Concentration gone the way of the dodo?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 319 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

lastknightleft wrote:
Michael Miller 36 wrote:
and you STILL face two attacks of oppertunity.
Where do you get that? that's only true if casting a spell with a ranged touch attack, you can cast a million spells, including spells that have ranges, that don't provoke a second AoO.

It appears I misread that section, I retract my statement

Sovereign Court

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
And I am one of the most obstinate people I know still I tried it from level 4 to level 10 with the group and saw it's effect.
Yeah, you quit just before defensive casting returned to the auto-success it always used to be. Like I said (three times now?), the final PF rule penalizes low-level casters disproportionately.

So did the skill check system though, so that never changed.

Sovereign Court

Michael Miller 36 wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
Michael Miller 36 wrote:
and you STILL face two attacks of oppertunity.
Where do you get that? that's only true if casting a spell with a ranged touch attack, you can cast a million spells, including spells that have ranges, that don't provoke a second AoO.
It appears I misread that section, I retract my statement

no prob I've done the exact same thing and my player had to show me how I made a dumb mistake before.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
And I am one of the most obstinate people I know still I tried it from level 4 to level 10 with the group and saw it's effect.
Yeah, you quit just before defensive casting returned to the auto-success it always used to be. Like I said (three times now?), the final PF rule penalizes low-level casters disproportionately.

I didn't quit the players asked for some help. So I threw in my feat. We will continue the game this weekend they should see level 11 if things go well.


Concentration as a Skill sounds as a bad Idea. Cause in the end is actually no skill at all. It's not "fair" if no one else can benefit from it, except casters. If it's a skill everyone should have use for it, as spellcraft for example. Sure, it's WAY better for casters, but non caster can benefit from it too.

I think the problem is not the skill, it's the DCs of the castings, if u put the skill back and keep the DCs the same not only will things remain the same, but your casters are going to buy combat casting AND skill focus as a must.

If u REALLY want to use concentration as a skill, I think using spellcraft is the way to go. Just an idea.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

What if the Concentration DC was 10 + (3 * spell level) ?

CL 1, SpLvl 1 - DC 13
Worst case: 11 Int, no CC: +1 to roll = succeed on 12.
Best case: 20 Int, Combat Casting: +10 to roll = succeed on 3.

CL 17, SpLvl 9 - DC 37
Worst case: 19 Int, no CC: +21 to roll = succeed on 16.
Best case: 30 Int, Combat Casting: +31 to roll = succeed on 6.

Dark Archive

tejón wrote:

What if the Concentration DC was 10 + (3 * spell level) ?

CL 1, SpLvl 1 - DC 13
Worst case: 11 Int, no CC: +1 to roll = succeed on 12.
Best case: 20 Int, Combat Casting: +10 to roll = succeed on 3.

CL 17, SpLvl 9 - DC 37
Worst case: 19 Int, no CC: +21 to roll = succeed on 16.
Best case: 30 Int, Combat Casting: +31 to roll = succeed on 6.

I think the point is that we want concentration to be difficult, not overly easy or frustratingly hard.

Lowering the DC by 5 then tripling the spell modifier makes it mind numbingly boring the entire time.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Dissinger wrote:

I think the point is that we want concentration to be difficult, not overly easy or frustratingly hard.

Lowering the DC by 5 then tripling the spell modifier makes it mind numbingly boring the entire time.

I appreciate that this is a troll, but I should point out (since you might actually also play the game) that I only increased the spell modifier by 50%.


Dissinger wrote:
I think the point is that we want concentration to be difficult, not overly easy or frustratingly hard.

I don't think that it should be 50% or more of a chance to fail your spell. If i tell my players that they only have a 25-45 percent chance to get a spell off successfully just because an enemy managed to get close to them I doubt I'd have any single class wizards in my games anymore. Hell, if thats the case, forget rolling a d20, can just flip a coin and not worry about any pesky modifiers.

That being said, lowering the DC from 15+2x mod to 10+2x mod or something in between might be something for me to look at too.


Seeing as it is mildly on topic, and people are actually reading this thread I'm going to mention that when Concentration lost its spot on the list of skills, it also lost its spot on the standard stat blocks, and it is also isn't on any of the 4 or 5 character sheets I've looked at for Pathfinder, including Paizo's.

It is at least as useful (at least to the classes that ever use it) and about as easy/hard to figure out on your own as CMB, so I think it deserves a spot in stat blocks/char sheets.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Michael Miller 36 wrote:
If i tell my players that they only have a 25-45 percent chance to get a spell off successfully just because an enemy managed to get close to them I doubt I'd have any single class wizards in my games anymore. Hell, if thats the case, forget rolling a d20, can just flip a coin and not worry about any pesky modifiers.

Only for the highest spell level, though.


Michael Miller 36 wrote:
Dissinger wrote:
I think the point is that we want concentration to be difficult, not overly easy or frustratingly hard.

I don't think that it should be 50% or more of a chance to fail your spell. If i tell my players that they only have a 25-45 percent chance to get a spell off successfully just because an enemy managed to get close to them I doubt I'd have any single class wizards in my games anymore. Hell, if thats the case, forget rolling a d20, can just flip a coin and not worry about any pesky modifiers.

That being said, lowering the DC from 15+2x mod to 10+2x mod or something in between might be something for me to look at too.

