Post/Author/DateTime	Post
felgrim_the_meek 03-27-06, 10:51 PM	I was wondering about other peoples thoughts on whether the "casting on the defensive" mentioned in the players handbook is too powerful. It allows a spellcaster to make a concentration check DC 15+spell level to cast a spell without provoking attacks of oppourtunity. When I play a spell caster I generally have a reasonably high concentration score and on average my charectors have 14 to 16 con. with that I could have a concentration as high as +6 on level 1. this requires only a 10 on a D20 not to provoke attacks of oppourtunity and since you gain spells every 2 levels minimum this check will eventually become neglegable after mabey as low as level 5 where a 3rd level spell would require only a 7 on a d20 when you were in close combat. It seems to me that after a bit you will be able to wade into combat and cast spells without worry of provoking attacks of oppourtunity. I was thinking that mabey to balance it out I would cause spells that were cast on the defensive to take a full round rather than a standard action. what do you think of this.
jaelis 03-27-06, 10:56 PM	I think the idea is indeed that, at the price of a skill, you should be able to cast in melee and not worry about provoking AoOs. Why do you feel that to be overpowered?
Chrono Nexus 03-27-06, 11:14 PM	When you compare it to the truenamer version, defensive uterance, it may seem broken, but only because utterances are impossible. I don't think it is broken.
felgrim_the_meek 03-27-06, 11:14 PM	well whenever I play wizard I try for an high intelegence and constitution everything else is extra through i hope not to be hurt elsewhere too much. this gives me a ton of skill poins per level (6) one of which I spend in concentration till I have 10 or so and the others in other usefull skills. Where it comes into play more is when I'm playing a druid which gets a reasonably number of skills per level (4+int). With this I tend to wildshape and the beat my enemy's faces in with claws and point blank spells. Though this is argueing against my favor I see a bear smacking someone about while casting poison and produce flame without getting attacks of oppourtunity.
redraven 03-27-06, 11:22 PM	Casting on the defensive is no more broken than use of the Tumble skill to glide around and through the battlefield.
teclis 03-27-06, 11:27 PM	well, there are a few thins to concider: 1. druids are the best class in the game, and the combination of wildshape, natural spell, and powerful buff spells is the main reason. concentration is a minor part of that situation. 2. it's not garaunteed, especially if you only have 10 ranks. `the DC for a 9th level spell is 24, hardly a sure bet if you don't max it out. 3. there are ways to get around it. readied actions are a classic. now they have to take 2 concentration checks. mage slayer feat simply negates it (though I think that feat is over the top)
felgrim_the_meek 03-27-06, 11:29 PM	ok you have swayed me there are a lot of pretty stupid things you can do in D&D that would tactically make sense but work non-the-less. I think I was just not thinking of unusual uses for other skills such as tumbleing through a battlefield because no one in the campaignes I have played has done it. By the way though this is the wrong board could you do the suicidal action of making a jump check to get on the back of an animal like a lion or sphinx then make ride checks to stay on as you hacked out its shoulder blades?
johnkretzer 03-27-06, 11:31 PM	I can see how it is broken in that it pretty much allows you to cast at will at the fighter in your face. At a certain level it is impossible without readying a action to stop a wizard from casting. Though there is always the 5' step rule which even if you take the feat Mage Slayer unless they have backed themselves in a corner you won't stop that wizard from casting a spell. Though the downside of casting spells in melee is that if the fighter gets to go you are dead. 1d4 HP per level won't last long. Tumbling is a bad comparsion because all it allows you to do is move which can be annoying but isn't as devasting as recieving a lightening bolt to your face.
ForeheadLMinster 03-28-06, 12:49 AM	Yeah, spending 10 or 15 skill points on Concentration gives you about the same advantage as taking a five-foot step out of melee range. In 1st or 2nd edition, the Sleep spell was no-saving-throw. In 3.5, you more often get a saving throw. But unless you ready an action, the game rules don't expect you to stop spells from being cast. The primary purpose of Tumble is battlefield mobility. For my skill points I'd much rather have 15 ranks of Tumble than of Concentration, so I can take a Move action, then Cast from a better position. But the rules won't let me trade -- Tumble is a cross-class skill for spellcasters.
