Let's punish spellcasters

[Skrum]

Many conditions carry the "disadvantage on attack rolls" penalty. This obviously hurts characters that make attack rolls, while having less effect on those that don't. Exhaustion is a good example; none of the penalties would actually make a spellcaster worse at casting spells, even up until they died of exhaustion (obviously they'd be more fragile).

So, I would like to change that by adding an effect to all (well most) of the conditions that will affect spell casting. Basically, whenever a condition gives disadvantage on attack rolls, I want to add something that will make it more bothersome to cast spells as well.

My idea

Difficult Casting: casting spells is not easy even under ideal conditions; casting spells while being digested by a Gelatinous Cube is even more so. Many conditions inflict Difficult Casting. Simply put, the condition interferes with the precise movements and/or mental concentration needed to cast a spell, and it becomes harder to cast as a result.

When a character affected by Difficult Casting attempts to cast a spell, they must make a Concentration check (a constitution save) against the DC of the effect. Succeed, and the spell works normally. Fail, and the cast is interrupted. The caster now has a choice - they may concentrate on the spellcasting just like they would for any concentration spell, forcing them to drop any spell they may already be concentrating on to hold on to the magic, or they may abandon the spell. If they choose the former, when their turn comes again they may spend their action (or bonus action; whatever the spell requires to cast) to finish the casting the spell (making a new concentration roll if they are still affected by Difficult Casting). Succeed, and the spell goes off normally. Fail, and the cycle is repeated.

If the spell is abandoned, the spell is not cast and the spell slot is not expended. A spell may be abandoned at any time, but not in response to others' actions (i.e., a character may not abandon a spell when they see they're about to be hit by a fire giant).

If a caster is concentrating on a spell to hold on to it for the next turn, and they are damaged, the must make a concentration check (as normal) to maintain the spell. Fail, and the spell is lost and the spell slot is expended.

Finally, a character affected by Difficult Casting may not cast reaction spells.

Examples
A gelatinous cube's engulf ability can be escaped with a DC 12 strength check. There for, the concentration check to cast a spell while engulfed by a cube is 12
A hag casts fear. Her spell DC is 16. The concentration check to cast a spell while under the effect of her fear spell is 16
A ghast's stench aura has a DC of 10. While under the effect of this aura, the concentration check to cast a spell is 10

If an ability inflicts Difficult Casting but does not have any associated DC, the DC for Difficult Casting is 10.

---------------------

The following conditions will have the Difficult Casting effect: exhaustion (will include DC's that scale higher with exhaustion levels), frightened, poisoned, and restrained

Reworked Difficult Casting
Casting spells is not easy even under ideal conditions; casting spells while being digested by a Gelatinous Cube even more so. Several conditions inflict Difficult Casting. Simply put, the condition interferes with the precise movements and/or mental concentration needed to cast a spell, and it becomes harder to cast as a result.

When a character is effected by Difficult Casting, they must make a concentration check vs DC 15. Fail, and the spell cannot be cast - the action is spent, but the spell slot is not consumed.

Re-reworked Difficult Casting (Distressed)
When a character is Distressed and they attempt to cast a spell, they must make a DC 10 Constitution check. Fail, and the spell fails (the action is spent but the spell slot is not).

[Mindflayer_Inc]

Many conditions carry the "disadvantage on attack rolls" penalty. This obviously hurts characters that make attack rolls, while having less effect on those that don't. Exhaustion is a good example; none of the penalties would actually make a spellcaster worse at casting spells, even up until they died of exhaustion (obviously they'd be more fragile).

So, I would like to change that by adding an effect to all (well most) of the conditions that will affect spell casting. Basically, whenever a condition gives disadvantage on attack rolls, I want to add something that will make it more bothersome to cast spells as well.

My idea

Difficult Casting: casting spells is not easy even under ideal conditions; casting spells while being digested by a Gelatinous Cube is even more so. Many conditions inflict Difficult Casting. Simply put, the condition interferes with the precise movements and/or mental concentration needed to cast a spell, and it becomes harder to cast as a result.

