Clarification on disrupting a spellcaster's spell

[Kae'Yoss]

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.

You can always enforce it as a DM (although they might hate you for it), especially if it seems far to easy for the spellcasters to cast their spells and that makes the class to powerful IYC.


About the matter of damage right before casting and damage during casting: While it surely is disturbing to suffer pains while you cast spells, you could clench your teeth and cast the spell despite it. But if you're hit during spellcasting, that comes as a shock: you might cry out in pain or flinch because of the damage when first it is inflicted (and maybe you didn't see the blow coming), and that can brake your concentration.

But I think half damage should be alright, especially since we are only talking about the damage the caster takes during his turn, as there are not so many occasions to be damaged during your own turn before you cast a spell. I can only think of the case where you move first and get an AoO because of that!

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Of course.

I have been trying to minimize any new house rules, just in order to maintain the flow and not "cheeze off" my players.

But, as someone who posts and reads here often, a lot of good ideas get generated and unfortunately, my players do not have this experience. Hence, they do not always get caught up in all of the nuances of ways to adjudicate (and even add house rules to) the game. To them, they just want a stable gaming environment and I do not blame them for that.

But, ever once in a while, this forces me to grit my teeth as a DM and just let a book rule slide as is. Oh well.

 

[AuraSeer]

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)

::sigh:: Yes, yes, we all know how to design a munchkin archer. You're still missing the point. All I'm saying is that it's hard for ordinary troops to disrupt spellcasting. "Ordinary troops" does not include twinked-out sharpshooters whose only purpose in life is to ready an action against the wizard.

You seem to be clinging to the 2e sterotype of wizards as being low-AC, low-hp targets with very fragile spellcasting. That's just not valid anymore. Obviously the DM could contrive any number of enemies or situations specifically to hand the wizard his head. But the DM could also have the entire campaign take place in a dead-magic zone if he really felt like it. That doesn't change the fact that, in normal situations against normal, nonmagical enemies, the mage will nearly always succesfully cast.

[edited for typos]

 

[Kae'Yoss]

::sigh:: Yes, yes, we all know how to design a munchkin archer. You're still missing the point. All I'm saying is that it's hard for ordinary troops to disrupt spellcasting. "Ordinary troops" does not include twinked-out sharpshooters whose only purpose in life is to ready an action against the wizard.

Please define "Ordinary troops". Do you meen people with a couple of levels in the commoner and warrior classes, with an adept for spellcasting support? Are you playing a campaign where the Characters are the only beings with real classes and the rest is only peasants and stupid guards? Or are you only a bunch of cowards who harass the common people and flee as soon as someone of your caliber things that you brigands belong in a dungeon?

I'm not speaking about a munchkin archer. Anyone creating an character who is using ranged weapons most of the time, but has none of the archery feats, and no other feats that improve his talent with the ranged weapons, doesn't understand the rules. And an archer PrC isn't far off, either, if we're talking about an archer with a degree of experience. And such a character is capable of far more than just ready an action against the wizard

And if they are a certain level, they should have magic equipment, too. The PC's aren't the only ones in the world to use them. If they were, magic items wouldn't be something you could buy anywhere: why should hundreds of people create items when only 5 or so in the whole world want to buy them?


[/QUOTE]
You seem to be clinging to the 2e sterotype of wizards as being low-AC, low-hp targets with very fragile spellcasting. That's just not valid anymore. Obviously the DM could contrive any number of enemies or situations specifically to hand the wizard his head. But the DM could also have the entire campaign take place in a dead-magic zone if he really felt like it. That doesn't change the fact that, in normal situations against normal, nonmagical enemies, the mage will nearly always succesfully cast.[/QUOTE]

You seem to be having the illusion that enemies should be far inferior to the PC's and have inferior equipment. Where's the chellenge in that? The rules, the magic items, the feats, all that is not there exclusively for the PC's, it's there for everyone in the game world. And The PC's aren't the only ones capable of tactical behavior.

Also, every DM worth his salt who sees that a PC is almost invulnerable should see to it that this PC receives challanges. And he won't put the party against unworthy enemies all the time.

Once you reach a certain level, you have enemies that send more than "ordinary troops" against you. At a certain level, you'll bother about common thugs anymore: they're for low-level heroes to fight, you have more pressing matters: fighting those evildoers that are to powerful for said low-level heroes, for instance

 

[AuraSeer]

Holy mother-loving crapweasels. Have you even bothered to read my posts?

Please define "Ordinary troops".

Perhaps I should say "conventional troops" instead. By this I mean troops that do not fly, have no spellcasting ability, and are not specialized for archery.

All I'm trying to say is that this type of force will have lots of trouble against a prepared mage. That's my point right there. What about that is so hard to understand?

Note that my definition of "conventional troops" does not mean only commoners and warriors. A horde of hill giants gets only +8 when throwing rocks. A Ftr12 melee specialist has +12+Dex when attacking with a bow. Either one will need a natural 20 to hit that prepared spellcaster-- especially after range penalties are taken into account.

I am not suggesting or implying that all (or even any) NPC forces should be entirely conventional troops. I'm saying the exact opposite! In a world where magic exists, every army should have a way to shoot down enemy spellcasters. If they don't have such a defense, or if it has already been eliminated, the remaining conventional troops will be sitting ducks for enemy spellcasters.

I don't know how I can be any clearer than that, and really I'm getting bored with repeating myself. If you still refuse to understand, I don't see any further point to this discussion.

 

[IceBear]

IMO, the most assured way *conventional* troops will have of stopping an enemy spellcaster is through grappling. If the spellcaster is using improved invisibility and fly, well, the *conventional* troops are just outclassed and should look for their own magical support.There comes a point where creatures without magic are horribly outclassed against spellcasters. That's just the way things are in D&D - always has been.

I personally use Thanee's houserule of making a concentration check using half damage for attacks that occur on the spellcaster's inititiative but before actual spellcasting, but that's a rare circumstance anyway. To use all damage during the round, that would be too unbalancing against the spellcaster in my opinion.

IceBear

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Perhaps I should say "conventional troops" instead. By this I mean troops that do not fly, have no spellcasting ability, and are not specialized for archery.

Then just say melee troups.
Conventional or ordinary are usually interpreted as "Without special training". Militia or a wilderness patrol would be conventional: no special Infiltrator, no Dungeon Delver, no Assassin, no Bladesinger. They would have warriors, maybe even fighters or rangers, and some experts or rogues. Conventional troups. But you better bet the farm on it that they have archers in their ranks.