Casting Defensively as an Opposed Roll

[Three_Haligonians]

In the common house rule thread on the go at the moment, someone mentioned that they follow a system in which Concentration checks to cast defensively do not have a set DC of 15 + spell level, but rather some mechanic that involves opposed rolls - much like that famous Tumble Variant that's out there. In short, the BAB of the opponent comes into play so as to simulate the fact it's harder to cast defensively against a higher skilled (re: higher level) warrior.

I like the idea, but I am the DM. One of my players, a sorcerer - so it will actually come into play for her - doesn't. Her arguements (and this may change if it turns out I've gotten it wrong) include that it weakens spell casters, since spells already have to deal with attack rolls, or saves, or SR, or all three! Adding in a fourth way to keep casters from getting their spells off successfully in combat only hinders them and furthermore, what system of opposed rolls would one use?

10 + BAB + Spell Level: This might seem a little high
BAB + Spell Level: This one is too low

Am I wrong in thinking that it should be set up so that when up against a fighter of equal level, the wizard should be able to cast defensively 50% of the time?

Anyway, I thought I'd come here and see if anyone out there who uses a system like this would be so kind as to explain what they do and how it works for them? Of course, anyone who doesn't use this system but wants to talk about it anyway.. feel free

Thanks,

J from Three Haligonians

 

[Infiniti2000]

The usual counter argument against such a house rule is that if the caster is that close to a warrior, he's already in big trouble anyway. Moreover, the caster can frequently just take a 5ft-step to avoid the AoO. If the caster is attempting a touch-ranged attack spell (meaning that a 5ft-step is not possible), then your player is right. This penalizes the caster's form of attack versus any other class, moreso than just requiring the Concentration check.

My opinion is that there's an inherent problem in Concentration checks. I can't imagine that there would ever be a caster without maximum ranks in Concentration (at least up to a certain level). When that happens, i.e. that everyone out there takes it, I see a problem. The solution is not to make it more difficult merely exacerbating the syndrome, but to somehow rework Concentration. Make it a level check of some sort, maybe modified by the caster's ability modifier.

Hope that helps. Not much of an answer for you though, sorry.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Opposed combat casting checks might sound good, but you'll never get it so that the caster will win a steady 50%. Str/Dex bonus to AB will always outdo Con bonus to Concentration. And also you're turning a single roll into 2 rolls which I am never a fan of. If you want to make defensive casting more uniform, make it 15 + 2x Spell Level.

 

[Stalker0]

I used to think opposed rolls on tumble checks and concentration checks was a good idea, but I've since changed my mind.

At low levels, concentration checks are far from automatic.

At mid levels, concentration checks are nearly automatic, but the penalty for failure is often a lot worse. Monsters and fighters hit very hard at this level, and casters can't take much.

At high level, concentration checks are automatic, but is that a bad thing? These casters can bend reality, summon unspeakable powers, make deals with devils, but they can't focus in a fight? Also, should we really expect casters to be forced to put ranks in concentration every level until the end of time just to do their job?

I personally believe in a breath of skills instead of depth approach. I think 10 ranks in most skills should be enough to do most anything, only truly epic things should require a lot more. Why not let the casters gain the benefit of all those concentration ranks they've been putting in, and finally let them put some points elsewhere.

 

[Land Outcast]

Lvl 4: +1 Con, +4 Combat casting, +7 skill (DC 17, succeeds 80% of the time)

That's what bothers me, 'tis almost a
"this mechanic is here to make casters spend skillpoints and a feat so as to become immune to it".

But, always but: the infamous 5-ft. step + Cast a spell

Most of the time it invalidates the mechanic.

 

[ARandomGod]

... like that famous Tumble Variant that's out there. In short, the BAB of the opponent comes into play so as to simulate the fact it's harder to cast defensively against a higher skilled (re: higher level) warrior.

I like the idea, but I am the DM. One of my players, a sorcerer - so it will actually come into play for her - doesn't. Her arguements (and this may change if it turns out I've gotten it wrong) include that it weakens spell casters,

I'd be against it too. And it does weaken casters horribly.

Of course, I hate the opposed tumble roll too, but there you're just taking out one skill and some combat ability from those who choose to use the skill, opposed concentration check take out the caster altogether.

And my argument for both remains the same. The caster (or tumbler) must invest multiple skill points into a thing, and yet the attacker gets this bonus for free. Unfair.

An alternate way of thinking of things. The wizard actively gets better at casting defensively, something he does ALL the time, as he levels. Yet he still needs to invest skills in it. Why should the fighter get constantly better at something he doesn't do all the time. .. disrupting spell casting, and for no investment at all? He can always ready an attack to disrupt if he thinks it's important, or grapple, a real mage killer. Or take the existing overpowered feat of MakeKiller (which flat out doesn't allow casting defensively in the feat holders threat range).

Actually... with that feat, and making THAT an opposed roll instead of automatic, that I think would not only balance the feat but contain the "payment" requirement that I think an opponent would need to be able to oppose casting defensively.

Am I wrong in thinking that it should be set up so that when up against a fighter of equal level, the wizard should be able to cast defensively 50% of the time?

Yes. You are. Unless, of course, you give the wizard 100% more spells to compensate. High level wizards are expected to be able to get off their spells, and the game is balanced accordingly.

 

[Staffan]

Arcana Evolved makes the DC for casting defensively equal to opponent's attack bonus (not BAB, but with a minimum of 10) + Spell level.

 

[Three_Haligonians]

Am I wrong in thinking that it should be set up so that when up against a fighter of equal level, the wizard should be able to cast defensively 50% of the time?

Yes. You are. Unless, of course, you give the wizard 100% more spells to compensate. High level wizards are expected to be able to get off their spells, and the game is balanced accordingly.

Hmm.. I forgot an important part of that sentence. I meant to say that for a wizard who put average ranks into Concentration, one who maxed his concentration skill out should be able to do it 100% of the time in such a situation.

However, it seems I am alone in my thinking. I guess my gut reaction was that it made sense for a wizard to have a harder time casting defensively against a 15th lvl fighter than a 5th lvl one. It seemed odd that once a wizard hits that magic mark, they never have to worry about Concentration again since it is as close to 100% success rate as you can get.

The fact of the matter is, spellcasters get their spells off most of the time - if the caster is being forced to cast defensivley, that's a disadvantage - it's supposed to be a disadvantage but with enough ranks, it doesn't even register.

But that's just me,

J from Three Haligonians

 

[Land Outcast]

I do support this:

It seemed odd that once a wizard hits that magic mark, they never have to worry about Concentration again since it is as close to 100% success rate as you can get.

 

[airwalkrr]

Lvl 4: +1 Con, +4 Combat casting, +7 skill (DC 17, succeeds 80% of the time)

That's what bothers me, 'tis almost a
"this mechanic is here to make casters spend skillpoints and a feat so as to become immune to it".

But, always but: the infamous 5-ft. step + Cast a spell

Most of the time it invalidates the mechanic.

If automatic success bothers you, then implement an "automatic failure" rule on skill checks whenever a natural '1' is rolled.