| 34 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This subject got started in this thread, and to avoid derailing that thread further (and to remain more organized on the discussion, including having a comprehensive post for the FAQ questionnaire) I have made this post.
The Subject
In the Magic section of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook and the PRD, it explains the consequences of being injured while casting a spell, which has been reprinted here for convenience:
Injury: If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).
There are two interpretations to this rule that were being debated.
1: This interpretation says that you make concentration checks against the damage you have taken while casting the spell, and thus the DC for concentrating become progressively harder as you are hit by multiple attacks.
2: This interpretation says each time you take damage you make an individual concentration check against a completely new save DC each time you take damage while casting a spell, regardless of how many times you are hit.
INTERPRETATION 1
The Evidence
The first interpretation exists based on the following evidence. For convenience, the rule shall be quoted again, and in bold to draw attention to the way it is written.
Injury: If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).
We can see here that it specifies damage as "damage while trying to cast", then specifies "damage taken", and then notes that the event continues "during the spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell".
This would mean that the "damage" is the damage while casting the spell, and applies until the spell has been completed. As such, subsequent attacks trigger additional checks, but likewise are made at subsequently higher save DCs.
Example: Three 1st level warriors have readied actions to shoot a rogue wizard with their shortbows if he casts a spell. The wizard begins casting summon monster III (a 3rd level spell) so the base DC is 13. Each archer takes their readied shot and scores a hit, dealing 3 damage each, and forcing three Concentration checks in a row. Since "damage" has been defined as damage taken while casting the spell, and the DC is set by "damage taken", the wizard's save DC increases by 3 for each successive attack; resulting in DC 16, 19, 22 in that order. A 5th level wizard with a +4 intelligence bonus would succeed on a roll of 7, 10, and 13.
The result is getting struck repeatedly is worse than being struck once while casting a spell; thus ganging up on a wizard can make it difficult for him to cast spells, even if the wizard would normally risk no chance of failure from the individual damage.
Notes: I submit that this is the correct reading of the rules for the following reason. It does not require you to add definitions not defined in the text to make it work (the text defines damage, and defines when the damage resolves), it seems the most logical (getting repeatedly hit should make it harder to cast), and makes Concentration less trivial and encourages teamwork (both to attack and defend casters).
INTERPRETATION 2
Evidence
The second interpretation is based on the idea that making a concentration check is a singular event that is limited to the attack form (be it an attack, spell, or other) that triggered the Concentration check, and thus is irrelevant how many times you are struck, only the individual damage of the strike matters.
The only evidence for this that was presented to me was how continuous damage effects (such as acid arrow) are treated, as described in the next paragraph. However, the rule for dealing with continuous damage is a different rule, and has different functions, and therefor is specified to work differently. Otherwise it would be declared in the first rule as only counting half continuous damage effects rather than specifying a separate rule.
Example: Three 1st level warriors have readied actions to shoot a rogue wizard with their shortbows if he casts a spell. The wizard begins casting summon monster III (a 3rd level spell) so the base DC is 13. Each archer takes their readied shot and scores a hit, dealing 3 damage each, and forcing three Concentration checks in a row.
Since the damages are individual, the wizard makes each check irrelevant of the previous hit, so the DC is only 16 for each of them. A 5th level wizard with a +4 intelligence modifier would succeed on a roll of 7, 7, and 7.
Notes: I submit that this interpretation is flawed. Firstly it must ignore the definition the rule provides for damage (damage taken while casting), requires you to read the previously defined "damage taken" as "damage caused by the attack", and ignores the end condition (the end of casting). Likewise, this interpretation of the rule makes little sense as getting hit by 10 arrows while casting is no more difficult to ignore than being hit with 1 arrow. Finally, it makes only the heaviest damage attacks threaten to interrupt spells; something that was noted as a common problem in 3.5.
I actually keep flip-flopping on the issue, and an official answer would be nice. That is all I have, and I also FAQ'd this one.
|
I would say that the concentration check is triggered by the act of casting a spell - at which point you would check all the damage taken for the round - not checked at each point of taking damage.
So it would be the total right before the spell would (theoretically) be cast.
Just dump concentration altogether and let them lose their spell for any damage or distraction before they cast.
Casters are tough, they can handle it.
I actually keep flip-flopping on the issue, and an official answer would be nice. That is all I have, and I also FAQ'd this one.
This should be moved to the rules section.
Actually there is third possible interpretation - in which you make single concentration check against DC based upon total damage taken while casting.