When a character affected by Difficult Casting attempts to cast a spell, they must make a Concentration check (a constitution save) against the DC of the effect. Succeed, and the spell works normally. Fail, and the cast is interrupted. The caster now has a choice - they may concentrate on the spellcasting just like they would for any concentration spell, forcing them to drop any spell they may already be concentrating on to hold on to the magic, or they may abandon the spell. If they choose the former, when their turn comes again they may spend their action (or bonus action; whatever the spell requires to cast) to finish the casting the spell (making a new concentration roll if they are still affected by Difficult Casting). Succeed, and the spell goes off normally. Fail, and the cycle is repeated.

If the spell is abandoned, the spell is not cast and the spell slot is not expended. A spell may be abandoned at any time, but not in response to others' actions (i.e., a character may not abandon a spell when they see they're about to be hit by a fire giant).

If a caster is concentrating on a spell to hold on to it for the next turn, and they are damaged, the must make a concentration check (as normal) to maintain the spell. Fail, and the spell is lost and the spell slot is expended.

Finally, a character affected by Difficult Casting may not cast reaction spells.

Examples
A gelatinous cube's engulf ability can be escaped with a DC 12 strength check. There for, the concentration check to cast a spell while engulfed by a cube is 12
A hag casts fear. Her spell DC is 16. The concentration check to cast a spell while under the effect of her fear spell is 16
A ghast's stench aura has a DC of 10. While under the effect of this aura, the concentration check to cast a spell is 10

If an ability inflicts Difficult Casting but does not have any associated DC, the DC for Difficult Casting is 10.

---------------------

The following conditions will have the Difficult Casting effect: exhaustion (will include DC's that scale higher with exhaustion levels), frightened, poisoned, and restrained

Feels like you should just give targets advantage on saving throws when the caster is having a difficult time.

But also, you don't want to make casters unfun to play. Bring non-magicals and weapon users up, don't bring magic down.

[Darth Credence]

Difficult Casting: casting spells is not easy even under ideal conditions; casting spells while being digested by a Gelatinous Cube is even more so. Many conditions inflict Difficult Casting. Simply put, the condition interferes with the precise movements and/or mental concentration needed to cast a spell, and it becomes harder to cast as a result.

When a character affected by Difficult Casting attempts to cast a spell, they must make a Concentration check (a constitution save) against the DC of the effect. Succeed, and the spell works normally. Fail, and the cast is interrupted. The caster now has a choice - they may concentrate on the spellcasting just like they would for any concentration spell, forcing them to drop any spell they may already be concentrating on to hold on to the magic, or they may abandon the spell. If they choose the former, when their turn comes again they may spend their action (or bonus action; whatever the spell requires to cast) to finish the casting the spell (making a new concentration roll if they are still affected by Difficult Casting). Succeed, and the spell goes off normally. Fail, and the cycle is repeated.

If the spell is abandoned, the spell is not cast and the spell slot is not expended. A spell may be abandoned at any time, but not in response to others' actions (i.e., a character may not abandon a spell when they see they're about to be hit by a fire giant).

If a caster is concentrating on a spell to hold on to it for the next turn, and they are damaged, the must make a concentration check (as normal) to maintain the spell. Fail, and the spell is lost and the spell slot is expended.

Why would anyone ever choose to concentrate on the spell to hold it for the next round? You say abandoning the spell means no spell slot used. So they could, instead, abandon and recast next time, allowing them to keep concentration on whatever else they have going. Do I have that right, or did I miss something?

And for abandoning it any time except in response to others' actions - if you were attempting to cast a spell, and another play killed the intended target, can they stop concentrating, or would that fall under the actions of others?

[Skrum]

Why would anyone ever choose to concentrate on the spell to hold it for the next round? You say abandoning the spell means no spell slot used. So they could, instead, abandon and recast next time, allowing them to keep concentration on whatever else they have going. Do I have that right, or did I miss something?

Nope, you didn't, I did! Which is why I like posting stuff for review. Tyvm.




