Except you don't consume a spell slot when you initiate casting. That's my point; the rules on what is required when you actually cast a spell--and the rules on what happens when you are casting a spell--are very clear. When it comes to readying a spell, these rules contradict one another.
If you are not subject to the spellcasting requirements at the time you take the ready action, you have not finished casting the spell yet, and you are subject to the Longer Casting Time rule on concentration. The only discrepancy between this and what is printed elsewhere is that you should not lose your spell slot if you lose concentration. This is also RAW folks, but nobody wants to admit that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Dude, I don't care how anyone else plays their own games. It's a fundamental flaw in the systemic logic of the game. That tends to happen in complex systems, but it is disingenuous to continue saying there is no logical error here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
It's a fundamental flaw in the systemic logic of the game.
I believe you are in the minority on that opinion as well. Other posters in this thread have quoted the rules, Sage Advice, and StackExchange discussions on the same topic. There appears to be a consensus on how things work. I'm not sure any answer is going to satisfy you so I don't see the point in worrying about it.
I don't think you should be able to hold concentration on a Readied spell through multiple turns; as the rules say, if the trigger hasn't happened by the start of your next turn, your readied action runs out: To do so, you can take the Ready action on your turn, which lets you act using your reaction before the start of your next turn. And per the rules, you are CASTING the spell with the Action, not the Reaction, so if it does run out, you burn that spell slot.
That said, you cannot ready a Save spell, like Banishment, unless you can fulfill the condition's when readying the spell; in this case (and the case of all targeted Save spells) the condition being "one creature that you can see within range."
With Attack spells, again per the rules, you can target a Location:
Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.
1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.
Unseen Attackers and Targets
Combatants often try to escape their foes' notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.
When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly.
For an Attack spell, you could Ready the spell and target a location (the area just past the corner), and have the trigger be "when a creature enters that location, I fire the spell" and thus you could hide around a corner, cast and Ready the spell, and then fire the spell with your Reaction when a creature enters that space. Per the original question of this thread, I might even rule that this can't be Counterspelled, as the spell has already been cast, the energy held, and now is simply being launched - nothing to Counter as the preparation is already done. Edit: RAW, you actually couldn't Counterspell this. "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell." The spell was Cast with your Action when they couldn't see you, and thus they can't Counterspell when you fire it at them with your Reaction.
This is not the case for Save spells that target a Creature such as Banishment. These Save spells have to target a creature you can see. If you can't see the creature you want to target when you Ready the spell, you cannot Ready it. It could be done with AoE spells like Fireball or Lightning Bolt, however.
Except you don't consume a spell slot when you initiate casting. That's my point; the rules on what is required when you actually cast a spell--and the rules on what happens when you are casting a spell--are very clear. When it comes to readying a spell, these rules contradict one another.
If you are not subject to the spellcasting requirements at the time you take the ready action, you have not finished casting the spell yet, and you are subject to the Longer Casting Time rule on concentration. The only discrepancy between this and what is printed elsewhere is that you should not lose your spell slot if you lose concentration. This is also RAW folks, but nobody wants to admit that.
Dude, I don't care how anyone else plays their own games. It's a fundamental flaw in the systemic logic of the game. That tends to happen in complex systems, but it is disingenuous to continue saying there is no logical error here.
You continue to completely ignore the fact that the rules set out by the Ready a Spell section/errata are specific rules, which override the general rules, and label them contradictions, since they do not follow the general rules. You might as well claim Shield is a contradictory spell, since the rules clearly state that your AC is given by 10+dex or whatever your armor gives you, and nowhere in the rules is there a +5 AC.
It's a fundamental flaw in the systemic logic of the game.
I believe you are in the minority on that opinion as well. Other posters in this thread have quoted the rules, Sage Advice, and StackExchange discussions on the same topic. There appears to be a consensus on how things work. I'm not sure any answer is going to satisfy you so I don't see the point in worrying about it.
Play it as you see fit.
Sigred's position isn't that the rules and Sage Advice are being misinterpreted by anyone else in this thread. They're saying that how the rules work doesn't make logical sense. I think their obvious frustration here stems from the fact that no one seems to actually be reading what they're saying, arguing instead against something they haven't actually expressed.
Except you don't consume a spell slot when you initiate casting. That's my point; the rules on what is required when you actually cast a spell--and the rules on what happens when you are casting a spell--are very clear. When it comes to readying a spell, these rules contradict one another.
