As was brought up in this thread (about Defensive Casting), the idea was thrown out to completely do away with the Concentration skill, rolling almost all of its function into Spellcraft. This saves skill points for casting character, particularly the skill-starved clerics. But what I'm curious about is possible pitfalls/downsides/complications that might result from this. Of course, certain PrC prerequisites would have to be changed, but that's such a simple task a jellyfish would likely be able to accomplish it. Really, it seems like it would be as simple as replacing the word "Concentration" with "Spellcraft" anywhere it appears, and the game would function just fine. Combat Casting may become even more useless, but it's not really a hot item on many feat shopping lists anyway.
I think I'd really like to implement this as a house rule. Unless, of course, someone can find a glaring problem which I'm overlooking. Discuss! :)
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I like the idea, and I've got one for you in return:
You mentioned Combat Casting and how it would become less popular because of this skill change. Well, what if you changed it thusly:
Combat Casting
Prerequisite: Caster level 1st, Spellcraft 4 ranks
Benefit: You no longer provoke attacks of opportunity for casting while threatened (you automatically succeed on Spellcraft checks to cast defensively). If an opponent has a feat or ability that removes your ability to cast defensively, you retain that ability but must still make the appropriate Spellcraft check while threatened by that foe.
Pitfalls of Rolling Concentration into Spellcraft:
* Yet Another House Rule, but it's not like a slew of those don't exist anyway.
* It's possible freeing up those skill points would make it even easier for some prestige classes to be obtained, though whether this is a problem or not is entirely subjective.
* Someone's going to complain, and think it's broken. ;)
In all seriousness, *I* can't think of too many actual downsides, let alone anything significant. Kill the Skill, I say.
Aside to FS: I'm actually in favor of removing the AoO for casting a spell as a function of BAB; hit +2 BAB, and you no longer provoke AoO unless someone has an ability that affects your ability to cast defensively. But that's another topic altogether.
Edit: Edited for clarity severely lacking earlier.
* Someone's going to complain, and think it's broken. ;)
And here I am. ^ ^
Though I usually don't play casters ( I seem to end up facing them alot however ), I think that the concentration check does have a purpose.
If there was a list of actions a PC could take that would provoke an Aoo, I think that casting a spell would be #1. Seriously. It's not like you're just pointing at something and saying "die." (usually) You may have to focus on an item, loudly speak the proper words, perform the somatic hand gestures, fiddle with components, pray to your god(s), or some combination of them all.
And doing all this while someone is standing there with a sword already bloodied from him gutting your friend? I don't think this should be something anyone with a mere +2 bab should be able to accomplish. I'd for sure as heck have to concentrate, no question there.
Besides, there are enough ways to enhance spells via metamagic. Doesn't at least one of them negate AoO's? I don't know those feats very well, but I would think so.
Aside from this, as I traditionally play an archer, I'd feel left out. Why can the old geezer Merlin (who probably just came out of his tower library for the first time in 5 years) blast someone without repercussion while I, actually being used to/trained for combat, get ganked whenevery I fire off an arrow?
I just made my first druid PC not too long ago, and actually invested his skills into concentration. I did this because he is used to being attacked because of what he is, so I show this in him being able to concentrate. Are all other casters just too good for this or are their skill points THAT precious?
Are you going to house-rule that an archer with a +2 BAB can attack without provoking attacks? If so, then I don't see a problem; but if it's only for casters, there's a slight balance issue.
-Kurocyn
As was brought up in this thread (about Defensive Casting), the idea was thrown out to completely do away with the Concentration skill, rolling almost all of its function into Spellcraft. This saves skill points for casting character, particularly the skill-starved clerics. But what I'm curious about is possible pitfalls/downsides/complications that might result from this. Of course, certain PrC prerequisites would have to be changed, but that's such a simple task a jellyfish would likely be able to accomplish it. Really, it seems like it would be as simple as replacing the word "Concentration" with "Spellcraft" anywhere it appears, and the game would function just fine. Combat Casting may become even more useless, but it's not really a hot item on many feat shopping lists anyway.
