WoTC Rodney: Economy of actions

[Hussar]

No, it doesn't. But, creatures still know that the caster is casting a spell per RAW. It still provokes Attacks of Opportunity.

I think there is something of a difference between drawing an AOO by casting a spell within the threatened reach of an opponent and changing the description of the action by painting a giant glowing crosshairs onto the wizard. As has been noted, a concentration check negates the AOO, certain feats remove the visible and audible effects of casting and a simple invisibility spell, or heck, even a hide check could make the wizard immune to attack for casting a summoning spell.

As I said before, this is a viable option and it's something that is done in lots of RPG's. Give the players the option, but, make the option so difficult to pull off, or only useful in limited circumstances that the issue goes away. 4e appears not to be taking this option. Instead of making something is too difficult to use, they are just removing it from the game entirely.

I mentioned this in another thread, but I'll repeat it here. It appears that they are removing effects from the game that caused large slowdowns. AOO's, by and large didn't cause the game to come to a screeching halt. Dispel Magic, OTOH, could take several minutes to adjudicate and then recalculate, so Dispel Magic gets seriously limited. Summoning spells can cause the game to come to a screeching halt if the summoner is not prepared. So, it appears that summoning is going to be seriously limited.

Whether this is a good thing or not depends on your point of view. Me, I think it's great. I'm tired of exciting combats being ground to a halt because Bob didn't write out the stats for his summonings and has to spend several minutes calculating their buffs and whatnot.

 

[KarinsDad]

I was responding to KarinsDad. The fact that (non-defensively) casting a spell provokes AoOs by the RAW doesn't mean that your opponents know what kind of spell you're casting, or even if you're casting a spell at all.

There are only two actions in DND that result in a lowering of the guard (i.e. resulting in a potential AoO) where the action might possibly not be known: spell casting and use spell-like ability. All of the rest of the actions in core are hard to argue as "potentially unknown actions".

So given this, when one lowers one's guard and it is not any other reason, it must be one of these two by definition of what provokes in the game system (shy of additional actions in splat books).

Additionally, spell casting and casting defensive both require concentration (the first without a roll as per the spell casting description, the second with a concentration skill roll). So minimally, one would see a creature concentrating, regardless of whether the caster is casting defensively or not, with or without spell components. Unless you are going to claim that concentrating is non-visible.

Because if concentration is non-visible, then there is no way to counterspell (with dispel magic) a cast defensive silent stilled spell (i.e. to know to be able to attempt it).

 

[ruleslawyer]

Casting non-defensively only requires a Concentration check if you take damage.

The point is that all that game knowledge tells you is that the caster lowered his guard enough to draw an AoO. There's absolutely no indication of what the attacking creature really knows about what he's doing.

The Spellcraft argument is a different story. The fact that you can use Spellcraft to identify silent, stilled spells indicates that the spell itself must have some susceptibility to identification via a Spellcraft check that has nothing to do with visible gestures. Thus my earlier point that DM_Blake is house ruling; in truth, all of the signs of what exactly a mage is doing when he drops his guard should be left to determination via Spellcraft check, not via the descriptive mechanic he's using, which is an add-on rule.

 

[hong]

Anyway, even assuming that the wiz casting a summon spell is immediately obvious to everyone, so what? What are the bad guys going to do about it? Presumably they're already engaged in combat, and the wiz isn't just standing around waiting for them to hit him. He's likely to have his own defenses up as well, if only because with d4 HD any smart wiz doesn't want to get hit at all, whether or not he's summoning stuff.

 

[ruleslawyer]

In any event, I think this summoning stuff is pretty off-topic. As I said before, the real problem issues are the druid's menagerie, the Leadership feat, and the potential for really deadly called creatures. I'd like to see all of those options dealt with to the end of better gameplay in 4e.

 

[Harshax]

What if they treated summons like an per encounter zone that could move? Like a swarm of skeletons or something? (If that's come up before, I apologize)

As to Summoner's getting flagged . . .

That seems kinda silly now that every class has a big boom stick of a power. What if the fighter lit up like a yule log every time he was about to do his daily, and thereby attract the attention of anyone that had an interrupt to throw?

 

[KarinsDad]

Casting non-defensively only requires a Concentration check if you take damage.

True. I did not say it required a Concentration check. I said it required concentration.

Concentration
You must concentrate to cast a spell. If you can’t concentrate you can’t cast a spell.

So again, is it your contention that concentrating on a spell is a non-visible action?

 

[Cadfan]

Because if concentration is non-visible, then there is no way to counterspell (with dispel magic) a cast defensive silent stilled spell (i.e. to know to be able to attempt it).

I've always assumed that was the case. I'm pretty sure that a number of stealthy, social wizardish types in 3e are built around the premise that, if your spell is stilled and silent, you can cast it in the middle of a crowded room and have no one the wiser.

 

[KarinsDad]

I've always assumed that was the case. I'm pretty sure that a number of stealthy, social wizardish types in 3e are built around the premise that, if your spell is stilled and silent, you can cast it in the middle of a crowded room and have no one the wiser.

I have no issue with this per se other than the fact that it is a spell with no visible knowledge by others. In other words, non-spell casters cannot even know it is occuring (spell dependent). They do not know to grapple the Wizard. Nothing in the spell rules indicate that Still + Silent (+ possibly cast defensively) = non-detectable. That seems as much a house rule as the opposite POV.

 

[ruleslawyer]

True. I did not say it required a Concentration check. I said it required concentration.

So again, is it your contention that concentrating on a spell is a non-visible action?

Do you really want to keep beating this to death?

It is unclear by the RAW whether concentrating on a spell is a non-visible action. ALL that is clear is that the caster is provoking an AoO (i.e. dropping his guard). It *is* clear that identifying a spell being cast requires a Spellcraft check. That's what I was referring to above.