That's a big loss, and there is a way to disrupt spellcasters: The latest prevent adds a feat that increases the DC by 4.
That's a start, but that's all it is. Now, if you can take that feat twice and have the effects stack (so as to neutralize Combat Casting and still retain an edge) then I'd be pleased with the new rules as written -- investing feats should really count for something. But for me to have to take a feat which does nothing but reduce auto-success to almost-auto-success, and isn't a stepping-stone to something better... well, that's not such a good deal.
Shoot, if we made this feat a Disrupt Casting skill instead, and you rolled against DC = CL + casting stat modifier, then there would be incentive for improving it, and a mechanism whereby people who actively want to be able to disrupt spells can eventually do so if they spend the resources, whereas people who don't care and don't invest won't be able to. That might be OK as well.
Those are by no means auto success numbers. Especially the 60% for fifth level spells.
If I told you that the fighter was only allowed an 60% chance to hit, and if he missed he lost 5 HP you would go crazy.
However for the wizard to accept that, then accept that they might pass the save throw, that he might fail the SR, and possibly even need to hit is acceptable? Especially when the wizard spends a limited resource in addition to the above to have that much chance of failing?
Including all the chances the spells already have to fail I see no reason he should have yet another chance of massive failure.
A friend and I were thinking about this long and hard and here's the fix we came up with for specialist/universal wizards.
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/wizardSpecialistFix&page=1#0
Let us know what you think.
Eien'Jinsai
A friend and I were thinking about this long and hard and here's the fix we came up with for specialist/universal wizards.
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/wizardSpecialistFix&page=1#0
Let us know what you think.
Eien'Jinsai
I think I'll wait to see what the actual rules are before I try and fix them. But I'm funny that way. ;D
|
I think I'll wait to see what the actual rules are before I try and fix them. But I'm funny that way. ;DA friend and I were thinking about this long and hard and here's the fix we came up with for specialist/universal wizards.
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/wizardSpecialistFix&page=1#0
Let us know what you think.
Eien'Jinsai
Weirdo.
;)
|
Perhaps I am caluclating hsi concentratio wrong...
15 for class (wizard plus Eldritch Knight) + 6 (int) +4 (combat casting)= 25.Dificulty of casting a levle 5 spell = 25.
So 100 percent safe casting in combat unless the opponent is a FIGHTER with the Disruptive feat (rangers rogues paladins and monks need not apply).
Now to cast a 7th level spell his highest DC 29, he needs to roll a 4 so 85% likley. Bear in mind that these are not optimized but are instead used to showcase feats etc. Assuming he had gotten a +5 tome sometime along the way (not that hard to do by 20th) he is automatic.
Finally at epic it beoomes automatic eventually for anyone.
IQ optimized wizard 20 starts with a 20 IQ, gets 6 for item, 5 for level increases and 5 for book for a total of 36 (yes you can get higher but thats fairly straight forward).
Concentration of 20 + 13 + 4 = 37Base concentration for a level 9 spell is 33.
Against a fighter with disruptive feat, automatic.
Drop Combat Casting and he is automatic against everyone BUT a fighter with disruptive, and 85% chance against that fighter.
I thought we were talking about the Wizard Ezren? Not the Eldritch Knight?
If I told you that the fighter was only allowed an 60% chance to hit, and if he missed he lost 5 HP you would go crazy.
Any time he engages a melee-oriented monster so that your wizard doesn't have to, his hit chance is often a lot worse than 60%, and he dies if he misses -- because over a couple of rounds, monsters can dish out more damage than fighters have hp. And a melee fighter HAS to stand there to do his thing, unlike your wizard who can tumble to safety and still cast. After low levels, it will be exceptionally rare that you'd even have to make a concentration check. And after all that, your definition of "reasonable" is > 50% success for your best spells (100% for most spells) for something you're not cut out for, against an optimized foe, in a situation it's almost absurdly easy to avoid.
If I told you my fighter should be able to tumble away after making a full attack, you'd go crazy. ;P
We need to agree on a definition for "reasonable" chance of success, for this to go anywhere but in circles. To my mind, "reasonable" would be 50% failure for your median spells (say, 1 level below max) if either the caster and the opponent are both optimized (headbands, feats, etc.) or else both are unprepared (no special items or feats).
To others, "reasonbale" is apparently 80% sucess for the above, or 100%.
In first edition, "reasonable" was 0%.
|
There in lies many of my problems with the dirction PF is going with a lot of magic related issues. In their games, a 50% chance of melee spellcasting is risky. But with the game style my some of my groups play in, tht jumps up significantly. I don't buy the % chance modles, but in a melee heavy game, we are probably talking about + 20 - +40%.