I can't think of any reason why this is a horrible idea. I do think that if you're going to house rule defensive casting into Spellcraft, you might as well go the extra yard and change the DC formula to something more consistent. (Aren't you growing to love that word 'consistent', it's as if I get paid every time I use it? ;) Like I said in the other thread, DC X + (double spell level) would be consistent. You like the DC to be low, so X could be 10 or even 5. If you decide on 10, casters might even take Combat Casting every once in a while and keep it, just to be 100% sure of casting defensively. Unlike the RAW situation, where sometimes a caster will take the feat at 1st level but then retrain it away later on, or grow to bemoan the waste of a feat.
* Someone's going to complain, and think it's broken. ;)
I do, but you already knew I would say that :)
Actually, what really bothers me about this rule is its lack of consistency...you know, I do really love that word. +2 BAB is just so...needlessly arbitrary. I would be much more comfortable with a house rule that said 'Casters don't threaten AoOs for casting spells while threatened, unless an opponent is specifically trained to do so.'
And here I am. ^ ^
Okay, so yeah. My whole post was way unclear so I'll take the bad for that. As you can see, my 'Pitfalls' section was /intended/ to be in response to rolling Concentration into Spellcraft, which I am all in favor of. And yes, I think those skill points are precious enough that it would be a Very Good Thing, and add to the overall enjoyment of the game.
Now, again as an aside: Yes, I'd rule that much in favor of Archers too. If a spellcaster can cast a spell without provoking AoO, then archers should be able to as well. I'd say more, but I don't want to threadjack more than I have already.
I think that the concentration check does have a purpose.
So do I. Only not a Concentration check, a Spellcraft check. I'm not in favor of removing the AoO for casting spells in melee; I just want to change the skill used.
Further thoughts of the implications of this change: Uhm... clerics might actually have Diplomacy for once? The Skill Focus (spellcraft) prerequisite for the Archmage PrC is more attractive? No more wondering why on earth monks have nothing to do with Concentration while any spellcaster has everything to do with it?
Just as an aside: Everyone realizes that Concentration is the only Constitution-based skill, right? That seems pertinent and significant to this discussion somehow, but I can't place my finger on it. Maybe not. Ooo, maybe it would be more consistent overall just to remove it. :) (Due I owe you royalties now, Tequila?)
One thing to throw in as I wriggle my way to work:
Concentration checks apply whenever you take damage taking an action that provokes an attack of opportunity. I swear beyond beleif I've seen this in the PHB. If not, disregard me as being completely brain-fried this morning.
Movement attacks of opp dont count, but think about the others. Reloading a crossbow, picking a lock, tying a knot.
At the very least, it makes sense to me that picking a lock could require concentration checks.
The skill is not limited only to casters, just heavily tilted in their direction.
Just as an aside: Everyone realizes that Concentration is the only Constitution-based skill, right? That seems pertinent and significant to this discussion somehow, but I can't place my finger on it. Maybe not. Ooo, maybe it would be more consistent overall just to remove it. :) (Due I owe you royalties now, Tequila?)
Yeah, some would say that Concentration is what makes Constitution important to casters but in my experience Con is plenty important by virtue of granting extra HP. If you wanted, you could make the concentration action modified by Con rather than the umbrella Int for Spellcraft. Or Wis, or whichever casting stat the caster uses.
Dam, I knew I should have had that word trademarked last week!
Concentration checks apply whenever you take damage taking an action that provokes an attack of opportunity. I swear beyond beleif I've seen this in the PHB. If not, disregard me as being completely brain-fried this morning.
You're right; a caster must make a concentration check if hit while in the process of casting. I think it's also safe to assume that a similar check should be made for other delicate actions. With this house rule, I think it would be safe to just make a 'concentration skill check' if a character is dealt damage in process of using said skill. For example, a rogue is picking a lock when he is surprise attacked by another rogue. Instead of a concentration check, he makes a new Open Lock check to avoid instant failure.
well, it really seems to depend on how important casting a spell in melee is in your game. I would think that it would be the normal reaction for everybody in melee to turn and concentrate on the caster as he has the most potential to affect the battles outcome; thus, I think that it should be fairly difficult to cast in melee. Any change from this ideal to make casting a done deal regardless of the circumstance would really change game balance and weaken the melee classes even more than they are now. Sure, a gm could compensate for this is other ways and game balance is certainly a game by game issue, but the issue seems to really focus on the place of magic in your game. If magic is run of the mill and used by everyone and everybody has lots of magic defenses and everybody has some, then not having concentration checks might not matter at all; if magic is rare, special and powerful in your game, then both players and npc creatures will be much more focused on casters and a concentration check to cast would exemplify their fear and hostility to casters. Rather than "I can't concentrate" the game atm seems to be "I dont have to concentrate".
|
I call for concentration checks whenever PCs have to undertake a sensitive task under pressure, or otherwise need to maintain focus on something. Rolling it into spellcraft would leave psions and monks and other classes without a key skill.
