|
Considering the following houserule:
Casting Defensively
Casting defensively is unchanged except in the following way: the highest threatening BAB is added to the DC, but, if the caster fails their check, they may choose to keep the spell but provoke an attack of opportunity from threatening foes (attacks triggered in this manner are resolved first).
...
The idea here is to make casting in close combat riskier without removing the option outright.
Has anybody used a houserule like this? How did you fare with it? Thoughts?
Cheers.
If the highest BAB is added to the DC, that would get pretty out of control before long. What about
DC of each enemy = 10 + BAB
Caster rolls d20 + caster level - spell level
There could be miscellaneous bonuses and penalties to attack from conditions, spells, fighting defensively, etc.
|
|
Well, this both makes combat casting harder (higher DC) and easier (provoke option) - and ultimately (I believe) more dangerous. My question to the forums is:
Who does this help the most?
Who does this hurt the most?
I ask because I need help figuring out the permutations to see if it's worth implementing.
My biggest concern is that you will either make the game more lethal, or make it harder for someone to heal in combat without focussing on it.
It mostly hurts classes like the Magus and Warpriest who want to be in melee and may not have a super-high casting stat. Wizards or Sorcerers are probably not going to be making defensive casting checks very often (unless they choose to put themselves in that situation).
It kind of makes combat healing slightly easier.
All in all though I think the DC is unreasonably high.
|
|
Remember this proposal still allows the caster to get their spell off 100% if they survive the AoO. That is no small benefit.
Also, the PCs are usually a level or few higher than the mooks (who are the most likely to use this rule to their advantage) - so Create Mr. Pit's rough math might be a baseline for a hybrid caster but a little better for a focused caster. Furthermore, the Magus and Warpriest (as Johnnycat93 pointed out) are better outfitted to survive an AoO between their superior armor, HD, and (likely) spell preparation.
Do you think this will make full casters slightly more dependent on their melee friends (and mobility/positioning etc)? That is sort of my aim here.
Do you think this will make full casters slightly more dependent on their melee friends (and mobility/positioning etc)? That is sort of my aim here.
Personally I'd rather invest more resources in staying out of melee entirely.
|
|
Thanks for everybody's input btw!
I agree that Casting Defensively suddenly becomes a 1/4 or 1/3 gambit - but! - the caster still has the choice after failing the check to either keep the spell and risk AoO or lose the spell and remain safe. That is a powerful choice they do not currently have.
Create Mr. Pitt - i'm curious if you could elaborate more on how this disproportionately impacts lower level casters. For example, I might argue that all spell levels (1st-9th) have means of avoiding combat either directly (expeditous retreat, invisibility, fly) or indirectly (color spray, glitterdust, stinking cloud) - and that damage on corresponding level AoOs remains at a roughly equal proportions of lethality at all character levels (1st-20th). I think I see your point but am not entirely convinced.
Johnnycat93 - Yes, one response to this houserule would be to invest resources more heavily into avoiding melee entirely - but wouldn't another equally contributive response be to rely even moreso on your allies' positioning and tactics? And thus stress teamwork and collaboration even more?
Nohwear - I am slightly okay with making the game a little more lethal - especially to casters - if at the same time it gives non-casters a little more of an edge. Also, given the choice between longer combats and shorter combats, as concerns systemic changes via houserules, I prefer the latter.
Johnnycat93 - Yes, one response to this houserule would be to invest resources more heavily into avoiding melee entirely - but wouldn't another equally contributive response be to rely even moreso on your allies' positioning and tactics? And thus stress teamwork and collaboration even more
No. Unless they somehow have the ability to control the battlefield or intercept attacks I'd rather not run the risk in the first place.
Create Mr. Pitt - i'm curious if you could elaborate more on how this disproportionately impacts lower level casters. For example, I might argue that all spell levels (1st-9th) have means of avoiding combat either directly (expeditous retreat, invisibility, fly) or indirectly (color spray, glitterdust, stinking cloud) - and that damage on corresponding level AoOs remains at a roughly equal proportions of lethality at all character levels (1st-20th). I think I see your point but am not entirely convinced.
