PDA

View Full Version : Is "defensive casting" the reason casters are "overpowered" in 3e?



taltamir
2009-12-28, 05:15 PM
I think this deserves its own thread since it was derailing another thread.


The ability to cast defensively is a major difference between 2E and 3E, and one of the primary reasons why casters in the 3E are overpowered, whereas in 2E they're not.

My argument is that this is simply false.
Defensive casting doesn't do anything at all to overpower casters.
1. You can five foot step then cast a spell, it is safer then defensive casting since you cannot fail and don't provoke.
2. You shouldn't be in melee, and since you are intelligent, you probably are not going to be in melee.
3. Even if you are in melee and use defensive casting successfully, it doesn't do anything to "overpower" you. If anything, the fact you don't automatically succeed in casting a spell when threatened, and might actually draw an AoO is a silly extremely situational penalty that is severe, unreasonable, and so easily avoided it is not an issue.

Yukitsu
2009-12-28, 05:17 PM
No. If you have to defensive cast, you're doing it wrong.

I suppose you could argue that not automatically failing at melee casting is too forgiving though.

clockworkmonk
2009-12-28, 05:17 PM
you pretty much got why defensive casting is not overpowered.

What makes casters overpowered is the spell list.

Crow
2009-12-28, 05:22 PM
The problem is that the spells only require 1 standard action to cast in most cases.

Kurald Galain
2009-12-28, 05:24 PM
Not the reason, but an important contribution.

From the "changes between 2E and 3E thread",



The biggest things that helped the Wizard (and to lesser extent, other casters):
- Combined XP tables without alterations to on what levels they get stuff; 3.5 Wizards just grow in power VASTLY faster than their AD&D counterparts.
- Defensive Casting: Being next to someone is no longer any kind of a problem for casting spells
- Concentration-skill: Even being hit doesn't automatically cause you to lose your spell.
- Drawbackless Magic: AD&D had a ton of drawbacks for all the more powerful spells in the books. D&D 3.X just threw those drawbacks away without replacing them with anything.
- Fast casting: In AD&D, you spent your turn casting a spell. In 3.5, you spend one Standard Action casting, another moving and there are very few spells that can be interrupted outside readied actions.
- Bonus spells from high ability score: In AD&D, there was no way of getting more spell slots than listed. In 3.5, they took the old tables, but gave casters an automatic means of increasing their spell capacity.
- Spell DCs incorporate caster's key ability score. This change single-handedly made Save-or-X effects usable on mid-levels (though a bit weaker on low levels).
- Ability scores were uncapped and made to grow linearly and expected to grow a lot: This helps casters since casters gain much more from their key ability score than Fighters.

taltamir
2009-12-28, 05:25 PM
No. If you have to defensive cast, you're doing it wrong.

not the reason. not a major reason. not a minor reason. not a reason at all.
If you need to defensive cast, you're doing it wrong.

its like WOTC throwing a bone to newbie players who don't know how to play a caster yet.

Evard
2009-12-28, 05:26 PM
What makes casters over powered is that when they are hit they don't lose that spell and when they are knocked out they don't loose all their spells for that day.

If a magic user needed a melee character to defend them (and give them ability to stop things from hitting casters like the fighter in 4e) then casters may over power the melee types but without a melee type then the casters are royally...

In 3.x make it where if you are not a melee character then you cannot do a 5 foot step in battle (cause really that is a martial kind of skill), defensive fighting is alright, if you get hit you loose that spell or maybe it blows up in your face, also make it where melee types get to take attacks if they are adjacent to a caster and the caster is being attacked (switch places as a free action 1 per round that gets more usages as they get higher level). If the caster is knocked out then they loose all spells prepared or not (including invocations).

Crow
2009-12-28, 05:30 PM
If you need to defensive cast, you're doing it wrong.

its like WOTC throwing a bone to newbie players who don't know how to play a caster yet.

This just stinks of elitism. As a counterpoint, I would say that if your games are so predictable that your wizard always know what is coming, and is always able to stay comfortably safe, you are playing in a game that is just boring as heck. Maybe the "Newbs" aren't the ones "doing it wrong". Maybe it's your DM.

Radiun
2009-12-28, 05:31 PM
Clerics also got more spell levels, and therefore spell slots... if I recall correctly

Lapak
2009-12-28, 05:33 PM
not the reason. not a major reason. not a minor reason. not a reason at all.
If you need to defensive cast, you're doing it wrong.

its like WOTC throwing a bone to newbie players who don't know how to play a caster yet.While I'm in general agreement that defensive casting is not the core reason - or even a major reason - that casters are overpowered in 3.x, you're overstating the case here. Below level, oh, 10 or so, situations where being trapped in melee such that five-foot steps won't get you clear are entirely within the bounds of possibility. More to the point, there are no perfectly-effective, always-on countermeasures to such situations. As a DM, I've gotten significant melee threats within reach of PC spellcaster on numerous occasions, especially at the beginning of campaigns where the spellcasters have fewer resources to avoid it. And my players are not fools.

I would go so far as to argue that if your level 5 wizard is NEVER in a situation where he has to cast in melee, it is the Dungeon Master of that campaign that is 'doing it wrong.' And doing it very, very wrong to boot. Any halfway intelligent monsters that survived up to this point in a D&D world should and would make getting on top of spellcasters a top priority in every combat situation.

Kurald Galain
2009-12-28, 05:33 PM
not the reason. not a major reason. not a minor reason. not a reason at all.
If you need to defensive cast, you're doing it wrong.

its like WOTC throwing a bone to newbie players who don't know how to play a caster yet.
Talt, are you posting this thread to discuss the issue, or to state that your view is the correct one?

LibraryOgre
2009-12-28, 05:38 PM
Not the reason, but an important contribution.

From the "changes between 2E and 3E thread",

That list left out what I consider to the one of the biggest things: Reduction of memorization/preparation times. In 3.x, the 15 minute adventuring day became feasible... two encounters, blow your load, and rest 8 or 24 to rememorize. The abbreviated memorization times start about 3rd level if you have an 14 casting stat or higher... in 2e terms, someone memorizing as many spell levels as can be prepared in 3e with a 14+ casting stat at 3rd level would require 70 minutes, vs. the 60 minutes it will take you in 3e. It would also be a strike against the "scry and die" wizard, who would have to go through a much longer preparation process after scrying... and things might have changed in the days it would take them.

Really, I also think that was another strike against the sorcerer, in a way. If sorcerers required 15 minutes of prep time a day to be ready to cast their full load, and wizards took 10 minutes/spell level, I think you'd see a LOT more sorcerers. Sure, they're limited, but they're also ready to go at a moment's notice, unlike wizards.

taltamir
2009-12-28, 05:40 PM
This just stinks of elitism. As a counterpoint, I would say that if your games are so predictable that your wizard always know what is coming, and is always able to stay comfortably safe, you are playing in a game that is just boring as heck. Maybe the "Newbs" aren't the ones "doing it wrong". Maybe it's your DM.

My last game I played we were facing GROUPS of CR 5 monsters (way under CRed) at level 1. Casting as a whole was nerfed a lot.
Arcane thesis was banned to players and allowed to enemy bosses.
Celerity was banned to players and allowed to enemy bosses.
All abusive spells were banned (example, no shape shifting of any kind, etc).
Enemies were min maxed hardcore with various broken classes from any source.
Enemies used intelligent tactics.
Enemies usually had more class levels than players, were typically a custom living construct race with unbelievable capabilities (they got to pick from a large list, which included things like fast healing and SR).
Significant limitations on spells known (such as "single school" wizards) meant we had no divination, at all.

Not once did anyone, player or not, cast defensively... we did however on occasion have to take a 5 foot step or withdraw before casting.

You calling me elitist? you think the only reason to not cast defensively is
your wizard always know what is coming, and is always able to stay comfortably safe, you are playing in a game that is just boring as heck
No I am not playing "boring safe games". Defensive casting is a horribly sub par tactic that you shouldn't bother using. And doesn't confer game breaking powers as you describe.

The one time defensive casting could be viable is if you got stuck near an enemy with reach and a 5 foot step will not let you get far enough away to cast safely... in which case you should withdraw (use full round to move 2x your speed without provoking AoO for moving out of your initial square, but still provoke on other threatened squares).

Which begs the question... why are you near an enemy with reach?


Talt, are you posting this thread to discuss the issue, or to state that your view is the correct one?

discussion requires me to state what I think is correct so that it may be counter argued and perhaps proven wrong.

Signmaker
2009-12-28, 05:47 PM
1. You can five foot step then cast a spell, it is safer then defensive casting since you cannot fail and don't provoke.
2. You shouldn't be in melee, and since you are intelligent, you probably are not going to be in melee.
3. Even if you are in melee and use defensive casting successfully, it doesn't do anything to "overpower" you. If anything, the fact you don't automatically succeed in casting a spell when threatened, and might actually draw an AoO is a silly extremely situational penalty that is severe, unreasonable, and so easily avoided it is not an issue.

1. Quite often: No you cannot. Either due to number of assailants, reach weapons, or difficult terrain generation, you can be prevented from doing such.

2. Bad thinking. You can be ambushed. You can be surprised without contingencies active. You can be forced by plot to do so.

3. Yes it does. Defensive casting can easily be tricked so that you can't fail the quite simple to optimized concentration check, so it becomes a free ticket to casting. And that can lead you to do what you want to do, and that's to tell others to shut up and sit down.

SurlySeraph
2009-12-28, 05:48 PM
Defensive casting doesn't do anything at all to overpower casters.
1. You can five foot step then cast a spell, it is safer then defensive casting since you cannot fail and don't provoke.
2. You shouldn't be in melee, and since you are intelligent, you probably are not going to be in melee.
3. Even if you are in melee and use defensive casting successfully, it doesn't do anything to "overpower" you. If anything, the fact you don't automatically succeed in casting a spell when threatened, and might actually draw an AoO is a silly extremely situational penalty that is severe, unreasonable, and so easily avoided it is not an issue.