I don't think it would break the game to let casters make spellcraft checks to cast spells while threatened, but I would not get rid of the Concentration skill. It would create a problematic gap in the skill system.
Player: "I'm going to focus my mind on this pictographic door puzzle and try to solve it before the chamber fills with water; it's already up to my chest! What should I roll?"
DM: "Uh, spellcraft?"
In my experience, I've never seen anyone roll a concentration check for anything not related to directly casting a spell.
In my opinion, Concentration is an entirely expendable skill.
hmm; seems like melee types should take spellcraft to detect a spell as dangerous to them to increase the dc of the concentration check of a caster; hmm, something else to consider I guess, good for one should be good for the other as a counter.
hmm, I dont understand; could you give a few details on why it is expendible as it seems directly related to defensively casting...
In my experience, I've never seen anyone roll a concentration check for anything not related to directly casting a spell.
In my opinion, Concentration is an entirely expendable skill.
I call for concentration checks whenever PCs have to undertake a sensitive task under pressure, or otherwise need to maintain focus on something. Rolling it into spellcraft would leave psions and monks and other classes without a key skill.
I don't think it would break the game to let casters make spellcraft checks to cast spells while threatened, but I would not get rid of the Concentration skill. It would create a problematic gap in the skill system.
Player: "I'm going to focus my mind on this pictographic door puzzle and try to solve it before the chamber fills with water; it's already up to my chest! What should I roll?"
DM: "Uh, spellcraft?"
Psions would simply roll it into Psicraft (their version of Spellcraft). I don't consider it a 'key skill' for monks because they don't actually have anything dependant on a Concentration roll.
Monks don't actually /do/ anything that requires a concentration check, so I don't consider it a 'key skill' for them. It's certainly flavor, but has no actual function for any of their abilities.
Concentration /does/ in fact apply to any use of skill that requires focus under conditions where they might be distracted. Skills such as open lock, disable device, heal, etc... However, it's easy to simply roll those functions into the skill itself; just require an additional skill check each time the character suffers the distraction.
Also, I don't envision Concentration as a 'solve the puzzle' kind of skill. Some sort of knowledge check, or even a raw Intelligence check, would seem more appropriate to me.
hmm, I dont understand; could you give a few details on why it is expendible as it seems directly related to defensively casting...
It's expendible in the sense that a separate skill seems superfluous. The function of the Concentration checks can simply be rolled into the skills that apply (Spellcraft for spells and spell like abilities, psicraft for psionic and psi-like powers, open locks, disable device, heal, etc... as appropriate).
Now, on the one hand, having the concentration skill allowed the game designers to describe this very basic function for such skill checks in one central place, rather than reprinting the information in the various skill descriptions. However, they could have easily done it by making a 'Using Skills While Distracted' section, or somesuch, without actually creating a skill that has the sole purpose of using other skills and abilities in touchy circumstances.
My spellcaster characters just down a bottle of Guayaki Yerba Mate before combat begins and they have NO problem with those Concentration checks, er-herrrm!
My spellcaster characters just down a bottle of Guayaki Yerba Mate before combat begins and they have NO problem with those Concentration checks, er-herrrm!
Huh? O_o;
|
|
Maybe it's just because my players have psionic characters with access to abilities that use Concentration, but every game session sees the skill used more than once, and it rarely has anything to do with spellcasting. Autohypnosis comes into play a lot when they're trying to memorize details of things they see/read, and they make frequent use of psionic focus in combat.
