Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Just another user 10-30-06, 08:25 AM	premise: Casting defensively is too good. A 10th level caster with a 10 constitution can cast defensively (CD from now) his higher level spell with a measly 30% chance failure with the Combat Casting feat and/or CON booster item (a must-have for most casters) this could even drop to a 10% or less, Personally I think it is too much, You could say I'm a oldschooler when it come to D&D, in previous editions a spellcaster hit for a single point of damage had to forfeit all spelcasting for the rest of the round, that maybe was to much but I wanted a rule that tried to imitate that felling. The first option is simple and, I think official, replace the semi-fixed DC of 15 + spell level with a DC equal to 10+enemy BAB + spell level, simple, efficent and to the point, of course it could not hve been enough. The second idea I had is more elaborate and still incomplete it consist of three parts a) remove Concentration from the skill lists of all the pure casters (exception would be possible, i.e. warmages, cleric with War domain and other appropriate, etc). b) put concentration in the skilll list of all meleers classes (fighter, rangers, barbarians, rogue? I'm not sure but let's say yes for now, etc, etc. c) not directly related to CD, but when a caster is take damage while casting he don't roll a concentration check but a straight caster level check. The better a caster you are the more you can stand "distractions" while casting. and that is it, the idea is that pure casters are not used to combat and then are not confortable casting spells while in combat, if they want to be good at it they should take levels in a class that is good in melee, else they should stay the hell away from melee, and it is not like they don't have ways to do that. Personally I like it as a stealth nerf of casters that is not too crippling, I hope. So, comments anyone? too powerful ,too weak, I'm forgetting something obvious, some suggestion for changes, anything at all?
OneSidedDice 10-30-06, 01:36 PM	I think the 10+BAB+spell level formula is too lenient at low levels and far too brutal at high levels fighting certain types of monsters. Against an orc, the DC is 11+spell level, easier than it would be ordinarily. Against something like a dragon, a foe that has a high HD total and gets one point of base attack for each of those hit dice, it's going to be impossible to get a spell off. A smart dragon will be able to use its reach to threaten enemy casters, and essentially prevent them from ever spellcasting. Their only recourse will be to move away and provoke an AoO, then try to cast the spell. This might be okay for clerics, who generally have the hit points and AC to weather a few attacks from a dragon, but is definitely not an acceptable option for arcane casters, who generally don't have very good ACs and can't stand dragon attacks. God help them if the dragon takes improved trip to keep them in place. Otherwise, I think it's probably not such a bad idea, and definitely makes Combat Casting a more useful feat. I never take that feat when I'm playing a caster, because as you've pointed out, a decent Con bonus and maxed Concentration will let you past most checks when you can't simply 5-ft adjust away. To address your other points: 1) I think this is, frankly, really stupid. The fact that spellcasters have combat spells on their spell lists clearly means that they expect to be in combat. Yes, they should stay the hell out of melee, and they do have ways to manage this, but sometimes things just don't work, or they've already used all their escape spells, or the enemy is just as mobile as they are and capable of chasing them if they fly, or following them if they dimension door, or whatever. Concentration is for situations like this. Yes, wizards don't belong in melee. Do they prepare themselves for what happens when they find themselves engaged despite their best efforts? Sure. It'd be stupid to do otherwise, and one thing about wizards: They aren't stupid. 2) I don't see the point of this. It'll help the few classes that have full BAB and cast spells (paladins and rangers), but you're going to have a hard time convincing me that a fighter is better at casting a spell under pressure than a wizard. Maybe your intent is to encourage casters to multiclass out into a warrior-type class, but that doesn't make any sense. Why should taking levels in fighter make you better at getting a spell off? If I proposed a change that would give fighters 1/2 BAB and wizards full BAB, would anyone support it? "Screw fighters! If they want to do better in combat, they should take wizard levels! It takes much more effort to aim spells than it does to fight physically, so wizards should have full BAB! Fighters should just stay out of combat, and if they want to be in there, take wizard levels!" I realize this is kind of a tongue-in-cheek example, but it's pretty similar to what you're proposing. You're taking a class feature from one class and moving it to another class where it doesn't really belong. 3) I'm not sure that this would significantly affect gameplay. In my experience, spellcasters are going to max their Concentration, which means their bonus will be at level+3+Con. If you do a caster level check, the bonus would be equal to their level. You're basically removing 3+Con from their Concentration check, probably a 4-5 point difference. I've hardly ever seen a caster have to make a check because he took damage while spellcasting; generally no one bothers to ready actions. Maybe things are different with your group. I do take issue with the fact that you're assuming that a higher-level caster is better than a lower-level caster at doing something that should be represented by a skill. For example: A higher-level cleric knows more about religion than a lower-level cleric, right? Well, no, not unless the higher-level cleric has more Knowledge (religion) ranks than the lower-level one. Also, another very important thing: Touch spells are going to become very, very unattractive if you start making defensive casting difficult or impossible. By their very nature, a touch spell is going to require you to be in melee range of an enemy, which means you will be in AoOville if you can't defensively cast. This means that touch spells are going to very frequently be lost due to the caster being damaged, or else the caster is going to have to take two rounds to use the spell: One to cast it, and then another to move into position and use it. This is very significant, because healing spells are touch spells. It's going to become a lot more difficult to get clerical aid if the cleric can't get a cure spell off.