There in lies many of my problems with the dirction PF is going with a lot of magic related issues. In their games, a 50% chance of melee spellcasting is risky. But with the game style my some of my groups play in, tht jumps up significantly.
That's an excellent point -- the style of the game does make a huge difference, and ideally the system would accommodate a range of syles, not just one particular one.
Maybe, in the way that the Beta presented like 3 different options for starting hp, the cast defensively mechanic could be presented as a set of options:
(a) If your campaign features very frequent situations in which wizards somehow cannot avoid or move out of melee for some reason, or if your campaign is intentionally caster-biased, then no check is needed.
(b) If your campign is modelled more after a Conan-type story, in which a wizard's casting is easily disrupted by a skilled-enough foe, the DC for casting defensively is 10 + (2 x spell level) + the BAB of the creature threatening you.
(c) For campaigns that hinge on the assumption that high-level casters should succeed relatively easily (50% or better), whereas low-level casters should most often fail, a DC of 15 or 20 + (2 x spell level) might be appropriate.
If I told you that the fighter was only allowed an 60% chance to hit, and if he missed he lost 5 HP you would go crazy.Any time he engages a melee-oriented monster so that your wizard doesn't have to, his hit chance is often a lot worse than 60%, and he dies if he misses -- because over a couple of rounds, monsters can dish out more damage than fighters have hp. And a melee fighter HAS to stand there to do his thing, unlike your wizard who can tumble to safety and still cast. After low levels, it will be exceptionally rare that you'd even have to make a concentration check. And after all that, your definition of "reasonable" is > 50% success for your best spells (100% for most spells) for something you're not cut out for, against an optimized foe, in a situation it's almost absurdly easy to avoid.
If I told you my fighter should be able to tumble away after making a full attack, you'd go crazy. ;P
Not at all, the ability to fight on the move is an important fundamental aspect of a warrior's job, and it's a bit insane to me that a level 20 fighter can't do so.
However I don't think that it is as rare as you suggest, both due to the enclosed nature of the world we play in (especially dungeons) and the possible reach of various monsters. Also if the wizard is out travelling and adventuring I have a hard time believing he isn't "suited" to casting while being threatened, hell it was probably one of the first things covered.
For a wizard that isn't prepared (doesn't have combat casting) to lose a his most powerful spell (very limited resource) 40% of the time because someone is simply standing beside him is reasonable. I also believe that if said wizard is specifically trained to do such (does have combat casting) having only a 20% chance of losing that spell to someone just standing there is also reasonable. IF the wizard is trained, and the guy standing there is also trained in making the wizard's life difficult while he tries to use that spell (but still not actively doing anything else to hinder the mage) going back to that 40% failure rate is also acceptable.
Realize we are also talking about a rather optimized wizard in this case too. He has taken the feat, he has maxed out his Int, and he has taken an item to help himself do this too (the headband). If the headband was missing, his chances would drop by 5%... if he took a little less than optimum Int, (say an 18 instead of 20) then it drops another 5%. Those circumstances aren't that hard to come by either.
Not at all, the ability to fight on the move is an important fundamental aspect of a warrior's job, and it's a bit insane to me that a level 20 fighter can't do so.
I'll trade you, then: as soon as I can move and fight, you can cast defensively!
|
|
Not at all, the ability to fight on the move is an important fundamental aspect of a warrior's job, and it's a bit insane to me that a level 20 fighter can't do so.I'll trade you, then: as soon as I can move and fight, you can cast defensively!
Ok, well pathfinder has already done that first part. So when is the second coming?
The problem with the arguement that a wizard hasn't been trained to cast while threatened falls apart when you come to the Cleric and the Paladin. Both use the same rules, and obviously have been trained for malee casting, but still get stuck with AoO's. The logic just doesn't hold.
Not at all, the ability to fight on the move is an important fundamental aspect of a warrior's job, and it's a bit insane to me that a level 20 fighter can't do so.I'll trade you, then: as soon as I can move and fight, you can cast defensively!
I'll spot you the rapid blitz and bounding assault feats for free (aka as standard combat options, usable on the same target even) next time we are in a game together.... even subtract 5 off the BAB requirements if you want.