Yes, you could roll the functions of Concentraion into other skills, as you suggest. In my opinion, though, you do so at the risk of overinflating the value of those skills relative to other skills. Spellcraft is already a key skill for spellcasters, with a variety of beneficial uses in the game. If you add the benefits of Concentration into Spellcraft, it becomes more than just a logical choice for spellcasters--it essentially becomes a required skill for the success of any caster.
Think of it this way: with the rules as they are, you can make a 'rough-and-tumble' sorcerer that is not well versed in the proper techniques of spellcasting and couldn't necessarily tell you what spell that evil wizard is casting, but can still react defly in combat and unleash her own spells reliably, even when a half-troll is trying to take her head off with a greataxe. (low spellcraft, high concentration.) Or you can make a scholarly academic who can identify even the rarest of spells as they're being cast, but loses his nerve and risks fumbling the simplest incantations any time a goblin gets within spitting distance. (high spellcraft, low concentration)
Merge those skills, and these characters can't exist according to the rules you're using. One who knows a lot about magic automatically gains the ability to cast reliably while getting punched in the face or grappled by a foe, and anyone who can stay cool enough to cast a spell while dodging an attack automatically knows what material components are needed for rare magical rituals.
Sorry, I don't like that combination at all. To my mind, Concentration and Spellcraft do two fundamentally different things: Spellcraft reflects a character's theoretical knowledge of the elements of magic, while Concentration represents his ability to focus his attention to use magic in a pinch.
There is a skill merge I would do, but it's not that one. Instead, I would retire Spellcraft in favour of Knowledge(arcana).
yeah; I dont like it either; but Xellians idea of concentration perhaps to affect the dc of other skills, if that is what he is getting at; seems a good idea; I also require concentration checks as a modifier to some skills already; like balance for instance, during very stressful occassions; usually only modifying by +2 or something small like that; one of the centering issues of concentration is that is does seem useless because the pc's mages always easily make the roll; this indicates that the dc of off target.
Well, I have three more days to try to codify something so that I can begin play testing it. Thanks for the continuing input.
|
|
Time to weigh in...
The main problem with concentration is that the price of failure is too high. If you flub the check, you lose the spell and the action and provoke an attack of opportunity. As a result, no caster wans to take that risk.
On the other hand, concentration does nothing else really. You don't concentrate to climb a wall while being shot at, you have a higher climb DC. You don't concentrate to fight effectively when you are surrounded, your opponent gets a flank bonus.
So, if you let spellcraft represent the knowledge a caster has of magical techniques, including verbal, somantic, and material components along with spell lore in general, and recognizing written forms. It sin't too much of a stretch to say that having a good awareness of proper techniques may be reflected in the casters ability to avoid an AoO.
Furthermore, the skill-barren classes (clerics and sorcerers) will be substantially benefited by having the skills rolled together, letting them concentrate (tee hee) on other skills.
Personally, I would advocate a opposed roll for the spellcraft check. Similar to using a feint in combat. Caster rolls d20 + spellcraft - spell level, vs attackers d20 + spellcraft + BAB. Now I know using spellcraft for the attacker isn't ideal for fighters, but they also get way better BAB than wizards, so it sort of balances. More over, it makes sense as the fighter's ability to read the casters actions is what gives him the chance to attack.
AS for psionics, I would spilt the activate when distracted ability into psicraft, and the enter psionic focus ability into autohypnosis.
Just my read.
The main problem with concentration is that the price of failure is too high. If you flub the check, you lose the spell and the action and provoke an attack of opportunity. As a result, no caster wans to take that risk.
Actually, IIRC, they just lose the spell. They don't suffer and AoO, regardless of the result of the Concentration check.
Personally, I would advocate a opposed roll for the spellcraft check. Similar to using a feint in combat. Caster rolls d20 + spellcraft - spell level, vs attackers d20 + spellcraft + BAB.
In general, adding extra rolls to combat is a bad idea - each roll slows the game down. And you've added at least two rolls here, one Spellcraft roll from each opposing combatant, plus a potential AoO from each opponent. That could really drag the game.
Additionally, Spellcraft cannot be used untrained, so you'd need to make an exception to that as well, which is a bit messy.
AS for psionics, I would spilt the activate when distracted ability into psicraft, and the enter psionic focus ability into autohypnosis.
Actually, for Psionics I go in the opposite direction again:
Autohypnosis should be rolled into Concentration.