If I'm reading him right, I believe he means 4th level casters such as the Paladin/Ranger/Bloodrager that not only suffer from a reduced caster level to begin with (minus Bloodrager) but often don't have a stat high enough to succeed at concentration checks as-is. Under your rules, they'd never be able to cast a spell in combat.
Perhaps add the difference in BAB between the caster and threatening opponent? Makes it harder for full-casters while also not killing 4th-level casters chances of using spells in combat.
|
|
Remember the Paladin/Ranger/Bloodrager who will have a smaller chance of succeeding at the concentration DC will still have the option to risk an AoO in order to have 100% success with the spell. The question they ask themself is not "do I risk wasting my turn casting this spell" it's "do I risk taking some damage to cast this spell?" - big difference.
Furthermore, there already exists in the game an incentive to use buffs prior to wading into melee - action economy! You want to have all your magic bonuses active before you close with your enemy so you can use your combat actions offensively when you arrive.
In fact, the Paladin/Ranger/Bloodrager will be able to turn around and threaten their lower-BAB focused-caster enemies with not only their higher BABs but also their higher AoO damage output. I thus find it difficult to argue that full-BAB hybrid casters are victimized by this rule.
|
|
If the highest BAB is added to the DC, that would get pretty out of control before long. What about
DC of each enemy = 10 + BAB
Caster rolls d20 + caster level - spell levelThere could be miscellaneous bonuses and penalties to attack from conditions, spells, fighting defensively, etc.
Part of the reason I suggested "add BAB" was because I wanted to raise the difficulty significantly using a metric that already existed.
Maybe, similar to what you have suggested, I could have my casters roll their check, penalized by the level of the spell, compared against threatening enemies' CMD?
That could create a situation where the caster provokes attacks from some of his threatening enemies (as opposed to all or nothing).
My mechanic was a first thought, so not neccessarily right. However, I thought it should still be easier to cast one of your lower level spells.
On a bit of a tangent, I would like PF v2 perhaps to expand on combat maneuvers, in such a way that they are not all Str/Dex based. Feint and demoralize could be included. Cast defensively and counter spell could be in there. Others too.
It you want to make it possibly difficult for spell casters, just make it a combat maneuver. The caster uses d20 + BAB + casting ability mod. Wizards would have a tougher time with it, while 3/4 BAB classes would do better at it. Also, the prowess of the opponent would make a difference. Obviously this mechanic still has problems. Just brainstorming.
|
|
I am curious what others think about my proposal. My new game will be starting up pretty soon and so my house rules are "due":
Casting Defensively
The DC for casting defensively is increased by the highest threatening enemy BAB. A caster who fails this check has the option to either lose the spell safely (as normal) or live dangerously by immediately provoking AoO prior to successfully casting the spell.
As has been pointed out above, the PC math roughly works out to dedicated casters having a one-in-three chance and hybrid casters having a one-in-four chance of succeeding on the check. But! They have their choice of consequence.
Thoughts?
Given your new option, even with the change in math, I wouldn't expect to see a decline in melee casting from your players. Your option DOES make casting in melee more difficult, but it's also removed the only drawback to casting defensively, the spell fizzling on a fail.
Therefore, I would still choose to cast in melee if forced to, because your proposed rule essentially just offers a free layer of protection when casting normally in melee, AND ensures my spell casts. And in most cases, a spell's effects are worth the risk.
To clarify, using your option, if my defensive cast fails, then I have the choice to either lose my spell, but prevent AoO (like normal), or keep my spell, but provoke AoO, as if I didn't cast defensively from the beginning. However, now I have 2 opportunities to avoid taking damage, but still always cast my spell, when casting in melee; 1. if my check succeeds, and 2. if the AoO I provoked from a failed check misses.