1. 5-foot steps won't always help. Difficult terrain, enemies adjacent to all the squares that you could step into, someone with a spiked chain who's adjacent to you, cornered, etc.
2. Ah yes, the "Casters are omniscient" fallacy combined with the "Melee characters cannot walk" fallacy. You don't always have a choice about being in melee. Ambushes happen, charges happen, getting surrounded happens, and melee characters who can reach you exist.
3.
a silly extremely situational penalty that is severe, unreasonable, and so easily avoided it is not an issue


a silly extremely situational penalty that is severe, unreasonable, and so easily avoided it is not an issue

I'm not sure what you're attempting to argue, but whatever it is you seem to have refuted it yourself. Also, can you explain why it makes more sense for the weird hand movements, chanting, and intense concentration inherent in spellcasting to automatically succeed when threatened than for them to provoke an AoO? When answering, you may wish to consider that actions that seem far more likely to prevent your opponent from attacking you, such as trying to disarm him, provoke AoOs.

Again, defensive casting is only a very small part of why wizards are so powerful in 3E. Removing it wouldn't bring them down to the same level as melee characters by any means. But it does contribute to their overpoweredness.

Lapak
2009-12-28, 05:50 PM
Not once did anyone, player or not, cast defensively... we did however on occasion have to take a 5 foot step or withdraw before casting

....

The one time defensive casting could be viable is if you got stuck near an enemy with reach and a 5 foot step will not let you get far enough away to cast safely... in which case you should withdraw (use full round to move 2x your speed without provoking AoO for moving out of your initial square, but still provoke on other threatened squares).You were never caught in a small combat space, such as a room? Never attacked from both sides in a passageway? Never surrounded? Never attacked by multiple kinds of attackers, some with reach and some without? Never surprised?

If all those things were true, your DM was not using 'intelligent tactics' for your monsters. They are all very basic tactics that would prevent you from five-foot-stepping or withdrawing your way out of melee. I understand that you're playing up how much of a threat that the monsters were mechanically, but if you were never caught in melee their stats were all they had going for them.

AslanCross
2009-12-28, 05:51 PM
I think one of the pervasive arguments is that spellcasters tend to eat into the roles of other party members simply because their spells can pretty much take over an entire class's abilities.

TheOOB
2009-12-28, 05:51 PM
Really, I always thought the reason casters where overpowered is because they have a large list of varied abilities that gets bigger and more powerful with level while most other classes only have basic attacks and 2 or 3 other abilities.

Until you give everyone ability lists, the people with lots of special abilities will be overpowered. 4e tried to fix that, it's up to you to decide whether or not they did a good job.

DragoonWraith
2009-12-28, 05:51 PM
I'd think that the reason casters are overpowered is because they can do everything: there are low level spells to make almost any skill check irrelevant, there are spells attacking any weakness at every level, there are spells that can trip, that can grapple, that can disarm, that can protect you, that can heal you, that can allow you to hit, make your attacks do huge damage, move you from place to place. There is not a single thing in all of 3.5 that some spell can't replicate. No matter what your schtick is, a spellcaster can do it just by casting the appropriate spell, and usually without having to worry about taking the class levels or the feats that allow you to do it.

taltamir
2009-12-28, 05:53 PM
1. Quite often: No you cannot. Either due to number of assailants, reach weapons, or difficult terrain generation, you can be prevented from doing such.
You are not flying? you let them close in on you?


2. Bad thinking. You can be ambushed. You can be surprised without contingencies active. You can be forced by plot to do so.
Contingencies? you don't need a contingency. Ambushes don't work the way you think they do. And a crazy prepared ambush... well I will explain later in my post


3. Yes it does. Defensive casting can easily be tricked so that you can't fail the quite simple to optimized concentration check, so it becomes a free ticket to casting. And that can lead you to do what you want to do, and that's to tell others to shut up and sit down.
By the time you can do that, you have a variety of all day powers and spells that make it a non issue. Quickened/immediate spells don't provoke AoO, you should be having hours/CL flight active, etc.
And the only benefit it gives you is "your turn (to cast a standard action spell) without being gang raped by surrounding enemies who have reach weapons via AoO"

A fighter who is surrounded by enemies can attack one without provoking AoO from everyone and having his attack interrupted by said AoO...

And again, it just wouldn't happen... you need a bunch of enemies with flight, very fast, invisible, with reach, to surround your wizard.

And if enemies are that crazy prepared for you, they can just ready action to hit you if you cast a spell. That way it doesn't matter if it is quickened, defensive, or whatever. The ready action takes precedence and always interrupts your spell, always.

Defensive casting only helps against FREE AoO enemies get against you without even planning. If they are trying to shut you down a readied action (uses up their standard action) achieves it and ignores defensive casting and swift/immediate/whatever spells.

SurlySeraph
2009-12-28, 06:03 PM
My last game I played we were facing GROUPS of CR 5 monsters (way under CRed) at level 1. Casting as a whole was nerfed a lot.
Arcane thesis was banned to players and allowed to enemy bosses.
Celerity was banned to players and allowed to enemy bosses.
All abusive spells were banned (example, no shape shifting of any kind, etc).
Enemies were min maxed hardcore with various broken classes from any source.
Enemies used intelligent tactics.
Enemies usually had more class levels than players, were typically a custom living construct race with unbelievable capabilities (they got to pick from a large list, which included things like fast healing and SR).
Significant limitations on spells known (such as "single school" wizards) meant we had no divination, at all.


You calling me elitist?

Reread what you just wrote. Ask yourself whether a hyperbolic description of how powerful the threats you faced in your game were might come off as elitist.


Which begs the question... why are you near an enemy with reach?

Gee, perhaps because he walked up to you? Or teleported, flew, burrowed, plane shifted, was waiting hidden, etc.?


You are not flying? you let them close in on you?

Perhaps you are not level 5 yet? Or the duration on your Fly spell ran out, and you did not have another one prepared because you used your other 3rd-level slots to prepare other useful spells?


Ambushes don't work the way you think they do. And a crazy prepared ambush... well I will explain later in my post

So you're saying that a wizard can never walk into someplace where someone is waiting hidden. Is that it?


And again, it just wouldn't happen... you need a bunch of enemies with flight, very fast, invisible, with reach, to surround your wizard.

Because of course all wizards are permanently flying at high speeds and cannot be fully surrounded because of their wizardness. Regardless of level.


And if enemies are that crazy prepared for you, they can just ready action to hit you if you cast a spell. That way it doesn't matter if it is quickened, defensive, or whatever. The ready action takes precedence and always interrupts your spell, always.

Which requires them to forgo making a full attack against you. Also, I see nothing in the rules that makes readied attacks automatically stop spells. Could you cite that?

Signmaker
2009-12-28, 06:04 PM
You are not flying? you let them close in on you?

Contingencies? you don't need a contingency. Ambushes don't work the way you think they do. And a crazy prepared ambush... well I will explain later in my post

By the time you can do that, you have a variety of all day powers and spells that make it a non issue. Quickened/immediate spells don't provoke AoO, you should be having hours/CL flight active, etc.
And the only benefit it gives you is "your turn (to cast a standard action spell) without being gang raped by surrounding enemies who have reach weapons via AoO"

A fighter who is surrounded by enemies can attack one without provoking AoO from everyone and having his attack interrupted by said AoO...

And again, it just wouldn't happen... you need a bunch of enemies with flight, very fast, invisible, with reach, to surround your wizard.

And if enemies are that crazy prepared for you, they can just ready action to hit you if you cast a spell. That way it doesn't matter if it is quickened, defensive, or whatever. The ready action takes precedence and always interrupts your spell, always.

Defensive casting only helps against FREE AoO enemies get against you without even planning. If they are trying to shut you down a readied action (uses up their standard action) achieves it and ignores defensive casting and swift/immediate/whatever spells.

1. Yes. I can't always have Overland Flight up, especially when I can't cast it at low levels. Additionally, not all enemies are grounded. Simplistically, you can't reduce the discussion to that situation, because not all encounters reduce to that situation. It's an incomplete argument.

2. Enemies don't have to be 'crazy prepared' to ambush you. They can be as simple as a raiding party that surprises you from the bushes, gets a surprise round, and surrounds the party. Oh my, now you're surrounded, plain as that.

3a. High level assumption which does not apply to lower levels.
3b. Assuming schrodinger wizard, whereas many are not. It can take something as simple as a forest map, nighttime environment, and an adequate H/MS setup to ambush a party.
3c. Defensive casting prevents the "Oops, random AoO fizzled my spell" dilemma. Sure, your opponents can ready an action, but that's readying an action. Getting fizzled because of a person's AoO is a far more humiliating and annoying action.

Crow
2009-12-28, 06:07 PM
Not to mention, sometimes there is a ceiling where your party needs to go and flying won't buy you anything at all.

taltamir
2009-12-28, 06:08 PM
Reread what you just wrote. Ask yourself whether a hyperbolic description of how powerful the threats you faced in your game were might come off as elitist.

You are specifically and intentionally taking things out of context.

He was calling me elitist before I have described it. Describing it as my reasoning would be elitist. But the accusation of elitism was based on a different reason.

I described how powerful the threats I was facing as a direct response to the accusation of only
your wizard always know what is coming, and is always able to stay comfortably safe, you are playing in a game that is just boring as heck
I used it as an example of me not playing a "omfortably safe" game.


1. Yes. I can't always have Overland Flight up, especially when I can't cast it at low levels. Additionally, not all enemies are grounded. Simplistically, you can't reduce the discussion to that situation, because not all encounters reduce to that situation. It's an incomplete argument.

at those low levels where you don't have flight, you also do not have the means to auto succeed the concentration check. In fact it is a damn hard concentration check in levels 1-5.

Crow
2009-12-28, 06:10 PM
I used it as an example of me not playing a "comfortably safe" game.

And yet, it was. :smallsigh:

taltamir
2009-12-28, 06:11 PM
And yet, it was. :smallsigh:

no it wasn't... a bunch of us died. we got ambushed. we ran away from most encounters... it was terrifying. Actual fear was felt.
We never used defensive casting because it is a horribly sub par tactic, not because the game was "safe".

Also, that right there was an example of an elitist response.

Signmaker
2009-12-28, 06:13 PM
at those low levels where you don't have flight, you also do not have the means to auto succeed the concentration check. In fact it is a damn hard concentration check in levels 1-5.

Tunic of Steady Spellcasting. Ranks. Masterwork Item. Not-crappy Con. Skill Focus (Concentration) if you really want it. Affordable as a package by 2-4th level.

+5, +4-8, +2, +1-3.

I'm looking at a minimum of +12, and a maximum of +21 with just the above suggestions. So no, it isn't, when the DC is 15+Spell Level.

Kantolin
2009-12-28, 06:14 PM
O-o Spellcasters weren't overpowered in 2E?