And for abandoning it any time except in response to others' actions - if you were attempting to cast a spell, and another play killed the intended target, can they stop concentrating, or would that fall under the actions of others?

What I'm aiming for is not letting people abandon a spell right before they think they might drop it anyway. The game doesn't really have language for that kind of thing though. If the spell no longer makes sense to cast, yeah, the caster should be able to retract the spell.

My IRL friend said it was too complicated (he highly values simplicity). I think I'm going to rework the idea with a flat DC.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My IRL friend said it was too complicated (he highly values simplicity). I think I'm going to rework the idea with a flat DC.

I too value simplicity, and I agree that it's too complicated.

I prefer working the effects into individual conditions as appropriate:

Poisoned/Frightened: The DC for Concentration saves increases by 5. Cumulatively (if you have both conditions).

Deafened: Casting a spell with verbal components requires a DC 10+spell level Wisdom (Perception) check, otherwise the action is lost but the resources aren't consumed.

Restrained: Casting a spell with somatic components requires a DC 10 + spell level Dexterity (Acrobatics) check, otherwise the action is lost but the resources aren't consumed.

Staggered[1]: Casting a spell requires a DC 8 + spell level + 1 for each component (up to +3) Constitution check, otherwise the action is lost but the resources aren't consumed.

[1] a new condition I'm including, sort of a "half-stun". Causes disadvantage on attack rolls and Dex saves/checks.

[Skrum]

Updated the OP with a new, much simpler version of the effect

[Xihirli]

Pathfinder 2e has something called a "flat check" where you can’t add anything to the d20 roll, and failing to do so generally fizzles an action you take. Sometimes this is used against spell casting. The DC is usually 5.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Updated the OP with a new, much simpler version of the effect

My issue with using Concentration checks (which are actually saving throws, because naming is hard :smallsmile:) is that it's fairly trivial and common to heavily optimize for these. Meaning that any low DC (and for these, 15 is fairly low at higher levels) becomes trivial at higher levels. So if you set the DC high enough to actually mean something later on, it becomes absolutely punitive and impossible at lower levels.

I like the idea of making them flat Constitution ability checks. No proficiency applies, just 1d20 + CON.

@Xihirli That's actually a retread of 4e's Saving Throws to end conditions, which were just 1d20 vs TN 10. Like so many other PF2e things :smallwink:

[JNAProductions]

Feels like you should just give targets advantage on saving throws when the caster is having a difficult time.

But also, you don't want to make casters unfun to play. Bring non-magicals and weapon users up, don't bring magic down.

This. This is what I would do.

This does leave two types of spells untouched: Buffs/Heals (which I am a-okay with) and Summons (which are there own pile of issues).

Buffs and heals are fine to leave untouched-I want to encourage the Cleric to cast Bless on the party, not discourage it.
Summons have enough issues on their own that a minor fix like this isn't gonna be enough to handle them.

[Skrum]

My issue with using Concentration checks (which are actually saving throws, because naming is hard :smallsmile:) is that it's fairly trivial and common to heavily optimize for these. Meaning that any low DC (and for these, 15 is fairly low at higher levels) becomes trivial at higher levels. So if you set the DC high enough to actually mean something later on, it becomes absolutely punitive and impossible at lower levels.

I like the idea of making them flat Constitution ability checks. No proficiency applies, just 1d20 + CON.

@Xihirli That's actually a retread of 4e's Saving Throws to end conditions, which were just 1d20 vs TN 10. Like so many other PF2e things :smallwink:

I see your point, but it goes against a belief that's pretty close to my heart: characters should be able to be good at things they want to be good at. Making it *impossible* to optimize makes balancing it easier, sure, but it also means a character can never get better at it. In my mind, if a caster wants to spend a level as fighter or take Resilient: Con, and then they take War Caster, that should mean they're better at casting spells in combat.

DC 15 is quite high; a low level character will be more likely than not to fail this. Further, clerics, wizards, druids, and bards *will not get better at it* natively.

