In my game it seems that defensive casting never fails and the attack of oppurtunity never happens due to characters with concentration rolls that never fail. I am curious what other gms have considered and what other gms have done to address this issue. Please comment on what you do or how it is handled in the game your in or if it is a non issue. Seems if spellcasting in melee provokes an attack of oppurtunity you shouldnt need a whole series of feats just to get a chance to actually take the attack agaisnt a guy who never fails a skill check.
I like the defensive casting rules insofar as they soak up skill points from people who only get 2/level. Wizards have the high Int going for them, but forcing people to spend all those skill points is an important balancing mechanism for sorcerers and clerics--I'd think carefully before nerfing it or, worse, making it more difficult (if it's too hard, no one will bother buying the skill--if you need a 20 or you need a 50 to succeed, it still boils down to just needing a 20, after all).
yep; which is why I asked for comments; dont wanna mess with it if it isnt broke, but it has the feel of not working; what situational modifiers to melee to increase the DC of the Concentration check do you guys use if any?
|
At least your spellcasters haven't taken the 5ft step out of combat and THEN cast approach. :)
First let's make sure you're doing this right.
Casting on the Defensive means Fighter X doesn't get an AoO on Wizard Y. Wizard Y need to declare what spell he's casting, make a concentration check DC 15 + Spell Level. If Wizard Y fails, he LOSES the spell he was trying to cast.
If casting normal, Wizard Y needs to declare what he's casting, Fighter X gets an AoO on Wizard Y. Fighter X attacks, deals damage. The DC to complete the spell is 10 + damage + spell level. If the Wizard Y fails, he loses the spell.
Also, remember to use some tactics. Archers and range attackers are the DM's best anti-mage. Have them take a readied action, you don't have to tell your players they're readied. If no one is in melee with the wizard, odds are he won't think to Cast on the Defensive, so no Combat Casting feat bonus. It's a regular concentration check against damage now; DC 10 + damage + spell level. So there's your chance to disrupt him.
Key notes to disrupt spellcasting with archers..
1. Multishot works as a readied action.
2. Point blank shot + flanking + sneak attack works in readied actions (multishot works in here too!)
3. Rapid shot (or multiple attacks +6/+1) do not work as readied actions.
4. Standard action spells can be casted as readied action (3 cheers for magic missiling an opposing wizard as a readied action.)
|
Please comment on what you do or how it is handled in the game your in or if it is a non issue.
I get the impression from your other posts that you're in the same boat as me; been playing since the Basic Set in 1980, and for 20 years, the most important rule for a mage was "Don't ever be in melee!".
That's still true, but they no longer get their spells automatically dispelled if they take damage during the round.
The reason for the change is probably the 3rd Ed increase in power and choices for the non-spell-casters and monsters to level the playing field. In 1st/2nd Edition, a fighter (or any 'brute' monster, of any Hit Dice) could have their entire rules info written in large-print on the back of a bus-ticket, while spell-casters, with their multiple options, totally ruled the game, even from relatively modest level. Having the 'take a hit; lose the spell' rule was a much-needed balancing factor.
Combat in previous editions was often a very static affair. Many groups didn't use minis, or used them in an abstract way. Once combat started, you pretty much assumed you were lined up opposite an enemy, and took it in turns to trade blows until one of you fell down. Obviously, some players would try to jockey for position, or try tripping, bull-rushing, etc, but since the rules were vague, optional, or non-existent, you were dependent on the discretion of the DM.
Now, the rules pretty much demand that combats be run much more fluidly, with constant changes to the battlefield, and thus, it is much harder to avoid the spell-casters being engaged in melee.
Add to this the current rule are more player-centric, with 'wealth-by-level' tables (ie, players TELLING DMs what treasure they should be getting (!)), and item creation feats replacing the clunky old rules (did ANYONE ever have a PC create an item in 1st/2nd Ed? I never saw one in 20 years...). Now there is no excuse for the whole party to be flying/hasted/seeing invisible by level 5, without a single spell being cast, so it is no longer reasonable to expect or insist that a mage never find himself in melee; thus the rules for disruption are relaxed...
Whether the current rules bother someone has much to do with what they were used to when they started playing. I was astonished when I first witnessed this new development in 3rd Ed. New players, who don't carry the old-edition baggage, often can't see what the big deal is, and ask "Hasn't it always been this way...?".
Having said that, the rules could do with some revision; I'll post what I don't like, and how I'd amend things, later.
|
In my game it seems that defensive casting never fails and the attack of oppurtunity never happens due to characters with concentration rolls that never fail. I am curious what other gms have considered and what other gms have done to address this issue. Please comment on what you do or how it is handled in the game your in or if it is a non issue. Seems if spellcasting in melee provokes an attack of oppurtunity you shouldnt need a whole series of feats just to get a chance to actually take the attack agaisnt a guy who never fails a skill check.
Mage slayer feat!!!
