|
Spellcraft represents the lore and mechanical knowledge of magic. Actual casting is about the practice of the proper movements and verbal recitation.
The current situation is like telling fighters to take Knowledge (military history) as a prerequisite to Weapon Specialization.
Therefore it would make roleplaying sense and it would ease the "skill point stress" of spellcasting classes to make "cast or lose" such as casting defensively or casting under distracting circumstances based on a caster level check (d20 + caster level + key ability modifier) instead of a Spellcraft check.
Sorcerors for example don't necessarily know how their magic works. The words and somatic gestures come naturally to them and so they practice their "art" every day, perfecting each syllable spoken and each wave of the hand so that they can cast their spells more easily.
Training in Spellcraft could still give a synergy bonus or allow a synergy bonus feat to casting checks.
If this change makes the players happy (not being pressured to take Spellcraft), then perhaps it should be done. Does it? Players post your replies so we can find out.
(Let's not forget to re-word the Combat Casting feat if this is done.)
This is a good solution. The main issue with the current version is that the change advantages Wizards with respect to other spellcasters. In order to prevent things getting too mad, I'd suggest using Constitution as with the old Concentration skill as the prime casting stat is likely to be a lot higher. On the other hand, the casters won't be benefiting from the +3 trained skill bonus, so this might provide compensation at higher levels.
I really like this.
Very good solution!!!
True.
Spellcraft is sort of a no-brainer for any caster.
It bothers me that with all the disparate skills that got merged, we still have two skills that are "Knowledge of Magic."
I would like to see concentration rolls made into a caster check, and the other applications of Spellcraft made a Knowledge (Arcana) roll.
I think it would be helpful at whatever appropriate Chapter (Combat, Magic, Skills)
to discuss how you see the Spell Disruption/ Interrupt vs. Spellcraft/Concentration issue.
There was a major shift in 2nd->3rd,
getting rid of Casting Time & Weapon Speed,
giving Casters Single Movement with all Standard Action Spells,
and removing Single Movement from Full Attack actions.
I've seen proposals on integrating Spellcraft/Concentration with the Skill based "Maneuvers" (Tumble & Bluff, opposed by Attack Bonus),
but Spell Disruption OUTSIDE of provoking AoO's also needs to be discussed, IMHO.
(I think damage not-on-exact Initiative Tick could be treated like DoT damage (1/2 Disruption effectiveness), for one.
That would give a feel more like 2nd Edition's rule of any hit during Casting Time = Auto-Disrupt.)
|
|
Spellcraft represents the lore and mechanical knowledge of magic. Actual casting is about the practice of the proper movements and verbal recitation.
The current situation is like telling fighters to take Knowledge (military history) as a prerequisite to Weapon Specialization.
Therefore it would make roleplaying sense and it would ease the "skill point stress" of spellcasting classes to make "cast or lose" such as casting defensively or casting under distracting circumstances based on a caster level check (d20 + caster level + key ability modifier) instead of a Spellcraft check.
Sorcerors for example don't necessarily know how their magic works. The words and somatic gestures come naturally to them and so they practice their "art" every day, perfecting each syllable spoken and each wave of the hand so that they can cast their spells more easily.
Training in Spellcraft could still give a synergy bonus or allow a synergy bonus feat to casting checks.
If this change makes the players happy (not being pressured to take Spellcraft), then perhaps it should be done. Does it? Players post your replies so we can find out.
(Let's not forget to re-word the Combat Casting feat if this is done.)
You do realize any mechanics involving caster level checks means Paladin and Ranger's are nerfed right?
|
|
You do realize any mechanics involving caster level checks means Paladin and Ranger's are nerfed right?Combat Casting feat and spells with swift/immediate action activation can be a way around it.
Add to the rules that swift or immediate action spells do not require caster level checks in those instances (rough weather, combat, etc.) and add paladin/ranger spells with swift/immediate action activations and paladins and rangers are good to go. After all, by definition they require much less effort to cast than spells with standard action or longer casting times.
For example, a swift action ranger spell that gives you an insight bonus to your attack roll made against a favored enemy monster or an immediate action paladin spell that grants the benefit of your Divine Grace class feature to all allies within 10 feet in response to an enemy attack.
It's all about synergy in the design. The spells that you give the class working with the rules that govern the spells.
While I don't disagree with the outcome: your suggestion of making it a caster level check is on the surface a really great idea; it wouldn't just nerf the paladin and ranger - it would screw them! So your take on that would be to make their spells swift/immediate actions.