Zook_Ningel 03-28-06, 02:34 AM	It is not overpowered because it means you can get smacked down in melee combat. The whole point of maxing out concentration is to make yourself very good at casting spells in especially difficult situations (like melee combat). However, the DC isn't much of a worry at high levels. My level 18 wizard had concentration 29 (21 ranks and +8 from constitution. He also had 200 HP so yes, he was a tank).
Peter Smile 03-28-06, 07:43 AM	I think is a great advantage to a high level con 16 wizard. But think about a level 5 sorcerer with int 14 and con 12. It's not broken, it's just very good for some PC class, and an arcane spellcaster should be always far from getting melee range. Anyway, if you are a 7th level wizard con 18 you'd have: Concentration: 14 (10 ranks + 4 con) So you have 10% failure of casting a level 1 spell without AoO, i think is too much risk, specially because is not good beeing at melee range for a wizard.
ManTimeForgot 03-28-06, 08:13 AM	If a person is close enough to a wizard to melee the wizard, then he is boned. All you have to do is ready an action to attack while he is casting, and so long as you have made no other movement in the round you can make a five foot adjustment as part of your readied action so that even if he takes a 5 foot step before casting he isn't safe. Concentration and casting on the defensive are good, but it's not even close to broken. MTF
Ut-Napishtim 03-28-06, 08:28 AM	That's odd, I thought it was a full-round action, but after going through and looking it up I see that it is not. Even then, I'd agree it's not really overpowered. Avoiding an attack of opportunity is not avoiding all attacks, and if the caster is in melee those will be coming. As others have pointed out a smart foe will ready their normal attack to try and disrupt the spell that way as well. Add to that that it's generally not a 100% chance of success even with max ranks and I'd say it seems pretty fair to me.
Jarrad 03-28-06, 08:40 AM	I tend to agree with the majority... Avoiding an attack of opportunity is fine, but if that's an issue it means you're in melee range in any case, which is often bad news for a single-class arcane spellcaster. Yes, he can stick a Lightning Bolt in the face of the big bad fighter, but there are loads of things to balance that against. Firstly, the huge number of spells with Reflex saves. Unless you're up against a true tank (i.e., a heavily-armoured, slow-maneouvering bruiser) the chances are that they've got a good chance of making the save. A 10d6 damage spell at 10th level is only 35 points of damage on average; OK, you can hit lots of opponents but that's really not very much. If they make their saves, you're talking 18 points of damage. In the meantime, someone opening a large can o' whup-ass on your scrawny spellcasting butt is likely doing 10 points of damage or more per blow by around 10th level, and will - as others have said - probably hang around and wait to disrupt your spell. The ubiquitousness of Evasion means that the chances are any Reflex-save spells are only damaging a proportion of your opponents at all! Does this mean that Evasion is broken, or saving throws in general? No, just that it probably isn't much of an advantage to be standing in melee and throwing spells around. It's only in the case of melee touch-attack spells that you'd ever want to do that as a mage or sorceror, unless you're multi-classed... at which point, you won't have been able to max out your Concentration skill without taking a serious hit on other class skills. I've never seen this as a major problem. Clerics and Druids pose a bit more difficulty because they tend to have reasonable up-front combat skills with just a little self-donated enhancement, but even so their spells can be disrupted by someone waiting for them to start casting.
Someone 03-28-06, 12:05 PM	Just wanted to point out in your example, if you had a +5 or 6, and defensively casting a lvl 1 spell, you still have a 50/50 chance of losing the spell. Sure, there are feats that reduce this chance, but at first level its still risky.
solbergb 03-28-06, 01:29 PM	Ok lets see. #1 - ANY chance to lose your spell is often too much. While you can rig it to never fail a cast defensive concentration check, you will normally have to invest both a lot of constitution and a feat to make it happen, two feats if you really want it to work at low levels. #2 - do you REALLY want to stand next to monsters that can rip your head off? It is often far better to risk the AOO and fly/run out of reach and then cast. Casting defensively is only for situations where the AOO will prevent you from casting (it might trip you, still in reach, or grapple you, or just flat out kill you or weaken you so much that a cohort of the enemy will just kill you), or for when you are doing a touch or limited range spell and can't afford to change your position while casting. In those situations, a small chance of failure is better than not being able to do anything (or the risk of standing in threat is less than the risk of trying to move out of it, for those who autosucceed on the concentration) Casting defensively gives options, but it isn't total safety while casting spells. You are still fairly likely to be disrupted if the enemy is seriously trying to keep you from casting (readied actions, etc).
