So then if you take 15 damage while in a hail storm when casting you would need to make a concentration check of 10 + 10 (for hail?) + 15 (for damage) + spell level? = 35 + spell level?Sure, why not?
Did I tell you I hate casters? No really - from a 2nd ed background Concentration checks come off as a very nice gimmie to all casters, so my sympathy is a bit short.
Actually, I could see a DM separating out a distraction (rain, etc) vs. actual damage into two smaller checks since they are two different types of distractions (damage and weather effect).
I have no love or hate for casters myself, I am really just trying to determine appropriate difficulties.
My interpretation of the concentration check is your ability to maintain your concentration while performing a single spell in order to cast it. Much like a perception check has multiple factors that add up to determine the DC I would think the concentration check would behave the same way.
So in my example not only is the hail pounding your face and arms you now also have a weapon stabbing/bludgeoning/slashing you in some fashion.
Unfortunately it boils to homebrew for now to determine those DC's.
Actually, I could see a DM separating out a distraction (rain, etc) vs. actual damage into two smaller checks since they are two different types of distractions (damage and weather effect).
I come from the dawn of 3E, and I primarily play casters, and I say casters have it more than fair in their advantages. About the only way to force a caster to biff their check in 3.5 was with multiple damaging hits (the rules didn't change much), but Pathfinder has at least alleviated the effortless grapples. I actually rather wish they made the Defensive Casting DC based on the highest CMB of a creature threatening you (say 10 + CMB + spell level) since that would give you around DC 40-49 DCs if you have a 20th level fighter on your doorstep.
That being said, I do believe multiple checks are in order because it specifies the condition for when you make a concentration check, and that is "If you take damage while trying to cast", so each time you take damage you should then make a check. The check DC increases at each additional hit because the variable is specified as lasting until the end of casting, so "damage taken" increases each time. This also has the benefit of making it harder because you cannot lucky-shot past it with a single good roll. The more you roll the more likely it'll turn against you.
Can't say I hate casters, but I do dislike a lot of what 3.x did to them. The biggest thing being concentration checks. Before 3.x casters simply lost any spell they were attempting to cast if they took damage. Fly was not ubiquitous because it was a big bullseye. Wizards fired off spells from as well protected a position as possible, the meat shields were vitally important, and while at high levels enough protective spells were available to forgo the meat shields you were giving up a lot to make sure you could cast spells. So when I see a conversation like this I have no pity for the caster. Whatever provides the greatest difficulty is the way to go.
As I have described it, it works just like that. Take for example a typical adventuring party in any edition. You got your meat-shields and your casters. So you got this wizard. Flying would make you a great target for the example 3 archers vs 1 wizard scenario. You'd want to be nestled behind your party because you get cover from them against said archers (making it harder to get hit, and thus harder to disrupt your spell). You'd be more prone to trying to take cover behind obstacles and barriers before trying to cast a spell.
It specifies the trigger for the check "take damage", and the variable "damage while trying to cast", and the end condition. Thus multiple checks are required at successively harder DCs. This is the greatest difficulty you can get.
I think it's also more than fair.
|
Why should you make multiple checks for one spell. The concentration check is to see if you can maintain concentration -that is done when the spell is actually cast and not every time new stimuli (fist in face) is introduced. The only time I would worry about new stimuli is if
A) Stimuli - fist goes through face and back of the offending head of the caster thus ending spell (and life)
B) stimuli "shuts down" caster -KO, held, etc, so spell cannot be cast.
Again, this isn't AoO from continually running through an enemy crowd - this just just one spell being cast. One spell = one check, and you take the total up to the point of making that check.
I just don't see how these are all triggered multiple checks when you are only casting one spell.
I can see how multiple increasingly difficult checks would really rein in the casters - I just don't think that is the fix I personally am looking for - I'm working on something more severe.
Why should you make multiple checks for one spell. The concentration check is to see if you can maintain concentration -that is done when the spell is actually cast and not every time new stimuli (fist in face) is introduced. The only time I would worry about new stimuli is if
A) Stimuli - fist goes through face and back of the offending head of the caster thus ending spell (and life)
B) stimuli "shuts down" caster -KO, held, etc, so spell cannot be cast.
Again, this isn't AoO from continually running through an enemy crowd - this just just one spell being cast. One spell = one check, and you take the total up to the point of making that check.
I just don't see how these are all triggered multiple checks when you are only casting one spell.
I can see how multiple increasingly difficult checks would really rein in the casters - I just don't think that is the fix I personally am looking for - I'm working on something more severe.
You're being short-sighted. You're thinking only in terms of opportunity attacks and readied actions, but entire turns can go by between attacks before a spell is finished. If you're casting a summoning spell (1 round) and there are 4 other people involved in the fight, one came before you but readied vs casting, and the last three before your next turn, you could get struck around 4 times on different turns before the casting is complete.
The rule is simple, it says "If you take damage" which is when you make the check, then defines the damage as being while casting, "make a concentration check" telling you to do so and then the variables, and then gives the end condition.
Thus you would roll a concentration check for each time you are struck, and the damage variable equals the total damage you have taken while casting.
