-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Disallowing "Casting Defensively"
- Thread starter entr0py
- Start date
Milkman Dan
First Post
We had a homebrewed class that could not cast defensively (prior to the update we eventually gave it) IMC. Without going into too much detail, they had the ability to build contraptions that could mimic spells on the sorcerer/wizard list.
When they fought, they focused on being ranged fighters, like archers and such. And the spells they chose to mimic were almost always buff spells, or ranged damage spells. However they were at a disadvantage against foes with reach, and often ended up being little more than weak fighters if the enemy managed to threaten them.
The update allowed them to cast defensively. It was a plus for the players picking that class, and a plus for the DM who didn't have to keep track of yet another attack of opportunity condition.
When they fought, they focused on being ranged fighters, like archers and such. And the spells they chose to mimic were almost always buff spells, or ranged damage spells. However they were at a disadvantage against foes with reach, and often ended up being little more than weak fighters if the enemy managed to threaten them.
The update allowed them to cast defensively. It was a plus for the players picking that class, and a plus for the DM who didn't have to keep track of yet another attack of opportunity condition.
Li Shenron
Legend
I don't think it would be game-breaking.
Sometimes it could be avoided by a 5ft step, and most arcane casters (who typically cast from range) are going to be affected only now and then.
But definitely clerics and druid will have problems if you use this house rule.
Sometimes it could be avoided by a 5ft step, and most arcane casters (who typically cast from range) are going to be affected only now and then.
But definitely clerics and druid will have problems if you use this house rule.
airwalkrr
Adventurer
My first inclination is to say that this would hurt spellcasters too much and make the game more martially oriented. If that is what you are looking for, go right ahead. I don't think it would throw the whole game out of whack, but I wouldn't recommend it for traditional sword & sorcery style D&D.
Instead of getting rid of it, why not just increase the DC?
How about DC = 20 + (Spell Level x 3)?
1st level caster with max ranks, 16 Int and a 12 Con has a +8 on his Concentration check, a first level spell's DC would be 23, so he needs a 15 on his roll--difficult, and often not worth risking.
4th level caster with max ranks, 18 Int and a 12 Con has a +12 on his check, a 2nd level spell's DC would be 26, he needs a 14--roughly as risky as before.
10th level caster with max ranks, 20 Int and a 14 Con has a +20 on his check, a 5th level spell's DC would be 35--again, risky. But, a 3rd level spell's DC would be 29, and that's a much more acceptable risk.
Dave
How about DC = 20 + (Spell Level x 3)?
1st level caster with max ranks, 16 Int and a 12 Con has a +8 on his Concentration check, a first level spell's DC would be 23, so he needs a 15 on his roll--difficult, and often not worth risking.
4th level caster with max ranks, 18 Int and a 12 Con has a +12 on his check, a 2nd level spell's DC would be 26, he needs a 14--roughly as risky as before.
10th level caster with max ranks, 20 Int and a 14 Con has a +20 on his check, a 5th level spell's DC would be 35--again, risky. But, a 3rd level spell's DC would be 29, and that's a much more acceptable risk.
Dave
Last edited:
GreatLemur
Explorer
You know, that might be a good counterbalance to my usual inclination to make casters tougher.
Still, it'd probably be good to mitigate it by allowing some kind of emergency spell or single-use magic item that could be used (without triggering attacks of opportunity) to push opponents out of melee range. Or something that just hurts people in melee range (even a very small amount of damage could logically be an effective deterrant against most opponents).
Still, it'd probably be good to mitigate it by allowing some kind of emergency spell or single-use magic item that could be used (without triggering attacks of opportunity) to push opponents out of melee range. Or something that just hurts people in melee range (even a very small amount of damage could logically be an effective deterrant against most opponents).
Angellis_ater
First Post
I would suggest a middleground at DC15 +(3x spell-level) - makes the checks harder but not insanely so.
entr0py
First Post
I think the reason i'm considering this is that i long for "the way it used to be" in first or second edition AD&D. If a caster even took one point of damage, his concentration was broken and the spell was lost.
I think i'd have to change at least Dim Door and Word of Recall to immediate actions to bring back the main "get away" spells of old.
I think i'd have to change at least Dim Door and Word of Recall to immediate actions to bring back the main "get away" spells of old.
airwalkrr
Adventurer
entr0py said:
Yea, but that was because spellcasting was much different. In AD&D there were no attacks of opportunity, and you didn't ready actions to disrupt spellcasters. If they started casting a spell, you often had time to attack them if you were in melee range (sometimes multiple times!).
Actually, I myself use AD&D combat rules with an otherwise 3.5-compatible system. Casting on the defensive is a DC 10 + attacker's BAB + spell level, but the Combat Casting feat lets you succeed on a casting defensively check all the time. Any spellcaster intending to be in melee a lot will probably have that feat. This means that most of the time, spellcasting is only disrupted by being attacked during the casting of spells (I use one minute rounds and segmented casting times based on spell level like AD&D). However, allowing a Concentration check to shrug off the attack is not game-breaking. In AD&D, we often allowed a Wisdom or Intelligence check to shrug off the attack instead of saying any kobold with a dagger who rolled high enough could disrupt your spell.