Just another user 10-30-06, 05:11 PM	I think the 10+BAB+spell level formula is too lenient at low levels and far too brutal at high levels fighting certain types of monsters. Against an orc, the DC is 11+spell level, easier than it would be ordinarily. Against something like a dragon, a foe that has a high HD total and gets one point of base attack for each of those hit dice, it's going to be impossible to get a spell off. Yes, that is the idea, that orc would be DC12 a respectable difficulty at level one, and yet laughable at higher levels, like I think it would be appropriate (beside at higher levels you would have higher level orcs), The dragon OTOH is a force of nature, you should stay the heck away from him, and there are way to avoid the AoOs, invisibilty , mirror image, cover (just stand behind the fighter), etc.(ok, maybe it CR should be adjusted, but dragons have already a low CR for their power. 1) I think this is, frankly, really stupid. The fact that spellcasters have combat spells on their spell lists clearly means that they expect to be in combat. Yes, they should stay the hell out of melee, and they do have ways to manage this, but sometimes things just don't work, or they've already used all their escape spells, or the enemy is just as mobile as they are and capable of chasing them if they fly, or following them if they dimension door, or whatever. Concentration is for situations like this. Yes, wizards don't belong in melee. Do they prepare themselves for what happens when they find themselves engaged despite their best efforts? Sure. It'd be stupid to do otherwise, and one thing about wizards: They aren't stupid. Wait, are you arguing that wizards should have Concentration as a class skill because they could need it? Why not swimming? I mean, they could come in a situatioon where they need to swim, not prepare for it would be stupid nd wizards are not stupid. By that logic a fighter should have the ability to cast spells, because it is true that they are not supposed to , but sometime you are in a situation where weapons are not enough so you prepare for it and that's why the fighter class should be able to cast spells. 2) I don't see the point of this. It'll help the few classes that have full BAB and cast spells (paladins and rangers), but you're going to have a hard time convincing me that a fighter is better at casting a spell under pressure than a wizard. Maybe your intent is to encourage casters to multiclass out into a warrior-type class, but that doesn't make any sense. Why should taking levels in fighter make you better at getting a spell off? Concentration is used for other things behind casting spell(even if not enough, IMHO), the fighters are not better at casting spells in combat , they are better at stay focused while in combat, and this include spellcasting. OTOH wizards, that pass a large part of they life studying over dusty tomes and closed in magical research laboratories (or at least this is the standard archetype) should not be used to the confusion of combat, if you want a wizard used to combat make him take a couple levels of a fighter-like class, maybe it is just me, but I think it is logical. About what is the point, it should be balance a little casters against non casters, as things are now the only way to defeat an high level caster is to use another high level caster, I want to change that at least a little. The idea is that with this rule when a 20 level wizard is in melee with a level fighter he sweat at least a little rather than just defensively casting a repuslion/forcecage/time stop (just three randome example, please don't start to nitpick), depending on his mood/tactic and proced to destroy the fighter. If I proposed a change that would give fighters 1/2 BAB and wizards full BAB, would anyone support it? No, because it would be unbalanced. But most of your argument about my trules seems to be based on flavour more than game balance. 