Peter Smile 03-29-06, 07:24 AM	Ok lets see. #1 - ANY chance to lose your spell is often too much. While you can rig it to never fail a cast defensive concentration check, you will normally have to invest both a lot of constitution and a feat to make it happen, two feats if you really want it to work at low levels. #2 - do you REALLY want to stand next to monsters that can rip your head off? It is often far better to risk the AOO and fly/run out of reach and then cast. Casting defensively is only for situations where the AOO will prevent you from casting (it might trip you, still in reach, or grapple you, or just flat out kill you or weaken you so much that a cohort of the enemy will just kill you), or for when you are doing a touch or limited range spell and can't afford to change your position while casting. In those situations, a small chance of failure is better than not being able to do anything (or the risk of standing in threat is less than the risk of trying to move out of it, for those who autosucceed on the concentration) Casting defensively gives options, but it isn't total safety while casting spells. You are still fairly likely to be disrupted if the enemy is seriously trying to keep you from casting (readied actions, etc). 100% agree. If a wizard gets at melee range with anything besides another wizard, the only thing he should try to do is to cast blink, or teleport or something like that. That's why he has a familiar for touch range offensive spells. The first lesson in magic school is: "If you can smell your enemy, you got too close!"
BW0222 03-29-06, 08:15 AM	felgrim_the_meek, From my experience... Chances At 1st-level, you might get a +7 without combat casting or skill focus (concentration). That's not even a 50% chance to get off a 1st-level spell. Even with a +10, you still have a 40% chance of failing. Yes, by 10th, you can be almost automatic (+17 or so), but even a 10% or 15% chance of failure on your high level spells is like having an arcane spell failure. If you at 10th-level and casting a 5th-level spell, how many times can you afford to have it fizzle? APL 10 combats typically go extremely bad when high-level spellcasters basically lose their turn. Easy to Avoid Particularly at lower levels, you can almost always 5' step back. Even at higher levels, it's rare when you can't 5' step. Dead Anyway If a wizard or sorceror can't 5' step back... that means he's pretty well dead anyway. At low levels, not many 1st-level spells would save him anyway and he might as well try for his staff to get him out or go total defensive and wait for rescue. At higher-levels, just move away (and take the AoO) and then cast from safety. If you are completely surrounded, you are likely dead. Few spells are going to drop 3-4 creatures and few APL 10+ creatures couldn't kill a wizard or sorceror in a round with full attacks. A cleric or druid would be better just to fighter their way out. And... if your opponents have any brains there are simple tactics to nerf spellcasters anyway. For example, a hill giant could ready an action to hit you when you cast. Ok, you avoid the AoO, but the readied action still triggers. The hill giant will hit and the 25+hp of damage will disrupt your spell even if you do survive. An opponent could also grapple you. i.e. if you can't survive the AoO, you have already failed by letting yourself get into that situation. Skill Points For most clerics, sorcerors, and even druids, concentration is an expensive skill. Again, maybe 1 in 20 lower-level combats it is necessary. At higher-levels, maybe 1 in 5. And most of this situations could be avoided just by playing smart. I actually rarely see folks who cast defensively. As a PC, when an NPC starts it, you just start readying actions and/or grappling.
knioen 03-29-06, 09:02 AM	In our group we felt that the DC 15 of both tumbling and casting defensively was rediciously easy to beat, so we have opted to go with opposed rolls for both skills, the opponent getting an attack roll vs. our skill check roll.
Gil Gwath 03-29-06, 09:05 AM	[...] Chances At 1st-level, you might get a +7 without combat casting or skill focus (concentration). That's not even a 50% chance to get off a 1st-level spell. Even with a +10, you still have a 40% chance of failing. Yes, by 10th, you can be almost automatic (+17 or so), but even a 10% or 15% chance of failure on your high level spells is like having an arcane spell failure. [...] Your math is strange. DC 16 for a 1st level spell. You assumed a +7 at 1st level, so the chanches to make it are 60% (40% of failure) If you have +10 the chance of failing are only 25%.
