Interrupting a spell impossible w/Core rules?

[ouini]

mikebr99 wrote:

...you are describing is a Wizard using all (or most) of his class abilites (concentration/defensive casting)...but you are only using one of the fighters abilities (swing an axe).

Really great point, and my biggest concern for adopting the rule we plan on adopting. Only caster classes get Concentration, realistically useless except for spells (you can't "Pick Up An Item Defensively".) Forcing players to buy more for it to be as effective as it was effectively docks them skill points.

Two things make me okay with this:
1) Group harmony. DrSpunj has worked very hard to find a compromise he and our friend can live with, and even sink their teeth into.
2) Designers essentially overlooked or gave many casters a gimme wrt some fighters in melee. Closing that gimme hurts balance wrt casters less than the gimme hurt balance wrt small races and Dwarves (for fighters and casters!) Size may matter in a tactical situation, but it shouldn't matter -that- much.

mikebr99 wrote:

The fighter needs to decide which is the best tool for this situation... and an axe in this case might not be it.

In 3E there were a lot of trade-offs of realism to gain balance and playability. Our friend's beef is with one of those sacrificed realisms. It won't matter to him (though maybe it should) that there are a dozen ways to disrupt a spellcaster without a melee weapon -- what drives him bonkers is that he feels, realistically, one should be able to disrupt a spellcaster -with- a melee weapon.

To him, the rules as written are effectively saying, "Your character cannot count too heavily on the laws of physics, since we have suspended a couple of them for game balance."

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

He ran for a year to be sure it was a flaw before implementing a rule to fix it (the group agreed to leave the rules alone for a year before trying any house rules). He liked 3E rules in general, and he was quite over 2E before changing a thing about 3E.
I recognize that you probably mean well, but not having met the guy or read his story from his own fingers, show some kindness -- refrain from trying to psychoanalyze him.
That said, in fairness to his critics, I think that of all the 3E rules which sacrifice realism to promote fairness, this one drives his the buggiest.

Fair enough.

But I have to say claims that it is "impossible" (like in the topic) or rare to disrupt spells tells me that someone is just not looking at the rules with an open mind.

My experience is that you can disrupt a spell ~30-40% of the time if you make minor adjustments to your tactics for that goal (and have a reasonable opportunity). That may seem low but these same tactics generally have beneficial side effects, like doing damage from a readied attack, gaining an extra attack from an AoO, hampering movement which sets up a full attack for next round, etc. Grappling is even more effective (maybe ~60-70%) although it doesn't do meaningful damage unless you are a monk.

So I basically wonder if that is not good enough what is?

If the wizard's life expentancy is ~2-3 rounds he needs to be able to cast his spells successfully at least half the time even in a brawl to be an effective character. Making it harder to cast in combat is going to hell on PC Wizards in small parties because they can't count on being well protected.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

mikebr99 wrote:In 3E there were a lot of trade-offs of realism to gain balance and playability. Our friend's beef is with one of those sacrificed realisms. It won't matter to him (though maybe it should) that there are a dozen ways to disrupt a spellcaster without a melee weapon -- what drives him bonkers is that he feels, realistically, one should be able to disrupt a spellcaster -with- a melee weapon.

To him, the rules as written are effectively saying, "Your character cannot count too heavily on the laws of physics, since we have suspended a couple of them for game balance."

Okay, that makes some degree of sense to me. I don't agree with his POV but at least I can begin to see where he is coming from.

It so happens that he is insisting on using the least reliable method of disrupting spells. When it works it works brilliantly -- the damage from a solid whack with a melee weapon is going to drive the Concentration DC through the roof.

Readied attacks with melee weapons do work. The downsides are (1) he needs an opening to get at the caster, (2) he needs to mobile to expect to exploit the opening, (3) the caster can usually choose to avoid disruption by either moving away (and taking an AoO) or casting defensively.

Realistically able spellcasters are usually going to suck up the damage from an AoO or cast defensively the majority of the time. So I can see that he will fail most of the time.

 

[Petrosian]

"He ran for a year to be sure it was a flaw before implementing a rule to fix it (the group agreed to leave the rules alone for a year before trying any house rules). He liked 3E rules in general, and he was quite over 2E before changing a thing about 3E."

While he may have run for a year he apparently ran with the same premises.

I think the big disconnect for me in all this is the belief that a fighter armed for troll should be able to shut down spells casters routinely with the same tools.

