Post/Author/DateTime	Post
_Radagast_ 11-02-07, 01:00 PM	Hi all, I have some issues with Casting Defensively and I was wondering if I could get some advice. The problem is, I've been running a campaign for several months now and we've reached a level where most of the casters have a high enough concentration to pass the DC easily, except maybe on a roll of 1 or something. The problem is that, it takes time to ask for this roll, most of the time they pass, but if I don't ask for the roll, there's no risk whatsoever in casting a spell in the face of an enemy. Should I just abandon this rule entirely? Let the casters cast without AoO? or What? Or, is there something I am overlooking? Has anyone ran into this problem? Thanks.
AlanBruce 11-02-07, 01:12 PM	Casting defensively requires a Concentration check. According to the PHB, a natural 1 or 20 on a skill check is not automatic success or failure, so yes, as the caster reaches higher levels and pumps more points into the Concentration skill (plus any relevant feats), there should be a point when he doesn't even need to roll a check when threatened to cast his spells (mostly the lower level ones). Of course, the above scenario changes dramatically if the caster's enemy has readied actions against him of if the caster is in a grapple.
BW0222 11-02-07, 01:17 PM	_Radagast_, Has anyone ran into this problem? Yes. It is fairly common at high levels. You get the same with high tumble checks, spellcraft checks, etc. Eventually, even if you roll a 1, you can't fail. Folks do need to roll, unless they can't fail (i.e. they have 14+spell level already). Otherwise you are just wasting time. The exception is if something else is happening which adjusts the DC. This isn't typically the case with concentration, so you just rule that they success (without wasting time rolling) unless something unusual happens - such as being hit by a readied action during spell casting which requires a roll.
MrCustomer 11-02-07, 01:18 PM	Casting Defensively allows them to cast the spell without AoO, however they are still prone to being attacked normally and being flanked, etc. In the end the risks for a caster to be in close combat with the enemy is high enough already just being there. Remember that casting a spell takes time, so the melee will likely happen first, the caster is very likely to get take a hit before they get the spell cast, even without the AoO, and will need to make a concentration check just to continue casting. I don't think I see a problem with a caster having a ow risk of being attacked twice per round, he is already in enough danger at that point. As for asking for the roll, it shouldn't take time. leave it up to the players to make the roll when they declare they are casting defensively. If they don't roll the dice by their turn then don't ask them to, just assume they failed.
MrCustomer 11-02-07, 01:22 PM	_Radagast_, Yes. It is fairly common at high levels. You get the same with high tumble checks, spellcraft checks, etc. Eventually, even if you roll a 1, you can't fail. Folks do need to roll, unless they can't fail (i.e. they have 14+spell level already). Otherwise you are just wasting time. I treat natural "1"s as auto failing similairly as I treat a natural "20" as a auto-success, so the caster will always have a small chance of provoking an attack when casting defensively, no matter what his skill is.
BW0222 11-02-07, 01:59 PM	MrCustomer I treat natural "1"s as auto failing similairly as I treat a natural "20" as a auto-success, so the caster will always have a small chance of provoking an attack when casting defensively, no matter what his skill is. You shouldn't. First, it wastes time. High level combat is already slow enough -- each round requiring so many rolls -- that you don't want to slow things down with the 1 in 20 events. Second, you can't afford such failures at high levels. Higher level combats only last a few (4-5) rounds and opponents are insanely deadly. If a 14th-level wizard is next to a demon and he fails to get his d-door way, he is dead the next round. If the 14th-level cleric can't get his heal spell off, the fighter dies the next round. Third, it favors NPCs. If an opponent fails... they die a bit sooner. They are expected to die a large percentage of the time even if they succeed. However, the PCs have to endure this failure chance hundreds of thousands of times. A PC cleric might make hundreds of these rolls and Forth, it opens up cheesy tactics. Forcing high-level casters to make repeated checks, not because they could fail them, but because the 5% taken to the power of X becomes significant. i.e. run kobolds next to a 20th-level caster, hit him with a melf's, and have six kobolds readying tossing rocks at him. 95% * 95% * 95% ... = 10%. Part of the balance of the game is that high-level casters can get off their spells in melee. Considering that fact that if they don't, they are likely dead the next round -- most EL 15 monsters toss out 150hp+ of damage per round or so -- failing even 1 in 20 times is pretty deadly considering the number of times they will be subjected to it.
