesn't jive with my ideas of how-it-works-in-the-world.
Multiclassing is another example. I'm generally going to be very hesitant to just let a player choose to multiclass into sorcerer without a good explanation. Even though the mechanics of the game do not require a good explanation. How it works in the game is easy to understand--you choose your class and write it on your character sheet (DM decides if multiclassing is available as an option, but the mechanics don't include approving your specific choices with the DM).
So I'm concerned here about making the rules make sense. I can gloss over some things, but other rules that don't make sense are too obvious for me to put up with. So when that happens, you have to decide which one has to give--rules, or in-world explanation. Until your post, I was siding with in-world on this one. So what I'm saying is that my idea of how it works in the world can be that you are slowly powering a spell by adding key pieces to it over time. Of course that's not a game mechanic description, any more than 'take your action to cast a 5th level spell' is an in-world description.
Also, the whole "powering up the spell that's hanging in the fabric" is not how it officially works. How it officially works is just: use your Action to cast each turn until you're done.
Well, this is just the difference between 'how it works' mechanically and 'how it works' in the world of the game. Those are different things. What I'm concerned with is when how-it-works-mechanically doesn't jive with my ideas of how-it-works-in-the-world.
Multiclassing is another example. I'm generally going to be very hesitant to just let a player choose to multiclass into sorcerer without a good explanation. Even though the mechanics of the game do not require a good explanation. How it works in the game is easy to understand--you choose your class and write it on your character sheet (DM decides if multiclassing is available as an option, but the mechanics don't include approving your specific choices with the DM).
So I'm concerned here about making the rules make sense. I can gloss over some things, but other rules that don't make sense are too obvious for me to put up with. So when that happens, you have to decide which one has to give--rules, or in-world explanation. Until your post, I was siding with in-world on this one. So what I'm saying is that my idea of how it works in the world can be that you are slowly powering a spell by adding key pieces to it over time. Of course that's not a game mechanic description, any more than 'take your action to cast a 5th level spell' is an in-world description.
Gotcha.
I tend to try to think of in-game explanations that mesh with mechanic rules (or sorta hand-wave/ignore in-game explanations, if I can't come up with a good one), rather than try to change mechanic rules to mesh with in-game explanations, mostly out of a concern for balance. My thinking is that the game has been playtested enough so that it's balanced, so I'm reluctant to mess with that without investing a lot of thought and research into it. So, for example, if I feel like "moving or taking reactions or bonus actions while casting a long spell" doesn't mesh with how I understand spellcasting works narratively, I'll either try to change my narrative conception of spellcasting, or hand-wave away, or ignore it completely, being concerned with how disallowing moving, or reactions, or bonus actions while casting will impact game balance.
In general, I try to be loose and permissive regarding in-game explanations for character decisions and rules interpretations (well, now I try... I didn't always use to!). For example, in your example of a character multiclassing into Sorcerer, I wouldn't raise much of an issue: at worst, it happened the same way it can happen to a level 1 Sorcerer: spontaneously. You can always say the source of Sorcerous magic had always been present (they always had draconic blood, or shadow heritage, or whatever), but only now manifested itself. After all, Sorcerers aren't born as "level 1 Sorcerers", they have lives before it... so what's to say they didn't gain a couple of levels in another class before those powers manifested themselves?
I guess what I'm trying to say regarding that is that rather than "not allow" a certain character decision without a good explanation, I'd try to insist on an explanation, but offer one if none is forthcoming. ("Ok, you want to multiclass into Sorcerer. Great! Pick your spells, etc. By the way, how did that happen?" and if they can't come up with anything, "Maybe your great great great grandfather was actually a Djinn in disguise, and having been in contact with all this open air (or not having access to open air, if that's been the case) triggered the development of your Storm Sorcery?") Let the players have their fun! If they can't come up with a good story, don't punish them.. help them, instead! It'll be more fun for everybody. :D
I'm definitely not going to blanket not allow a player to multi into Sorc. But if I ask "what's the explanation?" and the player mentions synergy at all, I'm probably heading towards a 'no'. :) "But it would really help me max out my damage when..." Blech. However, if they say "I don't have a good idea, but I'm not really enjoying some aspects of my character, and I think Sorc would be fun", I'll be all on board helping them figure it out.
