In my campaign we are generally agreed on the casters > non-casters (and to be honest, that's not a question I'd like to debate in here) to the point that's getting to be a problem (the non-caster guys complain about the many save-or-lose effects, etc).
One point of discussion is the Casting Defensively check; while much harder at PF than it was in 3.X, it's still possible, and on high levels, easily doable. A caster adjacent at the party's fighter or rogue can cast a number of spells that will effectively 'win' the fight with one failed throw.
And so I've been thinking about getting rid of the Casting Defensively option for good. It would be a pretty hard nerf for the casters while still leaving them all the good variety of spells that has always existed and is one of the strenghts of the PF/3.X system.
So what I'm asking here is: Is it too much? Are casters gonna be too nerfed? What weird repercussions could this have in-game? I realize it's gonna affect mostly melee-casters like Clerics, Paladins or Magus, but I think it at least gives a martial guy a chance at fighting a caster.
Further information about my campaign:
We play the Kingmaker campaign with 4 players, but the characters are a little overpowered (way more ability points than normal point-buy) to compensate a little less treasure and the fact that there aren't any ressurrection spells in this table. The party consists of a Pharasman Life Oracle, a fighter (two-hand Aldori sword with high Dexterity), a rogue and an enchanter wizard.
The rogue went in to ambush the bard Grigori (from RRR) but failed to surprise him, and fought him during a few rounds to a stalemate (they were in a closed space, Grigori was throwing some enchantments around) until he failed a save (Calm Emotions) and got really pissed (the fight was basically the rogue trying to locate an invisible Grigori).
Although that was the breaking point that led to a heated discussion, I've always felt (ever since 3.0) that concentration checks were pretty powerful, specially when you reach that point where you pass with a 2. Even as DM I find the notion that a wizard adjacent to a troll fighter shouldn't be able to simply cast a spell relatively untouched.
|
try having enemies take readied actions to whack the wizard when he starts casting, or grappling the wizard will work too, have the enemies use their INT(if they have enough), the guy in robes casting spells is going to a lot easier to hit than the guy in armor, ect, instead of removing the cast defensively check, make the casters avoid casting in melee in general
|
In my campaign we are generally agreed on the casters > non-casters (and to be honest, that's not a question I'd like to debate in here) to the point that's getting to be a problem (the non-caster guys complain about the many save-or-lose effects, etc).
One point of discussion is the Casting Defensively check; while much harder at PF than it was in 3.X, it's still possible, and on high levels, easily doable. A caster adjacent at the party's fighter or rogue can cast a number of spells that will effectively 'win' the fight with one failed throw.
And so I've been thinking about getting rid of the Casting Defensively option for good. It would be a pretty hard nerf for the casters while still leaving them all the good variety of spells that has always existed and is one of the strenghts of the PF/3.X system.
So what I'm asking here is: Is it too much? Are casters gonna be too nerfed? What weird repercussions could this have in-game? I realize it's gonna affect mostly melee-casters like Clerics, Paladins or Magus, but I think it at least gives a martial guy a chance at fighting a caster.
In a home game you can do whatever you feel appropriate that your players agree to. But below are some statistics you can use to determine how you will judge this rule for use in your own home game.
Currently, if a caster chooses to cast defensively and fail the check they loose the spell just as if they had cast the spell with no effect.
At level 1... with an 18 in their primary spell casting ability score, the player will need to roll a 17 concentration check (1d20+5) = 12 or higher on the d20 (40% success rate) to cast a level 1 spell next to an enemy combatant.
At level 20.. with a 22 in their primary spell casting ability score, the player will need to roll a 33 concentration check (1d20+26) = 7 or higher on a d20 (65% success rate) to cast a level 9 spell next to an enemy combatant.
Currently, if a caster chooses to cast a spell without casting defensively next to an enemy combatant and the enemy combatant succeeds on their attack of opportunity the caster must make a concentration check to see if they are successful casting the spell. If this concentration check fails the caster looses the spell just as if they had cast it with no effect.
At level 1... with an 18 in their primary spell casting ability score, and adding 5 damage from a successful hit from an adjacent enemy combatant, the player will need to roll a 16 concentration check (1d20+5) = 11 or higher on the d20 (45% success rate) to cast a level 1 spell.