_Radagast_ 11-02-07, 02:57 PM	Good post BWO. That all makes sense.
Prince_of_Parkness 11-02-07, 03:41 PM	Theres also the problem with the auto suceed on 20. "Im gona spend 2 minutes take a 20 on this so ill spot something that no party under epic level could" and so one
MrCustomer 11-02-07, 05:59 PM	Prince_of_Parkness, take 20 is not the same as roling a natural 20, think of it as rolling a 10 with a +10 modifier. 1 is a failure, the issue where it becomes more dangerous for PCs then NPCs is when the DM starts making it a Critical Failure, that is, you roll a 1 on your attack roll so the DM says you drop your sword or accidently hurt yourself with it. In this case it is only provoking an attack of Opportunity, which is the natural risk of casting while in melee combat. You could alternatively use the +/- 20 rule, where rolling a "1" results in -20 to your roll, and a "20" with a +20 to your roll, as the DMG varient rule suggests. In this case a level 15 PC rolling a 1 on concentration check with a skill modifier of 24, will get a total of 5, still a failure in most cases but in many skill ckecks not a complete flub either.
Bauglir 11-02-07, 06:14 PM	Of course, Skills don't auto-succeed OR auto-fail. You just roll.
Neutronium_Dragon 11-02-07, 06:49 PM	> Remember that casting a spell takes time, so the melee will likely happen first, > the caster is very likely to get take a hit before they get the spell cast, even > without the AoO, and will need to make a concentration check just to > continue casting. Unless you're casting a one-round action spell, your spell goes off on your own turn. There's no "before" of any consequence, nor are melee attacks inherently more likely to take place before spellcasting. Damage only matters if it's taken during the casting, so if there's no AoO, then only a readied action is going to present the danger of being hit during casting. Unlike old-E, damage taken prior to your turn has no effect on your casting.
Prince_of_Parkness 11-02-07, 06:53 PM	Prince_of_Parkness, take 20 is not the same as roling a natural 20, think of it as rolling a 10 with a +10 modifier. 1 is a failure, the issue where it becomes more dangerous for PCs then NPCs is when the DM starts making it a Critical Failure, that is, you roll a 1 on your attack roll so the DM says you drop your sword or accidently hurt yourself with it. In this case it is only provoking an attack of Opportunity, which is the natural risk of casting while in melee combat. You could alternatively use the +/- 20 rule, where rolling a "1" results in -20 to your roll, and a "20" with a +20 to your roll, as the DMG varient rule suggests. In this case a level 15 PC rolling a 1 on concentration check with a skill modifier of 24, will get a total of 5, still a failure in most cases but in many skill ckecks not a complete flub either. I was merely using that as a way of poitning out the disadvantages of an auto succeed system. Plus cn u find anything to back that up? The way I read it, taking a twenty is a time saving way of rolling until u get a twenty, so it should be exactly the same.
Cifer 11-02-07, 10:12 PM	Prince_of_Parkness, take 20 is not the same as roling a natural 20, think of it as rolling a 10 with a +10 modifier. Of course it's not the same as rolling a natural 20 - it's rolling as long as it takes you to roll that 20 (for brevity's sake assumed to be 20 tries). However, under normal rules that doesn't matter since there's nothing making a 20 different from a 10+10 when checks are concerned. As BW pointed out, you don't need critical failure rules to make a failure on what should have been an auto-success critically important - both with Tumble and with Concentrate.