You mean they're very weak at levels 1-4? I'd buy that one. I've never heard that spellcasters were anything besides overpowered after that.

taltamir
2009-12-28, 06:14 PM
Tunic of Steady Spellcasting. Ranks. Masterwork Item. Not-crappy Con. Skill Focus (Concentration) if you really want it.

+5, +4-8, +2, +1-3.

I'm looking at a minimum of +12, and a maximum of +21 with just the above suggestions. So no, it isn't, when the DC is 15+Spell Level.

now tally up the absurd costs; which includes feats and a lot a of wealth...
All for a horrible sub part ability you should not never even use.

Signmaker
2009-12-28, 06:15 PM
now tally up the absurd costs; which includes feats and a lot a of wealth...
All for a horrible sub part ability you should not never even use.

2550 gp, one feat. Joy. Even assuming level 1, it's DC 16 with 4 ranks, probably a +2 con, and the masterwork item, as a completely minimal (50 gp) investment. That's a +8 vs DC 16, which isn't all that horrible. As a minimum.

SurlySeraph
2009-12-28, 06:19 PM
Out of context, you say?


not the reason. not a major reason. not a minor reason. not a reason at all.
If you need to defensive cast, you're doing it wrong.

its like WOTC throwing a bone to newbie players who don't know how to play a caster yet.


This just stinks of elitism. As a counterpoint, I would say that if your games are so predictable that your wizard always know what is coming, and is always able to stay comfortably safe, you are playing in a game that is just boring as heck. Maybe the "Newbs" aren't the ones "doing it wrong". Maybe it's your DM.


My last game I played we were facing GROUPS of CR 5 monsters (way under CRed) at level 1. Casting as a whole was nerfed a lot.
Arcane thesis was banned to players and allowed to enemy bosses.
Celerity was banned to players and allowed to enemy bosses.
All abusive spells were banned (example, no shape shifting of any kind, etc).
Enemies were min maxed hardcore with various broken classes from any source.
Enemies used intelligent tactics.
Enemies usually had more class levels than players, were typically a custom living construct race with unbelievable capabilities (they got to pick from a large list, which included things like fast healing and SR).
Significant limitations on spells known (such as "single school" wizards) meant we had no divination, at all.

Not once did anyone, player or not, cast defensively... we did however on occasion have to take a 5 foot step or withdraw before casting.

You calling me elitist? you think the only reason to not cast defensively is

your wizard always know what is coming, and is always able to stay comfortably safe, you are playing in a game that is just boring as heck

No I am not playing "boring safe games". Defensive casting is a horribly sub par tactic that you shouldn't bother using. And doesn't confer game breaking powers as you describe.

There's your context. I will leave it to others to determine whether or not you appear to be elitist. You still have yet to address the points that wizards can be surrounded by normal melee characters using intelligent tactics, cornered by a melee character, adjacent to a melee character while in difficult terrain, etc.

taltamir
2009-12-28, 06:27 PM
Out of context, you say?
Yes, out of context.
I suggest people read the actual posts, in order.
But whatever, you decided I am an elitist.. fine, be that way.


You still have yet to address the points that wizards can be surrounded by normal melee characters using intelligent tactics, cornered by a melee character, adjacent to a melee character while in difficult terrain, etc.

I have addressed it; multiple times, in multiple posts... you keep ignoring it for some reason.

At levels at which this is an issue (aka, low levels), the check is a difficult one to make, and still a rather rare thing. If multiple enemies surround your caster while ignoring your non caster friends, then the caster should be just taking total defense. His spells are not that much of a threat at this level anyways.
And at least one of those enemies can ready action (assuming they don't just kill him outright, which they would, quite easily).
The situation you set up is a TPK situation most likely, and very likely the "insta gib the wizard in one round"... not even letting him cast one relatively useless spell (because he is low level) to even try to save himself is just being mean, and is not gonna make a difference anyways since he is doomed.
if multiple assailants corner him in such a manner that means the entire party should be overwhelmed, and it is the right time to surrender.

The other situation is a high level wizard being "surprised" by a group of enemies with reach, fast motion, invisibility, and flight...
At this point the wizard is highly effective, a single spell from him will do quite a lot, and with a minimal investment he is guaranteed to succeed the concentration check...
however, again readied actions rear their ugly head and at such a situation should nullify whatever he could do.
Furthermore, it requires an obscene amount of failure on the party's part for the flying wizard to be cornered by a group of uber buffed enemies with a huge list of magical buffs and effects...
And again, they could easily down the wizard in one round... if they for some reason do not, the only thing he would be doing is defensively casting teleport to get the hell out... which would still trigger readied actions and interrupt the teleport.

Signmaker
2009-12-28, 06:28 PM
Yes, out of context.
I suggest people read the actual posts, in order.
But whatever, you decided I am an elitist.. fine, be that way.



I have addressed it. At levels at which this is an issue (aka, low levels), the check is a difficult one to make, and still a rather rare thing.

Disproven.


Furthermore, it requires an obscene amount of failure on the party's part for the flying wizard to be cornered by a group of uber buffed enemies with a huge list of magical buffs and effects...
And again, they could easily down the wizard in one round... if they for some reason do not, the only thing he would be doing is defensively casting teleport to get the hell out... which would still trigger readied actions and interrupt the teleport.

Assumptions. Many of them, which should not be taken in to account. Namely, flight interaction and readied actions as an argument vs defensive casting.


The answer is no. It requires fairly specific instances for a wizard to be forced to cast defensively instead of using a more optimal option (i.e. putting distance between himself and the baddies via teleportation or Abrupt Jaunt, just not being in reach, etc.) In general, (and no, 'in general' does not include the wizard being under level 5 and all the melee combatants having flight and getting the jump on the wizard and having reach weapons and all having the Int score to attack the wizard first and etc.) defensive casting is the last thing the wizard wants to do.

Yes, that sums it up. Defensive casting does not break the caster, but it's certainly icing on the cake as is, versus an outright AoO for casting. It's why Mage Slayer doesn't suck, you're denying the caster their icing.

And yes, I quoted a post made after mine. I didn't feel the need to make another post for it.

Hyooz
2009-12-28, 06:30 PM
Out of context, you say?

There's your context. I will leave it to others to determine whether or not you appear to be elitist. You still have yet to address the points that wizards can be surrounded by normal melee characters using intelligent tactics, cornered by a melee character, adjacent to a melee character while in difficult terrain, etc.

Here's the real problem:

While it's possible to provide obscure scenarios that might require the wizard to cast defensively, that hardly addresses the key point of the topic. Is defensive casting the reason casters are overpowered?

The answer is no. It requires fairly specific instances for a wizard to be forced to cast defensively instead of using a more optimal option (i.e. putting distance between himself and the baddies via teleportation or Abrupt Jaunt, just not being in reach, etc.) In general, (and no, 'in general' does not include the wizard being under level 5 and all the melee combatants having flight and getting the jump on the wizard and having reach weapons and all having the Int score to attack the wizard first and etc.) defensive casting is the last thing the wizard wants to do.

Crow
2009-12-28, 06:32 PM
no it wasn't... a bunch of us died. we got ambushed. we ran away from most encounters... it was terrifying. Actual fear was felt.
We never used defensive casting because it is a horribly sub par tactic, not because the game was "safe".

Also, that right there was an example of an elitist response.

Actually, you were saying that anybody who let themselves get into a situation where you needed Defensive Casting was "doing it wrong". If your enemies are fighting effectively, it is very possible for them to make it the only tactic available for the wizard.

I am really having trouble following your "argument". First you say that anybody who uses defensive casting is doing it wrong, and then tell us that in your last game;

1. A bunch of you died. (I think that qualifies as doing it wrong, also.)
2. Got ambushed. (Isn't that not supposed to happen?)
3. Ran away from most encounters. (Probably a good idea, "sub par" compared to winning, but above-par to dying.)
4. Felt real fear. (Not sure how this is, being a game and all.)

It sounds like Defensive casting was the least of things your group could have done wrong. It's great that you are having games where the characters are in real danger. A lot of groups don't have that anymore, and I am happy for you. But the impression you gave in your earlier posts is that your casters are never in danger, and if they are, you are a Noob.

But I still don't see how defensive casting is more sub-par than using the Withdraw action you suggested earlier (which uses your whole turn for nothing but moving from a space). With defensive casting, surely your wizard could find a better solution, or at least a comparable one. I also don't see how it is sub-par compared to taking a 5-foot step, which can be feasible or not depending on the situation.

It is not a sub-par option that is there only to hold the newbie's hand. It is just another option.

taltamir
2009-12-28, 06:33 PM
The answer is no. It requires fairly specific instances for a wizard to be forced to cast defensively instead of using a more optimal option (i.e. putting distance between himself and the baddies via teleportation or Abrupt Jaunt, just not being in reach, etc.)
Also 5 foot step and "full withdrawl" actions.


In general, (and no, 'in general' does not include the wizard being under level 5 and all the melee combatants having flight and getting the jump on the wizard and having reach weapons and all having the Int score to attack the wizard first and etc.) defensive casting is the last thing the wizard wants to do.
specifically, at that situation he should surrender. such a situation is a clear "fight you are meant to lose by plot" signal. Not a "use defensive casting" signal.

Hyooz
2009-12-28, 06:39 PM
Actually, you were saying that anybody who let themselves get into a situation where you needed Defensive Casting was "doing it wrong". If your enemies are fighting effectively, it is very possible for them to make it the only tactic available for the wizard.

I am really having trouble following your "argument". First you say that anybody who uses defensive casting is doing it wrong, and then tell us that in your last game;

1. A bunch of you died. (I think that qualifies as doing it wrong, also.)
2. Got ambushed. (Isn't that not supposed to happen?)
3. Ran away from most encounters. (Probably a good idea, "sub par" compared to winning, but above-par to dying.)
4. Felt real fear. (Not sure how this is, being a game and all.)

It sounds like Defensive casting was the least of things your group could have done wrong. It's great that you are having games where the characters are in real danger. A lot of groups don't have that anymore, and I am happy for you. But the impression you gave in your earlier posts is that your casters are never in danger, and if they are, you are a Noob.

But I still don't see how defensive casting is more sub-par than using the Withdraw action you suggested earlier (which uses your whole turn for nothing but moving from a space). With defensive casting, surely your wizard could find a better solution, or at least a comparable one. I also don't see how it is sub-par compared to taking a 5-foot step, which can be feasible or not depending on the situation.

