PDA

View Full Version : Help with fixing the cast defensively rule



ken-do-nim
2008-09-28, 01:24 PM
I personally think that the dc for casting defensively needs to reflect the magnitude of the opponents currently threating the spellcaster. Cast defensively to avoid an attack of opportunity from a goblin? No problem. Cast defensively while surrounded by the 7 Samurais of Vengeance? That's something else (well, unless they are Complete Warrior samurais :smalleek: )

I haven't hit on the right rule yet. Add half the base attack bonuses of all threatening opponents round down to the concentration dc? It doesn't take into account strength, weapon, etc. So what do you think?

Btw, I'm coupling this with disallowing a free 5 foot step when spellcasting to solve the step back and cast without needing to cast defensively problem.

Edit: At the very least, I can use the idea from tumble that each threatening foe after the first adds +2 to the dc.

sonofzeal
2008-09-28, 01:32 PM
"Use Concentration check instead of AC against AoOs when casting defensively"?

Same with Tumble-past, really.

ken-do-nim
2008-09-28, 01:46 PM
"Use Concentration check instead of AC against AoOs when casting defensively"?

Same with Tumble-past, really.

<sits in stunned silence>

That ... could ... just ... work!

Thank you!

Ent
2008-09-28, 02:34 PM
"Use Concentration check instead of AC against AoOs when casting defensively"?

Same with Tumble-past, really.

Then they're like Ride + Mounted Combat feat, only that works once per round right?

Riffington
2008-09-28, 02:35 PM
If you want a mechanical fix, SonofZeal gave a great idea.

In terms of "how things work", my understanding is this: either you provoke or you don't. There are no "small openings" that a samurai can get through but not a goblin (except for having a decent AC, or special training ala the Mage Slayer feat).
Casting defensively means that you are casting in such a way as to leave no openings. Your hands never leave the safety of your fighting stance. This is easy to do. The only hard part is not losing the spell while blocking.

The Glyphstone
2008-09-28, 02:38 PM
The only hard part is not losing the spell while blocking.



And even that's trivial to accomplish once you get past the early few levels.

I really like the Concentration=AC idea, I think I'll keep that....probably take the Tumble=AC also.

BobVosh
2008-09-28, 02:52 PM
And even that's trivial to accomplish once you get past the early few levels.

I really like the Concentration=AC idea, I think I'll keep that....probably take the Tumble=AC also.

Except most tumblers will have a higher ac off of this.

For that matter, so will most wizards.

Jack_Simth
2008-09-28, 03:10 PM
Except most tumblers will have a higher ac off of this.

For that matter, so will most wizards.

I'm pretty sure they're all referring to "for the purposes of the AoO invoked by movment and/or casting" rather than "for all purposes".

That is, the Tumbler goes through a threatened area, and uses his Tumble check result as his AC for resolving the AoO's caused by movement. Likewise, if the Wizard casts in a threatened area, the Wizard uses his Concentration check as his AC for purposes of the AoO's invoked from casting. If the goblins attack the Wizard/Rogue on the goblin's turn, though, the goblins are targetting normal AC.

dariathalon
2008-09-28, 03:11 PM
I almost used the check result = AC idea in the last campaign I started, but realized that means that people will be taking their AoOs against ridiculously high ACs when it can be better to take it later against a less armored opponent. This adds an extra layer of tactical complexity in deciding when to take your 1 AoO, but all this really means is that the tumbler is less likely to gett AoO'd because the opponent would probably save it hoping that a better chance came up later in the round. In my opinion this is the opposite of what the rule was intending.

Here are the rules I came up with. A little complicated, but it works with the limited playtesting they've had so far.

Tumbling past an opponent requires a check DC 10+opponent’s attack bonus with current threatening weapon. Roll once per opponent. Other modifiers to the DC are +2 per additional opponent tumbled past in the same turn and +5 if you must tumble through the opponent's square. If you succeed, you may tumble up to half your move without provoking. Each check that fails, you take the AoO.

To cast a spell defensively you must succeed at a concentration check DC 10+half highest attack bonus from any threatening opponent+spell level. There is an additional +1 to the DC for each additional threatening opponent. Success means the spell goes off without provoking AoOs; failure means the spell slot is expended but nothing happens.

