Defensive Casting

[KarinsDad]

Imagined this way, no opposed roll is necessary, and it makes perfect sense that higher level wizards would easily know how to cast their spells in the middle of battle while paying attention to their surroundings.

Yes, that is a perfectly reasonable way to imagine what is happening based on the rules as written.

Unfortunately, I am a firm believer that AoOs should be an integral portion of the overall mechanics of the game. They are there to prevent abuses.

Hence, there should be no way (and there is not in my game) to remove them completely.

There are ways to lower the chances of them occurring significantly, but there are no ways to lower the chances to zero (in my game).

I feel that having any immunity to an AoO is a flaw in the design of the core rules. With AoO immunities, characters are able to do impossible things, merely due to the mechanical nature of the segregated initiative system.

For example, Tumbling past the extremely high level guards of the King and stabbing him. In this case, you should rarely be able to do this, not always be able to do this, just because you have +14 in Tumble. The alertness and combat capacity of the guards to defend the King should also be a factor.

The counter "opinion" that "Well, some of those guards should have readied actions prepared" is extremely lame. The only way to protect the King is to have some of them prepare a defense that might not be needed or used and they may waste their time doing it? Hmmmm.

JMO.


To me, AoO immunity is tantamont to having a feat that allows you to decide in every single turn when to go. You can go at the beginning, the end, or somewhere in between based on your whims at the time. In other words, such a feat would be a meta-game feat that allows you to do things that affects the actual mechanics of the system. This is how I view AoO immunities. They allow you to affect the actual the mechanics of the system and are a basic design flaw of 3E. IMO.

To me, casting defensively means that you minimize the opening that you present to your opponents when you are casting a spell and it is up to them to be capable enough to take advantage of it. It is not removing the opening that you present, rather it is making that opening as small as possible.


Other people do not see it that way. I think that if the rules were originally written without AoO immunities (such as Mobility which just gives a bonus to AC), then I doubt very many people would be arguing that AoO immunities should be added to the game (unlike today where some of us argue that they should not be part of the game).

 

[Pielorinho]

The way I see it, casting defensively is an entirely different sort of action from casting normally, and it no more opens the caster up to an AoO than a fighter's swing with a sword opens him up to an AoO.

I agree with you about tumbling, incidentally -- and in my game, there's an opposed roll. Note that with tumbling, if you fail the roll an AoO occurs; with casting defensively, even if you fail, no AoO occurs. That's an important difference, suggesting that casting defensively is a different sort of action from casting normally.

Generally, though, I like to keep down the number of opposed rolls in the middle of combat. So my way of imagining casting defensively -- that it's a categorically different action that simply doesn't open the caster up -- works fine.

Daniel

 

[Hypersmurf]

Generally, though, I like to keep down the number of opposed rolls in the middle of combat.

I take it you discourage multiple grapplers, then?

-Hyp.

 

[Pielorinho]

I take it you discourage multiple grapplers, then?

-Hyp.

With a stick if I have to.

Daniel

 

[milo]

Thank you for your replies, they are very useful. I just wanted to know if I was abusing my abilities but now I don't think I am. I still have a limited number of spells per day. All my second level spells are gone immediatley Cat's Grace, Bull's Strength, and Endurance. Greatly improves party but is a little boring. I need to get more offensive spells if this was going to matter too much.

 

[IanB]

Casting defensively rarely comes up for arcane casters anyway - relatively few of their spells are touch spells, and most of the time wizards and sorcerers should be able to avoid getting into melee range when talking about their other spells. Clerics are the ones you have to worry about - they have a lot of good touch spells, especially when you're dealing with undead, as any of their spells potentially become damage dealing spells against them (assuming good characters) - and clerics generally don't get very many skill points to spread around, since intelligence isn't a very high priority stat for a cleric. Maxing out concentration and spellcraft takes all their basic skill points right off...

Also, that King's guards should have levels of devoted defender if they want to stop the tumbler.

 

[FANGO]

I HATE CONCENTRATION!!!!

