been playing pathfinder for a few adventures now. Gotta say that the creative team who developed the system are geniuses and have done a wonderful job. I admire your work. I could never hope to do a system this elegant and beautiful. Great job.
My questions (and these are not criticisms, you may know well better than I) are as following:
Why concentration checks for spells with a standard action? Most spells do not do near the damage as a good fighter or a paladin using smite. Sure when I played earlier additions the damage a wizard could do was tremendous with the lower hit points that everyone. But magic missile and lightning bolt are not near as deadly as a fighter of the same level. Many spells like Fireball and Wail of the Banshee will not even be cast if other party members are around.
Now I can see attacks of oppurtunity for spells like Implosion and that require round to round concentration. I just don't get the attacks of oppurtunity. Maybe you guys play tested it and it was needed. I can actually see AOO more for healing spells that draw out the combat, but those could be made as full round actions that draw attacks of oppurtunity.
Well this is just my take on it. Great job designing the game. I do admit to enjoying the discipline of learning to play the RAW but we are having trouble keeping wizards alive. Note: we typically play a 4 party game with Fighter, Mage, Thief, Cleric. (maybe a Paladin or Ranger instead of a Fighter at times, but that is the basic setup).
My thoughts:
First, Attacks of Opportunity are not always merely a balancing mechanic of the rules. Sometimes, they just make sense.
If I am threatening you with my sword, and you decide to drop your guard to drink a potion, well, I'm gonna smack you. Likewise if you begin rummaging around in your backpack while I have you at swordpoint. Or if you decide to turn your back and move away.
And likewise if you stop protecting yourself because you are standing fairly still, waving your hands around and chanting mystical gibberish - while your mind is focused on that task rather than defense, I'm gonna take a whack at ya. Especially since I'm fairly worried that you might drop a big old bomb on me with that mystical gibberish.
So the idea is this: Pay attention to me, keep your mind on the task of protecting yourself, or you're gonna get smacked.
Now, you can keep your mind on me and my sword and still try to spit out all that mystical gibberish, but you need to concentrate to pull that off. Hence the Concentration check to avoid my AoO.
That's why all spellcasting provokes an AoO, and why Concentration can avoid provoking it.
Now, as to your ancillary question, you're right, direct damage spells are so weak as to be nearly worthless. A 7th level wizard would need, on average, about 10 rounds of Magic Missile to kill a 7th level fighter. Or about 6 lightning bolts. Not very scary. But he can wipe him out with a single Hold Person, Hideous Laughter, or Greater Sleep. Killed. Dead. In two rounds (one to cast the spell, one to Coup de Grace). Sure, the fighter can try to save (WILL, not his strong suit), but just one failure (or two) and he's dead.
That kind of stuff should scare a fighter silly (speaking of scaring the fighter, Cause Fear is a good way to get rid of him for long enough to wipe out all his friends before he gets back - that's scary on multiple levels).
Now, since the fighter cannot tell the difference between a worthless Lightning Bolt and a deadly Hold Person, he's going to AoO every time that wizard opens his mouth to start chanting his gibberish. Those all take the same length of time to cast, so ruling that one of them provokes and the other doesn't provoke would be nonsensical. Thus, the game designers made them all provoke to keep it simple.
My thoughts:
First, Attacks of Opportunity are not always merely a balancing mechanic of the rules. Sometimes, they just make sense.
If I am threatening you with my sword, and you decide to drop your guard to drink a potion, well, I'm gonna smack you. Likewise if you begin rummaging around in your backpack while I have you at swordpoint. Or if you decide to turn your back and move away.
And likewise if you stop protecting yourself because you are standing fairly still, waving your hands around and chanting mystical gibberish - while your mind is focused on that task rather than defense, I'm gonna take a whack at ya. Especially since I'm fairly worried that you might drop a big old bomb on me with that mystical gibberish.
So the idea is this: Pay attention to me, keep your mind on the task of protecting yourself, or you're gonna get smacked.
