Wish for casting defensively


General Discussion (Prerelease)

51 to 100 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Jal Dorak wrote:
The problem with that is you still auto-succeed on anything a few levels lower than your highest level spell.

This is why I am proposing that it be treated similar to acrobatics/tumble check.

DC = 15 + spell level + BAB + other modifiers.

Example: Casting a 5th level spell (say teleport), while in the range of two 10th level good BAB opponents would be a DC 32 (15+5+10+2)
Caster spellcraft: 10 (ranks)+5(attribute)+3(class)+3(skill focus)= +21
So, would have an even chance to not provoke an attack of opportunity.

This will keep casting spells a little more risky for casters.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Crusader of Logic wrote:

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.

Crusader of Logic,

You have complained about DM Fiat in setting things up to "counter" a caster, yet you seem to be implying here a "Caster Fiat", where due to their "extreme" intelligence, nothing bad can happen to a mage if they are played right.

Sounds like a "don't confuse me with facts, I know what I am talking about" argument.

2nd point, this discussion is about all casters, not just how what you can do with an "Artificer", a class which is not OGL, and hence it's abilities cannot really be addressed in Pathfinder.

Dark Archive

Mistwalker wrote:
Jal Dorak wrote:
The problem with that is you still auto-succeed on anything a few levels lower than your highest level spell.

This is why I am proposing that it be treated similar to acrobatics/tumble check.

DC = 15 + spell level + BAB + other modifiers.

Example: Casting a 5th level spell (say teleport), while in the range of two 10th level good BAB opponents would be a DC 32 (15+5+10+2)
Caster spellcraft: 10 (ranks)+5(attribute)+3(class)+3(skill focus)= +21
So, would have an even chance to not provoke an attack of opportunity.

This will keep casting spells a little more risky for casters.

I like your idea, perhaps something a bit simpler: DC = Threatened enemy's Attack Bonus + spell level

What do you think?

Liberty's Edge

Jason Beardsley wrote:
Mistwalker wrote:
Jal Dorak wrote:
The problem with that is you still auto-succeed on anything a few levels lower than your highest level spell.

This is why I am proposing that it be treated similar to acrobatics/tumble check.

DC = 15 + spell level + BAB + other modifiers.

Example: Casting a 5th level spell (say teleport), while in the range of two 10th level good BAB opponents would be a DC 32 (15+5+10+2)
Caster spellcraft: 10 (ranks)+5(attribute)+3(class)+3(skill focus)= +21
So, would have an even chance to not provoke an attack of opportunity.

This will keep casting spells a little more risky for casters.

I like your idea, perhaps something a bit simpler: DC = Threatened enemy's Attack Bonus + spell level

What do you think?

Too low. In most cases this will be an automatic success, or ridiculously low.


Mmm... More like AT LEAST 10+ Attack Bonus + Spell Level ...
(1st level mage, 20 INT has +9 bonus (with 1 Skill Point), no Feats/Skill Focus.)
Adding 10, @1st level, the DC is about the same as currently (15) with ABOVE average melee opponents
(and easier with weaker ones).

Why is it so hard for people trying to "toughen" the current system to actually make it tough? Sheesh...


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Jason Beardsley wrote:

I like your idea, perhaps something a bit simpler: DC = Threatened enemy's Attack Bonus + spell level

What do you think?

As Krensky said, it would be too low.

As well, I am trying to keep it consistent with acrobatics and current rules, well, as much as possible.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quandary wrote:
Why is it so hard for people trying to "toughen" the current system to actually make it tough? Sheesh...

That is one of the reasons that I am saying 15+, and not 10+.

Liberty's Edge

As an example:

Fighter 10 (Valeros)
STR 16, WF, GWF, +1 sword, Belt of STR +2, +2 Weapon training:
10 + 3 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 = 19

Wizard 10 (Ezren)
Max ranks, INT 20, Headband of INT +2, class skill bonus, Combat casting, skill focus (spellcraft):
10 + 5 + 1 + 3 + 4 + 6 = 29

So, if these two spar and Ezren tries to cast a 5th level spell, his DC is 19 + 5 = 24. Ezren's bonus is higher then the DC, so he automatically succeeds.

If it was 15 + attack + 2 per extra person, in this case the DC would be 15 + 19 + 5 = 39. Now Ezren needs to roll a 10 or higher to avoid getting whacked by Valeros.

If we include the + 2 per additional person and, say Merisiel or Sajan (I am assuming Valeros will have the higher attack bonus) the DC rises to 41 and the old man needs 12 or more. Add a theoretical feat that adds, say, 3 when taken and 6 at BAB 10 to your attack bonus to determine this DC and Ezren needs an 18.


Mistwalker wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:

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.

Crusader of Logic,

You have complained about DM Fiat in setting things up to "counter" a caster, yet you seem to be implying here a "Caster Fiat", where due to their "extreme" intelligence, nothing bad can happen to a mage if they are played right.