But if a character spends two ASI's picking up Resilient: Con and War Caster, and then they make sure to stand near the party paladin, I'm pretty comfortable with them being far less likely to fail. Those kind of build decisions seem core to RPG's.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I see your point, but it goes against a belief that's pretty close to my heart: characters should be able to be good at things they want to be good at. Making it *impossible* to optimize makes balancing it easier, sure, but it also means a character can never get better at it. In my mind, if a caster wants to spend a level as fighter or take Resilient: Con, and then they take War Caster, that should mean they're better at casting spells in combat.

DC 15 is quite high; a low level character will be more likely than not to fail this. Further, clerics, wizards, druids, and bards *will not get better at it* natively.

But if a character spends two ASI's picking up Resilient: Con and War Caster, and then they make sure to stand near the party paladin, I'm pretty comfortable with them being far less likely to fail. Those kind of build decisions seem core to RPG's.

The problem is that it can be trivialized but is punitive otherwise, so it ends up forcing everyone to go down the route of specializing on it. And note that there's nothing a non-caster can do to trivialize those conditions once they apply, so having it be symmetric is good. In that sense, flat things are better--they have a constant level of "this condition is bad" across optimization, level, and characters. Once a condition applies, it should apply to everyone in roughly equivalent ways. Not be yet another "casters can avoid this fairly easily but martials are just stuck" thing...because that's the whole point of the thread.

And @Mindflayer_inc--I strongly disagree that one should only buff and never nerf. That has been proven time and time again to not work and simply cause systems to disintegrate as power levels spiral well beyond core design. Casters have too few restrictions relative to base system design (not relative to martials). They need to be brought down to within the system's design. The wisdom of any individual nerf is questionable on the merits, the need to nerf them overall is not, IMO.

[Skrum]

Well I am adding this to the conditions that inflict disadvantage on attack rolls (or more precisely, I'm trying to add a similar condition for spellcasting). And while martials cannot ignore that effect, they can mitigate it pretty well by gaining advantage on the attack roll, or by having other buffs up (like bless).

This is honestly why I wanted the DC to be variable in the first place; I don't want to overly punish low levels characters, or not even bother higher level ones. I think there's a strong case for some checks being "trivial" some of the time; players *should* feel like they're gaining power over time. The world shouldn't scale with them in all respects.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

This. This is what I would do.

This does leave two types of spells untouched: Buffs/Heals (which I am a-okay with) and Summons (which are there own pile of issues).

Buffs and heals are fine to leave untouched-I want to encourage the Cleric to cast Bless on the party, not discourage it.
Summons have enough issues on their own that a minor fix like this isn't gonna be enough to handle them.

Buffs/Healing should just be combined to fix a lot of issues.

Cast a buff? That character gets healed for a little bit. My groups played around with all "healing only" spells being allowed to be cast as a bonus Action when the character cast a buff spell and healing was actually worth it.

Promotes teamwork and as a DM I don't have to worry as much about how much damage the enemies are doing as the players can mitigate damage w/o feeling they are in a losing situation.

We're gonna add the healing from healing word into buff spells so you don't even need to use extra slots.

Summons... Oof.

[mutemonk]

I actually like the concept of spellcasters having difficulty casting spells when conditions intervene and have workshoped it with my table a bit.

We settled on an ability check using your casting ability and proficiency bonus (Casting check), similar to if you were attempting to dispel magic or counterspell.
For example: a wizard attempting to cast a spell with difficulty would add their Intellgence modifier plus their Proficiency bonus.

For DC, we decided on 5+the level of the spell being cast, this mainly due to Frightened and Poisoned effecting ability checks as well as attacks and thus imposing disadvantage on the resulting Casting Check. This allows for characters to be decent at casting spells that they have used for a while, but their more complex spells are easier to mess up.

On a failure, the spell has no effect, consumes no resources other than the casting time. The caster loses concentration only if they were attempting to cast a concentration spell.

As for things causing difficulty, we just setted on any conditions that affect attack rolls. Spells that make an attack were uneffected don't have casting diffculty as they already have disadvantage on the attack.