Thus your idea carries the piggybacked notions of changing the design of both of those classes - which I don't disagree with doing - I think that it helps those two significantly - but my point is, that in order for you idea to work, it requires alot of other golden handshake rules to go into effect and redesigning in a lot of areas.
Again, I like the eventual outcome - but it's a giant leap.
I am very interested in what mechanic Jason eluded to in regards to this subject......
Robert
|
|
I just feel it shouldn't be changed except have Spellcraft use constitution modifier for casting defensively and Int for spell detection. You can have separate block called casting defensively, and have it as Mod = Con modifier + Class skill + ranks + Misic (Combat Casting or Skill Focus).
Yes I believe after large investment into casting defensively should equate to always being successful. Just like after a point you don't have to roll any more to open locks.
A caster level check instead of a skill check could be a great way to go.
Currently my wizard is running around at 12th level with Magical Aptitude and Skill Focus (Spellcraft) and full ranks in spellcraft. Counting in his INT of 25, he's got a +32 to the skill, it's almost a joke to make him roll the die right now. If the damage doesn't outright kill him the spell is going off. This will get even higher as he gains more levels and starts aquiring more items and ranks.
I think it is clear that it's all too easy to max out a skill and not even worry if you drop a nat 1 on to cast defensively, keep a spell, etc.
A straight caster level check would level the field between all casters, and give the mundanes a chance to actually do something instead of just sitting back and saying, "Gee, I hope I made my save."
|
|
A caster level check instead of a skill check could be a great way to go.
Currently my wizard is running around at 12th level with Magical Aptitude and Skill Focus (Spellcraft) and full ranks in spellcraft. Counting in his INT of 25, he's got a +32 to the skill, it's almost a joke to make him roll the die right now. If the damage doesn't outright kill him the spell is going off. This will get even higher as he gains more levels and starts aquiring more items and ranks.
I think it is clear that it's all too easy to max out a skill and not even worry if you drop a nat 1 on to cast defensively, keep a spell, etc.
A straight caster level check would level the field between all casters, and give the mundanes a chance to actually do something instead of just sitting back and saying, "Gee, I hope I made my save."
Yes but by Level 12 I feel you shouldn't have to roll to cast defensively. And you also took two feats to improve your "concentration" so yes those feats should pay off in some way which would be to allow you to get off your spells.
|
Yes but by Level 12 I feel you shouldn't have to roll to cast defensively. And you also took two feats to improve your "concentration" so yes those feats should pay off in some way which would be to allow you to get off your spells.
So you're comfortable with any non casting class being hosed by spellcasters with nothing to do in response but roll a save that will fail because of SAD?
I liked the idea of it being a DC based on BAB, was there a reason that didn't work?
I liked the idea of it being a DC based on BAB, was there a reason that didn't work?
QFT
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I am currently thinking about changing this to a different mechanic that does not rely on spells, but that is a discussion for the Skills portion of the playtest.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
*starts making the 'Save the Concentration Skill' signs.*
We'll be ready.
I agree.
|
|
You do realize any mechanics involving caster level checks means Paladin and Ranger's are nerfed right?
it wouldn't just nerf the paladin and ranger - it would screw them!
Actually it's not quite as bad as you would imagine. I had suggested using a caster level check for casting defensively months ago and ran some numbers.
Using DC of 15 + Spell Level. No stat mods were applied at all.
All classes started out needing a 15 or better to succeed at a casting a 1st level spell defensively except Paladins and Rangers who started out needing a 14. While the half caster level progression hurt them in that their 1st level spells never reached auto success (maxing out at a 6 or better for 1st level spells and 9 or better for 4th level spells), the fact that they only get 4 levels of spells helps them out by capping the DC. Give them full caster level and they become become the best at casting defensively in the game starting out needing a 12 for 1st level spells and reaching auto success for their highest level spell at at 18th level. This is completely without any stat modifiers (which aren't needed) or feats. If combat casting gave a bonus to the caster level check, then that just makes it that much better for them, and even with half caster level they still get more benefit from it than anyone else (each +1 being equal to 2 class levels in that case).
Another possible approach for the half caster level classes would be to have the DC set at 10 + Spell level for them instead of 15 + spell level, but I would prefer if they got full caster level as I dislike exceptions.
Actually there's been a lot of talk on the Paladin threads to improve the caster level - which would help. Having it be full caster level would IMO be akin to 'asking for the world;' instead, I'm more keen on making it caster level -3 since both Ranger and Paladin get spells at 4th level.
I think that will both help them in spellcasting, and help your math make it quite fair.