I guess I'm more willing to try changing a rule and then work it out later if balance gets broken. In my experience, it's actually fairly hard to really throw things out of balance if you're thinking about balance when you make changes. For example, if I were to not allow reaction spells during long spell casting, I don't think it's going to hurt spell casters much. The number of combat useful spells that are more than 1 action to cast isn't high. I also generally think I have a pretty good mind for mechanics--I've only managed to seriously break things once or twice over the years, and I and the players both noticed it and fixed it. So I'm willing to trust my gut on a lot of things.
Of course, some things are drastic changes, but are perversely important to me. Falling damage in my games is downright lethal, because I cannot make myself put up with a human being falling 120' and immediately bouncing to his feet and walking away. That changes some aspects of the game fairly dramatically. But if I tell players that, they act accordingly, and it's all good. :) At the same time, if someone (like most people do) uses RAW falling rules for their game, I'll play in the game, and be content. And, if they rule I can get up after a 120 foot fall and walk away, of course I'm going to go with their ruling, LOL.
I'm definitely not going to blanket not allow a player to multi into Sorc. But if I ask "what's the explanation?" and the player mentions synergy at all, I'm probably heading towards a 'no'. :) "But it would really help me max out my damage when..." Blech. However, if they say "I don't have a good idea, but I'm not really enjoying some aspects of my character, and I think Sorc would be fun", I'll be all on board helping them figure it out.
I understand your point of view, although I strongly disagree. To punish the player for wanting to optimize their character rarely results in more fun. Furthermore, many other decisions are made in the name of optimization, yet are never challenged this way. Would you challenge the Wizard player's decision to use their ASIs on raising Dexterity, simply because it's good for their AC? Why cater to "pure roleplayers" while excluding "optimizers"? Especially considering they are not mutually exclusive concepts. If two Paladin players want to multiclass Sorcerer, and one says "my character's devotion to their Oath awakened their divine soul" and the other says "I wanna have more slots to use for Divine Smite" (I'm actually not sure whether they would have more slots, bear me with me, hehe), why is the former allowed and encouraged to multiclass into Sorcerer, while the latter is forbidden? If the answer is "because it doesn't fit", why doesn't it? Why can't you, as DM, offer, even insist on, a good, in-game explanation, and run with that? If the player isn't interested, they probably won't mind either way. Or maybe they hadn't thought of anything, and they'll get excited about the new narrative direction their character is going in, on top of the new mechanic advantages they'll get!
I guess I'm more willing to try changing a rule and then work it out later if balance gets broken. In my experience, it's actually fairly hard to really throw things out of balance if you're thinking about balance when you make changes. For example, if I were to not allow reaction spells during long spell casting, I don't think it's going to hurt spell casters much. The number of combat useful spells that are more than 1 action to cast isn't high. I also generally think I have a pretty good mind for mechanics--I've only managed to seriously break things once or twice over the years, and I and the players both noticed it and fixed it. So I'm willing to trust my gut on a lot of things.
Fair enough. I don't have that sort of confidence with fiddling with the rules. If you do, more power to you; it gives you more options. :D
On the other hand, in the example you picked, note that disallowing Reactions while long casting means no Shield while long casting, which means a significantly better chance of being hit, which means a better chance of getting their Concentration disrupted, so the effect is significant. (Again, if, given your experience, that's not a big problem, maybe even a desirable change, then great! Run with it!)
Of course, some things are drastic changes, but are perversely important to me. Falling damage in my games is downright lethal, because I cannot make myself put up with a human being falling 120' and immediately bouncing to his feet and walking away. That changes some aspects of the game fairly dramatically. But if I tell players that, they act accordingly, and it's all good. :) At the same time, if someone (like most people do) uses RAW falling rules for their game, I'll play in the game, and be content. And, if they rule I can get up after a 120 foot fall and walk away, of course I'm going to go with their ruling, LOL.