At level 20... with a 22 in their primary spell casting ability score, and adding 25 damage from a successful hit from an adjacent enemy combatant, the player will need to roll a 44 concentration check (1d20+26) = 18 or higher on the d20 (10% success rate) to cast a level 9 spell.
Personally, I prefer to give casters the ability to cast defensively or to see if the opponent can hit them; then have the player make a concentration check based on the damage dealt. If they fail the concentration check the spell is used and fails with no effect. How good is a caster without spells?
At the same time, the martial guy can end a spell caster by simply being near them in melee combat and scoring a critical hit. In this manner, a level 1 fighter could kill a level 3 wizard with one critical hit.
What I would do, is try it out with your group and see how well your casters fare in comparison to your martial guys. I think it would loose some of the fun from playing a caster since if they must make concentration checks based on damage dealt or loose the spell, they will loose more spells than cast. Especially when casters have a limited amount of spells per day and the martial guys are only limited by their Hit Points.
I believe Skerek has a good point, which works into my "second option." Each class must play to their strengths.
|
Although that was the breaking point that led to a heated discussion, I've always felt (ever since 3.0) that concentration checks were pretty powerful, specially when you reach that point where you pass with a 2.
In 3.x Concentration is a skill check, and you don't automatically fail those on a 1, or make them on a 20.
So from level 5 or so, you pretty much auto made all concentration checks, making Combat Casting a crappy feat.
Tumble had the same problem, but I like it's vs. CMD now with acrobatics, the DC's are a lot higher.
|
|
At level 20.. with a 22 in their primary spell casting ability
Most would have 20 in casting stat, as primary casters (witch, sorcerer, wizard) on level 1.
But assuming 18 in the stat on level 1, they get +5 stat points for 20 levels.
That's 23.
Then they have at least a +4 or +6 item for the stat, and possibly up to +5 from wish or books.
That's as a minimum 28, most casters would most likely have 30.
That +40% in their favor, for both options.
which is option 1:
100 % success
Option 2:
50% success
Would say option 2 is a lot lower, what mobs gives only 25 damage at level 20?
In my campaign we are generally agreed on the casters > non-casters (and to be honest, that's not a question I'd like to debate in here) to the point that's getting to be a problem (the non-caster guys complain about the many save-or-lose effects, etc).
One point of discussion is the Casting Defensively check; while much harder at PF than it was in 3.X, it's still possible, and on high levels, easily doable. A caster adjacent at the party's fighter or rogue can cast a number of spells that will effectively 'win' the fight with one failed throw.
And so I've been thinking about getting rid of the Casting Defensively option for good. It would be a pretty hard nerf for the casters while still leaving them all the good variety of spells that has always existed and is one of the strenghts of the PF/3.X system.
So what I'm asking here is: Is it too much? Are casters gonna be too nerfed? What weird repercussions could this have in-game? I realize it's gonna affect mostly melee-casters like Clerics, Paladins or Magus, but I think it at least gives a martial guy a chance at fighting a caster.
Before I can tell you something about this I have to know with precision why your non caster are so weak. I have not this problem in my game, maybe I could help without modify the rules.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
You have to do what you think is best for your game. Are the caster players okay with this change (i.e., do they feel "too powerful"?)
If you nerf combat casting expect to see a lot more "5 foot step and cast." That's what players tend to do in my games anyway, because then they are guaranteed not to lose the spell.
Right now in my SS game, there is a fighter who is an anti-spellcaster beast due to Disruptive and Pin Down. He puts up Combat Patrol and no one is casting within 20 feet of him.
Also, no combat casting really nerfs the magus, who counts on it to function properly.
You might consider changing the DC to CMD+spell level, to make it more like acrobatics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed above with the "five-foot step and cast."
Honestly, I always see that more than casting defensively anyway.
I think you can go ahead and do it. Attacks of Opportunity were never a serious check on caster power, not in my experience.
The casters that will be hit hardest are the melee hybrids. They're the only people who really need to do this. They're already somewhat balanced by the need to be somewhat good in melee, which makes them less effective casters (mostly).
As long as you don't mind them taking the hit, and the fact that this really won't rebalance full casters at all (since they were already avoiding melee) then you should be good to go.
Agreed above with the "five-foot step and cast."