Now, you can keep your mind on me and my sword and still try to spit out all that mystical gibberish, but you need to concentrate to pull that off. Hence the Concentration check to avoid my AoO.
That's why all spellcasting provokes an AoO, and why Concentration can avoid provoking it.
Now, as to your ancillary question, you're right, direct damage spells are so weak as to be nearly worthless. A 7th level wizard would need, on average, about 10 rounds of Magic Missile to kill a 7th level fighter. Or about 6 lightning bolts. Not very scary. But he can wipe him out with a single Hold Person, Hideous Laughter, or Greater Sleep. Killed. Dead. In two rounds (one to cast the spell, one to Coup de Grace). Sure, the fighter can try to save (WILL, not his strong suit), but just one failure (or two) and he's dead.
That kind of stuff should scare a fighter silly (speaking of scaring the fighter, Cause Fear is a good way to get rid of him for long enough to wipe out all his friends before he gets back - that's scary on multiple levels).
Now, since the fighter cannot tell the difference between a worthless Lightning Bolt and a deadly Hold Person, he's...
Monks and anyone with the right feats have stunning attacks that can be lethal (though not as lethal).
Oh and Captain Napalm, sure you can move 5 feet and cast a spell, but not if they have a reach weapon, and moving more than 5 feet will draw an AOO unless it is a withdraw which is a full round action in which case you can not cast a spell. And casting defensively is not advisable at all anymore with that concentration check.
Also DM_Blake I am not talking about drinking potions, only casting spells. I would hardly call a standard action spell something very distracting, it's not a long ritual, more a word and flick of the wrist (in my opinion only). And I was more concerned with the balance of the spell effect with the concentration check. But I see where you are coming from on your interpretation. And my interpretation is probaly from many movies I have watched. I have just seen it as extremely easy to get the spellcaster in a place where he has to take a withdraw action to avoid being hit and can do nothing because of fear of AOO. I will say the wizard is not completely useless, he just keeps his distance and has less action throughout an encounter and his spells don't have the bang that early editions of the game had. I actually like there spells being less dominating. I just want them to have more participation in combat rather than run away. Have you tried the game without spellcasting drawing an AOO, has that unbalanced it, we have not done that yet.
...My thoughts:
First, Attacks of Opportunity are not always merely a balancing mechanic of the rules. Sometimes, they just make sense.
If I am threatening you with my sword, and you decide to drop your guard to drink a potion, well, I'm gonna smack you. Likewise if you begin rummaging around in your backpack while I have you at swordpoint. Or if you decide to turn your back and move away.
And likewise if you stop protecting yourself because you are standing fairly still, waving your hands around and chanting mystical gibberish - while your mind is focused on that task rather than defense, I'm gonna take a whack at ya. Especially since I'm fairly worried that you might drop a big old bomb on me with that mystical gibberish.
So the idea is this: Pay attention to me, keep your mind on the task of protecting yourself, or you're gonna get smacked.
Now, you can keep your mind on me and my sword and still try to spit out all that mystical gibberish, but you need to concentrate to pull that off. Hence the Concentration check to avoid my AoO.
That's why all spellcasting provokes an AoO, and why Concentration can avoid provoking it.
Now, as to your ancillary question, you're right, direct damage spells are so weak as to be nearly worthless. A 7th level wizard would need, on average, about 10 rounds of Magic Missile to kill a 7th level fighter. Or about 6 lightning bolts. Not very scary. But he can wipe him out with a single Hold Person, Hideous Laughter, or Greater Sleep. Killed. Dead. In two rounds (one to cast the spell, one to Coup de Grace). Sure, the fighter can try to save (WILL, not his strong suit), but just one failure (or two) and he's dead.
That kind of stuff should scare a fighter silly (speaking of scaring the fighter, Cause Fear is a good way to get rid of him for long enough to wipe out all his friends before he gets back - that's scary on multiple levels).