That sort of change is different, though, since it affects everybody similarly. (Well, arguably it affects low-HP character more, but probably not enough to make a big difference.) Plus, it's something that will prove to work or not fairly quickly, so it's easier to adjust on the fly. Remind me to play an Aarakocra in your games. ;-)
I'm definitely not going to blanket not allow a player to multi into Sorc. But if I ask "what's the explanation?" and the player mentions synergy at all, I'm probably heading towards a 'no'. :) "But it would really help me max out my damage when..." Blech. However, if they say "I don't have a good idea, but I'm not really enjoying some aspects of my character, and I think Sorc would be fun", I'll be all on board helping them figure it out.
I understand your point of view, although I strongly disagree. To punish the player for wanting to optimize their character rarely results in more fun. Furthermore, many other decisions are made in the name of optimization, yet are never challenged this way. Would you challenge the Wizard player's decision to use their ASIs on raising Dexterity, simply because it's good for their AC? Why cater to "pure roleplayers" while excluding "optimizers"? Especially considering they are not mutually exclusive concepts. If two Paladin players want to multiclass Sorcerer, and one says "my character's devotion to their Oath awakened their divine soul" and the other says "I wanna have more slots to use for Divine Smite" (I'm actually not sure whether they would have more slots, bear me with me, hehe), why is the former allowed and encouraged to multiclass into Sorcerer, while the latter is forbidden? If the answer is "because it doesn't fit", why doesn't it? Why can't you, as DM, offer, even insist on, a good, in-game explanation, and run with that? If the player isn't interested, they probably won't mind either way. Or maybe they hadn't thought of anything, and they'll get excited about the new narrative direction their character is going in, on top of the new mechanic advantages they'll get!
I don't allow just whatever the player wants because I find historically that optimizers who optimize without any thought to an in-game explanation typically doesn't end well. Power-gaming isn't my thing, I don't enjoy it when other players do it, whether I'm the DM or not. When I am the DM, I have some control over it. I don't mind optimization as a rule--it makes sense once you have your character concept to take certain options that are more beneficial. There's nothing in-game problematic about a wizard--the character--saying "You know, I get hit a lot, so I'm going to work on my dodging a bit." That's a far cry from the character saying "You know guys, I could be a lot more effective. I suddenly have a demon ancestor I didn't know about.." Similarly, if that same wizard, who has spent his entire life and the entire campaign in an urban environment, suddenly said "Hey guys, I've recently learned how to be a Barbarian!", I'm going to have issues. If you haven't done anything in-game to move in any way towards being a Barbarian, you aren't going to be able to multi into Barbarian.
I cater to roleplayers over non-roleplaying optimizers (I'm okay with the combo of roleplaying optimizers) because I simply don't enjoy unexplained, ad hoc optimizing. I don't have, and don't think I need, any other reason. I'm very much on the side of 'we're crafting a cool story here'. And that cool story, the ability for people to try to immerse into the game, is hindered when a character suddenly becomes a barbarian, or a dragon-blood, or anything, with no explanation. I create plots based on your characters, I weave them into the world. And they stop making sense pretty quickly, and stop being interesting to me and the other players, with ad hoc optimizing.
In reality, there's very little that falls into this category, and very little that I ever end up having to say no to. New weapons? Fine. Feats? Most aren't a problem at all. Races? I mean, you can't 'change' during the game, but I have run campaigns where certain races weren't allowed at all--because they weren't in that world, the history and the setting (Dragonborn is a good example). Any multi-classing needs to be approved, but it can be as easy as spending a couple sessions doing something that leads to the multi-classing. Want to be a druid because you think your character should be sympathetic to 'nature'? Tell me, and I can find ways to introduce druidry into the game if it's not there, get your character going. Not a problem. Interested by Sorcerer and want to try it out? Let me know. It's rare that I've had someone want to do something for purely mechanical reasons. But I have no problem denying that when it happens. Because that player just wants to power game. I don't run power games, so it will be running counter to the goals of the rest of the group.
On the other hand, in the example you picked, note that disallowing Reactions while long casting means no Shield while long casting, which means a significantly better chance of being hit, which means a better chance of getting their Concentration disrupted, so the effect is significant. (Again, if, given your experience, that's not a big problem, maybe even a desirable change, then great! Run with it!)
