Post/Author/DateTime	Post
TheRealOrion 03-17-08, 10:04 PM	Edit: turns out I wasn't reading the rules closely enough. Sorry about that! But the thread's puttering along all on its own anyway, so clearly some people had some stuff to talk about anyway, so have fun, but please don't take this first post as accurate in any way. I doubt this will be a popular suggestion, but I don't think spellcasters are interrupted nearly enough. Back in 2nd Ed., if someone attacked you even in the same round, and did any damage, you lost the spell. Full stop. In 3.5, you have to attack the spellcaster during her action, which means either an AO or a readied action, and you have to do enough damage that she can't make her Concentration check. But even that slim chance of disruption rarely happens because only the dumbest of spellcasters wouldn't pump all available bonuses into Concentration (max ranks, Combat Casting, etc.). Making a Concentration check DC15 is a lot easier than making a check against the damage of the attack and you essentially get two bites at the apple: if you miss your Concentration check to avoid provoking the AO, you still get another one if the attacker does damage. I have, in the last three years of gaming every week, never seen a caster actually get interrupted. Partly that's because they stayed out of the fight, but mostly it's because it's quickly impossible to miss that Concentration check. So I propose two things. First, the Concentration DC should go up by level. The base is 15, to avoid provoking an AO, and it's +1 per spell. The Concentration check for a 6th-level spell would be 21. Second, I propose that you should be able to distract a caster on purpose as a special combat manoeuvre. You can physically smack the caster such that you knock her hands off-kilter or keep her from speaking correctly and the spell fizzles. This requires a touch attack, and if your weapon has bonuses to Trip or Disarm bonuses, then you add those to your attempt. If the attack hits, then the spellcaster must make a Concentration check, the DC of which equals the attack roll results. If she succeeds, she keeps casting normally. If she fails, she loses the spell. You can also try to verbally distract a caster. This is essentially an opposed test, the caster's Concentration vs. the distractor's Intimidate ("STOP THAT!")or Bluff ("Is that a dragon behind you?"). This requires that the caster can actually hear you, and you take a -4 penalty if you do not speak the caster's language (you can still yell and scream emphatically, but it's not as effective). If the caster wins the test, she casts the spell. If she loses, she loses the spell. Short version: Concentration checks to cast spells: DC = 15 + spell level Spell Disruption: opposed tests -Attack roll vs. Concentration, or -Bluff/Intimidate vs. Concentration Thoughts?
Kouk 03-17-08, 10:20 PM	Perhaps you have been using the concentration checks a bit incorrectly? I suggest you reread the Concentration skill description, as well as the Magic chapter about casting spells and concentration. The DC to maintain your spellcasting when someone strikes you is equal to 10 + damage dealt. At higher levels (or even not so high) this can easily set DCs higher than 40. Casters should not want to get hit ever of course. When you 'cast defensively' to avoid an AoO, the DC already is 15 + spell level. Also, if you fail to cast defensively, there is no "second chance" to continue casting. If you fail to cast defensively, you do not provoke an AoO -- you just fail the spell right there. In your effort to avoid an AoO you are successful, but if you failed the Concentration check you botched the spellcasting. As for an enemy "shouting in your ear" to interrupt your casting, I think something like that should require a feat at the least. You can use non-damaging spells to distract a caster, but otherwise a "professional" Wizard with 10+ ranks in Concentration isn't going to give a damn if you are insulting him during his 3 second casting time. If you want a special attack to disrupt casting, any attack which deals damage has that capability (the more damage the better). You might rule that a successful Trip attack counts as violent motion for a DC 15 check, but otherwise just starting a normal Grapple automatically makes it a DC 20 Concentration check and prevents the use of somatic components, and severely restricts spells which require material components. The major point though is, which angle are you approaching this from? Are you a player who is just so fed up with successfully casting your spells and not wasting your entire combat? Are you a DM having trouble because your PCs too easily defeat the encounters you think up simply because they cast the spells they are supposed to? Are you a player of a non-caster who begrudges the spellcasters' power? Before you add new rules, think what this rule does for the game -- and the answer should be, "because it makes it more fun for everybody".
Damned slayer 03-17-08, 10:20 PM	ever hear of mage slayer feat tree?? BTW casting on defence if it fail you lose the spell you don't give an attack ... And why would spellcaster be so easily interrupted while you can't stop an attack from a fighter??