I'm a big lover of 99% of the changes I'm seeing in the final wizard. They are definitely much more balanced from my experiences playtesting. I played in a game with a universalist wizard and believe me metamagic mastery needed nerfing, maybe the nerfs to universalist were a bit harsh when veiwed all at once, but once you get past that you still see that a universalist has some major advantages in versatility over specialists, but now you aren't hurting yourself and are in fact encouraged to specialize because a specialist will have a bit more power. Hand of the apprentice was a b!%!* to adjudicate, I'm glad to see this simplified version.Pray tell what advantages? Specialist can do any school now, and that was the advantage an universalist, had, the classes are suppose to balance, and a universalist should be more powerful in that they have
a wider selection, BUT, a specialist, is better in their school spells,
but, with the specialist being able to cast from any school where is
the balance?
The Universalist doesn't pay the 2-slot cost to prep any prohibited school spell like the Specialists have to, so they're hardly free. :) Given that a specialist is only rarely going to scribe "double cost" anything into their spell books ... well, it's not as bad as you seem to be understanding it to be.
The Universalist doesn't pay the 2-slot cost to prep any prohibited school spell like the Specialists have to, so they're hardly free. :) Given that a specialist is only rarely going to scribe "double cost" anything into their spell books ... well, it's not as bad as you seem to be understanding it to be.I'm a big lover of 99% of the changes I'm seeing in the final wizard. They are definitely much more balanced from my experiences playtesting. I played in a game with a universalist wizard and believe me metamagic mastery needed nerfing, maybe the nerfs to universalist were a bit harsh when veiwed all at once, but once you get past that you still see that a universalist has some major advantages in versatility over specialists, but now you aren't hurting yourself and are in fact encouraged to specialize because a specialist will have a bit more power. Hand of the apprentice was a b!%!* to adjudicate, I'm glad to see this simplified version.Pray tell what advantages? Specialist can do any school now, and that was the advantage an universalist, had, the classes are suppose to balance, and a universalist should be more powerful in that they have
a wider selection, BUT, a specialist, is better in their school spells,
but, with the specialist being able to cast from any school where is
the balance?No bonus spells, the Hand for a few times a day, and metamagic mastery,
which is not at all useful at lower levels, this is good? Granted, very
few spells would I use two spell slots on, but come on, balance, please?
We'll see in roughly a ten-day. :)
Point still stands that if mage wants to make themselves immune to melee they can come pretty darn close.
Level 10 wizard with +6 int headband (his arcane bond so he can make it himself easily with the wealth by level). 10 (level) +4 (feat) + 14 (stat) = concentration 28.
DC to cast level 5 Spell 15 (base) + 10 (spell level x2) +4 (fighter with disruptive) = 29.
He is automatic on anyone including a fighter with the feat disruptive.
Um.. no... a 10th level mage will very very rarely have +14 ability modifier. I think you meant +7 from a 24 stat (18 +6 headband). That's +17 vs. DC 25, 35% failure. With combat casting, and not against disruptive fighter, 15%.
By the way, headband is not an arcane bond option. Only "amulet, ring, staff, wand, or weapon."
stuff
Hush your mouth Majuba! The rules have no place in this conversation!
Pray tell what advantages? Specialist can do any school now, and that was the advantage an universalist, had, the classes are suppose to balance, and a universalist should be more powerful in that they have
a wider selection, BUT, a specialist, is better in their school spells,
but, with the specialist being able to cast from any school where is
the balance?
I think you are underestimating the impact of double cost spells though. How many spells are worth burning 2 normal slots? Not a lot.
More significantly it's impossible to debate when you don't have all the facts. I haven't seen the final rules yet so I have no idea what the tradeoff is. I know I like the metamagic power a lot (silence and still spell gain a whole new level of usefulness), what does it compare to? In light of how significant the changes were to the generalist I don't think you can point to the beta as a reference.
Point still stands that if mage wants to make themselves immune to melee they can come pretty darn close.
Level 10 wizard with +6 int headband (his arcane bond so he can make it himself easily with the wealth by level). 10 (level) +4 (feat) + 14 (stat) = concentration 28.
DC to cast level 5 Spell 15 (base) + 10 (spell level x2) +4 (fighter with disruptive) = 29.
He is automatic on anyone including a fighter with the feat disruptive.
Um.. no... a 10th level mage will very very rarely have +14 ability modifier. I think you meant +7 from a 24 stat (18 +6 headband). That's +17 vs. DC 25, 35% failure. With combat casting, and not against disruptive fighter, 15%.
By the way, headband is not an arcane bond option. Only "amulet, ring, staff, wand, or weapon."
