Casting on Defensive...too easy?

[Patman21967]

I really think that casting while in combat is way too easy. It is one of the rules that I would like changed...a 5th level mage with combat casting probably has a concentration of 12...all thats required is a 15+sl...add to that having buffed with mirror image, and they are better than any other class...

way too easy.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I used to agree, and currently use one of the many house rules floating around. (We use "threatening attacker's attack roll, plus spell level." Arcana Unearthed uses "threatening attacker's attack bonus, plus spell level." I've seen others.)

This is one of the house rules I'm going to get rid of for my next campaign, though. As someone pointed out to me, "A wizard in so much trouble that he has to cast while standing next to a fighter doesn't need anymore screwing with. And a cleric can suck up the hit."

 

[Thanee]

Yep, we came to a similar conclusion.

Spells are too valuable to risk them in a 50/50 chance.

Casting on the defensive is not really meant to be that difficult, it's meant to eat up resources (skill points mostly, sometimes feats) to get to the level, that you can use it almost safely. If a wizard is trained and good at casting in combat situations, he should be able to.

Spells are the wizard's weapons as much as the sword is the fighter's weapon. The game is designed in a way, that the wizard is able to use those weapons and not pray for lucky dice rolls all the time.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Spatula]

I really think that casting while in combat is way too easy. It is one of the rules that I would like changed...a 5th level mage with combat casting probably has a concentration of 12...all thats required is a 15+sl...add to that having buffed with mirror image, and they are better than any other class...

way too easy.

Your example wizard spent a feat on it, did he not? He should be good at it.

This is something that I can't get concerned about. Spellcasters have enough to worry about as they increase in level, as monsters become more and more immune to magic (through SR, resistances, saves that increase much faster than DCs, etc) and get bigger, with harder-to-get-out-of threatened areas. So the wizard doesn't need to roll to cast that 9th-level spell defensively. Well, good. The wizard has much more pressing problems to deal with.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The designers have designated certain aspects of the game to become virtually automatic in the vast majority of adventuring scenarios once a character specializing in that specific skill reachs around 10th level. Casting Defensively happens to be one of those aspects. Of the top of my head, the list would include, but is not limited to, Spot, Listen, Hide, Move Silently, Diplomacy, Tumble, Knowledge, Bluff, Survival, Search, Disable Device, Open Locks, and Ride checks.

Now it is true that even a eagle eyed Elf Ranger PC may occasional match up against an NPC Halfling Rogue. But the fact remains that any character that can hit a DC of 25+ the majority of the time is performing at the limits of our experience of human competence all the time. All but the most rare NPCs are helpless to directly oppose the PC in his area of expertise at those competence levels.

Eventually mages do not have to roll the die to successfully Cast Defensively. It is also true that eventually the knight in shining armor can automatically Fast Mount and Fast Dismount (Ride), and the Ranger can follow unerringly any fresh tracks not obscured by magic. In the context of the game, this simulates allowing your PCs to do heroic things through explicit competence. A 5th level character is not at the point of automatic success, but succeeding the majority of the time is not a problem but a mark of the transition period towards eventual excellence.

 

[Gort]

Knowledge skills aren't really automatic when they're related to monsters.

10+hitdice to know something handy about the monster has no upper limit.

Bluff is opposed by sense motive, so that's got no upper limit. Ditto spot, listen, hide, move silently.

Ride checks are useful for negating hits on your mount (DC related to damage dealt to mount) therefore are always useful.

Diplomacy by the RAW is very stupid.

----

I am of the opinion that if you've put a bunch of skill points into a skill, you should be seeing some benefit from it. If you max out concentration every level, and take the feat, and STILL can't cast defensively reliably, was there that much point in putting the skill points in?

 

[Shallown]

we use a varient of 15 + spell level + Bab of threatening enemy. It works pretty well.

Since not many bad guys have a real high bab but get most of their ability to hit from strength it works out pretty well.

As far as having to cast defensively we have several wizard/fighter types and the clerics have to cast on occasion near an enemy so it does come up a fair bit.

It is no longer an automatic thing but a risk you take in combat.

Later

 

[Thanee]

Shouldn't that be 10+ (instead of 15+) then?

Bye
Thanee

 

[Shallown]

It could easily be but so far that number has worked well.

We did change the tumble checks to work the same and lowered the DC by 5. Not sure why we didn't do the same for defensive casting. Maybe we should.

I think we ended up deciding casting was more unnatural to combat than moving about with tumble. I don't remember for sure. It actually in practice has hurt the bad guys more often than the players. Sure a player loses an occasional spell but they are usually not surrounded by people like a bad guy trying to cast usually is in my memories.

Makes that teleporting away/using magic to escape hard to do when surrounded by characters.

Another factor may have been it is more a constant then tumbling is since tumble has lots of modifiers and scasting defensively doesn't.

Later

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Gort,

In practice, someone of 10th+ level who really maximizes those skills is going to hit their target number more than 95% of the time -- matching up against maximized opposing skills is uncommon in actual play. That is not exactly automatic, but close enough for purposes of this discussion.