|
Doing force damage does not mean the spell automatically hits.
The shadow was killed by a combination of Spiritual Weapon (force damage - like a magic missile - so no miss chance) and a big greataxe strike.
Good point.
I suspect there are a lot of missed rules such as this that the PC's have been exploiting.
Every time you take damage during the casting, you have to make a concentration check equal to 10 + damage taken while casting. This means damage is cumulative, so if you are shot with 3 arrows, each for 4 damage, then you must make three Concentration checks, which are progressively harder (because each check is DC 10 + damage dealt while casting, not by the attack), so the base DCs are 14, 18, 22.
Sorry, but where are you getting this idea that all damage is cumulative for concentration checks? That's certainly not the most straightforward reading of the rules text:
If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting.
I'm quite confident that "the damage taken" does not mean "all damage taken since you started casting"; it's clearly referring to the damage taken that's provoking this specific Concentration check.
... unless you have a designer quote to back up your (very odd, IMO) interpretation of Concentration rules?| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Right there. The net effect of casting Magic Missile is you get 5 Concentration checks of 12-15 + spell level. Which means 13-24. Obviously, they'll pass every single one of them without picking up a D20 and laugh at you.As for Magic Missile: Wraithstrike is correct, Ashiel is not.Every time you take damage during the casting, you have to make a concentration check equal to 10 + damage taken while casting. This means damage is cumulative, so if you are shot with 3 arrows, each for 4 damage, then you must make three Concentration checks, which are progressively harder (because each check is DC 10 + damage dealt while casting, not by the attack), so the base DCs are 14, 18, 22.
So explain to me where I'm wrong.
Looking at the rules on page 206, it looks to me like the target number for disrupting concentration should be equal to the total damage your spells inflicts (all those missiles hit simultaneously, or effectively so, right?) so the target number is 10 + (10-25) + spell level. That's 27.5 + Spell Levl on average, or 28.5 - 36.5. Not so easy ...
Ahh yes, I missed the readying is a standard action. I was thinking readying was the same action that you were readying. However...
I just checked the rules and table for the effect, and it is cumulative. The table says "Injured while casting", and the DC is 10 + damage dealt. If you are hit multiple times during the casting, the damage you've been dealt during the action of casting increases, and thus the DC increases.
It's not just DC 10 + damage dealt by the attack + spell level, it specifically calls out "damage taken". The total damage taken during the casting is greater on successive hits, so striking a caster repeatedly while they are casting makes it progressively more difficult to cast.
EDIT:
As noted here:
"If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting."
Damage taken during the casting of the spell. It doesn't say by the attack, it's damage taken during the casting of the spell; and thus it is cumulative.
|
|
Right there. The net effect of casting Magic Missile is you get 5 Concentration checks of 12-15 + spell level. Which means 13-24. Obviously, they'll pass every single one of them without picking up a D20 and laugh at you.
Cumulative actually might mean the opposite of what you think it means. It means the check doesn't reset down to 10 until you finish your spell. The difficulty accumulates - gets bigger - with more damage. Each missile builds on the check forced by the last one. So at the very least, it's a single check at 10 + (5*[1d4+1]) + Spell Level, and that's if your DM is being nice because he doesn't want to roll out all five. While a DM is also free to use your other interpretation, I would characterize that DM as 'cuddly'.
Cuddly DM's aside, Magic Missile remains a valid technique for interrupting spells at high level, until you get to folks who can routinely shrug off checks around 26 + spell level with 90-100% pass rate.
The moral of the story? Use the freaking Globe of Invulnerability.
Nope, sorry, cumulative damage is not stated anywhere, just the damage taken from the event that provokes the concentration check. It specifically does state that if you are hit by a spell, and the spell does damage, you must save vs the total damage of the spell, but there is nothing there about cumulative damage. It's not a bad house rule, but both Ashiel and Mistuh Green were wrong about what the save DC is for getting hit with five magic missiles (if they are from a single source). If it's five separate single magic missiles, Mistuh Green is right by the RAW.
Edit: Cumulative damage is not a bad idea, though, as a house-rule.
