PDA

View Full Version : [3.X]Would removing defensive casting be too unfair/unfun?



Oslecamo
2009-12-21, 07:08 AM
Partialy based from this thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135755)

The thing is simple. Unlike 2e and 4e, in 3e casters can do "defensive casting". By suceeding in an easy(and at medium-high levels, auto suceed) skill check, they never cause aoos no matter how threatened they are.

In 2e this would allow the wizard enemies to easily disrupt spells if they were close enough, in particular because powerfull magic also took several turns to cast.

In 4e castes don't give a damn because even if they eat the aoo they still cast their spell, and they have plenty of close range spells that don't provoke at all.

But this is 3.X we're talking about. Do you think that removing defensive casting would change anything? And if yes, change for better or worse?

Now I'm perfectly aware that this alone won't make everything balanced, as blah blah fly blah blah invisibility blah blah but hey, the small things also matter!

The main question here is, would it be fun for the players? The houserule would apply to SLAs as well, so altough the monsters can disrupt the party more easily, so can the fighter disrupt the monsters better now.

Would wizard and cleric players don't mind too much having to get out of enemy reach before casting their uber stuff?

Discuss.

paddyfool
2009-12-21, 07:16 AM
For reasons given this would mostly matter at low levels, when casters are less overpowered anyway, so I don't think it would remove the fundamental issue. However, I have to confess there is a temptation to make "Defensive" a +1 metamagic.

Lioness
2009-12-21, 07:17 AM
Personally, I like defensive casting. From the point of view of a caster here...

If I end up right in front of something massive with a 10ft reach, and I can't take a 5ft step backwards to get out of its reach, I don't want to provoke an attack of opportunity. Because, frankly, my AC is low, and I'd probably die in one hit, if it rolled well.

So I defensively cast, and then hope someone else takes care of its attack of opportunity for me.

jmbrown
2009-12-21, 07:19 AM
I absolutely hate concentration but instead of removing defensive casting altogether you should combine it with fighting defensive. The caster's concentration check is for increasing his AC while casting, not to completely negate an AoO. DC remains the same but if he beats it he gets a +2 to his AC (+4 if he spends the full round casting like total defense).


Personally, I like defensive casting. From the point of view of a caster here...

If I end up right in front of something massive with a 10ft reach, and I can't take a 5ft step backwards to get out of its reach, I don't want to provoke an attack of opportunity. Because, frankly, my AC is low, and I'd probably die in one hit, if it rolled well.

So I defensively cast, and then hope someone else takes care of its attack of opportunity for me.

And from the point of view of everyone else: run away and reposition yourself like any other character has to do. Concentration made wizards go from glass cannons in prior editions to nuclear bombs. By level 10 and with a few cheap magic items a wizard with the lowest constitution should never have to worry about failing a defensive casting unless he totally neglected the skill. Any ambush or potentially deadly situation is removed unless the wizard is killed before his initiative because he can totally ignore attacks while casting.

Oslecamo
2009-12-21, 07:30 AM
If I end up right in front of something massive with a 10ft reach, and I can't take a 5ft step backwards to get out of its reach, I don't want to provoke an attack of opportunity. Because, frankly, my AC is low, and I'd probably die in one hit, if it rolled well.

But that's the main question. When the caster has nothing to fear from being whitin reach of a spear or an ogre, the only thing he's afraid off are other casters.

Sure, it's great from the caster's point of view, but from everybody else's point of view, it kinda sucks.



So I defensively cast, and then hope someone else takes care of its attack of opportunity for me.

Why not ask you teammates to provoke the enemy into causing an aoo so you can cast safely?

Tyndmyr
2009-12-21, 07:36 AM
I don't think it should be removed....I do think it should be balanced better. Static DCs are invariably either too easy or too hard to hit.

The same is true of other concentration checks, like for vigorous motion...seriously, DC 10? Yeah, at level 1, I'll have like +6 or 7 to it. By level 3, Im simply not failing it. Ever.

jseah
2009-12-21, 07:40 AM
IMO, removing defensive casting is a good move.

It makes planning more important as ambushing parties can charge their melee warriors into AoO range of casters.

Anything that puts more emphasis on planning and strategy over tactical tends to get a thumbs up from me.

Lioness
2009-12-21, 07:40 AM
Why not ask you teammates to provoke the enemy into causing an aoo so you can cast safely?

I do sometimes...problem is, I'm almost always first or second in terms of initiative.