Shular 03-17-08, 11:00 PM	While Orion has mistaken how Concentration works, I don't disagree with his conclusion that it's too easy to cast defensively. Aside from 1st to 3rd level, I, also, have never seen a caster fail his defensive caster check. And NEVER have I seen an NPC fail. I like his reference to 2nd edition, and the limitations there. Perhaps throw in a little old school by having the defensive casting DC equal 15+spell level OR 10+damage taken over the previous round (i.e. since the caster's last turn), whichever is greater. While this would put a cramp in the caster's style, I'm sure, most people seem to believe that casters are dominant over non-casters anyway, so it would bring things a bit more towards balance.
runestar 03-18-08, 01:02 AM	I think it is expected that higher lv casters succeed easily, and very much necessary. For example, imagine a party facing off against a wizard BBEG. For him to be a credible threat, he will need to at least be able to cast a spell each round. Otherwise, a party coordinating their attacks can easily disrupt his spellcasting, and defeat him without expending any resources.
Howland Reed 03-18-08, 01:16 AM	For example, imagine a party facing off against a wizard BBEG. For him to be a credible threat, he will need to at least be able to cast a spell each round. Otherwise, a party coordinating their attacks can easily disrupt his spellcasting, and defeat him without expending any resources. If the party's able to do that, he's probably screwed anyway. If the wizard's doing his job, he shouldn't be taking hits (he'd have defenses, flunkies, etc). And if you allow easy casting without any real chance of disruption...that's probably a big chunk of the problem with full casters ruling the battlefield. Do you think casters would dominate as strongly if they actually DID need people to front for them, because a hit would waste their spell?
runestar 03-18-08, 01:30 AM	If the party's able to do that, he's probably screwed anyway. He would still be able to cast off some spells, and do some damage, and thus meet the "drain 20% of a party's resources" quota. For example, even as the fighter is whacking away at him, he can still loose off a horrid wilting here, a prismatic spray there, and a few quickened spells before be goes down. And if you allow easy casting without any real chance of disruption...that's probably a big chunk of the problem with full casters ruling the battlefield. Rarely a problem when it is a sole wizard BBEG facing off against a standard party (because his actions are outnumbered 1-to-4). I find that it would be an even bigger problem if that was not the case, because then, the concept of a solo wizard enemy would be all but impossible. Do you think casters would dominate as strongly if they actually DID need people to front for them, because a hit would waste their spell? They would stink as much as a commoner. Which is hardly what I am looking for in a fight meant to properly challenge a party.;)
Kouk 03-18-08, 03:34 AM	The basic tactic for disrupting spellcasters is to Ready actions or just start with a Grapple. Even considering spellcasters have "superior" abilities to non-casters, being able to do absolutely nothing because your enemy feels like slapping you in the face with a glove is not my idea of adventure. Unless there is a similar mechanic to simply nullify the abilities of non-casters, such that they stand around doing nothing during a fight if the enemy tells them to, it isn't really fair for the player. Spellcasting already has that extra component of requiring concentration that melee and such doesn't have. (Before you say spells like Hold Person, those can work on any class). And while we are discussing this, will it really make a difference raising the DC by 5 or so? A caster would simply try that much harder to stay away from the fighting. Which may mean they are too afraid to use close range spells or effects, making things duller and eliminating all risk :P 5ft steps typically keep a caster perfectly safe as well, maybe we should disallow movement in a round they want to cast a spell? If I was playing as a caster in a game which increased the Concentration DCs by 5, I would just buy a +5 Concentration item for 2,500gp and call it a day.
navar100 03-18-08, 04:07 AM	It's great and all to stop the enemy spellcaster from casting his spell, but making it easier to do so loses its fun real fast when the party spellcasters becomes easier to stop casting as well. Spellcasters are powerful, but the mere fact of the actual casting of a spell is not a problem. That's what they do. That's the whole point.
Millenia 03-18-08, 04:22 AM	I personally recommend making the "cast defensively" DC be 15 + highest BAB of the creature that threatens you; opponents with that "no casting defensively" feat from Complete Arcane would increase the DC by at least 10. I haven't tested it out, though, so I dunno how balanced it is.
runestar 03-18-08, 04:34 AM	I personally recommend making the "cast defensively" DC be 15 + highest BAB of the creature that threatens you; opponents with that "no casting defensively" feat from Complete Arcane would increase the DC by at least 10. I haven't tested it out, though, so I dunno how balanced it is. Consider the tarrasque. It has a bab of +48. The DC would be 63. A lv20 wizard has 23 ranks in concentration. Tell me how he is expected to make that check without going out of his way to min/max said score (The CO boards can probably make it exceed 100), but honestly, do you really want to go to that extreme?
Millenia 03-19-08, 01:40 AM	While you do have a point, the wizard honestly should only be caught dead when in threatened ranged of the tarrasque. Or incorporeal. Or any of the bajillion other ways that a wizard of that level can kick the strongly worded memos of physics around. ... And the tarrasque is a special case, considering it has a huuuuuuuge amount of HD for its CR. The only other monsters that I think are comparable would be mature adult, old, or very old dragons, which might have much more than 30 HD (and BAB).