If you are not subject to the spellcasting requirements at the time you take the ready action, you have not finished casting the spell yet, and you are subject to the Longer Casting Time rule on concentration. The only discrepancy between this and what is printed elsewhere is that you should not lose your spell slot if you lose concentration. This is also RAW folks, but nobody wants to admit that.
Dude, I don't care how anyone else plays their own games. It's a fundamental flaw in the systemic logic of the game. That tends to happen in complex systems, but it is disingenuous to continue saying there is no logical error here.
You continue to completely ignore the fact that the rules set out by the Ready a Spell section/errata are specific rules, which override the general rules, and label them contradictions, since they do not follow the general rules. You might as well claim Shield is a contradictory spell, since the rules clearly state that your AC is given by 10+dex or whatever your armor gives you, and nowhere in the rules is there a +5 AC.
Except casting Shield creates a very clear magical effect that would override other rules. If the exception that readying a spell creates were specifically within the text of a particular spell, it would make sense. But readying an action is something that we have a really strong real-world intuitive understanding of, and that intuition does not jive with the specific spell readying rules. For my part, I'm not at all troubled by the contradiction, but you must realize that your Shield example is a patently different situation.
I still fail to see any contradiction. And the spell example is not that different. They both involve a general rule, spellcasting, and a specific rule that overrides the general rule. The Shield has the spell's rules overriding the general combat rules, while the Ready action has the action rules overriding the general spellcasting rules. One's more obvious than the other, of course, which is why I picked it. =)
It's a fundamental flaw in the systemic logic of the game.
I believe you are in the minority on that opinion as well. Other posters in this thread have quoted the rules, Sage Advice, and StackExchange discussions on the same topic. There appears to be a consensus on how things work. I'm not sure any answer is going to satisfy you so I don't see the point in worrying about it.
Play it as you see fit.
Sigred's position isn't that the rules and Sage Advice are being misinterpreted by anyone else in this thread. They're saying that how the rules work doesn't make logical sense. I think their obvious frustration here stems from the fact that no one seems to actually be reading what they're saying, arguing instead against something they haven't actually expressed.
Thank you.
That's all I've been saying, and it's not even about a contradiction between general and specific (c'mon Tonio, I know you're better than that); it's just a straight up contradiction of rules that are not overwritten in the specific rule.
The rule on readying a spell does NOT say anything about targeting requirements only being applicable to the moment the spell is released, but that is what Crawford says.
The rule on readying a spell DOES say you cast the spell "as normal" at the time you take the Ready action. This means targeting rules would apply at the moment you ready, not release.
Contradiction. You can play through/around it, and that's fine! But it is undeniably there, and this is exactly the kind of thing that does warrant an errata on the subject.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
The rule on readying a spell DOES say you cast the spell "as normal" at the time you take the Ready action. This means targeting rules would apply at the moment you ready, not release.
Yep. This is exactly the case. Thus, you can't Ready a targeted Save spell like Banishment if you can't See the creature you want to use it on.
Just another case of Jeremy Crawford being wrong :( He's a brilliant man, but you can't get 'em all right.
Though the rules in the book are very clear. See my previous post ^
Sigred's position isn't that the rules and Sage Advice are being misinterpreted by anyone else in this thread. They're saying that how the rules work doesn't make logical sense. I think their obvious frustration here stems from the fact that no one seems to actually be reading what they're saying, arguing instead against something they haven't actually expressed.
With respect, I disagree with you. I believe my response directly addresses a position taken by the person to whom I am responding.
It's a fundamental flaw in the systemic logic of the game.
I believe you are in the minority on that opinion as well. Other posters in this thread have quoted the rules, Sage Advice, and StackExchange discussions on the same topic. There appears to be a consensus on how things work. I'm not sure any answer is going to satisfy you so I don't see the point in worrying about it.
Play it as you see fit.
Sigred's position isn't that the rules and Sage Advice are being misinterpreted by anyone else in this thread. They're saying that how the rules work doesn't make logical sense. I think their obvious frustration here stems from the fact that no one seems to actually be reading what they're saying, arguing instead against something they haven't actually expressed.
Thank you.
That's all I've been saying, and it's not even about a contradiction between general and specific (c'mon Tonio, I know you're better than that); it's just a straight up contradiction of rules that are not overwritten in the specific rule.
The rule on readying a spell does NOT say anything about targeting requirements only being applicable to the moment the spell is released, but that is what Crawford says.
The rule on readying a spell DOES say you cast the spell "as normal" at the time you take the Ready action. This means targeting rules would apply at the moment you ready, not release.