We have only tested it for a couple of sesseions, but so far its seemed to have worked well.

[Rynjin]

Balance-wise it's whatever, but you always need to think about the "feels" of a game mechanic.

Missing an attack feels pretty bad...but you get multiple attacks in a turn.

Missing a spell is your ENTIRE turn. It feels infinitely worse.

You really have to watch out for ,mechanics like this that are balanced on paper but are going to cause a lot of frustration at the table. This mechanic has a bigger proportional impact on spellcasters than martials because it introduces MULTIPLE points of failure to many spells.

Most spells worth casting already provide a saving throw. So you have a decent chance to already lose your turn (and a resource). Adding ANOTHER chance to lose your turn (even without the loss of resources) is going to feel very, very dejecting.

Giving enemies advantage on saves or something is both simpler to adjudicate and removes that extra "layer of failure". It feels less bad for a player when an enemy gets an advantage than when they get a disadvantage, especially a brand new one.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

Balance-wise it's whatever, but you always need to think about the "feels" of a game mechanic.

Missing an attack feels pretty bad...but you get multiple attacks in a turn.

Missing a spell is your ENTIRE turn. It feels infinitely worse.

You really have to watch out for ,mechanics like this that are balanced on paper but are going to cause a lot of frustration at the table. This mechanic has a bigger proportional impact on spellcasters than martials because it introduces MULTIPLE points of failure to many spells.

Most spells worth casting already provide a saving throw. So you have a decent chance to already lose your turn (and a resource). Adding ANOTHER chance to lose your turn (even without the loss of resources) is going to feel very, very dejecting.

Giving enemies advantage on saves or something is both simpler to adjudicate and removes that extra "layer of failure". It feels less bad for a player when an enemy gets an advantage than when they get a disadvantage, especially a brand new one.

Spells aren't equal to weapon attacks though, cantrips are equal to weapon attacks (more or less).

So, to fix that issue, just make cantrips grow like extra attacks. Instead of a cantrip getting more powerful in one casting, you get to cast it faster.

Really, features like Rage and Indomitable are more akin to spells. Rage can be broken really, really, easily (at least base 5e, one saving throw can end up ending it). Indomitable is... try again to pass a save you already failed (yay :smallsigh:) so it has its own built in failure. Seriously, Indomitable is not named well.

[Rynjin]

Spells aren't equal to weapon attacks though, cantrips are equal to weapon attacks (more or less).

This is exactly my point. Spells of levels 1+ aren't equal to weapon attacks, so applying the exact same "miss chance" to one feels worse.

[LudicSavant]

Feels like you should just give targets advantage on saving throws when the caster is having a difficult time.

Here I am already building my spellcasters to not use saving throws for much so that I can ignore Magic Resistance, Legendary Saves, and the like.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

This is exactly my point. Spells of levels 1+ aren't equal to weapon attacks, so applying the exact same "miss chance" to one feels worse.

But you're comparing apples to oranges instead of apples to apples.

Missing with a cantrip is the same as missing with a weapon attack. Bringing up spells as compared to weapon attacks just doesn't work because they aren't synonymous.


Here I am already building my spellcasters to not use saving throws for much so that I can ignore Magic Resistance, Legendary Saves, and the like.

I mean, you then have to deal with all the things that mess with ranged/melee spell attacks

* Ranged attacks in close combat
* 1/2 Cover (including allies in-between you and your target)
* 3/4ths cover
* Total cover
* Concealment
* Unseen targets
* Heavily Obscured Areas
* Rolling a 1
* High AC

So, it isn't like you're getting a better deal, just a different one.

[Rynjin]

But you're comparing apples to oranges instead of apples to apples.

Missing with a cantrip is the same as missing with a weapon attack. Bringing up spells as compared to weapon attacks just doesn't work because they aren't synonymous.

...Yes? That is what I said. "Spells and weapon attacks are different you cannot apply the same mechanics to them". Nobody in this discussion ever mentioned cantrips before you came along, I have zero idea what your point is here.

[Skrum]

Balance-wise it's whatever, but you always need to think about the "feels" of a game mechanic.

