Clarification on disrupting a spellcaster's spell

[KarinsDad]

I agree with you... But I too would have a hard time selling this to my party members.

Have you considered that damage (or any distraction) that happens during his round, but before is only half as effective? And then the distraction that happens during casting is at normal effectiveness... just a thought.

No, I had not considered that.

It would certainly be more palatable to my players than full damage. But, not by much. They tend to be fairly set in their ways.

 

[IceBear]

That's actually Thanee's houserule. The damage the spellcaster takes during his round (but before spellcasting is actually started)is halved for purposes of the Concentration check.

IceBear

 

[Zenon]

A lot of relatively minor "during casting" things force a Concentration check, but getting hit for 40 points of damage an instant before does not. That's just a silly rule. IMO.

I think the only problem that I'd have with this is that if I were a player running a spellcaster. If I got told "Well, that 40 points of damage you just took before casting is going to require a check", then I would argue right back "How come the fighter just took 40 point before he swung, and he can just suck it up and keep going? Why doesn't it affect his swing?"

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I can see the reasons why it doesn't make sense, but I have also seen spellcasters "castrated" by these type of rules in previous editions (either by game rules or house rules). It used to be so easy to interrupt a caster that it became almost useless to play one.

Useless to play one = Not fun for the player

So I believe 3E tried to correct this by making it a little harder (Must hit exactly while casting to force a check).

The above are all IMHO, I'm not claiming one way is better than the other, but from what I've seen in 3E in the games I'm in or run, it doesn't seem to be something that needs to be corrected. I guess it may vary in yours, depending on your groups style of play and DM expectations.

 

[IceBear]

Excellent points Zennon. What I've noticed is that some groups have different ideas on the classes. Some people prefer that only fighters can fight well in combat so they don't mind adding little rules that make it harder for spellcasters to cast spells and rogues to get in sneak attacks - for example. So, it just depends on the attitude of your group I guess.

The only advantage I could see to making it harder for spellcasters to get their spells off in this situation is to allow the non-spellcasters to have a chance in high level combat.

IceBear

 

[KarinsDad]

I think the only problem that I'd have with this is that if I were a player running a spellcaster. If I got told "Well, that 40 points of damage you just took before casting is going to require a check", then I would argue right back "How come the fighter just took 40 point before he swung, and he can just suck it up and keep going? Why doesn't it affect his swing?"

And I would respond that he does not have to concentrate swinging a weapon.

Useless to play one = Not fun for the player

I agree that this is true if that were the case. But, even with a "damage within a casters initiative" rule, spell casters would still be far from useless. Especially with the Concentration skill, the Combat Casting feat, etc.

The above are all IMHO, I'm not claiming one way is better than the other, but from what I've seen in 3E in the games I'm in or run, it doesn't seem to be something that needs to be corrected. I guess it may vary in yours, depending on your groups style of play and DM expectations.

I tell you one thing though. It was very annoying as a DM when the Cleric in our game moved 10 feet to coerce the AoO from the Giant, then moved back 10 feet to heal the downed Druid.

As a DM and knowing the rules as well as I do, I knew exactly what he was doing. But, do I stoop to his level and metagame the Giant’s actions? Oh, he grabs you as opposed to hitting with his club. Oh, he waits and doesn’t take the AoO (possibly losing it if the character continues moving away).

Personally, I think it sucks for a DM to have to make a decision to either metagame NPCs, or allow the player to take advantage of what I consider to be a sleazy loophole in the rules, just so that the player can ENSURE that his character does not get AoOed at the critical point in time.

Combat should be as the book stated: “Additionally, the character must concentrate to cast a spell-and it's hard to concentrate in the heat of battle.”

No, it’s not hard to do that at all. There are a lot of ways to take advantage of the rules so that this is not applicable.

 

[Zenon]

And I would respond that he does not have to concentrate swinging a weapon.

My hypothetical player answer to this judgement would be "He sure does! What do you think that increased BAB stands for? Training, expertise with the weapon, knowing where and when to strike. He's not just flailing around with it, if he was and his hit number is so good, why can't I just flail around and have a good hit number? It's also hard to see with that blood pouring into his eyes from the scalp wound he just took. Why isn't it harder for him?"

Hypothetical player aside, it does take some amount of concentrating to fight effectively, at least IMHO.

I agree that this is true if that were the case. But, even with a "damage within a casters initiative" rule, spell casters would still be far from useless. Especially with the Concentration skill, the Combat Casting feat, etc.

This is true. I wasn't advocating not using this, all I said was you might need to implement it depending on you and your groups style of play. But realize, if you limit the one class type with it, you really should limit the others in some manner.