Nicholas the Paladin 03-19-08, 01:51 AM	I doubt this will be a popular suggestion, but I don't think spellcasters are interrupted nearly enough. Back in 2nd Ed., if someone attacked you even in the same round, and did any damage, you lost the spell. Full stop. ? I think TRO has a point here. After experiencing 2nd edition, I always felt that there was something not quite right. In all the years 3.xrd ed I have maybe once or twice experienced a caster getting disrupted. Making a concentration check was always somewhat of a formality.
Kouk 03-19-08, 04:09 AM	I think TRO has a point here. After experiencing 2nd edition, I always felt that there was something not quite right. In all the years 3.xrd ed I have maybe once or twice experienced a caster getting disrupted. Making a concentration check was always somewhat of a formality. Why is it worse for the game if spellcasters do not get disrupted frequently? I think that particular game element being more reliable was a step forward.
Merestil Haye 03-19-08, 07:19 AM	I always found the 1e and 2e rules ridiculous. They are not what should be held up as good design to be learned from. Consider a wizard who wants to cast a spell with a casting time of 2. If he got a modified 7 on his initiative roll, he'd lose the spell if he took even 1 point of damage, not only at count 7 and 8 when he was actually casting the spell, but at counts 1-6 as well. And that was just poor execution. 3e does it better. There's room to argue that the DC could be tweaked, but if you jack up the DC for the check all round, a low level wizard is going to have too hard a time casting their spells. A 1st level caster with +9 Concentration will have a 30% chance of blowing the roll for his highest level spells. That's with significant investment in Concentration, and they fail one third of the time. But the 3e model is miles better than prior editions.
rimble 03-19-08, 10:20 AM	I personally recommend making the "cast defensively" DC be 15 + highest BAB of the creature that threatens you; opponents with that "no casting defensively" feat from Complete Arcane would increase the DC by at least 10. I haven't tested it out, though, so I dunno how balanced it is. The only thing that really bugs me is Casting Defensively so easily while having a ton of opponents surrounding and threatening you. I prefer that DC 15 + Spell Level works to Cast Defensively while being threatened by one opponent, then every additional opponent threatening you adds +2 to the DC.
Selgard 03-19-08, 10:45 AM	The following is merely my opinion. The concentration check bit is relatively equivalent to the Melee'ers attack roll routine. At lower levels, the wiz/cleric/whatever has a fairly good chance to botch the roll. The low level warrior/ranger/barb has a fairly good chance to miss their one swing. Why? They are young. They are inexperienced. They are noobs. At the mid levels, they start to progress out of that phase. Wizards learn how to cast through distractions, warrior types learn how to get at least one good swing in. Most of the time in mid-to-late games, the primary Melee folk hit at least once a round, at the same time that Casty times stop blowing their concentration checks. It's the same level Rogues aren't blowing their sneak/hide or search/disarm device skills. You reach a level of experience (generically speaking- not experience point values) where you more or less know what you are doing. Secondly; A spell is a unique attack in the game in that the player has Numerous attempts to have it fail. Concentration checks, attack rolls, saving throws to be made, possibly damage- the point being that while melee are relatively ensured of doing at least Some damage in the round (damage, or tripping, or whatever they are doing) the casty types are Not at all ensured of the same. If you increase the chance for one of these to fail, you are not "making the game more interesting".. you are decreasing the chance that one of your players will be effective in battle. It sucks enough as it is to fail an SR check, or to have a mob pass a saving throw. There is little need to add yet another level of spell-failure to the middle-high level campaigns.
Jutter 03-19-08, 11:57 AM	There are more ways to attack a spellcaster besides readied actions or attacks of opportunity. Some spells take full-round actions, so you can make a regular attack. It's kind of the achilles heel of the summoner. As a DM you can attack the cleric while he's casting raise dead on a fallen party member. This gets old if you do it more than once though, but it's pretty memorable if the party pulls through. Combat Casting only works while casting on the defensive, not while you're damaged while casting a spell. I never encountered any problems disrupting my players' spells. I've seen them use the same tactic more than once themselves. We've seen varying levels of success. It kind of depended on the dice, which is as it should be. The DC to maintain your spellcasting when someone strikes you is equal to 10 + damage dealt. At higher levels (or even not so high) this can easily set DCs higher than 40. Casters should not want to get hit ever of course. Actually, the DC is 10 + damage dealt + spell level. The reference of the addition of the spell level is hidden in a footnote linked to the column 'DC'.