Take a fighter...
give him daggers... not two handed swords
give him quickdraw... not power attack
give him a chain shirt ... not plate mail

now this guy, when the mage does his 30' two step can take the AOO for the run away and then the readied action for the spell and either charge the 30' and strike or throw his dagger, depending on circumstances. If he spent well on feats his focus, spec, PBS on the thrown dagger still nets him 1d4+7 before magic (18 str.) far shot would be smart too. So now our mage is taking an average of 1d4+6 from the AOO and then 1d4+7 from the ready for 18 points a round, needs to make a concentration check of 18-21+spell to get the spell off each round. At 4th level (minimum for the fighter to have the spec feat) the mage probably has a concentration roll of +8 if he maxed it and has a 12 con. he also has about 18 hp which means surviving one round of this is tough.

All in all this does not sound too bad for the "prepared" fighter.

On the other hand, if you want to be able to clank up in armor and restrict your mobility yet still get to avoid the mobility issues facing a more mobile opponent... just change the rules.

Sure, this guy may not be quite as good at troll killing and giant splatting, but then again, should there be just one fighter and equipment set for all occasions?

the notion of wanting your plate armors melee-only grrr-arggg type to be the toolkit for every encounter (and if not then by gosh golly we must change the rules) seems silly and simple-minded.

personally i would prefer a system where a fighter who decided to emphasize anti-mage work needed to use different tools and acquire different skills than the one who just wants to bash things. (oh wait, thats called DND 3e!)

 

[DrSpunj]

But I have to say claims that it is "impossible" (like in the topic) or rare to disrupt spells tells me that someone is just not looking at the rules with an open mind.

Sorry for the marketing ploy, RC; the topic was, of course, meant to draw people into the thread so we could get some helpful thoughts (which we have, in abundance). Though the open mind part is true enough in some respects, ouini explained Jaych's player's position in his last post much better than I've been able to do this whole thread!

Take a fighter...
give him daggers... not two handed swords
give him quickdraw... not power attack
give him a chain shirt ... not plate mail

now this guy, when the mage does his 30' two step can take the AOO for the run away and then the readied action for the spell and either charge the 30' and strike or throw his dagger, depending on circumstances. If he spent well on feats his focus, spec, PBS on the thrown dagger still nets him 1d4+7 before magic (18 str.) far shot would be smart too. So now our mage is taking an average of 1d4+6 from the AOO and then 1d4+7 from the ready for 18 points a round, needs to make a concentration check of 18-21+spell to get the spell off each round. At 4th level (minimum for the fighter to have the spec feat) the mage probably has a concentration roll of +8 if he maxed it and has a 12 con. he also has about 18 hp which means surviving one round of this is tough.

All in all this does not sound too bad for the "prepared" fighter.

Excellent analysis, especially since Jaych uses Inertial armor and already has Point Blank Shot. If he's willing to pick up Quick Draw with one of his PsyWarrior Bonus feats he could readily do this (though his Str is only 12, and he's already Weapon Finessed/Focused on his Rapier). Still, as I said above, with his Speed of Thought and Burst talent he's likely moving faster than most mages and can therefore close with a Partial Charge to whap the caster a good one. Quick Draw offering him a ranged attack in those few instances he can't is probably worth the feat since, unless the mage has total cover/concealment, you'll always get your readied ranged attack (which seems like a much better interrupt option than using a melee weapon and hoping for a good scenario).

DrSpunj

 

[mikebr99]

In 3E there were a lot of trade-offs of realism to gain balance and playability. Our friend's beef is with one of those sacrificed realisms. It won't matter to him (though maybe it should) that there are a dozen ways to disrupt a spellcaster without a melee weapon -- what drives him bonkers is that he feels, realistically, one should be able to disrupt a spellcaster -with- a melee weapon.

To him, the rules as written are effectively saying, "Your character cannot count too heavily on the laws of physics, since we have suspended a couple of them for game balance."

Hi ouini...

Correct me if I'm wrong... but didn't he build his character to be able to do this within the existing rules (psi-warrior built for speed)? If this character (moving at 50ft.) can't keep up with a Mage (moving at 30ft.) then there is a whole different set of problems we haven't seen yet...

The rules are trying to state that a medium or heavy suit of armour is going to get in the way wrt movement (33% reduction for humans, 25% for dwarves).