It is not a sub-par option that is there only to hold the newbie's hand. It is just another option.

You don't see how standing in place, casting one spell at the guy right in front of you (which, if you're smart about it, is going to be a teleport spell of some kind) is sub-par compared to moving twice your speed away from the enemy without any AoO.

I'll break it down. In one case, you are standing in-range of an attacker, taking a hit, to cast a spell. This leaves you in-range of his next action, which will be to hurt you more with a full attack of some kind. Withdrawing is the equivalent of a low-level teleport spell, likely putting you out of range of the attacker, without taking any hits. The attacker would need to have double your base speed to attack you next round.

taltamir
2009-12-28, 06:39 PM
But I still don't see how defensive casting is more sub-par than using the Withdraw action you suggested earlier (which uses your whole turn for nothing but moving from a space). With defensive casting, surely your wizard could find a better solution, or at least a comparable one. I also don't see how it is sub-par compared to taking a 5-foot step, which can be feasible or not depending on the situation.

a very valid question...
defensive casting means that you get to cast a single standard action spell without provoking an AoO (And a swift action spell could be cast with or without it, no effect there).... after which you can:
1. take a 5 foot step
2. take a move action, provoking an AoO.

If you chose option 2, you still provoke a free attack... you are a squishy in melee, you need to get the heck out of there so he doesn't eat your face. That means run run run like the wind.

If you chose option 1, you could have simply reversed the order. first take a 5 foot step, then cast without needing to cast defensively. Unless he has a reach of 15 feet or more. In which case it is a scary, scary monster and you should be taking the "run the hell away" option... except for some rare situation (say, it is an ancient dragon), and you should be trying to cast teleport to get as far away as possible as fast as possible. in which case the defensive casting thing is just mean, it means he still gets his 6+ attacks a round from full attack, while getting free attacks against you on your turn, that interrupt spells...

That, btw, would be a valid situation to cast defensively... although there could still be someone with a readied action... surrender should really be considered.

So yes... defensive casting is a great way to cast "teleport" to run away from combat when cornered by a powerful creature with a reach of 15' or more.
If their reach is lower you step away and cast teleport. Extremely situation, and you should be surrendering / not picking a fight with the dragon / etc.


You don't see how standing in place, casting one spell at the guy right in front of you (which, if you're smart about it, is going to be a teleport spell of some kind) is sub-par compared to moving twice your speed away from the enemy without any AoO.

I'll break it down. In one case, you are standing in-range of an attacker, taking a hit, to cast a spell. This leaves you in-range of his next action, which will be to hurt you more with a full attack of some kind. Withdrawing is the equivalent of a low-level teleport spell, likely putting you out of range of the attacker, without taking any hits. The attacker would need to have double your base speed to attack you next round.

Ah, ninjad... yes that is exactly why... running away = living.
casting = taking an AoO that can interrupt your spell and a full attack next round.
casting defensively = make a check, if you succeed you cast the spell. then either take an AoO that cannot interrupt your spell (when you move away) and be charge attacked the next round. Or take a 5 foot step away / no move action and be full attacked the next round.

Zaydos
2009-12-28, 06:44 PM
I will agree that defensive casting is not a very large addition to caster power in 3E. I thought it was OMG hax when I first changed from 2e and would take Combat Casting. Then I realized Skill Focus (Concentration) was better (readied actions) and then that I didn't use defensive casting that much. I will sometimes buy the tunic of steady casting (who actually allows Mw items of +2 concentration?) to make sure I make it (my current character has one, but that's for his ring of diamond mind so he can make Fort saves 1/encounter). And yes I consider it a little needed ability usually, although it can be quite useful (for example you can't fly constantly, or don't feel like taking one of your only 5th level slots to do so).

I have to ask, though, who uses withdraw? In situations where you can't 5-ft step out of their reach you're still going to get attacked as you leave the next square they threaten. In that case why not move, take the AoO, and then cast instead of wasting your entire action avoiding the AoO. Or if you don't have the hit points for that why not just cast defensively because if you withdraw they'll normally just charge you and kill you. I always wondered who used the withdraw tactic anyway.

Crow
2009-12-28, 06:48 PM
You don't see how standing in place, casting one spell at the guy right in front of you (which, if you're smart about it, is going to be a teleport spell of some kind) is sub-par compared to moving twice your speed away from the enemy without any AoO.

I'll break it down. In one case, you are standing in-range of an attacker, taking a hit, to cast a spell. This leaves you in-range of his next action, which will be to hurt you more with a full attack of some kind. Withdrawing is the equivalent of a low-level teleport spell, likely putting you out of range of the attacker, without taking any hits. The attacker would need to have double your base speed to attack you next round.

Dude, defensive casting. You're not taking the hit to cast the spell unless you fail. The spell *should* be one that gets you clear, or removes the threat. Also, many enemies can have a greater speed than the wizard if he didn't memorize expeditious retreat that day. Your withdraw action may only buy you one round, in which you do nothing but move. Furthermore, it only makes your starting square not count for AoO's. What if there are more enemies in range?

Sometimes it is more useful to take a gamble on that Sleep spell than to just delay your death one more turn. I am not saying that Defensive Casting is the best option all the time. Only that it is another option you have available, and not a Noob-crutch.

taltamir
2009-12-28, 06:48 PM
I have to ask, though, who uses withdraw? In situations where you can't 5-ft step out of their reach you're still going to get attacked as you leave the next square they threaten. In that case why not move, take the AoO, and then cast instead of wasting your entire action avoiding the AoO. Or if you don't have the hit points for that why not just cast defensively because if you withdraw they'll normally just charge you and kill you. I always wondered who used the withdraw tactic anyway.

wouldn't you get an AoO per every square that they threaten that you pass through (if they have combat reflexes... which, if it has 15+ foot reach, it probably does). So withdraw removes the first square from consideration, doesn't it?

Also, running requires a straight line, and we already mentioned bad terrain here, so a withdrawl action allows you to zig zag away.

but yes, in a fair number of those extremely situational situations, a run action would be better...
Heck, I had a wizard with the run feat (5x base speed) be the only survivor of a TPK before :)

Zaydos
2009-12-28, 06:55 PM
wouldn't you get an AoO per every square that they threaten that you pass through (if they have combat reflexes... which, if it has 15+ foot reach, it probably does). So withdraw removes the first square from consideration, doesn't it?

Also, running requires a straight line, and we already mentioned bad terrain here, so a withdrawl action allows you to zig zag away.

but yes, in a fair number of those extremely situational situations, a run action would be better...
Heck, I had a wizard with the run feat (5x base speed) be the only survivor of a TPK before :)

Never mentioned running, I said charging. As for an AoO per every square, no, without Dragon Magazine feats (Superior Combat Reflexes I think it was called, been a year since I messed with Dragon Magazines) you can only make 1 attack of opportunity against a target for moving out of your threaten squares no matter how many they move out of; it's one action and 1 action can only cause 1 attack of opportunity without Dragon Magazine feats. So if they have reach 10+ and you provoke an AoO you suffer just as many. And if your DM is really being mean they have a trip ability, knockdown feat, etc. so you aren't getting out that way anyway.

Also if you do zig-zag then you aren't 2x your speed from them and if there's not something blocking them then they're still able to charge. If there is something blocking them they can move after you, and unless you're using expeditious retreat (too short duration for my liking) most monsters are faster than you so at best withdrawing leaves you in the same situation you were before.

I will admit I have on one or two occasions used withdraw, but then it was to get where the creatures couldn't follow because they were bigger than me. Or else because I had a higher speed so they couldn't follow anyway.

Talya
2009-12-28, 07:00 PM
I'm certainly no batman-wizard player. The game i've been playing in longest, I have a level 17 sorceress. She didn't take fly or overland flight. She uses Alter Self to accomplish the same. One cheap lesser metamagic rod of extend spell and one casting of a level 2 spell gets me 340 minutes (5 2/3rds hours) of flight. Since i don't travel anywhere by land or flight (Greater Teleport, ftw!), any time I'm thinking I've got a reasonable chance of encountering trouble, I have wings for the duration.

I can't remember the last time i've cast defensively...maybe never. Even when on the ground, it's not a problem. That said, i can't really fail a concentration check, either.

Hyooz
2009-12-28, 07:02 PM
Dude, defensive casting. You're not taking the hit to cast the spell unless you fail. The spell *should* be one that gets you clear, or removes the threat. Also, many enemies can have a greater speed than the wizard if he didn't memorize expeditious retreat that day. Your withdraw action may only buy you one round, in which you do nothing but move. Furthermore, it only makes your starting square not count for AoO's. What if there are more enemies in range?

Sometimes it is more useful to take a gamble on that Sleep spell than to just delay your death one more turn. I am not saying that Defensive Casting is the best option all the time. Only that it is another option you have available, and not a Noob-crutch.

My defensive-casting fu was a bit off, admittedly.

Defensive casting still leaves you right in their face for a Full Attack. Is 'maybe' sleeping the baddie and risking a ton of damage really preferable to getting out of there, and risking a charge if the baddie REALLY hates you for some reason?

And defensive casting being optimal STILL requires very specific conditions, including but not limited to the caster's mobility being hindered, the enemies having the ability to get to a non-hindered caster/sneak up on said caster, and also be actively attacking the caster and ONLY the caster, the enemies having reach, etc. For most foes, once the caster books it a fair distance, it makes much more sense to attack the more immediate threats (i.e. the melee characters in the caster's own party who are still RIGHT THERE or letting the ranged deal with the caster.) A typical monster won't even know the difference between a caster and a non-caster. So if I want to cast sleep on the ogre or whatever in front of me, I'll dash out of range of his great axe, preventing him from getting to wail on me should it fail, and try to sleep him next round, costing myself nothing (maybe a spell slot if 'booking it' is casting a swift action teleport spell) and the enemy AT LEAST a move action.

Whether defensive casting is a noob move or not was never the issue and is only being argued because some people got their feelings hurt and feel the need to justify themselves to some random guy on the internet who thinks maybe they are using a sub-par maneuver. The question is, is this why casters are over powered. The answer is simply 'no.'

Edit:



Also if you do zig-zag then you aren't 2x your speed from them and if there's not something blocking them then they're still able to charge. If there is something blocking them they can move after you, and unless you're using expeditious retreat (too short duration for my liking) most monsters are faster than you so at best withdrawing leaves you in the same situation you were before.

Charging is significantly less scary than a full attack, though. So even if you do end up in charge range, you've still benefited.