Also, interpretation second is not flawed - reading "damage taken" as "damage caused by the attack" is no more wrong than reading "damage taken" as "total damage caused by multiple attacks". Again it does not ignore definition provided for damage - as the definition is unclear (it would ignore the definition if it were stated as "total damage taken while casting").
I would buy total damage before individual damage, though I think it's a check each time you are hit. For example, if you're casting Summon Monster III, you could get struck three separate times over three separate turns, and it can affect the turn sequence; since if wizard casts on round 1, then warrior 1 hits the wizard, warrior 2 may choose not to shoot the wizard if he's already screwed up his spell 'cause warrior 1 shot him and he biffed the first roll.
Multiple rolls are no more a slowdown than disruption weapon (a save vs death per attack landed). It's also far more intense, since the worry of bad luck heightens the tension, while the hope of being able to bank each check hovers above. That being said, I could live with "one single DC", but as noted that would make it weird in a number of ways.
Either option would be better than "Wizard gets hit by 20 arrows and auto-succeeds". =P
It's also possible you make a check each time you receive damage, but the DC is based on ALL the damage you've taken since the last round.
Personally, I think it checks right away and the DC is based ONLY on that damage source's amount of damage. Why? Because ongoing damage only adds half the amount to the DC. If you just tracked your total damage for the round, why wouldn't ongoing damage also add its full allotment to the DC?
|
The check is once per damaging attack. The sentances you bolded really only clarify that the checks only happen when you are actually in the midst of casting rather than any time during a round you have cast in.
An example is if you move and draw an AoO, get wacked, finish your move action and then cast magic missile you wouldn't have to make a Concentration check.
The only time you make Concentration checks are when you get tagged by ready actions, AoO's, or if you're unlucky enough to get hit while casting a Full Round spell before your next turn, like Sleep or Summon Monster.
--A Vrockwork Orange
It's also possible you make a check each time you receive damage, but the DC is based on ALL the damage you've taken since the last round.
Personally, I think it checks right away and the DC is based ONLY on that damage source's amount of damage. Why? Because ongoing damage only adds half the amount to the DC. If you just tracked your total damage for the round, why wouldn't ongoing damage also add its full allotment to the DC?
I think you mean all the damage you've taken while casting the spell? That was the main point of interpretation 1, since the rule defines "damage" as damage taken while casting the spell; thus all damage taken while casting would apply.
I think continuous damage is written as it is because it is both less disruptive (it hurts but it's less of a shock), and because continual damage would be far more powerful since you could fire and forget, making it too easy to disrupt spellcasters, since all you'd have to do is bomb a few acid arrows or bleed effects and carry on about your business; whereas the normal method generally requires setup (AoOs, readied actions, or full-round casting drawback).
Continual damage is specifically called out as a separate rule in a separate paragraph, and given a different entry on the table, so it works a different way - as specified.
The check is once per damaging attack. The sentances you bolded really only clarify that the checks only happen when you are actually in the midst of casting rather than any time during a round you have cast in.
An example is if you move and draw an AoO, get wacked, finish your move action and then cast magic missile you wouldn't have to make a Concentration check.
The only time you make Concentration checks are when you get tagged by ready actions, AoO's, or if you're unlucky enough to get hit while casting a Full Round spell before your next turn, like Sleep or Summon Monster.
--A Vrockwork Orange
I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. It seems horribly redundant to me. "If you take damage while trying to cast a spell" clearly states that the "damage" is "while trying to cast a spell", which both states when and what variables, "damage taken" was defined in the previous condition, "The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell or if it comes in response to your casting the spell" specifies how it triggers and when it ends.
Since it defines it as "damage while trying to cast", the damage is the damage you've taken while trying to cast the spell unless stated otherwise. It does not state otherwise, so until the condition resolves (the casting ends) the variable stands. Anything else requires you to add or remove words, or otherwise make stuff up.
interpretation 2 is the one I'd go with as DM.
==
AKA 8one6
That's cool. Could you perhaps explain why?
Actually this sounds really strange to me that you don't just total damage and make it the concentration DC.....
I mean a swarm of 100 bees/sprites/wasps/etc each dealing 1 point of damage is 100 concentration DC checks at 1 each
Or a single check at 100I think the interpretation to increase checks "sheer volume" is a way to try and screw over casters roll a 100 times and hope a 1 doesn't come up!
"Good job othus your arrow disrupted his spell so I will shoot elsewhere with my arrow"....