This isn't rocket science, it's just english.
Why should you make multiple checks for one spell. The concentration check is to see if you can maintain concentration -that is done when the spell is actually cast and not every time new stimuli (fist in face) is introduced. The only time I would worry about new stimuli is if
A) Stimuli - fist goes through face and back of the offending head of the caster thus ending spell (and life)
B) stimuli "shuts down" caster -KO, held, etc, so spell cannot be cast.
Again, this isn't AoO from continually running through an enemy crowd - this just just one spell being cast. One spell = one check, and you take the total up to the point of making that check.
I just don't see how these are all triggered multiple checks when you are only casting one spell.
I can see how multiple increasingly difficult checks would really rein in the casters - I just don't think that is the fix I personally am looking for - I'm working on something more severe.
You're being short-sighted. You're thinking only in terms of opportunity attacks and readied actions, but entire turns can go by between attacks before a spell is finished. If you're casting a summoning spell (1 round) and there are 4 other people involved in the fight, one came before you but readied vs casting, and the last three before your next turn, you could get struck around 4 times on different turns before the casting is complete.
The rule is simple, it says "If you take damage" which is when you make the check, then defines the damage as being while casting, "make a concentration check" telling you to do so and then the variables, and then gives the end condition.
Thus you would roll a concentration check for each time you are struck, and the damage variable equals the total damage you have taken while casting.
This isn't rocket science, it's just english.
So basically, every time the person takes damage during their casting they must make a cumulative concentration check. ie. casting fireball and hit for 4 damage, DC 17 then hit for 6 damage from an AoO, DC 23 and then shot for 8 damage, DC 31.
Where as it is now being proposed that you would just role for a DC 31 based on the final tally.
Why are we trying to make this into rocket science where the players are rolling more unnecessary dice? Is it just to make it more difficult for a caster to pull off their spells?
Or are you just stating it is already unnecessarily difficult?
Why should you make multiple checks for one spell. The concentration check is to see if you can maintain concentration -that is done when the spell is actually cast and not every time new stimuli (fist in face) is introduced. The only time I would worry about new stimuli is if
A) Stimuli - fist goes through face and back of the offending head of the caster thus ending spell (and life)
B) stimuli "shuts down" caster -KO, held, etc, so spell cannot be cast.
Again, this isn't AoO from continually running through an enemy crowd - this just just one spell being cast. One spell = one check, and you take the total up to the point of making that check.
I just don't see how these are all triggered multiple checks when you are only casting one spell.
I can see how multiple increasingly difficult checks would really rein in the casters - I just don't think that is the fix I personally am looking for - I'm working on something more severe.
You're being short-sighted. You're thinking only in terms of opportunity attacks and readied actions, but entire turns can go by between attacks before a spell is finished. If you're casting a summoning spell (1 round) and there are 4 other people involved in the fight, one came before you but readied vs casting, and the last three before your next turn, you could get struck around 4 times on different turns before the casting is complete.
The rule is simple, it says "If you take damage" which is when you make the check, then defines the damage as being while casting, "make a concentration check" telling you to do so and then the variables, and then gives the end condition.
Thus you would roll a concentration check for each time you are struck, and the damage variable equals the total damage you have taken while casting.
This isn't rocket science, it's just english.
Just had another thought as I discussed this with my friend.
I think that the DC would be based upon what is happening in a particular moment. ie In the case of a full round casting or longer (like summon monster) If three enemies attack and once due to the initial action of casting the spell (this would be AoO's and readied actions/immediate actions) then you would roll a concentration check with a DC based on that damage.
If you took additional damage in the following round or after your initial casting, the damage taken should add to the previous concentration DC.
Does that work?
So basically, every time the person takes damage during their casting they must make a cumulative concentration check. ie. casting fireball and hit for 4 damage, DC 17 then hit for 6 damage from an AoO, DC 23 and then shot for 8 damage, DC 31.
Where as it is now being proposed that you would just role for a DC 31 based on the final tally.
Why are we trying to make this into rocket science where the players are rolling more unnecessary dice? Is it just to make it more difficult for a caster to pull off their spells?
Or are you just stating it is already unnecessarily difficult?
The final tally would be an option, but given the way the turn sequence works, after disrupting a spell or not (if you can tell they're casting, arguing you can't see the spell has been ruined seems asinine to me) different actions would be taken depending on the outcome of previous actions, so individual checks would be better in my opinion.
It doesn't slow down gameplay any more than a saving throw does, so I don't see why people are complaining. I mean, if you get hit with 3 spells at the same time you gotta make 3 saving throws; which is basically what a Concentration check amounts to.
Likewise, yes it would be harder on you if you had to roll multiple times (in the same way it would be hard to withstand multiple poisoned arrows or multiple fireballs) because you have more chances to fail; but given the situation it should be extremely difficult to succeed when you're getting combination strikes while casting.
As to the rocket science comment, I was meaning the wildly different interpretations when it's spelled out objectively. I have broken the sentence structure down several times now and showed the conditions for the event, the variables, and the end conditions in nearly every post I've made and yet people aren't even addressing or refuting that, just saying that it works some other way.
