[3.5] Casting in Combat.

[Rallicus]

So, contrary to my previous posts slamming 3.5 and its general playstyle, I've decided to... play 3.5 again! Hypocrisy at it's finest, but it keeps drawing me back in. I can never escape.

That said, I've been fiddling around with homebrew ideas to create a better game. Thus far I've come up with some pretty solid stuff, but I've yet to decide whether or not to implement a spell check requirement for casters while they're in combat. Five foot steps sort of defeat the purpose of having a cautious spellcaster in combat.

So, glancing over Deadlands D20 rulebook months ago (out of sheer boredom - I'll never play it), I came across their spell check rules. I thought of ways to implement them in 3.5 recently, and this is what I've come up with:

Casting in combat requires a concentration roll equal to 15 + two times the spell level. Let's say a wizard dumps his 18 roll in INT (obviously), dumps 4 points in concentration. Now that's +8... he'd need a 7 or higher to even cast a cantrip.

HOWEVER.

Take the class into account. Wizards might surround themselves in books and not be able to concentrate in stressful situations. Druids might be too used to the secluded, nomadic lifestyle to act well in a fight. Clerics might be sheltered in the church. Sorcerers might not be able to control their powers perfectly.

So, a spellcaster with combat experience would undoubtedly take combat casting as a feat. This lowers the spell check for the aforementioned cantrip to 3 or higher.

Now let's look at the same wizard at level 10. They've got +6 modifier for INT (roughly), +17 for concentration. +23. They want to cast a level 5 spell in combat. They'll need to roll a 2 or higher.

There's always that chance of a critical fail 1. And I'm thinking if the concentration skill > spell check level, a roll isn't required.

As for ranged touch spells, I was thinking that they could choose to either use their concentration check or roll again for a ranged touch attack, so long as their concentration check is lower than their ranged touch modifier.

This isn't by any means a solution to the OP spellcaster problem. But I think it adds a feeling of progression when you don't have to worry about lower level spells, and a feeling of uncertainty and a casting higher level spells, no matter how tiny the chances of you rolling low are.

Let me know what you think, and sorry for the rambling.

[Vadskye]

Just to clarify - the change you're suggesting is that Concentration be based on the primary casting stat of the class instead of Constitution, and the DC should be 15 + double spell level?

Sounds like Pathfinder (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magic.html). The only differences is that it gets rid of Concentration as a "skill" and makes it a caster level check + relevant ability modifier. So it's the same at what you suggested, except your bonus is 3 lower.

Personally, I kind of like having Concentration as a skill for compatibility with noncasters who should be good at concentrating (like monks), so I use a DC of 15 + double spell level, but I keep the skill Constitution-based, which also generates a lower bonus than your suggestion.

[Rallicus]

Just to clarify - the change you're suggesting is that Concentration be based on the primary casting stat of the class instead of Constitution, and the DC should be 15 + double spell level?


That was my intention, but you do bring up a good point.

I'm guessing the constitution modifier refers to how concentration checks usually take place if you're hit with an AoO while casting in combat. Like, if you're good enough to shrug off the damage.

I'm not sure how ICly it would make sense to use constitution in essentially just trying to overcome the stress of battle.

That was the point of this... to make casters required to concentrate regardless of conditions so long as they're directly involved in a battle.

[Vadskye]

If Con measures your ability to physically endure things, it makes perfect sense to me that "enduring pain" also translates to "enduring distractions". Certainly more sense than your Charisma or Wisdom, at any rate. Intelligence, I could see an argument for - if you're smart enough, you can afford to be distracted and still get done what you were trying to do - but I think Con has the stronger argument here. And it has the upside of maintaining consistent game mechanics across classes.

[Vadskye]

Also, I'd point out that the real problem here lies with 5' steps, not casting specifically. It makes no more sense that an archer can 5' step back and full attack with a bow than it does that a caster can 5' step back and cast a spell with impunity; why nerf one and not the other?

For my system, I got rid of the whole "5' step doesn't provoke" concept and replaced it with the very simple "If you leave someone's threatened area, you provoke". The key here is that leaving someone's threatened area is different from leaving a threatened square. With my change, you can maneuver freely around someone, as long as you're not bloody ignoring them, so warriors can step around into flanking positions more smoothly. However, archers and casters no longer have blank-check immunity cards; if they try to escape without taking a Withdraw action, they will provoke. Period. It makes life a much happier place; I'd recommend thinking about it, at the very least.

[Rallicus]

It makes life a much happier place; I'd recommend thinking about it, at the very least.

Yeah, I have thought about it. And yeah, the core of what I'm trying is essentially due to the five foot step not provoking AoO.

I'll try it out.

[Gamer Girl]

Unless your willing to go for a 50% chance or higher rate of spell failure, this type of rule is a bit pointless.