It's generally good not to exaggerate or use hyperbole in these kinds of discussions. In the case of a swarm of angry bees/sprites/wasps/etc it would be an actual Swarm and would probably only deal between 3.5 to 17.5 damage on average; so the DC would be around DC 13-27 + spell level.
We're talking more like a caster is being bombarded by offensive attacks, spells, or similar. This is more akin to getting shot with multiple arrows, struck with multiple swords, fireballs, breath weapons, and so forth AT THE SAME TIME.
As it is right now, if a wizard is foolishly ground zero with a hell-hound, a warrior, and within shooting range of an archer with precise shot, and all of those enemies have readied an action to thrash the wizard should he make the wrong move (in this case, cast a spell) he's the target of 1 arrow (readied action), 3 attacks (warrior's readied, warrior's AoO, and the hound's AoO), and one breath weapon (hound's readied action).
He takes 3, 4, 6, 5, and 9 damage from all of them. Now under one reading the highest DC he'll have to make is DC 19 + level, against the breath weapon. Under the other reading, the wizard would need to eventually beat a DC 37 + spell level DC for getting gang-thrashed for casting spells when he shouldn't have.
So the question is; is it supposed to be as easy to cast a spell while getting mobbed, struck repeatedly, and blasted with a flamethrower, as just getting hit once?
EDIT: Also, a 1 is not an automatic failure on a Concentration check, so even if your hypothetical bees did deal 100 instances of 100 damage, you'd never fail 0-1st level spells if you were level 6 with a +6 intelligence modifier (6th level + 18 intelligence after racial + 4 buff = +12 concentration), and have an 85% chance of success for your highest level spell.
mechanically is there a reason to make checks against each one individually?
Yes. Attacks can come at different points while a spell is being cast (particularly common with spells with a 1 round or longer casting time). Each attack triggers a check. As noted previously, this would be especially important during a combat round when different attacks could come at different times.
Concentration: You must concentrate to cast a spell. If you can't concentrate, you can't cast a spell. If you start casting a spell but something interferes with your concentration, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell. The check's DC depends on what is threatening your concentration (see Magic). If you fail, the spell fizzles with no effect. If you prepare spells, it is lost from preparation. If you cast at will, it counts against your daily limit of spells even though you did not cast it successfully.bolded a in the above! just pointing out what is in RAW! a check is just one!
Check it again. It says something interferes with your concentration and you make a check. Multiple interferences, multiple checks. Notice checks don't all come from damage while casting a spell. You could be grappling, in a rainstorm, buffeted by winds, casting while plummeting down a mountainside on a horseless carriage, being blasted with fire, or being struck with a pointy object. In the case of being struck with a pointy object, and then struck again with a point object, you make another check.
|
Since it defines it as "damage while trying to cast", the damage is the damage you've taken while trying to cast the spell unless stated otherwise. It does not state otherwise, so until the condition resolves (the casting ends) the variable stands. Anything else requires you to add or remove words, or otherwise make stuff up.
This is not Magic: The Gathering, and there is no "stack." A concentration check happens each time a triggering event occurs, and each event is separate, wholly unrelated to any other events. Damage does not accumulate throughout the round, which can be extrapolating from reading the rest of the rules since there's already a concentration check condition for "ongoing damage." The damage referred to here is a single incidence of damage taken "during the casting of the spell" which is a defining term to show when checks might happen.
I'm not even sure how there's a confusion here, honestly. I think that only a very overly-specific reading of the rules can produce the result you're arguing for. Interpretation 2 from the original post is the correct one; it doesn't require you to drop any definitions, only to understand that the definition you're offering is overly specific.
tl;dr: Each check is separate, each one only checks damage for the current attack.
Jeremy Puckett
This is not Magic: The Gathering, and there is no "stack." A concentration check happens each time a triggering event occurs, and each event is separate, wholly unrelated to any other events. Damage does not accumulate throughout the round, which can be extrapolating from reading the rest of the rules since there's already a concentration check condition for "ongoing damage." The damage referred to here is a single incidence of damage taken "during the casting of the spell" which is a defining term to show when checks might happen.
Ongoing damage is different. It has a separate rule for it, as previously noted. It even defines ongoing damage as something that deals continuous damage over several rounds, citing acid arrow as an example.
Likewise, you ignore the fact it defines the damage not from the attack but damage taken during the casting of the spell. You are in fact adding or removing from the wording.
I'm not even sure how there's a confusion here, honestly. I think that only a very overly-specific reading of the rules can produce the result you're arguing for. Interpretation 2 from the original post is the correct one; it doesn't require you to drop any definitions, only to understand that the definition you're offering is overly specific.
tl;dr: Each check is separate, each one only checks damage for the current attack.