Kursk 03-19-08, 12:02 PM	They would stink as much as a commoner. Which is hardly what I am looking for in a fight meant to properly challenge a party.;) In 1st & 2nd Ed Wizards weren't as weak as commoners... Maybe DMs back then knew how to play better than most DMs today...
green_yawgmoth 03-19-08, 12:15 PM	And while we're at it, how about we make rogues pass a perform check every time they get hit to see if they can still attack after getting hit. and make monks pass a balance check if they want to use flurry! negating things you're supposed to be able to do regularly and with some degree of skill is fun! :rolleyes: Spellcasters get interrupted plenty as it is. If they're not getting interrupted, then good; it shows that the player of the caster isn't retarded enough to be casting spells in the middle of melee.
Essex 03-19-08, 01:45 PM	Given that the main thing arcane casters are good for in battle is casting spells, it does seem unfair to penalize them with Concentration checks for doing their jobs. If you want an alterate system that ties into the existing rules, then eliminate concentration checks while ruling that 'ranged' spells (fireball, magic missle, charm person, etc.) provoke AoO (much like ranged weapons) while melee spells (anything with a 'touch' or 'self' entry) do not provoke AoO (much like melee weapons). Then either get rid of the rules for disrupting spellcasting or add rules to disrupt physical attacks. After all, why should hitting a Wizard as he is casting Summon Monster I disrupt his spell while hitting a Fighter as he makes a full attack action doesn't disrupt his strikes?
Kursk 03-19-08, 01:49 PM	After all, why should hitting a Wizard as he is casting Summon Monster I disrupt his spell while hitting a Fighter as he makes a full attack action doesn't disrupt his strikes? Because swinging the sword is different than having to pronounce exact phrases and articulate movements without ANY interruption. Beyond that I can't see why. :rolleyes:
Kouk 03-19-08, 07:14 PM	Actually, the DC is 10 + damage dealt + spell level. The reference of the addition of the spell level is hidden in a footnote linked to the column 'DC'. You're right. I thought that's how it was, but the SRD wasn't showing that in the skill description (or I am missing it repeatedly), but it's in the Magic overview section. And I have a character who is a Wizard -- which goes to show how rarely I am anywhere near an enemy and allowing them to take an AoO against me. I don't have to make Concentration checks merely for the fact that I don't start casting spells within easy reach of enemies, or if I must I cast defensively. They're welcome to come after me, but unless they start Grappling they ain't keepin' me from moving :P (and even if they grapple me, I will just teleport away using items). Over the course of 12 levels I have had to Cast Defensively maybe 4 times. Otherwise, keeping my head down and using the party to help me (by absorbing AoOs and such) works perfectly well. Playing with Concentration DCs doesn't affect much when they don't come into play often. A Silence spell would be much more dangerous to me than any number of melee enemies out for my blood.
Sildatorak 03-19-08, 07:29 PM	In 1st & 2nd Ed Wizards weren't as weak as commoners... Maybe DMs back then knew how to play better than most DMs today... I think that has more to do with 1e and 2e commoners having only a single hit die than anything else.
Kursk 03-19-08, 07:50 PM	I think that has more to do with 1e and 2e commoners having only a single hit die than anything else. 1st level Wiz 1D4. Still the same in 3.X
Sildatorak 03-20-08, 12:21 AM	1st level Wiz 1D4. Still the same in 3.X It seems to me then, that the wizard isn't that much better than a commoner barring the spells.
TheRealOrion 03-20-08, 12:57 AM	Thanks for all the thoughtful responses and for setting me straight on the Concentration rules. I'm going to bring that up at the next game. I had the sneaking suspician I might have been missing something when I posted it, frankly. We'll try the actual rules as written for a while before I start trying to introduce house rules. Thanks!
Kursk 03-20-08, 08:26 AM	It seems to me then, that the wizard isn't that much better than a commoner barring the spells. That's the way it's designed. Until, you start leveling.
Jutter 03-20-08, 01:38 PM	You're right. I thought that's how it was, but the SRD wasn't showing that in the skill description (or I am missing it repeatedly), but it's in the Magic overview section. You are missing it repeatedly. Concentration skill description in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/concentration.htm). Check out the table. Pay specific attention to the column header 'Concentration DC', and the superscripted 1. The footnote states: "If you are trying to cast, concentrate on, or direct a spell when the distraction occurs, add the level of the spell to the indicated DC." It is in fact this obscure in the printed player's handbook as well. Don't worry about it though: I only noticed this because I failed a question regarding this issue on my first RPGA master level GM test. I'd never have known if it weren't for that test. On a different note: I never saw the use of combat casting. If I really want to go there I generally take skill focus (concentration) instead. At least that +3 bonus counts when you're shot during your action.
mvincent 03-20-08, 03:38 PM	"If you are trying to cast, concentrate on, or direct a spell when the distraction occurs, add the level of the spell to the indicated DC."QFT. I don't think I've ever seen spellcaster get off a spell if someone had a readied action to stop it. Even a pit fiend (concentration +29) didn't make it after being hit by a single arrow.
