D&D 5E Casters should go back to being interruptable like they used to be.

[Sepulchrave II]

In addition to this, by late 3.5, I vaguely recall a Feat that let you take 10 on Concentration checks.

Steady Concentration.

Yeah, that one’s borked.

 

[James Gasik]

Steady Concentration.

Yeah, that one’s borked.

That's the one, thank you. I was half afraid my brain had conjured it up out of thin air.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Entering this discussion late, but I have yet to see a 3e caster who didn't max out or nearly max out concentration. Add to that the con bonus that they usually had because casters needed con AND the combat casting feat that they usually took, and you're looking at a +16 to concentration to cast defensively with a meager 14 con.

To cast a 4th level spell defensively, that 7th level caster needed to roll a 3 or higher. A 2 or higher for 1st to 3rd level spells, because I believe a 1 always failed. So while what you say is true that it was not guaranteed, not many spells were lost to defensive casting. And it only got easier as the caster went up in level. He gained +2 to his skill for every 1 point of DC increase due to spell level increases.

The worry wasn't so much about losing your spell even if that risk existed, it was more about actually taking damage.

 

[Maxperson]

The real thing casters needed to worry about in 3.5 was ongoing damage. A humble Acid Arrow was a far greater threat than opportunity attacks or spell resistance.

At low levels. The DC for 8 points of damage, the max for acid arrow, was 18. That 7th level caster would need a 2 or higher. A 4th level caster would need a 2 or higher for the average damage of 5 or less.

Damage needed to be significant in order to really be a threat to casting, so readied or opportunity attacks from creatures that could deal decent damage was a bigger deal. A 15 point hit would cause that 7th level caster to need to roll a 9 or higher. THAT would fail a decent amount of the time.

 

[Maxperson]

True, that defensive casting becomes relatively trivial past 6th level given the right feats and skills, although Combat Casting doesn’t mitigate against damage sustained from a readied attack (Skill Focus: Concentration is arguably better overall).

I’d still question the wisdom of a 7th level wizard being within the threat zone of a level appropriate challenge ( e.g hill giant) and I think that the general advice of getting behind the meat shield still applies.

Sure. I wasn't saying there was no wisdom in getting behind cover. My point was that defensive casting wasn't really an issue.

Plus you had to consider circumstances. If somehow that giant got up on you, you were likely to go down if you got hit anyway. That hill giant did 2d8+10 damage and a 7th level wizard with a 14 con would average around 33 hit points. If the wizard was hurt at all, he'd be within take down range for that AOO. Provoking an attack to get behind said meat shield was often not really an option. You just had to pray the spell you did get off would be effective enough.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Sure. I wasn't saying there was no wisdom in getting behind cover. My point was that defensive casting wasn't really an issue.

Plus you had to consider circumstances. If somehow that giant got up on you, you were likely to go down if you got hit anyway. That hill giant did 2d8+10 damage and a 7th level wizard with a 14 con would average around 33 hit points. If the wizard was hurt at all, he'd be within take down range for that AOO. Provoking an attack to get behind said meat shield was often not really an option. You just had to pray the spell you did get off would be effective enough.

Now that I think about it, did concentration work differently in 3.5 and PF1? I remember in PF1 there was a way to avoid triggering an attack of opportunity when casting, but it required a concentration check meaning that it was not guaranteed.

And I also remember that succeeding a concentration check when you took damage was pretty hard. Maybe Paizo made the check defensive casting more effective and upped the difficulty of succeeding a check when you take damage?

 

[Maxperson]

Now that I think about it, did concentration work differently in 3.5 and PF1? I remember in PF1 there was a way to avoid triggering an attack of opportunity when casting, but it required a concentration check meaning that it was not guaranteed.

And I also remember that succeeding a concentration check when you took damage was pretty hard. Maybe Paizo made the check defensive casting more effective and upped the difficulty of succeeding a check when you take damage?

Yeah. Taking damage was the primary way to lose a spell in 3e, which was why being able to cast defensively was so important. Outside of narrow combat areas in a hallway, monsters could often just walk up to the spellcaster without provoking an attack.

 

[ECMO3]

I mean, clearly we are simply in disagreement.

Because to me, executing the somatic components of a spell sounds a bit like trying to properly do the hand jive, chicken dance, and/or macarena.