So show me. I've taken the text and shown word for word how it defines the damage, the DC, and the end of the damage. Likewise, you sir seem confused as to the stack in M:TG, as this has no more to do with stack resolution as dispelling an effect that's continual.
In this case you have a defined period of time in which you can interrupt a spell with an attack, a defined variable (damage while casting) and a defined DC using that defined variable.
So back it up. Instead of saying what is wrong and right, show it.
That's cool. Could you perhaps explain why?interpretation 2 is the one I'd go with as DM.
==
AKA 8one6If everyone is trying to dog pile on a spell caster, adding a massive DC to have to make just seems like rubbing salt in the wound.
==
AKA 8one6
I'd prefer salt covered asphalt personally. :P
But seriously, separate from the topic, why is it that it being extremely difficult for a caster to cast a spell while they're getting mauled by multiple attacks / enemies is rubbing salt in a wound, but all the crap that happens to martial characters isn't?I mean, martial characters fighting ettercaps and spiders are gonna get covered in webs and repeatedly hit with save DC stacking poisons that rob them of their feats and abilities (since power attack goes bye-bye when your strength = 12 or less), but heaven forbid the wizard not be able to coast by 12 arrows in the face from low-level archers on guard towers or something.
Seriously, why?
EDIT: Thought I should point out (after that asphalt joke) that my favorite classes to play in Pathfinder are wizard, paladin, fighter, and psion (convert). I play caster-junkies more than anything else.
So why does choice one arbitrarily decide that that damage taken is only applicable for one spell.
Wait...what?
EDIT: Sorry, that threw me. I'm not sure how to respond. Your question (or statement?) is illegible, and does not make sense to me.
I mean, martial characters fighting ettercaps and spiders are gonna get covered in webs and repeatedly hit with save DC stacking poisons that rob them of their feats and abilities (since power attack goes bye-bye when your strength = 12 or less), but heaven forbid the wizard not be able to cast by 12 arrows in the face from low-level archers on guard towers or something.Seriously, why?
+1 to this.
Moreover, is a matter of realism and immersion, at least at an acceptable level.
IMO (I could be wrong) a wizard struck several times by the 12 arrows should find almost impossible cast a spell.
I find odd that the concentrations is as difficult as when is being struck by 1 arrow (because the roll is auto-passed).
Kaiyanwang, thank you for the +1. :)
Let me restate it then. Why does the choice of interpretation designated as "INTERPRETATION 1" have the property that for calculating "damage taken" instances of damage taken while casting previous spells are not applicable to the calculation of damage taken for the current spell.So why does choice one arbitrarily decide that that damage taken is only applicable for one spell.Wait...what?
EDIT: Sorry, that threw me. I'm not sure how to respond. Your question (or statement?) is illegible, and does not make sense to me.
English...please...this hurts my brain. >_<
If I've translated your post correctly, you are asking why is it that the damage inflicted while casting previous spells do not count towards new spells being cast; correct?
The answer has already been stated multiple times; because if gives an end condition, which is the end of the spell.
Injury: If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).
Bolded for emphasis. The end condition of the text is the resolution of the spell, which ends the interrupting event. It has been defined already. Once the end condition is met or the spell fails, the event is over. By casting a new spell you begin a new disruption event.
Are you asking this in earnest, or are you trying to cause confusion?
My interpretation is that 1 concentration check is made based off of all the damage taken from all attacks.
Injury:
If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).
Each attack is a separate event with its own damage and its own concentration check.
if you are stuck with 12 arrows you make 12 checks. If you are stuck with 1 arrow you make 1 check. The DC for each attack is based on the damage that each attack made, individually.
The entire paragraph is dealing with specific individual attacks. Event is singular. It does not say anywhere in there to go adding up multiple attacks to form the DC. If they wanted it to be such, they could have very easily said so.
-S
However an Elminster-class Archmage can AND SHOULD make the checks with ease because he's that good, if the archers and the fighters threathening him are mere mooks by comparison.
I dunno, I'm more of the opinion that the Elminster-class Archmage shouldn't be getting nailed by a ton of mooks because of his foresight, planning, and giant pile of protective magics -- and that if an army of mooks somehow gets the drop on him and put twenty arrows in him while he's casting a spell, he probably deserves to lose his spell.
(Although my read on the current rules has always been that the checks are made separately.)