Cant cast defensively if threatened. Granted the caster knows this and will move and cast(thus provoking an AoO) or double move negating his action that round.
You can always ready an action to attack when he starts waving his hands, thus if he hits and does good damage then his Concentration check will be high.
The wizard in my group does everything in his power to stay out of AOO range...I don't think he has ever had to cast defensively...yet
This is similar to my game as well. If the mage is in combat well thats beyond bad news. With maybe 50 hps he has the life expectancy of a gnat. His one and only goal when in combat is to get out of combat because, chances are, if he is still there when the bad guys turn comes up he's dead.
Hence my mage uses defensive casting every so often - and when he does (presuming I have not given bad guy mage slayer) he uses it to run away. I guess it does not really bother me that the mage that pumps tons of skill points into this skill can nearly always pull it off - if their actually using it its because something has already gone wrong for the players - the mage should just not be in melee with a d4 for hps.
Like everything about spell casters, the defensive casting mechanic is designed to make them suck at low levels and awesome at high levels. The DC goes up by 1 per two levels, while a caster's Concentration bonus goes up by 1 per level. Such inconsistency personally gets under my skin, but I don't house rule the issue because I reserve house rules for absolute-must-deal-with issues.
I do, however do it differently in my homebrew game system. In D&D terms, the DC would be 15 + (double spell level). So a caster has about a 50% chance to make the check no matter what level, or a 75% chance with Combat Casting.
well my caster in question is a cleric; not a mage and is often in base to base contact with the mob when he casts heal. My point is this caster never ever fails; he would have to roll a very low number to do so; sure he has lots of points into concentration and I get that these are not points spent on other skills, but with such a low chance of failure, the mobs never get an AOO attack. Was perhaps thinking to increase the dc based on how many times the caster had been hit previous to this cast to reflect the increased stress. the double spell level might be a thing to do.
I have been using a house-rule that I found on Monte Cook's site a few years ago and it has been great. Keeps the casters putting skill points into Concentration throughout the 20 levels and there is no longer a point where the skill is pretty much an auto pass.
Casting Defensively= Concentration Roll vs 1d20+Spell Level+Opponent's Melee Attack Roll.
So, it becomes a contested roll, sure more dice are rolled, but in this case it keeps my player's attention focused on the contest.
There is also a similar rule for Tumble.
|
|
Casting Defensively= Concentration Roll vs 1d20+Spell Level+Opponent's Melee Attack Roll.So, it becomes a contested roll, sure more dice are rolled, but in this case it keeps my player's attention focused on the contest.
It's an interesting house rule, and I may adopt it myself. But what do you do if he's threatened by multiple people. Highest Melee Attack Roll? Or sum of all melee attack rolls? I'd probably go with the former (if he's got multiple melee attackers, the poor wizard is already in enough trouble ;-)
Drew Garrett
|
DC15+ spell level= 9th level spell DC24 to cast defensively. Seems low to me when a Rogue is running up against DC35+ locks and traps at the time. Add in combat casting for +4 to concentration checks and base the check on the one ability that should be a casters 2nd highest ability-Constitution and it is just going through the motions with rolling the check. I wouldn't bump it up to the DCs rogues face for locks of similar levels but they could stand to go up.
Or I have heard of some people using opposed checks. Usually an attack roll vs. a concentration check.
Not saying I would use either, but here are some ideas.
FH
thanks; sounds like you guys understand my problem; it is pretty much an autopass right now as the pass roll is very low like 4 or 5 for his highest level spell.
So, it becomes a contested roll, sure more dice are rolled, but in this case it keeps my player's attention focused on the contest.
I've heard of this too. It doesn't have to involve more dice, though. The concentration DC could be 15 + threatener's attack bonus. 10 + Spell level + threatener's attack bonus creates a situation opposite of the RAW: casters can hardly fail the check at low levels, but it gets harder and harder as levels are gained.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Okay, I don't have a problem with Concentration check DCs and here's why: Spellcasting is all a spellcaster can do. Their combat ability is virtually worthless (unless they're some kind of gish or other hybrid class). Most of the time, a caster can just take a 5' step away from an opponent and get a spell off. In the not-so-rare situation where this isn't possible (especially at higher levels when stuff has reach), he needs to be able to depend on his spellcasting ability to get him to safety (whether by teleporting out of the danger zone or killing/disabling the threatening opponents). It's bad enough that the spellcaster has to dedicate several of his limited spell slots per day (or spells known) to "get out of the way" spells to keep him alive. Making those spells even less dependable by increasing DCs is just asking for more dead casters. Every round the wizard spends teleporting, dimension dooring, blinking, etc. is one round where the fighter is hacking stuff apart and the wizard isn't blowing something up.
