I have been watching several low level spell casters struggle with the defensive spell casting in my game.
DC 15 + (2 x spell level)
At level 1 without the combat casting feat an 18 casting stat they need a 12 to get off a level 1 spell. 55% chance to eat an AOO.
With CC they need 8. 35% chance of AOO.
When you have reached the end of the career at level 17 with a 30+ casting stat to get off a level 9 spell it is DC 33. They only need a 5 without the feat and with the feat there is only a 5% chance of failure.
Also at that level you can choose to use a level 7 spell instead of taking the chance on your most powerful spells.
What I am trying is to tilt the odds in favor of the lower level and against the high levels.
DC 10 + (3 x spell level)
This is significantly easier for the first few spell levels with the neutral spot at level 5 spells. Level 9 spells increase in difficulty from DC 33 to DC 37.
At level 1 the DC drops from 17 to 13. Without the CC feat they now have a 35% chance to get the AOO and with the CC feat the AOO is down to 15%.
At the high end our level 17 caster will now need a 9 to get off his top spell and even with CC will still need a 5. The high end caster still has the option of casting a lower level spell if they feel threatened but they will no longer be able to fling their best spells off in melee without any risks.
Low level casters have almost no choices when it comes to casting. They are either using a level 1 spell or a cantrip. I say throw them a bone. High level casters have plenty of toys to play with so I don't mind making it slightly more difficult for them.
Don't forget all the spell casters (except druid) have supernatural options for use instead too. Also we are talking about low level characters... novices really, they shouldn't want to be in melee (generally) and do have the option with touch spells to cast out of combat then move in to deliver the charge. If they get into melee (maybe because they want to) then they need to understand that they are going to have trouble. These are not the masters of magic with full knowledge of their abilities and how to use them.
|
from PRD: Casting Defensively: If you want to cast a spell without provoking any attacks of opportunity, you must make a concentration check (DC 15 + double the level of the spell you're casting) to succeed. You lose the spell if you fail.
semantics of fizzle spell vs aoo aside.
lowering the DC to below 50% elminates the last resort aspect of casting defensively. not all casters are masters of keeping their guard while they sling spells (as represented by the Combat Casting feat), and the chance for an untrained caster to do so should be more than 35% at level 1. A 12 is more than reasonable, especially since it lowers in the trained combatants favor with the feat.
your arguement makes sense, however, when you start scaling up in level. assuming a good progression for your casting stat, you should be able to suceed on all checks for maxlvl - 2 or 3 spells without even rolling a die. i did some math and it hits. its still better chance to fail than concentration as a skill, but holding it up to 10+3X lowers the bar too far at low levels, if not all across the board. unfortunately, the way it is, the untrained (non CC) caster loses any risk of fizzle on most all of his spells, and still only has a ~40-50 to lose his biggest ones.
have you figured the tipping point where it goes from easy (<40%) to hard (>60%)?
Yeah this is something we went over a lot on the boards right after the final rules came out.
Oh, and for all those crazies out there needing concentration checks for their class abilities that aren't spells:
Quit crying about and realize it's your class level + appropriate modifier for the ability! Which ever stat works best for you is the right one to use.
After some math, I've changed the concentration DCs for defensive casting to 10 + 3x Spell Level. IMO this creates a much more reasonable spread across all levels and degrees of optimization.
Oh, and for all those crazies out there needing concentration checks for their class abilities that aren't spells:
Y'know, I'm not so sure about that. I can see how it's inferred from the text on spell-like abilities, but I'm reading that as saying that the effect is equivalent to a spell. Not the process. Note that they don't have any spell components. Clarification would be neato! (Of course I may have just missed something.)
From my expirience every selfrespecting caster in 3.5 had "vestment of focus" or any "give me +5 to concentration" item.
I see no error at allowing that item in PF.
At cost of only 2500 GP its piss cheap and should be prioritized before +2 to casting stat.
at lvl4 with decent(18) casting stat score it's +13 for DC19 2nd level spell.
I see no error at allowing that item in PF.
If you don't want spells to provoke, just house rule them not to provoke.
I see no error at allowing that item in PF.If you don't want spells to provoke, just house rule them not to provoke.
