Questions about bonuses to saves and Concentration checks

[King-Panda]

We have a Paladin in our group who was considering taking a level in Oracle for their Lore Keeper revelation from the Lore Mystery. Does the bonus from Divine Grace (Cha bonus to saves) stack with the Cha bonus to Reflex saves granted from Lore Keeper? We were under the impression that ability score bonuses don't normally stack with each other, even from different sources.

The other question pertains to Concentration. If a caster is being threatened by multiple opponents, does the Concentration DC increase? Or does it stay 15 + Lvl of the spell? Thanks in advance!

 

[Jester David]

We have a Paladin in our group who was considering taking a level in Oracle for their Lore Keeper revelation from the Lore Mystery. Does the bonus from Divine Grace (Cha bonus to saves) stack with the Cha bonus to Reflex saves granted from Lore Keeper? We were under the impression that ability score bonuses don't normally stack with each other, even from different sources.

I assume you mean "Sidestep Secret" which reads:
"Add your Charisma modifier (instead of your Dexterity modifier) to your Armor Class and all Reflex saving throws. Your armor’s maximum Dexterity bonus applies to your Charisma instead of your Dexterity"
(Lore Keeper just affects knowledge).
This would stack with Divine Grace as Divine Grace is a bonus to saving throws, on top of regular saves. While Sidestep replaces your Dex bonus with Cha.

The other question pertains to Concentration. If a caster is being threatened by multiple opponents, does the Concentration DC increase? Or does it stay 15 + Lvl of the spell? Thanks in advance!

No, just one check to avoid provoking attacks.

 

[Empirate]

The Concentration check DC to cast defensively is actually 15 + double spell level. So it's a pretty darn hard check to make.

I don't know why Paizo did this, considering all other concentration check DCs are based simply on spell level, not double spell level, but there you have it. It never really gets any easier to cast your highest-level spells, except for the minuscule boost of bumping your primary casting stat.

 

[N'raac]

The Concentration check DC to cast defensively is actually 15 + double spell level. So it's a pretty darn hard check to make.

At 1st level, assuming a 16 casting stat, I get +4, and need a 17+, so I need a roll of 13+. At 2nd, I'll need a 12+. At 3rd, back to 13+ to use a 2nd level spell. So I should have a 40% chance at the worst of times. I can bump that to a 60% chance with Combat Casting. A higher casting stat (and I think 16 is pretty modest) further enhances my odds.

I think what the change actually did was make this less of a slam dunk - casting in combat is back to being difficult, so that Raging Barbarian with the ability to follow your 5' step actually has a shot at beating a Wizard.

I don't know why Paizo did this, considering all other concentration check DCs are based simply on spell level, not double spell level, but there you have it. It never really gets any easier to cast your highest-level spells, except for the minuscule boost of bumping your primary casting stat.

Well, let's see... if I boost my casting stat from 16 to 20 over the course of 20 levels, and tack on a +6 INT item, now I have Lv + 8, so at 17th level, I have a +25 to get a 33 (15 + 18) and succeed with my highest level spell. I need an 8+ (65% chance of success) or a 4+ (85%) with Combat Casting. That seems far from a miniscule boost. And maybe the Wizard caught in combat needs to consider using a lower level spell to simplify the process.

While the other checks are based on spell level, they generally have another factor (damage taken; DC of the spell that hit you; grappler's CMB) all of which I would expect will increase with your level, as the power of your challengers increases. Allowing casting in combat at 15 + Spell Level would mean a 4th level spell for a L8 caster (now at 18 Stat) is a +12 roll to get a 19, so a 70% chance (90% with Combat Casting) with no ability enhancing item (or spell). Casting in combat is getting pretty trivial by mid levels.

I think Pathfinder wants casting in combat to be a significant risk across the levels, and 2x spell level is necessary to achieve that objective. If you want spellcasters easily blasting off spells in combat, change the rule to Spell Level rather than 2x Spell level. Or make it even easier and remove the AoO for spellcasting entirely. Modify the rules for the flavour you want in your game. My casters prefer to remain out of melee range anyway, thanks - we're a pretty squishy bunch!

 

[Jester David]

The Concentration check DC to cast defensively is actually 15 + double spell level. So it's a pretty darn hard check to make.

I don't know why Paizo did this, considering all other concentration check DCs are based simply on spell level, not double spell level, but there you have it. It never really gets any easier to cast your highest-level spells, except for the minuscule boost of bumping your primary casting stat.

I think you answered your own question.
Concentration was just a skill tax in 3e but quickly became irrelevant. Too hard at low levels, too easy at high. PF made it a challenge for highest level spells across the board but easy for lower levels.