Of course, some things are drastic changes, but are perversely important to me. Falling damage in my games is downright lethal, because I cannot make myself put up with a human being falling 120' and immediately bouncing to his feet and walking away. That changes some aspects of the game fairly dramatically. But if I tell players that, they act accordingly, and it's all good. :) At the same time, if someone (like most people do) uses RAW falling rules for their game, I'll play in the game, and be content. And, if they rule I can get up after a 120 foot fall and walk away, of course I'm going to go with their ruling, LOL.
That sort of change is different, though, since it affects everybody similarly. (Well, arguably it affects low-HP character more, but probably not enough to make a big difference.) Plus, it's something that will prove to work or not fairly quickly, so it's easier to adjust on the fly. Remind me to play an Aarakocra in your games. ;-)
Again, with the limited combat spells that are over 1 action, I'm okay with casting Shield forcing you to choose--cast it and lose your spell, or take the damage and risk losing the spell. I'm perfectly fine with that. If the RAW had originally ruled my way, I wouldn't think there was anything missing or unbalanced from the game at all.
Aarakocra, or a handy Feather Fall. :)
But really, I see the rules I'm talking about as rules that do apply to everyone, and affect everyone similarly. The reaction spell rule doesn't affect Fighters, sure. But it affects them if they learn to cast some spells. :) Honestly, when we say the game is 'balanced', it's not like the game balance is some super fragile thing that will be even noticeably harmed by a change like this. If we changed the rule to not allow mid-spell spellcasting, there wouldn't be anyone who would say "Well, man...spellcasters are really screwed now." It would barely be noticed.
Games aren't balanced at that granular of a level. Making this one change to spellcasters doesn't necessitate making any changes to anyone else. Now if you said "Forget 'long rests', I'm going back to 1st edition, where your slots are for the whole day and you need to wait until tomorrow to cast again, yeah, now you've unbalanced things wildly.
But there are enough spellcasters in the game as it is, this rule isn't 'unfair' at all.
Alright, I noticed something. Casting a spell with the casting Time 1 minute isn’t an action, it’s one minute. Does that mean I can:
Attack, 1 minute mark is hit on that turn, cast my Geas spell.
Cast a different spell, 1 minute mark is hit on that turn, Cast my Geas.
Use a different action, 1 minute mark is hit on that turn, Cats my Geas.
???
If the casting time is 1 minute you need to spend that entire minute casting the spell and doing nothing else except maybe movement.
Also note that while you are casting you are concentrating on performing that spell and will have to make concentration checks if you take damage with the possibility of losing the spell before it's even cast and will have to start again.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
One minute is a long time in combat. 10 rounds at 6 seconds to the round. So for ten consecutive rounds you are using your action each turn to cast the spell.
That's why my specialized list of 'Combat Rituals' never really became popular :)
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Not quite. As DavetheLost mentions below, you need to spend you Action each round casting the spell. You still have your Reaction, and any Bonus Actions you might have, available.
This is an interesting point. What sort of bonus actions or reactions would be available to someone in the middle of casting a spell that would not halt the spell casting?
Casting a spell as a Reaction, for example, does not specify that you cannot cast another spell that turn. And for Longer Casting Times, it specifies that you must maintain concentration while doing the casting of the longer spell. But concentration just specifies that you lose concentration if you cast another spell that requires concentration.
So...if I'm 2 rounds into casting a spell with a casting time of 1 minute, can I use my reaction in the middle of casting that spell to cast a non-concentration reaction spell, and then continue on to round 3 of my 10 round spell casting?
Intuitively, I'd say no. But RAW?
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
You'd be able to do that yes. Counterspell for example is perfectly acceptable to cast while casting something else - like counterspelling a counterspell aimed at you.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
See, that just seems to fly in the face of everything else the game wants spells to be.
Apparently, spells are so carefully crafted that I have to get the somatic and verbal components just so--say the wrong thing or make the wrong hand movement, and the spell doesn't go off, right? But apparently I can press a magical pause button in the middle of those careful hand movements, cast an entire other spell, and then come back to finish those oh-so-careful hand movements?