Nope, sorry, cumulative damage is not stated anywhere, just the damage taken from the event that provokes the concentration check. It specifically does state that if you are hit by a spell, and the spell does damage, you must save vs the total damage of the spell, but there is nothing there about cumulative damage. It's not a bad house rule, but both Ashiel and Mistuh Green were wrong about what the save DC is for getting hit with five magic missiles (if they are from a single source). If it's five separate single magic missiles, Mistuh Green is right by the RAW.
Edit: Cumulative damage is not a bad idea, though, as a house-rule.
I am forced to disagree Mr. Dabbler. It's pretty clear as best as I can tell. It says "If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting."
It says taken while casting the spell. Since you are still casting the spell on damage #2, 3, and 4, the damage is cumulative. When you end the casting of said spell, the damage no longer matters.
If it had said for each attack, or the damage of the attack, or somehow specifies that it is from the single attack, I would agree. However, it specifically calls out damage taken while casting; and thus I must conclude that it means what it says, and find it cumulative.
Seeing as how they like to min max and wear the heavy armor, I would teach them that the heaviest armor is not always the best. Have the battle at the end of a days travel and give them a fatigue penalty for wearing that heavy armor. Encounter them when they're in camp (cant wear that armor 24/7). Monsters aren't hitting, who's to say that gobo isn't a level 5 fighter wearing the same armor your players love so much. Put them on a boat and bull rush one off the side (double armor penalties for swimming). Magic, Magic, Magic. Charm the warrior and have him do your dirty work for you. Then my personal favorite, grappling attack them with many small creatures. Don't forget, you are the creator of your world, the books are just a guide.
Wearing the best armor is not min-maxing. It is common sense if you can get it. Making up house rules for fatigue solves nothing. I think the issue is just a lack of DM experience. I got my butt kicked the first time I DM'd too. It is just one of those things you learn on the job. He will get better. He just has to be patient.
I am forced to disagree Mr. Dabbler. It's pretty clear as best as I can tell. It says "If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting."It says taken while casting the spell. Since you are still casting the spell on damage #2, 3, and 4, the damage is cumulative. When you end the casting of said spell, the damage no longer matters.
Sorry, I don't see it. It doesn't say it at the relevant spot. You'd been right if it said "DC equal to 10 + the total damage taken while casting the spell" but I don't see this. If you want to treat the "while casting the spell" to the whole sentence, you might as well end up with only having to do a concentration check the last time you take damage. Which doesn't make sense either.
Not only is it NOT stated in the RAW, but I can't see how that would be intended either. It would be a very, very unusual ruling since it would be about the only cumulative DC place in the game (apart from poisons, but they are explicitly called out as such in several places where it can't be read any other way).
The less likely it is that a rule is intended a certain way, the stronger the RAW evidence must be, at least for me, to consider it the truth.
Nope, sorry, cumulative damage is not stated anywhere, just the damage taken from the event that provokes the concentration check. It specifically does state that if you are hit by a spell, and the spell does damage, you must save vs the total damage of the spell, but there is nothing there about cumulative damage. It's not a bad house rule, but both Ashiel and Mistuh Green were wrong about what the save DC is for getting hit with five magic missiles (if they are from a single source). If it's five separate single magic missiles, Mistuh Green is right by the RAW.
Edit: Cumulative damage is not a bad idea, though, as a house-rule.
I am forced to disagree Mr. Dabbler. It's pretty clear as best as I can tell. It says "If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting."
It says taken while casting the spell. Since you are still casting the spell on damage #2, 3, and 4, the damage is cumulative. When you end the casting of said spell, the damage no longer matters.
If it had said for each attack, or the damage of the attack, or somehow specifies that it is from the single attack, I would agree. However, it specifically calls out damage taken while casting; and thus I must conclude that it means what it says, and find it cumulative.
Please point to where it says that if you take two AoO's, for example, you have to save against the total damage of both attacks combined, or each separately, or one save for for the first and then again vs total damage on the second. It refers in this description to "the interrupting event" meaning a single discrete event, not a sequence of them. It refers to "the damage taken" whereas if you are correct it would refer to "the total damage taken", and it does not. This implies that each save is discrete and separate to any others, because only discrete events are dealt with.