A few rebuttals to earlier statements:
-Constitution is very seldom a spellcaster's secondary stat. Most often, it is tertiary. Clerics are the exception, but even they usually keep Strength higher than Constitution if they plan on using heavy armor and weapons. Bards, wizards, and sorcerers all depend on high Dexterity scores to give their ranged spells better odds of hitting as well as keeping their ACs high enough to avoid getting hit by everything. Clerics (and bards) have a moderate BAB to help them in this department. Wizards and sorcerers aren't so lucky. Weapon Finesse (touch spells) is almost a necessity for any character who plans to rely on such spells beyond level 5, because only the luckiest stat rolls (or the most generous point-buy DMs) will permit a high Strength, Dex, and casting stat.
-Rogues encounter DCs for Open Lock and Disable Device that often exceed 30. The reason for this is because, 90% of the time, a rogue is able to take 20 on such checks. Even when they can't, masterwork tools and a high primary stat (often further enhanced with stat-boosting items) usually makes these DCs easy enough for a specialized character. There are no synergies for Concentration, no tools to improve the skill check, and spellcasters generally favor items that enhance their casting stat (and usually Dexterity) over ones that enhance their Constitution.
Over the summer, I played a half-orc cleric of Kord with a whopping one (1) skill point per level. For RP reasons, I felt obligated to sink the first few points into Knowledge (religion), meaning I missed out on the x4 skill points at 1st level for Concentration. In fact, in order to get a turning synergy, I didn't start putting ranks into the skill until 3rd level.
Concentration checks were my bane. I only made them about 50% of the time. I tell you, I felt real useful. Being a battle-cleric, I was fond of getting into melee. However, in order to cast a spell, I either had to burn the actions stepping in and out of threatened squares (luckily, this was often a free action, but we also fought a lot of trolls and ogres, so I sometimes got hit by an AoO anyway, though it was better than loosing the spell) or take a massive risk of loosing the spell from failing the defensive casting check. Just taking the AoO was out of the question; if I got hit, the damage would almost certainly cost me the spell.
Perhaps this example is a but unusual and not a good reference point. Perhaps clerics just need 4 skill points per level. However, I don't think Concentration checks need to be upped. Defensive casting shouldn't be that hard because, as Fatespinner points out, it shoots the reliability of casters down the toilet.
And, as has been point out by others, most of the time a caster can just 5-foot-step, cast, and bypass the rule all together. It seems to me that there would be little real change if the rule was altered, and when it did come into play it might seem a bit punitive.
Just my 2cp.
I don't agree with Fatespinner and Saern, but I'd prefer defensive casting to be consistently easy, rather than inconsistent like it is now. It's just the "plus Spell Level" bit that needs to be changed to "plus Double Spell Level" to make the overall DC consistent throughout the levels. The base DC is really the important part of the DC: if you want defensive casting to be hard, make it 15 (or 20 if you're just wickedly evil). If you want defensive casting to be easy, make it 10 (or 5 if you want to make Combat Casting completely unnesessary).
I've never thought that the Concentration checks for defensive casting were broken at all. I look at it like this: the higher in level and the more powerful a caster is, the better he should be at casting. This would come from a combination of spell mastery and combat experience. And unless someone has spent the time to actually learn how a spellcaster takes the time to be aware of his surroundings and cast (as with the Mage Slayer feat DmRrostarr mentioned earlier that denied defensive casting to the caster) then they shouldn't get any added bonuses to attack the caster.
Casting Defensively= Concentration Roll vs 1d20+Spell Level+Opponent's Melee Attack Roll.So, it becomes a contested roll, sure more dice are rolled, but in this case it keeps my player's attention focused on the contest.
It's an interesting house rule, and I may adopt it myself. But what do you do if he's threatened by multiple people. Highest Melee Attack Roll? Or sum of all melee attack rolls? I'd probably go with the former (if he's got multiple melee attackers, the poor wizard is already in enough trouble ;-)
Drew Garrett
If the caster is being threatened by multiple opponents in melee? Either the caster must be very confident (I've had a sorcerer like that), or the caster is feeling very lucky. I make all of the rolls separately vs the one concentration (Casting defensively) check.
If anyone beats the caster they can then make the attack roll to see if they hit, if they hit the caster then makes another concentration check to see if they lose the spell based on the damage.The sorcerer player I had that used to jump into melee like that typically had a Bear's Endurance spell and put feats into Skill Focus: Concentration, and Combat Casting, so the melee casting was only a worry against trained fighters and other types.
I believe the by the book rule was if the caster failed the concentration check to cast defensively the spell was automatically lost.
Joe McRoberts
So, it becomes a contested roll, sure more dice are rolled, but in this case it keeps my player's attention focused on the contest.I've heard of this too. It doesn't have to involve more dice, though. The concentration DC could be 15 + threatener's attack bonus. 10 + Spell level + threatener's attack bonus creates a situation opposite of the RAW: casters can hardly fail the check at low levels, but it gets harder and harder as levels are gained.
Very true, that does cut all of the dice out. Too bad my players are all dice rolling maniacs and would roll more dice even if the game slows to a crawl. As a DM, I watch the game crawl along, but my players are all revved by the tension that the dice bring. That is the fun of the game for them. On the plus side, it gives me more time to think things through...