So in effect I can perform the V and S components of a spell incorrectly, as long as the 'incorrect' part is 'adding the entire V and S components from another unrelated spell into the middle of the original spell'. But I can't just stop, do nothing for a round, and then resume. That would 'interrupt' my spell casting too much. lol
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
The thing is reaction spells are practically instantaneous being cast very quickly.
In the case of Counterspell it is Somatic only so you could write it off as a quick flick of the wrist on the hand not doing the somatic for your original spell and it interrupts nothing. Or you could say it’s so quick to cast it doesn’t impede casting of the original.
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/ability-check
See the part under "Is there a limit on the number of spells you can cast on your turn?". It specifically mentions an example of counterspelling counterspell (Edit:) while casting a fireball.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
If you cast a spell as a bonus action you cannot cast another spell that turn except a cantrip with a casting time of one action. PHB page 202.
Per Sage Advice, cited above, you can cast spells as a reaction on a turn when you use your action to cast a spell.
The Sage Advice seems to say that if you have multiple actions in your turn you can use each one to cast a spell. It doesn't speak to the situation of casting a spell during the casting of a spell with an extended casting time. I would ask your DM about this before it comes up in play.
It looks like as long as you can maintain concentration you can freely use your bonus actions, reactions, and movement as permitted by the other rules and restrictions.
Somatic components for a spell requires one free hand. Since Counterspell only requires somatic and not material or verbal, while casting another spell (even one that has somatic) you can use your other hand to quickly sign the somatic component necessary to Counterspell. Imagine reciting the verbal and somatic components in one hand, out of the corner of your eyes you see someone signing the somatic portion to Counterspell, so you quickly, with your other hand, sign a counter-Counterspell to continue your original spell.
Keep in mind that does mean if you are Counterspelling while casting another spell (that has somatic components) you would need both hands free.
Oh I believe you that it's possible under the rules--it seemed to be to me right away too.
I just think that's not a good rule. If one of my players was involved in a long duration spell--say, summoning a demon--and I don't mean a ritual where you have to draw a pentagram and then light some candles and such, I mean a 1 minute spell where presumably you are chanting and making intricate hand movements the whole time--and the player said "I'd like to cast half the spell, and then pause to eat a cheeseburger, and then resume the spell", I'd say no. This is casting a spell, not writing an essay. You can't stop in the middle of it to eat a cheeseburger (unless that was part of the S component :). You also can't cast 1 round of the spell, then take a nap, then cast another round, then wait a day, then cast another round of it, etc. Nor would I let someone in the middle of casting that spell to pause in their chanting to recite some poetry. (If the spell had no V component, that's a different story.)
And so if it doesn't make sense to let someone pause in their spell casting for something like conversation or eating, it doesn't make sense to allow a pause in spellcasting for something much more complex than eating or conversation. I get that reaction spells are supposed to be fast, but they still have components--and doing those components would interrupt the current spell being cast. And that's what I just don't like as a rule.
Nor do I think it's necessary for game balance, or even for mechanics. It doesn't seem like something they are forced into ruling. They could easily have said with one sentence that casting one spell during the casting of another spell is not allowed. Done. Doesn't really weaken spellcasters meaningfully as classes either, I don't think.
All the descriptive language in the PHB about the fabric of spells and reality and blah blah talks about how careful and intricate this process is. But apparently it can be interrupted by mixing the casting of two spells together. Doesn't sound super careful to me. :/
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
You're assuming spells with cast times beyond "1 Action" involve performing somatic and verbal components continuously throughout the cast time. That's not an unreasonable assumption, but it's not a necessary one. Given that you are, in fact, allowed to take Reactions and Bonus Actions while casting a long spell, I'd say a more correct assumption is that long spells might involve somatic and verbal components throughout their cast time, but not necessarily continuously. The only thing that is specified as being needed continuously is Concentration. Apart from that, you only need to spend your Action. If it helps, imagine the caster initiates the spell casting, and a magic orb of glowing energy appears before them, right as they finish the first turn's worth of casting. They then need to speak arcane words and/or perform eldritch gestures each turn, feeding magic energy into the orb, to sort of "power up" the spell. If they fail to do so (i.e. fail to spend their action casting), or are distracted (i.e. lose Concentration), the magic fizzles and the spell is lost. They are otherwise free to move, moving the glowing orb with them, or perform quick actions (i.e. Reactions and/or Bonus Actions), as long as they spare enough time to speak the words and/or perform the gestures. At the end of the cast time, the spell is fully "powered up", and its effect materialize.