That all being said, there's been a lot of talk of "bring Concentration back" - which I'm more in favor of instead of rolling it into Spellcraft (which favors wizards far more than clerics and sorcerers). Opponents of that notion prefer the fact that skills are lumped together and help remove a skill that needs points allocated to it.
That being said - the conversation here - along with Jason's teaser leads me to think differently....
A mechanic like the CMB is used for combat maneuevers can easily be created, adopted, and employed.
A major aspect that I like in PF's version of casting defensively (as opposed to 3.5) is that it makes room for ones ability vs the threatening foe's combat ability - instead of just the stagnant DC that 3.5 used that never takes into consideration the prowess of those he's threatened by.
Using ones CMB bonus as a DC and having a caster level check or something to that effect makes a lot of sense, still uses a opponent vs opponent mechanic adjusted by the individual prowess of each, and still eliminates one skill from needing points to be allocated to.....
Robert
Robert
|
|
Yes but by Level 12 I feel you shouldn't have to roll to cast defensively. And you also took two feats to improve your "concentration" so yes those feats should pay off in some way which would be to allow you to get off your spells.
So you're comfortable with any non casting class being hosed by spellcasters with nothing to do in response but roll a save that will fail because of SAD?
I liked the idea of it being a DC based on BAB, was there a reason that didn't work?
No I'm comfortable forcing the players to think on their feet, by deciding to ready action.
|
|
A major aspect that I like in PF's version of casting defensively (as opposed to 3.5) is that it makes room for ones ability vs the threatening foe's combat ability - instead of just the stagnant DC that 3.5 used that never takes into consideration the prowess of those he's threatened by.
I think that regardless of the system used the opponent[s] who are in position to make the aoo if a caster tries to cast on the defensive should add either their BAB or CMB to the DC. This is how tumble works now, and I have liked the outcome.
And regardless of the difficulty of the defensive casting check players are going to still ready actions to disrupt. It happens now, and becomes more important as the caster is more and more likely to go up in levels and gets better at it.
Well my wizard has spent 2 feats to be better yes, but the fighter has spent how many to be effective and that doesn't outweight my mere 2?
Beyond that in addition to those 2 feats I got spells out the wazzoo, the fighter's still swinging a stick, like he did every level before this one. It seems to me he might have figured out by 12th level to not just stab the mage but to aim for the throat.
************************** new area ****************
Brutesquad that's a good idea.
|
|
No I'm comfortable forcing the players to think on their feet, by deciding to ready action.Yes but by Level 12 I feel you shouldn't have to roll to cast defensively. And you also took two feats to improve your "concentration" so yes those feats should pay off in some way which would be to allow you to get off your spells.
So you're comfortable with any non casting class being hosed by spellcasters with nothing to do in response but roll a save that will fail because of SAD?
I liked the idea of it being a DC based on BAB, was there a reason that didn't work?
ready an action hmm, oh the fighter hasn't moved yet I draw my crossbow and fire. well good thing he readied that action and now his turn is wasted.
Basically yes, you're comfortable with spellcasting classes being better. because in order to defeat them a melee class has to potentially waste a round. But a spellcaster never does.
I think the idea was that if the fighter was in threatening range of the spellcaster he would add his BAB to the DC of the check to cast defensively.
So if a paladin level 6 (6 BAB) charged a wizard, then the wizard went to cast a 3rd level spell the check would be:
DC = 24 = (15 + 3 (spell level) + 6 (paladin's BAB))
Which could add up to a much harder check.
In my wizard's case, if he was in melee with a 12th level fighter and went to cast a 6th level spell the DC would be: 33...
Still not a challenge, for my wizard. IF you take the two feats away I would still be + 22, which means I would Succeed 1/2 the time. Which isn't so insane.
Afterall at this point the paladin just has to threaten me to have a good chance of causing me to lose my spell. IF he actually gets a hit in becuase I didn't cast defensively then the check would be much different based on his damage and the spell level (I'm betting the paladin would deal more than 12 damage).
|
|
I think the idea was that if the fighter was in threatening range of the spellcaster he would add his BAB to the DC of the check to cast defensively.
So if a paladin level 6 (6 BAB) charged a wizard, then the wizard went to cast a 3rd level spell the check would be:
DC = 24 = (15 + 3 (spell level) + 6 (paladin's BAB))Which could add up to a much harder check.
In my wizard's case, if he was in melee with a 12th level fighter and went to cast a 6th level spell the DC would be: 33...