The only time when saves are made against accumulated damage is when the source of damage is a discrete event (a spell) or else it is cumulative damage over a round (such as from a continuous event like a wall of fire), and even then each source is implied to be discrete. If it wasn't it would complicate things enormously, because what happens if you need to make a save against continuous damage (acid arrow, for example) and then get interrupted? Do you save against total damage, halve the damage from the cumulative source, or make two saves?
The fact that this is not in any way dealt with in the rules implies to me at least that it was intended that each event, each source of damage, be treated separately.
Nope, sorry, cumulative damage is not stated anywhere, just the damage taken from the event that provokes the concentration check. It specifically does state that if you are hit by a spell, and the spell does damage, you must save vs the total damage of the spell, but there is nothing there about cumulative damage. It's not a bad house rule, but both Ashiel and Mistuh Green were wrong about what the save DC is for getting hit with five magic missiles (if they are from a single source). If it's five separate single magic missiles, Mistuh Green is right by the RAW.
Edit: Cumulative damage is not a bad idea, though, as a house-rule.
I am forced to disagree Mr. Dabbler. It's pretty clear as best as I can tell. It says "If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting."
It says taken while casting the spell. Since you are still casting the spell on damage #2, 3, and 4, the damage is cumulative. When you end the casting of said spell, the damage no longer matters.
If it had said for each attack, or the damage of the attack, or somehow specifies that it is from the single attack, I would agree. However, it specifically calls out damage taken while casting; and thus I must conclude that it means what it says, and find it cumulative.
The way I read it is that all the damage is added up and you make one check. You don't make 5 checks because you got tagged 5 times whether it be from 5 missiles or 5 different opponents.
edit: Both sides do make sense though. Time to hit the FAQ button I guess.
*snip*
Because it says if you take damage while casting a spell, it then goes on to say that you must make a DC 10 + damage taken + spell level. However, it does not specify for each attack, merely the damage you have taken while casting the spell.
Therefor, without adding anything to the wording, the more damage you take while casting the higher the DC is when you take a hit. Each time you take damage you make a check. The DC of this check is 10 + the damage taken (it just noted while casting previously) + spell level. Thus, without adding any new words to the mix, it would occur cumulatively.
So archer 1, 2, and 3 shoot wizard for 4 damage each while he is casting Summon Monster III. Wizard takes 4 damage from the first shot, so he makes a Concentration check and the DC is 10 + 4 (damage taken) + 3 or DC 17. Later in the round, he takes 4 more damage, triggering a check and DC 10 + 8 (damage taken) + 3 or DC 21. Finally he takes the third arrow just before his turn, resulting a third check, DC 10 + 12 (damage taken) +3 or DC 24.
EDIT: Not to bring logic into an RPG debate, but it also makes more sense that taking multiple shots in rapid succession while trying to Concentrate would make it more difficult to cast. If you're preparing for pain but someone slaps you in the face, then kicks you in the 'nads, it's going to throw your mind for a larger loop.
Given the wording, and this reasoning, I've found no reason to assume otherwise.
*snip*Because it says if you take damage while casting a spell, it then goes on to say that you must make a DC 10 + damage taken + spell level. However, it does not specify for each attack, merely the damage you have taken while casting the spell.
... from the "interrupting event" (singular). It does not refer to "total damage taken" which would apply accumulated damage.
Therefor, without adding anything to the wording, the more damage you take while casting the higher the DC is when you take a hit. Each time you take damage you make a check.
Agreed.
The DC of this check is 10 + the damage taken (it just noted while casting previously) + spell level. Thus, without adding any new words to the mix, it would occur cumulatively.
No, in no place does it say that the damage from each event is added together. It does not specify "total damage taken", merely "damage taken" and then it refers to "the interrupting event" (still singular). Making it cumulative is an assumption unsubstantiated by the text.
EDIT: Not to bring logic into an RPG debate, but it also makes more sense that taking multiple shots in rapid succession while trying to Concentrate would make it more difficult to cast. If you're preparing for pain but someone slaps you in the face, then kicks you in the 'nads, it's going to throw your mind for a larger loop.
It is clear that multiple small amounts of damage are NOT considered as effective in the rules as single large amounts - hence the different rule for continuous damage, which is 10 + 1/2 total damage + spell level. While I don't have a problem with your logic as such, this fact undermines it rather badly.