Honestly, I always see that more than casting defensively anyway.
I agree with this as well. At low level most mages will have mirror image up and Improved invis once its available, so most of the time they can get their spells off anyway, its not until higher level when True site becomes more common that they are in actual danger
Most would have 20 in casting stat, as primary casters (witch, sorcerer, wizard) on level 1.
But assuming 18 in the stat on level 1, they get +5 stat points for 20 levels. That's 23.
Then they have at least a +4 or +6 item for the stat, and possibly up to +5 from wish or books.
That's as a minimum 28, most casters would most likely have 30.
WARNING: Rant
In all my years of playing, I've NEVER had a character with all those things. Maybe all my GMs are stingy or I only play in low magic worlds, but the constant assumption of and 18 to start, +5 from tomes and a big boost from items irks me. I've had one of the three, rarely two, but NEVER all three.
Most would have 20 in casting stat, as primary casters (witch, sorcerer, wizard) on level 1.
But assuming 18 in the stat on level 1, they get +5 stat points for 20 levels. That's 23.
Then they have at least a +4 or +6 item for the stat, and possibly up to +5 from wish or books.
That's as a minimum 28, most casters would most likely have 30.
WARNING: Rant
In all my years of playing, I've NEVER had a character with all those things. Maybe all my GMs are stingy or I only play in low magic worlds, but the constant assumption of and 18 to start, +5 from tomes and a big boost from items irks me. I've had one of the three, rarely two, but NEVER all three.
If you can't acquire those by 20, you are playing with a stingy DM or low magic.
(the fight was basically the rogue trying to locate an invisible ~)
So, the rogue fought him down, he turned invisible, then the rogue chased him around for five rounds and ~ did absolutely nothing but flee until he hit the rogue with the spell. Correct?
Also, the rogue engaged someone who was higher level than him, alone, and lost. Why is he mad? He should have expected to lose.
EDIT: Martial characters usually instantly win whenever they engage a caster in melee in my games. The caster, from the moment they threaten him, is trying to regain ground viciously. It's mostly the Step Up feat, or a readied action to five-foot step after their opponent and attack.
Most would have 20 in casting stat, as primary casters (witch, sorcerer, wizard) on level 1.
But assuming 18 in the stat on level 1, they get +5 stat points for 20 levels. That's 23.
Then they have at least a +4 or +6 item for the stat, and possibly up to +5 from wish or books.
That's as a minimum 28, most casters would most likely have 30.
WARNING: Rant
In all my years of playing, I've NEVER had a character with all those things. Maybe all my GMs are stingy or I only play in low magic worlds, but the constant assumption of and 18 to start, +5 from tomes and a big boost from items irks me. I've had one of the three, rarely two, but NEVER all three.
If the DM never puts tomes as loot, try to craft them, sure they are almost as expensive as if bought but you will have the chance to have them.
Also... why should a noncaster have a chance against a caster? every village idiot can pick up a stick and call himself fighter 1, why should he have a fair chance of fighting a well prepared spellcaster? imo they shouldn't. The fighter has some feats he can take in order to increase the DC of the casting defensively roll, and there's the step up feat which can keep the pressure on the casters. Otherwise I'd be using invisibility/stealth (not counterable by true seeing), and attacking by surprise, etc. If the non-caster is charging against the caster saying "ima gunna beet j00 evul spellcasta" (with orc voice, please), don't be surprised to face an array of save or die spells.
Spellcasters are weak, 2 hits from the village idiot and they are bleeding to death, they have to play very carefully. Also, 1 spell failed when casting defensively and it's normally gg. The case of my cleric, I was healing the tank against an "evul" dragon. The dragon was huge so i had to cast everything defensively. Lost 1 heal / 1 breath of life = gg.
For a pure caster this isnt a big deal. If they are just slinging spells (the kinds of characters who's save or lose spells tend to get this kind of reaction) then it will have little impact on them. They try to stay away from being threatened as much as possible, and when they are threatened, their first thought is how to not be threatened, not let me keep casting.
