[3.X]Would removing defensive casting be too unfair/unfun?

[Oslecamo]

Partialy based from this thread.

The thing is simple. Unlike 2e and 4e, in 3e casters can do "defensive casting". By suceeding in an easy(and at medium-high levels, auto suceed) skill check, they never cause aoos no matter how threatened they are.

In 2e this would allow the wizard enemies to easily disrupt spells if they were close enough, in particular because powerfull magic also took several turns to cast.

In 4e castes don't give a damn because even if they eat the aoo they still cast their spell, and they have plenty of close range spells that don't provoke at all.

But this is 3.X we're talking about. Do you think that removing defensive casting would change anything? And if yes, change for better or worse?

Now I'm perfectly aware that this alone won't make everything balanced, as blah blah fly blah blah invisibility blah blah but hey, the small things also matter!

The main question here is, would it be fun for the players? The houserule would apply to SLAs as well, so altough the monsters can disrupt the party more easily, so can the fighter disrupt the monsters better now.

Would wizard and cleric players don't mind too much having to get out of enemy reach before casting their uber stuff?

Discuss.

[paddyfool]

For reasons given this would mostly matter at low levels, when casters are less overpowered anyway, so I don't think it would remove the fundamental issue. However, I have to confess there is a temptation to make "Defensive" a +1 metamagic.

[Lioness]

Personally, I like defensive casting. From the point of view of a caster here...

If I end up right in front of something massive with a 10ft reach, and I can't take a 5ft step backwards to get out of its reach, I don't want to provoke an attack of opportunity. Because, frankly, my AC is low, and I'd probably die in one hit, if it rolled well.

So I defensively cast, and then hope someone else takes care of its attack of opportunity for me.

[jmbrown]

I absolutely hate concentration but instead of removing defensive casting altogether you should combine it with fighting defensive. The caster's concentration check is for increasing his AC while casting, not to completely negate an AoO. DC remains the same but if he beats it he gets a +2 to his AC (+4 if he spends the full round casting like total defense).

Personally, I like defensive casting. From the point of view of a caster here...

If I end up right in front of something massive with a 10ft reach, and I can't take a 5ft step backwards to get out of its reach, I don't want to provoke an attack of opportunity. Because, frankly, my AC is low, and I'd probably die in one hit, if it rolled well.

So I defensively cast, and then hope someone else takes care of its attack of opportunity for me.

And from the point of view of everyone else: run away and reposition yourself like any other character has to do. Concentration made wizards go from glass cannons in prior editions to nuclear bombs. By level 10 and with a few cheap magic items a wizard with the lowest constitution should never have to worry about failing a defensive casting unless he totally neglected the skill. Any ambush or potentially deadly situation is removed unless the wizard is killed before his initiative because he can totally ignore attacks while casting.

[Oslecamo]

If I end up right in front of something massive with a 10ft reach, and I can't take a 5ft step backwards to get out of its reach, I don't want to provoke an attack of opportunity. Because, frankly, my AC is low, and I'd probably die in one hit, if it rolled well.

But that's the main question. When the caster has nothing to fear from being whitin reach of a spear or an ogre, the only thing he's afraid off are other casters.

Sure, it's great from the caster's point of view, but from everybody else's point of view, it kinda sucks.

So I defensively cast, and then hope someone else takes care of its attack of opportunity for me.

Why not ask you teammates to provoke the enemy into causing an aoo so you can cast safely?

[Tyndmyr]

I don't think it should be removed....I do think it should be balanced better. Static DCs are invariably either too easy or too hard to hit.

The same is true of other concentration checks, like for vigorous motion...seriously, DC 10? Yeah, at level 1, I'll have like +6 or 7 to it. By level 3, Im simply not failing it. Ever.

[jseah]

IMO, removing defensive casting is a good move.

It makes planning more important as ambushing parties can charge their melee warriors into AoO range of casters.

Anything that puts more emphasis on planning and strategy over tactical tends to get a thumbs up from me.