 

[Empirate]

At 1st level, assuming a 16 casting stat, I get +4, and need a 17+, so I need a roll of 13+. At 2nd, I'll need a 12+. At 3rd, back to 13+ to use a 2nd level spell. So I should have a 40% chance at the worst of times. I can bump that to a 60% chance with Combat Casting. A higher casting stat (and I think 16 is pretty modest) further enhances my odds.

I think what the change actually did was make this less of a slam dunk - casting in combat is back to being difficult, so that Raging Barbarian with the ability to follow your 5' step actually has a shot at beating a Wizard.



Well, let's see... if I boost my casting stat from 16 to 20 over the course of 20 levels, and tack on a +6 INT item, now I have Lv + 8, so at 17th level, I have a +25 to get a 33 (15 + 18) and succeed with my highest level spell. I need an 8+ (65% chance of success) or a 4+ (85%) with Combat Casting. That seems far from a miniscule boost. And maybe the Wizard caught in combat needs to consider using a lower level spell to simplify the process.

While the other checks are based on spell level, they generally have another factor (damage taken; DC of the spell that hit you; grappler's CMB) all of which I would expect will increase with your level, as the power of your challengers increases. Allowing casting in combat at 15 + Spell Level would mean a 4th level spell for a L8 caster (now at 18 Stat) is a +12 roll to get a 19, so a 70% chance (90% with Combat Casting) with no ability enhancing item (or spell). Casting in combat is getting pretty trivial by mid levels.

I think Pathfinder wants casting in combat to be a significant risk across the levels, and 2x spell level is necessary to achieve that objective. If you want spellcasters easily blasting off spells in combat, change the rule to Spell Level rather than 2x Spell level. Or make it even easier and remove the AoO for spellcasting entirely. Modify the rules for the flavour you want in your game. My casters prefer to remain out of melee range anyway, thanks - we're a pretty squishy bunch!

What stance are you taking? That it's too easy, or that it's rather hard to successfully cast in melee? Your - otherwise insightful - post seems to support both arguments in a way.

I don't like my Wizard to be in melee range either. And the reason for this is that any risk of wasting an action AND one of my best spells at the same time, with a failed concentration check, sucks goat's balls. I consider a check that has a 35% of failing a huge detriment to my caster's career, and I'd rather not have to make that check. 65% chance of success on a concentration check, or rather, 35% chance of failure, is the same as running around wearing full plate as a Wizard. It's just not done, if you can help it.
Also, I'd rather not take Combat Casting just to have a better chance should I suddenly decide to take the plunge nevertheless. I've better things to do with my feats, like actually getting better at casting, not getting "less worse" at casting in a situation I shouldn't ever find myself in if I have a say.

Sure, Pathfinder probably implemented the new, harder concentration checks to make it less of a "slam dunk". And I'm not advocating to change those rules back to 3.5 for a PF game. Although I think 3.5 acknowledged that some casters train for such situations, while others might choose not to - and that's a good thing. I knew some 3.5 Clerics who were forced to skimp on Concentration ranks, and even Wizards might prefer to spend points on knowledge skills instead concentration.

So even in 3.5, concentration checks weren't truly "slam dunks". The 3.5 concentration mechanics forced you to invest character building resources (skill points) if you wanted to be good at concentrating real hard. PF just makes it a fixed value and takes choice away from the player, which I don't condone. Sidetrack: much the same as some other areas of the game...


EDIT: [MENTION=37579]Jester Canuck[/MENTION]: I think I adressed the "just a skill tax" myth, but to elaborate: not every caster was able to pay that skill tax. Not every caster was willing. Skillpoints are not free in 3.5, and many casters especially are very skill-starved. So in my book, that "skill tax" is quite meaningful, actually. PF makes it easy on Clerics, Druids and Sorcerers, who can have trouble "paying the tax" in 3.5.

 

[Jester David]

I think I adressed the "just a skill tax" myth, but to elaborate: not every caster was able to pay that skill tax. Not every caster was willing. Skillpoints are not free in 3.5, and many casters especially are very skill-starved. So in my book, that "skill tax" is quite meaningful, actually. PF makes it easy on Clerics, Druids and Sorcerers, who can have trouble "paying the tax" in 3.5.

That's the problem. Concentration required a steep investment (10+ ranks) before it was really effective and casters didn't always have many spare points. So you either greatly reduced your skill ranks for the first 6-9 levels of the game, blew a feat, or both. It was a high cost for the ability to cast while threatened, which sometimes you just had to do. Especially as a cleric trying to heal an ally.