Joe McRoberts
Well, I dont agree with Saern or FS either, but I guess it really depends upon your character stats; characters in my game are heroes not the wimpy farmers that the PHB uses as their base stats for players; my players roll same as we all have for years, the 4d6 drop lowest; I allow reroll of 1's; place stats on characteristics as you please; this tend to give a bit higher than the stats score of 9-12 that I see that book uses with one or so 15 or 16; so players in my game have a few more skill points on average. I have not seen this to be a problem with any other skill other than Concentration though. Even the DC for tumbling is modified by the terrain; I am thinking perhaps to modify the dc for concentration depending on the difficulty of the combat somehow as it would be easier to concentrate against fewer or weaker opponents. I think an 8th level person needing a 5 to defensivly cast a 4th level spell in combat is to low a required roll and the roll would be the same if he was facing 6 one HD kobolds or 6 10HD Trolls ;that doesnt seem right; I think it would be much harder to concentrate against those trolls, the game rules just dont reflect it and there really arent any situational guidelines for scaling DC to reflect this sort of thing that I have found.
thanks for the input on both sides everyone so far; look forward to more...
To me, it makes sense that as a spellcaster gains levels, casting spells in melee would become easier, even to the point that they never provoke AoO for the act of casting that spell. It makes sense to me for a couple of reasons: First off, it is (or should be, depending on the campaign world) a fairly rare individual that's battled enough mages to really recognize how vulnerable a caster is and knows how to truly take advantage of the situation. Second off, in the course of a PC's play, they /are/ likely to see enough battles to learn how to effectively defend themselves. So the flat 15 + Spell Level strikes me as appropriate.
However, it also makes sense to me that some enemies should be more effective at combating spellslingers. I don't necessarily think that it should be a feat, but the alternative proposed above could be a good option for those enemies. For these more experienced opponents, add their attack bonus to the DC of the check. I'd make it a skill trick; that way, it costs something other than a precious feat, provides your baddies with a simple means of making life difficult for spellcasters, and provides a way for your players to have access to this neat ability. And with NPCs, you don't have to slavishly keep track of skill points - making it a skill trick is just a means of allowing PCs to access the enhanced ability at a faint cost.
I used a simple tweak to make casting defensively a little more costly (but not too much so) and also line up with an issue I had with every dang caster from the warmage to the closet scholar being able to cast defensively. The fix also involved making a fairly underused feat more useful...specifically I tied the ability to cast defensively directly to the Combat Casting feat. Want to cast in melee, take the feat. Plan on avoiding melee at all costs, don't bother.
It's worked well in playtesting so far.
... and the roll would be the same if he was facing 6 one HD kobolds or 6 10HD Trolls ;that doesnt seem right;
Well perhaps that doesn't seem right - but it occurs to me that perhaps the DC should increase in the same manner as Tumble (I think this is a rather little noticed rule): +2 for each creature threatening the tumbler/caster beyond the first.
Tumbling past two people is DC 17 for the second one, and can get pretty high, particularly if tumbling through instead of between, or at full speed instead of half.
Concentration checks in a horde should be a good bit harder.
Thanks for the ideas all.
To me, it makes sense that as a spellcaster gains levels, casting spells in melee would become easier, even to the point that they never provoke AoO for the act of casting that spell.
I'm sure that plenty of designers share this point of view, and that's why casting defensively is how it is now. The whole "powerful casters should pwn all" ideal can work great as part of a story, but in a game like d&d it just promotes imbalance.
but in a game like d&d it just promotes imbalance.
I don't see how it promotes imbalance for a spellcaster of high enough levels to almost completely ignore the chance for an AoO by casting defensively. At 20th level a wizard has a whopping average of 40 HP + CON modifier, presumably at least a +3 or +4, so he would have about 120 HP. A 20th level Fighter has an average of 100 HP + CON modifier, again presumably at least a +3 or +4, so about 180. At 20th level fighters get 5 attacks, the highest unmodified of which is +20 (my fighter had a +37 after my STR, enhancement Bonus, feats, etc.), and from personal experience the first 3 usually hit. The wizard can cast ONE spell per round. Granted the wizard has access to spells such as Disintigrate, Wish, etc. But still even if the target fails its save on Disintigrate the average damage is 120, just barely above average of what my fighter was dishing out with 3 successful hits and the fighter can do that all day long whereas the wizard will only have a limited number of times in which to prepare/cast such powerful spells. That seems imbalanced to me. If you're going to gimp the spellcaster and make him have to roll even harder concentration checks then why not have the fighter roll a concentration check while attacking an enemy because he is focused on attacking and not defending himself from attacks unless he attacks defensively? To me the spell caster has always been a little unbalanced in the fact that after a Wizard casts all of his spells he has nothing to do but stand back and try to not get hit, which is one change I'm really looking forward to in 4th ed. Ok I've ranted enough here.