Now, since the fighter cannot tell the difference between a worthless Lightning Bolt and a deadly
If you do that, you must remove it for arrows, getting up and drinking a potion too, you have to remove it all. If you do that, it's like in second edition, I liked it, but then again in second if a guy was hit in the round he was casting it fizzled, period.
AoO are useful, but they don't hinder wizards THAT much, there comes a time when casting defensively is *pfff*, not even those wizard slaying feats fighters got are good enough, so...
Agreed that the damage from spells today is lame, they should think about that and increase it a little. I would say a simple way to do this is increasing every dice from spell (except healing), just seems reasonable, but I'm not a math monster, so...
...My thoughts:
First, Attacks of Opportunity are not always merely a balancing mechanic of the rules. Sometimes, they just make sense.
If I am threatening you with my sword, and you decide to drop your guard to drink a potion, well, I'm gonna smack you. Likewise if you begin rummaging around in your backpack while I have you at swordpoint. Or if you decide to turn your back and move away.
And likewise if you stop protecting yourself because you are standing fairly still, waving your hands around and chanting mystical gibberish - while your mind is focused on that task rather than defense, I'm gonna take a whack at ya. Especially since I'm fairly worried that you might drop a big old bomb on me with that mystical gibberish.
So the idea is this: Pay attention to me, keep your mind on the task of protecting yourself, or you're gonna get smacked.
Now, you can keep your mind on me and my sword and still try to spit out all that mystical gibberish, but you need to concentrate to pull that off. Hence the Concentration check to avoid my AoO.
That's why all spellcasting provokes an AoO, and why Concentration can avoid provoking it.
Now, as to your ancillary question, you're right, direct damage spells are so weak as to be nearly worthless. A 7th level wizard would need, on average, about 10 rounds of Magic Missile to kill a 7th level fighter. Or about 6 lightning bolts. Not very scary. But he can wipe him out with a single Hold Person, Hideous Laughter, or Greater Sleep. Killed. Dead. In two rounds (one to cast the spell, one to Coup de Grace). Sure, the fighter can try to save (WILL, not his strong suit), but just one failure (or two) and he's dead.
That kind of stuff should scare a fighter silly (speaking of scaring the fighter, Cause Fear is a good way to get rid of him for long enough to wipe out all his friends before he gets back - that's scary on multiple levels).
Now, since the fighter cannot tell the difference between a worthless Lightning
I guess I'm not really seeing casting defensively as an option because the check is so hard to make and if you fail it you lose your spell. But just because you get rid of an AOO for spellcasting does not mean you have to get rid of it for everything else. I may start playtesting spellcasting spells without AOO, just out of curiosity. We are loathe to use house rules. But my question was only about is it unbalanced to not use AOO with spellcasting.
Oh and Captain Napalm, sure you can move 5 feet and cast a spell, but not if they have a reach weapon, and moving more than 5 feet will draw an AOO unless it is a withdraw which is a full round action in which case you can not cast a spell. And casting defensively is not advisable at all anymore with that concentration check.
If they have a reach weapon, like a halberd, then move right next to them. They don't threaten that square, so you can cast freely. If you are right next to them, don't move at all. Problem solved.
Now, if you're fighting a giant, and you're right next to him, you have a problem. It's meant to be a problem and it's part of the reason that big critters are dangerous. Pretty much built into the CR. It's notable that big critters can also take an AoO at the fighter moving close enough to attack the big critter, so everyone hates fighting them (except archers, or spellcasters, assuming they can find ways to stay out of reach in the first place).
Also DM_Blake I am not talking about drinking potions, only casting spells.
Of course you weren't. I was just starting with the obvious stuff to build a foundation for why AoO exists in the first place.
I would hardly call a standard action spell something very distracting, it's not a long ritual, more a word and flick of the wrist (in my opinion only).
And yet it takes up the same amount of time as drinking a potion.