PF just removes that requirement. The boring, automatic "I put one rank into Concentration" and makes it a seperate mechanic. You can still specialize at it (feats) but it's a little more forgiving for casters who want to spend their skill points elsewhere.

And Concentration was kinda a lame skill. Had it been more generic and related to other classes maybe (the general "I focus real hard" skill). It wasn't really a skill as you didn't get better at anything.

 

[Empirate]

True enough, although 3.5 at least had Skill Focus (Concentration), whereas PF only has Combat Casting, which is much less useful - it's only for casting defensively, after all. Some DMs won't bring storms, violent motion, readied action archers etc. into play, but mine sure does...

 

[N'raac]

cWhat stance are you taking? That it's too easy, or that it's rather hard to successfully cast in melee? Your - otherwise insightful - post seems to support both arguments in a way.[/quote]

That it is a question of flavor, so some may find it is too easy, and others that it is too hard, to successfully cast in melee. It's not a question of "right" and "wrong", but of taste.

As written, the Pathfinder rules motivate spellcasters to stay out of melee because there is a material chance of failure if they try to cast their best spells. Tactically, spellcasters should stay out of melee and, if trapped into melee, use a lower level spell with less failure chance (or risk the AoO - no one is forcing you to cast defensively).

If, however, your group wants spellcasters to be generally able to blast off spells in the midst of melee, the answer probably isn't to change the concentration check - it's to remove it. Make spellcasting simply NOT provoke an AoO. If you prefer some chance of failure, maybe a fixed failure chance like wearing armor would be preferable. Of course, that chance of failure applies to every spell level rather than declining if you use lower level spells (but doesn't impede spells with no somatic component).

If we drop the concentration check to 15 + Spell Level, then it becomes trivial fairly quickly for even top level spells, much less using lower level spells to mitigate the issue. If that's the desired flavor (ie this is an issue only at lower levels), change the rule to 15 + spell level in your games and move on.

And if you want melee to severely disadvantage a wizard, remove defensive casting altogether (or perhaps make defensive casting a feat - you can only have a shot at avoiding AoO's if you take the feat). That may be a good approach if we think casters are overpowered compared to warriors - if the warrior can close, the caster is in much more serious trouble. Or we could add a metamagic feat that allows a spell to be cast without danger of an AoO - at the cost of adding a couple of levels or so.

Also, I'd rather not take Combat Casting just to have a better chance should I suddenly decide to take the plunge nevertheless. I've better things to do with my feats, like actually getting better at casting, not getting "less worse" at casting in a situation I shouldn't ever find myself in if I have a say.

Like other characters, wizards need to pick and choose their feats. Combat Casting allows the wizard a better chance to succeed with defensive spellcasting in melee. Maybe my 18 DEX fighter would "rather not" spend a feat on combat reflexes to get an extra 3 AoO's a round. Fine. Then he sticks with 1 AoO per round. If he doesn't want to sacrifice a shield to use a bastard sword, he spends a feat. if not, he lives with the fact he needs to choose between a shield and a bastard sword.

There isn't a lot of difference between getting "less worse" at casting in melee and getting "better" at casting in melee. The wizard chooses what he will get better at - he can't be good at everything. One of those choices is being better at casting spells in melee without provoking an attack of opportunity. I don't see it as essential that a caster will always be able to avoid AoO's for spellcasting. A failure chance of about 1/3 for their best spells (maybe lower if he can bump his caster stat up) seems like a reasonable benchmark to me, and I haven't seen it cripple wizards.

EDIT: @Jester Canuck : I think I adressed the "just a skill tax" myth, but to elaborate: not every caster was able to pay that skill tax. Not every caster was willing. Skillpoints are not free in 3.5, and many casters especially are very skill-starved. So in my book, that "skill tax" is quite meaningful, actually. PF makes it easy on Clerics, Druids and Sorcerers, who can have trouble "paying the tax" in 3.5.

A very good point - why should Wizards be largely superior at casting in combat? They are the worst of melee combatants. You would think Paladins and Rangers, well trained combatants that they are, would be the best, followed by clerics and druids, with wizards and sorcerers sucking the most at casting in the chaos of melee. Yet wizards are the ones who can afford to pay the "skill tax".

Thinking on it that seems like a point in favour of basing this on feats, rather than skill points. I still like the fact that higher caster levels and higher casting stats improve the odds - better casters are better at melee casting. Higher level spells are more complex, so they reduce the cost. Being a dwarf (and having a better CON) does not make you better at melee casting any more.

Ultimately, I don't find full spellcasters underpowered, so I don't see a need to make it easier for them to cast in melee. I think the fact that a spellcaster can be disadvantaged if forced into melee is a feature, not a flaw.