A bit from my Hoard
I'm sure that plenty of designers share this point of view, and that's why casting defensively is how it is now. The whole "powerful casters should pwn all" ideal can work great as part of a story, but in a game like d&d it just promotes imbalance.
I disagree; allowing a spellcaster to easily avoid provoking attacks of opportunity for the act of casting isn't, IMO, imbalanced. It's simply negating the hassle of a situation that makes the game suck in a way that isn't all that fun:
Spellcasters who generally avoid melee shouldn't see the situation happen all that often, but when it does there's a distinct desire to escape the melee combatant. So instead of being able to contribute meaningfully to the scenario, they're forced to spend at least 1/5 of their actions just to get away. Making it harder across the board for them to do so in a way appropriate to their class (IE, with spells) doesn't promote balance; it just makes them miss out on some of the action. There's already a class out there that uses a crappy BAB, d4 HD, and falls like wheat before the sword. It's the commoner.
Spellcasters who are generally in the thick of it see this happen a lot more often; possibly every single combat. Making it a total crapshoot to be able to cast their spells in the thick of melee again doesn't promote balance; it just forces them to become Yet Another Fighter. At that point, what's the point of becoming a cleric (or druid or duskblade)? For the honor of using up your spells /after/ the excitement is over?
That said, I'm fine with a mechanic that increases the difficulty of avoiding AoO when casting a spell. I just don't think it's something that should be applied across the board, which is why I suggested making it a skill trick. Otherwise, you might as well eliminate the Concentration skill and use a flat 50% chance of casting defensively.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well one option I steal/modify from Monte Cook's AU is to use the result of the concentration check as a replacement for AC when casting defensively.
I'm thinking about using a similar method for Tumbling through threatened areas, substituting the Tumble check for AC. (+ any AC affecting feats)
Well one option I steal/modify from Monte Cook's AU is to use the result of the concentration check as a replacement for AC when casting defensively.
I'm thinking about using a similar method for Tumbling through threatened areas, substituting the Tumble check for AC. (+ any AC affecting feats)
I like this idea. Know to convince the rest of my group.
My spell casters are good at keeping out of melee range when casting. The few times I was able to catch them unsuspecting with reach, usually leads to a beat up spell caster.
I disagree; allowing a spellcaster to easily avoid provoking attacks of opportunity for the act of casting isn't, IMO, imbalanced.
This statement is different from the one that I responded to. First you say "casters should get relatively better and better at casting defensively as they gain levels" and now you say "casters should be good at casting defensively across the board".
While I find the first statement completely unnacceptable in the context of d&d, I would be comfortable enough with the second statement if the defensive casting mechanic actually agreed with it.
|
|
Not that I believe this, but I just had the thought pop into my head of
making the Concentration check of DC 10 + lv of spell + CR of the opponent.
The DC would be secret as I am sure the DM doesnt want the PC to know the CR of the creature. No more dice added, player rolls his normal check and DM says pass/fail.
This statement is different from the one that I responded to. First you say "casters should get relatively better and better at casting defensively as they gain levels" and now you say "casters should be good at casting defensively across the board".While I find the first statement completely unnacceptable in the context of d&d, I would be comfortable enough with the second statement if the defensive casting mechanic actually agreed with it.
Then I think you're taking it out of the context of my previous statement. I stated earlier "To me, it makes sense that as a spellcaster gains levels, casting spells in melee would become easier, even to the point that they never provoke AoO for the act of casting that spell."
My second statement should be kept within that context. IE, it is not imbalanced for a spellcaster to, over time, become so good at casting defensively that he never (or hardly ever) provokes AoO for the act of casting a spell.
And, it's not like D&D doesn't have other 'castaway' bits that become irrelevant over time:
* As any spellcaster increases in level, their lower level spells become less and less useful, often to the point of no longer being used.
* If one progresses to epic levels, non-epic spells become a joke; saving throw bonuses are high, and save DCs are comparatively low.
* Encumberance eventually becomes a thing of the past as characters come to possess bags of holding and other storage options to circumvent the logistics of hauling their loot about.
* Rations? Fear effects? Poison? Once a cleric is able to cast Hero's Feast without sacrificing too much of their magical clout, such hazards of low level adventuring are a thing of the past.
First you say "casters should get relatively better and better at casting defensively as they gain levels" ....
While I find the first statement completely unnacceptable in the context of d&d....
Why? This seems odd to me. Are you saying that you feel that spellcasters should have exactly the same chance of successfully casting defensively at 20th level as they have at 1st? That seems odd, since most things in D&D get progressively easier as you gain levels; as you get more powerful, you get better at what you do, not just in ultimate effect, but in the ease with which you can do it.
As you increase in level, it gets easier and more reliable that you make saving throws, to the point that you virtually never fail one of your good saves. Martial classes don't just gain damage potential; they gain attack bonus, so they can land those more damaging strikes more often (and in many cases it seems like attack bonus increases outstrip damage bonus increases). Rogues have a higher and higher chance of hitting Tumble DCs, to the point that they can virtually Tumble through, not around, enemy spaces at full speed with impunity. It's just how the game works. That is the context of D&D.