LibraryOgre
2009-12-28, 07:21 PM
O-o Spellcasters weren't overpowered in 2E?

You mean they're very weak at levels 1-4? I'd buy that one. I've never heard that spellcasters were anything besides overpowered after that.

Depends a lot on the situation. In 2e, a 5th level wizard could solve a great number of problems with a single fireball (thank you, Vaarsuvius, for the new sig quote). A not-bad "Problem-solving" loadout for a 5th level wizard was Fireball, Stinking cloud*2, Armor, Shield and Detect Magic (to find the valuable stuff after you've nuked everyone and made those who remained vomit until they could be killed).

The problem is that solves 1-3 problems. If there are 4 problems, the wizard is a tasty, tasty 5-30hp meat snack until he can get a rest and study his spells for 100 minutes. He's probably got a couple magic items to help him, but the really good stuff is unlikely to have shown up, yet... he's not likely to have wands, and his scrolls will be fairly random.

In 3e, a few things change. One is that a single fireball doesn't solve a problem, usually... damage is the same, but AoE is smaller (since the previous one would fill a volume instead of a fixed radius, only a perfect airburst would approach a 40' diameter sphere), and enemies have more HP. Another, however, is that the wizard can do a lot more. At 5th level, he may have made his own wands. He's likely got more than 1 3rd level spell, and almost certainly has scrolls and a few magic items, either of his own make or from his WBL. And he's only a little bit away from being able to retreat to the nigh-impenetrable fortress of Rope Trick (and, in fact, if one of his feats is Extend Spell, he can more or less live out of his Rope Trick starting at 5th level... and a wizard could do worse than to have Scribe Scroll, Extend Spell, Craft Wondrous Item and Craft Wand at 5th level).

And that doesn't count the utility of not having to spend 1st level spell slots on things like Detect Magic and Read Magic.

Eldariel
2009-12-28, 07:25 PM
Defensive casting isn't that relevant right now because so many other things are broken. 5' steps are a completely broken mechanic that was intended for fcking closing in on large melee opponents without provoking. Mostly, they're just used to avoid melee threatening anything.

Combat turns are broken; because of the way the turns work, even if someone is right next to you, he cannot stop you from moving away and casting, because while he's imagined to constantly follow you, his move only happens on his own turn. If there was a separate Move-turn and Action-turn, that could work better, but again, that's a topic for another time.

Then there's Tumble that means that even if you're fcking cornered by a band of melee types, you can still get out of there without a single one of them having anything to say about it.


No, the real issue with Defensive Casting is that once you fix the other issues that make casting too safe, THEN you run into Defensive Casting. Right now, it's mostly relevant in cramped spaces where you cannot move easily without Tumble (say, a dungeon with 5' corridors).

That and rooms where you can easily corner people thanks to exits being blocked and the room being like 20'/20' at most, or there being lots of melee types. At that point, in 3.5, Defensive Casting steps into play.

But now, if you fix 5' steps (say, combine them into full attack action; allowing one 5' step during the full attack, but only towards an opponent you're attacking), fix combat turns or state that any damage you take from an AoO while moving also requires Concentration if casting that turn, and fix Tumble so it's actually counterable, at that point Defensive Casting becomes the mainstay solution causing casters to STILL not be hindered by a melee type up their skin.


In other words, it's one of the litany of reasons melee threat isn't very severe for casters (other than from Large creatures or Reach Fighters, but this just means you need to use Spiked Chain or Reach+Unarmed/Spikes, or suck; which again isn't a desirable state of affairs), and one that needs to be addressed alongside all the rest if you want for the Longsword wielder to be as severe a threat as the Longspear-wielder with Armor Spikes.

Note that thanks to Concentration, caster threatened in melee still doesn't autofail their check. It just means they take damage (if the melee threat hits) and depending on how much damage they take, they might fail casting the spell. As such, removing it doesn't mean mages lose the ability to cast in melee, it just means they lose the ability to not take damage while doing so.


What I really want to know is, what does Defensive Casting add to the game? What is the reason to allow Defensive Casting? To me, it only seems to add negative sides. It:
- Makes melee characters less of a threat to casters (unless they all invest in Mage Slayer, which is sadly enough almost necessary on mid-levels)
- Makes casters not even need to bother trying to stay out of melee while casting.

I can see it as a great option for melee-aligned casters like Clerics and Gishes so it'd make sense as a rather common class feature for caster classes often in melee, or a feat. As an automatic option though? Get outta here.

Mike_G
2009-12-28, 07:26 PM
at those low levels where you don't have flight, you also do not have the means to auto succeed the concentration check. In fact it is a damn hard concentration check in levels 1-5.


It is not a hard check by the wildest stretch of the imagination.

If you max your concentration, and you should, you have 4 ranks at level 1, + say 2 from Con, without any items, feats or optimization tricks. To cast your highets level spell, you need a 16. That requires you to roll a 10. So 55% success at level 1. Just maxing Concentration will increase your check faster than your highest level spell slot, so by 5 level, you should have 8 ranks, + 2 from Con, and need to make an 18. So you need to roll an 8, or a 65% chance of success.

This is not "hard to make."

Considering the fact that trying to use a crossbow or throw a puch in melee (without Feats to off set this) always provokes AoO's, I think the Defensive Casting is a boost for mages. No, it's not the reason they are overpowered, but it's yet another toy for the class that really doesn't need more stuff.

I think a Defensive Casting option that improved AC verus the AoO, like Mobility does for movement, would be more in line with the rest of the combat rules.

SurlySeraph
2009-12-28, 07:33 PM
Yes, out of context.
I suggest people read the actual posts, in order.
But whatever, you decided I am an elitist.. fine, be that way.

Hence why I quoted the actual posts, in order. I do not think that you are an elitist, but I do think that the way you've stated your argument comes off as elitist, and since you expressed disbelief at the notion that Crow was calling you elitist I wanted to explain why you might give people that impression. Because, reality check? "its like WOTC throwing a bone to newbie players who don't know how to play a caster yet" comes off as pretty elitist.


At levels at which this is an issue (aka, low levels), the check is a difficult one to make, and still a rather rare thing.

Signmaker showed that it can be made pretty easily and cheaply.


If multiple enemies surround your caster while ignoring your non caster friends, then the caster should be just taking total defense. His spells are not that much of a threat at this level anyways.

OK, that's valid.


The situation you set up is a TPK situation most likely, and very likely the "insta gib the wizard in one round"... not even letting him cast one relatively useless spell (because he is low level) to even try to save himself is just being mean, and is not gonna make a difference anyways since he is doomed.

Not if the assailants are, say, Kobolds or something else weak. Or he has Mage Armor and Shield up. Or any if the various other defenses that low-level wizards have. A low-level spell can most certainly make a very big difference to a wizard who's surrounded: Sleep, Glitterdust, and Color Spray will all pretty much remove the threat.


if multiple assailants corner him in such a manner that means the entire party should be overwhelmed, and it is the right time to surrender.

Oh come on. You've never had the party members cut off from each other by a group of orcs or kobolds or something? This is far from being a doomsday scenario for a low-level party. A hard scenario, certainly. Unwinnable? Hell no.


The other situation is a high level wizard being "surprised" by a group of enemies with reach, fast motion, invisibility, and flight...

No, it's a wizard of *any* level being adjacent to an enemy and without a way to five-foot-step away before casting. For example, being in thick underbrush (difficult terrain) that some enemy is hiding in. Such a scenario requires a group of enemies, or difficult terrain, or reach, etc. Not all of the above.


however, again readied actions rear their ugly head and at such a situation should nullify whatever he could do.

But you can make a Concentration check to continue a spell that you're damaged while casting. Just like casting defensively. Readied actions are not necessarily superior to full attacking and then taking AoOs if the wizard fails to cast defensively; in fact, I'd say a full attack is much more likely to take the wizard down than waiting for him to cast and then hoping he fails the Concentration check.

I agree that defensive casting is a worse option than 5-foot stepping away. However, scenarios in which you can't step away are pretty common, and defensive casting is a very useful ability in such cases. I'm not saying that defensive casting is why wizards are overpowered, just that it adds significantly to their power.

Zaydos
2009-12-28, 07:41 PM
Charging is significantly less scary than a full attack, though. So even if you do end up in charge range, you've still benefited.

Not really. You took an AoO and then a charge attack (at low levels this is actually worse than a full attack, or if fighting something with pounce) and are now in the same situation as before. If your allies can help you out and kill it off before it can full attack it might be a good idea, but otherwise you're in for some pain.

taltamir
2009-12-28, 07:46 PM
But you can make a Concentration check to continue a spell that you're damaged while casting.

Yes you could, that makes it a problem with concentration, not with defensive casting...

it is interesting that the consensus seems to be "fighters are weak, therefore, if a fighter gets anywhere near a caster, the caster should be incapable of casting spells".


Readied actions are not necessarily superior to full attacking and then taking AoOs if the wizard fails to cast defensively; in fact, I'd say a full attack is much more likely to take the wizard down than waiting for him to cast and then hoping he fails the Concentration check.
Correct, it gives you a choice, do you wail on the poor wizard with a full attack, probably killing him. But let him retaliate with a spell via defensive casting should the unlikely occur and he survive...
Or do you make a readied action and get one free attack against him, doing damage, and forcing him to roll a concentration or have his entire turn AND a spell wasted.


I agree that defensive casting is a worse option than 5-foot stepping away. However, scenarios in which you can't step away are pretty common
I disagree about that point. I think it is an extremely rare scenario. can you give some real examples that happened to you in a game where it could be done?

PS. I agree with those who say that 5 foot step needs to be nerfed. badly. it is ridiculous as written.

Hyooz
2009-12-28, 07:49 PM
Not really. You took an AoO and then a charge attack (at low levels this is actually worse than a full attack, or if fighting something with pounce) and are now in the same situation as before. If your allies can help you out and kill it off before it can full attack it might be a good idea, but otherwise you're in for some pain.

