Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 5982778" data-attributes="member: 6681948">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.</blockquote>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.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.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.[/QUOTE]

Verification