Why wouldn't you always cast on the defensive?

[Kronos_C]

Casting Defensively is NEVER gauranteed! It doesn't matter if you have +20 on the roll!

A roll of 1 is always a fumble, on a task. Regardless of skill, regardless of natural ability. You always have a 5% chance to fail.

That wasn`t true in 3.0 and still isn`t true in 3.5. Unless I missed a HUGE Rules change.

EDIT: Argh, sorry Didn`t see this tread had two pages and that this was already corrected

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

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

I do too. There are a lot of things that concentration does that you will still need ranks in. If you get hit while casting or are affected by sepll while casting you need more ranks usually than just enough to meet the CoD roll.

I would imagine your stat bonuses are a bit low. A 9th level mage with only a 14 in his primary stat?

One of us is confused. i was giving a 14 in CON, the stat that feeds concentration. Your int or cha, primary spell stat, is NOT the sat that applies to concentration checks. Now if you have house ruled it so that your INT is your CONC stat, then i can understand why your games see the threshold sooner. Or, if in your games the CON scores of your mages are their primary stats, then i can understand the differences there too.

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.

What stat feeds concentration in your games?

So sure, there's a 10% chance or so for spell failure, but it's still not relevant enough.

If 10% spell failure is not seen as relevent enough to matter in your games, what % of your wizard wear chain shirts and treat the 10% spell failure with lack of concern?

IMX most mages in my games do not suffer spell failure chances much at all willingly.

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).

Again, unless this is a 3.5 thing i missed or a house rule, the spell stat and the concentration stat are not the same.

 

[pawsplay]

I didn't suggest that a 5' step should trigger an AoO, but rather that it should trigger your opponent's moving with you.

D&D is turn-based. You can follow him, by taking a 5 foot step. You could even do that and then ready an action.

 

[rushlight]

One of us is confused. i was giving a 14 in CON, the stat that feeds concentration. Your int or cha, understand why your games see the threshold sooner. Or, if in your games the CON scores of your mages are their primary stats, then i can understand the differences there too.

That would be me who was touched in the head.

For some reason I had it in my noggin that INT applied to Concentration. That's what I get for going by memory...

Perhaps that may bump the level at which Concentration becomes effectively moot, but I think my reasoning behind the use of Casting Defensively is still sound.

 

[DM2]

I'll just lend my support to swrushing and the others arguing for the fixed roll (as it is). Here is the text in the SRD under attacks of opportunity:

Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in
defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity.

Read that, and then the concentration description, and I feel it makes perfect sense.

You can use Concentration to cast a spell, use a spell-like ability, or use a skill defensively, so as to avoid attacks of opportunity altogether

DM2

 

[dagger]

ignore this useless post, someone beat me to the SRD

 

[rushlight]

You can use Concentration to cast a spell, use a spell-like ability, or use a skill defensively, so as to avoid attacks of opportunity altogether

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? How good is the person who's trying to AOO you? 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.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I didn't suggest that a 5' step should trigger an AoO, but rather that it should trigger your opponent's moving with you.

D&D is turn-based. You can follow him, by taking a 5 foot step. You could even do that and then ready an action.

Actually, that's the problem. D&D is turn-based for purposes of simplification. However, that simplification allows tactics like stepping back 5' and unleashing a full attack before your opponent can take his own 5' step, which I think creates some odd tactical glitches. (There are others, but that's for another time.) Were combat simultaneous rather than turn-based, this wouldn't be a problem; you take your 5' step, I take my 5' step. You try to unleash a volley of arrows at me, I take my AoO.

Readying is OK, but sucky for the readier: I lose the ability to make more than one attack, and if what I'm predicting doesn't happen, there goes my full attack for the round.

Basically, I don't feel like slanting matters any further in favor of the spiked chain than they already are. As is, I'm always best off going the chain route if I routinely expect to face archers or casters, since the 5' step and volley or spell route just won't work against me AND I'm better at tripping them anyway.

 

[Pax]

Steveroo, no -- 1's are only autofails on attacks and saves, not skill checks. And 20's are only autosuccesses on attacks and saves -- not skill checks.

OTOH, IMC I use the "roll a 1, and it's a -10 on the die; roll a 20, and it's a +30 on the die". So to autosucceed on a defensive casting, you would have to have a Concentration Modifier equal to 25 + spell level.

Alternately, you could apply the Open-Ended Rolls optional rule for the ELH -- if you roll a 1, you subtract 20 from your running total and roll again; if you roll 20, you ADD 20 to yoru runnign total and roll again.

So, even with a +100 Concentration modifier, defensively casting a 1st level spell (DC 16), if you roll 1 five times in a row, and then roll 15 or less -- you fail. Vanishingly unlikely, but still possible to fail. OTOH, with a +5 concentration modifier, and trying to defensively cast a 9th level spell (DC 24) while standing next to a 40th level fighter with the Spellcasting Harrier feat (for a -20 modifier to your check), if you roll a natural 20 once, then a 19 or 20, you still have a (slim) chance to succeed.

 

[swrushing]

The question is: can you concentrate enough on your spell casting while defending against that AOO?

Nope but thats where we disagree.

IMO its simple... have i gotten good enough at spell casting that its no longer a distraction for me to cast spells? Does casting the fireball now come so easy that i don't lower my guard?

if i don't lower my guard, if i don't become distracted, then neither the paraplegic poodle nor the ancient red nor the 20th level epic fighter ever get the openeing for an extra swing.

I see this as identical to the various feats which let you "not provoke an AoO" when doing things which normally cause an AoO.

But thats me.

As i said, if the result of the failed check was "he gets an AoO" i would be more inclined to follow your logic, but, alas thats not the case. I do consider making "fail = AoO" and "roll is opposed by attack" a valid combo of house rules... its the notion of "no AoO occurs ever" and "but the enemy attack bonus matters" that fails to make sense to me.

YMMV