Missing an attack feels pretty bad...but you get multiple attacks in a turn.

Missing a spell is your ENTIRE turn. It feels infinitely worse.

You really have to watch out for ,mechanics like this that are balanced on paper but are going to cause a lot of frustration at the table. This mechanic has a bigger proportional impact on spellcasters than martials because it introduces MULTIPLE points of failure to many spells.

Most spells worth casting already provide a saving throw. So you have a decent chance to already lose your turn (and a resource). Adding ANOTHER chance to lose your turn (even without the loss of resources) is going to feel very, very dejecting.

Giving enemies advantage on saves or something is both simpler to adjudicate and removes that extra "layer of failure". It feels less bad for a player when an enemy gets an advantage than when they get a disadvantage, especially a brand new one.

I get what you're saying, but I'll be honest, uh...tough luck spellcasters lol.

TBC, I don't think you're wrong for bringing this up as a valid concern, but - I think the game does this exact thing WAY too often, to spellcaster's benefit in particular. Any and all features that would present some kind of risk/reward factor when it comes to spells have been removed, and removed, and removed, until spells are just upside. Not only are they the most powerful effects in the game, they are constrained in the least amount of ways and expose the user to the least amount of risk. And overall, it's bad for the game.

Casters are unique in the amount of options they have. Even if they're affected by this, and fail, well there's many spells that can be cast as a bonus action. Or vice versa; point being, even wasting their action or bonus action on a spell doesn't mean they've necessarily wasted their turn. They still have another action option.

Further, martials characters, melee in particular, loose turns all the time, for all manner of reason. They're too far away. They were restrained. They were fear'd, and couldn't close the distance. They got tripped. The enemy is invisible. Etc etc etc. Spellcasters can often circumvent these types of problems so trivially, we are lured into the notion that it is somehow unfair to the wizard when they actually get disrupted in some way. To them, I say what gets said to fighters and barbarians all the time: hmm, guess you shouldn't have dumped [whatever stat happens to be relevant this time].

Wizard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and bard are the classes that would be most affected by this change. These 5 classes are the 5 best classes in the game, to a rather unbalancing degree at higher levels. A little wind gets taken out of their sails, that's fine.

[LudicSavant]

I mean, you then have to deal with all the things that mess with ranged/melee spell attacks

No, I don't.

There's hoard-loads of powerful spells that do not require a failed save or successful attack roll.

[Skrum]

Updated the ability again, posted in the OP. Changed the name to Distressed.

When a character is Distressed and they attempt to cast a spell, they must make a DC 10 Constitution check. Fail, and the spell fails (the action is spent but the spell slot is not).

Idea being here that the chance isn't super high, but can't be easily optimized against. Optimization will involve avoiding getting dinged by it to begin with.

[Sorinth]

Can you cast a spell with V components while engulfed in a gelatinous cube? That to me sounds like something that by RAW is intended to be DM discretion. The RAW for verbal components is "the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion. Thus, a character who is gagged or in an area of silence, such as one created by the silence spell, can’t cast a spell with a verbal component." and being engulfed in a gelatinous cube would very much alter the specific pitch and resonance of someone trying to speak if not outright count as being gagged. And since they aren't defined conditions the ability not saying that engulfed characters are gagged is irrelevant.


So perhaps just a stricter enforcement of the VSM components would work better. In some ways I'd like to see some specific cases codified like restrained/grappled preventing or forcing a contested roll when trying to cast spells with S and maybe M components. But it would have to be written in a way where the expectation is that many things won't be codified and the DM has to make a ruling.

[Slipjig]

I've always thought most things that restrict your freedom of movement should make it difficult to cast anything with S or M components. That's part of what makes V-only spells so valuable.

Though if I was going to do implement that, I'd probably also add an option available to all casters that if a spell has multiple V/S/M components, you can eliminate any one in exchanging for spending a slot one higher than normal (with no benefit from upcasting). If a spell already only has a single V/S/M element, this isn't an option (that's the domain of Subtle Spell).