I think he is speaking of a Wizard with Int 20 (1st level) +2 increments (at 4th and 8th) +6 from Headband (yes, a +6 Headband at 10th level is a bit... overpowered, I think, but, oh well) = 28 Int. But this is still only a +9 bonus.
Plus, this character has burned 17 points to take a single 18 score (converted in 20 due to his +2 racial bonus for being an Elf/Human/Half/Elf/HALF-ORC!!!). In a standard campaign, his other scores would be 10/10/10/10/8 (or 12/10/10/8/8 - 12/10/10/10/6 if an Elf, but I would like to see an elven Wizard with only Constitution 6 !!!)
Ok, want to be REALLY crazy and see an actual +14 from Intelligence ? Play a venerable Wizard (Beta PFRPG, page 123).
You can reach a 23 Int at 1st level !!! Cool !!! (and a maximum of 39 Int at 20th level, thanks to 5 score increments, Tome of Intelligence +5 and magic Headband +6 = 14 bonus !)
Too sad your other scores are (assuming you are Human, of course):
Wisdom 13 (10 +3 from age)
Charisma 11 (8 +3 from age)
Strength, Dexterity and Constitution 4 !!!!! (10 -6 from age).
Yes, the bonuses/penalties are cumulative... (page 122: "With age, a character’s physical ability scores decrease and his mental ability scores increase (see Table 8–2). The effects of each aging step are cumulative. However, none of a character’s ability scores can be reduced below 1 in this way.")
This kind of character has obviously an unbeatable Defensive Casting check. But let's pray he doesn't catch a cold...
|
|
My question is, with Fighters (and everyone too), being able to dish out much more with single attack actions, is the DC to maintain a spell vs damage going to change? It seems like it gets nearly impossible to maintain a spell if hit, even against much lower level meleers.
With the new changes to concentration checks, many of the old ways to increase Concentration check don't apply, such as skill focus.
I'll spot you the rapid blitz and bounding assault feats for free (aka as standard combat options, usable on the same target even) next time we are in a game together.... even subtract 5 off the BAB requirements if you want.
You mean... my fighter might actually be able to fight without being glued to the floor? What a concept! I'd eliminate AoO for casting as a trade.
My question is, with Fighters (and everyone too), being able to dish out much more with single attack actions, is the DC to maintain a spell vs damage going to change? It seems like it gets nearly impossible to maintain a spell if hit, even against much lower level meleers.
How often do you use spells that require ongoing concentration? Most spells have a casting time of one standard action, which means that you begin casting and the spell essentially simultaneously takes effect. If you get hit before or afterwards in the same round, you're not disrupted (unlike in 1e).
As for readying an action... whenever you see a fighter standing still and watching you, even though he's five feet away and could easily attack? That means he's readying an action. Just move and then cast, and he's totally SOL, because he's readied for you to cast, not move. The readied action rules assume he is lobotomized when readied, so if you move first instead of casting, it confuses him and he loses the whole round. (Yes, I know this makes no sense at all, but that's how the rule seems to work.) If you're squeezed into a single square with nowhere to move (a position Abraham seems to constantly find himself in) then you really ought to invest in some boots of levitation, or at least keep a dimension door handy.
Just move and then cast, and he's totally SOL, because he's readied for you to cast, not move.
Actually, ready action rules just say you have to specify a trigger, not how specifically though. By RAW, theres nothing to stop you reading an action if the wizard "does somthing".
Though I agree, the Ready Action rules seem fairly silly. One thing we do in my group is say that when you ready an action, you don't need to specifiy the action or the trigger, and it makes it worthwhile using.
|
|
My question is, with Fighters (and everyone too), being able to dish out much more with single attack actions, is the DC to maintain a spell vs damage going to change? It seems like it gets nearly impossible to maintain a spell if hit, even against much lower level meleers.
How often do you use spells that require ongoing concentration?
As for readying an action... whenever you see a fighter standing still and watching you, even though he's five feet away and could easily attack? That means he's readying an action. Just move and then cast, and he's totally SOL, because he's readied for you to cast, not move.
Actually, as Nero said, that doesn't work at all, unless the player is labotomized to the point that they intentionally get that specific. It is perfectly legal, (in 3.0, 3.5, and PF), to say I ready an action to attack if someone casts a spell. When someone casts a spell, you can move and take your attack.
As for your question, it is not too common, but also not uncommon or rare, either. It happens every few sessions, give or take.
|
|
As for readying an action... whenever you see a fighter standing still and watching you, even though he's five feet away and could easily attack? That means he's readying an action. Just move and then cast, and he's totally SOL, because he's readied for you to cast, not move. The readied action rules assume he is lobotomized when readied, so if you move first instead of casting, it confuses him and he loses the whole round. (Yes, I know this makes no sense at all, but that's how the rule seems to work.)