The entire paragraph is dealing with specific individual attacks. Event is singular. It does not say anywhere in there to go adding up multiple attacks to form the DC.
It notes that the damage is "damage taken while trying to cast". If you are hit again, the amount of "damage" you have taken while trying to cast is the sum of the current hit plus each additional hit until the casting is over.
Show me how the wording says otherwise. Unlike my opponents, I have shown step by step how the instance plays out using only the the text of the word, adding or subtracting nothing, and using programming-level logic. You have, at best, put the rule up and then said what it did. I've showed what it does.
Depends on the wizard. If it's a first level wizard, he's not going to get the cast of even a first level spell because he's dead from all the damage, much less the near impossible rolls to make the DC. However an Elminster-class Archmage can AND SHOULD make the checks with ease because he's that good, if the archers and the fighters threathening him are mere mooks by comparison.
On the other hand if the archers and the fighters are commensurately good themselves, they just might succeed in interrupting the spell by separating his head from his body. :)
Two things I wanted to address here. Firstly you're assuming that the wizard is a squishy little thing, which neither takes into account multiclassing or the rapid pace in which HP can rise (if the wizard in the first example takes 3 shots from shortbows at 3 damage each, the wizard with a +0 Con should still have 4 hit points left at 3rd level (6 + 3.5 + 3.5 = 13 hp).
Likewise, a certain adventure path sports a certain ogre/wizard which would make a great example here since the wizard would have a low CR but also sport far more HP than a run of the mill wizard due to the racial HD and constitution modifier.
Finally, Dire Mongoose is correct that low level mooks are pretty much useless against high level archmages in the novels (and mechanically) because the archmages have contingencies, plans, protective buffs, and so forth. However, I do think Eliminster would have difficulty concentrating on a spell while getting pummeled by filled with arrows from a 10th level fighter and getting roasted by dragon breath at the same time (also Eliminster cheats, since he does stuff like using basic shapechanging magics to put his poop organs into his skill and his brain in his gut when fighting mind-flayers to make them eat doody; so at some point the rules don't apply to Eliminster :P).
Gonna Try This Again
Injury: If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).
We can clearly see the following:
1: It specifies the condition in which you make a concentration check and the damage condition (not damage outside of the casting, but damage while casting). This is the condition and definition.2: It declares that you must make a Concentration check when you take damage, then it declares the DC and uses the variable "damage taken" which was described in 1 as "damage while trying to cast a spell".
3: It specifies the end condition of the event (when the damage and/or threat of disruption ends) which is upon completion or end of the spell.
Therefor, you take damage while casting, you make a check, the DC is 10 + X + Y (X = damage variable, Y = spell level), conditions end when the spell is cast. If you take damage twice before the spell is cast, the condition and variables have no gone away (the spell is not finished casting) and the DC is DC 10 + X + X2 + Y. The event is specified for a single spell, so beginning a new spell begins the process over again (this is for that guy who wanted to know why it doesn't keep all damage you ever took ever).
On the flip side of things the readied actions and attacks, there is no way for persons attacking a caster and other observers to know if the caster makes or fails the concentration check! (that reeks of meta-gaming!)
You reek of meta-gaming! =P
No seriously though, if you can ready an action for when a person casts a spell, it must at least be obvious enough to tell they're doing it; and there's nothing to suggest there is any more reason to not be able to tell they have failed a cast than telling a fighter failed at attacking.
There's nothing to suggest in the rules anywhere (read game physics) that suggests that there is no sign that spells are being cast or that you cannot tell when you disrupt an enemy's spell; so you are merely making it up.
I am not making things up. You better have at least a rank of spellcraft to know someone is casting a spell....
Secondly if I as a caster do lose the concentration/spell can I not use bluff to make people believe the spell is still being cast? Even though I have lost the spell....Possibly goading them into continued wasted attacks?.....
.....The way I am reading these are everyone at the table knows whether or not the concentration was disrupted or not! That is meta-gaming...
But you're not reading, and you've proved it to me.
Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.
To identify the spell being cast, not know that a spell is being cast.
Distracting Spellcasters: You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger “if she starts casting a spell.” If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her Concentration check result).
Readying to Counterspell: You may ready a counterspell against a spellcaster (often with the trigger “if she starts casting a spell”). In this case, when the spellcaster starts a spell, you get a chance to identify it with a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell level). If you do, and if you can cast that same spell (and are able to cast it and have it prepared, if you prepare spells), you can cast the spell as a counterspell and automatically ruin the other spellcaster's spell. Counterspelling works even if one spell is divine and the other arcane.