Sounds like a "don't confuse me with facts, I know what I am talking about" argument.

2nd point, this discussion is about all casters, not just how what you can do with an "Artificer", a class which is not OGL, and hence it's abilities cannot really be addressed in Pathfinder.

I am assuming high intelligence + right tools can counter simple things like getting backed into a corner. I do not find this an illogical assumption. Do you?

By the way, Wizards are even better about avoiding Bad Things happening to them, since the Artificer is borrowing their trick anyways. Sorcerers can do it too. Clerics and Druids don't get the same method, but they make up for it by being more durable and such without tricks.

Artificers are actually one of the worst casters for dealing with the unexpected due to the prep time required beforehand. Of course, if they've made the right tool they're among the best, and the weakest god is still stronger than any mortal. Or something.

Also, you are ignoring my own quote that you quoted when you made that statement. See how I accounted for what happens to unprepared casters? Point being casting defensively is irrelevant, because if he's slipped that badly he's already dead.

Edit: Jal, weaker spells are well... weaker. If he's wasting time casting a second level spell instead of a sixth because he has a 40% chance to fail the latter and wants a reliable weak effect... why is this a problem? The melee guy is doing something very useful... unless you'd rather take the 4 level higher spell to the face? Let him auto pass his weaker spell. Isn't the whole point of this topic to make the melee not feel so small in the pants when he fights a mage?

Dark Archive

Crusader of Logic wrote:
Isn't the whole point of this topic to make the melee not feel so small in the pants when he fights a mage?

Actually no, the point of this topic is to make the mage player feel like casting defensively is not a worthless roll due to auto-passing every time.

Liberty's Edge

Jason Beardsley wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:
Isn't the whole point of this topic to make the melee not feel so small in the pants when he fights a mage?
Actually no, the point of this topic is to make the mage player feel like casting defensively is not a worthless roll due to auto-passing every time.

It would be nice however, to structure it in such a way that when a melee character threatens a caster his casting ability is severely reduced.

A separate thought along those lines might be to add a Disrupt Casting combat maneuver that would make casting extremely difficult if not effectively impossible if it connects.

Dark Archive

Krensky wrote:
Jason Beardsley wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:
Isn't the whole point of this topic to make the melee not feel so small in the pants when he fights a mage?
Actually no, the point of this topic is to make the mage player feel like casting defensively is not a worthless roll due to auto-passing every time.

It would be nice however, to structure it in such a way that when a melee character threatens a caster his casting ability is severely reduced.

A separate thought along those lines might be to add a Disrupt Casting combat maneuver that would make casting extremely difficult if not effectively impossible if it connects.

What about the idea of just making Defensive Casting a Combat Maneuver?

Liberty's Edge

Jason Beardsley wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Jason Beardsley wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:
Isn't the whole point of this topic to make the melee not feel so small in the pants when he fights a mage?
Actually no, the point of this topic is to make the mage player feel like casting defensively is not a worthless roll due to auto-passing every time.

It would be nice however, to structure it in such a way that when a melee character threatens a caster his casting ability is severely reduced.

A separate thought along those lines might be to add a Disrupt Casting combat maneuver that would make casting extremely difficult if not effectively impossible if it connects.

What about the idea of just making Defensive Casting a Combat Maneuver?

It's probably mechanically sound, but it would make Defensive Casting a STR based action. I'm not sure how I feel about that. I'm not opposed, it just feels odd.

It also feels odd to make a Combat Manuver to avoid an AoO.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Crusader of Logic wrote:
I am assuming high intelligence + right tools can counter simple things like getting backed into a corner. I do not find this an illogical assumption. Do you?

I do. I find it assumes that the opponents that you are fighting cannot act intelligently. If the opponents are willing to surround the caster (double move, run, other method), then they should have a valid chance at an AoO when said caster tries to cast a spell.

Crusader of Logic wrote:
By the way, Wizards are even better about avoiding Bad Things happening to them, since the Artificer is borrowing their trick anyways. Sorcerers can do it too. Clerics and Druids don't get the same method, but they make up for it by being more durable and such without tricks.

I disagree with that. The artificer is allowed to wear armor, making physical attacks that much harder to do. Can have a very large selection of wands to cover off spell selection, etc...

Could you provide your reasoning on your above statements?

Crusader of Logic wrote:

Also, you are ignoring my own quote that you quoted when you made that statement. See how I accounted for what happens to unprepared casters? Point being casting defensively is irrelevant, because if he's slipped that badly he's already dead.

I did not ignore it, I just considered it irrelevant, as you seem to be saying that the caster shouldn't ever get into such a situation due to their intelligence. And if they are played that badly, they deserve to die.

Hmm, or are you saying that fighters can threaten mages, that is be a lethal threat?


My this thread moved fast.