Still not a challenge, for my wizard. IF you take the two feats away I would still be + 22, which means I would Succeed 1/2 the time. Which isn't so insane.
Afterall at this point the paladin just has to threaten me to have a good chance of causing me to lose my spell. IF he actually gets a hit in becuase I didn't cast defensively then the check would be much different based on his damage and the spell level (I'm betting the paladin would deal more than 12 damage).
I think sucess half the time is a reasonable expectation. and you can always 5 foot step out and blast. So I think that it's a reasonable change.
I'm going to push my idea again of abandoning casting defensively. I think I've seen a consensus that spellcasters need a bit of nerfing, and this seems like a way to accomplish that and maybe speed things up.
If there's no casting defensively, then spellcasters have to take five-foot steps. If they're facing an opponent with reach, and they're well within that reach, casters will end up taking AoO's retreating or casting. I'm OK with that.
If a spellcaster wants to cast defensively, let them take the Combat Casting feat. If a spellcaster has Combat Casting, they can always cast without triggering and AoO. No roll, but still no big change from the 3.x state of the art for mid-level or higher characters. We can then give rangers and paladins Combat Casting as a bonus feat so they don't have to worry about casting in combat.
|
|
I'm going to push my idea again of abandoning casting defensively. I think I've seen a consensus that spellcasters need a bit of nerfing, and this seems like a way to accomplish that and maybe speed things up.
If there's no casting defensively, then spellcasters have to take five-foot steps. If they're facing an opponent with reach, and they're well within that reach, casters will end up taking AoO's retreating or casting. I'm OK with that.
If a spellcaster wants to cast defensively, let them take the Combat Casting feat. If a spellcaster has Combat Casting, they can always cast without triggering and AoO. No roll, but still no big change from the 3.x state of the art for mid-level or higher characters. We can then give rangers and paladins Combat Casting as a bonus feat so they don't have to worry about casting in combat.
Thats an interesting idea. I think, however, this idea would simply mean that EVERY primary spellcaster would take that feat, and thus we would be left with no attacks of opportunity would be allowed against any spellcaster, and then you haven't really nerfed spellcasting at all - you've actually made them better.....except for the one less feat they would have.
Robert
Thats an interesting idea. I think, however, this idea would simply mean that EVERY primary spellcaster would take that feat, and thus we would be left with no attacks of opportunity would be allowed against any spellcaster, and then you haven't really nerfed spellcasting at all - you've actually made them better.....except for the one less feat they would have.
I don't think they'd all take it, particularly at lower levels. In my games, I rarely see arcane casters in a spellcasting situation that can't be fixed by a five foot step.
I could be wrong, though.
|
I am currently thinking about changing this to a different mechanic that does not rely on spells, but that is a discussion for the Skills portion of the playtest.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing*starts making the 'Save the Concentration Skill' signs.*
We'll be ready.
Concentration skill needs to be changed to 'Focus' or something and be Wisdom based. Then, it needs to have some of the Autohypnosis features folded into it and be a *real* 'Concentration' skill, and not just 'skill to cast spells in combat.'
Just ignore the name 'autohypnosis.' This is *totally* what Concentration should have been, IMO.
*starts making the 'Save the Concentration Skill' signs.*
Concentration is to spellcasting as Perform is to Bardic music.
Both are so mandatory (and irrelevant to everyone else) that they shouldn't even be draining skill points.
Making Concentration into a Spellcraft roll didn't address the problem, instead it just biased the whole thing toward Wizards. The house-rule of using your caster attribute for Spellcraft is sort of sloppy and tacked on.
The more I think about it, the more caster-level checks make sense. In a more general sense, anything that is highly class specific and basically mandatory should use class level instead of skill points. Skill point choices should be real options for variety within a class.
|
|
The more I think about it, the more caster-level checks make sense. In a more general sense, anything that is highly class specific and basically mandatory should use class level instead of skill points. Skill point choices should be real options for variety within a class.
I have to say I agree.
Hey Tyro - remember on the rogues threads we were suggesting traps be capable of being searched (and found hopefully) by all classes - to which I and several others thought that a rogue should then have an awareness ability to sense them (like an elf does with secret doors) without have to actually 'search'......
well, the same mechanic as class level check for concentration checks I had used for my own home game in regards to the rogue 'spotting' the trap right before it goes off.
Thus it's a class-level feature - not just a skill point thing; this assured that someone wouldn't level dip one level of rogue in order to have this capability maxed out....
I think the same mechanic would work seamlessly for concentration or casting defensively especially.
Robert