Interrupting a spell impossible w/Core rules?

[DrSpunj]

Has he actually ever played a Wizard?

I'm the newbie to the group (we've been playing for about 18 months now) but this player/DM has been gaming for years. The only two campaigns we have going right now are his and mine. In mine he's playing a PsyWarrior (named Jaych) built on speed with Inertial Armor, Speed of Thought and the Burst talent with a Weapon Finessed rapier. He refers to his role as Light Cavalry and wants to be able to reach the caster in the back and prevent them from casting their spells (which is why this issue is so important to him).

Since it sounds like he's DMed the group for most of the last several years I'm not sure when he last played anything else, but I can guarantee he hasn't played anything else in 3E (except a halfling rogue in a one-nighter), so the short version is:

No!

he hasn't played a 3E Wizard (or any other caster).

DrSpunj

 

[maddman75]

Ah, that explains it.

This is lingering second edition-ism. Back in the old days, that's how it was done. You hit an enemy anytime within the last minute and they are utterly unable to cast a spell. A single point of damage, spell is ruined. No ifs ands or buts.

In 3e things are done differently. He wants to know why its very difficult to use a sword to keep a wizard from casting spells. For the same reason that its difficult to drive a screw into a board using a hammer. Wrong tool.

If you want to keep a wizard from casting, use a bow (or other missile weapon) or grapple him. Changing the rules so that his pet character will be more effective is something that someone who has played as long as he has should know better than.

Don't cave on this - he can run his game however he wants, but don't munch out your melee characters because he wants a mage-killer.

 

[Petrosian]

i think one possible idea is to consider that your two handed sword is not the best weapon for mage busting. try a hand axe... a fighter who wants to play mage hunter takes point blank, far shot and quickdraw and maybe a focus spec in hand axes along the way with his 11 bonus feats...

sure against the troll use your honking mega blade.

if you want to be sure and be able to hit a mage when he casts... ready and swing or throw... your strength still helps... a 18 strength and focus spec gives you a d6+6...

you need the right tools...

 

[Nail]

Yes, really!

When you get home check p. 121 PHB right column, last paragraph under Move-Equivalent Action. 'If you move no actual distance...'

Note to self: Don't doubt Thanee

from PHB
Move-Equivalent Action: ........<snip>
If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move for one or more move-equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action. For example, if Tordek is on the ground, he can stand up (a move-equivalent action), move 5 feet (his 5-foot step), and attack.

Jus' gotta give credit where it's due.

 

[Thanee]

This is one of those hidden things you either have stumbled upon in the past, or not...

Bye
Thanee

 

[ouini]

maddman75 wrote:

...He wants to know why its very difficult to use a sword to keep a wizard from casting spells...Wrong tool. If you want to keep a wizard from casting, use a bow...

And he's arguing that that just doesn't make sense. I agree with him on this point. You can harrass a spellcaster with a bow, but not a sword? Doesn't make sense.

Changing the rules so that his pet character will be more effective is something that someone who has played as long as he has should know better than...

He does know better. He has played both mages and fighters as NPCs for years, and found an area while running 3E in which things just didn't add up. So he implemented a sweeping rule which often fixed the problem.
A year later, after joining DrSpunj's game, he made a couple suggestions for fixing the problem he thought he'd solved in his own game. One suggestion: change 5' steps -- they stay mostly the same, but induce an AoO if you move from a threatened area to an unthreatened area.

Your point might be valid in this respect, though: Although he did not make a character and then find rules that didn't suit him, he did have a kind of crusade against this particular rule, and may have made a character which shows this 'rule flaw' in sharp relief.

 

[Madfox]

And he's arguing that that just doesn't make sense. I agree with him on this point. You can harrass a spellcaster with a bow, but not a sword? Doesn't make sense.

And why doesn't it make sense? You are comparing a lumbering walking tin-can with a nimble fast person. Why should it be so difficult to move out of harms way for the light encumbered person? Basically your friend is stating that heavy encumbered persons should be able to keep up with light encumbred persons. That sound wrong to me. If you want to stop fast/light encumbred persons, you either are fast yourself or you make sure you have got a ranged weapon or you make sure the opponent cannot run. There is no difference in this regard between a wizard or a fighter or what ever class.

Before you know it, your friend is complaining that he cannot keep up with the sorcerer/monk with expeditious retreat and spring attack

You will be favouring archers more through this rule. Since unlike the arcane spell caster they can take the damage and they do not loose the attack.

 

[ouini]

Madfox wrote:

And why doesn't it make sense? You are comparing a lumbering walking tin-can with a nimble fast person. Why should it be so difficult to move out of harms way for the light encumbered person?

Indeed, why shouldn't someone engaged in melee be able to consistantly move back and cast a spell without fear of failure? What, just because someone is engaging them in melee and sacrificing their normal attack for the express purpose of interrupting the spellcaster's spells? That's a good question, and one our friend tries to adress.

And the answer is: This would not be a question at all if 3E didn't use a quantum movement system. But for simplicity, it does. Under core rules, the spellcaster moves back 30'. If the guy trying to interrupt his spell also moves 30', he can stay next to the caster and whack him if he casts. If the interrupter can only move 20', then he has to stand there 10' out of range while the spellcaster casts his spell start to finish.

Actually, quantum movement is very silly when trying to simulate reality. They move back 30', and if they decide to anything but move (I would argue strongly that this should even include readying a non-move action), they -then- suffer an AoO? Our friend pointed out that this rule -is- silly, but it's there for a reason -- balance.

Hopefully, this will become moot, since it's likely DrSpunj will adopt the rule suggested earlier (all damage done on a particular initiative number counts against interrupting spells cast on that initiative number).

 

[mikebr99]

In mine he's playing a PsyWarrior (named Jaych) built on speed with Inertial Armor, Speed of Thought and the Burst talent with a Weapon Finessed rapier. He refers to his role as Light Cavalry and wants to be able to reach the caster in the back and prevent them from casting their spells (which is why this issue is so important to him).

DrSpunj

And this character hasn't solved this problem (as he sees it...) for him?

Character's speed: 40' (30' base human speed + 10' speed of thought)... not sure that burst will stack with speed of thought though.

Get him to take the Run feat... x5 movement instead of x4.
'Shot on the run' to throw daggers as he approaches. OR a net!!!
'Quick draw' to whip out his rapier when he gets into melee.

All of these are in the rulles 'as is'...

 

[0-hr]

Sometimes people just fixate on some rule or other. They invest a huge amount of ego in their position and become absolutely inflexible with regards to that particular game mechanic. I think it's just a byproduct of the openess of the game system and human nature.

To me, it sounds like this person is upset because a fast person can outmaneuver a slow person. I don't see any problem with that. But it is also clear to me that the person isn't about to change his position on the matter because he has made far much of an issue out of it already. It is far easier to hold your ground and argue that the game designers are stupid, than to admit that maybe you misunderstood something and it's not such a big deal after all.