I hardly think this is the case :

1) as pointed out it only applies to the highest lvl spell, lower level spells will be much easier to cast

2)swift spells I assume still provoke no attacks of oppurtunity

3) you can move before you cast to get out of threat range
(tumble, take your attack of oppertunity, 5 foot step)

4) sometimes attacks of oppurtunity just arent scary so dont cast defensive by default (or sometimes it already made an attack of oppurtunity)if you get maybe 2 or 3 damage the check will be much easier even if you are hit.


Michael Miller 36 wrote:

then i may be houseruling it back in as a skill and just increasing casters skill points to 3 instead of 2. Should either increase the DC a bit, OR put in ways for people to counter a caster. not both at once. Seems a bit heavy handed.

perhaps its a help for those who never took the skill, but now its MUCH harder at the levels where you need the most help. Sure, its now easier at higher levels (possibly, though i still debate that with the two feats to counter spellcasters) but at lower levels the bonus for class skill plus skill ranks made casting on the defensive easier.

would have been a far simpler thing to increase skill ranks than to completely change around spellcasting in melee.

*gets out the houserule document and sighs*

It actually gets easier as you level up not harder since your caster levels and attributes will increase faster than that spell levels do.

Dark Archive

Michael Miller 36 wrote:
Dissinger wrote:
I think the point is that we want concentration to be difficult, not overly easy or frustratingly hard.

I don't think that it should be 50% or more of a chance to fail your spell. If i tell my players that they only have a 25-45 percent chance to get a spell off successfully just because an enemy managed to get close to them I doubt I'd have any single class wizards in my games anymore. Hell, if thats the case, forget rolling a d20, can just flip a coin and not worry about any pesky modifiers.

That being said, lowering the DC from 15+2x mod to 10+2x mod or something in between might be something for me to look at too.

TO look at it from the other side of the coin, I don't want to be a fighter and realize that I am utterly useless against a caster because they can more than half the time make my combat strategy of getting in their face useless.

Yes, it buffs melee classes, but it also buffs spell caster's reliance on melee combatants. If someone is in the wizard's face, something bad happened or you were surrounded. On average I find I can't just attack the mage, unless he's stupid enough to charge the front lines.

So really what do we go with here? Make casters afraid of being on the front line even more, or punishing the lucky fighter that reached the caster?


Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
I added a second feat called improved combat...

Interesting feat.. I might just steal that for the Advanced Player's Guide.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Yes, That is an Interesting feat feat. Especially if the feat allows you to "re-roll a failed roll for concentration", instead of giving the caster an aditional +4 on the check. That would be too good.

[Edit] So how many times per day? Once per day? Once per encounter? Three times per day?
3 + ability score modifier (used to determine bonus spells of the same type) would be too powerful IMHO.
Perhaps once per day is good enough?


hogarth wrote:

Since we're all sharing our favourite anecdotes:

Out of all the spellcasters I've played in 3.5/Pathfinder (a dozen or more), I've had to make a Concentration check maybe three or four times (not counting psionic characters). Therefore I never found that Concentration was a "skill tax" and indeed I often skimped on it.

Aren't anecdotes fun? :-)

This is more or less my experience also.

Though my ranger/ sorcerer tends to get into melee a good amount, but even so he tends to keep his AC buffed through the roof and relies on things like mirror image and greater invisibility to keep out of harms way than combat casting and concentration.

Grand Lodge

Dennis da Ogre wrote:
hogarth wrote:

Since we're all sharing our favourite anecdotes:

Out of all the spellcasters I've played in 3.5/Pathfinder (a dozen or more), I've had to make a Concentration check maybe three or four times (not counting psionic characters). Therefore I never found that Concentration was a "skill tax" and indeed I often skimped on it.

Aren't anecdotes fun? :-)

This is more or less my experience also.

Though my ranger/ sorcerer tends to get into melee a good amount, but even so he tends to keep his AC buffed through the roof and relies on things like mirror image and greater invisibility to keep out of harms way than combat casting and concentration.

Concentration and Spellcraft were hardly ever used in our games. I can't remember the last time anyone ever used Concentration and the only time Spellcraft was used was when the Wizard wanted to know what spell was being cast before it was completed. We used Knowledge (Arcana) more often. In my own games I might just get rid of Spellcraft and wrap it into Knowledge (Arcana).


Krome wrote:
Concentration and Spellcraft were hardly ever used in our games. I can't remember the last time anyone ever used Concentration and the only time Spellcraft was used was when the Wizard wanted to know what spell was being cast before it was completed. We used Knowledge (Arcana) more often. In my own games I might just get rid of Spellcraft and wrap it into Knowledge (Arcana).

I heavily campaigned for Spellcraft to be rolled into Knowledge (Arcana) and Knowledge (Religion), allowing characters of one skill to identify spells from that branch of magic. It makes little sense to me that wizards have as easy a time identifying divine magic as arcane magic, just from investing in one skill. It also makes little sense to differentiate between knowing lots about arcane magic and being able to identify arcane spells as they're cast.

It's one of the many house rules for skills I'm instituting in my own games. It saves the Wizards a skill point, and encourages spending points in a variety of knowledges (especially since they'll need Knowledge (Psionics) to identify powers).