3) I'm not sure that this would significantly affect gameplay. In my experience, spellcasters are going to max their Concentration, which means their bonus will be at level+3+Con. If you do a caster level check, the bonus would be equal to their level. You're basically removing 3+Con from their Concentration check, probably a 4-5 point difference. I've hardly ever seen a caster have to make a check because he took damage while spellcasting; generally no one bothers to ready actions. Maybe things are different with your group. This is a good point, I'll think that I'll make it Casting level + bonus casting stat, (int,. wis or cha, depending on the class) I do take issue with the fact that you're assuming that a higher-level caster is better than a lower-level caster at doing something that should be represented by a skill. No, you see, as is it now it is represented by a skill, but it is just a design choice. There is no Inherent Reason it should be represent by a skill. Personally I like it better seeing as a function of raw power/magical ability, the better a wizard you are the more you can ignore the pain and cast the spell even while they are stabbing you into a kidney. Also, another very important thing: Touch spells are going to become very, very unattractive if you start making defensive casting difficult or impossible. You could just cast, move, touch, rather than move, cast, touch. (Usually touch spells have a duration of 1 round/level IIRC) or use spectral hand. Or make your familiar delivery the spell. IIRC there is a metamagic feat that let you cast touch spells at range As I mentioned there are exceptions, many of those would be prestige classes, take levels in one. if you don't want to multiclass. What I'm trying to say is that there are ways around it, it would be just a little bit harder but that is the idea. By their very nature, a touch spell is going to require you to be in melee range of an enemy, which means you will be in AoOville if you can't defensively cast. This means that touch spells are going to very frequently be lost due to the caster being damaged, or else the caster is going to have to take two rounds to use the spell: One to cast it, and then another to move into position and use it. This is very significant, because healing spells are touch spells. It's going to become a lot more difficult to get clerical aid if the cleric can't get a cure spell off. That is a good point, I must think about it. Thanks for the hints.
Ltheb Liadon 10-30-06, 06:13 PM	I would like to say that as a player, I tend to play spellcasters alot. Casting on the defensive is nice, but I have never really needed to do it. Ever. Not because I had leniant DMs or fought ranged attackers, but because I could put myself in places that made the likelyhood of foes attacking me next to 0. Planning and tactics should always be a caster's #1 priority. Falling back on die rolls that may or may not succeed is a gamble. As a DM, I will say that the casting on the defensive rule is too easy at mid-to-high levels. There are ways however to prevent this: 1- Hit them. Damage from the previous round requires making its own concentration check IIRC. 2- Ready actions to attack if they begin casting a spell. Combined with option 1, this ensures they will never get a spell off. 3- Grapple. If they escape your grapple on their turn, they can't cast that turn. Heck, combine this with option #2. I would say that in all the Casting on the Defensive option is too strong, but there are alot of ways around it.
Just another user 10-30-06, 06:41 PM	I would like to say that as a player, I tend to play spellcasters alot. Casting on the defensive is nice, but I have never really needed to do it. Ever. Not because I had leniant DMs or fought ranged attackers, but because I could put myself in places that made the likelyhood of foes attacking me next to 0. Planning and tactics should always be a caster's #1 priority. Falling back on die rolls that may or may not succeed is a gamble. As a DM, I will say that the casting on the defensive rule is too easy at mid-to-high levels. There are ways however to prevent this: 1- Hit them. Damage from the previous round requires making its own concentration check IIRC. 2- Ready actions to attack if they begin casting a spell. Combined with option 1, this ensures they will never get a spell off. 3- Grapple. If they escape your grapple on their turn, they can't cast that turn. Heck, combine this with option #2. I would say that in all the Casting on the Defensive option is too strong, but there are alot of ways around it. 1) sorry, you remember incorrectly, even damage from the actual turn doesn't count if is not dealt exactly when you cast (ready action or AoO),the exception is continual damage) 2) but expecially at high level this mean wasting other actions. If you have a fighter with an action ready is a full attack action that he can't use, it is like an hold person for free on the fighter and without saving throws. :) Beside I don't want for they to "never get a spell off", i want for them have a chance to fail when casting spell in melee, it is different 3) freedom of movement. and if you keep to send grapplers against him he will get it for sure, in spell or item. Or at worse use Still Spell.