Killer Angel
2009-12-21, 07:41 AM
Now I'm perfectly aware that this alone won't make everything balanced, as blah blah fly blah blah invisibility blah blah but hey, the small things also matter!


It wouldn't resolve all, but I think it helps (maybe if structured as Jmbrown idea, but with a bonus increasing with the amount of success on the skill).
For example, it can limit the uberness of combat caster (cler-druidzilla) while they're fighting.

D-naras
2009-12-21, 07:47 AM
Instead of removing it, how about making it cost? Let's say you must spend 2 spell slots to cast without provoking. Or the standard spell slot for the spell you cast, plus more spell slots totalling the level of the spell you wish to cast.

Ecalsneerg
2009-12-21, 07:48 AM
I do sometimes...problem is, I'm almost always first or second in terms of initiative.

The delay action loves you.

Although I'd not remove defensive casting. It punishes players who don't have a gazillion paranoia-fuelled spells that mean if someone gets within 10' they turn invisible, start flying and are now on another plane of existence. However, I would fix the DCs so they actually scale.

dsmiles
2009-12-21, 07:52 AM
If I end up right in front of something massive with a 10ft reach...

Wizurd...ur doin' it wrong...

GolemsVoice
2009-12-21, 07:55 AM
I absolutely hate concentration but instead of removing defensive casting altogether you should combine it with fighting defensive. The caster's concentration check is for increasing his AC while casting, not to completely negate an AoO. DC remains the same but if he beats it he gets a +2 to his AC (+4 if he spends the full round casting like total defense).


I don't think that would be a good idea. While the thought as it is is good, a +2 or +4 to armor class won't do much if the AC is very low to begin with. People who'll come into melee with you will likely be the types to beat a (arcane) caster's AC boosted or not. Maybe you could scale it: You'll have to beat a certain DC (depending on the spell level) and for everey x points you beat it, you get +1 to your armor class.

Lioness
2009-12-21, 07:56 AM
Wizurd...ur doin' it wrong...

I'z new. I'll be doing it wrong for a couple of years.

Cyclocone
2009-12-21, 07:58 AM
The Mage Slayer feat already does this, and it hardly tips the scales of 3e class balance.

It could theoretically change things for CoDzillas and Gishes, since they're the ones who are most likely to be casting in melee anyway.

Conversely, it wouldn't be a huge deal for Batman Wizards, as they traditionally endevour to avoid getting hit in the first place (and largely succeed, thanks to battlefield control and IWIN-spells like Greater Mirror Image and Ironguard.).

And at any rate, Swift action spells don't provoke AoO, and casters tend to have those anyway -doubly so if they're trying to melee as well.

Oslecamo
2009-12-21, 08:02 AM
So it seems like people don't want to remove it, but would like an increase on the skills DC.

This reminds me of an idea someone once mentioned, where the DC for safe casting inscreased by the BAB of the dudes threatening you.

And you had then to make a concentration check for every dude threatening you, so it would be harder to suceed if cornered by multiple oponents.

So an high level wizard can easily prevent a kobold from disrupting him, but fighter Mc Fighter would give him a much harder time. Add in Rogue Mr.Stabby and geting off a spell start to get complicated.

After all, I believe that if a wizard let's himself be flanked, he should be seriously punished for that.

Lioness
2009-12-21, 08:04 AM
Yeah, an increase in the DC would work.

At the moment, I really don't need to bother rolling.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-21, 08:06 AM
Removing defensive casting wouldn't be fair to low-level wizards - when a slight tactical blunder makes you waste 75% of your total resources, it's just not cool.

Making the DC scale with caster level would be better.

Morty
2009-12-21, 08:07 AM
Removing or limiting DC would perhaps put the optimized, high level casters down a bit but unoptimized, low level ones would be kind of screwed.
I support making it scale with caster level rather than only spell level.

Optimystik
2009-12-21, 08:09 AM
That doesn't make sense to me. As you gain more experience with the forces of the arcane, it gets... harder to concentrate?

It's fine as a flat DC imo. Sure it's easy for mid-level+ casters to beat, but... it should be.

Lioness
2009-12-21, 08:10 AM
That doesn't make sense to me. As you gain more experience with the forces of the arcane, it gets... harder to concentrate?


Well, you're presumably casting higher level spells.

So perhaps if it went up with the level of the spell you're casting.

Unless it already does, and that's something I've neglected to realise...

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-21, 08:10 AM
You channel more and more arcane energy the higher your understanding becomes. Why wouldn't it be harder to concentrate on a 5-missile Magic Missile than a 1-missile Magic Missile? Why isn't a 10d6 Fireball more taxing than its weaker 5d6 brother?