I was planning on reinstating the Concentration skill and rolling some of Autohypnosis's abilities into it, but this thread has actually done a marginal job of convincing me that maybe it's not as vital as it needs to be. I just dislike the disparity amongst low and high level casters - I've seen casting defensively happen rather regularly in my games, and lower level casters are the ones who it seems would suffer the most for this rule change, and they're the ones who need the help. I considered making the DC scale up in part based on the threatener's BAB, but hadn't entirely codified it yet.


Zark wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
I added a second feat called improved combat...

Interesting feat.. I might just steal that for the Advanced Player's Guide.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Yes, That is an Interesting feat feat. Especially if the feat allows you to "re-roll a failed roll for concentration", instead of giving the caster an aditional +4 on the check. That would be too good.

[Edit] So how many times per day? Once per day? Once per encounter? Three times per day?
3 + ability score modifier (used to determine bonus spells of the same type) would be too powerful IMHO.
Perhaps once per day is good enough?

Found that once is plenty. Like the improved iron will and such. Yeah I thought about going to an additional +4 but that made it a give me really quickly.


Disciple of Sakura wrote:
I considered making the DC scale up in part based on the threatener's BAB, but hadn't entirely codified it yet.

DC = 10 + (1/2 threatener's BAB) + (2 x spell level).

Additional threatening creatures can "aid another" (+2 to DC each).

  • Using this, a 1st level wizard with 16 Int, vs. a BAB +1 opponent, needs a 9 or better to get a 1st level spell off (+4, vs. DC 13 = 60% success). Using the Pathfinder rule, that same apprentice would need a 13 or better (DC 17; 40% success).
  • An 18th level wizard with Int 26 against a BAB +18 opponent, to cast a 9th level spell, needs a 11 or better (+26, vs. DC 37 = 50% success). Using the Pathfinder rule, he needs only a 7 or better (DC 33; 70% success).

    In general, this rule has two effects:

    1. DC for casting your highest-level spell defensively against a fighter of equal level (for example) hovers around 50%, with lower-level spells being much easier to cast.

    2. Multiple creatures like kobolds, if they "gang up" on a mid-level caster, can still potentially disrupt his casting.


  • Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Disciple of Sakura wrote:
    I considered making the DC scale up in part based on the threatener's BAB, but hadn't entirely codified it yet.

    DC = 10 + (1/2 threatener's BAB) + (2 x spell level).

    Additional threatening creatures can "aid another" (+2 to DC each).

  • Using this, a 1st level wizard with 16 Int, vs. a BAB +1 opponent, needs an 9 or better to get a 1st level spell off (+4, vs. DC 13). Using the Pathfinder rule, that same apprentice would need a 13 or better (DC 17).
  • An 18th level wizard with Int 26 against a BAB +18 opponent, to cast a 9th level spell, needs a 11 or better (+26, vs. DC 37). Using the Pathfinder rule, he needs only a 7 or better (DC 33).

    In general, this rule has two effects:

    1. DC for casting your highest-level spell defensively against a fighter of equal level (for example) hovers around 50%, with lower-level spells being much easier to cast.

    2. Multiple creatures like kobolds, if they "gang up" on a mid-level caster, can still potentially disrupt his casting.

  • I like it, I think I might use that houserule in my games. One suggestion though, it wasn't super clear from the description how you stack BAB from multiple attackers (the kobold example). I'd suggest using something similar to the Aid another rule, highest BAB +2 per additional opponent, otherwise it would just become almost flat impossible with more than one or two opponents unless they were all very low CR.


    Brodiggan Gale wrote:
    One suggestion though, it wasn't super clear from the description how you stack BAB from multiple attackers (the kobold example). I'd suggest using something similar to the Aid another rule, highest BAB +2 per additional opponent, otherwise it would just become almost flat impossible with more than one or two opponents unless they were all very low CR.

    What you've described was exactly my intent:

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Additional threatening creatures can "aid another" (+2 to DC each).


    I like Improved Combat Casting.

    Good one, Thurgon!


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Brodiggan Gale wrote:
    One suggestion though, it wasn't super clear from the description how you stack BAB from multiple attackers (the kobold example). I'd suggest using something similar to the Aid another rule, highest BAB +2 per additional opponent, otherwise it would just become almost flat impossible with more than one or two opponents unless they were all very low CR.

    What you've described was exactly my intent:

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Additional threatening creatures can "aid another" (+2 to DC each).

    Heh, jeez, it was right there and I missed it, sorry about that.

    Paizo Employee Creative Director

    Disciple of Sakura wrote:
    I heavily campaigned for Spellcraft to be rolled into Knowledge (Arcana) and Knowledge (Religion), allowing characters of one skill to identify spells from that branch of magic. It makes little sense to me that wizards have as easy a time identifying divine magic as arcane magic, just from investing in one skill. It also makes little sense to differentiate between knowing lots about arcane magic and being able to identify arcane spells as they're cast.

    Not a bad idea... but it does immediately put Charisma-based spellcasters like bards and sorcerers at an unfair disadvantage, since even if those skills are class skills, they're more likely to have a much lower Wisdom or Intelligence.

    Removing concentration from the skill list entirely and effectively giving it to every spellcaster for free's a much better solution.