I've gone reviewed my suggestions and find that none of them work and that I made poor assumptions. I have come to the conclusion that in this instance a skill check does not work well. It can be boosted too easily to scale properly even as a replacement for AC. I've also looked at straight AC bonuses and the difference in AC between casting classes makes this unworkable. A cleric and Wizard can have ACs that differ by 10 which means 50% difference in avoiding damage from the AoO.

As for using CMB, on this I agree with Krensky. Having it based on Strength and using a Combat Maneuver to avoid AoO feels awkward. Replacing the casters AC with a CMB based AC didn't seem to work well when compared to possible AC and to hit bonuses. Not to mention it scales backward benefiting low level low AC casters more then high level high AC casters.

Quandary, I like the Casting Time = Spell Level # of initiative ticks idea for spells that are a standard action, but I don't know how much support it will get. It gives more opportunities to disrupt casters which I really like and makes casting more involved.

Krensky, Using the attacker's BAB to set the DC means adding an additional piece of information the DM needs to track which is not found on all stat blocks and may need to be back figured.

Your suggestion regarding denying DEX does not balance casters, it outright punishes them for being casters.

I've re-examined this problem for the ground up and found that skill and AC based solutions did not scale well without adding levels of complication or apply equally across all spellcasting classes. I have come up with a new approach that is simple and scales well. Instead of a skill check, make casting defensively a caster level check. No fail still exists, but for 1st level spells it hits around 10-14th level (dependant on being able to boost the check). Currently since no rule exists for this most boosts to caster level specify SR penetration or numerical effects of spells so they would not apply. Those that do not specify are mostly conditional and non-core. The chance to avoid the AoO start out low and increases as you level.

As for Combat Casting, I hesitate to have it increase the Caster level for casting defensively as no real boost is needed, but would instead have it add to the spellcraft check for damage taken while casting and casting while grappled, with a possible increase of +2 with 10 or more ranks in spellcraft.

Liberty's Edge

Freesword wrote:


Krensky, Using the attacker's BAB to set the DC means adding an additional piece of information the DM needs to track which is not found on all stat blocks and may need to be back figured.

Your suggestion regarding denying DEX does not balance casters, it outright punishes them for being casters.

A stat block should include BAB, and if it doesn't figuring it should not take much time since it's the sum of class BAB, and HD BAB, but my current suggestion is to use the threatener's total attack bonus since this seems to rise at a similar rate as skill level.

As for the for denying dex, the idea it was admittedly mostly tossed out in pique, but it works perfectly well in Spycraft 2.0, the system it's lifted from.

As for you Caster level check, what is the DC?


I strongly endorse this idea. I have been using a similiar house rule for about two years now with pretty good success, so here it is:

Casting/Manifesting Defensively: Casting defensively using the Concentration skill has a DC of the threatening character's base attack bonus + the spell level +11, similar to that of dispel magic. So a wizard casting invisibility standing next to an ogre must make a DC based on the ogre's BAB plus 2 for the 2nd-level spell, (11 + 3 BAB + 2 for spell level, vs. the wizards d20+concentration). This mechanic often makes this check harder, except when fighting very weak opponents (BAB 4 or less). When threatened by multiple opponents, use the highest base attack bonus of the group.


Krensky wrote:

As for you Caster level check, what is the DC?

15 + Spell Level. Same as now.

Unless there is a modifier on a roll of 2 at 20th you still miss by 2 on your 9th level spells. I compared results on for rolls of 2, 10, and 20.

At 14th a roll of 2 will succeed for your 1st level spells with no modifier. I admit I'm not familiar enough with possible caster level modifiers, so I used the 10-14th range to give a bit of buffer. What I knew of from core like Spell Penetration specify overcoming SR, so they don't apply (unless they get changed).

The harsh part is at 1st level when you need a 15 or better to succeed.

As a side note, Sorcerers come out slightly ahead by getting their next spell level one level later as their caster level is 1 higher. Bards do even better because of their slower progression of new spell levels needing a 1 for 6th level spells at 20th. Paladins and Rangers lag a bit due to 1/2 caster level topping out needing a 9 at 20th for their highest level spells. They may actually need a boost since they are more likely casting in melee.

Gish builds line up as their relation between caster level and highest spell level is the same.


Jason Beardsley wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:
Isn't the whole point of this topic to make the melee not feel so small in the pants when he fights a mage?
Actually no, the point of this topic is to make the mage player feel like casting defensively is not a worthless roll due to auto-passing every time.

Which means making it more difficult so it isn't an auto win... the rest naturally follows.

Mistwalker wrote:
I do. I find it assumes that the opponents that you are fighting cannot act intelligently. If the opponents are willing to surround the caster (double move, run, other method), then they should have a valid chance at an AoO when said caster tries to cast a spell.

Which brings us back around to either the caster is unprepared and now dead because multiple enemies are surrounding him, or is prepared meaning he has such a low chance to be hit he doesn't care about the AoO. Either way the casting defensively bit is pretty much irrelevant.

