Concentration check AFTER taking damage

[Garan]

I was wondering whether damage taken since your last turn should affect your concentration check. I would think that if you are in excruciating pain, it would be very hard to focus. This would also make lower level anti-mage tactics better- instead of readying an action to shoot if they cast a spell, just shoot the damn guy already.

[andromax]

Well if a mage is taking hit point damage, he's probably already boned so I don't see the point in this.

[Deophaun]

I was unaware that one character readying an action to shut down another while dealing damage was underpowered.

[TuggyNE]

I was unaware that one character readying an action to shut down another while dealing damage was underpowered.

It isn't especially, unless you a) have iteratives and b) don't have (Greater) Manyshot.

Of course, that's not the same thing as saying that the 3.5 Concentration regime is not overpowered; it's possible for something to be a reasonable use of actions and still not sufficiently counter another set of tactics. So if you want to depower mages in a more 2e style, this might not be the worst idea I've heard.

[KillianHawkeye]

I was wondering whether damage taken since your last turn should affect your concentration check. I would think that if you are in excruciating pain, it would be very hard to focus. This would also make lower level anti-mage tactics better- instead of readying an action to shoot if they cast a spell, just shoot the damn guy already.

No, when the spellcaster takes damage, they make any appropriate Concentration checks at that time. Damage dealt earlier in the round has no effect on things that happen afterwards. If they do not lose concentration on their spells at the time they initially take the damage, then whatever lingering pain may exist won't make them lose it either.

[Deophaun]

It isn't especially, unless you a) have iteratives and b) don't have (Greater) Manyshot.
So completely wasting a spellcasters turn and eating up his spell slot is not worth iteratives? Forgive me if I'm skeptical.

Of course, that's not the same thing as saying that the 3.5 Concentration regime is not overpowered.
The Concentration regime itself is fine. It's the entire skill system that can be broken.

[Garan]

No, when the spellcaster takes damage, they make any appropriate Concentration checks at that time. Damage dealt earlier in the round has no effect on things that happen afterwards. If they do not lose concentration on their spells at the time they initially take the damage, then whatever lingering pain may exist won't make them lose it either.

I'm aware of that. I'm suggesting doing something different.

Really, I want to make fighting a mage more interesting than just have someone stand there ready to riddle him with holes the second arcane words start coming out of his mouth.

[Deophaun]

Really, I want to make fighting a mage more interesting than just have someone stand there ready to riddle him with holes the second arcane words start coming out of his mouth.
Not sure how your change would accomplish that, as it would basically make fighting a spellcaster like fighting a commoner.

[Garan]

Not sure how your change would accomplish that, as it would basically make fighting a spellcaster like fighting a commoner.

Why is that? At lower levels, you aren't guaranteed to hit, and even if you do, they still might be able to cast their spell. If you do hit them and they don't think they'll succeed on the Concentration check, they'll just wait a turn before casting it. At higher levels they are more likely to succeed at Concentration as well as having defenses of their own. I'd say that healed damage would subtract from the amount taken in the past turn. Also note that this works against the party's spellcasters as well.

[Psyren]

I was wondering whether damage taken since your last turn should affect your concentration check. I would think that if you are in excruciating pain, it would be very hard to focus. This would also make lower level anti-mage tactics better- instead of readying an action to shoot if they cast a spell, just shoot the damn guy already.

There is a rule for ongoing damage (half of it is considered to take place in the current round for the purposes of concentration checks - this applies to periodic "DoTs" like Acid Arrow) but nothing solely for "last round's damage."

[Deophaun]

Why is that? At lower levels, you aren't guaranteed to hit, and even if you do, they still might be able to cast their spell.
At low levels, they aren't going to have Concentration to cast their spell if you hit them.

If you do hit them and they don't think they'll succeed on the Concentration check, they'll just wait a turn before casting it.
And this is exactly why it will be like fighting a commoner: they won't get to do anything. "Oh dear, you hit me and I can't cast. I guess I have to wait until my next turn." "Huzzah! Hit you again!" "Shucks, I guess I need to wait another turn."

At higher levels they are more likely to succeed at Concentration as well as having defenses of their own.
At higher levels they are now the targets of iterative attacks, getting hit by AoE spells (assuming that their opponents aren't similarly locked down), and getting run through by uberchargers.

I'd say that healed damage would subtract from the amount taken in the past turn.
It's just a shame the cleric got hit by that Ogre last round and is now just a fighter.