In addition to the mental effort to say that arcane gobbledy-g&** correctly (no mispronunciation allowed), or the mental effort to transform yourself into a vessel for your deity's divine energy, thee's the fact that all those hand gestures means you're not parrying your opponent's attacks, you're not jabbing your dagger or staff at him to keep him just out of reach, etc. You're also not bobbing and weaving and ducking and dodging and using all that fancy footwork to keep you out of your foe's reach.
You know, all the unmentioned stuff you do during a combat round to make it hard for your enemy to clobber you.
And I was more concerned with the balance of the spell effect with the concentration check.
I am not sure it's a just balance mechanic. I think it's here for roleplaying reasons. Probably far more for RP than for game balance.
When you think about all the stuff a person does to survive being gutted by an enemy's sword, all the moving around, footwork, dodging, etc., and realize that all that stuff is why the enemy only takes one good shot in a six second round, and then you think about deliberately not doing that stuff, deliberately dropping your guard and standing still, right here in reach of that sword, it's easy to see why the enemy gets to take a free shot at you.
That's why they call it "provoking" an attack of opportunity.
And that's why the call it "casting defensively" to maintain your defense while you cast, to avoid provoking the AoO, for all the reasons I've covered.
But I see where you are coming from on your interpretation. And my interpretation is probaly from many movies I have watched. I have just seen it as extremely easy to get the spellcaster in a place where he has to take a withdraw action to avoid being hit and can do nothing because of fear of AOO.
I almost never see that. And I play my bad guys to win. No, if I'm running an encounter with wolves, they won't single out a spellcaster. Not intelligent enough. But if we're fighting orcs, or anything else that understands the danger of spells, they try to get the spellcasters (exactly like my players try to kill the orc spellcasters quickly). But, almost always, the spellcasters in my game can manage a 5-move to get off a spell.
In fact. we're 6th level now, and just last session we had to look up the Concentration rules for Pathfinder because it, for the first time in a long time we had a spellcaster who needed to cast and couldn't move to safety with a 5-foot move - it had been so many months since the last time anyone had needed a Concetration check that we had forgotten the formula.
I will say the wizard is not completely useless, he just keeps his distance and has less action throughout an encounter and his spells don't have the bang that early editions of the game had.
All true.
But at least in my game, and in the game where I am playing a wizard, I've found that wizards can pretty much cast a spell every round (if they want, and as long as they have something they want to cast) without provoking AoOs and without having to Cast Defensively.
I actually like there spells being less dominating. I just want them to have more participation in combat rather than run away.
It's just not a problem in either game I'm in. Not for mages. Clerics have it a little harder since they often get up there, smashing stuff with their mace, healing the frontline fighters, and often they have more enemies in their face that mages do.
Have you tried the game without spellcasting drawing an AOO, has that unbalanced it, we have not done that yet.
Haven't found the need. One Concentration check to Cast Defensively every few months doesn't generate enough angst to bring up a houserule discussion in my two groups.
I guess I'm not really seeing casting defensively as an option because the check is so hard to make and if you fail it you lose your spell. But just because you get rid of an AOO for spellcasting does not mean you have to get rid of it for everything else. I may start playtesting spellcasting spells without AOO, just out of curiosity. We are loathe to use house rules. But my question was only about is it unbalanced to not use AOO with spellcasting.
It's probably not unbalanced. As I've said, Casting Defensively (or the need for it) comes up so rarely that each time we do it we have to look up the formula.
I wouldn't misse the AoO from a balance point of view.
But I would miss the RP aspect. I wouldn't like the idea that standing still and dropping your guard has no consequences.
It's your game, do as you like. I rather suspect it will make almost no difference to the balance of the game mechanics.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I play a lot of spellcasters and I haven't really ever noticed this issue. Why are your wizards/sorcerers/etc. in melee to be threatened so much? Spellcasters are capable of unleashing some devastating effects on the battlefield. It makes sense that there is a weakness to be exploited, otherwise everyone would play them. If a caster concept requires that he be in melee often, the Combat Casting feat will help make things easier. Also, anything that enhances his caster level or his casting stat will futher aid him.