Why is a Mage Armor that lasts ten hours easier to cast than one that lasts only one hour?

paddyfool
2009-12-21, 08:14 AM
This reminds me of an idea someone once mentioned, where the DC for safe casting inscreased by the BAB of the dudes threatening you.

And you had then to make a concentration check for every dude threatening you, so it would be harder to suceed if cornered by multiple oponents.

Sounds good, on the whole.

jindra34
2009-12-21, 08:16 AM
I wouldn't remove it because there are several classes for which it is highly likely to be needed. However if your going that direction why not change combat casting so instead of giving a bonus to defensive casting it enables it and those without the feat cannot defensively cast?

Oslecamo
2009-12-21, 08:17 AM
Removing defensive casting wouldn't be fair to low-level wizards - when a slight tactical blunder makes you waste 75% of your total resources, it's just not cool.

Making the DC scale with caster level would be better.

Oh , that's another nice idea!

What I like more on it it's that it punishes casters who cheese out super high CLs!:smallbiggrin:

jindra34:That's yet another good idea. Sounds fair that if the fighter needs feats to avoid aoos, so the wizard also needs to burn one feat for it.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-21, 08:18 AM
"Hahah! I, Shadowcraft Mage, cast a Miracle with a caster level of 29!"

"You provoke an AoO. *roll* Hit. Make a DC 103 Concentration check."

"...Well crap."

Mercenary Pen
2009-12-21, 08:18 AM
IMO Defensive casting needs to scale rather more than it already does, so that you have something of a curved progression rather than a straight linear progression...

For example, without giving it much thought at all (and please bear in mind that 3.5 is not really my system of choice) make the DC 15+ 1/2 (spell level2)

lesser_minion
2009-12-21, 08:21 AM
Re-tool it to work the same way as Justin's tumble fix - as an immediate action, you may make a concentration check to negate an attack of opportunity that just hit you as a result of a spell you cast.

You may also make a concentration check to gain a +4 to AC vs. attacks of opportunity vs. your spellcasting, which stacks with the benefit provided by the Combat Casting feat (which would change to "you gain +4 to AC vs. attacks of opportunity provoked by your spellcasting").

That just leaves 5ft steps as a way out of attacks of opportunity. There are some feats in Dragon which can get around that problem.

Jack_Simth
2009-12-21, 08:23 AM
Well, you're presumably casting higher level spells.

So perhaps if it went up with the level of the spell you're casting.

Unless it already does, and that's something I've neglected to realise...

DC is currently 15+Spell Level, per the Skill Description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/concentration.htm) (it's under "Special"). So Magic Missle is DC 16, Shapechange is DC 24 ... and if you don't have a +23 modifier to Concentration by 17th level as a Wizard... well, you're asking for it.

Something like DC 10 + 2* Spell level... would still only be 28 at 9th level spells. DC 10 + 2.5 * spell level (treating cantrips as level 1/2)?
{table=head]Spell Level|DC
0|11
1|12
2|15
3|17
4|20
5|22
6|25
7|27
8|30
9|32.5
[/table]

Optimystik
2009-12-21, 08:26 AM
You channel more and more arcane energy the higher your understanding becomes. Why wouldn't it be harder to concentrate on a 5-missile Magic Missile than a 1-missile Magic Missile? Why isn't a 10d6 Fireball more taxing than its weaker 5d6 brother?

Why is a Mage Armor that lasts ten hours easier to cast than one that lasts only one hour?

But then you run into the can of worms that are spells that don't scale at all (like Time Stop) or spells that only scale up to a point (like Divine Favor.) Would THOSE spells have a flat DC? Would the DC scale only until the spell stops scaling? How much would it start at, and how much would it change by?

And unless every enemy you send after the caster has a reach weapon, he can still just take a 5ft. step.

Everyman
2009-12-21, 08:31 AM
This is why I used a scaled DC for casting defensively, which can be failed on a natural 1. It basically amounts to making the DC go up with the level of the spell (plus any metamagic adjustments).

DC = 10 + (2 x effective spell level)
Example: A regular magic missle (as a 1st level spell) would have a DC 12, while a silenced magic missle would be a 2nd level spell and would have a DC 14.

It allows for casters to keep pace with the DC, for lower level spells to feel like they're getting mastered (presumably, one would increase their ranks in Concentration), and for higher level ones to feel somewhat challenging.

