I wouldn't mind getting rid of casting defensively altogether (although that wouldn't really be backward-compatible).
|
I agree.
Right now I'm playing in a high level 3.5 game, and it's only going to get higher. Casting defensively at this point is ridiculous. There's no real point in making a roll. Our DM has told us that when we hit epic levels, he's changing the rules for casting defensively(we have 3 or 4 casters in our party), so that it's more (reasonably) difficult.
I don't believe casting defensively has changed in 3.P, but I certainly hope it does. Taking into account highly skilled warriors, multiple threats, and the like, to increase the DC would be great. Perhaps making it a contested roll of some sort? Maybe change it like the Ride skill, what you roll is your AC for the AoO they're going to get when you cast a spell in their threatened area.
Just a thought
Which means since attack rolls scale much faster than skills without getting into boosting items... auto hit. Rather pointless.
Which means since attack rolls scale much faster than skills without getting into boosting items... auto hit. Rather pointless.
Well, you could always take Skill Focus (Spellcraft) and Combat Casting for a +10 bonus. But as I said above, I don't have a problem with getting rid of defensive casting; I never thought that was one of 3e's greatest innovations.
|
|
Which means since attack rolls scale much faster than skills without getting into boosting items... auto hit. Rather pointless.
Thank you for telling me my idea was pointless..
I saw a problem, I presented an idea. Do you have anything constructive to contribute to this thread, or am I going to end up trying to come up with different ideas after you tell me they're all pointless?Had you continued your post with an alternate solution, or say that you think it's fine the way it is, I probably wouldn't have minded it.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Which means since attack rolls scale much faster than skills without getting into boosting items... auto hit. Rather pointless.Well, you could always take Skill Focus (Spellcraft) and Combat Casting for a +10 bonus. But as I said above, I don't have a problem with getting rid of defensive casting; I never thought that was one of 3e's greatest innovations.
Really? I enjoyed the concept (that getting right next to the bad guy and trying to cast is a great way to get one's arms chopped off).
By the time you hit 9+ level, most wizards/sorcerers should have a button that says "If you can read this, I'm too close." So I'd not mind seeing casting defensively being more difficult. Might make the fighter more 'equal' at high levels.
"I'm going to turn you into a pig." *poke* "Arrrgh! Stop poking me with that sword!"
|
I don't have a problem with getting rid of defensive casting; I never thought that was one of 3e's greatest innovations.
Really? I enjoyed the concept (that getting right next to the bad guy and trying to cast is a great way to get one's arms chopped off).
I believe he agrees with you; wizards shouldn't be allowing themselves to get into that situation, but the defensive casting rules made casting during melee too easy.
I grew up with 1st and 2nd Edition, where spells took time to cast. Wizard spells were faster than clerical spells, and higher level spells tended to be faster than lower level (with obvious exceptions, such as teleport).
Even a 1st-level cleric spell could keep the caster busy through half the round, instead of instantaneously 'poofing' into play at one point in that round.
And if you were interrupted at any point of the procedure, and took so much as 1hp damage, you lost the spell, no save, no skill check.
So it's easy to see why there's a feeling that 'OMG Casters totally pwn Fighters!!1!!1!!!!1!!!', since the introduction of that one simple get-out clause (a skill check at DC-"Pfeh, whatever") was a major increase of power for the casting classes.
|
|
And in answer to the OP; there is a precedent in the Tumble skill, that the DC increases by 2 for every extra creature threatening the user's square.
That's simple to remember, easy to justify, and meshes with the many other rules for circumstantial bonuses (Flanking, DM's Best Friend rule, masterwork item, etc).
Each threatening creature is effectively performing an automatic Aid Another action to make it easier for their allies to mess up your casting (ie raising the caster's Conc DC).
|
|
Off the top of my head, would a DC along the lines of 10 + highest attack bonus you're threatened by work?
Hmm.. that's an interesting idea. Without doing any math, it seems feasible, i can see how it could suck at higher levels though lol.
