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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 1998676" data-attributes="member: 12731">I think the major problem in D&D 3E is the simplistic notion that spells take no time to actually cast, and therefore only if you ready an action to interrupt spellcasting do you have a chance of actually disrupting the spellcasting attempt. Not only does it remind me more of Magic the Gathering and Baldur's Gate than other pen-and-paper rpgs (this shouldn't be read as a compliment), but:If the rules worked more like other fantasy games in that spellcasters should fear getting shot at while casting spells, the game could avoid a lot of artificial situations, such as the one discussed in this thread.Casting a spell does require a standard action already in the current rules, which is the better half of a round. Let's say this action consumes 3.5 seconds. But as combat is strictly sequential there is no room for normal natural enemy action from the time the spellcaster starts to cast the spell, and... wait... two... three... now! he's finished casting the spell and it actually goes off.Any enemy fighters (or archers, or whatever) must use readied actions to hope to accomplish what they often have good reasons to hope for: avoiding being roasted to a crisp. This means two things, of which the second is central to this discussion:1) they can't fight effectively: they need to sacrifice a normal round of combat, and risk looking very stupid indeed if the wizard decides to do something else. This is a choice most people find decidedly unfun (remember, it's not only the NPCs who find spell-disrupting very frustrating...)2) specific knowledge about spellcasting is necessary to do something about spellcasters, and therefore such knowledge is encouraged, which doesn't fit very well with the notion magic is mysterious and largely unknown. As regards to 2) I fully understand those DMs who think that even pretty primitive opponents should have come to respect and fear those adventuring wizards, and thus they use the means available to them to try to neutralize such a dangerous threat. If the enemies are led by a civilized leader with at least average intelligence, the chance of them setting up specific strategies to counter such a death-on-legs should be even greater.The solution, I think, is to abandon the D&D notion of how spells are cast, and instead balance (read "boost") wizards with the fact it takes some small but measurable time to cast spells. Yes, they become vulnerable to the normal behaviour of enemy brutes (i.e. trying to get in as many full attacks as possible before you go down), but that's exactly what's needed. Then and only then is the burden of magical knowledge lifted from the kobolds, orcs, and trolls out there; so they don't need to resort to sophisticated tactics just to harass the spellcasters.Please note I'm not advocating making the life for spellcasters impossible: after all, the desired mechanisms is already in the game: the Concentration check and/or Quicken Spell. Most spellcasters already max out their Concentration ranks, so no loss there. And of course Quicken spell should work intuitively: that is, it's use should be non-interruptible. (If you play a Wizard, and you now think "Ok, then I'll prepare all my spells as Quickened", then I can only say: please, go ahead - you've effectively sacrificed eight class levels for the privilege of never having your spells interrupted, so I'm cool.)Wizards and other primary spellcasters should probably get a moderate boost to compensate for the fact they now need to take the combat situation into account. (Yes, that means taking cover, avoiding melee monsters, withdrawing if suddenly exposed to enemy fire etc instead of as before just wading in with contemptous disregard of the fools who try to oppose him...) But exactly what compensation to give is the subject for another thread than this, although I myself am leaning toward giving them more general survivability (i.e. better hit dice)ZappPlease note: this is purely opinion, and not a comment on specific rules and their interpretation. Specifically, I'm not saying anything about how the rules work as written (not in this post anyway), I'm only presenting what underlying causes to the thread's issues I've identified, and which solutions I would prefer myself.</blockquote>

Verification