Again, this requires the enemy to charge YOU instead of any of your allies, who are still right there, actively fighting instead of running away. At those levels, wizards don't have many overtly scary spells to take down groups, but a barbarian raging is a huge, obvious threat. Much moreso than the guy in robes running away. So in a certain subset of enemies, sure this might come up and, like you said, charges are only scarier than Full Attacks at low level, and even then, there shouldn't be an AoO since you're Withdrawing.

taltamir
2009-12-28, 07:50 PM
Again, this requires the enemy to charge YOU instead of any of your allies, who are still right there, actively fighting instead of running away. At those levels, wizards don't have many overtly scary spells to take down groups, but a barbarian raging is a huge, obvious threat. Much moreso than the guy in robes running away. So in a certain subset of enemies, sure this might come up and, like you said, charges are only scarier than Full Attacks at low level, and even then, there shouldn't be an AoO since you're Withdrawing.

which require that your enemy:
1. Be sentient
2. See the guy in robes as the biggest threat
3. Take AoO from all your friends as it charges past... heck, I give my wizards a long spear so that they perform AoO...

SurlySeraph
2009-12-28, 08:03 PM
Yes you could, that makes it a problem with concentration, not with defensive casting...

Agreed, but defensive casting and casting while being damaged are the functions of Concentration that see play the most. Defensive casting is DC 15 + spell level, casting when hit is DC 10 + damage dealt (could well be easier than casting defensively at low levels, but at high levels is much less so). In my opinion, allowing Concentration checks to keep spells when attacked often makes things too easy for casters, and defensive casting is just one of those checks.


it is interesting that the consensus seems to be "fighters are weak, therefore, if a fighter gets anywhere near a caster, the caster should be incapable of casting spells".

As you've pointed out, casters have a lot of ways to get away from fighters, and with how weak ranged weapons are melee is generally the fighters' best hope for stopping a wizard. Getting stuck in melee should be an extremely bad situation for a wizard, in my opinion; they have enough win buttons even at low levels (e.g. Sleep, Fell Drain anything at first level) that letting the fighter have a win button against them seems fair to me.


Correct, it gives you a choice, do you wail on the poor wizard with a full attack, probably killing him. But let him retaliate with a spell via defensive casting should the unlikely occur and he survive...
Or do you make a readied action and get one free attack against him, doing damage, and forcing him to roll a concentration or have his entire turn AND a spell wasted.

Good point. I'd thought of that as one-sided "Of course you full attack, duh." You're right that readying an action can be a better option. Readying an action would definitely be better for martial adepts, since a lot of standard action strikes are going to do damage near that of a full attack anyway. I withdraw that objection, then.


I disagree about that point. I think it is an extremely rare scenario. can you give some real examples that happened to you in a game where it could be done?

I can only think of one, since I rarely play wizards. I'm currently in a PbP game on another forum, where the wizard I'm playing recently got knocked into a pit of spikes in an ambush, along with our group's paladin. Said pit was promptly surrounded by spear-wielding hobgoblins. I cast Dimension Door defensively to get out of there. However, that's an over-the-top scenario; a single spear-wielding hobbo showing up adjacent to me, or two on either side of me, or being in difficult terrain within reach of one, would all be sufficient causes for me to fall back on casting defensively.


PS. I agree with those who say that 5 foot step needs to be nerfed. badly. it is ridiculous as written.

Yeah. It's subtly broken; the drowning rules take little thought to pick up on, and Polymorph's brokenness becomes clear as soon as you realize that there are plenty of creatures with low HD and really powerful abilities. But 5 foot steps always seemed like a pretty elegant and fair way of handling movement in combat to me.

Yukitsu
2009-12-28, 08:06 PM
Not really. You took an AoO and then a charge attack (at low levels this is actually worse than a full attack, or if fighting something with pounce) and are now in the same situation as before. If your allies can help you out and kill it off before it can full attack it might be a good idea, but otherwise you're in for some pain.

*Refers to infinite plane of empty, terrain free plains.*

In practice when I play a wizard, at any given ECL, the DM only has so many options to ambush me, and I do my best to cover all of the possibilities. For example, standing in the middle of my party. Soon after, I ride around on a phantasmal steed, and if you follow the rules for starting combat with spot checks, any CR appropriate to my level will see me riding along, prepare an ambush, and be surprised as I disappear from their field of view again, because I'm just riding that damn fast.

Or when I surround myself with skeletons, which will disrupt anyone trying to get into melee with me at CR 7. Or with planar bound succubi who are excellent spotters if you learn how to disable enemies as pay, and keep them away from danger.

After that, it's pretty much going to be impossible to meaningfully get the jump on me aside from being a caster and killing me from afar with a single hit, and a little bit after even that, I get contingency and become immune to that as well.

ex cathedra
2009-12-28, 08:12 PM
I'm amused at how quickly someone who has continually proven that his or her experience with the system is passing at best is willing to assert that his or her opinions regarding it are fact.

Defensive Casting isn't worthless; it's a free ability that with practically no effort allows you to cast in situations in which you normally couldn't. Raising Concentration is nigh effortless, and past the first few levels you should never find yourself failing a check.

It isn't the one thing that overpowers casters, either. There is not one single feature that breaks casters, but rather the sheer amount of effective options that they can bring to bear.

I don't think that 5ft steps are that broken. Full attacks, perhaps, are broken, and that empowers 5ft steps. Otherwise, I do think that it's an elegant addition to combat.

Hyooz
2009-12-28, 08:22 PM
I'm amused at how quickly someone who has continually proven that his or her experience with the system is passing at best is willing to assert that his or her opinions regarding it are fact.

Defensive Casting isn't worthless; it's a free ability that with practically no effort allows you to cast in situations in which you normally couldn't. Raising Concentration is nigh effortless, and past the first few levels you should never find yourself failing a check.

It isn't the one thing that overpowers casters, either. There is not one single feature that breaks casters, but rather the sheer amount of effective options that they can bring to bear.

I don't think that 5ft steps are that broken. Full attacks, perhaps, are broken, and that empowers 5ft steps. Otherwise, I do think that it's an elegant addition to combat.

Those two paragraphs coming from the same person amuse me.

ex cathedra
2009-12-28, 08:32 PM
I'm not sure that I follow. I'm not saying that they are broken, just that I believe as much.

Do you think that full-attacks aren't broken? The inherent difference between a caster's combat actions requiring a standard action and a fighter's combat actions requiring a full-round action is broken, in my opinion. I firmly believe that all melee classes should have effective standard action attacks or pounce, at the very least.

Quirinus_Obsidian
2009-12-28, 08:40 PM
My first of two coppers:

Defensive Spellcasting is *one* tactic. DND is a tactical game. If it is in your best interest to defensive cast, then you do it. If it is in your best interest to GTFO then you GTFO. There is going to be a situation when you don't have a teleport-esque spell, or anything besides blast-that-enemy type spells. Heck you may be down to your last Magic Missile and trapped in a corner by a Dread Wraith. (not likely, but is rather hilarious hearing the spellcaster whining about being trapped). If anyone says "if you're trapped in the corner by a dread wraith, you're doing it wrong" has never played a well-ran game of DND. The rule is you do what is in your best interest to survive and roll another day.

The second of two coppers:

Spellcasting in DND is generally broken. Look at how many spells there are. You can literally do ANYTHING. For those of us that enjoy the crunchier parts of the game are always set into the background.
Also there is always a magical solution to any problem presented in the game. The monsters in the standard monster manuals are too susceptible to the magic system in DND. Too easy, if it were. It gets boring as a melee fanperson AND DM watching tons and tons of reasonably well designed monsters and villians getting trounced on by a single spellcaster. It's like "Oh, the wizard did this and this, and now the EL12 encounter is trashed in 3 rounds by one character". BOOR - RING!

That is where having an intuitive and aggressive DM comes into play. A good DM will see that sending wave after wave of Kobolds after the PCs is not going to instill fear in the PCs. If that is what the campaign calls for, the campaign encounters can be changed to make more of a threat. Even raising the HD of the Kobolds by giving them class levels is not going to help the DM. They just become XP fodder. The best encounter that I have ran was a group of ECL9 characters, including a DM's PC, taking on an Usunag (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psb/20070711a&page=4). It had the following:
1) Party "beatstick" Lizardfolk Scout was doing about 10 damage a hit, and he could not overcome the DR.
2) Party caster was hit by a death urge and was taken out of the encounter.
3) Party beguiler was effectively useless because the Usunag is immune to mind affecting effects. And it was sickened.
4) The party cleric was being held to a move action because it was sickened.
5) DM's PC was barely able to do any damage to it because his draconic breath weapon was still a moderate amount of damage, and the usunag as a very good reflex save.

Mind you this is in the middle of the Shackled City campaign setting. There was no such thing as an Usunag in that campaign. As a DM I had to throw it in there to scare the PCs. And it WORKED. Bonus effect: The CR of the creature was LOWER than that of the PCs. The purpose of telling you this is because as the DM I saw that the party did not have much to combat this creature. Eventually, the creature was killed, but only after quite a few rounds. I think 9? Did we have the "Batman Wizard"? no. did we have "clericzilla" or "druidzilla"? no. We didn't even have a character that had Know (Psionics). But.. the fact is, they survived. IMO, they should have GTFO'ed as soon as they saw it, and blasted it from afar (As the sorcerer is a blaster caster).

Quirinus_Obsidian
2009-12-28, 08:44 PM
I'm not sure that I follow. I'm not saying that they are broken, just that I believe as much.

Do you think that full-attacks aren't broken? The inherent difference between a caster's combat actions requiring a standard action and a fighter's combat actions requiring a full-round action is broken, in my opinion. I firmly believe that all melee classes should have effective standard action attacks or pounce, at the very least.

Full attacks are not broken. Farthest thing from it. Have you seen a swordsman fight? a real swordsman? Truth is they can get in 4 attacks (after years and years and years of training) in about 15 seconds. In DND rules, the attack bonus is dropped by 5 after each swing. That reduces the chances of hitting by 10-15% depending on what is being attacked, and what is attacking. A spellcaster can freaking STOP TIME. That is IMPOSSIBLE. Melee has always been better balanced then spellcasting in this game.

taltamir
2009-12-28, 08:47 PM
A spellcaster can freaking STOP TIME. That is IMPOSSIBLE. Melee has always been better balanced then spellcasting in this game.

1. they can accelerate themselves to the point that it appears as if time has stopped, during which they are saddled with various limitations on their interaction with the world.
2. at level 17+.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-28, 08:58 PM
Those two paragraphs coming from the same person amuse me.

:smallbiggrin:

Defensive Casting isn't broken. The idea defensive casting ties into, along with 5' steps, Concentration checks, and standard-action spells, is "broken". If a mage fails casting as soon as even a point of damage is taken, and must be immobile for several rounds to cast most spells of note, then they're a bit more balanced. Defensive casting is one of several things that made combat casting easier, which in turn made things "broken". Other things contribute more to the problem, but defensive casting still contributes a bit.