    I think this isn't really the problem folks are having with it. What's catching some folks off-guard is the fact that we made the rolls harder, both by increasing the DC for some effects and by lowering the assumed modifier everyone will have to the skill by, effectively, 3 points (since it's not a skill anymore). This DOES make concentration checks more difficult, and that's the point. A spellcaster who wants to be really good at concentrating has feats he can take, and as Jason mentioned upthread we'll be doubtlessly be doing more feats that interact with concentration in the future (both to increase its effects and to combat it).

    One of the big concerns that folks had against the rules during 3.5 and the beta, and one of the things we tried hard to fix, was to make non-spellcasters viable and competitive at higher levels. The changes to concentration reflect this. A spellcaster's best spot to be when casting spells is somewhere relatively safe; if it's a non-issue for him to stand in melee and throw around spells, it steals thunder from non-spellcaster classes and makes spellcaster classes unnecessarily powerful. While we didn't want to totally remove the option for a spellcaster to cast in melee, we wanted to make it a more unusual situation for spellcasting. This does mean that spellcasters will need to be a bit more tactically minded in combats at times. If you prefer games wherein spellcasters have little risk of failing at melee spellcasting, then house rule away; that's not the goal of the basic core game play experience though.

    Now, as for the problem of actual melee spellcasters, such as bards or battle clerics or fighter/wizard spellblade type characters... keep in mind that there's another option to casting spells in melee. Just cast them! You can do things in melee to trick foes into using up their attacks of opportunity, say, by moving around a foe or having allies or summoned minions use up the foe's attacks, so that you can cast in melee safely without concentrating and without worrying about an AoO. Or alternatively, you can just cast away and provoke. The bad guy still has to hit you, and if you're a character built to be in melee, you'll in theory have a much better armor class than the spellcaster who's not (this is why bards and clerics and druids get armor proficiency, after all!). Run the numbers; you'll see that in many cases it's much better to take the risk of a foe hitting you if you have a good AC than it is risking a concentration check. And even if the foe DOES hit you, that isn't an auto ruin of a spell, since you STILL get to make a concentration check, and one that in many cases will be easier to make than casting defensively. These tactics are really only bad tactics against foes that have high attack rolls and do a lot of damage, and in those cases you should be fighting more carefully anyway.

    SO! In closing, I do understand why there's some heavy resistance to the way concentration works now. I remember similar resistance when 3.0 just started; cyclic initiative is a good example, and an even more pertinent example is that the removal of casting times from spells made it "impossible to disrupt spellcasters!" Yet after playing with the new rules, it seemed impossible to imagine going back to the 2nd edition ways... at least for me!

    So... before you houserule concentration, give it a try for a few sessions! You might find that the changes suit your game better than you thought they would!


    James Jacobs wrote:
    What's catching some folks off-guard is the fact that we made the rolls harder, both by increasing the DC for some effects and by lowering the assumed modifier everyone will have to the skill by, effectively, 3 points (since it's not a skill anymore). This DOES make concentration checks more difficult, and that's the point.

    With respect, Mr. Jacobs, it has been demonstrated that rolls are substantially harder at low levels, somewhat harder at mid levels, and that casting defensively at high levels is still trivially easy. Run the numbers and you'll see what I mean; caster level + caster stat modifier, together, scale faster than (2 x spell level).


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    James Jacobs wrote:
    What's catching some folks off-guard is the fact that we made the rolls harder, both by increasing the DC for some effects and by lowering the assumed modifier everyone will have to the skill by, effectively, 3 points (since it's not a skill anymore). This DOES make concentration checks more difficult, and that's the point.
    With respect, Mr. Jacobs, it has been demonstrated that rolls are substantially harder at low levels, somewhat harder at mid levels, and that casting defensively at high levels is still trivially easy. Run the numbers and you'll see what I mean; caster level + caster stat modifier, together, scale faster than (2 x spell level).

    I'm not sure what you mean by high level play. Your above example is 20th level, I'm more interested in 12-16th or so.

    At 12th level:
    If you start with 20 in the casting stat the caster has a 23 or a +6 and likely has a stat booster for another +2 so CLC is 12+8 or 20. The DC for your highest level spells is 27 so you need a 7 to cast defensively, a fairly significant risk of spell loss. With a (probably more common) 18 or 19 starting caster stat or a less powerful booster it's even tougher.

    At 16th level it's reasonable to assume that both the stat booster and the stat get bumped but your DC goes up also. CLC is +26, DC is 31, and spells fail on a 5 or less. 20th level IMO is a bad example because spell levels stop progressing.

    Your assertion that it gets easier to cast is true but there is still a significant risk of failure. I suppose if you have combat casting it's pretty low by 16th level. For many groups the DCs are going to be harder than this due to lower starting scores or less availability of exactly optimal magic items. When you start designing for optimized groups then suddenly it becomes impossible for the more average players.

    As a side note, I kind of think the game would be improved if you just excised casting stat boosters entirely but that's a personal experiment.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

    Dennis, you forget things like Combat Casting (+4) and Ioun Stones (+1, more if your DM is silly and lets them stack). I would say other feats as well, but I cannot say for certain if anything else applies. Things like the 3.5 domains that added a caster level to certain subschools and the like.

    Edit: I need to read more closely. You did mention CC.

