Why wouldn't you always cast on the defensive?

[CalrinAlshaw]

One way my DM prevents people from attack then immediately pulling out of combat, is he gives an enemy an AoO against anyone not doing a purely retreating move action.

That means, moving 5 feet and casting a spell (Since the round is supposed to be continuous) he allows us as well as enemies to "stick" on someone trying the 5 foot step then action trick. He basically tries to make the game simulate realistic circumstances and moderates combat depending on the situation.

Calrin Alshaw

 

[Nifft]

"Realism" isn't the same as "screw-casters-ism".

You can "realistically" retreat while doing things (like casting a spell). This is why it is bad to be cornered or have your back to the wall -- it means you cannot retreat. Note that it is bad to be cornered or backed up against a wall in real life, not just in games.

I'm not saying that you're playing wrong, but I think it's more an issue of caster power vs. warrior power rather than an issue of realism.

-- N

 

[pawsplay]

Why should I get a free AoO on someone who backs away from me and casts a spell? He's perfectly alert while he's backing away. I have the option of making a 5 foot step and full attacking him, too. Backing up is very safe, but of course, it's backing up. If your opponent has a reach weapon or you run out of room to back up, this comes into play. Also, if after you've moved back a couple of times, a savvy fighter may bull rush you back even further, putting you out of range of allies or enemies.

 

[ciaran00]

So a guy with a readied action can still smack him if he backs away 5 feet and tries to cast?

ciaran

 

[mmu1]

So a guy with a readied action can still smack him if he backs away 5 feet and tries to cast?

ciaran

I'm not 100% sure how clearly you'd have to word it (whether "If he casts, I attack him" would be enough or you'd have to declare that "If he moves back 5' and casts, I attack him") but basically, yeah, you can definitely ready an action to do that.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Wasn't casting on the defensive an FRA in 3.0? If so, I am curious as to why they changed it.

I do find that there are weird tactical issues involved in casters (and archers) being able to take a 5' step plus cast (or make a full bow attack). This is particularly true of archers, who can get all sorts of feats that allow them to fire into melee and around or over cover, take more attacks than a melee fighter, AND can a capability tantamount to that conferred by a reach weapon simply by 5' stepping all over the place. A melee fighter typically has it tough enough breaching the front line to get to these types. Perhaps a feat (Stick with Opponent?) might be a suitable choice; effectively, the feat (which could require Combat Reflexes or whatever have you) would allow you to automatically shift position 5' if an adjacent opponent does so.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I would institute a house rule for casting defensively. Ordinarilly casting a spell is a standard action so a Wizard can make his full move and then cast a spell. When casting on the defensive the wizard is watching his foe and trying to avoid being attacked in addition to trying to cast a spell. I would make a spell so cast a full attack action and so limit the spell caster's move to 5 feet. There is your reason for not casting on the defensive.

 

[smetzger]

Could someone explain to me why casting on the defensive is an option at all? Why wouldn't you do it all the time? And if you would (while threatened) then you always have a constant % chance of failure that sucks at lower levels but is inconsequential at high ones.

1) You could fail
2) You may not have maxed out your concentration, so you may not have a guarenteed success.
3) Your AC may be high enough that its better to take the AoO

Any ONE of the above 3 are valid reasons

 

[CRGreathouse]

1) You could fail
2) You may not have maxed out your concentration, so you may not have a guarenteed success.
3) Your AC may be high enough that its better to take the AoO

Any ONE of the above 3 are valid reasons

Not really. If you couldn't fail (#1 is false), then #2 is also false, and #3 doesn't apply.

 

[rushlight]

I also don't like the mechanic for Defensive Casting, or Tumble for that matter - especially since once you get to around 9th level or so it becomes relativly pointless to check for either.

I fixed both by changing them to an opposed mechanic, based on the Attack modifier of the opponent. It's just not reasonable that a 9th level guy with maxed out concentration should have the exact same chance of successfully casting defensively when he's fighting a poodle with one leg with a 3 in each stat as he does when fighting a 3000-year-old, ancient+, fiendish, vampiric red dragon who qualifies to be a quasi-diety with a 50 in each stat. The mechanic as written was just silly. If losing the spell is based on what the other guy does (or can do), then the other guy should enter the equation at some point. It's like making a to-hit roll based around a set DC instead of the other guy's AC.

The opposed mechanic should have been a "Well Duh" moment for them...

PS. I wonder what my players would say if they encoutered that dragon... hmm.... <evil grin>