If the players go up in level, but the challenges remain exactly the same, as in their basic chances of succeeding at any given thing remain the same, then it kind of raises the question "Why level?" If things aren't getting any easier, what's the point? Also, why not just use percentile rolls to determine success and failure?
Anyway, that's probably a little extreme. The point is that, while the challenges should go up with the party's abilities, the essential percentages and odds of the party successfully doing their "thing" should increase as well; the party's advances should outstrip their opponents overall so that there is a real reward for leveling. That does seem to be the "context of D&D" to me (although I assume I could be wildly missing your point, in which case please correct me).
Casters have an easier and easier time of avoiding melee at all as they increase in level, which remains something they should do as they go up in level (in fact, perhaps inverse to the statements above, this may be somewhere that casters actually regress, staying power in melee, since things get so deadly at higher levels). Allowing them be able to successfully and reliably perform defensive casting keeps melee for mages in the "Really Bad Idea" category, but out of the "Automatic Death" or "No Longer Effectively in the Fight" (as you spend the rest of it trying to get out of melee and find yourself unable to safely use any spells) realms.
Returning to the OP: Clerics, however, which seem to be the focus of this initial thread, are kind of geared towards getting in close and bashing things up, with spell and mace. That's their schtick. They're supposed to be able to whip out a harm or whatever on the thing they're going toe-to-toe with. At least, that's the model presented in the PHB. The same goes for many other, largely supplemental, classes (see: duskblade, as someone mentioned earlier). If you want to change this model, that's just fine and within your right, but your players will probably whine (and I'd say they'd be within their rights to, but that's even more of an opinion than the rest of this post), and I think you should make sure you analyze why the core model exists in the first place and the implications of the changes you plan to make.
Then I think you're taking it out of the context of my previous statement. I stated earlier "To me, it makes sense that as a spellcaster gains levels, casting spells in melee would become easier, even to the point that they never provoke AoO for the act of casting that spell."
My bad. I just can't accept this as good design philosophy for d&d, so I'll just have to agree to disagree with you.
And, it's not like D&D doesn't have other 'castaway' bits that become irrelevant over time:
Most of these are equally as annoying as defensive casting, and IMO, should be changed.
Not that I believe this, but I just had the thought pop into my head of
making the Concentration check of DC 10 + lv of spell + CR of the opponent.
The DC would be secret as I am sure the DM doesnt want the PC to know the CR of the creature. No more dice added, player rolls his normal check and DM says pass/fail.
That's an interesting idea, but would essentially be equivalent to 10 + spell level X 3 (since CR you're facing goes up about 2x faster than your spells).
A 19th level wizard, casting a 9th level spell, facing a CR 19 creature:10 + 9 + 19 = 38 (-22 ranks = 16 needed without bonuses)
or 10 + 9*3 = 37
This makes casting on the defensive get harder and harder, as a 1st level wizard, casting a 1st level spell, facing a CR 1 creature:
10 + 1 + 1 = 12 (-4 ranks = 8 needed without bonuses)
or 10 + 1*3 = 13
Why? This seems odd to me. Are you saying that you feel that spellcasters should have exactly the same chance of successfully casting defensively at 20th level as they have at 1st? That seems odd, since most things in D&D get progressively easier as you gain levels; as you get more powerful, you get better at what you do, not just in ultimate effect, but in the ease with which you can do it.
While this sounds good in theory, I think it is poor design philosophy for a game like d&d. "Progressive ease" is the reason that the "sweet spot" exists, rather than all levels being the sweet spot. Progressive ease is the reason that high and epic level combat are so one-sided; combatants have so little chance of failure and such surety of spectacular effect that winning becomes a matter of who rolls better initiative.
So yes, I am saying that casters should have the same relative chance to cast defensively no matter what level they are. "Why level?" The reward for leveling shouldn't be your ability to execute spectacular effects 100% of the time, it should be your ability to outfight/outmaneuver/outthink progressively more difficult foes and to gain more and more versatility.
Well, if I were to truly alter the Cast Defensively option to my own tastes, I'd do the following:
A) Spellcasters would /not/ provoke attacks of opportunity for casting spells, as a matter of course. This is what they /do/; they cast spells in a fight.
a1) Alternately, spellcasters would provoke attacks of opportunity and use the standard Defensive Casting rules until they reached some level determined by their class (a relatively low level at that), when they would no longer provoke AoO for casting in melee unless their opponent had special training as detailed below. Maybe make it dependant on their BAB; at +2 BAB, they no longer suffer AoO for casting in melee (it makes sense that clerics and bards, which see melee more often than wizards and sorcerers, would pick this up earlier).
B) SOME opponents might have special training in the form of a feat, skill trick, or some other option that allows them to force a mage to make a skill check or provoke AoO. The check DC would be 15 + Spell Level + BAB. Again, not everyone can do this, just those who've been trained to exploit vulnerabilities in the casting process. The Mage Slayer feat would be next on the chain.