OneSidedDice 10-30-06, 09:00 PM	The dragon OTOH is a force of nature, you should stay the heck away from him, and there are way to avoid the AoOs, invisibilty , mirror image, cover (just stand behind the fighter), etc.(ok, maybe it CR should be adjusted, but dragons have already a low CR for their power. I don't really think "you should just stay away from him" is a very good solution to monsters with massive BABs if you decide to use this system, especially not dragons, who are incredibly mobile and can cast their own spells, and are smart enough to know that a party without caster support poses a much smaller threat. Yes, there are ways to avoid AoOs, but they're not always available (the dragon might be big enough to make using the fighter as cover not a viable option) or effective (a dispel magic can knock out a mage's protections, leaving him vulnerable standing in the dragon's reach). What about a specialist wizard who bars illusion (I think most of the spells that can protect a character from AoOs come from here), a sorcerer who doesn't feel that he has the room for such spells in his limited selection, or a cleric who flat-out doesn't have access to them, excepting certain domain selections? "Don't go near a highly mobile, intelligent foe" doesn't really cut it for me. I totally agree that dragons and similarly powerful creatures should be significant and dangerous encounters, but a rules change shouldn't turn it into "Don't try to cast spells near these creatures, ever". Wait, are you arguing that wizards should have Concentration as a class skill because they could need it? Why not swimming? I mean, they could come in a situatioon where they need to swim, not prepare for it would be stupid nd wizards are not stupid. By that logic a fighter should have the ability to cast spells, because it is true that they are not supposed to , but sometime you are in a situation where weapons are not enough so you prepare for it and that's why the fighter class should be able to cast spells. Not quite. I'm arguing that wizards should have Concentration as a class skill because it's related to their role in combat, e.g. spellcasting. They're supposed to be able to cast spells, and cast spells well. No one expects a wizard to swim--that's the purview of the physically-oriented classes, just as no one expects a straight-up fighter to be casting spells. That's the wizard's job. Concentration is used for other things behind casting spell(even if not enough, IMHO), the fighters are not better at casting spells in combat , they are better at stay focused while in combat, and this include spellcasting. OTOH wizards, that pass a large part of they life studying over dusty tomes and closed in magical research laboratories (or at least this is the standard archetype) should not be used to the confusion of combat, if you want a wizard used to combat make him take a couple levels of a fighter-like class, maybe it is just me, but I think it is logical. The only thing I can think of that Concentration is used for other than spellcasting-related checks is, I believe, continuing to be able to drink a potion (or something like that) if you provoke an AoO for drinking it, and as a check made to resist a spell from the Spell Compendium. Oh, and I think there's a kensai ability that's Concentration-dependent. I haven't really looked through a lot of the splatbooks, though. Anyway, my point is that you seem to be confusing a character's emphasis on physical combat with his ability to "remain focused in combat", whatever that means. Maybe a wizard doesn't focus on going toe-to-toe with foes, but the fact that he's got those nice combat spells available to him means he knows how to use them in a combat environment. Yes, a wizard does spend time pouring over musty old tomes, so he has a higher starting age, but that doesn't mean he prepares for combat less than a fighter. He isn't as good at participating in it, but he definitely trains for it, which is why Concentration is on his list in the first place: to represent the fact that wizards have the capacity to train themselves well for spellcasting in less-than-ideal conditions. "Make him take some fighter levels" doesn't seem logical to me if you want a wizard to be "used to combat". Definitely a wizard should take fighter levels if he wants to be able to fight more effectively, or take more hits, but you seem to be equating "being used to combat" with "being able to cast a spell while threatened in melee". This is an assertion I do not agree with, but it seems to be the basis of your argument, which I think accounts for a lot of the confusion we're encountering while considering one another's arguments. :D I do agree that high-level casters are definitely capable of destroying equivalently leveled fighters without much the fighter can do about it, but I think this is less an issue with spellcasting in general and more an issue with certain spells in particular. No, because it would be unbalanced. But most of your argument about my trules seems to be based on flavour more than game balance. I think I didn't do a very good job of arguing my point here. I do feel that many of the