Marcus Majarra 11-03-07, 02:13 AM	Prince_of_Parkness, take 20 is not the same as roling a natural 20, think of it as rolling a 10 with a +10 modifier. 1 is a failure, the issue where it becomes more dangerous for PCs then NPCs is when the DM starts making it a Critical Failure, that is, you roll a 1 on your attack roll so the DM says you drop your sword or accidently hurt yourself with it. In this case it is only provoking an attack of Opportunity, which is the natural risk of casting while in melee combat. You could alternatively use the +/- 20 rule, where rolling a "1" results in -20 to your roll, and a "20" with a +20 to your roll, as the DMG varient rule suggests. In this case a level 15 PC rolling a 1 on concentration check with a skill modifier of 24, will get a total of 5, still a failure in most cases but in many skill ckecks not a complete flub either. Automatic success and failure on skill checks leads to odd results, such as leaping from one edge of the continent to the other on an average of 20 rolls. As it is, skill check results have a level of success that can be measured, which is why there is no such thing as automatic success and failure when it comes to skill checks. In fact, these rules exist only for attack rolls and saving throws, as a general rule.
Echodork 11-03-07, 02:39 AM	Agreed, ruling auto-success on a natural 20 for skills is a bad idea. What you're saying is, no matter how hard the task in front of the character, he can succeed if he tries it 20 times. Need to pick the lock on the royal vault without lockpicks? Looking for one misshapen gold piece in a dragon's horde? Trying to forge the king's royal seal? Climb a wall of force? Balance on a thread of spider's silk? Bluff the Illithid Elder Brain? With auto-success in the game, all of these are possible to characters of any level, as long as they try enough times.
navar100 11-03-07, 04:10 AM	All that casting defensively does is allow a spellcaster to cast a spell without provoking an attack of opportuniy, nothing more, nothing less. The character dedicated skill points towards the privilege. A spellcaster with 14 CON, maxing the skill, and spend two feats on Skill Focus Concentration and Combat Casting is able to cast any spell defensively on a roll of 1 starting at level 4 - useful for a cleric or druid who tend to be in melee a lot, a huge investment for a wizard or sorcerer who don't like to be in melee. It's not such a big deal. It's only an attack of opportunity.
runestar 11-03-07, 07:34 AM	Automatic success and failure on skill checks leads to odd results, such as leaping from one edge of the continent to the other on an average of 20 rolls. As it is, skill check results have a level of success that can be measured, which is why there is no such thing as automatic success and failure when it comes to skill checks. In fact, these rules exist only for attack rolls and saving throws, as a general rule. :rofl: Darn, you beat me to it. I was going to mention how a wizard with 1 rank in diplomacy could in theory, succeed on that dc150 diplomacy check to turn a foe into a fanatic follower on a natural 20.:D I would say to just give it to your players.
prawn 11-03-07, 10:47 AM	Okay! House rule time In my game, the concentration roll to cast defensively is an opposed roll. It is opposed by the attacker's BAB plus dex bonus. This means that a high level guy could stand and cast with no problem in front of some low level mooks, but against a high level fighter or someone with a high dex, there's a greater change you'll fail. This makes sense to me. Don't like my house rule? There are other solutions: Have the attackers use their ready actions to attack when spell casting begins. Have them grapple Have attacks like acid arrow which deal damage each round. Make combat more interested by adding things that modify the concentration check: howling winds, an enemy bard, have them be on slick terrain so they need a low DC balance check AND a concentration check. All of these things can make life more interesting. Don't go out of your way to nerf your spell casters, but do things to make their skill in concentrating matter more and be more interesting.
BW0222 11-03-07, 11:13 AM	prawn In my game, the concentration roll to cast defensively is an opposed roll. ... Opposed rolls in combat are insanely time consuming. Counter tumble rules (used in some settings) already slow combat down to the point WotC specifically didn't include them in 3.5. So what if he can cast away at will at those levels? The game takes this into consideration. Opponents at higher levels can easily kill a wizard in a round or two without breaking a sweet. They have resistances, spell resistance, insane saving throws, their own special abilities, and often enough hit points for the caster to blast away for many rounds. As you pointed out, there are already lots of ways to make life difficult for a caster.