Mistwalker wrote:

I disagree with that. The artificer is allowed to wear armor, making physical attacks that much harder to do. Can have a very large selection of wands to cover off spell selection, etc...

Could you provide your reasoning on your above statements?

First, no one cares about physical armor. Mage armor is just as good, and is 1 hour/level.

Second, no one cares about physical armor. Mithril Twilight Chain Shirts do exactly the same thing as an always on Mage Armor. Like Mage Armor, no drawbacks.

Third, wands are only suitable for spells you will cast all the time. They're too expensive otherwise. You need scrolls to cover the obscure stuff. Which is certainly possible, but the Wizard is getting it without spending his time, resources, and such making it.

Your third question has already been answered multiple times, including as a part of my first answer here so I'm not quoting it.


Freesword wrote:
Krensky wrote:

As for you Caster level check, what is the DC?

15 + Spell Level. Same as now.

Unless there is a modifier on a roll of 2 at 20th you still miss by 2 on your 9th level spells. I compared results on for rolls of 2, 10, and 20.

You forgot a few modifiers.

At 20th level assuming you have a 10 int, you will have a 23 spellcraft (20 for ranks, 3 for it being a class skill which you have ranks in.) That measn your minimum roll is a 1 which will be 24 and successfully cast a 9th level spell (there is no autofailure for 1 on skill checks).

I use 12 + spell level + bab.

Now a 20th level caster vs a 20th level warrior would need to get a DC of 41 to cast a 9th level spell.

So if its a wizard lets call it IQ 20 (very low for a 20th level caster) Spell craft of 28 and no feats that boost it or items that boost int would need a 13 to successfuly cast defensively.

Same wizard with Skill Focus Spellcraft would need to roll a seven. If he has a 30 int (between books level raises and an item) he would then need to roll a 2.

This means with a little work a wizard is still pretty much safe however its not a guaranteed automatic for every caster.

Now with a 10 IQ cleric, sorcerer, or druid its a bit harder.
If they are concerned about it 23 +6 (skill focus) +4 (combat casting), +4 (magical aptitude feat) and they need to roll a 4 to successfully cast a spell with a 20th level warrior in their face.

I don't find that to be to onerous for casters especially since they will at 20th level have 10 feats instead of 7 with the pathfinder system.

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

Krensky wrote:
Freesword wrote:


Krensky, Using the attacker's BAB to set the DC means adding an additional piece of information the DM needs to track which is not found on all stat blocks and may need to be back figured.

Your suggestion regarding denying DEX does not balance casters, it outright punishes them for being casters.

A stat block should include BAB, and if it doesn't figuring it should not take much time since it's the sum of class BAB, and HD BAB, but my current suggestion is to use the threatener's total attack bonus since this seems to rise at a similar rate as skill level.

As for the for denying dex, the idea it was admittedly mostly tossed out in pique, but it works perfectly well in Spycraft 2.0, the system it's lifted from.

It's also a mechanic with ample precedent in D&D history. Spellcasters in 1st Ed were considered prone and denied DEX when casting spells. I don't recall for sure if that was continued in 2nd Ed or not.


Ughbash wrote:
Freesword wrote:
Krensky wrote:

As for you Caster level check, what is the DC?

15 + Spell Level. Same as now.

Unless there is a modifier on a roll of 2 at 20th you still miss by 2 on your 9th level spells. I compared results on for rolls of 2, 10, and 20.

You forgot a few modifiers.

At 20th level assuming you have a 10 int, you will have a 23 spellcraft (20 for ranks, 3 for it being a class skill which you have ranks in.) That measn your minimum roll is a 1 which will be 24 and successfully cast a 9th level spell (there is no autofailure for 1 on skill checks).

I use 12 + spell level + bab.

I don't find that to be to onerous for casters especially since they will at 20th level have 10 feats instead of 7 with the pathfinder system.

You did not point out any modifiers I missed and in fact I think you may have missed something.

I proposed a caster level check instead of a skill check. Caster level check is caster level + d20. No stat bonuses. It's just like rolling to penetrate spell resistance. The only feats granting a bonus caster level checks specify they are for penetrating spell resistance so they do not apply. Final math is

15 + Spell Level vs Caster Level + d20

Your method favors Intelligence based casters since the skill check is is intelligence based and also requires the DM to know the BAB as well as total modifier to hit for the opponent.

I'm not saying your method does not work, I'm saying that my solution is simpler and works equally for all casters regardless of casting stat. You adjusted the DC, I flattened out the Check to match the DC.

Liberty's Edge

Freesword wrote:
Ughbash wrote:
Freesword wrote:
Krensky wrote:

As for you Caster level check, what is the DC?

15 + Spell Level. Same as now.

Unless there is a modifier on a roll of 2 at 20th you still miss by 2 on your 9th level spells. I compared results on for rolls of 2, 10, and 20.

You forgot a few modifiers.