Consider a 5th level wizard with a 20 INT score (16 base +2 racial + 2 headband). His highest level spell is 3rd, meaning at most he needs a DC 21 concentration check. 1d20 + 5 (level) + 5 (INT). He needs an 11 or better. That's pretty much 50/50. Not a bad risk. Add Combat Casting to the mix and now he's making that check at +14. He only needs a 7 or better.
The system scales perfectly with level as well. Every 2 caster levels, you gain access to a new spell level. Every spell level you add increases the DC by 2. However, your casting stat will generally INCREASE as you get higher up.
Let's try this exercise with a 15th level wizard now. His highest spell level is 8th, meaning a max concentration DC of 31. Let's give him an INT score of, oh, 24 seems reasonable. 1d20 + 15 (level) + 7 (INT). That's a +22. He needs a 9 or better to succeed. With Combat Casting, he needs a FIVE or more. I'm sorry, I fail to see the issue here. When he's not threatened, he can unleash his full fury unchecked. While threatened, he still has a 50/50 chance (or better) of success. What particular issues are you having with the system that is making this so difficult? Can you give us some examples of what has happened that makes you feel the way you do about it?
|
Umm reach weapons don´t threaten 5ft and 10ft out, they only threaten 10 ft out so you can STILL just 5ft step to avoid the AoO. What you maybe thinking of is reach...which is different...but by the time your facing things with reach on a regular basis, you should also have more resources to deal with it.
AoO is there to balance spellcasting...not blasting. If your wizards are being VERY sub-optimal and just blasting away, then yes AoO can make your wizard feel inferior...but taking the AoO away makes the wizards REALLY powerful...which is what happened with wizards after level 8ish (higher if you didn´t use any feats) in 3.5 as the cast defensively became an auto success. Even with the new system by level 8 with combat casting, you have 12+prime casting stat. So at least 16...more likely 19. That means you need a 4 or higher to cast your higest level spell defensively. The key difference is combat casting doesn´t ever really become obsolete like it did in 3.5. What MY issue with the system is that it makes low level wizards weaker and high level casters are still the same powerhouse. There was no reason to make low level wizards any weaker...while high level magic could have used some weaknesses. I would have preferred 5+4*spell level as the DC.
As for the balance issues...if your wizard players are being idiots, then it will make them survive longer...if you have GOOD wizard players, they should rarely be drawing AoO anyways so it becomes a non issue with them anyways...But once your wizard players figures out to play better (or the DM uses them better), the fighter will feel inferior and useless faster...especially as the anti-caster feats can´t be used.
Umm reach weapons don´t threaten 5ft and 10ft out, they only threaten 10 ft out so you can STILL just 5ft step to avoid the AoO. What you maybe thinking of is reach...which is different...but by the time your facing things with reach on a regular basis, you should also have more resources to deal with it.
AoO is there to balance spellcasting...not blasting. If your wizards are being VERY sub-optimal and just blasting away, then yes AoO can make your wizard feel inferior...but taking the AoO away makes the wizards REALLY powerful...which is what happened with wizards after level 8ish (higher if you didn´t use any feats) in 3.5 as the cast defensively became an auto success. Even with the new system by level 8 with combat casting, you have 12+prime casting stat. So at least 16...more likely 19. That means you need a 4 or higher to cast your higest level spell defensively. The key difference is combat casting doesn´t ever really become obsolete like it did in 3.5. What MY issue with the system is that it makes low level wizards weaker and high level casters are still the same powerhouse. There was no reason to make low level wizards any weaker...while high level magic could have used some weaknesses. I would have preferred 5+4*spell level as the DC.
