Why wouldn't you always cast on the defensive?

[Sir Whiskers]

Also add... the enemy's expected damage may be low enough to make it silly.

remember the CoD is 15+spell level while the "i got hit" is 10+spell level+damage... so if the damage expected is 5 or less, you are better off letting him swing... at least in terms of getting the spell off odds... this gets a little more of a expected results thing once you factor in "he might miss" as part of the odds of success.

Of course, there is the whole "even if i got the spell off i lost hit points" side of things, but only the whiners worry about that.

I agree. I've actually done this in a battle, figuring my current AC of 20+ was good enough against a lowly mook (it wasn't, but that's another story... ). I still made the subsequent Concentration check, since the damage was minimal.

Also, consider if the spellcaster has some form of displacement - he might actually want to draw AoO's onto himself so other characters can move around with impunity (assuming the opponents don't have Combat Reflexes). It's dangerous, but could be very advantageous in the right situation.

 

[rushlight]

I disagree.

here is why.

casting on the defensive and tumble are not COUNTERING the attack of the other guy. The prowess of the other guy has no bearing on this whatsoever.

How do i know this?

because the 3 legged poodle and the Vred ancient will both get one AoO. Their prowess has nothing to do with whether or not they get an AoO. Nothing they can do, beg, borrow, learn or buy can give them that swing.

I suppose we're looking at two sides of the same coin.

Whereas you view the action as totally based on a single person's (the caster) actions, I view it as a combination. Basically, I don't see the "Cast Defensively" action as the ability to cast without dropping your guard, I see it as the ability to cast while being threatened by the opponent. In other words, casting the spell could still provoke an AOO, but your concentration exceeds the enemy's ability to disrupt it. It makes a big difference to me if the person who is threatening to thwack you is a poodle or a dragon.

That's why I chose an opposed mechanic - a dragon will threaten you more than a poodle will. If the ability of the opponent you face is so insignificant as to literally pose no threat to you, then casting defensively should be easier than if the opponent could literally kill you with a single attack. I just think should be harder to "defend" your spell against a dragon than a poodle.

Also, I don't see much point it having a skill that gets useless after 9th level. My game is currently going in to epic levels, and I'd like to keep each skill and ability relevent. With set DCs at 15 or 20, there's just no reason for a player to continue dumping skill points in those skills after 9th level or so. But using an opposed mechanic means that a 20th level wizard needs to have more "concentration ability" than a 9th level wizard does. And I like that.

 

[Bauglir]

<Description of concentration house rules>

Nice system Al. I was just thinking reading this thread that if you were using the attackers BAB to offset the conc check that AC should probably come into it as well. Also tumble could easily use a similar system.

I might include deflection in there too personally (basically any form of AC that could stop a touch attack) but that's just my own take on it.

 

[Spatula]

In other words, casting the spell could still provoke an AOO, but your concentration exceeds the enemy's ability to disrupt it.

Fine, but that's not what defensive casting actually represents.

Also, I don't see much point it having a skill that gets useless after 9th level. My game is currently going in to epic levels, and I'd like to keep each skill and ability relevent. With set DCs at 15 or 20, there's just no reason for a player to continue dumping skill points in those skills after 9th level or so.

The highest 'static' DC for Concentration is 29 IIRC (20+spell level), which you're not likely to be able to automatically pull off with 12 ranks. Even if you're able to beat the static DCs, there's value in still putting points into it since your spellcasting can still be disrupted by taking damage (10+spell level+damage, and that damage is going up as you gain levels) even when casting defensively. Which may not happen in your games, but that's hardly the system's fault.

 

[ciaran00]

I would be the first DM to be cautious of arcane spellcaster exploits, but I think that casting on the defensive, as it stands, is totally legitimate. After having read the posts in this thread, the point is:
We're talking about a FREE attack here, people. If these guys are SO concerned about casters, then yeah ready an action or SOMETHING. If the guy standing there with a sword doesn't get smacked, why would a cautiously casting caster? As for dragons, there are plenty of other options, like NUKING a caster themselves instead of relying on a pitiful AoO.

ciaran

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

Arcana Unearthed has the defensive casting conc check as highest threatening attack bonus (minimum of 10) + spell level. Which might work for some people?

We're were thinking about trying it out, makes some sense, but I think it will punish spellcasters way too much... mage vs collosal skeleton is not going to end well!


There was a feat in Dragonstar which allowed you to follow anyone trying to take a 5' step away from you... got ported over to our game.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

I suppose we're looking at two sides of the same coin.

I think we are looking at two coins.

Whereas you view the action as totally based on a single person's (the caster) actions, I view it as a combination. Basically, I don't see the "Cast Defensively" action as the ability to cast without dropping your guard, I see it as the ability to cast while being threatened by the opponent. In other words, casting the spell could still provoke an AOO, but your concentration exceeds the enemy's ability to disrupt it.

OK in your house rule, if you fail the concentration check, what happens?

Does the enemy get an AoO? Is it a true statement that the spell cast on the defensive "could still provoke an AoO"?

Or is it like the normal concentration check, where the only thing at risk is the spell getting cast?

It makes a big difference to me if the person who is threatening to thwack you is a poodle or a dragon.

If a fialure on the roll means an attack gets made in your house rule, i can understand the notion. But, if its still just a pass fail on the spell going off, then it seems inconsistent.