At 20th level assuming you have a 10 int, you will have a 23 spellcraft (20 for ranks, 3 for it being a class skill which you have ranks in.) That measn your minimum roll is a 1 which will be 24 and successfully cast a 9th level spell (there is no autofailure for 1 on skill checks).

I use 12 + spell level + bab.

I don't find that to be to onerous for casters especially since they will at 20th level have 10 feats instead of 7 with the pathfinder system.

You did not point out any modifiers I missed and in fact I think you may have missed something.

I proposed a caster level check instead of a skill check. Caster level check is caster level + d20. No stat bonuses. It's just like rolling to penetrate spell resistance. The only feats granting a bonus caster level checks specify they are for penetrating spell resistance so they do not apply. Final math is

15 + Spell Level vs Caster Level + d20

Your method favors Intelligence based casters since the skill check is is intelligence based and also requires the DM to know the BAB as well as total modifier to hit for the opponent.

I'm not saying your method does not work, I'm saying that my solution is simpler and works equally for all casters regardless of casting stat. You adjusted the DC, I flattened out the Check to match the DC.

Then what about Paladins who want to cast a spell in the middle of combat? (naming bless weapon and Holy sword)


Arcana Evolved uses this system of DC 10+BAB+lvl of spell and it works great there.

It lowers the DC under lvl 5 (because caster have a really low Concentration at that point of their life) but makes it scale at levels where casting defensively becomes trivial for casters.

15+BAB+lvl is just too high. It would require every caster to take defensive casting and skill focus feats. Also caster classes that do not have high Intelligence will suffer a lot.

Also while this system is balanced when fighting against NPCs, it is not against monsters. Most melee monsters have a much higher BAB then their CR and will probably make the DC unattainable. Casters will have choice but to move out of reach (and suffer AoO) before casting because getting hit by the same monster while casting a spell is a receipt for failure as well.


Suzaku wrote:


Then what about Paladins who want to cast a spell in the middle of combat? (naming bless weapon and Holy sword)

note: Math in spoilers

Paladins and Rangers start out needing a 14 or better and end needing a 9 or better for their highest level spells (at 1/2 caster level per class level, 1st level spells at 4th level, and topping out at 4th level spells).

Spoiler:

15 + 1 = 16 - 2 = 14 (15 + Spell Level = DC - Caster Level = Roll Needed)
15 + 4 = 19 - 10 = 9 (15 + Spell Level = DC - Caster Level = Roll Needed)

Full casters start out needing a 15 or better, and end needing a 4 or better for their highest spell.
Spoiler:

15 + 1 = 16 - 1 = 15 (15 + Spell Level = DC - Caster Level = Roll Needed)
15 + 9 = 24 - 20 = 4 (15 + Spell Level = DC - Caster Level = Roll Needed)

Bards start out at a 15 or better and end up the best needing a 1 or better for their highest at 20th (full caster level but they top out at 6th level spells).
Spoiler:

15 + 1 = 16 - 1 = 14 (15 + Spell Level = DC - Caster Level = Roll Needed)
15 + 6 = 21 - 20 = -1 (15 + Spell Level = DC - Caster Level = Roll Needed)

Prestige classes with limited spell lists like the Assassin end up similar to Paladins and Rangers.


-Archangel- wrote:

Arcana Evolved uses this system of DC 10+BAB+lvl of spell and it works great there.

It lowers the DC under lvl 5 (because caster have a really low Concentration at that point of their life) but makes it scale at levels where casting defensively becomes trivial for casters.

15+BAB+lvl is just too high. It would require every caster to take defensive casting and skill focus feats. Also caster classes that do not have high Intelligence will suffer a lot.

Also while this system is balanced when fighting against NPCs, it is not against monsters. Most melee monsters have a much higher BAB then their CR and will probably make the DC unattainable. Casters will have choice but to move out of reach (and suffer AoO) before casting because getting hit by the same monster while casting a spell is a receipt for failure as well.

Sounds like it changed from Arcana Unearthed to Evolved. In Unearthed it was:

DC = Opponent's Attack Bonus (or 10 whichever is higher) + Spell Level

Notice that it says Attack Bonus and not BAB or BASE Attack Bonus.

An issue I have with using BAB is that not all stat blocks list BAB in addition to normal attack bonus with strength, magic, and feats added.

Liberty's Edge

That just make things needlessly complicated. 3 things would probability be better...

1) Make Paladin and Rangers have full caster levels instead of half level.

2) 10 + Enemeny Bab+ spell level Vs concentration

3) Keep things the same...

Edit I meant to reply to the post before the previous one.


Suzaku wrote:

That just make things needlessly complicated. 3 things would probability be better...

1) Make Paladin and Rangers have full caster levels instead of half level.

2) 10 + Enemeny Bab+ spell level Vs concentration

3) Keep things the same...

