There's a bit of flavor I'm wanting to inject into my game and I wouldn't mind some feedback on the idea. Basically I'm looking at making spellcasting a bit more intricate and have my game's magic users be less of the "dodging thru battle hurling lightning bolts" and more of the "arcane gestures and incantations" experience. In other words, I'm looking for a higher risk to go along with the already high rewards of spells.
Basically, I want to remove the 'casting defensively' ability from the game. If you cast a spell in melee, your enemies will get an opportunity attack. The casting requirements are just too complicated to perform while ducking or weaving. The concentration skill would remain to avoid having your spell disrupted if damaged while casting.
Now, where I'm waffling on is exactly how much to screw over my spellcasters. 'No defensive casting' is little more than a flavor change. I'm considering going one step farther and having spellcasters actually be flat-footed. I might be open to the idea of allowing a concentration check to avoid being flat-footed, but I'm kind of fond of the idea of making spell casting a bit more vulnerable. Wizards and sorcerers would have to stay clear of battle or even have bodyguards during combat while clerics, paladins and such would really have to think deeply about when and where to cast their spells.
Any thoughts?
... but I'm kind of fond of the idea of making spell casting a bit more vulnerable. Wizards and sorcerers would have to stay clear of battle or even have bodyguards during combat while clerics, paladins and such would really have to think deeply about when and where to cast their spells.
Any thoughts?
You seem aware of the seriousness of doing this, so I'll leave it to others to criticize you for wanting to do so. What I will do instead is offer you an extension of the idea you mention. If you want spellcasters to be more reliant on bodyguards and be more removed from combat, consider allowing situational factors to mitigate your general rule. For instance, spellcasters might not be able to cast defensively UNLESS they have an ally adjacent to them. In other words, find a way to encourage the specific tactics that you would like to see so that the penalty doesn't feel as onerous to the players.
- Treat every opponent as having both disruptive and spellbreaker feats adding +4 DC to cast defensively for every opponent threatening.
- enhance casting time, just like when a metamagic is added for a spontaneous caster, changing most spells in a casting time of 1 full round action, keeping them from moving around and casting in the same round.
- give every spell a Verbal, Somatic and Material component.
- require two free hands to cast, except possibly a bonded item, material components or a spellfocus.
- casting powerful spells is tiresome, casting your highest level spells causes the caster to be fatigued.
something to compensate casters a bit might be :
- give heighten or extend metamagic for free and allow 1 of these metamagics to be added for free to every spell. Maybe extend this benefit to every metamagic that increases spell level by 1, but allow just 1 free metamagic level to be added to any spell cast.
- wizards gain spellmastery : select 1 spell each spell level to be cast at +1 caster level also you do not need a spellbook to study these spells. Enhance the spellmastery feat to add additional spells and make it accesible to non-wizards, though they don't get the spellbook benefit.
First point I would make is casting defensively in Pathfinder is practically impossible anyways against challenging opponents. I think you could take casting defensively out of the game entirely with very little difference.
As for the flat-footed suggestion, it's hard to say without playing it out. I would at least consider that you are doing more than making casters more vulnerable, you are making Rogues much tougher as well.
Archery is already almost too good to pass up in Pathfinder, but in your game, I would be making a Rogue archer for sure. If anyone casts against us in combat, I would slaughter them with full attack sneak attack rapid shot arrows. The damage would be deadly even if casters didn't typically have less hp. As for bodyguards - who cares?
If you are prepared for that change, then I say go for it. However, the rogue/arrow vulnerability is one that bodyguards aren't going to be able to help against. There are other defenses though if you are a wizard or sorcerer (hello mirror image wands).
It would certainly change class balance quite a bit. Tread carefully when you start throwing out flat-footed conditions...
Well, the vulnerability of flat-footedness would depend on whether or not the caster is flat-footed only during the casting of the spell and not until his next turn.
You are kind of nerfing an already weak (physically not tacitly) PC and making a class with an already low AC even easier to hit. If your players know this info prior to build I would not expect casters to be their chosen class. I know that I would try out that new fighter build I was saving. If you do not tell them prior to build and spring it upon them expect allot of gripes about the switch and some bitter players. Thematically it sounds great though. I will agree with the Treantmonk on that it is already very hard to cast in combat so by removing it you are just risking player complaints and dead casters if you go with the flat- footed condition.
I think if you're just trying to avoid the whole move-and-shoot thing, than simply increasing all casting times to 1 round would be all you need do. This forces casters to have to stand still to cast, with the possible exception of a 5-foot-step. It also gives everyone who wants to interrupt the casting a full round to do so. The DCs to cast defensively are trival next to the DC to continue casting after taking damage, so there's no real reason to take it out.