Examples
A rogue tumbles between 2 owlbears. She needs two tumble checks DC 21 (10+9[claw attack bonus]+2[1 additional owlbear]). She rolls a 24 on the first but only 18 on the second. She makes it past the first, but the second gets an AoO against her normal AC as she passes by.

A wizard tries to cast Blur on himself while surrounded by 5 goblins. He needs a DC 17 (10+1[1/2 of 2 attack bonus w/ morningstar]+2[spell level]+4[4 additional goblins]). He only rolls once, if successful his spell goes off. If he fails, the spell fizzles with no effect.

Roderick_BR
2008-09-28, 03:26 PM
How about this one idea I had for tumble? Get a base DC, and increase it by the highest bonus attack base of whoever is threatening it.
Examples:
You cast defensivelly a 2nd level spell. The base DC is 10+2. If no one threatens you, you pretty much casts it, no problem. If a goblin with a +1 threatens you, the DC rises +1 point. That's a DC of 13. Now, when facing a 10th level fighter, with a bonus base of +10, better back off, cause there's no way you'll cast it, with a DC of 22. It's like when a fighter meets a creature with a too high AC. He needs to back down, an find another way to deal with it, or find someone who can.
My original idea was to apply it to tumble checks. Wanna jump over the weakling 1/3 CR goblin? Go ahead. Wanna tumble past a 15+ level warblade(even without thicket of blades)? Tough luck.

Saph
2008-09-28, 03:35 PM
There have been a lot of Tumble/Concentration houserules proposed over the years. The main problem with them is that they tend to add an additional layer of complexity that the game really doesn't need. Factoring in the BAB of the opponent, for instance, sounds like a good idea until you realise that the GM often doesn't know a monster's BAB off the top of his head, causing an extra thirty seconds of so of lookup for what's only one part of one skill check of one player's turn. Not good.

Personally I find it more trouble than its worth, and just play by the book. For the average spellcaster, casting defensively is still a risk until they get up to level 10 or so, buy a magic item, or take the Combat Casting feat. (If they are willing to spend a feat or some money and time to fill that particular hole in their defences, I don't really see anything wrong with it.)

- Saph

LibraryOgre
2008-09-28, 03:41 PM
DC 10 + Highest BAB + Spell Level + 2 per additional threatener.

So, two goblin warriors (+1 BAB) threatening while casting Glitterdust (2nd level) gives you a DC of 10 + 1 (BAB) + 2 (spell level) + 2 (1 additional attacker), or 15. If facing a 20th level warrior, the DC is 30 + spell level.

Knaight
2008-09-28, 03:55 PM
Just replacing AC against AoOs would be the easiest method.

Vva70
2008-09-28, 04:50 PM
If the point is that you think casters caught in melee should generally have fewer options (which I'm not necessarily arguing against), then the check subbing for AC should work.

However, attacks of opportunity are not supposed to represent any particular skill on behalf of the attacker. Rather, they're supposed to represent times in which the defender leaves him/herself particularly open. That is why difficulty scales in the normal rules with the difficulty of the action being taken (difficulty of casting the spell), rather than with the skill of the opponent.

It's the same with tumble, really. The point isn't that you're dodging individual strikes while moving around; rather it's that you're moving without sacrificing your normal defenses. Sort of the same thing as using the withdrawal action

sonofzeal
2008-09-28, 05:03 PM
If the point is that you think casters caught in melee should generally have fewer options (which I'm not necessarily arguing against), then the check subbing for AC should work.

However, attacks of opportunity are not supposed to represent any particular skill on behalf of the attacker. Rather, they're supposed to represent times in which the defender leaves him/herself particularly open. That is why difficulty scales in the normal rules with the difficulty of the action being taken (difficulty of casting the spell), rather than with the skill of the opponent.