So you are blatantly wrong in this case, and you should not bring house-rules up in rule discussions, or at least make an attempt to double check yourself; especially when telling people they're metagaming.
I think that you should change the phrase slightly....
I ready an action for when X appears to be casting a spell
ie when I think he/she/it is casting a spell.....
otherwise you can ready and attack a silent still spell b/c you readied an action!
You CAN ready and attack a silent spell, or a still spell, or even a silent/stilled spell, but not a quickened spell. In all other cases, there is enough to see that they are doing something.
Casters can bluff that they are starting a spell get hit and then actually start the spell, or fake that they failed or passed the concentration check........
There you go making stuff up again. That's fine if you want to let someone bluff that they're casting a spell, but it takes 1 round or at the very least a standard action, so using it to bypass readied actions to kick your wizard rear-end isn't possible (but it could perhaps get your shot and beaten without really casting I guess).
Action: Attempting to deceive someone takes at least 1 round, but can possibly take longer if the lie is elaborate (as determined by the GM on a case-by-case basis).
Feinting in combat is a standard action.
Using Bluff to deliver a secret message takes twice as long as the message would otherwise take to relay.
If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).
At first glance I would think that the caster would have to make a concentration for the full amount of damage received + spell level + 10. ie. Wizard casts fireball (standard action) and there are three fighters beside him with readied actions. The three fighters get a readied action on him. First the Wizard needs to do his defensive casting (vs AoO's) with a DC of 15 + spell x2 (i think that's it) so 21 concentration check. Then if he takes damage simultaneously from all three sources while casting (let's say 15 damage total) he would need to make a DC 10 + 3(spell level) + 15 (damage taken) = 28 concentration check due to the damage taken while he was casting the spell.
The only reason I would hesitate with that being my final thought is because the description does not reference plural or singular damage sources requiring seperate or total DC's. Though if you have three simultaneous sources of damage hitting you I would think that it would be harder to concentrate on casting than if you were just trying to avoid letting your guard down.
Please explain how a readied action individual "knows" a spell is being cast....
Of course they are doing "something", they might be playing hokey pokey with imaginary friends and quietly singing to themselves
and 9 times out of ten attacked as if they are casting a spell.....and then "knows" whether or not the spell was disrupted......
I guess you will say those are obvious and everyone just knows...
The rules state you can identify any spell being cast provided you can observe the caster. Therefore you can identify that a spell is being cast provided you can observe the caster. Therefore, you can identify when a silent/stilled spell is being cast, provided you can observe the caster.
You CAN ready and attack a silent spell, or a still spell, or even a silent/stilled spell, but not a quickened spell. In all other cases, there is enough to see that they are doing something.
Where does it say you can't ready against a quickened spell?
|
|
Actually this sounds really strange to me that you don't just total damage and make it the concentration DC.....
I mean a swarm of 100 bees/sprites/wasps/etc each dealing 1 point of damage is 100 concentration DC checks at 1 each
Or a single check at 100I think the interpretation to increase checks "sheer volume" is a way to try and screw over casters roll a 100 times and hope a 1 doesn't come up!
"Good job othus your arrow disrupted his spell so I will shoot elsewhere with my arrow"....
A swarm is a single creature, and unless the swarm readies a move action to specifically disrupt a spell, this isn't an issue; besides, the caster already has to succeed in a concentration check against the Distraction ability.
In general, I'd go with option 2 -- not only because the DCs might occasionally be ridicilously high (say, DC 60 or so as a result of two or three hits) but also because attacks are not simultaneous. This is also reflected in the mechanics; even if two beings have the same Init count, the one with higher Dex bonus goes first.
On the other hand, I can understand why people would think it's more straightforward and easier to handle it with a single roll, and Jason *has* suggested that poison DCs should be handled in a similar fashion (i.e. each hit just raises the DC and you make a single saving throw versus all of them).
Hmmm... maybe this should be tagged for FAQ?
|
|
If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).
At first glance I would think that the caster would have to make a concentration for the full amount of damage received + spell level + 10. ie. Wizard casts fireball (standard action) and there are three fighters beside him with readied actions. The three fighters get a readied action on him. First the Wizard needs to do his defensive casting (vs AoO's) with a DC of 15 + spell x2 (i think that's it) so 21 concentration check. Then if he takes damage simultaneously from all three sources while casting (let's say 15 damage total) he would need to make a DC 10 + 3(spell level) + 15 (damage taken) = 28 concentration check due to the damage taken while he was casting the spell.