Meanwhile, you've removed a choice between incomparables from the game. Good job.

[Augmental]

At higher levels they are now the targets of iterative attacks,

Friendly Fire.


and getting run through by uberchargers.

If a high-level caster gets hit by an ubercharger, he deserves to die.

[TuggyNE]

So completely wasting a spellcasters turn and eating up his spell slot is not worth iteratives? Forgive me if I'm skeptical.

Assuming you can manage this, it is, although it's undeniably doing less damage than you could otherwise. However, 1d8+1d6+5 (say) isn't tremendously effective at forcing high Concentration checks.

[Urpriest]

Remember, D&D characters don't feel enough pain to interfere with their actions, at least from typical wounds. Concentration checks are about something disrupting precise spellcasting gestures, not about the pain itself. Otherwise melee would have to make Concentration checks after getting hurt as well.

[Deophaun]

Assuming you can manage this, it is, although it's undeniably doing less damage than you could otherwise. However, 1d8+1d6+5 (say) isn't tremendously effective at forcing high Concentration checks.
1d8+1d6 (energy)+2d6 (skirmish/sneak attack)+5 is an easily achievable damage output for a ranged character by level seven. It will force, on average, a DC 30 Concentration check. A standard spellcaster that is keeping up with his Concentration checks at that level is going to have a +12 to his roll (10 ranks +2 bonus from Con). Without further optimization, he's got a tough time making it. Replace the energy damage with magebane (a great investment for someone that wants to disrupt casters), and he's well and truly screwed.

Put him next to a melee character wielding a spiked chain with power attack, and he's not looking much better.

"Dealing less damage than you could otherwise" is irrelevant when you factor in action economy. There is little difference between doing 100 damage in one round versus doing 100 damage over 10 rounds, during which your enemy cannot retaliate.

The fact that it may take planning to accomplish this disruption, or that there is no guarantee of success, is not a strike against it. It means that this option represents a true choice, one with benefits and drawbacks, and not merely a best practice. The change proposed by the OP removes choice from combat, which is why it's a bad idea.

[Urpriest]

1d8+1d6 (energy)+2d6 (skirmish/sneak attack)+5 is an easily achievable damage output for a ranged character by level seven. It will force, on average, a DC 30 Concentration check. A standard spellcaster that is keeping up with his Concentration checks at that level is going to have a +12 to his roll (10 ranks +2 bonus from Con). Without further optimization, he's got a tough time making it. Replace the energy damage with magebane (a great investment for someone that wants to disrupt casters), and he's well and truly screwed.

Minor correction: Skirmish damage can only be dealt during the Scout's turn.

[TuggyNE]

"Dealing less damage than you could otherwise" is irrelevant when you factor in action economy. There is little difference between doing 100 damage in one round versus doing 100 damage over 10 rounds, during which your enemy cannot retaliate.

That is true as far as 1 on 1, or 4 on 1, but not all combats are nearly that simple. So it's still a relevant drawback.

Turn it around with an NPC archer trying to deny a PC spellcaster options, and it's nowhere near as useful.

(On the upside, most of this optimization doesn't require taking resources away from general effectiveness.)


The change proposed by the OP removes choice from combat, which is why it's a bad idea.

Oh, I don't really think the OP's proposal is a great idea myself (either logically or mechanically), I was just pointing out reasons why something of this general sort might be useful.

[Deophaun]

That is true as far as 1 on 1, or 4 on 1, but not all combats are nearly that simple. So it's still a relevant drawback.
I'd say it also relevant on X vs. X. Now, if you're a level 16 ranger trying to prevent a level 3 sorcerer from casting while his level 18 mundane buddies are mixing it up, yeah, the action economy ain't there for you. But in most encounters, trading your turn for an enemy spellcaster's turn +damage is a win.

Turn it around with an NPC archer trying to deny a PC spellcaster options, and it's nowhere near as useful.
That's because there is a mental deficit on the side of the DM. He's one brain controling a group of NPCs that he had all of last night to put together, while the PCs control only 1 character each that they've had months to think about. The problem is unavoidable as long as PCs and NPCs follow the same rules.

Oh, I don't really think the OP's proposal is a great idea myself (either logically or mechanically), I was just pointing out reasons why something of this general sort might be useful.
I'd rather homebrew an item, enhancement, or feat than screw around with the mechanic.