Yikes! Hadn't considered a rogue's ability to sneak attack at range. That's definitely something I wasn't aiming for. If it's just for the duration of the spell-casting like Valente suggested, then it's mostly just denying a Dex bonus to AC for any AoCs that come their way. A rogue who takes the time to sneak up to a wizard and holds his action to shoot when he starts casting to get his sneak attack in on the flat-footed caster...well, I *might* be okay with that. My biggest concern there is actually that it'll make NPC wizards too easy to kill for the PCs.
As far as the basic idea goes, a character using a crossbow in melee grants Attacks of Opportunity without a chance of "shooting defensively", and I don't think casting a spell should be less involved than shooting a crossbow.
All I'm really trying to reclaim is the feeling of risk vs. reward that my old magic-users had back in my pre-3e days of D&D. Ultimately, if my players are too scared to play a wizard, they don't deserve to get the big-name spells anyway.
Ultimately, if my players are too scared to play a wizard, they don't deserve to get the big-name spells anyway.
If your players are now too afraid to play a wizard, then your party is going to have real problems dealing with flying opponents, opponents who are invisible, difficult terrain, mobs, and other things that casters deal with in combat. And if you can't get people to play wizards, there went sorcerers too. Bards likely follow next, and then clerics and druids.
Yikes! Hadn't considered a rogue's ability to sneak attack at range. That's definitely something I wasn't aiming for. If it's just for the duration of the spell-casting like Valente suggested, then it's mostly just denying a Dex bonus to AC for any AoCs that come their way. A rogue who takes the time to sneak up to a wizard and holds his action to shoot when he starts casting to get his sneak attack in on the flat-footed caster...well, I *might* be okay with that. My biggest concern there is actually that it'll make NPC wizards too easy to kill for the PCs.
As far as the basic idea goes, a character using a crossbow in melee grants Attacks of Opportunity without a chance of "shooting defensively", and I don't think casting a spell should be less involved than shooting a crossbow.
All I'm really trying to reclaim is the feeling of risk vs. reward that my old magic-users had back in my pre-3e days of D&D. Ultimately, if my players are too scared to play a wizard, they don't deserve to get the big-name spells anyway.
Keep in mind a crossbow is always a ranged ability, spells not always. If you think ranged weapons is a justification, every spells should be a ranged spell. This will have a very big impact on the effectiveness or even usefullness of short range or touch spells.
In addition, in the pre-3e days spells were more powerful and less frequent. If you want to re-claim those days of risk - reward, when you increase the risk, shouldn't you increase the reward?
How much are your players using the casting defensively rules now? This seems like an idea looking for a problem.
None of my casters will cast except when removed from battle. Casters are already easy meat if you can close on them.
It seems fashionable to nerf casters but I think they're almost not worth playing already.
Sigurd
If you want intricate magic... How many spells were available in the last settlement the players visited, precisely? What were the sources of magic used over the last month in your players immediate area? How many were resented or left perceivable marks? How many NPCs did they save or hurt?
Making casters more vulnerable in combat will make more intricate archery.
Yikes! Hadn't considered a rogue's ability to sneak attack at range. That's definitely something I wasn't aiming for. If it's just for the duration of the spell-casting like Valente suggested, then it's mostly just denying a Dex bonus to AC for any AoCs that come their way. A rogue who takes the time to sneak up to a wizard and holds his action to shoot when he starts casting to get his sneak attack in on the flat-footed caster...well, I *might* be okay with that. My biggest concern there is actually that it'll make NPC wizards too easy to kill for the PCs.
As far as the basic idea goes, a character using a crossbow in melee grants Attacks of Opportunity without a chance of "shooting defensively", and I don't think casting a spell should be less involved than shooting a crossbow.
All I'm really trying to reclaim is the feeling of risk vs. reward that my old magic-users had back in my pre-3e days of D&D. Ultimately, if my players are too scared to play a wizard, they don't deserve to get the big-name spells anyway.
I had a thought. You could scrap the "flat-footed when spellcasting" and instead make standard action spells require a full round action. (Not one round casting time).
Another possibility is to require a concentration check if the caster took damage in the previous round. This would have a definite earlier edition feel.
I agree with previous posters: remove the casting defensively thing but don't take the flat-footed road. Increasing a spell's casting time to a full round action (as opposed to a 1 round casting time) as Treantmonk suggested will also cut down on caster's mobility and ability to "dodge thru battle hurling lightning bolts".
Alternatively, allow casting defensively through the combat casting feat only (perhaps giving it a perquisite of BAB +6, reserving it to powerful casters and fighter-mage character types), and create a lesser quicken spell metamagic feat to cast a spell as a standard action. Off course, don't be a dick and give those two feats to every NPC villains the PCs get to fight...
'findel