Grovel_hits_it_yes 03-21-08, 11:37 AM	QFT. I don't think I've ever seen spellcaster get off a spell if someone had a readied action to stop it. Even a pit fiend (concentration +29) didn't make it after being hit by a single arrow. YES! Readied actions are the best way to stop spellcasters.
Nicholas the Paladin 03-21-08, 02:33 PM	Why is it worse for the game if spellcasters do not get disrupted frequently? I think that particular game element being more reliable was a step forward.well, I'm not implying the first and agree on you about the latter. I just think that the current 'chance' of disrupting a spellcaster is a bit of a farce. A spellcaster with maxed out Concentration (that means *all* sensible casters), that tries to avoid AoO's somewhat...doens't get distupted 95% of the rounds in combat. I think in the end it really just depends how you view spellcaster and spellcasting: I think that wizards (especially) need to feel a certain amount if dread in combat, when near warrior-types. there you are, after studying for 10 years standing next to a guy twice your size with a really really sharp sword..... man, I would loose my concentration just looking at the guy. the mechanic is fine, but the DC needs to be a bit higher in my opinion
TheRealOrion 03-22-08, 06:20 PM	There's a lot of talk around here about how the Wizard is just too powerful, that at higher levels the Fighter is useless compared to the Wizard. The obvious balancing factor in that particular comparison is to increase the chances of spell interruption. It seems like when we talk about balancing classes and abilities, we fairly consistently talk about doing so by increasing one side's power, but the more prudent way to solve the problem is to decrease one side's power. That's a long-term solution, one that doesn't contribute to the slow power-creep. I sometimes get the impression that we're all tacitly aware of the slow power creep and choose to silently do nothing about it because we want more powerful characters.
Merestil Haye 03-22-08, 07:59 PM	There's a lot of talk around here about how the Wizard is just too powerful, that at higher levels the Fighter is useless compared to the Wizard. The obvious balancing factor in that particular comparison is to increase the chances of spell interruption. It seems like when we talk about balancing classes and abilities, we fairly consistently talk about doing so by increasing one side's power, but the more prudent way to solve the problem is to decrease one side's power. That's a long-term solution, one that doesn't contribute to the slow power-creep. I sometimes get the impression that we're all tacitly aware of the slow power creep and choose to silently do nothing about it because we want more powerful characters.Unfortunately, you cannot do so without completely ruining low-level play. If you raise the DC to the point where the 20th level wizard has some chance of failing the check to defensively cast a 9th level spell, the 1st and 2nd level wizard can simply never succeed. A wizard is far more likely to be threatened in melee at low levels, because the character doesn't have the spells to stay out of combat. Thus Concentration is balanced to give them a tool to cast spells when threatened. A side effect of this is that the high level wizard can never fail that check, but then the typical high level wizard should never be in that state in the first place. To disrupt a high-level wizard's spellcasting, outthink him. Don't nerf low-level play.
kalstrand 03-22-08, 08:45 PM	There's a lot of talk around here about how the Wizard is just too powerful, that at higher levels the Fighter is useless compared to the Wizard. The obvious balancing factor in that particular comparison is to increase the chances of spell interruption. It seems like when we talk about balancing classes and abilities, we fairly consistently talk about doing so by increasing one side's power, but the more prudent way to solve the problem is to decrease one side's power. That's a long-term solution, one that doesn't contribute to the slow power-creep. I sometimes get the impression that we're all tacitly aware of the slow power creep and choose to silently do nothing about it because we want more powerful characters. The problem with making spell interuption easier is that it makes the game less fun for the Wizards player. The balance needs to be done so that it doesn't make the Wizard spend most of his actions doing nothing because he gets his spell interrupted all the time. The Wizards in my game are pissy enough between SR, resistances, and saving throws causing their spells to fail.
steenan 03-23-08, 11:30 AM	About 80% of my characters are spellcasters. And I still think that being able to cast without risk in melee is just ridiculous. I also definitely don't agree that a chance of spell interruption makes thje game less fun for spellcaster's player. Quite the opposite. It forces him to use tactics, to avoid being close to enemies, to rely on party warriors. Both tactical challenges and party cooperation make the game more, not less, enjoyable, at least for me and my friends. As for making spell interruption meaningful at higher levels without completety neutralizing low-level casters, the method is very simple. The only thing you need to change is the formula for concentration check DC. Using, for example, 10 + 3*spell level, would make casting defensively easier at low levels and much harder at high levels, in both cases helping balancing spellcasters.