    Dark Archive

    Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    James Jacobs wrote:
    What's catching some folks off-guard is the fact that we made the rolls harder, both by increasing the DC for some effects and by lowering the assumed modifier everyone will have to the skill by, effectively, 3 points (since it's not a skill anymore). This DOES make concentration checks more difficult, and that's the point.
    With respect, Mr. Jacobs, it has been demonstrated that rolls are substantially harder at low levels, somewhat harder at mid levels, and that casting defensively at high levels is still trivially easy. Run the numbers and you'll see what I mean; caster level + caster stat modifier, together, scale faster than (2 x spell level).

    With respect, I think you're missing the point. Castring in combat is difficult and it shoudl be. That's good. Get the spellcasters to the back or let them use other spells besides offensive combat spells to ensure they don't get hit. If mages are taking nothing but MM's, Acid arrows, fireballs and lightening bolts then they are missing a load of the fun of being a mage. Try using the other spells more effectively, it's fun and challenging to do so.


    ...Spellcraft to be rolled into Knowledge (Arcana) and Knowledge (Religion)....

    James Jacobs wrote:


    Not a bad idea... but it does immediately put Charisma-based spellcasters like bards and sorcerers at an unfair disadvantage, since even if those skills are class skills, they're more likely to have a much lower Wisdom or Intelligence.

    I'm sure I'm just missing something, but isn't Spellcraft and all Knowledge skills based on INT? How would getting rid of Spellcraft and using Knowledge(Arcana or Religion) put CHA-based spellcasters at anymore of a disadvantage than before? They don't get to use their CHA bonus either way?

    I love Pathfinder so far! I am thinking of converting a D&D3.5 over to Pathfinder. Characters are at 6th level right now.

    Konrad


    Lewy wrote:
    With respect, I think you're missing the point. Castring in combat is difficult and it shoudl be. That's good. Get the spellcasters to the back or let them use other spells besides offensive combat spells to ensure they don't get hit. If mages are taking nothing but MM's, Acid arrows, fireballs and lightening bolts then they are missing a load of the fun of being a mage. Try using the other spells more effectively, it's fun and challenging to do so.

    The point he is making is that it's hard when casters are weak and easy when casters are strong which is sort of the reverse of what it should be.


    Dennis da Ogre wrote:
    Lewy wrote:
    With respect, I think you're missing the point. Castring in combat is difficult and it shoudl be. That's good. Get the spellcasters to the back or let them use other spells besides offensive combat spells to ensure they don't get hit. If mages are taking nothing but MM's, Acid arrows, fireballs and lightening bolts then they are missing a load of the fun of being a mage. Try using the other spells more effectively, it's fun and challenging to do so.
    The point he is making is that it's hard when casters are weak and easy when casters are strong which is sort of the reverse of what it should be.

    But wouldn't it be odd if it were the other way around? If inexperienced wizards could cast in melee willy-nilly and archmages were running scared? It's like complaining that it's hard for a fighter to hit a red dragon at low levels and easy at high levels. Well, yes: isn't that the point?


    Dennis da Ogre wrote:
    Lewy wrote:
    With respect, I think you're missing the point. Castring in combat is difficult and it shoudl be. That's good. Get the spellcasters to the back or let them use other spells besides offensive combat spells to ensure they don't get hit. If mages are taking nothing but MM's, Acid arrows, fireballs and lightening bolts then they are missing a load of the fun of being a mage. Try using the other spells more effectively, it's fun and challenging to do so.
    The point he is making is that it's hard when casters are weak and easy when casters are strong which is sort of the reverse of what it should be.

    Uhm, only on Bizarro world (you know, Bizarro, Superman's opposite clone? Where killing the victims and saving the bad guys is good, and protecting people is bad?). Sorry, not trying to be a *** about it, but that statement is just wrong.

    Take the real world, for example. Who has an easier time designing a rocket, a rocket engineer who has been to school for 8 years and worked his way up through NASA for 15 years, or the guy who's just gotten his Engineering Bachelors?

    Who do you want preparing your Fugu, the master chef who's been doing it for 20 years, or the girl that just graduated from highschool who had home-ec?

    Things are, and should be, harder for a novice than an expert. A 1st level wizard is just learning how to cast spells at all, much less working on keeping his cool when some other apprentice barbarian is howling and swinging a 10 lb axe at his head.

    In my game, the players (players!) were so fed up with this they all agreed on a rule that spell casters *had* to take the defensive casting feat to even attempt a defensive casting of a spell. We also used 15+2x spell level for the concentration check.

    Remember, all things apply equally. That means if you make it so it's very easy for YOUR character to cast a spell even though he's got 10 goblins taking potshots at him, then it's also easy for the BBEG to cast his flamestrike or chain lightning even though your 3 fighters are surrounding him.


    James Jacobs wrote:
    Disciple of Sakura wrote:
    I heavily campaigned for Spellcraft to be rolled into Knowledge (Arcana) and Knowledge (Religion), allowing characters of one skill to identify spells from that branch of magic. It makes little sense to me that wizards have as easy a time identifying divine magic as arcane magic, just from investing in one skill. It also makes little sense to differentiate between knowing lots about arcane magic and being able to identify arcane spells as they're cast.
    Not a bad idea... but it does immediately put Charisma-based spellcasters like bards and sorcerers at an unfair disadvantage, since even if those skills are class skills, they're more likely to have a much lower Wisdom or Intelligence.