It's the same with tumble, really. The point isn't that you're dodging individual strikes while moving around; rather it's that you're moving without sacrificing your normal defenses. Sort of the same thing as using the withdrawal action
Counterargument: a higher level character is more adept at finding openings, or needs less of an opening to get a good attack. The Concentration-as-AC method presupposes that it's impossible to keep a perfect guard, but with proper focus any openings can be minimized. So, they see you casting a spell and try to attack while you're distracted, and you try to not let yourself get distracted. A high-bab or finessing enemy might try to slip into tiny holes in your guard, or a high-str enemy could just take a sweeping swipe in your direction. The effect is the same though - your level of concentration and ability to stay physically focused while casting the spell helps you protect yourself from ever-more-dangerous enemies.

RebelRogue
2008-09-28, 05:10 PM
A very quick fix would be to add double the spell level to the DC. That should - at least superficially - counter the fact that spell level increases every two levels while a maxed Concentration skill increases every level.

Also, melee opponents with the Mage Slayer Feat can be a nasty surprise once in a while :smallamused:

Vva70
2008-09-28, 05:17 PM
Counterargument: a higher level character is more adept at finding openings, or needs less of an opening to get a good attack. The Concentration-as-AC method presupposes that it's impossible to keep a perfect guard, but with proper focus any openings can be minimized. So, they see you casting a spell and try to attack while you're distracted, and you try to not let yourself get distracted. A high-bab or finessing enemy might try to slip into tiny holes in your guard, or a high-str enemy could just take a sweeping swipe in your direction. The effect is the same though - your level of concentration and ability to stay physically focused while casting the spell helps you protect yourself from ever-more-dangerous enemies.

But then why isn't that higher-level character going to find openings when the caster is not casting anything? The point is that there is some level of guard that does not provoke AoOs against any opponent. Casting defensively allows the caster to maintain this level of guard while casting, because it's more difficult when you have to concentrate on two things at once.

The attacker, meanwhile, doesn't take an attack of opportunity because he sees his opponent casting a spell, he takes it because he sees his opponent letting his guard down. If being higher level makes it easier to poke holes in guards, and no guard is perfect, then what level of opponent does it take to get AoOs against a wizard standing still?

The Glyphstone
2008-09-28, 06:24 PM
I just don't like how a flat DC15+Spell Level is sufficient to stop anyone who's not Epic or a Mage Slayer from scoring an AoO on you when casting (and in a similar vein, a flat DC15=2/enemy check to Tumble past someone without provoking0. Almost everything else in the game scales to some degree...it's a lesser facet of the issue with Diplomacy in a way.

Kaihaku
2008-09-28, 06:28 PM
I just don't like how a flat DC15+Spell Level is sufficient to stop anyone who's not Epic or a Mage Slayer from scoring an AoO on you when casting (and in a similar vein, a flat DC15=2/enemy check to Tumble past someone without provoking0. Almost everything else in the game scales to some degree...it's a lesser facet of the issue with Diplomacy in a way.

That's why I love the Mage Slayer chain of feats. But yeah, it sucks that you have to take a line of feats to stop a Mage from casting in melee.

Irreverent Fool
2008-09-29, 05:44 AM
DC 10 + Highest BAB + Spell Level + 2 per additional threatener.

So, two goblin warriors (+1 BAB) threatening while casting Glitterdust (2nd level) gives you a DC of 10 + 1 (BAB) + 2 (spell level) + 2 (1 additional attacker), or 15. If facing a 20th level warrior, the DC is 30 + spell level.

In my groups we set the DC by-the-book (DC 15 + spell level) and add two for each additional opponent threatening the caster. It works out reasonably well to make it challenging... but then nobody ever bothers pumping concentration in our groups. It's not perfect, but it doesn't suffer the slowdown that using opponents' BAB could cause as mentioned above.

Roderick_BR
2008-09-29, 07:24 AM
In my groups we set the DC by-the-book (DC 15 + spell level) and add two for each additional opponent threatening the caster. It works out reasonably well to make it challenging... but then nobody ever bothers pumping concentration in our groups. It's not perfect, but it doesn't suffer the slowdown that using opponents' BAB could cause as mentioned above.
Yeah, I was not able to work out the slowdown yet :smallfrown:
Mark Hall's idea of combining the two ideas makes it more realistic, but also slow down the game a bit.

JupiterPaladin
2008-09-29, 09:00 AM
I find that not allowing Cast Defensively as an option will make the casters a little more balanced and played smarter...