Gnaeus
2009-12-21, 08:32 AM
Re-tool it to work the same way as Justin's tumble fix - as an immediate action, you may make a concentration check to negate an attack of opportunity that just hit you as a result of a spell you cast.

That sounds like it would slow play. When I cast a spell, I announce that I am casting while rolling my con check. Then I say if I pass or fail, and if I pass, I proceed with spell effect. Under that rule, I announce casting, DM rolls. Calculates modifiers and determines if I am hit. Rolls my % miss chance for concealment or mirror image (because I am a caster). THEN I proceed back to step 1, where I make my con check.

Pathfinder, by the way, basically made the concentration DC adjustment. Casting defensively is d20+caster level+caster stat with a DC of 15+spell level x2. It is a little bit harder to skyrocket your caster level than a skill, and 15+spell levelx2 basically means that casters have a chance of failing their highest level spells all the way up. Then it added feats to follow people making 5 foot steps away from you, and to give AOOs when adjacent enemy casters fail their concentration checks.

mregecko
2009-12-21, 08:44 AM
Pathfinder uses a scale that I actually think works pretty well...

Defensive casting = DC 15 + 2*spell level
vs.
Check = Caster Lvl + Primary Casting Modifier.

So for a first level character, you're working at around a DC 17 and probably around a +5 to your check.

Things scale pretty approrpriately.. For a seventh level PC and 4th level spell, it's DC 23 vs +13 ish.

11th lvl PC, DC 27 vs. +20 ish.

At higher levels, you will PROBABLY make your checks. There might still be some doubt though. DC 33 for 9th level spells, probably around +30 for your check.

I have found this works pretty well, and can make things pretty interesting. Doesn't negate the chance of casting defensively, but makes it exciting and dangerous still.

-- G

Saph
2009-12-21, 08:47 AM
I think I'd go with your original idea, Os. Just remove defensive casting altogether.

Casters can still avoid some (though not all) melee threats by taking a 5' step away, and Concentration is still useful for dealing with weather annoyances and giving you a chance of maintaining a spell if you get hit while casting one.

At the moment, 3.5 casters have two always-available answers to being threatened in melee: cast defensively, or 5-foot step. Cutting that down to one doesn't seem that unreasonable. Besides, it's much simpler than working out a new formula for Concentration checks (that's one more thing for players to learn).

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-21, 09:17 AM
The Mage Slayer feat already does this, and it hardly tips the scales of 3e class balance.

Everyone gets Mage Slayer for free. Whoop-dee-do. I'm still a Tier 1 class. It's not like I can't just optimize more if I want the relative power back.

Oslecamo
2009-12-21, 09:29 AM
Thanks for the suport Saph! Indeed, even an unoptimized caster will know he can just 5 step away to cast safely. And then the aoo has to hit, and the caster can still make a concentration check to hold on.

And as Foryn Gilnith and some other voices pointed out, the caster will then have a bunch of extra defenses to allow him to lol at his enemies.

Removing defensive casting, the caster is still laughing at his enemies, but at least isn't laughing whitin reach of their weapons, wich is shligtly less humiliating. Plus it's indeed much more simple than working out crazy formulas.

So it's decided for me. Altough I won't drop this on my current campaign unless the players agree to it, I'll surely try it out in any new campaign I start.

BWM
2009-12-21, 09:35 AM
I have it houseruled that a caster gets his concentration bonus on his AC against AoO's that he provokes when casting a spell.*

* It sounds a little crappy, but that's just grammar and I'm sure you all understand what I mean

Ruinix
2009-12-21, 11:35 AM
my humble opinion is like mercenarypenn.

and i would add the burn feat option too.

the casters are alredy to damn over. so make it more balance. wich no need to banish the all defensive cast thing.

the progresion of DC should be more hard.
defensive cast SHOULD be a tactic thing, insteed of a normal way to cast.

Ponce
2009-12-21, 11:37 AM
There's still the 5-foot-step.

Duke of URL
2009-12-21, 12:54 PM
Scaling on spell level sounds reasonable. In fact, casting while grappled requires a concentration check DC 20 + spell level already, so there's precedence.

That aside, I'm not fond of "cast defensively" because it does make the game less tactical. The caster should have to worry more about positioning, and melee types should be able to disrupt the casters with good tactics.