There is still a chance of failure but not huge as 50%, at 20-25% chance there is still alot of drama in the air.
There is still a chance of failure but not huge as 50%, at 20-25% chance there is still alot of drama in the air.I see no error at allowing that item in PF.If you don't want spells to provoke, just house rule them not to provoke.
+5 Vestment
+4 Combat Casting+4 Int 18
+4 level
+1 minimum roll
= 18 vs. DC 19.
Fox's Cunning. Poof, drama gone. :)
Edit: I should point out the bigger problem -- your checks only get easier as you gain levels, due to attribute bumps and +items.
Throwing items in for defensive casting just makes the plight of low level casters look worse compared to the high levels. By allowing an item that you can easily pick up around level 5 just means that defensive casting is ignored by all casters above level 5 and is just another way to stick it lowest levels.
As it is now defensive casting has all but dissapeared by level 10. It is my opinion that at level 10 is when casters start dominating games. I would like to see complex high level magics be much tougher to get off in combat and easier at the low end.
I would like to see complex high level magics be much tougher to get off in combat and easier at the low end.
Your point is valid and your houserule seem to support your intentions rather well. It is as good and as simple of a houserule as it can get.
I'd say try it out, and come back to us after a couple games. I'd be curious to hear from your own observations.
'findel
[edit] as it has been mentioned, don't forget that as soon as you cast your spell defensively, you DON'T provoke AoO. A failed check results in the loss of the spell, not in more AoOs.
[edit] as it has been mentioned, don't forget that as soon as you cast your spell defensively, you DON'T provoke AoO. A failed check results in the loss of the spell, not in more AoOs.
Thank you, but that is almost worse. When a level 1 looses a spell that will be 25% of his daily castings.
I started implementing the rule last week and only one concentration roll was called for. The level 2 druid successfully got of her CLW and got the level 1 paladin back on his feat before he was devoured by zombies.
[edit] as it has been mentioned, don't forget that as soon as you cast your spell defensively, you DON'T provoke AoO. A failed check results in the loss of the spell, not in more AoOs.Thank you, but that is almost worse.
It IS worst. Not only the spell has no effect, you LOOSE the darn thing.
Regardless of what your houserule ends-up being, it should still be more interesting to cast defensively than accepting the AoO and rolling the concentration check from being damaged afterward. A spellcaster with a high AC might "push its luck", but it should never be mechanically advantageous to accept damage.
As an aside, I've seen houserules using Combat Casting as "Mobility for spellcasters", granting AC bonus against AoO from attacks of opportunity from casting in melee.
'findel
The party is level 2 now and they are still loosing spells.
It is much better for them going after DC 13 instead of 17. The sorceress has started moving up into melee for burning hands with mixed results. She has sworn that combat casting will be her's at level 3.
Just a suggestion but couldn't you go with the DC 10 + (2x spell level) and add in extra difficulty based on spell components? Things that require X amount of Y dust might be more difficult to get off since you have to scoop it out of your pouch, make sure you have enough, do what needs to be done with it, all the while the enemy is watching you do this and seeing extra chances to interfere? I mean wouldn't it be a simple thing to interrupt the casting of say... Stoneskin, with it's component simply by blowing really hard at the caster's hand?
I've noticed that spell components and pricey focii (is that right?) are more common at higher levels than lower. The example below is not made by a master mathematician nor an expert in game balance but I hope it gets my point across.
Magic Missile (1st level spell) DC 10+2 = 12
Fireball (3rd level spell with simple component) DC 10+6+1 = 17
Chain Lightning (6th level spell with multiple components) DC 10+12+3 = 25
In my opinion, that would keep lower level casting at a reasonable level while making it somewhat more difficult to cast the big stuff at higher levels while making the easier stuff much easier to cast.
That might be a viable option but it requires information that is not readily at hand. In order for me to determine what the DC of the spell is I would have to look up the material components of the spell.
Besides low level spells will have material components that may be tricky to handle. The point in making the difficulty go up at 3x spell level is to show how much more complicated high level spells are to cast.
Any one with a trick hat and a rabbit can get a cantrip off in combat but that Weird spell should be much more difficult when someone is trying to hit you with a sword.