The complication is probably in my presentation which was designed to focus on the roll needed for success. The rule would read as:

15 + Spell Level = DC

Caster Level + d20 roll = Check

It's the same as rolling to overcome Spell Resistance. The only difference is the feats that give bonuses to penetrate Spell Resistance (Spell Penetration) do not apply. The Practiced Spellcaster feat out of the splat books would apply since it does not limit the increase to certain checks. It would also help single classed Rangers and Paladins because the +4 to caster level is only limited to not exceeding Hit Dice. If not allowing splat book material is an issue, I could see giving Rangers and Paladins a boost to their Casting Defensively.


You could just make Spellcraft dependent on the primary casting attribute (and for those MTs, apply whichever is relevant to what you are trying to cast). Then it doesn't favor Int based classes.

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

Crusader of Logic wrote:
You could just make Spellcraft dependent on the primary casting attribute (and for those MTs, apply whichever is relevant to what you are trying to cast). Then it doesn't favor Int based classes.

I wouldn't mind a rule like this, if they are willing to make a skill be multi-stat, though it would be weird for a multiclassed caster making a skill check - just use your best stat?

For the sake of simplicity, I would prefer to detach "casting defensively" and the whole concentration mechanic from skills entirely, put it in the magic section, and make it based on a caster level check.


I think I'm with Hogarth - why not just drop the rolling to cast defensively? The roll is currently pointless at higher levels, and at lower levels fragile casters tend to go out of their way to avoid potential AoO's anyway.

This would mean:

  • Casters can continue to five-foot step to avoid most AoO's
  • Let spellcasters who take the Combat Casting feat cast defensively without a roll
  • Let rangers, paladins, and similar prestige classes cast spells without triggering AoO's (i.e., give them Combat Casting for free when they get spells).

    If there's a situation where preventing spellcasting is super important, the character or monster can just ready an action to disrupt.


  • Jason Nelson wrote:
    Crusader of Logic wrote:
    You could just make Spellcraft dependent on the primary casting attribute (and for those MTs, apply whichever is relevant to what you are trying to cast). Then it doesn't favor Int based classes.

    I wouldn't mind a rule like this, if they are willing to make a skill be multi-stat, though it would be weird for a multiclassed caster making a skill check - just use your best stat?

    For the sake of simplicity, I would prefer to detach "casting defensively" and the whole concentration mechanic from skills entirely, put it in the magic section, and make it based on a caster level check.

    MT = Mystic Theurge. I already addressed that. So if you're a Cleric/Wizard/MT, you use Wisdom for your divine spells and Intelligence for your arcane spells.

    If casting defensively isn't a factor of Concentration, then what's the point of that skill? Just about everything else is a flat low DC.


    Crusader of Logic wrote:


    MT = Mystic Theurge. I already addressed that. So if you're a Cleric/Wizard/MT, you use Wisdom for your divine spells and Intelligence for your arcane spells.

    If casting defensively isn't a factor of Concentration, then what's the point of that skill? Just about everything else is a flat low DC.

    No other skill is multi-stat. You create an odd exception.

    Concentration is not a skill in Pathfinder as of the Beta. It's use in casting was rolled into Spellcraft which has other uses and is INT based.

    Making casting defensively a caster level check instead of a skill check eliminates all the existing issues around the 3.x mechanic. It also removes Ability Scores from the equation entirely therefore not favoring any caster based on their prime casting stat. The closest thing to a problem I can see is that the classes with 1/2 caster level that are melee hybrids end up with higher rolls needed at high levels. This is easily adjusted with a feat or class feature to add a bonus to casting defensively or caster level.


    So make Spellcraft primary stat based. Done.


    Crusader of Logic wrote:
    So make Spellcraft primary stat based. Done.

    Or make 2 skills:

    Arcana (Int or Cha) = Spellcraft + Knowledge (arcana) + Concentration;
    Religion (Wis) = Spellcraft + Knowledge (religion) + Concentration.

    This reduces the "skills tax" on spellcasters by 1 more slot. Because all casting defensive checks would be based on (presumably) the highest stat, increase the check DCs by 5.


    Crusader of Logic wrote:
    So make Spellcraft primary stat based. Done.

    As I stated before.

    Freesword wrote:


    No other skill is multi-stat. You create an odd exception.

    The rules should be consistent.

    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    Or make 2 skills:

    Arcana (Int or Cha) = Spellcraft + Knowledge (arcana) + Concentration;
    Religion (Wis) = Spellcraft + Knowledge (religion) + Concentration.

    This reduces the "skills tax" on spellcasters by 1 more slot. Because all casting defensive checks would be based on (presumably) the highest stat, increase the check DCs by 5.

    You still have the issue of 2 stats on one skill.

    The caster level check removes stats from the equation entirely. It is purely level dependent. Higher level = higher check modifier.


    Being caster level based means... auto scaling aka FF8 aka 4.0? Um, no. Spell level based, it makes sense because the higher level spells actually are more complex. None of this 'level 99 mosquito' crap, or 'level 10 fire'.

    Might as well invert the HP gains while you're at it. As in you start with level 20 HP, but lose a HD per level along with BAB, saves, whatever else. Rest of the game stays the same.