The common fiction of a caster having to continuously speak and gesture without break while a spell is being cast is common, but it does not accurately represent how spellcasting works in D&D 5e. Of course, you are free, as a DM, to implement such a house rule. Do bear in mind it somewhat devalues longer cast time spells, which in turn devalues spellcasters, to a point. Long cast time spells are probably not common enough in combat to make much of a difference, though.
Ooh, really solid points here, thank you :) The Reaction and Bonus Action issue I would just want to rule the same way as I've been saying--my intuition would be that making an attack of opportunity would interrupt spell casting as well.
I guess you'd really have to explain these longer spells as not involving continuous actions. Each round would have actions you'd have to take for the spell--it requires you spend your action on it. So now the casting would be 'chant/wave hands', then another small burst of chanting and waving hands, and etc etc. But each bit doesn't have to be connection.
I can even envision that now. The spell is 'hanging' in the fabric, and you keep adding little bits to it, until you finally get it complete. Basically like a mini-ritual. I'm okay with that explanation, I guess. And...it would leave open the ability to design slightly more impressive spells that in fact required no other actions/reactions/bonus actions taken during casting. Harder to do, but more payoff.
Hmm, okay. Thanks for that, makes me happier about this ruling.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
By the way, not sure I understood what you meant by "you'd really have to explain these longer spells as not involving continuous actions", but if you meant the book should explain it, it does. The fact that long spells only require your Action (and Concentration) explains it. :)
If you meant you'd have to explain it to your players, then yeah, definitely. D&D 5e doesn't encompass all types of spellcasting seen in fiction; it uses a specific type. So players can get tripped up by trying to do things like they've seen in movies, or read in books. (In fact, up until at least 3rd edition (I never played 4th, so dunno about there), the old "I'm being attacked? I cast Shield to intercept the attack!" thing was impossible, since there was no reactive spellcasting. You had to guess when you were going to be attacked, and cast Shield preemptively!)
Also, the whole "powering up the spell that's hanging in the fabric" is not how it officially works. How it officially works is just: use your Action to cast each turn until you're done. That imagery I described is just one way that could be described. Fortunately, it also helps grok how Counterspell works, especially how it works against a Counterspell used against a spell you're casting! (The original spell is "hanging" there, the first Counterspell starts being cast, is "hanging" there at the other end, and before it's fully "powered up", you cast a second Counterspell, which materializes and disrupts the opposing Counterspell, which then never materializes, so your initial spell is able to get fully "powered up" and materializes.)
Well, this is just the difference between 'how it works' mechanically and 'how it works' in the world of the game. Those are different things. What I'm concerned with is when how-it-works-mechanically doesn't jive with my ideas of how-it-works-in-the-world.
Multiclassing is another example. I'm generally going to be very hesitant to just let a player choose to multiclass into sorcerer without a good explanation. Even though the mechanics of the game do not require a good explanation. How it works in the game is easy to understand--you choose your class and write it on your character sheet (DM decides if multiclassing is available as an option, but the mechanics don't include approving your specific choices with the DM).
So I'm concerned here about making the rules make sense. I can gloss over some things, but other rules that don't make sense are too obvious for me to put up with. So when that happens, you have to decide which one has to give--rules, or in-world explanation. Until your post, I was siding with in-world on this one. So what I'm saying is that my idea of how it works in the world can be that you are slowly powering a spell by adding key pieces to it over time. Of course that's not a game mechanic description, any more than 'take your action to cast a 5th level spell' is an in-world description.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Gotcha.