The problem is the ones that are hybrids. Wild shaping druids, and combat clerics/oracles will suffer because of this change. So will arcane duelist bards, melee inquisitors, and magi. Also it makes things like the eldtritch knight or dragon disciple signficantly less valuable. They are all classes or concepts that divert part of their resources towards getting in to the thick of things, and casting spells while they do it. They usually arent the ones throwing around save or lose effects and are more likely to be putting out buff spells instead (since they want to be hitting things in combat).
So really, the actual culprit you are worried about gets affected less by the nerf then characters that arent really the problem you are trying to address in the first place.
The real problem is that a melee doesn't have to worry much about his life on early levels, and caster do. Then casters become tough, more difficult to hit, and melee should be more cunning. A lot of players are not used :)
I would consider taking away the casting stat modifier on the check, the typical suck/die casters will have maxed out stats so they will end up losing more here. Make the base check a bit easier 10 +(2x spell level).
A typical combat caster will hardly be affected since their casting stat tends to be secundary, combat casting will become more valuable.
|
Further information about my campaign:
** spoiler omitted **
If your rogue was of "appropriate level" for that part of the adventure he was 4-5 level and was fighting alone a 6th level spellcaster.
The spellcaster was capable to flee (the spell you cite don't allow him to attack).
And the rogue is pissed off that the spellcasters are too strong?
If instead of .... the other guy had been a inquisitor or a fighter the rogue would be dead.
I don't see a proble of "My god, the spellcasters can use concentration and cast in melee" but a problem of "My god the low levelrogue don't know his limits."
So what I'm asking here is: Is it too much? Are casters gonna be too nerfed?
As everyone else said: In my experience, casting defensively is quite rare. So I don't think it's too much and I don't think casters would be too nerfed.
So what I'm asking here is: Is it too much?
Part of the problem is that you're not using all the tricks available to fight casters. If you use all these tricks, yeah, it's probably too much of a nerf.
Since we're talking about later levels, using a readied action to make an attack action (possibly powered up by Vital Strike) is a great way to hammer spellcasters. You can take a 5 foot step as part of a readied action, so the "5 foot step and cast" mentality won't work. You can also use either a ranged weapon or a melee weapon very effectively with this strategy.
The caster equivalent to readying attack actions is counterspelling. This ability becomes stronger and stronger in the later levels. Often this strategy is ignored by players. But cancelling a spellcaster at an opportune time can be a huge tempo shift in a combat. Later level combats are all about tempo. If you can disrupt a spellcaster for a turn or two, a very difficult combat can become pretty easy.
In my experience, casting defensively is quite rare. So I don't think it's too much and I don't think casters would be too nerfed.
Unless you're one of the melee-magic types like a Duskblade or a Magus or some Eldritch Knights. These are the guys who get hurt the worst by the elimination of defensive casting.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most would have 20 in casting stat, as primary casters (witch, sorcerer, wizard) on level 1.
But assuming 18 in the stat on level 1, they get +5 stat points for 20 levels. That's 23.
Then they have at least a +4 or +6 item for the stat, and possibly up to +5 from wish or books.
That's as a minimum 28, most casters would most likely have 30.
WARNING: Rant
In all my years of playing, I've NEVER had a character with all those things. Maybe all my GMs are stingy or I only play in low magic worlds, but the constant assumption of and 18 to start, +5 from tomes and a big boost from items irks me. I've had one of the three, rarely two, but NEVER all three.
I have a witch at level 13, and he has 27 INT.
18 starting
+3 from leveling
+6 headband
I have no idea how you can't have it unless you are not allowed to buy items.
I have no idea how you can't have it unless you are not allowed to buy items.
.
Depends how you generated your starting stats. Remember the elite array ?
As for buying items, haven't you seen all the threads about "no Magic-Marts in MY world" ?
In my current party of level 12s, the best stat boosters are only single +2s (there is one belt of physical perfection +2). No tomes have been found and with one specific exception per player, no item of more than 10K has been available for purchase.
To the OP: My apologies for partially derailing your thread.
I have to agree with the previous sentiments. Removing Defensive Casting doesn't really nerf most casters, except when they want to go around touching stuff. It instead nerfs hybrids, and doesn't help out the pure martial types. If it really bothers you though (The image of a pure caster casting by a troll untouched), may I propose making their defensive casting based off of their BAB or something along those lines?
|
|
I think taking away casting defensively would hurt a lot of all spellcasting classes. Things happen, and sometimes getting the 5' step is impossible.