To that end, I like the basic idea that a successful "defensive casting" check doesn't obviate the AoO, but instead provide a bonus against it. It's not like casters are underpowered, after all. ;)

So, something along the lines of:


Concentration check, DC A + B * spell level (maybe A = 11, B = 2)

If you don't meet the DC, you lose the spell. If you do meet it, you get +C (C=4?) to AC vs. an AoO, +1 for every D points you beat the DC by (D=3? 5?).

lesser_minion
2009-12-21, 01:07 PM
There's still the 5-foot-step.

I've seen at least one feat which makes that provoke, and another one that also lets you make a 5ft step as part of an attack of opportunity.

The same article also managed to come up with at least three feats that allowed you to make an extra attack in response to each opportunity. And one that gave you sneak attack damage on every single one of those.

It could have been quite effective had it taken fewer than seven feats to pull off.

Optimystik
2009-12-21, 01:15 PM
Yeah, and Benign Transposition is a level 1 spell.

lesser_minion
2009-12-21, 01:20 PM
Yeah, and Benign Transposition is a level 1 spell.

It isn't always available, but you're right - it is harder to get around than the 5ft step thing.

mregecko
2009-12-21, 02:44 PM
Doing away with defensive casting is too drastic of a decision, in my opinion. It will too often give casters no recourse.

For instance, I just got done with an encounter where my party was placed in closed quarters with a gargantuan creature (Sand Kraken). What is a wizard or cleric to do then? Sure, you can have someone else in the party soak the AOO for you... but what if they have combat reflexes?

You can neither move nor cast without taking ungodly amounts of damage. My cleric's natural reaction was to pray that her defensive casting worked (about 75% chance), and go for Freedom of Movement on the tank, and 5' step away as quickly as possible.

Yes, you can 5' away from a lot of monsters. But when it comes to things with a lot of reach.... Casting becomes more of a liability than anything.

-- G

erikun
2009-12-21, 03:54 PM
Defensive casting doesn't affect the wizard that much. Mostly it only comes into play against a see invisibility, teleporting, large foe. Even at low levels, you can just hang you behind the fighters and step away from threats. This doesn't help against getting surrounded, but a 1st level wizard surrounded by orcs is in major trouble either way.

What it does hurt are clerics/druids, namely at the one time they do not what to fail a spell: healing an injured ally. No defensive casting means that healers receive a mace upside the head for trying to heal the fighter, as most clerics will be in the middle of melee anyways.

It really doesn't affect the performance of CoDZilla either, and the whole point of CoD is buffing pre-fight.

appending_doom
2009-12-21, 04:03 PM
One of the basic conceits of this question is flawed, and that is that non-casters have no recourse against a wizard who casts defensively.

They do: readied actions, which allow those in reach (or even those at range) to attack spellcasters on the trigger "when X starts to cast a spell". I'm fairly certain they even work on quickened spells, which is a step above AoOs.

Yes, it takes effort (requiring investing actions), but it's worth it for a chance at disrupting the wizard's save-or-lose spell.

But given that there is a feat that allows one to circumvent defensive casting, making it impossible really makes things unfair.

jmbrown
2009-12-21, 04:12 PM
One of the basic conceits of this question is flawed, and that is that non-casters have no recourse against a wizard who casts defensively.

They do: readied actions, which allow those in reach (or even those at range) to attack spellcasters on the trigger "when X starts to cast a spell". I'm fairly certain they even work on quickened spells, which is a step above AoOs.

Yes, it takes effort (requiring investing actions), but it's worth it for a chance at disrupting the wizard's save-or-lose spell.

But given that there is a feat that allows one to circumvent defensive casting, making it impossible really makes things unfair.

And a simple counter to readied actions is a simple 5' step back out of reach. While you can take a 5' step for readied actions (providing you don't move before you readied), very rarely will you start combat right next to a wizard at the top of your initiative. Unless you have reach and end up right next to a caster the very moment combat starts (a rarity as they usually travel in the center of a party for this reason) you're not going to threaten them with a readied melee attack.

Ranged attackers have a better chance of disrupting them but ranged attacks are laughably weak unless optimized. The DC is 10+damage and in most cases with ranged attacks the DC to beat is somehow lower than casting defensively. I guess having an arrow sticking out of your chest is less disruptive to perfect spell casting than trying to avoid a swing.

I like the idea that to cast defensively you must have the combat casting feat. For one it gives the feat some practical use (+4 bonus to a single aspect of a skill? LOL) and second it removes yet another I-don't-roll-it's-automatic aspect of the higher level wizard.