    Crusader of Logic wrote:

    Being caster level based means... auto scaling aka FF8 aka 4.0? Um, no. Spell level based, it makes sense because the higher level spells actually are more complex. None of this 'level 99 mosquito' crap, or 'level 10 fire'.

    Might as well invert the HP gains while you're at it. As in you start with level 20 HP, but lose a HD per level along with BAB, saves, whatever else. Rest of the game stays the same.

    Your references have lost me. I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never played FF8 and have only briefly skimmed a couple of sections of 4.0, enough to decide I had absolutely no interest in it. Your comment about inverting HP gains also seem to have no point of reference for me. I have no idea what you are talking about there.

    The only thing you said that I was able to follow were the words "auto scaling". Yes, my proposal is auto scaling. Your chances of casting defensively increase with caster level. Spell level is also part of the equation as higher level spells are more difficult to cast defensively then lower level spells. The dice (random chance) are more important than modifiers from design (character build). Yes, every 15th wizard casting a 5th level spell has the same chance of casting defensively. One of my goals was to keep the outcomes within the spread of a d20, Cutting as much of auto success and auto failure due to modifiers as possible.

    I'm getting the impression that your opposition to this is related to the fact that it removes build optimization from the equation.


    The point is that it creates an illogical sort of scaling. Instead of having it scale by spell level where it makes sense to since higher level spells actually are more complex, it just means the DCs increase by 1 a level even if you're an Archmage casting a freaking Ray of Frost. Skills increase by 1 a level, so all that illogical scaling is doing is ensuring you never actually get better because everything auto scales with you, you are the same at level 1 as level 20, and the only thing you've accomplished is wasting a skill point a level. At which point just saying you have x% chance to cast defensively and lowering skill points for those classes by 1 would do exactly the same thing.

    FF8 and 4.0 are both games where everything auto scales with you. Put your hand in a torch at level 15, and it's like getting breathed on by a dragon. Fight the weakest enemy in the game at level 50, and it's level 50 too.


    Crusader of Logic wrote:

    The point is that it creates an illogical sort of scaling. Instead of having it scale by spell level where it makes sense to since higher level spells actually are more complex, it just means the DCs increase by 1 a level even if you're an Archmage casting a freaking Ray of Frost. Skills increase by 1 a level, so all that illogical scaling is doing is ensuring you never actually get better because everything auto scales with you, you are the same at level 1 as level 20, and the only thing you've accomplished is wasting a skill point a level. At which point just saying you have x% chance to cast defensively and lowering skill points for those classes by 1 would do exactly the same thing.

    FF8 and 4.0 are both games where everything auto scales with you. Put your hand in a torch at level 15, and it's like getting breathed on by a dragon. Fight the weakest enemy in the game at level 50, and it's level 50 too.

    The DC does scale by spell level. Casting Defensively DC for a 1st level spell is 16. For a 9th level spell DC is 24.

    DC = 15 + SPELL LEVEL

    Caster level increases at the same 1 per level rate as skills.

    There is no waste of a skill point a level involved because there is no skill point involved in the equation.

    As for your last comment about FF8 and 4.0, the only point that resembles that at all in caster level check I propose is that at 20th level against a 1st level Orc you still have a chance to fail your Casting Defensively check for your 9th level spell. Your 1st - 6th level spells are at no fail (barring rule of 1 being invoked) and your chance of failure for that 9th level spell is less than 25% (need a 4 or better). Difficulty of casting defensive scales by spell level. Chance of success increases with increase of caster level. Caster level increases faster than spell level.


    Someone said something about making the DC caster level based, which is clearly what I was responding to.

    Liberty's Edge

    But caster level check for casting defensively just alienates 1/2 caster like Paladin who should be in melee. Before you say what spell they can cast just think of Bless weapon and holy sword.


    Crusader of Logic wrote:
    Someone said something about making the DC caster level based, which is clearly what I was responding to.

    It was probably confusion caused by my math showing DC - Caster Level = Roll Needed for success.


    Suzaku wrote:
    But caster level check for casting defensively just alienates 1/2 caster like Paladin who should be in melee. Before you say what spell they can cast just think of Bless weapon and holy sword.

    They actually end out at 50/50 chance on their highest level spells by 20th. The fact that they only get 4 levels of spells helps them, but you are correct that they should be able to do better and I would not be against giving them a bonus either through a feat or class ability (preferred).

    To successfully cast defensively at 20th level:

    1st level spell - roll of 6 or better
    2st level spell - roll of 7 or better
    3st level spell - roll of 8 or better
    4st level spell - roll of 9 or better

    Currently, as I stated in a previous post, there is a non-core feat (Practiced Spellcaster) which would increase their caster level by up to 4 so long as it does not exceed their hit dice.