Yes. Many of the problems seem to stem from over-pedantic rules on readied actions.
I sort of understand why you have to declare a trigger, as the designers didn't want PCs to be threatening every enemy in move or bow range, in a 360-degree field of view.But declaring only one specific action to interrupt? That's way too restrictive, and given the wide range of action types [(Ex), (Sp), (Su), spell, activate item, or attack], it's totally unworkable.
An older group of mine had a mutiny in the early days of 3.0, because the DM (no, not me) would constantly thwart attempts to interrupt enemy casters, using this loophole.
We'd ready, 'to interrupt him casting a spell', and lo and behold, he'd pull out a wand or scroll, and use that, and this, according to him, wouldn't count, because it wasn't casting, it was 'completing' or 'triggering' a spell. <rolls eyes>
Even after we convinced him that these still counted as spell-casting, it continued, with the enemy using (Su) or (Sp) abilities, or activating items. And there was no way to prove or disprove that he wasn't abusing out-of-character knowledge.
This was made worse, by the fact that he ruled this was a fair tactic for us to use in return, but it wasn't, since the players had to declare to him what they were readying for, but he was not under the same obligation. Needless to say, whenever one of us tried to surprise him, we got interrupted, as it would always just happen to be the very thing the enemy was expecting.
It was effectively like a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors, where the opponent gets to see your choice first.
As with many disputes over rules-as-written, versus rules-as-intended, I would be very interested whether Messrs Tweet, Cooke and Williams actually meant readied actions to be useless, or whether the above is just some former DM acting the prick.
As a result of having to put up with this nonsense, our group became very sceptical of any rule allowing casting in melee, or moving out of melee range, and I allow a much more relaxed interpretation of the 'readied' status, to include such options as;[list]
I'll spot you the rapid blitz and bounding assault feats for free (aka as standard combat options, usable on the same target even) next time we are in a game together.... even subtract 5 off the BAB requirements if you want.You mean... my fighter might actually be able to fight without being glued to the floor? What a concept! I'd eliminate AoO for casting as a trade.
Actually, I would like to limit it to fighter only without the feats. My thought is every other Full BAB class gets everything the fighter gets, plus another good save throw, or more skill points (or both) and generally has spells too in addition to special abilities. Just make it a bonus class feature at the appropriate levels.
Double off topic, but I kind of wish they'd get rid off class only feats. Particularly Fighter, but any feat that requires a Class irks me.
trippel ot. Other classes gets spells, sneak attack etc,. fighter gets feats. Of course Paixo could have named them talents and removed those feats from the list. Would that irk you less?
|
|
It's not really a fighter thing, though PF seems to be going a long way to making Fighter only feats. But 3E had a lot of class only feats, Fighter, Sorcerer, Wizard, and Rogue in particular.
I think it prevents interesting character builds and concepts. I found this a lot when I tried to build a Favored Soul, and the few feats I could actually qualify for otherwise where restricted by class.
You can only 5-foot step and take your attack, not move your speed and take your attack. Readying doesn't allow you to ready an entire turn's worth of actions. All you can ready is a standard action, plus a 5-foot step if you haven't already moved this round.
Yes, and everyone please note that when I said "move and then cast," I didn't say "take a 5-ft. step and then cast." (Before whining about drawing an attack of opportunity: (a) it's an AoO that doesn't ruin your spell; (b) mirror image, displacement, improved invisibility, levitate, etc. etc. etc.; (c) Acrobatics skill = auto avoid AoO while moving = better than the Mobility feat for wizards with a gazillion spell points due to Int).
I agree that the rules for readying actions are the problem. I'm houseruling that any or all movement and/or attacks or actions can be reserved at will, for use anytime before your next turn as immediate actions. I'm also making spellcasting take a full attack action, so that a caster can take a 5-ft. step and cast, but can't tumble 30 feet and still perform complicated somatic gestures. But for those playing by the core rules, there is really no reason that a wizard should ever need to cast defensively unless he's dumb enough to get trapped in a 5-ft. square with walls on three sides, a ceiling, and an enemy on the open face.
...or is built around touch attacks and doesn't have a spare spectral hand or familiar to spare.
...or is built around touch attacks and doesn't have a spare spectral hand or familiar to spare.
If you're going to build a caster specifically around melee, you'd best make him an Eldritch Knight.