Peter Smile 03-29-06, 09:21 AM	So... if you think 40% chance of failure is easy to beat, why don't you use heavy armor?
FEADIN1 03-29-06, 09:41 AM	In our group we felt that the DC 15 of both tumbling and casting defensively was rediciously easy to beat, so we have opted to go with opposed rolls for both skills, the opponent getting an attack roll vs. our skill check roll. Quick killer for rogues :eek:
Judging Eagle 03-29-06, 10:21 AM	In our group we felt that the DC 15 of both tumbling and casting defensively was rediciously easy to beat, so we have opted to go with opposed rolls for both skills, the opponent getting an attack roll vs. our skill check roll. That's b/c you are using the skill wrong. 15 Tumble at one-half speed as part of normal movement, provoking no attacks of opportunity while doing so. Failure means you provoke attacks of opportunity normally. Check separately for each opponent you move past, in the order in which you pass them (player’s choice of order in case of a tie). Each additional enemy after the first adds +2 to the Tumble DC. If you're guys are being surrounded, they need to make a tumble check against every enemy to prevent them from getting an AoO. Also, if you are facing 2 or more enemies, the DC will keep increasing by +2 for every enemy pat the 1st. Meaning that you need to keep you ranks maxed all the time, and even then it probably won't be enough if you have to tumble past 4 or more enemies (DC 15 + 8 = DC 23 Tumble check for each enemy you want to tumble past). Being able to take 10 on tumble checks is really handy though.
Jarrad 03-29-06, 10:24 AM	In our group we felt that the DC 15 of both tumbling and casting defensively was rediciously easy to beat, so we have opted to go with opposed rolls for both skills, the opponent getting an attack roll vs. our skill check roll. Interesting... I house-ruled this ages ago. On the Tumble front, it's an opposed check in my games if you're dealing with intelligent (i.e. higher than animal intelligence) creatures, or anything with actual ranks in Tumble. Stupid monsters, vermin and the like - provided they have no actual abilities in this area - are just too dumb to try and figure out where you're going to be as you go plummeting through an adjacent square ;) In the unlikely event that the PC's come across something dumb that has ranks in Tumble, it would get a chance to stop them due to familiarity with the skill. The *minimum* DC though is always 15 - so if you're somersaulting your way past someone who makes a bad roll and comes out lower than this, you still have to beat 15 to get by them, although at higher levels that becomes largely irrelevant. I have occasionally house-ruled that some monsters are just too weird or insufficiently mobile to be able to interrupt a Tumble through an adjacent square with an attack, but this is rare. Oh, I've also house-ruled that you can't Tumble to avoid AoO's from anything you can't see. Even if you've worked out that something is in a particular square, I reckon that Tumble works as a really acrobatic version of old-fashioned dodging. You're flipping and twisting your body aside to avoid any sudden swings... if you've no idea what your opponent is doing, how they're holding their weapons, where they're looking, etc., then you can't effectively work out how to dodge any attack that might come in. :D I've never bothered nerfing casting defensively though; it's already a sacrifice for the caster to spend the skill points, and - as has already been pointed out - it's not something that any sane spellcaster would do except in extremis!
Yue Ryong 03-29-06, 01:57 PM	Really? I find that casting on the defensive is excellent. Actually, I normally only use it to throw out an Inflict Minor Wounds, with 3d6 of sneak attack damage on top, so maybe that's why I see little problem.
Kimokeo 03-29-06, 06:15 PM	As a DM I see nothing broken. When I have monsters with intelligence, they know mages can be dangerous. If I have enough creatures to play with, one is a sniper looking for a caster. Even a defensive casting character is subject to a sniper who is just waiting for a spell to be cast - it's called readying an action and they go just as the caster gets started. Anyway, even if a caster got up close in combat, their hitpoints normally are low and armor deficient to make nice, easy targets. DM's and how they play can make an act broken or not. The game is supposed to be challenging and those that play know enough that the normal doesn't exist in most settings.