Given the wording, and this reasoning, I've found no reason to assume otherwise.
Just because it does not specifically say you are wrong, does not make you right. However, given how continuous damage is treated, and that at no point accumulated damage gets mentioned in any other context, I cannot agree with you, although I do agree that the intent is not as clear as it should be. As Wraithstrike says, it's time to go to the FAQs.
*snip*
The event is taking damage while casting, with the damage taken being past tense. Essentially, the event can occur multiple times, but the amount of damage you have taken is the damage you have taken while casting the spell - which by definition includes damage from previous attacks. This would repeat until the spell resolves, since the DC is based on the "damage taken" during the casting.
Arguing otherwise is like arguing that multiple instances of HP damage do not stack, because it doesn't say that damage or loss of HP is not cumulative in Combat under Damage, HP, or Death and Dying.
Ok, check this out. I've got a new way of arguing this through computer-level logic.
It defines the damage as "damage while trying to cast a spell", this defines the variable. "Damage Taken" is that variable. Until the "cast a spell" has been resolved, the variable remains (because it's still during the casting), and this variable can continue to increase as you suffer damage.
It basically falls on the fact it defines the variable as "damage taken while trying to cast a spell", and then the DC as "damage taken", thus until casting is finished, the variable can continue to increase with each successive strike. The variable is discarded when the spell resolves.
The event is taking damage while casting, with the damage taken being past tense. Essentially, the event can occur multiple times, but the amount of damage you have taken is the damage you have taken while casting the spell - which by definition includes damage from previous attacks. This would repeat until the spell resolves, since the DC is based on the "damage taken" during the casting.Arguing otherwise is like arguing that multiple instances of HP damage do not stack, because it doesn't say that damage or loss of HP is not cumulative in Combat under Damage, HP, or Death and Dying.
No, arguing otherwise is not at all like arguing that multiple instances of HP damage do not stack. The way I understand the rules as written, each instance of taking damage is a discrete event with the "damage" term in the DC equation being the damage received in that single discrete event. Arguing that is NOT arguing that HP damage doesn't stack.
*snip*
Yet one cannot argue that you have not taken that much damage during the casting of the spell. The rule states, clearly, that if you take damage during the casting of a spell, you must make a check. The DC of that check is 10 + damage taken + spell level. Damage taken has been defined as "damage during the casting of a spell" just before. Until the spell resolves, the damage must remain.
If damage does not remain, and the variables reset after the damage has been dealt, then it would be the same as arguing that HP damage has been dealt, the variables refresh; thus HP damage would be meaningless unless it was all in one fell swoop. Damage and Death and Injury in the PRD do not specify that Damage stacks to reduce the HP variable, so yes, it's just like arguing that HP damage doesn't stack.
In this case, it is defined as "while trying to cast a spell", meaning that it is defined, and it resolves at the end of casting the spell. Casting a new spell begins the process anew.
Yet one cannot argue that you have not taken that much damage during the casting of the spell. The rule states, clearly, that if you take damage during the casting of a spell, you must make a check. The DC of that check is 10 + damage taken + spell level. Damage taken has been defined as "damage during the casting of a spell" just before. Until the spell resolves, the damage must remain.
I certainly understand how and why you are interpreting the rules this way. On the other hand, I've gamed with a lot of people and nobody I've talked to have ever interpreted it that way. You have to admit there is at least a bit of room for confusion if so many people can read it different ways.
I always figured one check for all of the damage taken, but I'll be honest this has come up so rarely (IE, NEVER) that in my game any of the readings people have suggested (your way, once per event ("resetting" DC), or once at the end of casting with the total damage) that it's always ended up the same: 1 check because there is only ever 1 attack going on.
Far more often a caster casts defensively and just does a standard check.
Yet one cannot argue that you have not taken that much damage during the casting of the spell. The rule states, clearly, that if you take damage during the casting of a spell, you must make a check. The DC of that check is 10 + damage taken + spell level. Damage taken has been defined as "damage during the casting of a spell" just before. Until the spell resolves, the damage must remain.I certainly understand how and why you are interpreting the rules this way. On the other hand, I've gamed with a lot of people and nobody I've talked to have ever interpreted it that way. You have to admit there is at least a bit of room for confusion if so many people can read it different ways.