A heavily armed & armoured character should NOT be able to keep up with a lightly (or no) armoured character of the same race... or there wouldn't be any comprimise for taking the lighter armours. If you were to remove the movement penalties for heavy armours, then the next response from your players would be, "what about the armour check penalties for skills???" You can't keep one while getting rid of the other...

And soon you'll have thieves running around in full-plate.

I think the Psi-warrior is a very effective way to be a Mage-killer... Though he will be complaining about all the damage he's taking from regular combat... but you can't have it all... Really, You shouldn't be able to have it all!!!

 

[ouini]

Petrosian wrote:

While he may have run for a year he apparently ran with the same premises.

His axioms weren't 2e specific. They were something like, "realism shouldn't be sacrificed unless you gain significantly more in playability than you lose in realism."

give him daggers... not two handed swords [etc.]

Again, his point is not that the rules do allow you to interrupt a caster with tanglefoot bags and thrown daggers -- he feels rules not allowing you a chance to disrupt a spellcaster with a melee weapon take away too much realism.

...wanting your plate armors melee-only grrr-arggg type to be the toolkit for every encounter...seems silly and simple-minded.

I get your point. I agree with what I think is its premise -- variety is the spice of life, and one-size-fits-all fighters shouldn't be as versatile as specialists. But none of that invalidates his point that: Anybody, not just fighters, should be able to ready/keep a melee weapon in a mage's face to possibly disrupt his casting.

 

[mikebr99]

But none of that invalidates his point that: Anybody, not just fighters, should be able to ready/keep a melee weapon in a mage's face to possibly disrupt his casting.

And, anyone can... within the existing rules. They just have to be spec'd out for that type of encounter. And this doesn't have to be done at creation... it can be changed on the fly (a few minutes anyway). But if the Fighter (or Cleric) wakes up and decides to put on the full-plate instead of the chain shirt... there has to be some kind of compromise there.

 

[Arundl]

I'm sorry, but changing the rules to solve the problem of interupting spell casting seems like a cop out to me. There are so many ways to either keep up with the caster or keep them from moving. You just have to think about it. You can carry a bow. You can use a tanglefoot bag. You can get boots of speed. You can use alchemist's fire. You can grapple.

There are just so many ways to make life hard on the mage if you really want to. Just because the mage can outmanuver or outpace you doesn't mean something is broken. Most fighers have restricted movement because they are wearing heavy armor. If you want good movement use light armor. It's a choice you make. Think about the mage. He gets good movement, but he also can't wear armor. It's a tradeoff. Yes, he can do massive damage with his spells, but he sufferes from less than half a fighter's hit points. Also, you can always charge a mage to hit him every round. Mages cannot take more than a single move and cast. Huge advantage to the fighter.

Overall, what I am saying is that each side has it's drawbacks and advantages and you have to look at the whole picture before you can say something is broken. What I am seeing in the original post is taking one situation in isolation and trying to make balance decisions based on that. I think it is balanced. The fighter holding the melee weapon needs to either be more flexible about tactics or accept the tradeoff he made in wearing heavy armor.

 

[ouini]

mikebr99 wrote:

didn't he build his character to be able to do this within the existing rules (psi-warrior built for speed)?

He's always been interested in playing a non-stereotypical PC. In this case I think his main goal was to make a fighter based on speed and dexterity instead of strength.

...If you were to remove the movement penalties for heavy armours [etc.]...Really, You shouldn't be able to have it all!!!

I agree. But understand, his beef isn't just with armor and the penalty it confers. Or just races and the movement restrictions they have. Or the discrete-phase combat system which effectively makes you do a bunch then wait a while. Or the rules on Defensive Casting which lets casters avoid some AoOs. Or rules on movement and readied actions which allows casters to avoid other AoOs. Or rules on AoOs and movement which allows casters to ignore damage done before the casting phase their round. Or a couple other rules I'm sure I'm forgetting. He's worried about the gestalt.

Holistically, he feels the confluence of all those rules sacrifices too much realism wrt how much a weapon in your face wielded by a determined party will disrupt your ability to cast a spell.

If you have other ideas on how to tweak the rules to avoid the problem as he sees it, Drspunj and I would appreciate them. Or if you disagree with his point, and want to post your view on how it's not realistic for a melee weapon to consistantly have a good chance of disrupting a spell, I could pass along your points to our friend.