I'm not sure that changes the balance on casters overall, because it means that Silence no longer shuts them down anymore. But I feel like "Tackle the Wizard" ought to be a viable tactic for martials. Of course, I also favor "Casting in melee triggers an Opportunity Attack", with exceptions for spells that are intended for use in melee (e.g. SCAGtrips).

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've always thought most things that restrict your freedom of movement should make it difficult to cast anything with S or M components. That's part of what makes V-only spells so valuable.

Yeah. Currently, I'm planning to add the following:

* Grappled/Prone: imposes a DC 10 Concentration save when applied.
* Restrained: Casting spells with somatic components requires a DC 10 Strength saving throw. Failure means that the spell does not take effect but the spell slot (if any) is not consumed.
* Staggered[1]: A staggered creature that attempts to cast a spell must make a Constitution saving throw with DC = 10 + slot level. On a failed save, the spell does not take effect and the action is lost but the slot is not expended. + Targets of a staggered creature's spells or magical abilities have advantage on saving throws against those abilities.
* Poisoned: Expending spell slots while poisoned requires a successful DC 10 Constitution saving throw. Failure means that the spell or ability does not take effect but the spell slot is not consumed.
* Frightened: Targets of a frightened creature's spells or magical abilities have advantage on saving throws against those abilities.
* Deafened: Casting spells with verbal components requires Wisdom (Perception) check, DC = 10 + spell level. Failure means that the spell does not take effect but the spell slot (if any) is not consumed.

I may tweak the save DCs though.

[1] New condition added, also imposes disadvantage on attacks, dex saves and ability checks. Basically a lesser version of stunned, only impacting offense.

[KOLE]

This is a really solid idea- I’ve seen atrempts like this in the past, but they usually involve losing the spell slot, which I’ve always felt is too punishing. Tying it with concentration checks is neat because it automatically scales it with character level to an extent and builds on an existing mechanic, which I think shoudl always be a goal when possible. I also love that it’s a new condition entirely; I don’t like phoenixphyre’s implementation above because it involves changing every existing condition, which will confuse players and DMs alike, as well as requiring new collateral, like putting a new conditions table on your DM screen. Rather than reminding players of the new effects on being grappled, for example, you can simply tell a grappled caster they are Grappled and thus automatically Distressed. Then they only have to look at one new additional condition, rather than rechecking a whole new condition table.

This is neat, clean implementation, and a house rule I’d strongly consider adding at my table.

EDIT: At second glance, I might make the Constitution check 8+the spell level instead of a flat 10- with cantrips counting as 0. This encourages some more risk and reward- by the time you have say 5th level spells, DC10 might be pretty trivial- but this implementation might force a spellcaster to have to be more tactical. For example, a Distressed spellcaster on their turn sees that one of their 7th level spells could be particularly effective/helpful for allies during this combat, but do they want to risk the dc 15 check and whiff, or would it be better to cast a much lower level spell like Thunderclap or Misty step with a higher chance to succeed and set themselves up to drop the 7th level spell unhindered next turn? It’s a little more complicated but encourages a little more tactical choice making.

[Kane0]

Grappled, Restrained, Prone
You cannot cast spells with somatic components

Dazed, Slowed
You cannot cast spells with both verbal and somatic components

Frightened, Poisoned, Confused
You cannot concentrate

Deafened, Blinded and Incapacitated already carry their own restrictions

[Rynjin]

I get what you're saying, but I'll be honest, uh...tough luck spellcasters lol.

TBC, I don't think you're wrong for bringing this up as a valid concern, but - I think the game does this exact thing WAY too often, to spellcaster's benefit in particular. Any and all features that would present some kind of risk/reward factor when it comes to spells have been removed, and removed, and removed, until spells are just upside. Not only are they the most powerful effects in the game, they are constrained in the least amount of ways and expose the user to the least amount of risk. And overall, it's bad for the game.

Casters are unique in the amount of options they have. Even if they're affected by this, and fail, well there's many spells that can be cast as a bonus action. Or vice versa; point being, even wasting their action or bonus action on a spell doesn't mean they've necessarily wasted their turn. They still have another action option.