Merestil Haye 03-23-08, 12:15 PM	About 80% of my characters are spellcasters. And I still think that being able to cast without risk in melee is just ridiculous. I also definitely don't agree that a chance of spell interruption makes thje game less fun for spellcaster's player. Quite the opposite. It forces him to use tactics, to avoid being close to enemies, to rely on party warriors. Both tactical challenges and party cooperation make the game more, not less, enjoyable, at least for me and my friends. As for making spell interruption meaningful at higher levels without completety neutralizing low-level casters, the method is very simple. The only thing you need to change is the formula for concentration check DC. Using, for example, 10 + 3*spell level, would make casting defensively easier at low levels and much harder at high levels, in both cases helping balancing spellcasters.Even there I disagree. You've just set the DC for casting a first level spell at 18; that raises it by 2. A first level character with max ranks and a 14 Con would pass the normal check on a 10. You've made it require a 12. Thus to make low-level casters viable, they're forced into taking Combat Casting and Skill Focus (Concentration). Less viable choices mean that they are less fun to play. Also, you've increased the risk of death for the frontline combatants by reducing the chance that the cleric can get the healing spell off in time. These are downsides to the choice of DC formula that I don't believe you're considering. On top of that, it won't be a problem for the high-level character, who will just spend character resources upping Con and boosting skills - the latter being something which is relatively cheap to do. Remember, low-level caster's often don't have the option of staying out of combat because combat will come to them. The frontliners don't have the capacity to keep everyone off, and the casters don't have the spellpower to keep everyone away. Not yet. They have to have tools for casting defensively - tools that they can reasonably hope will work. Your plan would make them less reliable and therefore playing casters at low levels less fun. Ultimately, it's probably better to balance low- and mid-level play properly, and worry about high-level play as an afterthought.
Llathos 03-23-08, 12:38 PM	YES! Readied actions are the best way to stop spellcasters. In the example, he says he was readying against a pit fiend. Unless the PF had caster levels, I assume he was responding to a spell like ability. Would readying against a SLA even work? The SRD states that SLA have no verbal or somatic component and are activated mentally. What would you respond to and how would you interrupt it? Also, the PF has a +29 Concentration...meaning he could generate up to a 49 and averages around a 39. Assuming a 7th level SLA was invoked, that's 10+7+dmg DC. So, unless that single arrow generated 32 dmg (hardly impossible, but not trivial either...most arrow slingers generate respectable total dmg from iteration), there's still a chance the PF could make the check.
Grovel_hits_it_yes 03-23-08, 01:33 PM	In the example, he says he was readying against a pit fiend. Unless the PF had caster levels, I assume he was responding to a spell like ability. Would readying against a SLA even work? The SRD states that SLA have no verbal or somatic component and are activated mentally. What would you respond to and how would you interrupt it? Also, the PF has a +29 Concentration...meaning he could generate up to a 49 and averages around a 39. Assuming a 7th level SLA was invoked, that's 10+7+dmg DC. So, unless that single arrow generated 32 dmg (hardly impossible, but not trivial either...most arrow slingers generate respectable total dmg from iteration), there's still a chance the PF could make the check. PHB page 142.
kalstrand 03-23-08, 02:31 PM	I also definitely don't agree that a chance of spell interruption makes thje game less fun for spellcaster's player. Quite the opposite. It forces him to use tactics, to avoid being close to enemies, to rely on party warriors. Both tactical challenges and party cooperation make the game more, not less, enjoyable, at least for me and my friends. Its a bit harder to keep out of combat if their are ranged opponents readying to interrupt you.
Shular 03-23-08, 10:49 PM	One of the big problems is that if you're readying an action to disrupt a spell beign cast, then you're usually wasting the action (at least at higher levels). This is because most spell-casters will have other options, and if a fighter is standing beside them and doesn't swing, then it's obvious they're getting ready to disrupt. So the caster just uses a wand or staff, and presto, the readied action is wasted.
Damned slayer 03-24-08, 10:19 AM	One of the big problems is that if you're readying an action to disrupt a spell beign cast, then you're usually wasting the action (at least at higher levels). This is because most spell-casters will have other options, and if a fighter is standing beside them and doesn't swing, then it's obvious they're getting ready to disrupt. So the caster just uses a wand or staff, and presto, the readied action is wasted. I think you can be disrupted while using an item and BTW using a wand can't be made defensively (pretty sure) and you've just triggered an attack of opportunity and if I'm the DM the readied action too since taking out a wand and using it is obviously casting
mvincent 03-24-08, 12:39 PM	I think you can be disrupted while using an itemNot most items, no. using a wand can't be made defensively (pretty sure)That's because you don't need to. and you've just triggered an attack of opportunityNo. From the rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#spellTrigger): "Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity." and if I'm the DM the readied action tooI'm pretty lax on ready actions, since I don't want players having to craft careful worded conditions... but regardless, it won't really disrupt the spell being cast by the wand.