Again, I would say that it is the total damage for the round.
Every time the caster is hit he is not finishing up his spell he is casting his spell - he isn't casting it every time he takes damage, why would that trigger the need to make a caster check?
The point at which he needs to make the concentration check is when the spell is ready to go off, i.e. be cast. At that point he checks the sum total of all damage (and other issues around casting) and makes the roll - not at every instance something external is introduced (damage) - since the spell isn't finished.
So total damage taken up to the point the spell is completed at which point a concentration check is made considering all damage taken up to that point.
Edit: Swarm damage should be like any other damage the first round you take it - generous interpretation may allow it to have less impact after the first round (as in Acid Arrow) for the purpose of checks on the susequent rounds while in the swarm.
If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).
At first glance I would think that the caster would have to make a concentration for the full amount of damage received + spell level + 10. ie. Wizard casts fireball (standard action) and there are three fighters beside him with readied actions. The three fighters get a readied action on him. First the Wizard needs to do his defensive casting (vs AoO's) with a DC of 15 + spell x2 (i think that's it) so 21 concentration check. Then if he takes damage simultaneously from all three sources while casting (let's say 15 damage total) he would need to make a DC 10 + 3(spell level) + 15 (damage taken) = 28 concentration check due to the damage taken while he was casting the spell.
Again, I would say that it is the total damage for the round.
Every time the caster is hit he is not finishing up his spell he is casting his spell - he isn't casting it every time he takes damage, why would that trigger the need to make a caster check?
The point at which he needs to make the concentration check is when the spell is ready to go off, i.e. be cast. At that point he checks the sum total of all damage (and other issues around casting) and makes the roll - not at every instance something external is introduced (damage) - since the spell isn't finished.
So total damage taken up to the point the spell is completed at which point a concentration check is made considering all damage taken up to that point.
Edit: Swarm damage...
I agree with what you're saying...The only hiccup I see is that bad weather etc are not modifiers but set DC's so it would seem that is where the basis for the individual attack concentration check comes from.
If there was a table showing concentration modifiers it would make this rule a lot clearer..just a thought.
You CAN ready and attack a silent spell, or a still spell, or even a silent/stilled spell, but not a quickened spell. In all other cases, there is enough to see that they are doing something.Where does it say you can't ready against a quickened spell?
Hah, good catch Ravendork; my bad entirely. You can in fact ready an action against a quickened spell! Good catch, good catch. Just 'cause they don't provoke attacks doesn't mean you can't ready against them. :D
Very clever. :D
I agree with what you're saying...The only hiccup I see is that bad weather etc are not modifiers but set DC's so it would seem that is where the basis for the individual attack concentration check comes from.
Exactly.
As noted previously, I wouldn't mind if it was handled all in one check (though I think that's a bit lazy). In which case, overkill would be the best tactic, but I maintain that according the the rules the damage stacks, because it defines damage (damage while trying to cast) and defines the end condition (the spell is cast/fails), and thus any damage taken while casting would increase the "damage taken" variable appropriately.
As to swarms, the swarm damage is the swarm's attack. It is not continuous in the sense that acid arrow is, and instead is dealt to creatures whose space they occupy at the end of their move; so a wizard that begins his turn in a swarm and casts before end of the swarm's turn suffers no concentration check, but if the wizard was casting a 1 round spell, and then the swarm dives on him and ends its turn, then the wizard must make a check vs the damage (that he now takes).
Please explain how a readied action individual "knows" a spell is being cast....
Of course they are doing "something", they might be playing hokey pokey with imaginary friends and quietly singing to themselves
and 9 times out of ten attacked as if they are casting a spell.....and then "knows" whether or not the spell was disrupted......
I guess you will say those are obvious and everyone just knows...
The game just assumes you know, the same way it assumes you know when someone is using a psionic or SLA ability. That is how fighters can ready actions. Does it make sense from a realistic point of view, no, but it allows melee types to have a chance to shut casters down. It is one of those rules that is there for balance, kind of life Improved Critical and Keen not stacking even though one is magical affect, and the other is natural ability, and by logic they would stack.
|
|
Cast defensively 15 + double spell level
Injured while casting 10 + damage dealt + spell level
Continuous damage while casting 10 + 1/2 damage dealt + spell level
Affected by a non-damaging spell DC of the spell while casting + spell level
Grappled or pinned while casting 10 + grappler’s CMB + spell level
Vigorous motion while casting 10 + spell level
Violent motion while casting 15 + spell level
Extremely violent motion while casting 20 + spell level
Wind with rain or sleet while casting 5 + spell level
Wind with hail and debris while casting 10 + spell level
Weather caused by spell see spell
Entangled while casting 15 + spell level
There's the list
As to swarms, the swarm damage is the swarm's attack. It is not continuous in the sense that acid arrow is, and instead is dealt to creatures whose space they occupy at the end of their move; so a wizard that begins his turn in a swarm and casts before end of the swarm's turn suffers no concentration check, but if the wizard was casting a 1 round spell, and then the swarm dives on him and ends its turn, then the wizard must make a check vs. the damage (that he now takes).