Also, I don't see much point it having a skill that gets useless after 9th level. My game is currently going in to epic levels, and I'd like to keep each skill and ability relevent. With set DCs at 15 or 20, there's just no reason for a player to continue dumping skill points in those skills after 9th level or so. But using an opposed mechanic means that a 20th level wizard needs to have more "concentration ability" than a 9th level wizard does. And I like that.

Well for my money i do not mind character reaching a point where some tasks which were challenging at low levels, early carreers, are no longer challenging. I don't see it as a given or a good thing that every skill for every use necessitates continual expenditure of skill ranks. IMo a high level character ought to get to points where he can do things.

But, your numbers may be different in your PHB than mine. At 9th level, the conc skill would be +12. Adding in a con bonus of say +2 makes it +14. The skill check for cast on the defensive is 15+spell level, right. So for you "most current spells" say 5th level at 9th, your roll goes up... 20 say at 9th. A 25% chance of failure is significant. Casting spells with impunity on the defensive, 9th level spells DC 24... finally is reached around 17th level.

So when i ask myself "self! is it out of whack for a 17th level caster who maxed his conc skill and got a +3 con bonus to be able to cast any of his spells without dropping his guard? Is that an appropriate ability for a high level caster to have? Is it reasonable for 17 levels of advancement in wizarding to allow you to close that dropping of guard thing?" I answer... "yeah, that seems apropos for a high level caster."

YMMV... but i still suggest that if you do want to use "it still could cause an AoO" you should make sure the result of failure is just such a chance.

YMMV...

 

[ruleslawyer]

Perhaps a feat (Stick with Opponent?) might be a suitable choice;

It's unnecessary. A fighter can always take a 5' step right back at ya and make a full attack.

There's a big difference between having to wait for an archer to back up and unload at you, or a wizard to blast you, before being able to full attack, and being able to react simultaneously in order to avert the triggering action.

There is no way a cautious step back should trigger an AoO. An AoO means your guard is down, and that is not true when you take a step back.

I didn't suggest that a 5' step should trigger an AoO, but rather that it should trigger your opponent's moving with you. This happens in real life; ever played football?

 

[ruleslawyer]

Perhaps a feat (Stick with Opponent?) might be a suitable choice;

It's unnecessary. A fighter can always take a 5' step right back at ya and make a full attack.

There's a big difference between having to wait for an archer to back up and unload at you, or a wizard to blast you, before being able to full attack, and being able to react simultaneously in order to avert the triggering action.

There is no way a cautious step back should trigger an AoO. An AoO means your guard is down, and that is not true when you take a step back.

I didn't suggest that a 5' step should trigger an AoO, but rather that it should trigger your opponent's moving with you. This happens in real life; ever played football?

Please also note that a 5' step back and cast or fire can trigger an AoO if your opponent has a reach weapon. My suggestion is geared merely at equalizing the effect of reach and non-reach melee weapons in this specific case... at the cost of a feat.

 

[rushlight]

Does the enemy get an AoO? Is it a true statement that the spell cast on the defensive "could still provoke an AoO"?

No. Casting Defensively IMC is the ability to prevent the AOO while casting your spell. I realize that may not be the standard interpretation, but at the same time I don't think it's that far off. Failure of the Defensive Casting roll means while you prevented the AOO, you couldn't maintain your spell. In other words, the opponent's skill was such that it took more of your concentration to defend against the AOO. Or conversely, he's so inept that it takes little of your concentration to defend against his pitiful attacks.

Well for my money i do not mind character reaching a point where some tasks which were challenging at low levels, early carreers, are no longer challenging. I don't see it as a given or a good thing that every skill for every use necessitates continual expenditure of skill ranks. IMo a high level character ought to get to points where he can do things.

I can agree with this too, but there are some things I'd like to keep around.

But, your numbers may be different in your PHB than mine. At 9th level, the conc skill would be +12. Adding in a con bonus of say +2 makes it +14. The skill check for cast on the defensive is 15+spell level, right. So for you "most current spells" say 5th level at 9th, your roll goes up... 20 say at 9th. A 25% chance of failure is significant. Casting spells with impunity on the defensive, 9th level spells DC 24... finally is reached around 17th level.

I would imagine your stat bonuses are a bit low. A 9th level mage with only a 14 in his primary stat? I would imagine at least a 16 or even an 18 (with items, which by the book are relativly easy to come by). That's a total Concentration of 15 or more. So sure, there's a 10% chance or so for spell failure, but it's still not relevant enough. And once you get to casting 9th level spells, you'd see Concentration of 24 or so (with a minimum stat of 19 to cast 9th level spells). The max Defensive Casting DC is 24, so by that time you've made the skill irrelevant. I want to keep the skill relevant, so perhaps I altered my view of Casting Defensively just a bit.

Basically, if you cast a spell while being threatened you provoke an AOO. That's the rule. If you Cast Defensively, then you prevent the AOO. That's also the rule. But the method of preventing the AOO isn't specifically defined. I see it as the attacker is trying to get the AOO through, but you are on your guard - so you prevent that AOO (just like you always prevent AOOs when your "guard is up"). The question is: can you concentrate enough on your spell casting while defending against that AOO? That's why I feel the opponent's Attack value should be brought into play - it's a representation of the skill with which the AOO is executed, and thus a measure by which you can see how that particular action will affect your concentration.