changes you're proposing are unbalanced. In my (admittedly hyperbolic) example of shifting BAB progressions, you're taking the fighter's emphasis (physical combat) and shifting it to the wizard, upsetting class balance. By removing Concentration from the wizard's class list and adding it to the fighter's, you're shifting the emphasis of the wizard (spellcasting) to the fighter, similarly upsetting class balance. If you're concerned that spellcasters are overpowered and this change will nerf them, I think there are more elegant ways to achieve the solution without using a justification like "fighters are more used to the chaos of combat". Concentration not being a class skill for primary spellcasters will cripple them when they need to defensively cast, even if you don't adjust the DC. A 20th-level wizard will have 12 ranks in Concentration, and the DC to cast a 9th-level spell is 24. Even with a pretty good Con bonus, the wizard will still fail about half the time. Some chance for failure should be expected, but not a 50% fail rate. A wizard in melee is a bad enough situation without making him unable to cast to defend himself half the time. This is a good point, I'll think that I'll make it Casting level + bonus casting stat, (int,. wis or cha, depending on the class) This is actually likely to help casters in the long run, not hurt them. Every primary caster I've ever seen has had at least a 16 in his casting stat, a +3 modifier, so caster level + primary stat is generally going to be about the same as a max-rank class skill (3+level). Lower-level characters will miss out on the Con bonus, generally a point or two, but as they rise in level and can spend attribute points and money to increase their casting stat, it will ultimately give them a higher bonus than just Concentration would have. You could just cast, move, touch, rather than move, cast, touch. (Usually touch spells have a duration of 1 round/level IIRC) or use spectral hand. Or make your familiar delivery the spell. IIRC there is a metamagic feat that let you cast touch spells at range As I mentioned there are exceptions, many of those would be prestige classes, take levels in one. if you don't want to multiclass. What I'm trying to say is that there are ways around it, it would be just a little bit harder but that is the idea. Yeah, this was exactly my point. Touch spells aren't going to become useless, but they are going to be a lot less attractive. To address your points 1) This would mean the spell took two rounds to take effect: One round to cast the spell, and one round to move in and touch. Spending two rounds to essentially complete one action can be pretty harsh, especially if that spell you're trying to get off is a healing spell, which is generally needed immediately. 2) Spectral hand isn't available to non-arcane casters, and it's hard for a sorcerer to justify taking it unless he plans on making touch spells a theme. 3) Again, familiars are only available to arcane casters, and using them to deliver a touch spell is a good way to get them killed once enemies begin to notice this. 4) Yeah, I think the feat you're talking about is Reach Spell, but I believe that raises spell levels by two levels, which is a pretty harsh price to pay. Basically, making defensive casting more difficult means there are a lot of additional hoops to jump through for touch spells, which makes them unlikely to be selected. I think we're disagreeing largely on the shifting of Concentration as a class skill, which I feel does not make any sense and forces a failure rate that is likely to be far too high. I'd imagine the simplest thing to do would be just implement a flat DC increase, but I'm not sure if there's a really good formula for this. Maybe... Spell level: Defensive casting DC 0: 5 1: 8 2: 11 3: 14 4: 17 5: 20 6: 23 7: 26 8: 29 9: 31 This means that low-level spells are laughably easy to defensively cast, although there is still a minor chance of failure for someone who doesn't have Combat Casting or a high Con score. High-level spells become significant challenges, and the increased DCs encourage casters to take the Combat Casting feat. which I feel is pretty much worthless given current defensive casting DCs, and maybe even Skill Focus (Concentration). The "break-even" point between this system and the RAW is 5th-level spells, which I feel is about the point when spells move from the "cool" territory and start sliding toward "terrifying".
Ghenesh 10-30-06, 10:05 PM	In fact, 4th level spells are quite broken: The Orbs, Dimension Door, Divine Power, Freedom of Movement, Summon Natural Ally 4, Greater Invisibility, Enervation, Polymorph, just to name a few... i think level 4 is the breaking point, so i prefer this DC formula for casting defensively: 12 + 2*(Spell Level) Spell - Original - New Level DC DC 0 15 12 1 16 14 2 17 16 3 18 18 4 19 20 5 20 22 6 21 24 7 22 26 8 23 28 9 24 30 At first level, any (average) caster character should have maxed out Concentration ranks and maybe has 14 in Constitution, that's a +6, taking the feat Combat Casting increase this to +10... for this, making any casting defensively DC lower than 12 is out of the question.
