Casting Defensively

[VanRichten]

I am currently playing a 3.5 Game where the DM has read the rule on Casting Defensively and states that it reads if you cast spell defensively and fail the roll you not only lose the spell but you your opponent gets an attack of opportunity against you.

I have quoted the book directly and have even pointed out to him that the consequence of failing such a roll is only losing the spell. However he quotes the Concentration skill where it says "appropriate ramifications" from the failure. Stating that the AOO occurs before the concentration check even takes place.

What are your thoughts on this matter?

 

[Kat']

Failing the Concentration check means you're too busy dodging blows to concentrate properly on your spell. You lose the spell, but don't provoke an AoO.

 

[jRocket]

Your DM is acting within the rules.... rule 0 that is!

 

[VanRichten]

Though I agree with Rule 0. Don't you think this is an iron fisted way of providing a double whammy on casters?

 

[irdeggman]

Rules Compendium pg 33 (Under Concentration)

Then under Casting or Acting Defensively

"You can use Concentration to cast a spell, use a spell-like ability, or use a skill while also paying attention to your safety during combat. If the Concentration check succeeds, you can attempt one of the acts mentioned above without provoking attacks of opportunity for doing so. If the Concentration check fails, the related act also fails, with any appropriate consequences. Your effort is wasted, just as if your concentration had been disrupted by a distraction."

 

[eamon]

Failing to cast a spell does not provoke AoO's. Therefore, failure to cast defensively does not either.

There's also a line in the magic overview section which is short but harder to misinterpret:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#castingDefensively

 

[frankthedm]

Looks like the rules compendium give the OP's DM more than enough leeway.

 

[Sparafucile]

Though I agree with Rule 0. Don't you think this is an iron fisted way of providing a double whammy on casters?

It sounds like a double whammy to me. Losing the spell (essentially your whole action that round) is a big deal. Plus, if you find yourself in melee range after your turn is over, your still in danger. Basically, your DM has decreed that the only course of action for a Wizard who finds himself in melee (not always his fault, BTW) is to do a full withdrawl. Again, your whole action that round is wasted.

Here's a compromise: If your DM is so old school that he just cannot accept a Wizard casting unfettered in combat, maybe one compromize would be to make defensive casting a full round action, which can only be used with spells requiring a standard action. Full round spell, such as summoning, cannot be cast defensively.

I think that's a much more reasonable house rule, as it still allows the DM the unfettered narcissistic power he craves, while you can still have fun and feel useful spellcasting in combat. Everybody wins!

 

[VanRichten]

Based on how I am reading it. The Rules Compendium states that the appropriate consequence would be the loss of the spell.

Otherwise follow this out: By the ruling of the DM you are stating that if a caster wishes to cast and deliver a Range: Touch spell then they would have to take 2 rounds to deliver it in order to avoid an AOO vs a failure on a Concentration check made to cast defensively. Which means you are in effect increasing the casting time of a touch spell by directly following this method of interpretation.

Just basing my interpretation on the way it reads in the book (including all that it says) and based on the the Master GM for the RPGA I know who interprets it as I do as well.

 

[skelso]

This question pops up here from time to time. A lot of the confusion comes from the fact that there's Casting Defensively and then there's being required to make a Concentration check because you got damaged while attempting to cast. These are two separate events.

Casting Defensively: Once the caster determines to cast defensively, he is in no danger of drawing any attacks of opportunity. He is in danger of wasting the spell if he fails his check. The phrase "all appropriate ramifications" is referring to the fact that the skill is not just for spells. If you are attempting to climb while being attacked and fail your concentration check, you fall off the cliff just as if you had failed your climb check.

Casting Normally: The caster does draw AoOs and will have to make a conentration check if any of them succeed.

So why would you ever not Cast Defensively?

Suppose you are a 1st level Gnome Wizard, stuck in a corner. An ordinary Kobold with a shortsword is threatening you. Suppose you have an AC of 12 and a Concentration check of +5. The Kobold is not terribly likely to hit you and if he does, he'll only do 1d4-1 damage.

If you cast defensively, you've only got a 50% chance to hit your target DC of 16.

If you cast normally, the kobold only has a 40% chance to hit you, and even if he does, barring a critical, the concentration DC will fall between 12 and 14.

In most cases, though, Casting Defensively is the way to go, especially if you've been keeping your caster's ranks maxed out.

While Rule 0 always applies, that wasn't the basis for the DMs call, but rather his assertion that that's what the rules say. I suspect the OP wouldn't have bothered posting if the DM had said, "I hear what you are saying, but this is how I do it in my game." Besides, why would we even need a Rules discussion forum if the answer to every question is Rule 0?