Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Anax" data-source="post: 1986008" data-attributes="member: 19868">Just a note on this one, which I just noticed in the last reply: of course it is reasonable to take damage in order to safely get a spell off.  Here, we have a situation where there's a high probability somebody is ready to attack you.  If you try to cast the spell without using any tactics at all, then you *will* be shot at, and there is a (let's say) 50% chance that you will lose the spell.  If you apply this tactic, you *will* be shot at (but you were going to be shot at anyway), and there's a 100% chance you'll get your spell off.  (Although smarter tactics on the part of the attackers can reduce that--for example, if there are two attackers, one readies an action to attack the person who attempts to cast a spell first, and the other readies to attack the person who attempts to cast a spell second, etc.)  So the choice is between taking x damage and having a 50% chance to do Y damage and taking X damage and having a 100% chance to do Y damage.  I know which choice I would make.In fact, it's a similar tradeoff that the archers in this case are making: they could choose to maneuver and attack normally, but instead they have chosen to remain motionless watching for a spell to be cast.  They are quite vulnerable to melee attackers while they're doing this, and there's no guarantee that they'll actually disrupt a spell that's cast at them.  Why do they do this?  Because spells can hit them harder and more quickly than melee attackers generally can--the spellcaster is more dangerous, so they leave themselves open to other attacks in order to take the caster out of action.To match this up with "stabbed in the chest in order to pull out your own knife", well, that's not exactly a good match for this situation.  First, "stabbed in the chest" is sort of fatal sounding, whereas taking n points of damage is not.  Second, pulling a knife is something you could ordinarily do without having to be attacked first.  A better comparison would be allowing yourself to be wounded in order to exploit an opening in the attacker's defenses.  Sure, it's better *not* to get hit, but if you notice that the attacker's swordplay has a flaw, and you can take a fairly light wound in exchange for decapitating him... well, that's not too bad.  Of course, if you thought that there was only one opponent and there turn out to be more, you'll wish you'd just avoided taking damage.  Same thing applies to the caster: this is a dangerous tactic compared to moving under cover to cast, but depending on the circumstances, it can be a good choice.And that kind of situational choice is what tactics is all about.Now, as far as this being metagaming... it is, somewhat.  But not for the reasons that you suggest.  This is metagaming because the player is using the rules of the game in an odd way to achieve a specific effect.  It would be better to introduce a house rule and say "this is the right way to draw fire from enemies prepared to attack a person who is casting spells."  I suspect that everybody would be happier with that, although if you intentionally choose a method that this character won't be able to use at all effectively, he would be justifiably grumpy.  Bluff would probably work, though--since he has a high intelligence, he could probably afford to spend the skill points the next time he has a chance.My suggestion would be:BLUFF (CHA) The following is a new use for the Bluff skill: Magical Feint (Psionic Feint): When you suspect an enemy may have readied an action to attack spellcasters, you may make a Bluff check as a move action in order to convince the opponent that you are casting a spell.  This allows you to later cast another spell as a standard action, avoiding the distraction of any attacks triggered by your feinted casting attempt.  This special use for Bluff may not be attempted untrained. Check: You must make Bluff check opposed by the opponents' Spellcraft (or Psicraft) checks.  You make one roll and each opponent that fails to beat the roll is convinced that you are casting a spell.  Your roll takes a -1 penalty per the level of spell you are attempting to feint casting.  (i.e. if you attempt to feint casting Fireball, you take a -5 penalty to your check.)  Opponents who cannot normally make Spellcraft (or Psicraft) checks because they are untrained are convinced by any such attempt.  Opponents who fail their check ascertain that you are casting the spell you attempted to emulate if their Spellcraft check is high enough to identify a spell of that level, or are convinced that you are casting a spell that they could not identify, otherwise. Action: Performing a Magical Feint (or Psionic Feint) requires a move action.  See Special for special rules on the type of action required.  This action does not provoke acts of opportunity, but instead appears as if the caster made his or her concentration check. Special: If you have the Improved Feint feat, then you may perform a Magical Feint (or Psionic Feint) as either an immediate action or as a move action. Try Again: You may make as many Magical Feint (or Psionic Feint) attempts in a round as you wish.  However, each attempt in a single round is at a further -2 penalty.  (Second attempt at -2, third attempt at -4, etc.) Synergy: If you have five or more ranks in Spellcraft (or Psicraft), you gain a +2 synergy bonus when attempting to make a Magical Feint (or Psionic Feint). (Hmm.  Added some text to account for a few more cases--like, people who make Spellcraft checks should have some idea what spell is being cast, not just that a spell is being cast.  Could use some tightening up, I'm sure.)This model has a few benefits over the "use an immediate action spell" model:It provides a way for enemies to avoid being hoodwinked.  (Spellcraft ought to suffice for that in the case of actually using a spell, however.)If you were already allowing the enemies to make Spellcraft checks, then it provides a way for the caster to improve their ability to feint casting a spell--so this is something that can be specialized in.It is *not* normally an immediate action, but the already existing Improved Feint feat allows it to be used as an immediate action.  This provides a further level of specialization that allows 1 round casting time spells to be cast efficiently when using the tactic.It provides a way for non-casters to attempt to take the damage instead of the caster.A caster can be expected to always be better at feinting casting than a non-caster, since they will gain the synergy bonus from Spellcraft.A non-caster can be expected to have a decent chance at telling the difference, *if* he has specialized in fighting spellcasters.  If he has not specialized in fighting spellcasters, then he will be at a disadvantage when making such an attempt.  (Which is only reasonable: magical arts take training!)  There is, however, no need to include something like BAB in the check (as for the normal feint in combat), since the impact of a Magical Feint is much less than that of a normal Feint in combat.Anyway, I suspect that the caster in this specific case would be slightly irritated that he needs to use a move action now to draw fire.  But he would be able to fix that if he chose (using Improved Feint), and even with just a single rank in Bluff, he can convince anyone with no ranks in Spellcraft that a spell is being cast.  Even better, any comrade who has at least one rank in Bluff can draw fire instead, which is wonderful for the caster.  (But the comrade, of course, has used up a move action to do so.)Some ways to modify this:It could be made so that this action is normally an immediate action rather than a move action.  I feel this would be too powerful, since non-casters could then do it with no penalty--they don't normally use immediate actions anyway.The penalty for higher level spells could be removed.  (I added this so that at higher levels it's harder to convince the enemy that you're casting Planar Ally than that you're casting Magic Missile.)This special use could be restricted to spellcasters, or to people who also have ranks in Spellcraft.  (If casters: this would be because the feint actually includes drawing on magical energies in such a way as to confuse the issue.)Opponents with 0 ranks in Spellcraft could be allowed to detect the feint if the bluffer gets a modified roll of less than 0.  (This means that you *must* invest a reasonable number of points into Bluff to avoid being detected by untrained enemies.)The check could be changed from an opposed check to a set DC--perhaps 10 + spell level.  (This means that the enemy's skill doesn't matter, but simplifies things.)Characters could use this technique (with a penalty) to disguise one spell as another--especially useful for Illusionists.  (Perhaps one of the best parts of this technique that I've thought of yet--poor Illusionists.)  (Hard question: What happens if somebody tries to counterspell using the wrong spell?  What if they try to counterspell the wrong spell using Dispel Magic?)</blockquote>

Verification