I tend to try to think of in-game explanations that mesh with mechanic rules (or sorta hand-wave/ignore in-game explanations, if I can't come up with a good one), rather than try to change mechanic rules to mesh with in-game explanations, mostly out of a concern for balance. My thinking is that the game has been playtested enough so that it's balanced, so I'm reluctant to mess with that without investing a lot of thought and research into it. So, for example, if I feel like "moving or taking reactions or bonus actions while casting a long spell" doesn't mesh with how I understand spellcasting works narratively, I'll either try to change my narrative conception of spellcasting, or hand-wave away, or ignore it completely, being concerned with how disallowing moving, or reactions, or bonus actions while casting will impact game balance.
In general, I try to be loose and permissive regarding in-game explanations for character decisions and rules interpretations (well, now I try... I didn't always use to!). For example, in your example of a character multiclassing into Sorcerer, I wouldn't raise much of an issue: at worst, it happened the same way it can happen to a level 1 Sorcerer: spontaneously. You can always say the source of Sorcerous magic had always been present (they always had draconic blood, or shadow heritage, or whatever), but only now manifested itself. After all, Sorcerers aren't born as "level 1 Sorcerers", they have lives before it... so what's to say they didn't gain a couple of levels in another class before those powers manifested themselves?
I guess what I'm trying to say regarding that is that rather than "not allow" a certain character decision without a good explanation, I'd try to insist on an explanation, but offer one if none is forthcoming. ("Ok, you want to multiclass into Sorcerer. Great! Pick your spells, etc. By the way, how did that happen?" and if they can't come up with anything, "Maybe your great great great grandfather was actually a Djinn in disguise, and having been in contact with all this open air (or not having access to open air, if that's been the case) triggered the development of your Storm Sorcery?") Let the players have their fun! If they can't come up with a good story, don't punish them.. help them, instead! It'll be more fun for everybody. :D
I'm definitely not going to blanket not allow a player to multi into Sorc. But if I ask "what's the explanation?" and the player mentions synergy at all, I'm probably heading towards a 'no'. :) "But it would really help me max out my damage when..." Blech. However, if they say "I don't have a good idea, but I'm not really enjoying some aspects of my character, and I think Sorc would be fun", I'll be all on board helping them figure it out.
I guess I'm more willing to try changing a rule and then work it out later if balance gets broken. In my experience, it's actually fairly hard to really throw things out of balance if you're thinking about balance when you make changes. For example, if I were to not allow reaction spells during long spell casting, I don't think it's going to hurt spell casters much. The number of combat useful spells that are more than 1 action to cast isn't high. I also generally think I have a pretty good mind for mechanics--I've only managed to seriously break things once or twice over the years, and I and the players both noticed it and fixed it. So I'm willing to trust my gut on a lot of things.
Of course, some things are drastic changes, but are perversely important to me. Falling damage in my games is downright lethal, because I cannot make myself put up with a human being falling 120' and immediately bouncing to his feet and walking away. That changes some aspects of the game fairly dramatically. But if I tell players that, they act accordingly, and it's all good. :) At the same time, if someone (like most people do) uses RAW falling rules for their game, I'll play in the game, and be content. And, if they rule I can get up after a 120 foot fall and walk away, of course I'm going to go with their ruling, LOL.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
I understand your point of view, although I strongly disagree. To punish the player for wanting to optimize their character rarely results in more fun. Furthermore, many other decisions are made in the name of optimization, yet are never challenged this way. Would you challenge the Wizard player's decision to use their ASIs on raising Dexterity, simply because it's good for their AC? Why cater to "pure roleplayers" while excluding "optimizers"? Especially considering they are not mutually exclusive concepts. If two Paladin players want to multiclass Sorcerer, and one says "my character's devotion to their Oath awakened their divine soul" and the other says "I wanna have more slots to use for Divine Smite" (I'm actually not sure whether they would have more slots, bear me with me, hehe), why is the former allowed and encouraged to multiclass into Sorcerer, while the latter is forbidden? If the answer is "because it doesn't fit", why doesn't it? Why can't you, as DM, offer, even insist on, a good, in-game explanation, and run with that? If the player isn't interested, they probably won't mind either way. Or maybe they hadn't thought of anything, and they'll get excited about the new narrative direction their character is going in, on top of the new mechanic advantages they'll get!