Just had another thought as I discussed this with my friend.
I think that the DC would be based upon what is happening in a particular moment. ie In the case of a full round casting or longer (like summon monster) If three enemies attack and once due to the initial action of casting the spell (this would be AoO's and readied actions/immediate actions) then you would roll a concentration check with a DC based on that damage.
If you took additional damage in the following round or after your initial casting, the damage taken should add to the previous concentration DC.
Does that work?
You could try resolving it that way, but by default it doesn't work because each attack would be resolved in turn, triggering a concentration check as defined in the rule, with each new damage increasing the damage variable in the DC, continuing until each had been completed.
You could group them together if they were all coming at the same time, but in doing so you're being overly kind to the spellcaster in this case because you're giving him the advantage of less chances for failure, which makes it easier for him to avoid poor rolls.
Also, since we posted at the same time, see my post above for my other responses.
Aren't you really giving the edge to the fighters who after readying or declaring an action can now midstream change that action....now that they know the caster has lost the spell (what if all four fighters have the same initiative?)....
No. If you have readied actions they must go off. As I noted, this situation comes up when you are casting 1 round spells, in which case someone may have normal actions before you get the spell off.
*snip*
Because it defines it as an event. The event is upon taking damage while casting a spell, and the event resolves at the end of the event. The damage while casting is part of that event.
It's not that hard man.
Well I do concede that it is not hard to make assumptions and additions to the rules since at no point does the text say that the event ends when a particular instance of spellcasting ends. Rather it only defines the conditions within which the event can start. The event could just as easily continue for all spells cast as it could end upon a particular instance of damage.
In a slightly separate but still closely related point you propose that the event is taking damage while casting a spell. However you seem to mean taking damage while casting a specific instance of a spell. These are not the same thing. Damage taken while casting that mage armor spell last week is just as much damage taken while casting a spell as the damage from a spell six seconds ago. This would seem to disprove your proposal that interpretation one does not require you to add definitions not in the text to make it work.
I'm going to hold my tongue as to what I think about your first paragraph, but I do feel rather bitter about the tone of it.
Injury: 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. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).
"The interrupting event". The interrupting event is this entire paragraph, "Injury" is the interrupting event. It states when interrupting begins, and when it ends (the end of casting). You are trying to separate the damage portion of the event from the event itself to try and suggest that under this method it would count all damage ever. It is plain to see that the damage while casting a spell is part of the event, and IT DEFINES THE END OF THE EVENT.
You sir, I believe, are intentionally being difficult.
EDIT: To clarify further, the entire reason the damage would stack is because you have taken more damage during the event which has not ended yet. As part of the event, it specifies you make a concentration check when you take damage.
All bases covered, sir.
|
|
You know except like I said you are just pulling the end condition out of thin air as there is nothing in the paragraph that defines an end condition. The bold section only talks about when the event must start and not when it must end. So I would say zero bases covered since you still have no evidence as to when the damage calculation period ends except for that unsupported conjecture you have made upon which your whole position relies.
I have to agree with WWWWWWWWWWWWWWW on this.
If the checks are going to occur at each instance at which they happen, fine - but there is nothing in anything you wrote or in the core book to support each check retaining a cumulative value for the damage taken from previous checks. You make each check as they occur and then the values are reset for the next check if you past the previous one - nothing in the core book states otherwise.
Personally I think the most sense is just one check for each type of distraction (weather, hp damage) with total for each type checked when the spell actually goes off. That's my opinion, so please spare me any knee-jerk reactions or attacks (not directed at you WWWWWWWW).
My interpretation is that 1 concentration check is made based off of all the damage taken from all attacks.
This is also generally how I rule this. It's not really one of the options, but seems sensible and avoids a "just roll dice 'til you fail" feeling that the other two options seem to incorporate.
|
From my reading you make a concentration check for every instance that would call for it.
For instance if you were to attempt to cast defensively, while pinned, on the SS Minnow in the middle of a hurricane, while on fire, and taking multiple attacks during the spell (full or multi-round spell that allows non-AO attacks) you'd have concentration checks as follows:
1 check to cast defensively
1 check for being pinned
1 check for violent motion
1 check for severe weather
1 check for continuing damage
1 check for each attack based on the damage the attack dealt.
The fact that it says "The interrupting event" leads me to believe it's one check for each attack. You are more likely to pass a check in this way as well. Casting while being hit should be difficult, not impossible. And most casters I've seen still hide behind the warriors of the group. No check is still better than an easy check (not that a Concentration check easy).
The concentration check talks about singular events. Nowhere does it say to add up all the damage for the round or for the entire spell.
It says you use damage from the attack. You are trying to force "damage" to suddenly become plural to include All damage and it just isn't there.
It *is* harder to cast a spell with 4 guys attacking you. That is why they all get attempts to disrupt your spell.
Making the DC exponentially harder is just a blatant attempt to nerf the spell caster. If they wanted it to be such, it would be written as such. You wouldn't be having to find some back-door way to get it in.
-S
Injury: 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. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).
"the damage taken" is not "all damage taken" or even "the damage taken this round", they clearly refer to the Injury itself with "the". I will side with #2