As for the Spellcraft as Ride idea, let's assume Wizard, with a 16 Int, not modified by magic:
1st level Spellcraft +7
5th +11
10th +17
15th +22
20th +28
A warrior class (anything with full BAB) with 16 STR, not modified by magic:
1st level Attack Bonus +4
5th +8
10th +14
15th +19
20th +25
With Stat enhancing items (+6 primary stat), at 20th level it'd be the Wizards +31 vs the Warriors +28
Skill focus and Combat casting give the Wizard +38 total
Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus and a +5 weapon give the Warrior +35
Give them both the appropriate +5 book for Wiz +41 vs War +38
The Wizard would be slightly ahead by +3 points, which doesn't seem all that bad. Of course, if you're playing a spellcaster with a -8 Int, you'd be evenly matched, assuming you made the same stat boosting choices as the wizard. Assuming you didn't put your extra stat points (4th, 8th, etc) in int, you'd have Caster + 38 vs Warrior +38.
All in all, to me, it seems sound.
|
|
And in answer to the OP; there is a precedent in the Tumble skill, that the DC increases by 2 for every extra creature threatening the user's square.
That's simple to remember, easy to justify, and meshes with the many other rules for circumstantial bonuses (Flanking, DM's Best Friend rule, masterwork item, etc).
Each threatening creature is effectively performing an automatic Aid Another action to make it easier for their allies to mess up your casting (ie raising the caster's Conc DC).
Even after I went through all of my last post, I find that i like that idea a lot.
Well let's see... cast defensively with your AC vs the AoO = the skill result. Attacks scale faster, fighter hits on a 2. 95% to hit and if defensive casting fails you lose the spell.
Compare to casting normally, getting AoOed on a 2, and at least having a chance vs the 10 + damage check. Therefore, (casting defensively becomes) rather pointless. I thought the context made that clear.
To everyone else: This is a clarification to the person who thought that was an attack. My attacks are not veiled, and are justified. Neither criteria is met here, ergo no attack.
|
|
Well let's see... cast defensively with your AC vs the AoO = the skill result. Attacks scale faster, fighter hits on a 2. 95% to hit and if defensive casting fails you lose the spell.
I may be reading that wrong.. What i proposed essentially ends up being the Casters Spellcraft check vs the Warriors Attack..
Whatever the caster rolls for his spellcraft check, would determine what his AC is for purposes of casting the spell in the warriors threatened square. For example: using 5th level characters from my previous post, the wizard has a spellcraft bonus of 11. The warrior has an attack bonus of 8. If the wizard rolls a 10, that's an effective AC of 21. The Warrior would have to roll a 13 to hit, and possibly disrupt, the wizard. Seems reasonable to me.Im honestly interested in hearing other ideas. What do you propose? So far we have my idea, and the tumble-like idea.
Why would you assume he only has an attack bonus of 8? 5 BAB, + whatever from strength, + whatever from his weapon, + whatever from anything else. It's a lot more than 8. Skills scale by ranks and stat. That's it. To hit scales by more. End result is he still gets AoOed, still gets hit on a 2, and might as well have not even cast defensively at all. At which point you could just say all Fighters get Mage Slayer at level x.
|
|
Even +1 per extra might be O.K; as Jason said previously,
...in a high level 3.5 game, and it's only going to get higher. Casting defensively at this point is ridiculous.(emphasis mine) There's no real point in making a roll....
This could de-evolve into a debate about who should be more powerful, fighters or wizards, but to be surrounded and still get off a spell should be a little harder than "I roll the dice and win".
|
|
Even +1 per extra might be O.K; as Jason said previously,
...in a high level 3.5 game, and it's only going to get higher. Casting defensively at this point is ridiculous.(emphasis mine) There's no real point in making a roll....This could de-evolve into a debate about who should be more powerful, fighters or wizards, but to be surrounded and still get off a spell should be a little harder than "I roll the dice and win".
Ja, at this point, there's no reason for me to roll anything to see if i successfully cast defensively. We just leveled up to 17, i have 9th level spells, and my Concentration check is high enough to automatically succeed casting a 9th level spell defensively. Even if there were modifiers taking into account multiple threatened enemies, i think i'd be happy.
I agree that the current Concentration/ Combat Casting mechanic is absurd, requiring only an easy, non-scaling DC to completely shrug off the "interrupt" aspect of taking damage - which is the one ability melee classes have to counter casters... As well, ignoring all non-DoT damage except on the exact initiative count your spell goes off is equally absurd.