Fair enough. I don't have that sort of confidence with fiddling with the rules. If you do, more power to you; it gives you more options. :D
On the other hand, in the example you picked, note that disallowing Reactions while long casting means no Shield while long casting, which means a significantly better chance of being hit, which means a better chance of getting their Concentration disrupted, so the effect is significant. (Again, if, given your experience, that's not a big problem, maybe even a desirable change, then great! Run with it!)
That sort of change is different, though, since it affects everybody similarly. (Well, arguably it affects low-HP character more, but probably not enough to make a big difference.) Plus, it's something that will prove to work or not fairly quickly, so it's easier to adjust on the fly. Remind me to play an Aarakocra in your games. ;-)
I don't allow just whatever the player wants because I find historically that optimizers who optimize without any thought to an in-game explanation typically doesn't end well. Power-gaming isn't my thing, I don't enjoy it when other players do it, whether I'm the DM or not. When I am the DM, I have some control over it. I don't mind optimization as a rule--it makes sense once you have your character concept to take certain options that are more beneficial. There's nothing in-game problematic about a wizard--the character--saying "You know, I get hit a lot, so I'm going to work on my dodging a bit." That's a far cry from the character saying "You know guys, I could be a lot more effective. I suddenly have a demon ancestor I didn't know about.." Similarly, if that same wizard, who has spent his entire life and the entire campaign in an urban environment, suddenly said "Hey guys, I've recently learned how to be a Barbarian!", I'm going to have issues. If you haven't done anything in-game to move in any way towards being a Barbarian, you aren't going to be able to multi into Barbarian.
I cater to roleplayers over non-roleplaying optimizers (I'm okay with the combo of roleplaying optimizers) because I simply don't enjoy unexplained, ad hoc optimizing. I don't have, and don't think I need, any other reason. I'm very much on the side of 'we're crafting a cool story here'. And that cool story, the ability for people to try to immerse into the game, is hindered when a character suddenly becomes a barbarian, or a dragon-blood, or anything, with no explanation. I create plots based on your characters, I weave them into the world. And they stop making sense pretty quickly, and stop being interesting to me and the other players, with ad hoc optimizing.
In reality, there's very little that falls into this category, and very little that I ever end up having to say no to. New weapons? Fine. Feats? Most aren't a problem at all. Races? I mean, you can't 'change' during the game, but I have run campaigns where certain races weren't allowed at all--because they weren't in that world, the history and the setting (Dragonborn is a good example). Any multi-classing needs to be approved, but it can be as easy as spending a couple sessions doing something that leads to the multi-classing. Want to be a druid because you think your character should be sympathetic to 'nature'? Tell me, and I can find ways to introduce druidry into the game if it's not there, get your character going. Not a problem. Interested by Sorcerer and want to try it out? Let me know. It's rare that I've had someone want to do something for purely mechanical reasons. But I have no problem denying that when it happens. Because that player just wants to power game. I don't run power games, so it will be running counter to the goals of the rest of the group.
Again, with the limited combat spells that are over 1 action, I'm okay with casting Shield forcing you to choose--cast it and lose your spell, or take the damage and risk losing the spell. I'm perfectly fine with that. If the RAW had originally ruled my way, I wouldn't think there was anything missing or unbalanced from the game at all.
Aarakocra, or a handy Feather Fall. :)
But really, I see the rules I'm talking about as rules that do apply to everyone, and affect everyone similarly. The reaction spell rule doesn't affect Fighters, sure. But it affects them if they learn to cast some spells. :) Honestly, when we say the game is 'balanced', it's not like the game balance is some super fragile thing that will be even noticeably harmed by a change like this. If we changed the rule to not allow mid-spell spellcasting, there wouldn't be anyone who would say "Well, man...spellcasters are really screwed now." It would barely be noticed.
Games aren't balanced at that granular of a level. Making this one change to spellcasters doesn't necessitate making any changes to anyone else. Now if you said "Forget 'long rests', I'm going back to 1st edition, where your slots are for the whole day and you need to wait until tomorrow to cast again, yeah, now you've unbalanced things wildly.
But there are enough spellcasters in the game as it is, this rule isn't 'unfair' at all.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)