C) Concentration goes bye bye. It's a stupid skill on its own, and should be rolled into Spellcraft. That /is/ the skill for spellwork, after all. Concentration is only used in conjunction with spells, powers, and similar abilities.
C) Concentration goes bye bye. It's a stupid skill on its own, and should be rolled into Spellcraft. That /is/ the skill for spellwork, after all. Concentration is only used in conjunction with spells, powers, and similar abilities.
Hmmm. What if you just did that now? Simply get rid of Concentration, which only serves to drain skill points from casters for one purpose (holding onto spells under duress) and make it into Spellcraft, which seems a bit underused itself.
I'm guessing there's half a million implications, good and bad, that this will bring up. But I'm too tired to think about them right now. So, I'll leave that to others to point out for me. :)
Why? This seems odd to me. Are you saying that you feel that spellcasters should have exactly the same chance of successfully casting defensively at 20th level as they have at 1st? That seems odd, since most things in D&D get progressively easier as you gain levels; as you get more powerful, you get better at what you do, not just in ultimate effect, but in the ease with which you can do it.While this sounds good in theory, I think it is poor design philosophy for a game like d&d. "Progressive ease" is the reason that the "sweet spot" exists, rather than all levels being the sweet spot. Progressive ease is the reason that high and epic level combat are so one-sided; combatants have so little chance of failure and such surety of spectacular effect that winning becomes a matter of who rolls better initiative.
So yes, I am saying that casters should have the same relative chance to cast defensively no matter what level they are. "Why level?" The reward for leveling shouldn't be your ability to execute spectacular effects 100% of the time, it should be your ability to outfight/outmaneuver/outthink progressively more difficult foes and to gain more and more versatility.
This subject is certainly worthy of a whole thread dedicated soley to it. But, at the risk of threadjacking more than has already occured, I'm curious if you would be in favor of a level-free system? I know it certainly has its advantages and appeals when compared with the current d20 model (as well as problems and drawbacks). Just curious what your further thoughts on the matter are. I know you've tinkered extensively with the system, but can't remember where you stood on this aspect of the game.
This subject is certainly worthy of a whole thread dedicated soley to it. But, at the risk of threadjacking more than has already occured, I'm curious if you would be in favor of a level-free system? I know it certainly has its advantages and appeals when compared with the current d20 model (as well as problems and drawbacks). Just curious what your further thoughts on the matter are. I know you've tinkered extensively with the system, but can't remember where you stood on this aspect of the game.
To be honest, I have no experience with level-free systems. At one time my design philosophy regarding my own game system was headed in that direction, but I've since then gravitated toward a very solidly level-based ideal.
If you'd like to start a new thread, I'd be happy to further discuss, but I've pretty much posted everything that I feel about defensive casting.
this is just about as facetious as it gets..
For one, as pointed out, the the caster has to spend skillpoints for a skill just to use his primary capability safely if under pressure and unable to move out of the way. A skill, which has little other uses.....except for casting spells under other circumstances.
Howdy, rogues can backstab . Allegedly that is precision damage, hence an action that in alll likelihood requires some un-distracted moments without any roll, simply by maneuvering into some square - something they even get a nifty multi-purpose skill for... one that helps/replaces perform and or helps with falling damge... not that rogues haven't enough skill points anyway. Just to compare the handicap of the closest related skill-dependent ability
Fighters can even pull off complicated feat-based maneuver chains while getting ripped to shreds by draconic jaws, without rolling for any hindrance. Changing weapons in mid-fight ? No problem !
But mages and clerics need to roll, even for something like "verbal only" spells.... right. Power word : Stun is such a long complicated invocation, I guess
That gotten out of the way, Concentration usually gets pushed to quite exotic degrees around here, not for defensive casting (which usually means the caster is deep in Kim-Chi anyway ), but for mobile casting, where the difficulty is 20+spell level. Situational modifiers are applied as a house rule as well ( taking hints from the tumble-skill modifiers) .
Still, spells get lost due to defensive casting quite a bit - in my current STAP the sole wizard has a skill of +16, which means he still looses his level 5+ spells like 10% of the time even if playing by the book. I find 10% a distinct risk, and he will have to spend another handful of points to even keep that 10% max chance for his later 8th and 9th level spells.
Meaning, he is going to spend like 18+ skill points just to keep doing his primary raison-de-etre competently enough under pressure. Any comparable need for a skill investment by a fighter, barbarian etc to do his job ?
As for the dififculty progression of the skill... pleeeeeze !
take a good hard look and consider the save-modfier vs. save DC development... a strong save has accumulated a +12 modifier over 20 levels, while the the save difficulty for the most high powered spell a wizard has in his arsenal after 20 levels, including his ability advance boni has only progressed by +10 (9th level spell -1st level spell, 5 points of stat increase = +2 stat modifier on average ).