That being said, removing casting defensively would hurt casters a lot in general. But it might cripple the fighting in melee type like clerics, magi, inquiz, etc. A caster simply cannot make 10 + damage dealt + spell level at a consistent rate unless the damage taken is very low. At level 9 spells, that's easily 30+ damage an attack.
So a level 17 caster (first time you can cast level 9s) would be: d20 + 17 + 10 concentration check vs 10 + 30 damage + 9 for DC. That's not even possible unless my math is really off.
This is not a good or bad thing, it's just very different, and you have to keep that in mind.
I would tell my players we're going with this rule for the moment, and see how it goes.
|
|
I have no idea how you can't have it unless you are not allowed to buy items..
Depends how you generated your starting stats. Remember the elite array ?
As for buying items, haven't you seen all the threads about "no Magic-Marts in MY world" ?
In my current party of level 12s, the best stat boosters are only single +2s (there is one belt of physical perfection +2). No tomes have been found and with one specific exception per player, no item of more than 10K has been available for purchase.
To the OP: My apologies for partially derailing your thread.
Have you seen me in every thread on this board every day of my life? And that's why no magic mart sucks, because of things the game is designed for that DMs think players don't need.
And we go with 20 point buy. It's much more reasonable than the insanely low 15. Hell even PFS goes 20.
|
|
Most would have 20 in casting stat, as primary casters (witch, sorcerer, wizard) on level 1.
But assuming 18 in the stat on level 1, they get +5 stat points for 20 levels.
That's 23.
These are to give a baseline for the OP and some information regarding the topic of the post. Since there is no difference in the bonus from 22 to 23 it has been omitted. Of course with stronger level 1 characters the check is easier.
Then they have at least a +4 or +6 item for the stat, and possibly up to +5 from wish or books.
That's as a minimum 28, most casters would most likely have 30.
That +40% in their favor, for both options.
which is option 1:
100 % successOption 2:
50% successWould say option 2 is a lot lower, what mobs gives only 25 damage at level 20?
In the best case scenario (for the player's caster) as Kent stated...
If the player started with 20 as a base stat, then increased to 25 by stat point increases leveling to 20, has used a +5 Manual and has a +6 enhancement bonus from an item then this would give the caster an adjusted ability score of 36. Which would give +33 to concentration checks.Option 1 (cast defensively), of course would be 100% as you state.
Option 2 (concentration due to injury) has a lot of variables for average damage, in the example given the caster would be facing a minion of the encounter boss thus the lower tier damage is reflected. However, if the caster was near a stronger combatant or the encounter boss this success rate would diminish.
If we wanted to quantify the 50% concentration due to injury success rate at the optimum ability score for a player
on a 1d20+33 roll = 10+33 = 43 damage. Thus if you remove casting defensively from your campaign and one of your player's enemies scores a hit of 43 damage there will be a 50% chance that your player's prepared spell expends it's use and fails.
Ironically, when I saw the thread here, I thought it was about getting rid of the AoO's on wizards casting. In essence getting rid of the NEED for Defensive casting.
Obviously we play very different games. between Spectral hand, and ranged blasting, It's very rare that I see a wizard getting close and casting.
Personally, I'm not a fan of that aspect of the game anyway. Giving people a free hit because your casting a spell... is really just punishing a caster for being a caster in my eyes. And considering a round is only 6 seconds long... there are way... WAY too many things that let you get extra attacks in.
Sooooo as to your question, do you NEED Defensive casting? Nope, I don't see why you would. As a rule, anything that wasn't in 1E or 2E isn't NEEDED. Many games have gone on for YEARS without rules like that.
AoO may be more realistic... there may be more balancing... but no, they aren't NEEDED.
Well, I've done various setting-specific house rules in my day. Here's one observation:
I ran a game some years back with a 3.x ruleset where casting on the defensive wasn't allowed, and if you took any damage at all, a trip, or a grapple, or a spell that you didn't save against, that you didn't even get a concentration check. Basically it was 2nd edition interrupt rules ported to 3rd edition. Here's what I found:
The parties STILL wanted a divine caster and an arcane caster. My groups tended to be around 6, so typically they had 2 casters and 4 noncasters---sometimes one of the noncasters was a semicaster like a paladin or ranger. Without those rules (i.e., in other games i ran), the caster-noncaster ratio tended to be the inverse (i.e. 4 casters to 2 noncasters, where sometimes the noncasters were semicasters also).