I tell you one thing though. It was very annoying as a DM when the Cleric in our game moved 10 feet to coerce the AoO from the Giant, then moved back 10 feet to heal the downed Druid.

As a DM and knowing the rules as well as I do, I knew exactly what he was doing. But, do I stoop to his level and metagame the Giant’s actions? Oh, he grabs you as opposed to hitting with his club. Oh, he waits and doesn’t take the AoO (possibly losing it if the character continues moving away).

Personally, I think it sucks for a DM to have to make a decision to either metagame NPCs, or allow the player to take advantage of what I consider to be a sleazy loophole in the rules, just so that the player can ENSURE that his character does not get AoOed at the critical point in time.

I remember your post about this. That was why I added the "DM expectation" and "if it suits your group"part to my post. If you feel adding to it will satisfy not only you, but your group also, go for it! You just have to be careful that while it may make you happy to make the change, it might cheeze off some of your players.

BTW (and possible unrelated), watch out using the word "loophole". I got jumped in another thread for pointing out that by the rules (a loophole in the rules to me), you don't even have to be aware of an action that provokes an AoO to take the AoO. Again, this would be solved by adding a simple "Defender must be aware of the action that causes the AoO" to the rule, much like your addition below:

Combat should be as the book stated: “Additionally, the character must concentrate to cast a spell-and it's hard to concentrate in the heat of battle.”

No, it’s not hard to do that at all. There are a lot of ways to take advantage of the rules so that this is not applicable.

I see where you are going with this, and I don't disagree with it. If it works for you, by all means use it. It doesn't seem bad.

 

[AuraSeer]

How high a level of spellcaster are you by buffing and defending yourself in this way and still have spells left in order to be effective for the long haul during combat?

You don't have to be very high. Take 6th-level sorcerer, who gets a total of 14 spells per day (not counting cantrips or bonus spells). Say he casts Haste and Shield before combat. He still has two castings of Haste to use on his friends, plus 10 first- and second-level attack spells. Of course it may not be wise to use all of that in one combat, but it's there if he needs it.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

AuraSeer, what offensive spells has that sorc cast?

Doing that might be a good idea when facing the BBEG, but it's not a good idea when facing a "typical" threat.

Now, if the BBEG is smart, making you wade through lackeys while he buffs himiself in a room at the other end of his lair (and surrounds himself with bodyguards, and prepares to escape the obviously powerful adversaries), then your sorc will have almost run out fo spells by the time they face the BBEG and his bodyguards.

The only thing the sorc can do offensively is cast Magic Missile. Not the best strategy.

 

[AuraSeer]

"All he can do is cast Magic Missile"? Er, no. Even that Sor6 has plenty of 1st- and 2nd-level spells, which could include things like Charm Person and Blindness and Melf's Acid Arrow. Give him one more level and he can use his 3rd-level slots for Fireballs

As the caster increases in level, the relative impact of his defensive spells shrinks. Putting up Shield, Haste, Fly, and Prot. from Arrows uses up four slots. A Sor12 has a total of 32 slots (again not counting cantrips or bonus spells), so the defenses only use up one-eighth of his potential spellcasting capacity, and leave all his best slots untouched. Most enemies of his level will go down long before he runs out of Cones of Cold and Chain Lightnings and whatever else.

Note that these levels and spell selections are just examples that I'm pulling out of the air, so let's not get sidetracked if I've made some mistake. The point is that it's very hard to stop a spellcaster unless you have a caster of your own.

In 2e, fighter-types could stymie any mage just by full-attacking with missile weapons, because a single lucky hit for 1 hp would prevent spellcasting for the round. Nowadays, with the Concentration skill and the need to ready an attack-to-interrupt, it's not so easy. In 3e, any force without its own magical support is just gagging for a sorcerous smackdown.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Spellcaster vs. spellcaster is entirely different from spellcaster vs. conventional troops.

If you fight against troups who are many levels below you, It's all moot anyway.

But if the chellenge is appropriate, that archer won't be a War1 with a normal shortbow, either! We're talking higher levels here, since you can't be low-level, cast all the defenses and still have enough attack spells to be actually useful in the combat, so expect a higher level attacker. A fighter with levels in one of the archer PrC's, with stuff like magic arrows, magic bows, mighty composite bows, weapon specialization, point blank shot, maybe sneak attack damage (and ways to put it in use), and they'll soon hit you despite your magically beefed-up AC, and are able to overcome that 10/+5 DR and hit home. Since your HP total is not the best, you'll have to consider means of healing soon.