3 saves or just 1?

[Mort]

Ok, maybe this is obvious and I’m just missing it, but I can’t see which is the “correct” answer.

Here’s the scenario:
Spellcaster starts to cast a 3rd level spell.
3 archers, who have readied an action against just this occurrence each get 1 shot at the caster.
Assume they all hit and do 5 points of damage each.
Does the spell caster have to make 3 concentration checks at DC 18 or one concentration check at DC 28?

 

[Crothian]

I've always done it as one save.

 

[dkilgo]

I would have to say that it is to be only one concentration check, and here is why:

Everything in a combat round is happening simultaneously. That is contrary to the illusion of the turn based system. The turn based system leads you to believe that everybody acts at different times. When in fact as your wizard prepares to cast that spell the arrows are already on the fly. When the arrows hit, albeit maybe not at the exact same time, they hit in such rapid succession that there would only have to be one skill check to complete the spell.

At least that is the way I see it...

Any other views?

 

[0-hr]

You make a concentration check each time you take damage. In this case, it would be 3 checks, each vs DC 18. There is no language that suggests multiple attacks be cumulative (though it may have been done that way in previous editions).

Injury: Getting hurt or being affected by hostile magic while trying to cast a spell can break the character's concentration and ruin a spell. If while trying to cast a spell the character takes damage, fail a saving throw, or are otherwise successfully assaulted, the character must make a Concentration check. The DC is 10 + points of damage taken + the level of the spell the character is casting. If the character fails the check, the character loses the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between when the character starts and completes a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to the character casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

It's also important to do it that way because of full round casting time spells. If the check were cumulative, there isn't a good way to handle this:

Wizard begins casting Summon Monster III
Wizard gets hit by an arrow for 1 point of damage.
Wizard gets hit by a non-damaging spell (Flare--the enemy couldn't hit him with magic missile because of the wizard's shield spell)
top of the next round, wizard is hit by an acid arrow for 5 points.
Two initiatives later, he's hit by an axe for 7 points.
Then he finishes the spell at the beginning of his initiative.

If you try to make the checks cumulative, you either have to remember what the wizard rolled on the first check (which was DC 14) and keep racking up the DC until it hits 26 (unless you count the non-damaging spell) to see if he succeeds.

Otherwise, each instance of damage gets at least two chances to cause the spell to fail: once when it hits and each time it ups the DC for a subsequent check.

It's easier and fairer to let the wizard make a seperate check for each time he takes damage.

 

[kreynolds]

Does the spell caster have to make 3 concentration checks at DC 18 or one concentration check at DC 28?

What Ki Ryn said. Three concentration checks. One for each time he took damage.

 

[dcollins]

You make a concentration check each time you take damage. In this case, it would be 3 checks, each vs DC 18. There is no language that suggests multiple attacks be cumulative (though it may have been done that way in previous editions).

Yes -- by the rules, it must be separate checks for each attack. Previous editions had no such thing as Concentration rules, so there's really no tradition which could be confusing folks.

 

[Darkness]

Yes -- by the rules, it must be separate checks for each attack. Previous editions had no such thing as Concentration rules, so there's really no tradition which could be confusing folks.

Yeah, I previous editions, you just lost the spell after being hit once...

 

[0-hr]

Oh ok. I knew there was something that let you attack a mage over some period in the round before he cast the spell that let you interrupt him anyway. Something to do with initiative counts and whatnot. My mistake.

 

[IceBear]

I've always done it as seperate checks, but I know that this has been HOTLY contested in the past. A compromise that I made because of that debate was to sum all the damage from one initiative count into one check, but seperate checks for seperate initiative counts.

That's a house rule compromise on my part

IceBear