I always figured one check for all of the damage taken, but I'll be honest this has come up so rarely (IE, NEVER) that in my game any of the readings people have suggested (your way, once per event ("resetting" DC), or once at the end of casting with the total damage) that it's always ended up the same: 1 check because there is only ever 1 attack going on.
Far more often a caster casts defensively and just does a standard check.
Fair enough. So let's look at it less from a RAW (since it seems to be interpretable multiple ways), and more at it in terms of how it functions; as gamers.
Method 1: The "damage taken individually" interpretation results in much easier Concentration checks for multiple hits while casting a spell. This means that if a 8th level wizard with a +6 intelligence modifier is casting a spell, and is then hit by no less than 6 different archers while doing so, for 3 damage each, he will most likely auto-succeed on his checks a merely suffer a bit of damage. The archers are of no real consequence because he has a +14 to his checks.
Method 2: The "damage taken while casting" interpretation results in a near identical resolution of the majority of situations, except that getting pelted repeatedly while casting becomes harder. In the same situation, by the 6th shot taken while casting, the wizard would now have to make a DC 28 + spell level check, and would have had to make several others. The chance for failure is actually now quite high.
Which do you think sounds like how you would picture it? Taking 6 arrows and shrugging it off as easily as 1 arrow - perhaps even auto-succeeding against every shot, or taking 6 arrows and having it be incredibly difficult to not loose your concentration while casting?
Considering how people often complained that Concentration checks are too easy, I would go with the 2nd. It also makes more logical sense to me in terms of the game world, since getting hit multiple times in such short order should make it really hard I think.
Likewise, the 2nd encourages more tactical activity and creates more emphasis on teamwork, both PC and NPC, since pummeling that mage is more effective with teamwork. The former, not so much.
Considering how people often complained that Concentration checks are too easy, I would go with the 2nd. It also makes more logical sense to me in terms of the game world, since getting hit multiple times in such short order should make it really hard I think.
Likewise, the 2nd encourages more tactical activity and creates more emphasis on teamwork, both PC and NPC, since pummeling that mage is more effective with teamwork. The former, not so much.
I think your method certainly has merits and does what you intend it to do. I just don't think that is how the rules was meant to be used.
In my own game, the rogue and the barbarian would much rather use their full attack and if they really want to lock down a troublesome spell-casting enemy (besides those two just destroying any single mage in melee) the cleric will ready a dispel magic to counterspell. Much more reliable and the rest of the party gets to continue to do what they are good at.
In my own game, the rogue and the barbarian would much rather use their full attack and if they really want to lock down a troublesome spell-casting enemy (besides those two just destroying any single mage in melee) the cleric will ready a dispel magic to counterspell. Much more reliable and the rest of the party gets to continue to do what they are good at.
Well think of it in terms of NPCs then. The game worlds generally assume that most people are low level, and yet groups of weak opponents striking a mage would make it more difficult to cast; which as I said the rules represent (since I wouldn't be arguing it if I believed otherwise).
That being said, dispel magic is a good but fairly risky method for counterspelling (better than the normal method though). Maximized lightning bolt is pretty solid most of the time. =P
I think your method certainly has merits and does what you intend it to do. I just don't think that is how the rules was meant to be used.Considering how people often complained that Concentration checks are too easy, I would go with the 2nd. It also makes more logical sense to me in terms of the game world, since getting hit multiple times in such short order should make it really hard I think.
Likewise, the 2nd encourages more tactical activity and creates more emphasis on teamwork, both PC and NPC, since pummeling that mage is more effective with teamwork. The former, not so much.
I agree, it's not a bad idea, but it's not how the system was intended to work - and I think that if it's total damage, then it needs to be one check at the end, not many, otherwise your player can be rolling dice all combat and slowing things down. That said, although I hear about concentration checks being too easy, I've yet to have a caster take damage in mid-cast - a five-foot step is just too easy to do.
I should probably just let it die, but Magic Missile has a duration of instantaneous, therefor all damage from the spell happens at the same time, and that damage is from the same source. Just as you wouldn't roll SR for each missile, you also wouldn't roll a concentration check for each.