    Not really. I'm not talking about using the Beta version of Spellcraft - I was campaigning for a reinstating of Concentration and rolling the 3.5 benefits of Spellcraft into the Knowledges. I thought that would have been clear from my description of how the Knowledges work. In that case, it doesn't disadvantage the sorcerer anymore than now, and it actually means the bard may very well be a go-to guy for identifying spells, if he uses his Bardic Knowledge on the appropriate knowledges. Charisma classes aren't penalized particularly by this change.

    James Jacobs wrote:
    Removing concentration from the skill list entirely and effectively giving it to every spellcaster for free's a much better solution.

    It does have repercussions on other rule subsets, like Psionics and Tome of Battle, as well as instances where DMs may have actually used the rule to reinforce the idea of difficulty due to distraction. This was gone over several times in several threads during the Beta, and I know it was commented on by Paizo staffers as well. There was more to the Concentration skill than just casting defensively, especially once you got out past the core rules. I'm still at a loss what to do with the Diamond Mind discipline instead of Concentration if I was to remove the skill. I realize it's non-core, and it's not something Paizo was really that concerned with, but it borks the backwards-compatibility goal a bit more than you'd think just removing that skill.

    James Jacobs wrote:

    I think this isn't really the problem folks are having with it. What's catching some folks off-guard is the fact that we made the rolls harder, both by increasing the DC for some effects and by lowering the assumed modifier everyone will have to the skill by, effectively, 3 points (since it's not a skill anymore). This DOES make concentration checks more difficult, and that's the point. A spellcaster who wants to be really good at concentrating has feats he can take, and as Jason mentioned upthread we'll be doubtlessly be doing more feats that interact with concentration in the future (both to increase its effects and to combat it).

    One of the big concerns that folks had against the rules during 3.5 and the beta, and one of the things we tried hard to fix, was to make non-spellcasters viable and competitive at higher levels. The changes to concentration reflect this. A spellcaster's best spot to be when casting spells is somewhere relatively safe; if it's a non-issue for him to stand in melee and throw around spells, it steals thunder from non-spellcaster classes and makes spellcaster classes unnecessarily powerful. While we didn't want to totally...

    I'm okay with it being harder. I just don't think it should be easier for a higher level caster to cast reality altering spells on the scale of Wish or Gate while in combat versus a novice casting a much simpler Magic Missile. Especially since the novice only has one or two such spells per day, and then he's tapped out of the really useful things. I also think it should be somehow based on the skill of the threatener, which is why I think a BAB component would make sense, even if it'd make the DC a bit more complicated to adjudicate (no more so than the new tumble DC, really).

    Liberty's Edge

    Joana wrote:
    Dennis da Ogre wrote:
    Lewy wrote:
    With respect, I think you're missing the point. Castring in combat is difficult and it shoudl be. That's good. Get the spellcasters to the back or let them use other spells besides offensive combat spells to ensure they don't get hit. If mages are taking nothing but MM's, Acid arrows, fireballs and lightening bolts then they are missing a load of the fun of being a mage. Try using the other spells more effectively, it's fun and challenging to do so.
    The point he is making is that it's hard when casters are weak and easy when casters are strong which is sort of the reverse of what it should be.
    But wouldn't it be odd if it were the other way around? If inexperienced wizards could cast in melee willy-nilly and archmages were running scared? It's like complaining that it's hard for a fighter to hit a red dragon at low levels and easy at high levels. Well, yes: isn't that the point?

    Nice example - well put. The only thing I would consider house ruling would be no DEX bonus during casting.

    S.


    Joana wrote:
    But wouldn't it be odd if it were the other way around? If inexperienced wizards could cast in melee willy-nilly and archmages were running scared? It's like complaining that it's hard for a fighter to hit a red dragon at low levels and easy at high levels. Well, yes: isn't that the point?

    Strangely, I find myself defending Kirth's idea.

    There are 2 ways to look at this.
    The "it makes sense/ real world" analogy:
    Wizards get better at low level spells, this is good. A 15th level wizard should be able to cast a 1st level spell and much easier than a 1st level wizard. The mechanic handles that quite well as the DC for casting 1st level spells is fixed while the casters CLC goes up with level and stat boosts. At 15th level it is trivial for a wizard to cast a 1st level spell. All is good there.

    Should a 15th level wizard be an instant expert at casting his hardest spells? I mean sure he should be awesome at the spells he's been casting for months and months but shouldn't the new stuff be a little challenging? I'm not suggesting it should be as difficult as a first level wizard busting out his first spells but casting your hardest spells/ newest learned spells under duress should be challenging.

    The "game balance/ meta gamey" thing:
    Low level casters are typically weaker than comparable martial characters and making the casting more challenging for them only exaggerates this. Higher level casters are typically much more powerful than martial characters and making casting easy for them only exaggerates this.

    So in a lot of ways I agree with Kirth... I just don't really think it's extremely relevant because my the time it's an issue casters have all sorts of ways to avoid attacks and stay out of harms way.

    The Exchange

    Kirth Gersen wrote:


    In general, this rule has two effects:

    1. DC for casting your highest-level spell defensively against a fighter of equal level (for example) hovers around 50%, with lower-level spells being much easier to cast.