Just another user 10-31-06, 03:37 PM	doesn't really cut it for me. I totally agree that dragons and similarly powerful creatures should be significant and dangerous encounters, but a rules change shouldn't turn it into "Don't try to cast spells near these creatures, ever". actually,"Don't go near a highly mobile, intelligent foe" sound just plain common sense to me, but I admit that using BAB is a little too extreme, How does 10+ half BAB + spell level, rounded up, sound? [...] "Make him take some fighter levels" doesn't seem logical to me if you want a wizard to be "used to combat". Definitely a wizard should take fighter levels if he wants to be able to fight more effectively, or take more hits, but you seem to be equating "being used to combat" with "being able to cast a spell while threatened in melee". This is an assertion I do not agree with, but it seems to be the basis of your argument, which I think accounts for a lot of the confusion we're encountering while considering one another's arguments. :D Well, yours are, I think, mostly flavor points and we must just agree to disagree, we have just different vision of what Concentration is and should be. But I admit that concentration in the game is underused, obviously is a skill that they created only to let casters cast in melee and didn't worry to give it some uses for non caster (BTW the potions thing don't work, concentration outside of magic works only with "use of skills that draw AoOs" that would be Heal and ...um... err. any other?) I do agree that high-level casters are definitely capable of destroying equivalently leveled fighters without much the fighter can do about it, but I think this is less an issue with spellcasting in general and more an issue with certain spells in particular. no, IMHO it is a issue with spellcasting, unless with "certain spells" you mean a good 50%+ of the existing spells. My opinion is that when they converted from 2nd to 3rd edition they removed some of the greater limitation that casters had (memorizzation time and vulnerabilty to damage over the others) and generally empowered spellcasting, eventually that brought to the Great Spells Nerfage of 3.5 but even after it casters are widely overpowered if paragoned to non-casters, and things go worse with every new sourcebooks. (FWIW I consder the classes of Tome of blades "spellcasters") Concentration not being a class skill for primary spellcasters will cripple them when they need to defensively cast, even if you don't adjust the DC. A 20th-level wizard will have 12 ranks in Concentration, and the DC to cast a 9th-level spell is 24. Even with a pretty good Con bonus, the wizard will still fail about half the time. Some chance for failure should be expected, but not a 50% fail rate. A wizard in melee is a bad enough situation without making him unable to cast to defend himself half the time. Yeah, the numbers need a little retouching (BTW Ghenesh I like your formula, the resulting probabilities are very near to what I'm searching to do), anyway the example of the 20 level wizard is exactly what I want. As is now you put a 20th level wizard in front of a 20th level fighter and he can cast any spells he know from 1st to 9th level with 100% chance of success, what I want is that he must choose if cast a high level spell with a high chance of failure or a lower level spell with a lesser effect but an higher chance to cast it successfully. Essentially I want a system that a) keep casters away from combat and b) if they are in combat force them to prefer lower level, simpler spells to high level complex one. This is actually likely to help casters in the long run, not hurt them. Every primary caster I've ever seen has had at least a 16 in his casting stat, a +3 modifier, so caster level + primary stat is generally going to be about the same as a max-rank class skill (3+level). Lower-level characters will miss out on the Con bonus, generally a point or two, but as they rise in level and can spend attribute points and money to increase their casting stat, it will ultimately give them a higher bonus than just Concentration would have. I know, that is the idea, is a compensation for the lower concentration check, in some situations a wizard could just choose cast the spell normally and just take the damage of the AoOs, hoping that it is not enough to disrupt the spell, it add to the game a choice between the risks to lose a spell casting defensively and losing hit points casting normally. Yeah, this was exactly my point. Touch spells aren't going to become useless, but they are going to be a lot less attractive. To address your points 1) This would mean the spell took two rounds to take effect: One round to cast the spell, and one round to move in and touch. Spending two rounds to essentially complete one action can be pretty harsh, especially if that spell you're trying to get off is a healing spell, which is generally needed immediately. 2) Spectral hand isn't available to non-arcane casters, and it's hard for a sorcerer to justify taking it unless he plans on making touch spells a theme. 3) Again, familiars are only available to arcane casters, and using them to deliver a touch spell is a good way to get them killed once enemies begin to notice this. 4) Yeah, I think the feat you're talking about is Reach Spell, but I believe that raises spell levels by two levels, which is a pretty harsh price to pay. 1)ok, even if I see nothing wrong with limiting some kind of spells (like touch) only to some kind of casters. 