So it did affect the market share of casters.
Those rules can only be fair if your noncasters get penalized equally. When they are subject to whatever kind of action (trip, spell, grapple, attack, gaze) from an enemy they lose their next standard action. Now we are even ;)
Thank you all for your valuable input. I'll comment on some answers:
@edwardcd: As Kent offered, my experience on full-casters (Oracle, Wizard, Sorcerer, etc) is that they manage to get a 20 on their primary stat, and a dedicate/experienced frontline caster (a battlecleric, for example) can net at most a +6 extra bonus (+2 from trait, +4 from feat). That amounts to a +12 at first level (against a DC of 17) - or a +39 at 20th against a DC 33. My experience is that by mid-levels, a full-caster has a high enough bonus to only fail on really low results.
@ryric: On this group we're pretty much agreed in that caster are too powerful (including the players who play the casters). The wizard can win a fight using one save spell (Suggestion/Deep Slumber DC 20) while the martials have no choice but to slash around for some rounds.
Goldenbraid: You're basing your suggestion on the assumption that all classes are equal, which, for the purposes of my game group, is acknowledged as untrue.
About hybrids: That's my one grip about this. They tend to have lower casting stats (since they need physical abilities to stay alive) and cast more in melee. I thought about maybe offering some of those classes (magus, paladin, ranger, maybe clerics with the War Domain) a Cast Defensively class ability that would allow its usage, but I'm loathe to make a house rule just to write down lots of exceptions.
|
|
When they are subject to whatever kind of action (trip, spell, grapple, attack, gaze) from an enemy they lose their next standard action. Now we are even ;)
By next standard action, you mean use of a current or last used feat or class ability for the next 24 hours, right?
:)
In that particular game, we wanted casters to be less good vs noncasters than they typically are in combat.
Except combat is the main focus of D&D/PF Encounters. Sure some people don't play the same game, but the game assumes that there will be a lot of combat.
Perhaps I don't tend to see spellcasters as powerhouses anymore mainly due to the departure of many swift versions of spells. I believe a caster has a lot of disadvantages in exchange of their magical versatility:
-The 8 hours-casting prior to preparing spells count against your next day spell slots.
-The inability to cast a share of their spells without a spell component's pouch (which can be sundered/stolen)or divine focus
-Silence is the complete bane of spellcasters (unprepared ones). Don't cast silence on the caster itself, cast it on a tiny rock and let it slide inside your own boot. Silence aura w/o save for the spellcasters.
But honestly this brings to me the next question: Is versatility more powerful than one-trick-pony über abilities? Leaving RP reasons aside, a paladin is way a better option (or blackguard for an npc) to get the job done. A spellcaster must choose which spell to do every round (which are also dispelable)and the rich one might have a quicken rod every now and then. A well minmaxed pally can put around 200 damage per round(not missing/not critting)at lvl 12 without even having to make choices. TWF pallies , archer pallies, even 2hpallies. Not versatile but quite good at its job.
As a DM you can nerf spellcasters as much as you want but Im guessing you came to the forums for some PoV. I don't think spellcasters need to be nerfed (more) but if they are doing too much and ruining your players campaign, well... .
Sadly (for the DM) the PC spellcasters are still a useful tool, otherwise they won't overcome half the challenges an adventure offers.
p.s.: I know I'm not going to convince anyone that spellcasters aren't the powerhouse they used to be and that one-trick-pony classes are the kings of the mountain now, so what else can be said?
|
|
p.s.: I know I'm not going to convince anyone that spellcasters aren't the powerhouse they used to be and that one-trick-pony classes are the kings of the mountain now, so what else can be said?
No need to convince, I agree, for the most part. I think the big issue with a lot of these threads is that people don't know how to fully use a front-line fighter type.
p.s.: I know I'm not going to convince anyone that spellcasters aren't the powerhouse they used to be and that one-trick-pony classes are the kings of the mountain now, so what else can be said?No need to convince, I agree, for the most part. I think the big issue with a lot of these threads is that people don't know how to fully use a front-line fighter type.
+1