Concentrate check adjustment?

[SemperJase]

Don't you think there should be a modifier for not expecting an attack.

For example, the party is hiding while watching an evil cleric cast a spell on a helpless prisoner. The cleric is not aware of the party's presence.

The arcane archer in the party fires an arrow at the cleric to disrupt his spell and hits. In this case, wouldn't you think the concentrate check should be harder than if the cleric was in the middle and got hit while casting?

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Yes

 

[hong]

Don't you think there should be a modifier for not expecting an attack.

For example, the party is hiding while watching an evil cleric cast a spell on a helpless prisoner. The cleric is not aware of the party's presence.

The arcane archer in the party fires an arrow at the cleric to disrupt his spell and hits. In this case, wouldn't you think the concentrate check should be harder than if the cleric was in the middle and got hit while casting?

No. The cleric's lack of awareness is already accounted for by being flat-footed, ie he loses his Dex bonus to AC. Thus he's more likely to get hit, and take damage, than if he knew about the archer. In particular, he's susceptible to being sneak attacked.

Once he gets hit, it's just the same as any other hit.

 

[Maldur]

What about letting the cleric do a concentration check, even if the arrow missed? I would be startled if a arrow flew by unexpected.

 

[Eternalknight]

I have to agree with hong. Flat-footed should cover it.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Perhaps my brain was unplugged last night. I totally forgot about flat-footed.

But still that doesn't seem to address the right question to account for the situation. A guy shot while conducting a ritual or spell in what he thinks is a safe place is a LOT more surprised than a guy shot in combat. The shock should be MUCH greater, whether he actually has a dexterity bonus or not. Dexterity is not a measure of awareness, so basing this on a dexterity-derived AC bonus doesn't seem to fit. It's not their ability to dodge the hit that's in question, it's their ability to handle the shock of being shot when they thought they were safe. Using flat-footedness (new word) for this would mean that a low dexterity character doesn't lose anything in this surprising situation, but a high dexterity character does. Why? Is a low dexterity character on the defensive in "safe" situations more than a high dexterity one? Perhaps his lack of nimbleness and the accompanying derision from those oh-so-graceful-but-snotty elves all his life has broken him and made him paranoid, allowing him to ignore the occasional arrow in the chest while casting. It's probably just those damnable graceful elves come to taunt him again anyway...

 

[Eternalknight]

You could always say he is surprised for a round, allowing the sniper to get another attack in.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

You could always say he is surprised for a round, allowing the sniper to get another attack in.

But that still doesn't account for the difference in his concentration. Isn't there a difference between how you concentrate when you're driving a car on an empty highway and how you concentrate when you're driving in 6 lanes of heavy traffic? Is the entire difference dexterity based?

 

[Dr. Zoom]

If you think the cleric's Concentration check should be harder, just use the DM's Best Friend rule (DMG, pg. 90) and give him a -2 circumstance penalty to his check.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

If you think the cleric's Concentration check should be harder, just use the DM's Best Friend rule (DMG, pg. 90) and give him a -2 circumstance penalty to his check.

That's probably what I would do if I were a DM, but I'm not, so I'm interested in the opinions of others. I like the mechanics to reflect how things appear to be operating in the real world as much as possible, but I concede that my limited experience with the mechanics makes my judgement suspect. So... I continue to wonder whether people with experience with the mechanics think this is a good idea or not.