2) sorcerers can use wands of spectral touch, clerics have the betters armor class after fighter, they could just cast the spells and hope that they armor protect them, or they could use wands to cast healing in combat (now wands would be useful even for full casters. But I'm think that cleric with Concentration as class skill could be more common than I thought, after all. Actually I'm think to a further change to the rule and I'd like your opinion, what would you think if failing the concentration Check don't make you automatically lose the spells but just draw the AoOs as if it was cast normally? Basically, making defensive casting more difficult means there are a lot of additional hoops to jump through for touch spells, which makes them unlikely to be selected. a precisation, for touch spells in combat, and I think you are making it worse than it is, even if there was an umbalance it would not be too hard to compensate,DN is not a videogame, after all there is the guy behind the screen make corrections. First, the same rules would works even for NPCs and monsters, enemy spellcasters (or even some creatures with spell-like abilities) would be less of a problem, just send the barbarian near to them to say "hi" or even some summoned monsters adiacent to them and they would have the same problem casting spells as your casters have, seconds there are some easy way around the concentration check, for example, as i said, just use wands, now wands are not only for Rogues with UMD and utility spells, but even for full casters, a wand of dimension door or Spectral hand would be very common in a world with these rules (like could be other custom items, like a glove of spectral hand (x uses/day) or a metamagic rod of reach or a globe of spelltouching (it is a globe that stay confortably in the palm of a hand, it can be charged with a spell (with range touch only) with a full action that provoke AoOs,the charge last for 24 hours, the spell can be released like with a wand, you just use the globe to deliver the spell rather than your hand, but of course here we enter in more home rules territory) I'd imagine the simplest thing to do would be just implement a flat DC increase, but I'm not sure if there's a really good formula for this. Naw, Actually the simplest thing to do would be just move to another system. :)
Pellanor 10-31-06, 04:16 PM	Personally I don't see why you feel you need to change the system at all. Sure casting defensively is fairly easy. What's wrong with that? All that Casting Defensively represents is casting spells in such a manner that you are able to maintain a basic level of defence. Where I find that Concentration really plays a role is when a spellcaster gets hit when casting. Especially if they're casting a Summon Monster spell, or any other with a casting time of 1 round or longer. Nothing like watching a caster have to make a new concentration check for every time they get hit in a round. If you really feel a need to, then I would suggest just boosting the DC. Looking at Ghenesh chart, I like that method best. Though for the numbers you're looking at, i would consider even boosting the DC to 13 +3* spell level. That gives these results:Lvl Con Con Highest Base New Base New Check Lvl DC DC % % 1 14 +6 1 16 16 55% 55% 2 14 +7 1 16 16 60% 60% 3 14 +8 1 16 16 65% 65% 4 14 +9 2 17 19 65% 55% 5 14 +10 2 17 19 70% 60% 6 16 +12 3 18 22 75% 55% 7 16 +13 3 18 22 80% 60% 8 16 +14 4 19 25 80% 50% 9 16 +15 4 19 25 85% 55% 10 18 +17 5 20 28 90% 50% 11 18 +18 5 20 28 95% 55% 12 18 +19 6 21 31 95% 45% 13 20 +21 6 21 31 105% 55% 14 20 +22 7 22 34 105% 45% 15 20 +23 7 22 34 110% 50% 16 20 +24 8 23 37 110% 40% 17 20 +25 8 23 37 115% 45% 18 20 +26 9 24 40 115% 35% 19 20 +27 9 24 40 120% 40% 20 20 +28 9 24 40 125% 45%
OneSidedDice 10-31-06, 06:11 PM	Actually I'm think to a further change to the rule and I'd like your opinion, what would you think if failing the concentration Check don't make you automatically lose the spells but just draw the AoOs as if it was cast normally? I think this is a pretty fair means of compensating for the increased casting defensively DC, actually. It gives the wizard three "outs", basically, to avoid taking damage while spellcasting: 1) The defensive casting check. 2) His AC, and any other defensive measures he has in place (e.g. blur, mirror image). 3) His Concentration check to maintain the spell while taking damage during casting. The only potential issue I see here is that Combat Casting, IMO, isn't a very attractive feat compared to Skill Focus (Concentration) if you implement this change. Combat Casting will net you another +1 over Skill Focus when casting defensively, but Skill Focus will let you apply the bonus to your cast defensively and "maintain the spell" checks. Basically, with an increased defensive casting DC, there's a pretty good chance it'll apply twice in one round, whereas Combat Casting will only apply once, at +1 more. I'm not sure how you could make Combat Casting a competitive feat again. Maybe significantly increase the bonus, or make it like Spell Mastery that lets you cast a certain number of spells without provoking an AoO.