prawn 11-03-07, 08:45 PM	As you pointed out, there are already lots of ways to make life difficult for a caster. I agree they are time consuming, but the point is, is it worth it? I think so, because it makes the game more interesting. It makes the wizards think more strategically and adds drama when they are not sure if they can get a spell off when a powerful opponent runs up to them. We have done other things to speed up play, but we have found this rule doesn't slow us down. Spellcasters are more careful and usually don't cast when threatened in my game. WHen they do, it adds nice tension because of our house rule. I am not adcovating this rule for everyone, and in my post I gave several other methods for making casting in combat more interesting such as readied attacks and such P
runestar 11-03-07, 09:16 PM	Don't like my house rule? There are other solutions: I really could care less, you know. It is your game, not mine...
danielinthewolvesden 11-03-07, 11:32 PM	There's a feat (CW?)and I think a PrC that stops a Spellcaster from Casting defensively. No reason a few bad guys can't have that Feat. It's pretty good for non-spellcasters.
prawn 11-04-07, 06:39 AM	I really could care less, you know. It is your game, not mine... If you don't care to listen to other people's opinion, why do you spend time reading these forums where the whole point is for people to share their opinions?
Neutronium_Dragon 11-04-07, 07:04 AM	To the OP: I've run into it, but it isn't a problem. It's how the system was intended to work. By that level, being able to cast defensively just isn't intended to be a big challenge anymore.
danielinthewolvesden 11-04-07, 12:57 PM	If you don't care to listen to other people's opinion, why do you spend time reading these forums where the whole point is for people to share their opinions? Houserules are not a way to fix problems, they are a way to make more problems. Sometimes they work for a particular DM and group, but no one ever takes a list of another DM's houserules and adopts it as his own. There is a special forum for Houserules. It is one of the least popular forums around. Folks just do not care to read lists of other DM's houserules. That's not to say that here in "What's a DM to Do?" a particulat Hopuserule could nopt be brought up and discussed, if that DM wanted input on a problematic houserule.
prawn 11-04-07, 07:33 PM	I posted my house rule, and said if you didn't like it fine, here are several other fixes with in the rules as written. That doesn't seem like a problem to me. I was trying to help the OP, who didn't seem to object.
rikimaru75 11-04-07, 08:16 PM	For my current campaign that I run, I use the epic skill level checks mentioned in the Epic Level Handbook. This essentially makes 1s and 20s chances to make the impossible possible and to mess up in an amazingly funny way because they of the cumulative rolling aspect of it.
runestar 11-04-07, 08:53 PM	If you don't care to listen to other people's opinion, why do you spend time reading these forums where the whole point is for people to share their opinions? Because like I said, it is your game, your problem, not mine. You play it your way, I don't interfere. I have never had an issue with defensive casting always having 100% success rate past mid lvs, and doubt that I ever will. Which is why I don't bother with your houserule, which by your tone, sounds like you plan on implementing in your game regardless of what we say, so why should I bother?:confused:
navar100 11-06-07, 02:14 AM	It's only to avoid an AoO. I just don't see how so uberpowerful the game cannot be played with it is, even when the bad guys do it. They can already take a 5ft step away if they don't want to roll. If they are wanting to cast defensively, chances are they woudn't be moving away more than 5ft anyway.
BW0222 11-06-07, 02:53 AM	prawn, I agree they are time consuming, but the point is, is it worth it? I think so, because it makes the game more interesting. It makes the wizards think more strategically and adds drama when they are not sure if they can get a spell off when a powerful opponent runs up to them. No it is not worth it. You have to look up everyone threatening the caster. The caster then rolls and each of the creatures then has to roll. That is often flipping back through pages and/or combat cards, going around the table and asking and then waiting for PCs to make rolls, etc. It also statistically nerfs casters. It is assumed at higher levels that casters get to a point where they always get their spells off -- because at higher levels the monsters aren't missing casters and are dropping them significantly faster also. A goblin might take five rounds to drop a 1st-level cleric. A fire giant won't take three rounds to drop a 10th-level cleric. He won't miss have the time, he attacks multiple times per round, and he does far more damage when he hits. At 1st-level the cleric can afford to have a few spells fizzle. At 10th-level, the cleric is highly unlikely to get a second chance to cast a spell. The fact that concentration checks are assumed to succeed at higher levels is a balancing factor in the game. We have done other things to speed up play, but we have found this rule doesn't slow us down. Spellcasters are more careful and usually don't cast when threatened in my game. WHen they do, it adds nice tension because of our house rule. Of course it slows combat down. It is at least rolls instead of one, often nearly every round in higher-level combats. It is re-looking up each of the monsters and re-figuring their attack rolls. Repeated rolls and counter rolls are known to be extremely time consuming. WotC is doing a lot in 4.0 to remove such things -- even to the point that it looks like saving throws are out.