Also, any spell with an attack roll is highly likely to miss any caster due to spells like mirror image, displacement, etc. No attack roll needed with MM, and it will usually do enough damage to disrupt any spell.
Why all that disussion when the chars are not known?
And sending bruisers against a AC upped party is bad anyway.
What about 2 aboleths, cr 9 encounter. Good chance for surpise round for aboleths with illusion spells at will. Then 2 dominate monster with dc 22 at the mean looking(and low will) fighter and the encounter gets interesting.
What about dracolisks, 2 are cr 9. The clerics can exclude them only when accepting a chance to be "stoned". And when all party is at least partially averting eyes, the lisks have concealment and can hide - +13 stealth vs perception of lev 6 party is good chance. Then both of them flank the weakest guy. (and choose a dragon type with cone shaped breath)
Vampire can dominate and web with dc 20 and 22, causing lot of trouble for lev 6 party.
CR 8-9 would be the normal encounter level for 7 6th level party with high stats. And i guess this 3 encounters should be interesting for them.
An epic encounter would be CR 11, so a Hezrou. Which teleports in, cast blasphemy and the entire party is guranteed paralyze for 1 round (wlll dc 21, if fail paralyze for minutes), so entire party prone and 3-5 chars paralyzed longer.
What exactly is the problem to have interesting encounters?
When a single monster is that far above APL the party is normally toast even if there are a lot of them. Where the party is large it is better to treat them as two separate parties when designing encounters.
By the numbers 20 CR 1 creatures are probably at least a CR 10, but in effect they are not that dangerous. A level 6 party could handle them.No. The APL for the described party (7 6th level with 20 or 25 points buy) would be 8. +1 for 6 or more players and +1 because of high point buy.
There are a lot of cr9 encounters the party can handle, as was decribed against 6 trolls, which actually are CR 10. But there are CR 9 challenges, which will be difficult for party.
And the hezrou example shows, that the challenge rating...
I was saying not all CR ratings are equal.
20-35 + spell level vs 1d20 + CL + prime stat. You're getting about the same success rate as a Dispel, which is to say a bad one. It's still better than the actual counterspell rules, but that's because the net impact of the counterspell rules is to not use the counterspell rules.
Eh. Around 9th-10th level you're still going to lose the spell more than half the time. That's not that bad of odds.
Make it empowered and it's really no contest.
At higher levels it shifts more towards keeping the spell, but intensify spell pretty well fixes that again.
Seeing as how they like to min max and wear the heavy armor, I would teach them that the heaviest armor is not always the best. Have the battle at the end of a days travel and give them a fatigue penalty for wearing that heavy armor. Encounter them when they're in camp (cant wear that armor 24/7). Monsters aren't hitting, who's to say that gobo isn't a level 5 fighter wearing the same armor your players love so much. Put them on a boat and bull rush one off the side (double armor penalties for swimming). Magic, Magic, Magic. Charm the warrior and have him do your dirty work for you. Then my personal favorite, grappling attack them with many small creatures. Don't forget, you are the creator of your world, the books are just a guide.Wearing the best armor is not min-maxing. It is common sense if you can get it. Making up house rules for fatigue solves nothing. I think the issue is just a lack of DM experience. I got my butt kicked the first time I DM'd too. It is just one of those things you learn on the job. He will get better. He just has to be patient.
It's not a house rule for Fatigue. It's in the rules. Like sleeping in armor leaves you fatigued, you can take the Endurance feat to allow you sleep in Medium armor though. As well there are rules for fatigue in armor in you are in the hot climates. You really don't want to be wearing heaving armor in a desert or tropical jungle with out some sort of magical to mitigate the problems.
20-35 + spell level vs 1d20 + CL + prime stat. You're getting about the same success rate as a Dispel, which is to say a bad one. It's still better than the actual counterspell rules, but that's because the net impact of the counterspell rules is to not use the counterspell rules.
20th level caster +10 casting stat vs. DC 44 (9th level spell) - even with a +2 trait bonus on concentration checks - is a nat 12 or better to succeed. As the caster level and casting stat bonus decrease, the odds of successful disruption increase. The only decrease in the DC is from a lower spell level. Sounds like a pretty solid method of disrupting spell casting.