...So much so that I have never, and will never, give any of my characters any ranks in it whatsoever (even my bard that has ranks in every single skill, except concentration and read lips (read lips cause I couldnt, concentration cause I won't). I personally think it is incredibly absurd that a caster can sit there in front of a guy with a sword and that knows how to use it and make methodical actions while the guy just stands there gawking. In 2e we played that for every segment your spell had in casting time (that is, if the casting time were 3, it was 3 segments), anyone who could attack you at the time got a free attack against your AC without dexterity modifier, and if you were hit for any damage at all you lost the spell. This may be slightly severe, but the point of the spellcaster is not to be in melee (except for very few spells, like burning hands...but then, I've never thought this to be a very good spell (in either game mechanics or RP sense) in the first place).

That someone can roll vs. a DC of FIFTEEN plus spell level and get off a spell is insane...I make a lot of skill-based characters, and they usually have 20+ in their 'specialized' skills by the time i hit double digit levels, if not earlier. With good con, toad familiar, combat casting, maxed skill, and possibly some sort of magical help (endurance, stat items, etc.), it's VERY EASY to get your concentration check up to snuff very quickly, so that you will never, ever miss a concentration check.

It's gotten to the point that while I'm playing, if I see any casters trying to do anything that would require a concentration check (casting in melee, in grapple, when being shot with an arrow, etc.), I immediately change my focus to them in combat, and make the last few moments of their lives a complete hell as they try to make usually 3 or 4 concentration checks with every spell they cast, if they get a chance to cast at all (Large sized grappling raging str 30+ barbarians do not a happy wizard make...and neither do rogue/sorcerors with quasit familiars that have magical daggers/touch spells cast on them).

I suppose there are plenty of ways to get around concentration, but the very fact that the enemy of the spellcaster has to take steps to get around concentration already makes it quite powerful. Even by failing to use the skill correctly, you still have managed to change your enemy's tactics, and that can be a very significant part of a battle (if you learn to exploit the fact that the non-hasted enemy has suddenly given himself only one attack this round, that might even miss due to your persistent shield and mage armor and ring of protection and so on and so forth, then you will have a huge advantage over him in battle, because not only were you able to effectively eliminate one of the forces opposing you by occupying him with the petty task of stopping a magic missile, but you will probably still get the magic missile off anyway and have nothing to lose!)

Well, maybe that rambled. But I don't like concentration. Really.

 

[Henry]

I do have one observation:

Sorcerers, Paladins, Clerics, and Wizards all have 2 skill points per level.

Bards and Rangers all have 4 skill points per level.

Except for Bards and Rangers, in order for a caster to be really good at defensive casting (enough to the point where they can cease failing), they must sacrifice a goodly portion of skills and feats to do so. This means they have paid a price (In my opinion significant enough) to be able to do so. They have paid one half of their base skill points to be able to cast in the middle of combat, and even then there are other ways to disrupt them (such as redied actions and continual damage).

However, I DO think a rules mistake has been made by 3rd edition, though. I believe that casters should have to make a concentration check if damage occurs at any time during their initiative, not just at casting time, and the roll should be against ALL damage at once, not just every instance. This would sharply serve to make readied actions much more effective against them, and make it imposible for a spellcaster who has just been peppered with several arrows or sword thrusts to get a spell off. After all, anyone who has just been the target of several attacks within, say, the last three seconds is going to find it hard to concentrate on anything.

Just my two cents though.

 

[Deadguy]

What do Bodyguards Do?

The counter "opinion" that "Well, some of those guards should have readied actions prepared" is extremely lame. The only way to protect the King is to have some of them prepare a defense that might not be needed or used and they may waste their time doing it? Hmmmm. KarinsDad

As an aside, KD, it seems to me that readying actions to defend their King is exactly what these bodyguards should be doing. They spend their time watching the surroundings waiting for soemone to try something so they can stop 'em! The trick is thus to successfully surprise them (and have a way of escaping afterwards!).

 

[SableWyvern]

Since Christian was kind enough to post this link in my thread, I'll add it in here.

These are Monte Cook's house rules on tumbling and defensive casting, which I'm sure will be of use to some of the people posting on this thread.

http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly5.html