Petty Alchemy RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16 |
Captain Xenon |
well, you dont need to be in melee to cast it- you can keep it ready a few rounds as needed. and if you are in melee, you only need to make a concentration check to avoid the AoO.
really, you would just be removing one d20 roll. this would reduce the utility of the defensive casting feat. not too serious, but it has two important issues- enemy casters will have an easier time slapping the fighters with spells (like cause serious wounds from the evil clerics), and PC wizards will avoid potentially wasting a spell to do the same to enemies making them even better than non-casters.
really, this house rule sounds like its equivalent to a feat. not serious, but worth a small amount of finite resources.
Hrothgar Rannúlfr |
Thanks for the input, everyone.
I like the idea of having it be a feat, instead of a general rule change, Captain Xenon.
Here is what I'm thinking:
Melee Caster
Prerequisite: Combat Casting
You are adept at casting melee attack spells when threatened.
Benefit: You get do not need to make concentration checks when casting or using a melee attack spell or spell-like ability on the defensive or while grappled.
Questions/Comments/Thoughts/Suggestions?
ryric RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32 |
Is cure light wounds a melee attack spell under this rule? It can be used to damage undead. It has a touch range. Is it somehow only exempt when using it to damage undead?
Adding in grappled makes this a lot more powerful, as concentration checks for being grappled can get into the 40-50 range.
I'd also probably only allow the feat to add another +4 to casting defensively when threatened by someone with the Disruptive feat.
Hrothgar Rannúlfr |
ryric,
I'd classify cure light wounds as an attack only if it is used to harm an opponent. So, if you cast cure light wounds on an ally, it's not an attack. But, if you cast it on a skeleton, it's a melee attack spell.
Thanks for the input about grapple and the disruptive feat. If I were to implement this feat as written, it would trump disruptive and wouldn't just add a +4 bonus to the check for casting defensively.
That said, I now think the proposed feat is not good, as written. It's too good (because of it's negating grapple and the disruptive feat, entirely).
Marthkus,
I agree the feat isn't needed. I do, however like your proposal that it allows the caster to take 10 on concentration checks.
Not sure what direction I'll take on this, if any.