Damned slayer 03-24-08, 01:14 PM	Not most items, no. That's because you don't need to. No. From the rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#spellTrigger): "Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity." I'm pretty lax on ready actions, since I don't want players having to craft careful worded conditions... but regardless, it won't really disrupt the spell being cast by the wand. True dunno why mistaken with scroll but at least the fighter wouldn't lose his attack
sblaxman 03-24-08, 01:22 PM	Always love the irony of 3.x... half the posters yelling "spell casters are too powerful, melee are useless", that 3.x gave too much power to casters, etc... Meanwhile, the minute anyone posts a recomendation on evening the level by slightly weakening casters, people say "you're nerfing casters" or "whats the point of playing a caster now"... Not everyone mind you, but it's definatly a trend. My preference: I love the 2e casting rules, easy interuption and aging effects from casting... really helped keeping casters from becoming overpowering (except at uberhigh levels, but that was to be expected and ok in my book)
mvincent 03-24-08, 01:57 PM	Would readying against a SLA even work?From the rules (A spell-like ability can be disrupted just as a spell can be.): "A spell-like ability can be disrupted just as a spell can be." What would you respond to and how would you interrupt it?Readying an action to 'attack a spellcaster if he does anything other than a move action' is what I typically do (that way I still attack even if he does something other than cast a spell). However, it's not too hard to figure out what a pit-fiend is up to if he's standing there concentrating on something (especially for any PC experienced enough to be taking on a pit fiend to begin). unless that single arrow generated 32 dmg (hardly impossible, but not trivial either...most arrow slingers generate respectable total dmg from iteration), there's still a chance the PF could make the check.Since the arrow did damage in the 20's, this was the only incident I could recall where a spellcaster had a reasonable chance of making the roll (and she still didn't make it). Now, if it had been someone with manyshot (which most arrow slingers have)... you're looking at 3 or 4 times this damage... that'll probably guarantee disruption.
Kursk 03-24-08, 02:21 PM	Always love the irony of 3.x... half the posters yelling "spell casters are too powerful, melee are useless", that 3.x gave too much power to casters, etc... Meanwhile, the minute anyone posts a recomendation on evening the level by slightly weakening casters, people say "you're nerfing casters" or "whats the point of playing a caster now"... Not everyone mind you, but it's definatly a trend. My preference: I love the 2e casting rules, easy interuption and aging effects from casting... really helped keeping casters from becoming overpowering (except at uberhigh levels, but that was to be expected and ok in my book) I agree. Just do away with Concentration. If you get hit before you complete the spell it is gone.
Merestil Haye 03-24-08, 02:36 PM	Always love the irony of 3.x... half the posters yelling "spell casters are too powerful, melee are useless", that 3.x gave too much power to casters, etc... Meanwhile, the minute anyone posts a recomendation on evening the level by slightly weakening casters, people say "you're nerfing casters" or "whats the point of playing a caster now"... Not everyone mind you, but it's definatly a trend.No-one says it. They say "High-level casters are powerful." Low level casters are not powerful, and most people recognise that. The Concentration rules are (again) balanced to give a 1st level wizard a reasonable shot at succeeding at casting a 1st level spell defensively. An auto-failed check is no fun. Losing your only spell of the day for no effect is no fun. The chance of failure at casting defensively doesn't disappear for quite a while; unless the character devotes some resources to increase the modifier he can still fail at 17th level, and everything he puts into increasing the Concentration modifier isn't going to make his spells more effective. My preference: I love the 2e casting rules, easy interuption and aging effects from casting... really helped keeping casters from becoming overpowering (except at uberhigh levels, but that was to be expected and ok in my book)I despised those rules. Absolutely loathed them. When I discovered they were gone, I celebrated.
Kursk 03-24-08, 02:44 PM	I despised those rules. Absolutely loathed them. When I discovered they were gone, I celebrated. It's a preference thing. We got rid of it and there was no huge negative impact. It just brought down the most powerful classes a notch. They still dominated the non-spell casting classes. So, obviously it doesn't kill those classes or even make them weaker than non-spell casters...