    Perhaps Paladins and Rangers would get the following ability:

    Melee Casting: Beginning at 4th level, when Casting Defensively add +4 to your caster level checks to avoid provoking Attacks of Opportunity. This bonus stacks with other feats that increase caster level or provide a bonus to Casting Defensively.

    Liberty's Edge

    Freesword wrote:
    Suzaku wrote:
    But caster level check for casting defensively just alienates 1/2 caster like Paladin who should be in melee. Before you say what spell they can cast just think of Bless weapon and holy sword.

    They actually end out at 50/50 chance on their highest level spells by 20th. The fact that they only get 4 levels of spells helps them, but you are correct that they should be able to do better and I would not be against giving them a bonus either through a feat or class ability (preferred).

    To successfully cast defensively at 20th level:

    1st level spell - roll of 6 or better
    2st level spell - roll of 7 or better
    3st level spell - roll of 8 or better
    4st level spell - roll of 9 or better

    Currently, as I stated in a previous post, there is a non-core feat (Practiced Spellcaster) which would increase their caster level by up to 4 so long as it does not exceed their hit dice.

    Perhaps Paladins and Rangers would get the following ability:

    Melee Casting: Beginning at 4th level, when Casting Defensively add +4 to your caster level checks to avoid provoking Attacks of Opportunity. This bonus stacks with other feats that increase caster level or provide a bonus to Casting Defensively.

    Ummm not every game starts at 20 and at level 4 the DC would be DC would 16 and then you need to roll a 14.


    Suzaku wrote:
    Freesword wrote:


    Currently, as I stated in a previous post, there is a non-core feat (Practiced Spellcaster) which would increase their caster level by up to 4 so long as it does not exceed their hit dice.

    Perhaps Paladins and Rangers would get the following ability:

    Melee Casting: Beginning at 4th level, when Casting Defensively add +4 to your caster level checks to avoid provoking Attacks of Opportunity. This bonus stacks with other feats that increase caster level or provide a bonus to Casting Defensively.

    Ummm not every game starts at 20 and at level 4 the DC would be DC would 16 and then you need to roll a 14.

    Which is pretty much were every casting class starts out.

    1st level Wizard/Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer/Bard DC 16 needs to roll a 15 or better.
    4th level Wizard/Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer/Bard DC 16 for 1st level spell DC 17 for 2nd level spell, needs roll of 12 or 13 but has been casting for 3 more levels.

    I have also offered two suggestions to help give Paladins and Rangers a leg up.


    I dislike the whole idea of using a threatening opponents BAB to modify the DC of a casting defensively check. I don't see why a big and ponderous monster should make it harder for a caster to stay on the defensive just because it has a ton of hit dice.
    The ability to divine one's attention between casting a spell and not giving someone a free shot should be pretty much internal to the caster. I see little reason to increase the DCs. And I don't have a problem with a PC investing the ranks to get good enough to always cast defensively without really being threatened. Sooner or late, those ranks invested should really pay off and make a task fairly trivial.
    I'd be far happier with there being a feat or two to make it harder for someone to cast defensively around a threatening PC. Then that PC has to make it a goal to be particularly good at negating a caster's defensive check.

    I mean, really, is it that much of a problem that PCs don't have to always make the defensive casting roll? To auto-succeed defensive casting their highest level spells, assuming they've spent the feats to get combat casting and skill focus, a PC still needs to have invested a substantial number of levels of ranks into the skill.
    Besides, any system that incorporates a threatening enemy's BAB or that increases the DCs much in general is just going to screw over paladins and rangers even more, neither of which are likely to spend a whole lot on spell-casting skills.


    You know what Suzaku, let me go with one of your suggestions as a 3rd option to give Paladins and Rangers a leg up. Let them have full caster level instead of half. I'm not willing to bicker over these two classes and their likelihood of casting in melee. So they hit no fail at 15th-18th (1st level spells-4th level spells).

    While I had a goal of trying to eliminate auto success and auto fail, the spread of DCs by spell level makes that near impossible. Perfect being the enemy of Good Enough, I'm willing to call my proposal with the 3 options for the half casting classes I suggested "good enough". Auto success is pushed back far enough that it will not happen in most games. For anyone who has a problem with that and wants to make disrupting casting more likely, add in a high level feat something like this:

    Spell Breaker
    Prerequisite: BAB 11
    When threatening a caster, add +4 to the DC for their casting defensively check.

    The BAB of 11 is to make it accessible to 3/4 BAB classes, if you feel it needs a stiffer requirement, add 5 ranks Spellcraft so you know what they are doing and how to stop them.

    And with this I think I've successfully addressed the needs of those who want to facilitate casting in melee and those who want it to be more difficult (something for each of the opposing viewpoints). This is the best I can do with the math I have to work with (spell levels, caster levels, and every other thing that could be plugged into the equation).


    Mage Slayer.

    Also, why are you assuming characters only have an end modifier to their Concentration checks of 1 a level?

    51 to 100 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / General Discussion (Prerelease) / Wish for casting defensively All Messageboards