Neutronium_Dragon 11-06-07, 04:46 AM	From what they've said, it sounds like defensive casting rolls and spell interruption in general are gone too.
Ayra 11-06-07, 07:43 AM	BW has an excellent point and I'm quite sure that it was intended the way he explains it. Skill checks are simply not made for natural 1's and 20's. You have to roll over a DC and if you roll higher than that DC, you may get added benefits or different effects. Having to do so many rolls in a combat round is very annoying, especially for other players who aren't casters. If you want to have the caster fail, you could prepare a ready action to shoot the caster whenever he starts casting. That's a much more secure way to get him to fail. You can easily assume that mid-level casters are proficient enough with their lower level spells to cast them in combat while still being able to focus on the combat field.
Cifer 11-06-07, 11:20 AM	I agree they are time consuming, but the point is, is it worth it? I think so, because it makes the game more interesting. It makes the wizards think more strategically and adds drama when they are not sure if they can get a spell off when a powerful opponent runs up to them. I doubt the strategy part - it's strategical if they can make sure noone readies an action to whack away at them. Making it an opposed roll add chance to the game, not strategy. Houserules are not a way to fix problems, they are a way to make more problems. Sometimes they work for a particular DM and group, but no one ever takes a list of another DM's houserules and adopts it as his own. I'd deem that to be incorrect. There are several houserules I've found on the boards that seem quite sensible, which is why I ran them by my group and adopted them. Repeated rolls and counter rolls are known to be extremely time consuming. WotC is doing a lot in 4.0 to remove such things -- even to the point that it looks like saving throws are out. If Star Wars Saga is any judge, they're streamlining things by giving static defense values which have to be breached by the attacker's roll. More like Spell Resistance and Armor Class than Saves. IMO, it's more like shifting around who has to make the roll instead of abandoning it altogether.
BW0222 11-06-07, 11:37 AM	Cifer >Repeated rolls and counter rolls are known to be extremely time consuming. >WotC is doing a lot in 4.0 to remove such things -- even to the point that it >looks like saving throws are out. If Star Wars Saga is any judge, they're streamlining things by giving static defense values which have to be breached by the attacker's roll. More like Spell Resistance and Armor Class than Saves. IMO, it's more like shifting around who has to make the roll instead of abandoning it altogether. At the World D&D Game Day, the WotC kit included figs to hand out which included 3.5 character sheets and 4.0 cards. Saves are indeed listed as 16, 15, 13, etc. with notes such as +2 vs. enchantment, or +4 vs. poison. I suspect they'll have the caster make a single roll and use that vs. all the DCs rather than separate rolls vs. each. The advantage of having the attacker make one roll, vs. waiting for multiple defenders to each make a roll is a rather large time saving. I suspect WotC is going to go a long way towards ensuring that no one makes a roll if it isn't their initiative. However, that is a different topic. Home rule for concentration checks to cast defensively is an even worse idea than the counter tumble rules used in some systems. I'd reject it since it both nerfs the caster at higher levels and because it effectively doubles the number of rolls folks need to make.