As you point out the 'optimizers' who roll play and not role play will just max out everything and make such a rule pointless. "Oh, I need to roll higher then a 4 to cast my spell, oh, yawn, wonder if I'll make that *Roll* 32! yes!"

So why bother?

[Vadskye]

Rules like this aren't there just as a balancing mechanism. Systems define how people interact, and in the absence of any rules that say "Spellcasting is harder when there's a guy waving his sword near your fleshy bits" people have no particular reason to act like spellcasting is harder when there's a guy waving his sword near your fleshy bits.

[Rallicus]

So why bother?

There's always the chance of rolling a 1.


Rules like this aren't there just as a balancing mechanism. Systems define how people interact, and in the absence of any rules that say "Spellcasting is harder when there's a guy waving his sword near your fleshy bits" people have no particular reason to act like spellcasting is harder when there's a guy waving his sword near your fleshy bits.

Yep.

Something just seems so wrong whenever I remember spellcasters in my game just going, "Yeah, I take a step back, no AoOs due to five foot step, and then I cast no problem."

I did actually try to implement Vadskye's 5-foot threatened area rule in my last group. My mistake was asking what they thought of it rather than just putting it in, so of course they threw reasons at me ("I'm a sorcerer, not a wizard! Why are you punishing my (Tier Whatever) class?!").

Hence why the attempt at making the spell check rule from the original post.

Since this will be a new group though I'll flat out tell them the moving out of a threatened area in a shift will be in. Might add for some more tactics, with the mage constantly withdrawing whenever he's attacked while the meatshields try to cover him.

[Zale]

Unless your willing to go for a 50% chance or higher rate of spell failure, this type of rule is a bit pointless.


As you point out the 'optimizers' who roll play and not role play will just max out everything and make such a rule pointless. "Oh, I need to roll higher then a 4 to cast my spell, oh, yawn, wonder if I'll make that *Roll* 32! yes!"

So why bother?

Though rather insulting, (Seriously. That was rude), Gamer Girl makes a good point.

People who want to cast in combat most certainly will insure they can.

Still, it does make sense that you'd have trouble focusing in the din of combat.

[Vadskye]

There's always the chance of rolling a 1.
Brief point here - a 1 doesn't auto-fail on a skill check (PHB p. 63). So a Combat Casting + Skill Focus (Concentration) mage can defensively cast in combat at will. But he had to put enough effort into it that I'm not sure I mind too much.


Since this will be a new group though I'll flat out tell them the moving out of a threatened area in a shift will be in. Might add for some more tactics, with the mage constantly withdrawing whenever he's attacked while the meatshields try to cover him.

Indeed. You could also remind the casters that they have access to the best defensive spells in the game, and that it's reasonable to expect that they should have to actually use them on occasion.

[GunbladeKnight]

As an aside and possible suggestion:
My friend implemented an arcane corruption rule requiring a will save after each spell cast or incurring taint. Gain enough taint and you become corrupted. Evokers burn themselves when casting spell, illusionists become schizophrenic, etc. The save increased with each spell cast, and higher level spells increased faster. There were also situational modifiers that increased the DC (demons nearby, artifacts nearby, etc).

[Glimbur]

As an aside and possible suggestion:
My friend implemented an arcane corruption rule requiring a will save after each spell cast or incurring taint. Gain enough taint and you become corrupted. Evokers burn themselves when casting spell, illusionists become schizophrenic, etc. The save increased with each spell cast, and higher level spells increased faster. There were also situational modifiers that increased the DC (demons nearby, artifacts nearby, etc).

The problem with this is it punishes you for using class features. Spells are about all wizard have going for them, besides knowledge skills I suppose. If the options are 'risk catching fire' or 'sit out another combat' then I suspect most people will choose option c: don't play a wizard. Yes, it's possible to balance the risk and reward so that this is an interesting strategic decision but.... it's harder yet I would call it better to fix the problem spells instead.

Aggressive spells already have a chance to fail: most attack spells allow some combination of a save or a ranged touch attack. Many of them also allow SR. Buff spells and some battlefield control spells don't require saves, so if your concern is spellcasters being able to do things with no chance of failure you can target those spells.

[Kholai]

Make all non-immediate/swift/move spells take 1 round to cast, with the option to rapid-cast them at half caster level and a DC penalty equal to half the spell level without having to memorise it twice.

No extra die rolling needed, mages who cast in combat either do so quick and dirty, or they will find themselves tripped, stabbed, bull rushed, grappled, and just plain "distracted".

Best part, mages will get to feel like tacticians. Set up difficult terrain or defensive barriers with a Q&D spell, then use that time to set up a big effect the next turn.

Edit: For spells with time measured in rounds already, just double it, everything else can safely be left as is.