As for the balance issues...if your wizard players are being idiots, then it will make them survive longer...if you have GOOD wizard players, they should rarely be drawing AoO anyways so it becomes a non issue with them anyways...But once your wizard players figures out to play better (or the DM uses them better), the fighter will feel inferior and useless faster...especially as the anti-caster feats can´t be used.
thanks alot for the clarification on that Captain Napalm
Umm reach weapons don´t threaten 5ft and 10ft out, they only threaten 10 ft out so you can STILL just 5ft step to avoid the AoO. What you maybe thinking of is reach...which is different...but by the time your facing things with reach on a regular basis, you should also have more resources to deal with it.
AoO is there to balance spellcasting...not blasting. If your wizards are being VERY sub-optimal and just blasting away, then yes AoO can make your wizard feel inferior...but taking the AoO away makes the wizards REALLY powerful...which is what happened with wizards after level 8ish (higher if you didn´t use any feats) in 3.5 as the cast defensively became an auto success. Even with the new system by level 8 with combat casting, you have 12+prime casting stat. So at least 16...more likely 19. That means you need a 4 or higher to cast your higest level spell defensively. The key difference is combat casting doesn´t ever really become obsolete like it did in 3.5. What MY issue with the system is that it makes low level wizards weaker and high level casters are still the same powerhouse. There was no reason to make low level wizards any weaker...while high level magic could have used some weaknesses. I would have preferred 5+4*spell level as the DC.
As for the balance issues...if your wizard players are being idiots, then it will make them survive longer...if you have GOOD wizard players, they should rarely be drawing AoO anyways so it becomes a non issue with them anyways...But once your wizard players figures out to play better (or the DM uses them better), the fighter will feel inferior and useless faster...especially as the anti-caster feats can´t be used.
I would never risk a 50/50 loss of a spell slot. They are valuable commodities, especially at the single digit levels. We gave up playing characters 15th level and higher in previous editions along time ago. We typically top out at around 12th (and play with a much slower experience progression than the adventures from pathfinder give out, to each his own on that)
|
|
I would never risk a 50/50 loss of a spell slot. They are valuable commodities, especially at the single digit levels. We gave up playing characters 15th level and higher in previous editions along time ago.
Umm level 1, combat casting, having a good prime casting stat and you fail to cast defensively 35% of the time. 1 (cl) + 4(stat) + 4 (CC) = 9. You need DC 17 to cast so you fail on a 7 or less. 11 or less without the feat. Your highest level spell to cast defensively gets easier as your prime stat gets higher and you may have items that boost CL at higher levels while the CL keeps up with the DC boost. So 50/50 is just about the worst case scenario. And that is IF your wizard REALLY screwed the pooch in the first place as it is quite easy to not even be in range for the AoO to even happen.
Why concentration checks for spells with a standard action?
Some of the reasons include "it was like that in 3e, has worked in 3e, and this is basically 3e revised revised again" and "doing stuff that requires you to concentrate will leave you open to people taking cheap shops at you".
Most spells do not do near the damage as a good fighter or a paladin using smite.
Actually, if you want to do damage - especially against single, powerful enemies - you don't want to go spellcaster. Spellcasters can do decent damage against many enemies at once, and can do away with all that silly damage thing and just screw you over. Make him stop moving, make him your little b!@$$, make him miss half his turns... The possibilities are as endless as they are horrible to your enemies.
Umm reach weapons don´t threaten 5ft and 10ft out, they only threaten 10 ft out so you can STILL just 5ft step to avoid the AoO. What you maybe thinking of is reach...which is different...but by the time your facing things with reach on a regular basis, you should also have more resources to deal with it.
p.181 of the CORE BOOK shows that if you are 10 foot away you draw an attack of oppurtunuity because of the Ogre's reach, why would that not work with a weapon. I take that also that if you are standing in that square casting a spell, you would draw an AOO because he is threatening that square. Why am I wrong?
|
|
Umm reach weapons don´t threaten 5ft and 10ft out, they only threaten 10 ft out so you can STILL just 5ft step to avoid the AoO. What you maybe thinking of is reach...which is different...but by the time your facing things with reach on a regular basis, you should also have more resources to deal with it.p.181 of the CORE BOOK shows that if you are 10 foot away you draw an attack of oppurtunuity because of the Ogre's reach, why would that not work with a weapon. I take that also that if you are standing in that square casting a spell, you would draw an AOO because he is threatening that square. Why am I wrong?