If your goal is to make melee casting "riskier" as in "more difficult," and not "deadlier" (i.e. removing defensive casting altogether), then JUST add an opponent's BAB to the DC, and not include the latter part.
As an additional suggestion, to prevent harshly punishing hybrid casters using your variant, I'd allow PCs that take the Combat Casting feat to add their BAB to thier concentration checks, in addition to the +4 bonus.
just adding the opponent's BAB is likely to just make casting defensively not an option at all. it's already really difficult to pull of at lower levels and if the BAB of opponents is going to mitigate your caster level increases entirely, it will never be a viable option. someone before suggested adding the difference in BABs (though how would you handle being threatened by multiple attackers?) and i would say that that's more reasonable. if it's only for casting defensively, it makes Combat Casting a more appealing feat option to help mitigate that some. that seems reasonable for making combat casting riskier without totally screwing over the classes meant to cast in combat some.
|
|
Sellsword2587,
I think you have touched on what some of the posters above (who saw the huge DC and focused their comments on that) missed - how this rule could potentially make casting in melee a better option for the caster (compared to the normal rules).
My goal is to make casting in combat "riskier" by increasing both the risk and reward as a way to give a mechanical incentive for caster characters to rely a little more on their non-casting buddies.
cuatroespada,
In your experience, do hybrid casters cast most of their spells before closing with their enemies or after? My experience is usually before, which I feel mitigates the drawback of this proposal some (as does generally having higher AC, HP, and other defenses against AoO).
Cheers
the problem is the risk to casting in combat isn't increased; it's decreased. you've only made casting in melee more difficult (and thus a slightly less desireable option than it already was), but since attempting it doesn't lock me into anything, there's no real risk invoked.
in my experience all casters attempt to avoid casting in melee whenever possible. that's really not the point though. the 3/4 BAB classes are expected to be in melee and will likely have to cast there some (and certainly more often than those who eschew martial combat entirely).
edit: it occurs to me that i simply assumed that you were giving casters the option to bail entirely of they fail to cast defensively. that removes all risk because you could just not cast the spell and withdraw most of the time.
if you add BAB, you can't cast high level magic defensively at all. DCs to cast defensively are 15 + double the spell level. unless you're accruing casting stat bonuses at a rate of 4 every 2 levels, you'll eventually be unable to combat cast next to a full BAB class. and even then you're only barely keeping up. a ninth level spell would be DC 33 and the most you can have in your casting stat without being a race with a +4 is 36 for +13... you'd need a 20 to successfully cast defensively. normally you're guaranteed but you also had to get 36 into your casting stat which involves a +5 inherent bonus. the difference in BABs is much more reasonable.
essentially casting defensively is already high risk high reward but not quite difficult enough for you, but your suggestion removes the risk in favor of making it nigh impossible to achieve.
|
|
However, it does not solve the problem you're trying to solve and makes casters no more or less reliant on melee combatants than the current system.
Could you elaborate on this a little bit?
My thinking is this:
Casting in combat is now much more difficult to do safely.
Your non-casting allies rely on you to cast spells (often that either buff them, manage the battlefield somehow, or deal direct damage).
You rely on them to be able to safely cast these spells (by using movement and positioning, by drawing AoOs upon themselves, by taking out lesser enemies who threaten you).
Thus, because successfully cast spells can often mean the difference between success and failure in an encounter, co-reliance is hereby increased.
Casting in combat is now much more difficult to do safely.
do you mean under the current rules it is more difficult than under your rules? because that would be false. your house rules make casting defensively a free attempt that you will almost undoubtedly fail with no downside for trying. the normal rules make it a thing you will usually succeed at if your casting stat is high, but you risk losing the spell if you fail.
My proposal is this:
Casting Defensively has it's DC raised by the highest BAB among enemies who threaten the caster.