It could be that on some spells since it could be an "intricate set of gestures", on the other hand it could also be a "forceful gersticulation". So on many spells it is a matter of judgement.

Moreover, it isn't that dramatic on the spells it is described on (Burning Hands, fireball, steel wind strike, friends ....)

So what we are left with is RAW it is NOT this complicated on some spells and it could possibly be this complicated on others. So I guess you decide which it is this complicated it is and which it isn't.

And if you expect me to believe that you are protecting yourself better while hand-jiving all up in an enemies grill, than you are threatening to hit them with an oversized hammer, then I suspect there is little common ground between us.

No you are opening yourself up to attack more because of the weight and momentum of the hammer. The opportunity attack is supposed to be because you are exposing yourself right?

Moreover, if these components matter at all, it's bizarre to me that nothing can impact the quality of their execution. Hell, even the D&D movie itself featured a spellcaster whose spells went awry.

This is not the rules. The rules are pretty clear many conditionds could interupt a caster and any damage taken while in the process of casting will cause a concentration check. The key is this has to be done while casting and most spells are cast with an action. If you slow that down (through the slow spell for example), or they are casting a spell that takes more than an action you absolutely can disrupt it.

Also keep in mind we are literally talking about magic, so suggesting it is bizarre or trying to apply some sort of science to it, is itself illogical. It is magic, do you really need any other explanation?

For the people who think this is the way it should be, what are your fantasy reference points, because I'm struggling to think of something where magic is so predictable, reliable, and available.

The D&D 5E PHB, the Monster Manual and virtually all the published adventures.

 

[Gammadoodler]

It could be that on some spells since it could be an "intricate set of gestures", on the other hand it could also be a "forceful gersticulation". So on many spells it is a matter of judgement.

Moreover, it isn't that dramatic on the spells it is described on (Burning Hands, fireball, steel wind strike, friends ....)

So what we are left with is RAW it is NOT this complicated on some spells and it could possibly be this complicated on others. So I guess you decide which it is this complicated it is and which it isn't.


No you are opening yourself up to attack more because of the weight and momentum of the hammer. The opportunity attack is supposed to be because you are exposing yourself right?

This is not the rules. The rules are pretty clear many conditionds could interupt a caster and any damage taken while in the process of casting will cause a concentration check. The key is this has to be done while casting and most spells are cast with an action. If you slow that down (through the slow spell for example), or they are casting a spell that takes more than an action you absolutely can disrupt it.

Also keep in mind we are literally talking about magic, so suggesting it is bizarre or trying to apply some sort of science to it, is itself illogical. It is magic, do you really need any other explanation?

The D&D 5E PHB, the Monster Manual and virtually all the published adventures.

So at the very top, we have been talking about whether the rules themselves are immersive. As such, the fact that the rules are the rules offers no support in this discussion one way or the other, which really carves out most how you responded.

Let's see what's left.."intricate gestures vs. "forceful gesticulation" that's a conversation that concludes in nonsense. We disagree.. moving on.

Opening yourself up with a maul backswing.. let's say it's true. The flipside of it is that an attacker has to wager on how long you are going to be open for before inflict bodily injury upon them. Somatic components pose no such threat and are also frequently performed by people wearing ornate bathrobes.. Also, if it takes 6 seconds to cast a spell vs. 6 seconds to attack somewhere between 1 and 8 times, then the opening related to the backswing should be considerably shorter.

Ok..what does that leave us with..thematically, "magic is illogical" and we shouldn't apply science to it..

..and yet the "most immersive" expression of this illogical phenomenon is to have a bunch of prepackaged effects with prepackaged inputs, and no process variation and no risk of execution failure..

This feels like a joke justification?

Like if we were seeking to design a trickster class and decided that the best version would be an a paragon of unflinching honesty and forthrightness..because what could be trickier...Is that what we're doing?

 

[ezo]

The opportunity attack is supposed to be because you are exposing yourself right?

FWIW...

An opportunity attack is only when an creature moves out of your reach.

In 5E, other actions which might "expose yourself" don't provoke an opportunity attack unless explicitly specified by a rule.

But anyway, that is neither here nor there, as this thread really isn't about RAW but about the OP's thought on a house-rule concept.