I was talking about round-to-round damage from the same source. Wizard takes damage from swarm, then cast spell as per the concentration rules on that first round and then (maybe, I did say maybe) on the following rounds if he stays in the swarm in could be considered continuous damage, as in round-to-round damage from the same source since swarms operate a little differently from other monsters. More of a suggestion, that's it.
I was talking about round-to-round damage from the same source. Wizard takes damage from swarm, then cast spell as per the concentration rules on that first round and then (maybe, I did say maybe) on the following rounds if he stays in the swarm in could be considered continuous damage, as in round-to-round damage from the same source since swarms operate a little differently from other monsters. More of a suggestion, that's it.
I realize it was hypothetical, but the fact is it's not round-to-round damage any more than a fighter's sword is. The swarm's damage is in fact an attack which automatically hits everything in its space at the end of its turn. It could move away and leave the wizard alone instead of attacking the wizard (just like a fighter could).
Round to round damage would be like acid arrow or bleed effects, where you continually take damage from the same effect. A swarm's damage is a separate instance each time it activates.
EDIT:
The game just assumes you know, the same way it assumes you know when someone is using a psionic or SLA ability. That is how fighters can ready actions. Does it make sense from a realistic point of view, no, but it allows melee types to have a chance to shut casters down. It is one of those rules that is there for balance, kind of life Improved Critical and Keen not stacking even though one is magical affect, and the other is natural ability, and by logic they would stack.
Exactly. On a side note, Keen + Improved Critical wasn't unbalanced in 3.0, but was a stealth nerf against Vorpal which functioned on a critical hit in 3.0, but vorpal was changed anyway so it became an over-nerf. Sean K. Reynolds has a rather detailed explanation, on his blog, for why Keen + Improved Critical should stack.
Random trivia. ;)
Could be? Swarm damage IS continuous damage. How else would you describe it?
Cast defensively 15 + double spell level
Injured while casting 10 + damage dealt + spell level
Continuous damage while casting 10 + 1/2 damage dealt + spell level
Affected by a non-damaging spell DC of the spell while casting + spell level
Grappled or pinned while casting 10 + grappler’s CMB + spell level
Vigorous motion while casting 10 + spell level
Violent motion while casting 15 + spell level
Extremely violent motion while casting 20 + spell level
Wind with rain or sleet while casting 5 + spell level
Wind with hail and debris while casting 10 + spell level
Weather caused by spell see spell
Entangled while casting 15 + spell levelThere's the list
As to swarms, the swarm damage is the swarm's attack. It is not continuous in the sense that acid arrow is, and instead is dealt to creatures whose space they occupy at the end of their move; so a wizard that begins his turn in a swarm and casts before end of the swarm's turn suffers no concentration check, but if the wizard was casting a 1 round spell, and then the swarm dives on him and ends its turn, then the wizard must make a check vs. the damage (that he now takes).I was talking about round-to-round damage from the same source. Wizard takes damage from swarm, then cast spell as per the concentration rules on that first round and then (maybe, I did say maybe) on the following rounds if he stays in the swarm in could be considered continuous damage, as in round-to-round damage from the same source since swarms operate a little differently from other monsters. More of a suggestion, that's it.
So then if you take 15 damage while in a hail storm when casting you would need to make a concentration check of 10 + 10 (for hail?) + 15 (for damage) + spell level? = 35 + spell level?
|
|
So then if you take 15 damage while in a hail storm when casting you would need to make a concentration check of 10 + 10 (for hail?) + 15 (for damage) + spell level? = 35 + spell level?
Sure, why not?
Did I tell you I hate casters? No really - from a 2nd ed background Concentration checks come off as a very nice gimmie to all casters, so my sympathy is a bit short.
Actually, I could see a DM separating out a distraction (rain, etc) vs. actual damage into two smaller checks since they are two different types of distractions (damage and weather effect).