If the caster fails the check, they have a choice: Lose the spell, or, provoke an attack of opportunity from any threatening enemies and then cast the spell anyway.
the caster will almost always fail that check so they will always choose not to try in the first place unless the spell will end the encounter and getting hit will not kill them. you're essentially removing casting defensively from the game.
|
|
This will give a strong advantage to NPC casters. PCs will be forced to ready actions instead of relying on AoOs to disrupt spells.
What effect do you think this will have on encounter length with NPC casters?
On the one hand, readying actions to disrupt spells will cut away at full attack routines and save the caster HP - on the other hand, choosing to take AoOs to cast spells will cost the caster HP.
This will give a strong advantage to NPC casters. PCs will be forced to ready actions instead of relying on AoOs to disrupt spells.
I don't think this will balance properly.
why would you ready an action? NPC casters generally have lower stats than PC casters who also rarely make that check. no one will be casting defensively so every caster will either take attacks of opportunity or withdraw so they can cast safely. rolling to cast defensively isn't worth it.
provoking and casting anyway has always been an option and the attack of opportunity forces a concentration check. the house rule says nothing to change that.
edit: nevermind. i see how you're reading that now. i probably mistook his meaning.
@rainzax, I'd highly recommend the following math for your variant:
Casting Defensively: Concentration DC is equal to either 10 + highest BAB among threatening opponents + twice the spell's level, or 15 + twice the spell's level, whichever is higher.
This way things remain the same at lower levels, but get more difficult at higher levels and makes casting near combat-capable opponents much riskier, without concentration checks being near-impossible to succeed from the get-go.
Also, to clarify cuatroespada's previous comment, per the rules of provoking an AoO while casting, the AoO happens before the spellcast is resolved. Therefore, if the caster takes damage from that AoO, then, by RAW, the caster would be required to make ANOTHER concentration check, per the "injured while casting" rule (DC 10 + damage taken + spell's level).
Your variant is subject to this rule, as you stated the spell is cast after the AoO, so your variant is still balanced (less so if you keep your current math), but it can still add extra die rolls in combat, which is not really a better way to design things. If your fine with the combat pace it sets though, then run with it.
Make a combat maneuver check.
d20 + BAB + casting ability score + misc bonuses (such as Combat Casting)
DC = CMD + spell level
We've been happily playing since 2009 using a very similar house rule:
Cast Defensively:
Spoiler:If you are threatened by an opponent who has at least one attack of opportunity remaining, you can elect to attempt to cast defensively. If you choose not to do so, you provoke an attack of opportunity. To cast defensively, you must succeed at a Concentration check at a base DC of 10 + the BAB of the threatening opponent; as noted, you take a penalty to the check equal to twice the level of the spell you’re casting. If this check fails, a threatening opponent can spend an attack of opportunity to automatically disrupt your spell. If the check is successful, the spellcasting continues uninterrupted. Allies of the threatening opponent who also threaten you can choose to potentially spend attacks of opportunity themselves in order to Aid Another (see Introduction); each one who does so adds +2 circumstance bonus to the DC of the defensive casting check (and again, uses up the attack of opportunity only if your Concentration check fails).
As a risky strategy against a skilled opponent, you can ignore the threat and simply cast the spell normally, but doing so provokes an attack of opportunity from all threatening opponents. If you are struck by an attack of opportunity provoked by not casting defensively, you must succeed at a concentration check after all, but you also add the damage sustained to the check DC (see table). Threatening opponents can disrupt spellcasting more reliably than noted above by withholding an attack (see Preemptive Actions in Chapter 1) and striking you as an immediate action.
The real key to this is that you HAVE to give martial characters in the party the ability to interrupt people attacking the casters, by getting in the way as an immediate action. If you do that, then the casters rely on bodyguards to give them a chance to get off high-level encounter-ending spells -- you reinforce the need for team interdependence. If you don't do that, you end up with no one playing a caster.
What is a caster's typical success rate like with that formula?
|
|
The real key to this is that you HAVE to give martial characters in the party the ability to interrupt people attacking the casters, by getting in the way as an immediate action.
Can you clarify this?