Contradiction. You can play through/around it, and that's fine! But it is undeniably there, and this is exactly the kind of thing that does warrant an errata on the subject.
Oh wow, ok, I see. I wasn't being intentionally difficult, I swear. You're going off what the PHB says, alone. I'm taking into consideration what the errata and official Sage Advice says, too. There it is specified that the normal rules apply except the targeting and range rules. Actually, maybe just the range rules? I just searched the document again, and there is no mention of whether the target needs to be "available" (line of sight, etc.), it just mentions the "range" part. So, yeah, I guess that's a little contradictory there, although I'd argue that it's a trivial contradiction to resolve: if the target does not need to be in range, and for all other readied actions you can declare a target that's not available at the moment of readying, it's not a huge assumption to consider target availability as another exception (along with range) to the normal spellcasting rules when readying a spell.
I believe we're still ok within the rules. I feel like we can draw a comparison with readying an attack when it comes to picking a valid target. "I ready the attack action to swing my longsword at the first creature that comes through the door." If nothing is within 5 feet of you, you cannot take the attack action with your longsword because you have nothing to target. But that is still ok in terms of readying the attack. If a creature comes through the door (assuming that puts it within 5 feet of you) then you can attack as a reaction, target the creature, and roll an attack. If nothing comes through the door, then you have simply wasted your action. I believe the same is true for spellcasting. You ready the "cast a spell" action on the assumption that the trigger will have a target. When the trigger occurs, the spell is released as a reaction, and it affects the target. If the trigger does not occur, then the casting reaction is wasted and so is the spell slot.
It seems to me like allowing someone to ready a spell to go off later necessarily implies that the targeting happens when the spell is released. If it didn't, I think we would be adding a huge restriction to what is already an edge case. I'm not sure it's a contradiction because I don't know if anyone is taking the position that you have to target the spell at the time it is cast--simply that it isn't spelled out anywhere that it is not the case. The strongest argument in favor of a contradiction is that the phrase "cast the spell as normal" implies that there must be a target since casting a spell normally requires a target. If one wants to make that argument, then it is their prerogative, but I believe such an argument would be a minority opinion.
Except you don't consume a spell slot when you initiate casting. That's my point; the rules on what is required when you actually cast a spell--and the rules on what happens when you are casting a spell--are very clear. When it comes to readying a spell, these rules contradict one another.
If you are not subject to the spellcasting requirements at the time you take the ready action, you have not finished casting the spell yet, and you are subject to the Longer Casting Time rule on concentration. The only discrepancy between this and what is printed elsewhere is that you should not lose your spell slot if you lose concentration. This is also RAW folks, but nobody wants to admit that.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Play it as you see fit, but you're clearly in the minority in your interpretation.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Dude, I don't care how anyone else plays their own games. It's a fundamental flaw in the systemic logic of the game. That tends to happen in complex systems, but it is disingenuous to continue saying there is no logical error here.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I believe you are in the minority on that opinion as well. Other posters in this thread have quoted the rules, Sage Advice, and StackExchange discussions on the same topic. There appears to be a consensus on how things work. I'm not sure any answer is going to satisfy you so I don't see the point in worrying about it.
Play it as you see fit.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I don't think you should be able to hold concentration on a Readied spell through multiple turns; as the rules say, if the trigger hasn't happened by the start of your next turn, your readied action runs out: To do so, you can take the Ready action on your turn, which lets you act using your reaction before the start of your next turn.
And per the rules, you are CASTING the spell with the Action, not the Reaction, so if it does run out, you burn that spell slot.
That said, you cannot ready a Save spell, like Banishment, unless you can fulfill the condition's when readying the spell; in this case (and the case of all targeted Save spells) the condition being "one creature that you can see within range."
With Attack spells, again per the rules, you can target a Location:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Making an Attack
Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.
1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.
Unseen Attackers and Targets
Combatants often try to escape their foes' notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.
When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For an Attack spell, you could Ready the spell and target a location (the area just past the corner), and have the trigger be "when a creature enters that location, I fire the spell" and thus you could hide around a corner, cast and Ready the spell, and then fire the spell with your Reaction when a creature enters that space.
Per the original question of this thread, I might even rule that this can't be Counterspelled, as the spell has already been cast, the energy held, and now is simply being launched - nothing to Counter as the preparation is already done.Edit: RAW, you actually couldn't Counterspell this. "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell." The spell was Cast with your Action when they couldn't see you, and thus they can't Counterspell when you fire it at them with your Reaction.