Reach weapons only threaten 10 ft out...so if they are withing 5ft, the wizard isn´t threatened and so draws no AoO. Now the reach of an ogre is another matter entirely from a reach weapon as it threatens both 5 ft and 10 ft out. This of course can usually be solved as the fighter getting into attack said monster will generally eat up that monster´s AoO for the round. If the monster doesn´t take that AoO, just withdrawl so the monster has to draw an AoO from the figter to get to you. Yes you wasted a round not casting...but you also saved the fighter an AoO and generated an attack if the monster wants to keep chasing you.
Reach weapons only threaten 10 ft out...so if they are withing 5ft, the wizard isn´t threatened and so draws no AoO. Now the reach of an ogre is another matter entirely from a reach weapon as it threatens both 5 ft and 10 ft out. This of course can usually be solved as the fighter getting into attack said monster will generally eat up that monster´s AoO for the round. If the monster doesn´t take that AoO, just withdrawl so the monster has to draw an AoO from the figter to get to you. Yes you wasted a round not casting...but you also saved the fighter an AoO and generated an attack if the monster wants to keep chasing you.Umm reach weapons don´t threaten 5ft and 10ft out, they only threaten 10 ft out so you can STILL just 5ft step to avoid the AoO. What you maybe thinking of is reach...which is different...but by the time your facing things with reach on a regular basis, you should also have more resources to deal with it.p.181 of the CORE BOOK shows that if you are 10 foot away you draw an attack of oppurtunuity because of the Ogre's reach, why would that not work with a weapon. I take that also that if you are standing in that square casting a spell, you would draw an AOO because he is threatening that square. Why am I wrong?
Okay, suppose you take your 5 foot step and do not provoke an attack of oppurtunity for that step. Then you cast the spell, then will draw an AOO for casting the spell, if the weapon has reach.
A little clarification may be in order:
Reach weapons threaten any square that is within 10 ft. reach. But NOT the squares adjacent to the one wielding the reach weapon. So, standing just beside the wielder of a reach weapon (WRW) is actually safer for the caster - in terms of drawing AoOs for casting, that is.
So, suppose you started your turn within the 10 ft. reach of the WRW and wanted to cast a spell. You take a 5 ft step up to him and cast away. Bam. He gets no AoO, since you just took the 5 foot step, which doesn't provoke such a thing. Standing adjacent to him and him wielding a reach weapon, you don't draw an AoO for castign as well, because he is busy holding his reach weapon, with which he just doesn't threaten his adjacent squares (ever try to hit someone right next to you with, say, a ladder?).
Read again: a reach weapon allows you to threaten the squares 10 ft from your character, but NOT the squares 5 ft away from him.
So, doing anything within 5 ft from a WRW doesn't incur AoOs, since they don't threaten the squares.
Now creatures with natural reach are another problem. Take the ladder example again. Now imagine said ladder to be the dude's own ARMS. He can bend and fold and move them any way he likes, just like when you stand right next to him. Of course, he threatens all his adjacent squares, because he doesn't wield a reach weapon. But he ALSO threatens all squares within his natural reach (which is in this case 10 freaking feet), because ... well, everybody does if he counts as armed.
Look it up. It's in the rules. ;-)
We did alot of playing today, and some yesterday. The spellcasters are doing better, but we had to start using miniatures and a detailed board to fully track everything. I spent alot of time drawing in posterboards with rulers and magic markers to play with miniatures.