Cifer 11-06-07, 12:33 PM	I suspect they'll have the caster make a single roll and use that vs. all the DCs rather than separate rolls vs. each. The advantage of having the attacker make one roll, vs. waiting for multiple defenders to each make a roll is a rather large time saving. Good point.
bospone 11-07-07, 08:57 AM	I feel that the Casting Defensively rule is very vague all together. The rule states that all you need to do is roll a concentration check DC = 15 + Spell Level without suffering an attack of Oppurtunity. Yeah it may seem straight forward, but if it were this easy then why not always cast defensively. I mean a concentration check DC = 10 + Spell Level + Dmg dealt might be easier at earlier levels and not at higher levels. Why have this rule at all while Casting Defensively is far superiour to this rule. Honestly I feel that the rule implies that you are casting defensively (casting on yourself). If you look at the trend in the D20 rule system when you Fight Defensively you suffer a -4 to attack and gain +2 to AC. When you take Total Defense you gain +4 AC, but can't attack this round. If I a subject were invisible (a defense spell) I can do all kinds of action that are not attacks, but as soon as an attack is raised the subject becomes visible. So then why would I ever not cast Defensively if there is no penalty for doing so, seriously? In my game sessions I use the Casting Defensively rule as a tool to cast aiding spells in combat, such as healing, buffs (aid, prayer, bull's strength, ex), or any other type of spells that is not an attack action. It just doesn't make sense to have to make a regular concentration check (DC=10+Spell LVL+DMG) ever unless this rule implies how I have implemented. Does anyone else use this rule in this fashion, or do you just allow the rule to bypass the Concentration check for casting spells in melee?
BW0222 11-07-07, 09:59 AM	bospone I feel that the Casting Defensively rule is very vague all together. The rule states that all you need to do is roll a concentration check DC = 15 + Spell Level without suffering an attack of Oppurtunity. And how is that vague? It is clear, simple, and straight forward. Yeah it may seem straight forward, but if it were this easy then why not always cast defensively. ... Why have this rule at all while Casting Defensively is far superiour to this rule. It is a balancing factor. At low-levels, it is more difficult to cast defensively because you don't need to. You can usually 5'-step, you can just take the AoO and hope that they miss, you can give up your action and do something else, you can cast defensively and even if it fails expect to be around next round to try again, etc. If you are an 2nd-level wizard facing an orc, no big deal if you can't cast defensively. He only has about a 50% of hitting you and he likely can't kill out outright. However, at high levels, no monster will every miss a wizard and most will kill him (or come close) in a single round. You are less likely to be able to 5' step away or be able to withdraw due to reach. Finally, combat at higher levels takes fewer rounds so you don't have the opportunity not waste spells. In a four round combat, you can't afford to fail in casting spells half the time. So then why would I ever not cast Defensively if there is no penalty for doing so, seriously? You wouldn't. It is a balancing issue to counter the fact that the monsters are doing far better at higher levels. Example 1: in a low-level combat, a group of 2nd-level PCs (fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue) are facing a group of orcs. Each PC ends up with an orc in front of them. Now, the orc with the fighter might take say eight rounds to drop the fighter (say 40% chance to hit, and needing about to damage him about three times), say six on the cleric, four on the rogue, and say three on the wizard. The cleric and wizard can easily 5' step, but even if they couldn't, not being able to cast a spell really isn't that bad. No one is assured of dying the next round because of it. Example 2: a group of 12th-level PCs (fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue) are facing four six-heady pyro-hydras. Each PC ends up with one in front of them. Now, the hydra can drop the fighter in say four rounds, the cleric and rogue in say three, and the wizard in one or two rounds. The casters can't five foot step. Because combat is now halved, you can no longer afford to have spells fail anymore. The fact that casting defensively is automatic at higher levels, only balances the fact that the enemies killing you in shorter numbers of rounds is almost automatic.
PhaedrusXY 11-07-07, 12:47 PM	1 is a failure, the issue where it becomes more dangerous for PCs then NPCs is when the DM starts making it a Critical Failure, that is, you roll a 1 on your attack roll so the DM says you drop your sword or accidently hurt yourself with it. In this case it is only provoking an attack of Opportunity, which is the natural risk of casting while in melee combat.If they fail a concentration check to cast defensively, they don't just draw an AoO. They lose the spell.
Neutronium_Dragon 11-07-07, 02:06 PM	Under the standard rules, no. If you fail at defensive casting you just lose the spell. No AoO happens. The suggestion above would be that a 1 is a critical failure and also causes an AoO.