This is not the case for Save spells that target a Creature such as Banishment. These Save spells have to target a creature you can see. If you can't see the creature you want to target when you Ready the spell, you cannot Ready it. It could be done with AoE spells like Fireball or Lightning Bolt, however.
You continue to completely ignore the fact that the rules set out by the Ready a Spell section/errata are specific rules, which override the general rules, and label them contradictions, since they do not follow the general rules. You might as well claim Shield is a contradictory spell, since the rules clearly state that your AC is given by 10+dex or whatever your armor gives you, and nowhere in the rules is there a +5 AC.
Sigred's position isn't that the rules and Sage Advice are being misinterpreted by anyone else in this thread. They're saying that how the rules work doesn't make logical sense. I think their obvious frustration here stems from the fact that no one seems to actually be reading what they're saying, arguing instead against something they haven't actually expressed.
Except casting Shield creates a very clear magical effect that would override other rules. If the exception that readying a spell creates were specifically within the text of a particular spell, it would make sense. But readying an action is something that we have a really strong real-world intuitive understanding of, and that intuition does not jive with the specific spell readying rules. For my part, I'm not at all troubled by the contradiction, but you must realize that your Shield example is a patently different situation.
I still fail to see any contradiction. And the spell example is not that different. They both involve a general rule, spellcasting, and a specific rule that overrides the general rule. The Shield has the spell's rules overriding the general combat rules, while the Ready action has the action rules overriding the general spellcasting rules. One's more obvious than the other, of course, which is why I picked it. =)
Thank you.
That's all I've been saying, and it's not even about a contradiction between general and specific (c'mon Tonio, I know you're better than that); it's just a straight up contradiction of rules that are not overwritten in the specific rule.
The rule on readying a spell does NOT say anything about targeting requirements only being applicable to the moment the spell is released, but that is what Crawford says.
The rule on readying a spell DOES say you cast the spell "as normal" at the time you take the Ready action. This means targeting rules would apply at the moment you ready, not release.
Contradiction. You can play through/around it, and that's fine! But it is undeniably there, and this is exactly the kind of thing that does warrant an errata on the subject.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Yep. This is exactly the case. Thus, you can't Ready a targeted Save spell like Banishment if you can't See the creature you want to use it on.
Just another case of Jeremy Crawford being wrong :(
He's a brilliant man, but you can't get 'em all right.
Though the rules in the book are very clear. See my previous post ^
With respect, I disagree with you. I believe my response directly addresses a position taken by the person to whom I am responding.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Oh wow, ok, I see. I wasn't being intentionally difficult, I swear. You're going off what the PHB says, alone. I'm taking into consideration what the errata and official Sage Advice says, too. There it is specified that the normal rules apply except the targeting and range rules. Actually, maybe just the range rules? I just searched the document again, and there is no mention of whether the target needs to be "available" (line of sight, etc.), it just mentions the "range" part. So, yeah, I guess that's a little contradictory there, although I'd argue that it's a trivial contradiction to resolve: if the target does not need to be in range, and for all other readied actions you can declare a target that's not available at the moment of readying, it's not a huge assumption to consider target availability as another exception (along with range) to the normal spellcasting rules when readying a spell.
I believe we're still ok within the rules. I feel like we can draw a comparison with readying an attack when it comes to picking a valid target. "I ready the attack action to swing my longsword at the first creature that comes through the door." If nothing is within 5 feet of you, you cannot take the attack action with your longsword because you have nothing to target. But that is still ok in terms of readying the attack. If a creature comes through the door (assuming that puts it within 5 feet of you) then you can attack as a reaction, target the creature, and roll an attack. If nothing comes through the door, then you have simply wasted your action. I believe the same is true for spellcasting. You ready the "cast a spell" action on the assumption that the trigger will have a target. When the trigger occurs, the spell is released as a reaction, and it affects the target. If the trigger does not occur, then the casting reaction is wasted and so is the spell slot.
It seems to me like allowing someone to ready a spell to go off later necessarily implies that the targeting happens when the spell is released. If it didn't, I think we would be adding a huge restriction to what is already an edge case. I'm not sure it's a contradiction because I don't know if anyone is taking the position that you have to target the spell at the time it is cast--simply that it isn't spelled out anywhere that it is not the case. The strongest argument in favor of a contradiction is that the phrase "cast the spell as normal" implies that there must be a target since casting a spell normally requires a target. If one wants to make that argument, then it is their prerogative, but I believe such an argument would be a minority opinion.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I feel like no one's reading what I posted lol