Pellanor 10-31-06, 07:06 PM	Skill Focus(Concentration) is already preferred to Combat Casting for the reason that the Combat Casting check is so low. Typically the only reason to take CC over SF is if you need if for a PrC. Perhaps if it gave a Dodge bonus to AC in any round that you defensively cast a spell (even just a +1) that might make it more appealing. As for changing the effects of failing your check. If you change it so that failing the check causes you to provoke an AoO then there's no reason for you not to Cast Defensively. At the moment you have to weight the odds of making the check vs the odds of you just losing the spell. For example, currently if you're up against a target who averages less than five damage per blow, then the concentration check DC to cast the spell after being hit (assuming they do indeed hit) is going to typically be lower than the DC to cast defensively in the first place. In that case you're more likely to lose the spell by casting defensively. With your change there would never be a reason to not cast defensively, regardless of the odds of failure.
Just another user 11-01-06, 04:36 PM	I think this is a pretty fair means of compensating for the increased casting defensively DC, actually. It gives the wizard three "outs", basically, to avoid taking damage while spellcasting: 1) The defensive casting check. 2) His AC, and any other defensive measures he has in place (e.g. blur, mirror image). 3) His Concentration check to maintain the spell while taking damage during casting. The only potential issue I see here is that Combat Casting, IMO, isn't a very attractive feat compared to Skill Focus (Concentration) if you implement this change. Combat Casting will net you another +1 over Skill Focus when casting defensively, but Skill Focus will let you apply the bonus to your cast defensively and "maintain the spell" checks. Basically, with an increased defensive casting DC, there's a pretty good chance it'll apply twice in one round, whereas Combat Casting will only apply once, at +1 more. I'm not sure how you could make Combat Casting a competitive feat again. Maybe significantly increase the bonus, or make it like Spell Mastery that lets you cast a certain number of spells without provoking an AoO. Remember that I plan to use it with the other house rules mentioned, the check for "maintain the spell while taking damage" would be Casting Level + relevant Stat bonus, not Concentration. As for changing the effects of failing your check. If you change it so that failing the check causes you to provoke an AoO then there's no reason for you not to Cast Defensively. At the moment you have to weight the odds of making the check vs the odds of you just losing the spell. For example, currently if you're up against a target who averages less than five damage per blow, then the concentration check DC to cast the spell after being hit (assuming they do indeed hit) is going to typically be lower than the DC to cast defensively in the first place. In that case you're more likely to lose the spell by casting defensively. With your change there would never be a reason to not cast defensively, regardless of the odds of failure. Good point, of course I don't see it necessarily as a bad thing, it is just that Casting Defensively would be the standard way to cast while threatened. Else I could go with this,failing to Cast Defensively don't make you waste the spell you would have cast, but make you still lose a Standard Action. This together with the increased "damage thresold" (so to speak), should compensate for the higher concentration checks. You were right, Onesideddice the higher chances to lose a spell would be a ***** for casters, but this should make things hard enough, without making them unplayable (maybe) So to sum it up. remove Concentration skill from pure casters skill lists (some exceptions possble) add Concentration skills to class lists of good melee classes. Checks to mantain skills while taking damage is 1d20 + Casting Level + Casting Stat Bonus with a DC of 10 + damage + spell level Failing to cast defensively don't use the spell/spell slot, but use a standard action. What I'm missing now? :)