Do you mean a new class feature or something like:
Aid Spellcaster
As an opportunity action (costing your attack of opportunity), if you threaten an opponent who threatens an ally who is casting a spell, make a combat maneuver check against that opponent. If you succeed, your ally gains a +2 bonus on concentration checks to cast defensively until the end of his or her action.
Maybe a bonus to the concentration check based on the number of your allies that threaten the enemy?
The real key to this is that you HAVE to give martial characters in the party the ability to interrupt people attacking the casters, by getting in the way as an immediate action.Can you clarify this?
(1) You can move and still make iterative attacks.
(2) I give a number of immediate actions per round equal to the combatant's number of iterative attacks, based on BAB.(3) On your turn, you can choose to not make some of your movement and/or attacks.
(4) You can then spend immediate actions to do those things before your next turn.
For example: Fred the fighter and Wally the wizard are 7th level, and are fighting a couple of evil 7th level barbarians. Wally wants to get off his confusion spell pronto, but with two berserks at BAB +7, he needs to make a DC 10 + 7 + 2x4 + 2 = 27 Concentration check to do it -- the odds of it succeeding are pretty bad.
Fred has the highest initiative, takes one swing at one of the barbarians, and then waits. Wally goes next, and starts to cast -- normally the barbarians would interfere at this point, but Fred now spends an immediate action to step in between the barbarians and Wally, preventing them from getting at him to disrupt his casting, and then uses his other immediate action to make his second attack that round. Wally's spell goes off unhindered, and the barbarians learn that 1 fighter + 1 wizard >> 2 fighters or 2 wizards.
Can Fred use his held movement/actions to interrupt the barbarians on their actions?
Yes, subject to his limited allotment of movement/attacks and the immediate actions needed to trigger them.
To what extent does this slow down your combats?
So far, not at all. Granted, a lot of the playtesting has been in the BAB +6 range vs. the BAB +16 range, but even when we had martials with multiple immediate actions, it was a lot more common for them to use all their attacks immediately, and maybe spend the immediate actions to Aid Another (which we rolled "flanking" into) or attacks of opportunity. Most of them chose other ally-defending options that didn't eat into their action economy (e.g., KELGAN).
What about with newer players?
They generally need help with almost every aspect of a system this complex. My main worry is that they'll later on end up in a straight PF game, realize they can't do stuff that seems obvious, and be upset.
|
|
Can Fred use his held movement/actions to interrupt the barbarians on their actions?Yes, subject to his limited allotment of movement/attacks and the immediate actions needed to trigger them.
Emphasis added.
Triggers, I assume, include normal AoO triggers and the "declared" triggers of readied actions?
If you are curious why I am asking/probing, it's because I'm open to new ideas from alternate systems as house rule patches to the PF system - not wholesale rewrites, which is totally cool that you have organized your game that way! - but I'm still "trapped" in most of the mechanics of regular PF - by choice mind you! - so that I can lubricate the system somewhat while still having it be totally recognizable (compatible with my players' books, etc).
In short, as I have defined my wriggle room, I am open to more liberal interpretations of what constitutes a "ready action" - which is exactly the space within the PF rules where interruption (not gated by a feat or class feature) can occur.
As to the original thread topic, I have abandoned the idea in favor of just setting the DC to 10 + BAB + 2x. And as I have posted my houserules for my new players, it's too late to modify that any further (I'm already dangerously close to the line of being a psycho house-ruler). Cheers!
Yes, the rules I described supersede the PF rules for held and readied actions. You can read more HERE, in the Introduction. The classes, skills, feats, etc. might be of interest as well, but there's 600 pages of material there.
|
|
Nice.
Actually now that I'm looking at this your Immediate Actions based on BAB formula looks like a nice solution to the Pathfinder Unchained Alternate Action Economy (3 acts per round) dilemna of "how many acts do (former) swift/opportunity actions count as?" in keeping in balance the "intended" power level of new (post-core) class design.
Not in a place to tinker with action economy yet, but definitely something to think about.