Counterspelling is even more relable, but Magic Missile deals damage along with probably ruining the cast spell, so for many the Magic Missile wins.
It's not a house rule for Fatigue. It's in the rules. Like sleeping in armor leaves you fatigued, you can take the Endurance feat to allow you sleep in Medium armor though. As well there are rules for fatigue in armor in you are in the hot climates. You really don't want to be wearing heaving armor in a desert or tropical jungle with out some sort of magical to mitigate the problems.Seeing as how they like to min max and wear the heavy armor, I would teach them that the heaviest armor is not always the best. Have the battle at the end of a days travel and give them a fatigue penalty for wearing that heavy armor. Encounter them when they're in camp (cant wear that armor 24/7). Monsters aren't hitting, who's to say that gobo isn't a level 5 fighter wearing the same armor your players love so much. Put them on a boat and bull rush one off the side (double armor penalties for swimming). Magic, Magic, Magic. Charm the warrior and have him do your dirty work for you. Then my personal favorite, grappling attack them with many small creatures. Don't forget, you are the creator of your world, the books are just a guide.Wearing the best armor is not min-maxing. It is common sense if you can get it. Making up house rules for fatigue solves nothing. I think the issue is just a lack of DM experience. I got my butt kicked the first time I DM'd too. It is just one of those things you learn on the job. He will get better. He just has to be patient.
The house rule part was the fatigue at the end of a days travel, and if he is going to suddenly start enforcing the hot climate rule that is an ass of a move also. He should tell them that the climate has changed, or let them know he will start to enforce the rule so that marching more than X hours may leave them fatigued, and warn them of the dangers. I am sure he was just going to say are you fatigued, and now you have to fight. Of course they will probably counter with endure elements if they know ahead of time, but I am sure this was going to be one of those sudden things that DM's do when they can't handle a situation.
There are 20th level casters with only a 30 to their prime stat? You can hit 26 at level 10 without even trying.
Sure, but since stat bump items top out at +6, you're not going much farther.
Counterspelling is base 50% success rate (and a 100% chance to waste your turn).
If it's a one on one fight, sure, that's a wasted turn.
Counterspelling is a tactic for when you outnumber your opponents.
Oh and HP is a Boolean.
Wow, that well never goes dry!
Sure, but since stat bump items top out at +6, you're not going much farther.
There are 20th level casters with only a 30 to their prime stat? You can hit 26 at level 10 without even trying.
.
18 base + 2 race + 5 levels + 6 enhancement + 5 inherent = 36. Without even trying.
Counterspelling is a tactic for when you outnumber your opponents.Or you can kill them and they cast their spell never.
In order;
Ok, so *best case* your spell is not disrupted on a natural 9 or better at 20th level. You still took (as a wizard) roughly 20% of hp. From a 4th level spell. The intent is to show hat disrupting spellcasters by this method is a valid tactic. The previously mentioned Maximized Lightning Bolt (resist energy / protection from energy notwithstanding) to the face will achieve a similar effect to the Missiles if the caster makes the save - and automatically succeeds if he does not.
I thought that it was already known that killing a caster stops the spell. My mistake, eh?
Tried googling it, got a whole bunch of different things. Please explain.
Basically, the idea is that until you actually run out of HP, it doesn't matter how many you have, and therefore damage is worthless unless it's enough damage.
The Power Word spells are one counterargument, but in a sense it's true.
Wizard (evoker) has a Wand of Scorching Ray (not fully charged) and is eating up the charges in every encounter. Until he is out, he is going to be a canon.
I can't believe everybody missed this. That's a 4500gp item, well over half the appropriate treasure value for a 3rd level character. The damage output from this would have ended a lot of encounters quicker than it should have, throwing things off more.
I can't believe everybody missed this. That's a 4500gp item, well over half the appropriate treasure value for a 3rd level character. The damage output from this would have ended a lot of encounters quicker than it should have, throwing things off more.
That's a good catch, except I think the appropriate treasure value for a 3rd level character is actually 3000gp.
Fully charged, that alone would put the character as having half-again the treasure he's supposed to have -- but he did say it wasn't fully charged, too.