    2. Multiple creatures like kobolds, if they "gang up" on a mid-level caster, can still potentially disrupt his casting.

    I think that this is about right. I can think of a number of examples from literature where a mighty spell-hurler took his eye off the people next to him and expired upon the end of many inexpertly wielded and somewhat rusty daggers.

    I like my mages to be egg-shells - strong enough to hold their own, but fragile once struck. Mobbed by kobolds should be enough to take any character down, given sufficient kobolds. This from a DM who plays a 25th level wizard when he gets to play.


    brock wrote:
    Kirth Gersen wrote:


    In general, this rule has two effects:

    1. DC for casting your highest-level spell defensively against a fighter of equal level (for example) hovers around 50%, with lower-level spells being much easier to cast.

    2. Multiple creatures like kobolds, if they "gang up" on a mid-level caster, can still potentially disrupt his casting.

    I think that this is about right. I can think of a number of examples from literature where a mighty spell-hurler took his eye off the people next to him and expired upon the end of many inexpertly wielded and somewhat rusty daggers.

    I like my mages to be egg-shells - strong enough to hold their own, but fragile once struck. Mobbed by kobolds should be enough to take any character down, given sufficient kobolds. This from a DM who plays a 25th level wizard when he gets to play.

    About like Dragon Mountain from 2nd edition? hehe...that was FUN.

    Paizo Employee Creative Director

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    James Jacobs wrote:
    What's catching some folks off-guard is the fact that we made the rolls harder, both by increasing the DC for some effects and by lowering the assumed modifier everyone will have to the skill by, effectively, 3 points (since it's not a skill anymore). This DOES make concentration checks more difficult, and that's the point.
    With respect, Mr. Jacobs, it has been demonstrated that rolls are substantially harder at low levels, somewhat harder at mid levels, and that casting defensively at high levels is still trivially easy. Run the numbers and you'll see what I mean; caster level + caster stat modifier, together, scale faster than (2 x spell level).

    If this is something that is harder at lower levels and trivial at higher levels... I'm kind of okay with that, since it rewards spellcasters for sticking it out with their class. I'm personally more comfortable with a high level spellcaster throwing around magic in melee than a low level one. That DOES erode the argument about strengthening nonspellcasters at high levels though.

    Paizo Employee Creative Director

    Morval wrote:
    I'm sure I'm just missing something, but isn't Spellcraft and all Knowledge skills based on INT? How would getting rid of Spellcraft and using Knowledge(Arcana or Religion) put CHA-based spellcasters at anymore of a disadvantage than before? They don't get to use their CHA bonus either way?

    It'd also hurt Wisdom-based spellcasters, now that I think of it. In fact, making concentration part of any Knowledge skill immediately makes wizards the best at the skill and makes ALL OTHER spellcasters less good at it. Why? Because wizards are the only core spellcasting class that uses Intelligence to cast spells, and thus they'll generally always have better Intelligence modifiers (and thus better Knowledge checks) than other spellcasting classes.


    Majuba wrote:
    Thurgon wrote:
    I tried it RAW, the casters in the party got frustrated.

    They got frustrated with the actual use, or just the numbers part of it? I just so rarely see casters in a situation where they actually have to use concentration and can't 5' step back safely to cast.

    About the roughest thing I've seen (and nothing to do with the change from a skill) is for casting while grappled: DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level. That's *hard*

    No, that is pretty much impossible, which is largely my frustration with it. Take 10th level. Lets say the wizard got lucky on their stat rolls and had an 18 int, and has a +4 headband. +17 on the check. vs. a DC that can easily be 35. Many of these DCs are all but impossible for even a very high level spellcaster. I've been playing sort of a rough and tumble wizard with an 18 con for a while who's soaked up hits for the party in the past to save the fighters from death. That doing so now would pretty much make it impossible for me to be effective in combat is extremely frustrating (especially given how many monsters have Improved Grab in the STAP).

    Yeah, I'm not real happy with the changes to it overall.

    Paizo Employee Creative Director

    Disciple of Sakura wrote:
    It does have repercussions on other rule subsets, like Psionics and Tome of Battle, as well as instances where DMs may have actually used the rule to reinforce the idea of difficulty due to distraction. This was gone over several times in several threads during the Beta, and I know it was commented on by Paizo staffers as well. There was more to the Concentration skill than just casting defensively, especially once you got out past the core rules. I'm still at a loss what to do with the Diamond Mind discipline instead of Concentration if I was to remove the skill. I realize it's non-core, and it's not something Paizo was really that concerned with, but it borks the backwards-compatibility goal a bit more than you'd think just removing that skill.

    Well... things like psionics and tome of battle options are not part of the Pathfinder RPG yet. We'll probably do something with psionics eventually, at which point we'll solve that problem, probably in the same way by saying that a psionic spellcaster modifies his concentration check with the ability score that's most relevant to his spellcasting. The same can go for other classes that use concentration, in fact. We'd probably not build a class that requires concentration checks that key off of multiple ability scores... or if we DID, we'd give that class some sort of ability that makes concentration still viable.

    But yeah... non-core interactions with the rules isn't (and CAN'T be) something Paizo obsesses over. In fact, I suspect that no one at Paizo's all that familiar with the latter WotC rules option books like Tome of Battle, Incarnum, and the like... I certainly am not, since those books came out at a time when my own interests in the game were drifting away from WotC and more toward the Open Gaming scene. (Coincides about exactly with when I learned that Paizo was losing the magazine license, in fact...)