Possible Change to Concentration itself:
Damage before the exact initiative tick should still make a difference. How about this: damage inflicted before the exact initiative tick ONLY COUNTS FOR HALF (the same as DoT damage!)
Possible Changes to Combat Casting
Getting rid of the specific (non-scaling) Combat Casting DC to not provoke an AoO, there could be a mechanism similar to Power Attack, whereby for every initiative count they delay, a caster could boost their Concentration check by one (they can't reduce initiative below 0). This gives them a real penalty, of course, because they're lowering their initiative count, and only gaining an advantage for one round.
There could be an additional "Improved Combat Casting" Feat (maybe Skill Focus:Spellcraft->Imp. Combat Casting), that makes ALL damage only count for half, (i.e. the same as DoTs and damage occurying before initiative, per the new Concentration above). It would also allow each initiative count delay to count for *2* points of Concentration bonus, again, ala Power Attack. EDIT:
...Thoughts?
I can't think of anything that would actually work. After all, even if the DC were 60 or something stupid, melee guy has to be threatening to even try to disrupt. Have fun with that. 5' step alone means non reach auto fails. Reach weapons that don't threaten adjacent means he could 5' step in and actually be safe. Or out, either way. So that just leaves... spiked chains. Sound familiar?
|
|
I think the skill of the threatening creature should be taken into account. Something like 10 + spell level + BAB of the opponent (or even total BAB of all opponents). That would mean a DC 39 for a 9th level spell at 20th level against a 20th level warrior. For most casters that would require a roll of around 10 to succeed, which seems more reasonable.
|
|
I can't think of anything that would actually work. After all, even if the DC were 60 or something stupid, melee guy has to be threatening to even try to disrupt. Have fun with that. 5' step alone means non reach auto fails. Reach weapons that don't threaten adjacent means he could 5' step in and actually be safe. Or out, either way. So that just leaves... spiked chains. Sound familiar?
Which means you aren't discussing Casting Defensively, you are arguing about ranged/melee combat.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
What if we look at this in an entirely different way. Instead of casting defensively needing a roll, what if it automatically works, but has a cost?
Any combination of these could be costs:
1) Casting time increases to 1 full round action instead of a standard action
2) You cannot take a 5' step that round
3) Your caster level is reduced by 1 (since you're not concentrating on the spell as much - this would make the option unavailable as a 1st level caster)
I'm sure there's other options to consider for a cost of casting defensively, this is simply off the top of my head.
If a method like this were adopted, two things would happen. First, the debate on should concentration be a separate skill again, or checks for it be based on casting stat instead of intelligence would go away. Second, the combat casting feat could be meaningful (instead of inferior to skill focus), and simply let you ignore the costs of casting defensively.
I can't think of anything that would actually work. After all, even if the DC were 60 or something stupid, melee guy has to be threatening to even try to disrupt. Have fun with that. 5' step alone means non reach auto fails. Reach weapons that don't threaten adjacent means he could 5' step in and actually be safe. Or out, either way. So that just leaves... spiked chains. Sound familiar?Which means you aren't discussing Casting Defensively, you are arguing about ranged/melee combat.
How is discussing how a caster can easily avoid making a casting defensively check in the first place not relevant to the subject at hand? 5' step back, cast spell normally.
|
I wouldn't mind getting rid of casting defensively altogether (although that wouldn't really be backward-compatible).
I lean towards getting rid of it altogether. I don't think it hurts backwards compatibility very much. Especially if Combat Casting is treated like Mobility; a bonus to AC against AoO's while casting defensively.
-Skeld
|
|
How is discussing how a caster can easily avoid making a casting defensively check in the first place not relevant to the subject at hand? 5' step back, cast spell normally.I can't think of anything that would actually work. After all, even if the DC were 60 or something stupid, melee guy has to be threatening to even try to disrupt. Have fun with that. 5' step alone means non reach auto fails. Reach weapons that don't threaten adjacent means he could 5' step in and actually be safe. Or out, either way. So that just leaves... spiked chains. Sound familiar?Which means you aren't discussing Casting Defensively, you are arguing about ranged/melee combat.