Merestil Haye 03-24-08, 03:57 PM	It's a preference thing. We got rid of it and there was no huge negative impact. It just brought down the most powerful classes a notch. They still dominated the non-spell casting classes. So, obviously it doesn't kill those classes or even make them weaker than non-spell casters...I think you misundertand. Initiative worked somewhat differently in 2nd Edition. The basic sequence was : Combatants declare actions. Combatants roll 1d10 and add their reaction modifier to determine when in the round they start their action. Combatants casting spells add the casting time to determine when they finish their action.A spellcaster who was hit at any point in the round from the start of the round to the time they finished casting their spell and took even one point of damage lost the spell. So a spellcaster with 15 Dex casting a spell with a casting time of 3 who rolled a 9 on the initiative die for the round had to avoid being hit in the round until the initiative count reached 12. Not just in the period he was casting the spell (which would be 9, 10 and 11 in the count) , but right from the beginning of the round. That is what I loathed, and good riddance to it.
Kursk 03-24-08, 04:12 PM	I think you misundertand. That is what I loathed, and good riddance to it. Yes, I see. It still didn't break casters. They were closer in power to non-casters than they are in 3.X
Damned slayer 03-24-08, 04:22 PM	Yes, I see. It still didn't break casters. They were closer in power to non-casters than they are in 3.X they were even stronger some weapon had up to +12 to initiative count (might be wrong but pretty sure above 10) and the spells were stronger the 10d6 was feared even by high levels
Kursk 03-24-08, 04:25 PM	they were even stronger No.
ciaran 03-24-08, 06:03 PM	You should be good at anything you put max ranks into. Most Spellcasters do. I played a dwarven cleric who was concentration CRAZY! It was a high level, but he took damage from several arrows and an acid spell while he spent the 1 round casting Firestorm. I did pop my Divine Insight but I made it.
Abyssal_Eye 03-24-08, 06:13 PM	To be honest I didn't read the whole thread, but I just wanted to throw a simple houserule of our group into the mix: When more than one person is threatening the caster with attacks of opportunity and thus he has to watch out for more enemies when casting defensively the DC rises by 2 for every enemy except the first one. It's not that breathtaking but keeps everything a little bit more logical and especially large numbers of weak critters can turn out to be a real nuisance for most casters.
TheRealOrion 03-24-08, 08:20 PM	They say "High-level casters are powerful." Low level casters are not powerful, and most people recognise that. The Concentration rules are (again) balanced to give a 1st level wizard a reasonable shot at succeeding at casting a 1st level spell defensively. They're powerful at high levels and weak at low levels so... now we have to strengthen them at low levels? That's ass-backwards. The trade-off of the wizard is that they're vulnerable as eggs at low levels but then god-like when they get higher up. That's the class's design. Always has been. If they want to change that, then they'll have to seriously change the spell progression/power level. Yes, I see. It still didn't break casters. They were closer in power to non-casters than they are in 3.X Speaking as someone who played 2nd ed for a decade, I can attest to the truth of this.
Merestil Haye 03-24-08, 08:49 PM	They're powerful at high levels and weak at low levels so... now we have to strengthen them at low levels? That's ass-backwards. The trade-off of the wizard is that they're vulnerable as eggs at low levels but then god-like when they get higher up. That's the class's design. Always has been. If they want to change that, then they'll have to seriously change the spell progression/power level.You're putting words in my mouth. Stop it. I did not say we have to strengthen them at low levels. I said we should not weaken them further than they already are - as your proposal would do to them.
dirkformica 03-24-08, 09:00 PM	As someone who loved (and still loves) 2nd Edition, the ease of spell disruption, along with most material components were ALWAYS changed because EVERYONE I ever played with hated them so much. If a simple 2nd level spell like Choke, which could be cast or was easily available on an item could COMPLETELY shut down EVERY caster for several rounds, it was a broken system. 1d4 damage, save for half. No matter what you were taking a point of damage during your round, so no casting. And it was so easy to get fast weapons with the addition of more books like Combat and Tactics. Weapon Masters with 2 handed weapons that had enhancements easily beat just about all the most dexterous casters. Or, worse comes to worse, whip a nice speed 2 dagger at the mage and it was game over. I look back at 2nd edition with a lot of love and nostalgia, but this reminds me of one thing 3.x DEFINITELY got right. Concentration is one of the best things to ever happen to Dungeons and Dragons.
Sildatorak 03-24-08, 10:31 PM	but regardless, it won't really disrupt the spell being cast by the wand. Sunder the wand.
Shular 03-25-08, 08:41 AM	Sunder the wand. Except the wand can be drawn as a move action if it's not already in his hand. Besides which, if you go around sundering wands and staves, then the casters in the party will NOT be pleased. That's treasure you're destroying. As to how non-specific a readied action trigger can be, let's just say that some DMs are bigger sticklers than others.