Knowledge(psionics) should be rolled into Knowledge(arcana), which may then need to be renamed. File this under the Magic/Psionics transparency.
Psicraft should be rolled into Spellcraft. Both of these should then be rolled into Knowledge(arcana), as I advocated above. And, again, file this under the Magic/Psionics transparency.
Use Psionic Device should be rolled into Use Magic Device. Again, Magic/Psionics transparency.
Frankly, I'm at a loss as to why these last three were called out as separate skills at all. They absolutely should not have been.
So far, I'm seeing most of the opponents of the theory standing on personal taste of the issue (which is fine). No one has really pointed out any significant mechanical/statistical problem with the idea. In fact, the biggest change in that area seems to be that clerics and sorcerers might actually get to use a few skills that, under the current rules, are highly unlikely. Even those opposed don't seem to be commenting on this issue, which leads me to believe that virtually no one thinks it's a bad idea (correct me if I'm wrong).
As an aside, Constitution doesn't strike me as the proper key ability for Concentration anyway. Wisdom does. It seems to me that you should have the proper focus, mindset, and perspective to maintain a spell or continue performing another task when under pressure. All that says Wisdom to me, not Constitution. But maybe that's just personal taste rearing its head again. At any rate, it matters little since I plan on dissolving the skill entirely. However, one could also change the key stat.
Or, one could make it a flat, untrained Wisdom check, versus a DC of maybe 10 + spell level. Combat Casting's +4 bonus on this check would be huge, and a very real benefit at any level. Clerics and druids are now the best at maintaining spells in combat, but hey, that makes sense given that they are melee combatants at least to some degree. Plus, it would hardly be a guaranteed prospect, just due to the nature of untrained ability checks (at 20th level, a cleric caster would likely have a +6 to +8, versus a DC of 19 for his biggest spells). That's for defensive casting, though. Trying to hold a spell while taking damage would become almost impossible unless a fairly large change to the formula was implemented. And, of course, this too requires dissolution of the Concentration skill.
well, i am trying to come up with a unified formula taking bits and pieces from what peeps have posted plus my own ideas.
|
|
Some statistics:
The current DC of casting defensively = 15 + S (where s = spell level)
The current skill total for concentration for the typical caster is:
1 (assuming a 12 constitution) + 3 + L (current level) = 4 + L
this ignores skill focus (concentration) and combat casting feats.
the highest level spell a caster can use is typically (L+1)/2, slightly worse for sorcerers
tossing that into the above, you get 15 + (L+1)/2 - (4 + L) = roll required.
this simplifies to 11 - L/2 = roll required
so a first level caster, with no concentration feats needs a 11+ to cast defensively
(15 + 1 - 4 ranks - 1 from con = 11)
While a level 18 wizard needs a 2+
(15 + 9 (spell level) - 21 (ranks) - 1 (con) = 2)
If you want success rate in percentages it is (10 + L/2) x 5% ranging from 50% to 95%
Again, like I said earlier, no one in their right mind will short concentration because failing a skill roll is too critical. Losing a spell (probably one of your few highest level spells), the action, and taking an AoO all at once hurts more than say, failing to pick a lock and having to try again. So, it stands to reason that the above formula will remain consistent.
Also the above formula shows that combat casting, skill focus concentration, et al, are a giant waste of precious feats because at high level, you don't need them at all to nearly guarantee success. Sure at low level it is critical.
So anyway, if you change the curve to 15 + 2 x S, you end up with a constant 12+ for highest level spell. Which is more consistent. You can tweak the 15 to get a number you like as the consistent target.
But anyway, none of this changes by rolling concentration into spellcraft.
In fact, the biggest change in that area seems to be that clerics and sorcerers might actually get to use a few skills that, under the current rules, are highly unlikely. Even those opposed don't seem to be commenting on this issue, which leads me to believe that virtually no one thinks it's a bad idea (correct me if I'm wrong).
Yeah, it's no issue with me.
As an aside, Constitution doesn't strike me as the proper key ability for Concentration anyway. Wisdom does.That has always been my way of thinking, also. Rolling Concentration into Spellcraft, I'm torn between making the concentration action Int-based (for simplicity) and making it Wis-based (for realism).