Fortuna
2009-12-21, 04:12 PM
It makes things unfair relative to the current balance of power. And non-casters may have recourse at low levels against a caster, or against a stupid caster, but what will Fighter McFighter do about the invisible wizard hiding in a cloud of fog with blink and overland flight up? Nothing, without heavy magic item investment. So it is only fair that the wizard has to, at the very least, put a bit of feat or buff or magic item investment to escape the situation of being within reach of an enemy, wouldn't you say?

Ninja'd

Draz74
2009-12-21, 04:13 PM
I was always in favor of "ban Defensive Casting, but allow it again through the Combat Casting feat, which loses its previous effects."

I bet most pure casters still wouldn't bother taking this feat. Gishes might -- which is good, since suddenly it will make sense for the feat to be a prerequisite for various Gish PrCs.

Lapak
2009-12-21, 04:20 PM
I've never been fond of defensive casting as such as easy way to avoid provoking. I'd be fine with doing away with it completely, but if you don't want to do that I very much like the idea mentioned earlier in the thread, to make the difficulty scale with the threatening enemy's attack bonus. Make the DC 10 + spell level + attacker's BAB, and make the caster check for each threatening enemy.

Joe the 1st level sorcerer wants to cast Ray of Frost on a single goblin threatening him. It's actually easier than under original rules: 10 + 0 + 1 = DC 11.

If three goblins are threatening Joe, and he's trying to Color Spray his way out of trouble, it's much harder: DC (10+1+1) 12 three times. Assuming he maxed Concentration and has any bonus to CON, he's still got a decent shot to be ok - with, oh, a +2 CON modifier he still has a 4 in 10 chance of making the checks, but it's an actual threat and he may want to look for another way out.

Now, if Fred the 20th Level Sorcerer decides to walk up to the Tarrasque's feet and hit it with a cold-substituted Meteor Swarm, he's going to be in exactly as much danger as such a foolish person SHOULD be: he'll need to make a (10+9+48) DC 67 check to succeed.

It's not going to remove the dominance of high level wizards in any way. But it does remove some of the more ridiculous situations - like the fact that casting Energy Drain when threatened by the village blacksmith is exactly as hard as casting Energy Drain when completely surrounded by the most dangerous assassins alive.

Zaydos
2009-12-21, 04:24 PM
At low levels a well-played ogre can get so that the wizard can't take a 5-ft step out of reach and defensive casting is their ownly option. Heck dragons can too, anything with good reach can counter that one if they fight strategically (a charge is not always the best option). Readied actions, etc there are ways around it. 5-ft step is the better option, but can be negated by well used reach.

At high levels Defensive Casting is automatic which is not a good thing. But that doesn't say it shouldn't be allowed but either one of two things:
1) make the DC something like 10 + 3 times spell level (giving 37 for 9th level spells which should be difficult at high levels) or as someone already suggested use 1/2 spell level squared so with 15 as the base that would be 30 or 35 with base 15.
2) rule that you can't cast 4th level or higher spells defensively, these require too intricate magic to thus be handled or some such.

As a wizard player I will say at low levels you need defensive casting and at high levels it doesn't matter if it doesn't exist. AS a DM I will say I can force the wizard to be stuck where he has to cast defensively if I feel like it, and even at high levels if I want. I might also make it harder to cast in a grapple as it uses the same line but with a 5 higher DC.

Edit: I must add I think Combat Casting is required would also be fine. My current wizard is too feat starved for it and he'd just might ditch Concentration altogether in such a circumstance, but for a lot of characters I make as NPCs at high level (particularly clerics) I'd have plenty of room for it.

Optimystik
2009-12-21, 04:28 PM
I was always in favor of "ban Defensive Casting, but allow it again through the Combat Casting feat, which loses its previous effects."

I bet most pure casters still wouldn't bother taking this feat. Gishes might -- which is good, since suddenly it will make sense for the feat to be a prerequisite for various Gish PrCs.

I like this solution as well.

eepop
2009-12-21, 05:44 PM
You could replace it with a feat like this:

Casting Expertise
Benefit: When casting a spell, you may lower your caster level for that spell (to a minimum of 1) in order to gain a bonus to your AC vs opportunity attacks for casting in a threatened area.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-21, 06:08 PM
I was always in favor of "ban Defensive Casting, but allow it again through the Combat Casting feat, which loses its previous effects."

I bet most pure casters still wouldn't bother taking this feat. Gishes might -- which is good, since suddenly it will make sense for the feat to be a prerequisite for various Gish PrCs.

Huzzah!

I thought just removing it might be potentially unfun, but this seems reasonable. Mage Slayer might need to be revised, though.