Given that positive save modifiers can be far more easily gained through equipment, cheap feats and multiclassing, not to mention class-abilities, synergy effects and racial choice, and the difficulty in procuring "+ to spell DC" items, now THERE is an imbalanced progression, but to the definite disadvantage of the caster.
TS how about changing that ? Similar not directly proportional progressions are everywhere, for good reasons. And "as is", the system atm favours melee-based characters, massively so at times.
Oh, and if your bad guys want to stop the casters from flinging spells, have them ready an action to to so.... because if they hit, the concentration roll is almost certain to be a failure. The AoO is a possible chance bonus, not a bloodright privilege that gets taken away from them...
Hmmm. What if you just did that now? Simply get rid of Concentration, which only serves to drain skill points from casters for one purpose (holding onto spells under duress) and make it into Spellcraft, which seems a bit underused itself.
I'm guessing there's half a million implications, good and bad, that this will bring up. But I'm too tired to think about them right now. So, I'll leave that to others to point out for me. :)
You know, I've given it a lot of thought lately (a few weeks now, off and on, I think) and I can't think of any actual problems that result. Prestige class requirements are easily changed out for Spellcraft or some other appropriate skill. Combat casting can provide its bonus to spellcraft for defensive casting (though compared to Skill Focus, combat casting is pretty well worthless). Uses for concentration outside spells and powers can be rolled into other skills. And, using the CON bonus for such checks isn't so necessary that it can't be tossed in favor of INT.
Plus it frees up precious skill points for classes, like the cleric, which are skill point destitute.
TS how about changing that? Similar not directly proportional progressions are everywhere, for good reasons. And "as is", the system atm favours melee-based characters, massively so at times.
I don't know if I'm following...you want to talk about changing the save/DC ratio to be more consistent through the levels? There's not much that can be done about it without a massive amount of work. You can limit limit multiclassing, use fractional saves and disallow booster items with weird bonuses (luck, divine, insight, etc.), but those don't truly solve the problem. If you're really determined though, you might as well go the extra yard and reinvent the magic system like I'm doing for my homebrew system.
TS how about changing that? Similar not directly proportional progressions are everywhere, for good reasons. And "as is", the system atm favours melee-based characters, massively so at times.I don't know if I'm following...you want to talk about changing the save/DC ratio to be more consistent through the levels? There's not much that can be done about it without a massive amount of work. You can limit limit multiclassing, use fractional saves and disallow booster items with weird bonuses (luck, divine, insight, etc.), but those don't truly solve the problem. If you're really determined though, you might as well go the extra yard and reinvent the magic system like I'm doing for my homebrew system.
bo, I just think your complaint about concentration ris9ng at twice teh speed of the defensive cast DC being unuustly out of proportion both willfully avoiding the fact that a) that (non-proportional progression) is a very common occucrence throughout the rules, and b) I generally consider your problem as definitely barking up the wrong tree. At present (3.5, autumn of 2007 ) arcane spellcasters (clerics not quite as much, sicne they have strong melee capability as well ) are severely hampered rules-wise in comparison to melee characters, and you are actually taking umbrage at the fact that with the given rules the chance of actually suffering an AoO from spell casting, after investment of several valuable skill points is too low ?
Are you in earnest ? Sorry, but you seem to clearly favour melee-based characters but that does not mean the rules are generally stacked in favour of the casters. YMMV, most certainly.
bo...
And this is a perfect demonstration of the value of careful typing. I don't have a problem with you critiquing my design philosophy, but I do not have ranks in Decipher Script and I don't have the patience to take 20 to decipher your post.
hmm, nice to see so many people on opposite sides of the fence as this would seem to indicate that this is or has been a problem in other games and might be a game design issue.
I certainly dont think casters should get better at casting in combat as they get higher in level unless melee types can get better at noticing a caster in combat to increase the difficulty as changing one would offset the other.
so far, it seems treating concentration like tumbling is the most fair and balanced way to handle the problem; perhaps size of monster might change the dc as the tumbling terrain affects that skill; number of opponents in base to base contact should affect the roll as well as the power level of the mobs in question; for example, I could see that a cr 7 mob would be a lot less concerned about a cr 3 caster than a cr 3 mob would be about a cr 7 caster. In the first example; the mob might think he could ignore the caster and still win, in the second example; those guys would want to mob the caster to not get vaped en masse. Additionally, I think the more spells you cast in combat the higher the dc for the provoke oppurtunity as a big wopping heal for 40 or 50 points would certainly change the battles outcome more than a blast of magic missles; and I would think the more power the spell you cast in combat the more provoke it will cause; one magic missle or two - no big deal to most mobs - but if you casting the max number of missles you are certainly much more of a threat and the creature would worry about what else you might cast.
I suppose I could just make up a battery of both types of casters and pump up their concentration skills like the pcs and cast all day in combat and listen to hear if the pc's complain about those cookies; certainly however this provoke check works; it should do so for pc and npc types equally.