Or, one could make it a flat, untrained Wisdom check, versus a DC of maybe 10 + spell level.
I really, really don't like this idea. Casting defensively would become one of the most uncontrolled and risky actions in the game. A Wis-based caster might be able to maintain their defensive casting chance over 20 levels, but any other caster would be screwed regardless of Combat Casting.
Again, my suggestion would be to make one simple modification to the RAW formula: DC = your preferred base + (double spell level).
|
|
In fact, the biggest change in that area seems to be that clerics and sorcerers might actually get to use a few skills that, under the current rules, are highly unlikely. Even those opposed don't seem to be commenting on this issue, which leads me to believe that virtually no one thinks it's a bad idea (correct me if I'm wrong).
True. My solution to that would be to give those classes more skill points/level, rather than fewer useful skills to spend them on.
well, i am thinking something like:
dc= 10 - stat and concentration bonus + spell level(*) +/- situational modifiers
situational things:
races over medium size -1 to dc per size level
races under medium size +1 per size level
+ number of combatants in provoke range
+/- magical aptitude of creature; ie; non magical creatures would get something like a -2 or so as they are not as informed and a magical creature would get a bonus to dc and even more if a spell caster or if they have inate spells. I dont think this should ever be more than +/-5 and should not be used if creature has spellcraft skill. Additional bonus for elites or leader types.
casting at provoke target +1
casting in provoke range at opponent of provoke target; ie a heal on your buddy +1
*provoke target recognises spell being cast; +1 per level of the spell; this could require a spellcraft check; caster doing spellcraft to add confounding motions, speach, whatever; vs opponent spellcraft to recognise the spell. If caster wins he can disguise the spell to make it appear as a lower level by -1 dc per 5 points that they win by.
so; a 7th level cleric casting a 4th level spell in provoke range would have a concentration check of x assuming a +8 spellcraft and stat bonus; lets say this cleric is casting 4th level heal from previous example:
3 goblins,
10-8+4*+1+3+1 (gobbies know about casters)+1 (spellcraft roll made by 7 so -1 spell level
so; they need a 10; or fail 50%, gobbies pretty afraid of casters
3 trolls,
10-8+4-1+1(doubt 3 trolls in provoke range due to size) +1 (trolls know about magic casters) -1 (same spellcraft roll)
so; cleric needs a 5; or fail 25% of the time; trolls dont care much.
I think this is pretty reasonable; casters shouldnt really cast in melee anyhow; if a party is really concerned they might use some kind of bluff skill to draw provoke off caster; lots of stuff could happen; but the math seems a bit better; the example used is very much the one from my game whereas the caster only had to roll a 4 in both situations under the current rules and I am sure they would quite often make the spellcraft roll modifier be more than +1 and more like +3.
I think this is pretty reasonable; casters shouldnt really cast in melee anyhow; if a party is really concerned they might use some kind of bluff skill to draw provoke off caster; lots of stuff could happen; but the math seems a bit better; the example used is very much the one from my game whereas the caster only had...
That's a whole lot of math just to cast defensively. Maybe your group likes a lot of math, but most gamers I've played with would balk at that much calculation.
Again, like I said earlier, no one in their right mind will short concentration because failing a skill roll is too critical. Losing a spell (probably one of your few highest level spells), the action, and taking an AoO all at once...
Again, if you blow the Concentration roll to cast defensively, you only lose the spell. You do not suffer and Attack of Opportunity as well.
|
|
Again, like I said earlier, no one in their right mind will short concentration because failing a skill roll is too critical. Losing a spell (probably one of your few highest level spells), the action, and taking an AoO all at once...Again, if you blow the Concentration roll to cast defensively, you only lose the spell. You do not suffer and Attack of Opportunity as well.
Sorry, that isn't the way I have ever read the rule.
If you want to cast without provoking an AoO you must make a concentration check DC 15+spell level.
I have always read that as if you fail, you still provoke an AoO.
In addition, you lose the spell.
well, mages are supposed to be smart; I find people who try to play casters and cant do simple math are usually the ones that hold up the game all the time because they dont know their spells either; sigh, sometimes I think I am just going to throw out all the attack of oppurtunity stuff right out the window as it complecates the game more than enhances it and we played fine without that stuff for years.