This thread had nothing to do with that actually.. We dont want to discuss how to avoid casting defensively, we wanted to discuss how to make concentration actually matter at higher levels. I feel like there's no reason to roll (because at this point, there isnt). Our DM has seen how useless casting defensively is, as there's no need to roll. He's going to rule something along the lines of increasing the spellcraft check by 2 for each enemy you threaten, after the first. I think he's going to work size of the enemies in there as well. Not sure..
But i do like the idea of 10 + spell level + opponents BAB..
|
|
I can't think of anything that would actually work. After all, even if the DC were 60 or something stupid, melee guy has to be threatening to even try to disrupt. Have fun with that. 5' step alone means non reach auto fails. Reach weapons that don't threaten adjacent means he could 5' step in and actually be safe. Or out, either way. So that just leaves... spiked chains. Sound familiar?
In our last campaign I played a Minotaur Barbarian, I'd charge the casters only to have them cast in my face with no consequence. Then I got the Mage Slayer feat--FSBNBNR(Feats Should Be Nice But Not Required). Perhaps casting defensively should be done away with, as it is, it's just rule that doesn't matter.
I like how JoelF847 thinks 'outside the box'.
How is discussing how a caster can easily avoid making a casting defensively check in the first place not relevant to the subject at hand? 5' step back, cast spell normally.
Because you are assuming that the mage can take a 5' step.
This is not always the case.
That 5' may not be possible for a variety of reasons (no where to move, movement would place them in a threatened area of another opponent).
Or, you may not be allowed to take a 5' free action step (example: rought terrain).
So, for the sake of the discussion, assume that the caster cannot take a 5' step. Do you have any suggestions or constructive arguments?
But i do like the idea of 10 + spell level + opponents BAB..
I could agree with that
but I would like it to be the same rule as for tumble. So, if tumble stays 15 + BAB + terrain + (# of opponents)x2, then combat casting should be the same.
Personally, I would like to see both at 10+, rather than 15+.
|
|
How is discussing how a caster can easily avoid making a casting defensively check in the first place not relevant to the subject at hand? 5' step back, cast spell normally.Because you are assuming that the mage can take a 5' step.
This is not always the case.
That 5' may not be possible for a variety of reasons (no where to move, movement would place them in a threatened area of another opponent).
Or, you may not be allowed to take a 5' free action step (example: rought terrain).
So, for the sake of the discussion, assume that the caster cannot take a 5' step. Do you have any suggestions or constructive arguments?
True. My issue is, even if i can't move, and i'm stuck in a threatened square, casting defensively is ridiculous, as long as i roll anything, i win. I actually would like to have the possibility of failure at higher levels. Once you get to a certain point, the only use Concentration has, is if someone has the Mage Slayer feat, or if they sneak in some damage as the Mage is trying to maintain a concentration spell.
Well, Combat Casting is so easy that the AoO becomes a myth,
but it's still effective to delay action & attack you on your initiative count,
which you still have to roll your Concentration against or lose the spell...
It may be worthwhile to just bring back in the rule that a spell is "being cast" for as many initiative ticks as it has Spell Levels: Increasing the amount of time a caster is susceptible to Concentration - Interrupting damage. Simple & Classic. This would also make it viable for someone to delay until just BEFORE you cast your spell, so they can keep on doing it irrespective of DEX unless you're just casting Cantrips (OR Wands, etc).
That said, if Combat Casting is not going to be made more difficult somehow, one might as well just make spellcasting no longer cause an AoO.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
True. My issue is, even if i can't move, and i'm stuck in a threatened square, casting defensively is ridiculous, as long as i roll anything, i win. I actually would like to have the possibility of failure at higher levels. Once you get to a certain point, the only use Concentration has, is if someone has the Mage Slayer feat, or if they sneak in some damage as the Mage is trying to maintain a concentration spell.
Actually not true. Concentration is still very useful against a readied action or when casting spells with a 1 round casting time. At high levels, the barbarian's power attack readied for when you cast can do 20+ damage without really trying, and that makes a DC 35 concentration check.
Making a caster's Concentration DC dependent on an opponent's BAB strikes me as very strange. I can't think of anywhere else in the core where something like that exists. It would make it a design oddity.
-Skeld
That is exactly what has been done to "tumble" checks.
...The Combat Casting Feat would give a bonus toward AC only against attacks to disrupt casting (such as AoO or readied actions) or casting defensively check, and toward checks made against damage taken while casting.