Also, don't insult taltamir. He doesn't know the rules with CharOp-level knowledge: like most people. He argues in an overly assertive manner: like most people. He types without perfect punctuation: like most people. It's irksome at times (like most people), but there's nothing wrong with how he posts.

Quirinus_Obsidian
2009-12-28, 09:13 PM
1. they can accelerate themselves to the point that it appears as if time has stopped, during which they are saddled with various limitations on their interaction with the world.
2. at level 17+.

1) Still. Broken. :smallbiggrin: No PC should be able to manipulate time with a non-epic spell or salient divine means. Period. Celerity is just as broken, so is a Quickened Synchronicity.

taltamir
2009-12-28, 09:15 PM
1) Still. Broken. :smallbiggrin: No PC should be able to manipulate time with a non-epic spell or salient divine means. Period. Celerity is just as broken, so is a Quickened Synchronicity.

and haste... haste should be a level 9 spell... i'd still cast it.
CL allies gain 1 extra attack per round for CL rounds.

ex cathedra
2009-12-28, 09:24 PM
3.0 Haste, maybe, but I wouldn't cast 3.5 Haste as a 9th level spell, ever.

UserClone
2009-12-28, 09:38 PM
Dude, defensive casting. You're not taking the hit to cast the spell unless you fail.

Actually, per RAW, you aren't taking the hit even if you fail your Concentration check to cast defensively. Either the spell goes off without a hitch, or your defensive posturing, which prevented the AoO, also prevented the spell from going off and it fizzles. Right there in the Skill Description, at the end (note: that was not verbatim).

EDIT:
Full attacks are not broken. Farthest thing from it. Have you seen a swordsman fight? a real swordsman? Truth is they can get in 4 attacks (after years and years and years of training) in about 15 seconds. In DND rules, the attack bonus is dropped by 5 after each swing. That reduces the chances of hitting by 10-15% depending on what is being attacked, and what is attacking. A spellcaster can freaking STOP TIME. That is IMPOSSIBLE. Melee has always been better balanced then spellcasting in this game.

Did you even read what you quoted? aethernox was saying that Standard action attacks need to be on par with full attacks, or that at least every meleer should have pounce. You latched onto the first sentence (which was, admittedly, poorly phrased) and let loose the torrent of obvious that followed without realizing that you were agreeing with the fellow.:smallconfused:

erikun
2009-12-28, 10:07 PM
I feel compelled to point out that you cannot 5-foot step and then withdraw in the same round. Not only do the rules for 5-foot step (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#take5FootStep) say you cannot take one and move in the same round, but the rules for withdraw (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#withdraw) specifically state that you cannot take a 5-foot step while withdrawing.

As for the question: No, defensive casting is not the reason that casters are overpowered. If anything, it makes it easier to play spellcasting clerics in melee - one of the less optimal options for the class. Spellcasters are overpowered because spells are overpowered, easy to obtain, and easy to cast.

UserClone
2009-12-28, 10:09 PM
Ah, good point. I knew that there had been another thing I'd thought of while reading this thread and forgotten, and that was it.

Kylarra
2009-12-28, 10:20 PM
3.0 Haste, maybe, but I wouldn't cast 3.5 Haste as a 9th level spell, ever.Not even for a guaranteed 4 rounds of time stop (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070327)? :smalltongue:

truemane
2009-12-28, 10:20 PM
I remember playing 2E before there ever WERE Attacks of Opportunity and Casting Times (and Weapon Times) were considered optional. There weren't any rules for Readying Actions either.

So, when your Wizard went to cast a spell, the only way he was being knocked out of it was if someone happened to go at the same count. They didn't even have Standard Actions.

Once you added Casting Time into the mix, it made things a little more difficult, true, but it still wasn't as bad as 3.x

You could shoot a bow in melee too. So there. Ranged attackers are broken in 3.x too.:smalltongue:

ex cathedra
2009-12-28, 10:26 PM
Not even for a guaranteed 4 rounds of time stop (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070327)? :smalltongue:

Ugh, right. Don't cite my favorite prestige class against me. :smallwink:

FatR
2009-12-29, 01:45 AM
I think this deserves its own thread since it was derailing another thread.

My argument is that this is simply false.
Defensive casting doesn't do anything at all to overpower casters.
The argument in question is false primarily because in 2E, and, indeed, in every edition of DnD wizards were overpowered massively. It is no coincidence, that all but, IIRC, one of PCs of Gygax and his company, who survived long enough to get into the game lore were wizards, that the most important humanoid characters in lore of the most settings were wizards, that the greatest humanoid villains nearly always were wizards. All 3E did is to officially make clerics and druids competitive with arcane casters (if your GM was crazy enough to allow Spells & Powers in 2E, they were competitive in 2E too, but mostly by stealing wizards' tricks), and to make arcane casters less fragile at low levels. That's all. (Any other caster-positive changes were at least offset by rampant spell nerfing and enemy HP inflation, which turned wizards from nuclear cannons into debuffers - in 2E and earlier wizards had no need of batmaning, as starting from 5th level things without magic resistance or apropriate elemental resistance tended to die whenever hit by their spells - monsters only had d8 for HD, with no Con bonuses, and bad save progression, direct damage spells had same potential as they do in 3.E, except some of them also had awesome extra effects, like the infamous Lightning Bolt rebound and, IIRC, many had better AoE).

The only reason anyone thinks that in early editions wizards were less powerful is lack of proper Internet optimization discussions at the times of 2E.

awa
2009-12-29, 03:34 AM
their were more negative effects with many spells and the percentile spell immunity which on some creatures was nearly unbeatable. But in general even though wizards were substantial weaker in 2end edition once they started getting useful spells like at say level 5 plus and that's becuase even though they were weaker fighters and rouges, fighters and rouges were also weaker then their 3.0 counterparts but by a much larger margin.

Fortuna
2009-12-29, 04:29 AM
Although it has probably been said: No. Not "the" reason. There is no one reason, and that in itself is a reason. If that makes any sense outside my warped and diseased mind.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-29, 04:55 AM
Is defensive casting broken? No.

Is it a contributing factor? Absolutely.

In a setting where everyone has mobility enhancement, where fight awareness can start at 5 feet in some cases, where dimension locks and various other means can be used to maintain close range?

Mage Slayer wouldn't be considered such a outright useful feat if negating defensive casting weren't important.

Killer Angel
2009-12-29, 05:19 AM
Is defensive casting broken? No.

Is it a contributing factor? Absolutely.

In a setting where everyone has mobility enhancement, where fight awareness can start at 5 feet in some cases, where dimension locks and various other means can be used to maintain close range?

Mage Slayer wouldn't be considered such a outright useful feat if negating defensive casting weren't important.

QFT
Also, remember that we're not talking 'bout wizard, but casters.
Tell that defensive casting is worthless to a CoDzilla.
And all the smart tactics I've read (when your precious caster is surrounded), as move away without provoking AoO or cast dimension door, etc, some of'em require a defensive casting and, anyway, they make you lose one combat round, in which the enemies can act and do effective things, while you simply escape.
So yes: defensive casting is not broken, but it helps classes that definitely don't need help at all, even for a "rare" situation.
The cake is already good, it doesn't need also free ice on it.

Bosh
2009-12-29, 07:38 AM
The main reason that casters are overpowered in 3.5ed (at least compared to 2ed) is that 3.5ed takes this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UselessUsefulSpell trope and stomps all over it. All of those cool spells that the damn 2ed bosses always made their saves again? Well now you can use them to one-shot kill most anything if you pump up your spell DC and target their weak save.

Kaldrin
2009-12-29, 08:28 AM
I think the main problem with 3e is that it attempts to equate levels with levels no matter what the class is. But the problem is that when we were playing 2nd and 1st edition we'd traditionally have 15-17th level fighters and 12th level mages running around with each other and everyone was holding their own. Hell the thief was already at 20 for a year before any mage ever got there. Now you have everyone advancing at the same rate and the classes just aren't equal.

FatR
2009-12-29, 10:38 AM
The main reason that casters are overpowered in 3.5ed (at least compared to 2ed) is that 3.5ed takes this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UselessUsefulSpell trope and stomps all over it. All of those cool spells that the damn 2ed bosses always made their saves again? Well now you can use them to one-shot kill most anything if you pump up your spell DC and target their weak save.
In 2E you did not need SoDs past low levels (at which they destoyed whole encounters, much harder than they do in 3.X, thanks to having much better effects, and enemies with static, low saves). Ever. Things that weren't spellresistant died well enough to direct damage (and for things that were spellresistant you had splatbook spells, that reduced their spell resistance).

FatR
2009-12-29, 10:51 AM
I think the main problem with 3e is that it attempts to equate levels with levels no matter what the class is. But the problem is that when we were playing 2nd and 1st edition we'd traditionally have 15-17th level fighters and 12th level mages running around with each other and everyone was holding their own. Hell the thief was already at 20 for a year before any mage ever got there. Now you have everyone advancing at the same rate and the classes just aren't equal.
When you have actually checked 2E XP tables the last time? Wizards never were more than two levels behind fighters, and that's at level 18. And actually needed less XP at middle levels, when it actually mattered. The thief leveled up faster than anyone, except, sometimes, druid, yes, but he was most definitely not holding his own, as wizard was making his skills wholly unnecessary starting from middle levels, and except skills the thief got almost nothing useful in 2E (unlike sneak attack, backstab was quite hard to use). In fact we owe the concept of the thief being actually useful in combat beyong the first couple of levels to 3E.

Andras
2009-12-29, 11:04 AM
With regards to readied actions negating defensive casting:

The thing that sucks most about getting hit on an AoO (besides losing the spell) is that it's effortless on the part of the one doing it. He can potentially hit you outside of his designated actions per round, and at the same time make you lose your designated actions per round; if this fails, it has no meaningful repercussions for him. It's a highly efficient action. Forcing an enemy to ready an attack means they sacrifice that action now to maybe have an effect later. This is a one-for-one trade at best; at worst (either they miss or you pass the concentration check), they've blown their action and you're unaffected. Granted, it becomes a better idea as the number of enemies increases, but the more enemies there are, the less likely you are to actually be effected by it (assuming a fixed CR).