    We tried our best to make the PRPG compatible with those sources by not changing as many rules as we could have, and I think for the most part we did quite well. But the more unusual and far-afield you're going to get with your 3.5 products, going into books that drifted far from the core 3.5 assumptions (like Tome of Battle does), the more work you'll be needing to do with converting. It's just the way it is, alas.

    These boards though, I hope, will serve the purpose of providing advice and conversion ideas for such books. We can't do it officially, and I can't do it because I'm just not familiar enough with things like Tome of Battle, but other folks here on these boards certainly can. Which I think is pretty great!


    Khalarak wrote:
    Also....hasn't the concern in the past been that fighter-types didn't stand a chance against mages? So isn't Concentration getting harder a fix?

    No, the concern in the past was that people who played the theory/numbers game and didn't actually play in practice claimed that spellcasters were in all ways superior to fighters - and pointed to fighters/melee characters losing in 1 vs. 1 duels against spellcasters as (flawed) evidence of such.

    If the game is fighters vs. mages then you've already got problems that the system isn't going to be able to resolve.

    Scarab Sages

    Here's a dangerous thought. Why not eliminate defensive casting altogether?

    Simply keep the DC to cast a spell when taking damage (DC 10 + damage taken + spell level). If a mage wants to cast in combat, he gets scrapes. There are no rules to allow an archer to fire in melee (in fact, there are many to discourage it) so why allow the mage to do so essentially for free (now that it is not a skill). Spellcasting is easily the most complicated thing a character can do, and yet many other things automatically incur an attack of opportunity (such as moving).

    I'm not advocating either way on this, just an idea. Feedback?

    Paizo Employee Creative Director

    Honestly... I think that the idea that any one character class must be balanced in all ways combat against any one other class is intrinsically flawed. Why have multiple choices and options in character builds if the game is trying to make all choices essentially identical?

    Strive for balance in game play, but know when to call it in. Excessive balance makes things boring, and drives away players when their own preferences get overruled and crushed under the relentless march of game balance.

    Scarab Sages

    James Jacobs wrote:

    Honestly... I think that the idea that any one character class must be balanced in all ways combat against any one other class is intrinsically flawed. Why have multiple choices and options in character builds if the game is trying to make all choices essentially identical?

    Strive for balance in game play, but know when to call it in. Excessive balance makes things boring, and drives away players when their own preferences get overruled and crushed under the relentless march of game balance.

    I played a game like that once...


    James Jacobs wrote:

    Honestly... I think that the idea that any one character class must be balanced in all ways combat against any one other class is intrinsically flawed. Why have multiple choices and options in character builds if the game is trying to make all choices essentially identical?

    Strive for balance in game play, but know when to call it in. Excessive balance makes things boring, and drives away players when their own preferences get overruled and crushed under the relentless march of game balance.

    This is very well put, and is largely my issue with 4th edition.


    Peter Stewart wrote:

    No, that is pretty much impossible, which is largely my frustration with it. Take 10th level. Lets say the wizard got lucky on their stat rolls and had an 18 int, and has a +4 headband. +17 on the check. vs. a DC that can easily be 35. Many of these DCs are all but impossible for even a very high level spellcaster. I've been playing sort of a rough and tumble wizard with an 18 con for a while who's soaked up hits for the party in the past to save the fighters from death. That doing so now would pretty much make it impossible for me to be effective in combat is extremely frustrating (especially given how many monsters have Improved Grab in the STAP).

    Yeah, I'm not real happy with the changes to it overall.

    I kind of think it should be damn near impossible to cast complex spells when you are being bounced against a T-Rex's tounsels, bear hugged by a hill giant, or choked by a roper.

    Scarab Sages

    Dennis da Ogre wrote:
    Peter Stewart wrote:

    No, that is pretty much impossible, which is largely my frustration with it. Take 10th level. Lets say the wizard got lucky on their stat rolls and had an 18 int, and has a +4 headband. +17 on the check. vs. a DC that can easily be 35. Many of these DCs are all but impossible for even a very high level spellcaster. I've been playing sort of a rough and tumble wizard with an 18 con for a while who's soaked up hits for the party in the past to save the fighters from death. That doing so now would pretty much make it impossible for me to be effective in combat is extremely frustrating (especially given how many monsters have Improved Grab in the STAP).

    Yeah, I'm not real happy with the changes to it overall.

    I kind of think it should be damn near impossible to cast complex spells when you are being bounced against a T-Rex's tounsels, bear hugged by a hill giant, or choked by a roper.

    Kind of like how it's literally impossible for a greatsword-fighter to attack with his weapon while grappled. He has to reach for that dagger. Anything a fighter can't do in combat, a mage shouldn't get a better chance to do.


    Jal Dorak wrote:
    Kind of like how it's literally impossible for a greatsword-fighter to attack with his weapon while grappled. He has to reach for that dagger. Anything a fighter can't do in combat, a mage shouldn't get a better chance to do.

    Um, yeah I agree. In particular when you consider the wizard can still pull out a wand of dimension door and teleport out without even provoking an AoO. There are quite a few other powers/ spells casters can use to get out of a pickle as well without provoking.

    51 to 100 of 319 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Concentration gone the way of the dodo? All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.