Defensive Casting

[milo]

This seems like it is overpowered to me. It gives a wizard or sorcerer the ability to easily walk into battle and cast a spell. DC 15+spell level seems to easy to make later in the game and too hard early in the game. By the time you cast the higher level spells (higher DC) the concentration score is already high enough to easily cancel out the higher DC. If someone takes the feat defensive casting and skill focus concentration they can cast spells at any time unless the opponent readies an action to disrupt the spell. The last session I was in I had my sorcerer with an AC of 24 walking into combat and easily cast magic missile on any role other than 1. The only solution I can think of is to have the DC based on the attack bonus of the enemy. Any ideas?

 

[Crothian]

I think it works just fine. Why should it be overly difficult? At higher levels the enemies are a little smartewr and they just wait for you to cast, anyway, to attack. And most spellcasters don't fail only on a 1 until well above 10th level. Few have a very high con, and few take combat casting. Besides, why do you let your mage get that close to the badguys anyway?

 

[SpikeyFreak]

If someone wants to spend 2 feats on the ability cast spells in melee, I have no problem with them being successful 95% of the time.

--Battlemage Spikey

 

[CRGreathouse]

Even if the wizard has a good chance of making the check, they may not choose to do so - a failure means you lose the spell, wasting the slot and the round.

Yes, a high-level caster who's maxed their Concentration ranks and has Skill Focus (Concentration) can cast on the defensive automatically, but that's the result of spending a lot of time and effort on it... the wizard gave up 10-20 skill points and a precious feat to do so. All things considered, it's not a real problem.

As for disrupting a high-level spellcaster, many foes *will* ready actions to pummel the 'casters. I've not had a problem in my games, really.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The only solution I can think of is to have the DC based on the attack bonus of the enemy. Any replies?

I'm in the middle of a discussion with the two spellcasters in the party I DM at the moment.

As yet the situation hasn't arisen (the cleric tends to hit things with his sword, and the sorcerer stays well clear of melee), but the static DC feels wrong.

The cleric's player is concerned that using an opposed roll (d20 + Concentration Modifier - spell level vs d20 + attack bonus) becomes too hideous at mid-levels - that a fighter with BAB, feats, strength bonus, and magical weapons will always outstrip the modifier a maxed-out caster of equivalent level will get.

I personally don't think it's a problem, but since an AoO is arguably a Dex-related effect, and the point of Casting Defensively is to avoid an AoO, one of the other options we're evaluating is ignoring strength bonus when calculating that attack bonus.

Thus, the CR7 Hill Giant (big and clumsy) would get a bonus of +9 to the opposed roll, instead of his normal +16; but the CR7 Huge Air Elemental (quick and zippy) would keep his usual +19 (weapon finesse : slam).

To compare, a 7th level caster with maxed Concentration (+10), a moderate Constitution bonus (+1), casting a 3rd level spell (-3) has a bonus of +8. About even odds vs the no-strength-bonus Hill Giant; severely disadvantaged against the air elemental. Which feels about right. With Combat Casting, it increases his odds against the giant significantly, and decreases his disadvantage against the air elemental to almost-worth-trying proportions

Those are some of the ideas we're considering, anyway.

-Hyp.

 

[nwn_deadman]

Concentration is a skill check

and as such a 1 is not an automatic failure. Only Attack Rolls and Saves have automatic success with a 20 and a failure with a 1.

All skill checks are solely determined by the final tally of the die roll and any modifiers.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Have you ever thougt about it that the game designers expected wizards & sorcerers to bump up their Concentration Checks?
The price is a feat and several skill points - a fair trade, I think.
And actually most wizards and sorcerers try to avoid melee - it is not a good situation for them. If someone hits, he will probably hit very hard, especially for a weak wizard/sorcerer...

I see no problem in the Concentration rules. It works well...

 

[SpikeyFreak]

Re: Re: Defensive Casting

I'm in the middle of a discussion with the two spellcasters in the party I DM at the moment.

As yet the situation hasn't arisen (the cleric tends to hit things with his sword, and the sorcerer stays well clear of melee), but the static DC feels wrong.

The cleric's player is concerned that using an opposed roll (d20 + Concentration Modifier - spell level vs d20 + attack bonus) becomes too hideous at mid-levels - that a fighter with BAB, feats, strength bonus, and magical weapons will always outstrip the modifier a maxed-out caster of equivalent level will get.

I personally don't think it's a problem, but since an AoO is arguably a Dex-related effect, and the point of Casting Defensively is to avoid an AoO, one of the other options we're evaluating is ignoring strength bonus when calculating that attack bonus.

Thus, the CR7 Hill Giant (big and clumsy) would get a bonus of +9 to the opposed roll, instead of his normal +16; but the CR7 Huge Air Elemental (quick and zippy) would keep his usual +19 (weapon finesse : slam).

To compare, a 7th level caster with maxed Concentration (+10), a moderate Constitution bonus (+1), casting a 3rd level spell (-3) has a bonus of +8. About even odds vs the no-strength-bonus Hill Giant; severely disadvantaged against the air elemental. Which feels about right. With Combat Casting, it increases his odds against the giant significantly, and decreases his disadvantage against the air elemental to almost-worth-trying proportions

Those are some of the ideas we're considering, anyway.

-Hyp.

Why do you think there is something wrong with it the way it is. You are going to a lot of trouble to fix something that most people here seem to think isn't broken.

--Searching Spikey

 

[Zhure]

In 1e and 2e, casting in combat was either nigh impossible or nigh guaranteed, depending on which rules the DM was using. At least now it's fairly straightforward.

IME...

... low level mages don't get their spells to go off via defensive casting and high level casters do. Seems about right.

... trying to cast your highest available spells has a decent failure to cast defensively. Seems about right.

... a caster who burns 2 out of his about 7 Feats to be able to make concentration checks has used a lot of his character resources. He would've been more dangerous taking Point Blank Shot for ranged touch spells and Spell Penetration. Seems about right.

I also find that at higher levels, smart fighters will ready an attack if they're worried about the defensive caster and in any event, mages have so few hit points even defensive casting in melee will get them killed.

All seems about right to me.
Greg

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Re: Defensive Casting

Why do you think there is something wrong with it the way it is. You are going to a lot of trouble to fix something that most people here seem to think isn't broken.

It just bothers me a little that Tumble, Cast Defensively, and Deflect Arrows seem to be the only "interactive" checks that are completely independent of the opponent.

The Tumble vs Reflex Save opposed check in Song and Silence, I think, is perfect.

Deflect Arrows worries me, but I'm leaving it as is.

Cast Defensively - it seems wrong that a mage has as much chance to lose his spell because he's worried about the AoO from the goblin, as from the blackguard with his vorpal sword. Something should reflect the higher level of stress when facing a more dangerous opponent at point-blank range and performing an action that usually leaves one open to attack.

-Hyp.