Your suggestion about the AC vs. the AoO sounds fine, especially requiring a Feat (that's an attack that wouldn't have happened if the caster's hadn't provoked it), but ALL ATTACKS TAKEN DURING CASTING?!?!? The current Combat Casting that people are complaining about doesn't even approach that!
If I was a caster, I'd be sure to research special "Full Round Casting" versions of every spell I want, to take advantage of this great AC boost, I mean how hard are skill boosts to find?!?[/sarcasm]
Delaying action to interrupt a spell is THE ONLY effective counter-caster tactic for melee/ranged combatants (well, and Disarming Bonded Items, in Pathfinder). Unless they have a higher DEX than the caster, it only works for ONE round, unless you basically give up one rounds' actions to catch the caster before their init on the NEXT round. Casters absolutely DO NOT need a boost to their AC to these sorts of attacks.
One other approach to this, would be relating it to CMB. A "Combat Casting" Feat would allow the Caster to add their highest Spell Level to their CMB to resist the AoO from casting in threatened zones, and they can raise it in other ways as well, obviously (Defensive Maneuvers, Dextrous Maneuvers, etc...) This also has the side effect that "gish" characters who would tend to have higher BAB/CMBs are also more proficient at casting spells in melee range.
Yeah... too many ideas :-/
Well, pretty much, except the Spell Level Bonus (which is close to 1/2 CL for Wizards) would only apply to those WITH the Feat, others just use their regular CMB It could also be penalized based on type (Somatic/Verbal/Material/etc), but that's probably too complicated. There already are Instantaneous/Swift action Spells that aren't interruptable.
If casters actually ARE signifigantly vulnerable to interruption, it does alot to bring them in line with melee classes. I really would like to see either bringing back the Casting Time = (Spell Level) # of initiative ticks, or allowing ALL damage taken before casting happens to be accounted for somehow (as half, like DoTs, for example). Both of those are very SIMPLE, rule-wise, which is good!
...too many ideas :-)
How is discussing how a caster can easily avoid making a casting defensively check in the first place not relevant to the subject at hand? 5' step back, cast spell normally.Because you are assuming that the mage can take a 5' step.
This is not always the case.
That 5' may not be possible for a variety of reasons (no where to move, movement would place them in a threatened area of another opponent).
Or, you may not be allowed to take a 5' free action step (example: rought terrain).
So, for the sake of the discussion, assume that the caster cannot take a 5' step. Do you have any suggestions or constructive arguments?
Surrounded means you're either unprepared and as good as dead, or prepared and enemies have a sub 5% chance to hit you anyways. Same deal with rough terrain and lack of flight or something. The only thing this requires is that the mage be intelligent... which he is.
With that out of the way, assuming you really aren't getting it try using a formula that doesn't quickly get outstripped.
Standard: DC = 15 + spell level.
Your skill: 5-7 or so + 1/level + stat gains, skill gains, etc above that.
So we have the DC at 15 + 1 per odd level until level 17 where it caps at 24 assuming you are casting your best spell, but gaining at least one point a level. Of course it becomes an auto pass. Your ability improves faster than the bar raises.
Make the bar rise faster. Done.
I like the Monte Cook Experimental Might solution, which basically boils down to: opponents get to make an Attack of Opportunity, but you can substitute your Concentration check for your armor class.
...
Still isn't coming across? Spelling it out this simply is an insult to everyone's intelligence here, starting with my own. But fine.
The skill improves by +1 per level and a bit more from stats (maybe). The DC is improved by 1 every other level essentially.
DC = 15 + 2 * spell level.
Now your +2 scales at the same rate as its +2, or close enough at least. Therefore, you do not surpass the DC and auto pass. At least not without actually trying a little bit.
|
|
...
Still isn't coming across? Spelling it out this simply is an insult to everyone's intelligence here, starting with my own. But fine.
The skill improves by +1 per level and a bit more from stats (maybe). The DC is improved by 1 every other level essentially.
DC = 15 + 2 * spell level.
Now your +2 scales at the same rate as its +2, or close enough at least. Therefore, you do not surpass the DC and auto pass. At least not without actually trying a little bit.
The problem with that is you still auto-succeed on anything a few levels lower than your highest level spell.