Oslecamo
2009-12-29, 11:26 AM
And all the smart tactics I've read (when your precious caster is surrounded), as move away without provoking AoO or cast dimension door, etc, some of'em require a defensive casting and, anyway, they make you lose one combat round, in which the enemies can act and do effective things, while you simply escape.
Considering how one of the "caster rulez" main argument is that casters can get away from any hard situation to fight another day, then allow me to point out that there's a big diference between:

1-Caster losing one round to get in a better position, and making the enemy losing one round geting into treatening range of the caster again

and

2-Caster losing one round, taking damage, and acomplishing nothing as he loses the spell, and then the enemy full attacking again, actualy posing a threat to the caster.

I dunno about you, but 2 seems a lot more fair play than 1, specialy in a world where casters have stuff such as mirror image and displacement. 10% chance of hurting the caster is a lot more just than 0%.

Britter
2009-12-29, 11:55 AM
In my opinion, as a guy who played a fair amount of 2e prior to switching systems, and as a player with a moderate but far from extensive grasp of optimization and non-core 3.5, defensive casting is not the reason for the perception of increased caster power between 2e and 3.x.

I would place some blame on the reduced time for memorization of spells, the concentration check to cast through damage (not a huge factor, but a factor), the removal of negative factors to spells (loss of stat points, years of your life, etc were common negatives associated with powerful 2e spells).

The biggest issues in my opinion are metamagic and the homogenization of the fighters only distinguishing feature across the entirety of the class spectrum, combined with the decreasing importance of hit-point damage and increasing need for a tactical map-and-mini based comabt system. (Please note that I realize you need neither a map nor minis to play any edition of DnD, but imo while 2e assumed no map as the default and a minimal need to depict "real time" character locations and track actions, 3.x assumed the opposite, and a map became the default assumption.)

Re: Metamagic. Spells already give the caster a very powerful method to routinely break the rules of the game world, and metamagic allows casters to break those rules even more. The assumption of all-day buffs, quickend/persisted/etc spells, and items such as meta-magic rods were not options easily availible to the 2e caster. It made casting a spell a more meaningful expenditure of resources, becasue you most likely would NOT have the ability to buff in the begining of the day and just sit pretty, at least until very high levels, and at those levels the time to rememorize the lost spells would be much more signifigant.

Re: Multiple Attacks and the combat system. The 2e fighters only trick was multiple attacks and, if you used the optional rules, specialization. 3.x changed that, and every class that uses melee weapons can now get multiple attacks over the course of it's career. Additonaly, the changes to the combat system increased the tactical felxibility of spellcasters without giving any new and interesting options to the default fighter. This leads to the preception that the power differential is somehow greater in 3.x than it was in 2e.

But lets be honest here. A mid-to-high level 2e magic user with improved invisibility, stoneskin, blur, blink, mirror image and maybe fly up and running was virtually indestructable and could procede to eviscerate encounters without breaking a sweat every bit as easily as a 3.x wizard can. Perhaps easier, as hit-point damage and blasting spells were much more effective in 2e, and those spells are easier, imo, for the average player to understand and employ than Save-or- die/suck/lose spells. While I believe that 3.x did give more versatility and options to the casting classes without (at least in core) providing similar variety to everyone else, magic users and to a lesser extent clerics were still very potent in 2e. They simply had to weigh a slightly larger resource cost into the equation of when to drop the big spells.

Another factor that makes the 3.x caster feel more powerful than the 2e caster is the system standardization that came along with 3.x. Just look through the monster manuals for each system and you will immediately see what I mean. 2e was full of single-use rules, exceptions and variations. 3.x uses a more coherent internal logic. This means that the players are more empowered and expect more uniformity in a 3.x game. In 2e, if your mage was marginalizing the rest of the group, you could just say "that creature is immune to that" or pull out one of the critters written to have a bunch of anti-mage rules. So long as you were not a toolbox about this (i.e. pulling this sort of thing constantly or never letting players plans work), the majority of 2e players I knew would take it in stride. In 3.x, such a ruling would upset the players unless the DM could provide a written rules justification from somewhere in the system. This reflects a change in the underlying attitude of the player base, so naturally it will also affect the perception of changes in the power of magic between editions.

Jayabalard
2009-12-29, 12:30 PM
Not even for a guaranteed 4 rounds of time stop (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070327)? :smalltongue:since the piece you quoted here is about a game where haste is 9th level spell by default, you wouldn't get 4 rounds of time stop from casting it as a 9th level spell (you'd only get 1)

Eldariel
2009-12-29, 12:53 PM
since the piece you quoted here is about a game where haste is 9th level spell by default, you wouldn't get 4 rounds of time stop from casting it as a 9th level spell (you'd only get 1)

Uhm, no, it's very definitely 6th in that function and 3rd normally.

Jayabalard
2009-12-29, 01:11 PM
Uhm, no, it's very definitely 6th in that function and 3rd normally.You really should pay attention to the context of those remarks. The context is the statement "I wouldn't cast 3.5 Haste as a 9th level spell, ever" made in response to the statement: "haste should be a level 9 spell" ... so in this particular example, it would be 9th level spell normally. This would require a fairly major rewrite of all of the class features for swiftblade in response to the house rule that made haste a 9th level spell; in such a case, I'm fairly certain you would not get 4 rounds of time stop for casting it at it's default level, since the whole point of subsuming the haste spell is that you're casting it at a higher level to get the time stop effect (a substantially higher level to get 4 rounds of time stop).

This is especially true since the statement that kicked off that entire line of discussion was "No PC should be able to manipulate time with a non-epic spell or salient divine means. Period."

Eldariel
2009-12-29, 01:15 PM
You really should pay attention to the context of those remarks. The context is the statement "I wouldn't cast 3.5 Haste as a 9th level spell, ever" made in response to the statement: "haste should be a level 9 spell" ... so in this particular example, it would be 9th level spell normally. This would require a fairly major rewrite of all of the class features for swiftblade in response to the house rule that made haste a 9th level spell; in such a case, I'm fairly certain you would not get 4 rounds of time stop for casting it at it's default level, since the whole point of subsuming the haste spell is that you're casting it at a higher level to get the time stop effect (a substantially higher level to get 4 rounds of time stop).

By RAW, even if Haste was normally a 9th level spell, Time Stop Haste would be 6th level :smalltongue:

Jayabalard
2009-12-29, 01:36 PM
By RAW, even if Haste was normally a 9th level spell, Time Stop Haste would be 6th level :smalltongue:Quoting raw when discussing a game world that has been established as heavily house ruled is more than a little absurd, especially when the given house rules directly contradict the raw that you're quoting.

Eldariel
2009-12-29, 01:40 PM
Quoting raw when we've already established that the game world is heavily house ruled is more than a little absurd, especially when the established house rules directly contradict the raw that you're quoting.

Aye, which might serve as a tip for the seriousness of the comment :smallwink:

Jayabalard
2009-12-29, 01:43 PM
Aye, which might serve as a tip for the seriousness of the comment :smallwink:Oh, ho, ho, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a, a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83, when I was the only practitioner of it. And I stopped because I was tired of being stared at.

LibraryOgre
2009-12-29, 01:58 PM
Oh, ho, ho, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a, a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83, when I was the only practitioner of it. And I stopped because I was tired of being stared at.
Would you mind not bobbing your head? The argument keeps changing tempo. ;-)

sadi
2009-12-29, 07:56 PM
Defensive casting would be down my list, something like:

Harder to save against your spells
More spells to cast per day
More available spells from multiple sources
Your average arcane caster is going to be significantly less squishy
Ability to cast defensively


Number one is significantly more important than the rest. In 1st/2nd a fighter with the right magic gear would only fail a save on a 1 or 2 I don't remember exactly how low it could go but it was low. I've never seen how bad you can get a dc on a 9th level spell in 3.X but I'm going to say at least 30 basing on a 16 in your casting stat with +5 from levels, +5 from tomes, +6 from items.
Meaning your fighter needs a +28 will/reflex/fort save to be equal to an earlier edition character. I don't know of any builds off hand that have that type of bonus in all three, and are actually still feasible.

randomhero00
2009-12-29, 08:13 PM
In my opinion the only thing that makes spellcasters overpowered is the DMs that let them be and the misuse of rules. This isn't a hard coded video game. We can change rules on the fly. Who cares if its *possible* for a wizard to do anything the lower tiered classes can do? A good DM won't 1. put him into situations that let him 2. won't allow obvious cheese/misprint stuff.

I've been playing with a group that's been playing since 1e and they've never had a problem with casters. The problems come from the players and DMs.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-29, 08:24 PM
Defensive casting would be down my list, something like:

Harder to save against your spells
More spells to cast per day
More available spells from multiple sources
Your average arcane caster is going to be significantly less squishy
Ability to cast defensively


Number one is significantly more important than the rest. In 1st/2nd a fighter with the right magic gear would only fail a save on a 1 or 2 I don't remember exactly how low it could go but it was low. I've never seen how bad you can get a dc on a 9th level spell in 3.X but I'm going to say at least 30 basing on a 16 in your casting stat with +5 from levels, +5 from tomes, +6 from items.
Meaning your fighter needs a +28 will/reflex/fort save to be equal to an earlier edition character. I don't know of any builds off hand that have that type of bonus in all three, and are actually still feasible.

Charisma based builds can do it. Charisma to AC/Saves/Attack/Damage/prettymuch everything... Some of the builds can get it twice or more.

And if you have a Cha of 30, and add it twice to your saves, there's a +20 to all your saves, just for showing up. Add in base save (+6 on a slow save) and a +4 ability modifier, and you have a +30 to even a slow save.

From there, slippers of battledancing, various smite-related options and Divine turning feats for damage, and you can have a rather effective attack, as well (in the neighborhood of +20-40 damage, not counting smites/charges/power attack/etc).

Crow
2009-12-29, 08:44 PM
In my opinion the only thing that makes spellcasters overpowered is the DMs that let them be and the misuse of rules. This isn't a hard coded video game. We can change rules on the fly. Who cares if its *possible* for a wizard to do anything the lower tiered classes can do? A good DM won't 1. put him into situations that let him 2. won't allow obvious cheese/misprint stuff.

I've been playing with a group that's been playing since 1e and they've never had a problem with casters. The problems come from the players and DMs.

I'm with you man, and I have similar experience. I usually design adventures that allow everyone to shine, something that only the DM can do, since he knows his players, the group's composition, and how they like to play.

Unfortunately, when we discuss this stuff on the forum, we all have to have similar footing to debate from. Unfortunately, that footing is generally considered to be RAW.