Further, martials characters, melee in particular, loose turns all the time, for all manner of reason. They're too far away. They were restrained. They were fear'd, and couldn't close the distance. They got tripped. The enemy is invisible. Etc etc etc. Spellcasters can often circumvent these types of problems so trivially, we are lured into the notion that it is somehow unfair to the wizard when they actually get disrupted in some way. To them, I say what gets said to fighters and barbarians all the time: hmm, guess you shouldn't have dumped [whatever stat happens to be relevant this time].

Wizard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and bard are the classes that would be most affected by this change. These 5 classes are the 5 best classes in the game, to a rather unbalancing degree at higher levels. A little wind gets taken out of their sails, that's fine.

This attitude is how you lose players. Balancing things by making them less fun, not less powerful, is a death knell for games.

Spellcasters are already extremely meh in terms of combat in 5e. Their power, as it always has, lies in utility and out of combat gamewarping. This rule does absolutely nothing to curb the latter, and makes the former less fun and less powerful than it already is.

I also look askance at the idea that martials "lose turns" due to enemies being out of range, invisible, etc. They are disadvantaged, certainly, but these are problems mitigated by basic preparations. Mostly a simple one: buy a bow.

There is no easy equipment equivalent to making a raw stat check, which is what Concentration is. It's not like casters typically "dump Concentration".

[Witty Username]

No, I don't.

There's hoard-loads of powerful spells that do not require a failed save or successful attack roll.

To add, IMO, most of the fun spells are in that category.
Save for half damage does some work as well, but I long since internalized that simply killing is a warriors job.
Spells that distort the battlefield, allow for creativity like illusions, and utility are a lot of what makes casters fun.

[Skrum]

This attitude is how you lose players. Balancing things by making them less fun, not less powerful, is a death knell for games.

Spellcasters are already extremely meh in terms of combat in 5e. Their power, as it always has, lies in utility and out of combat gamewarping. This rule does absolutely nothing to curb the latter, and makes the former less fun and less powerful than it already is.

I also look askance at the idea that martials "lose turns" due to enemies being out of range, invisible, etc. They are disadvantaged, certainly, but these are problems mitigated by basic preparations. Mostly a simple one: buy a bow.

There is no easy equipment equivalent to making a raw stat check, which is what Concentration is. It's not like casters typically "dump Concentration".

"It's bad for the game and for fun if spellcasters are forced to make any suboptimal decisions, or frankly to be inconvenienced in any way"

"But martials, you can buy a bow. So, make sure you don't dump dex, k? Or wis, 'cause charm and fear. Or int, cause mind flayers. Or use a shield, cause you'll need both hands for the bow. Big thumbs up buddy, you got this."

Nah, I just don't agree with you. At all, with anything you said (spellcasters are meh in combat? Like what??). The game literally warps around the power of clerics, druids, and wizards, starting around level 8ish. These classes can handle being messed with, and TBH they *need* to be reigned in. Having conditions that actually interfere with them a little is a good thing.

[Rynjin]

"It's bad for the game and for fun if spellcasters are forced to make any suboptimal decisions, or frankly to be inconvenienced in any way"


This isn't anywhere close to anything I said, so I'll just take your initial adversarial premise at face value and wash my hands of the idea that anything productive can come of interacting with you.

[LudicSavant]

To add, IMO, most of the fun spells are in that category.
Save for half damage does some work as well
Indeed it does. Quite a lot, in fact!

[Skrum]

This isn't anywhere close to anything I said, so I'll just take your initial adversarial premise at face value and wash my hands of the idea that anything productive can come of interacting with you.

I was being bombastic for effect, but look at what you said - it would be less fun for spellcasters to be inconvenienced in this way, but in the very next sentence, you suggest that the 20 str, 10 dex plate wearing fighter should (take off their shield) and use a bow when the enemy is out of range. Like that compromise of their build is ok, but spellcasters being interrupted "isn't fun."

I just don't agree with you in the slightest