[Lioness]

Why not ask you teammates to provoke the enemy into causing an aoo so you can cast safely?

I do sometimes...problem is, I'm almost always first or second in terms of initiative.

[Killer Angel]

Now I'm perfectly aware that this alone won't make everything balanced, as blah blah fly blah blah invisibility blah blah but hey, the small things also matter!

It wouldn't resolve all, but I think it helps (maybe if structured as Jmbrown idea, but with a bonus increasing with the amount of success on the skill).
For example, it can limit the uberness of combat caster (cler-druidzilla) while they're fighting.

[D-naras]

Instead of removing it, how about making it cost? Let's say you must spend 2 spell slots to cast without provoking. Or the standard spell slot for the spell you cast, plus more spell slots totalling the level of the spell you wish to cast.

[Ecalsneerg]

I do sometimes...problem is, I'm almost always first or second in terms of initiative.

The delay action loves you.

Although I'd not remove defensive casting. It punishes players who don't have a gazillion paranoia-fuelled spells that mean if someone gets within 10' they turn invisible, start flying and are now on another plane of existence. However, I would fix the DCs so they actually scale.

[dsmiles]

If I end up right in front of something massive with a 10ft reach...

Wizurd...ur doin' it wrong...

[GolemsVoice]

I absolutely hate concentration but instead of removing defensive casting altogether you should combine it with fighting defensive. The caster's concentration check is for increasing his AC while casting, not to completely negate an AoO. DC remains the same but if he beats it he gets a +2 to his AC (+4 if he spends the full round casting like total defense).

I don't think that would be a good idea. While the thought as it is is good, a +2 or +4 to armor class won't do much if the AC is very low to begin with. People who'll come into melee with you will likely be the types to beat a (arcane) caster's AC boosted or not. Maybe you could scale it: You'll have to beat a certain DC (depending on the spell level) and for everey x points you beat it, you get +1 to your armor class.

[Lioness]

Wizurd...ur doin' it wrong...

I'z new. I'll be doing it wrong for a couple of years.

[Cyclocone]

The Mage Slayer feat already does this, and it hardly tips the scales of 3e class balance.

It could theoretically change things for CoDzillas and Gishes, since they're the ones who are most likely to be casting in melee anyway.

Conversely, it wouldn't be a huge deal for Batman Wizards, as they traditionally endevour to avoid getting hit in the first place (and largely succeed, thanks to battlefield control and IWIN-spells like Greater Mirror Image and Ironguard.).

And at any rate, Swift action spells don't provoke AoO, and casters tend to have those anyway -doubly so if they're trying to melee as well.

[Oslecamo]

So it seems like people don't want to remove it, but would like an increase on the skills DC.

This reminds me of an idea someone once mentioned, where the DC for safe casting inscreased by the BAB of the dudes threatening you.

And you had then to make a concentration check for every dude threatening you, so it would be harder to suceed if cornered by multiple oponents.

So an high level wizard can easily prevent a kobold from disrupting him, but fighter Mc Fighter would give him a much harder time. Add in Rogue Mr.Stabby and geting off a spell start to get complicated.

After all, I believe that if a wizard let's himself be flanked, he should be seriously punished for that.

[Lioness]

Yeah, an increase in the DC would work.

At the moment, I really don't need to bother rolling.

[Yuki Akuma]

Removing defensive casting wouldn't be fair to low-level wizards - when a slight tactical blunder makes you waste 75% of your total resources, it's just not cool.

Making the DC scale with caster level would be better.

[Morty]

Removing or limiting DC would perhaps put the optimized, high level casters down a bit but unoptimized, low level ones would be kind of screwed.
I support making it scale with caster level rather than only spell level.

[Optimystik]

That doesn't make sense to me. As you gain more experience with the forces of the arcane, it gets... harder to concentrate?

It's fine as a flat DC imo. Sure it's easy for mid-level+ casters to beat, but... it should be.

[Lioness]

That doesn't make sense to me. As you gain more experience with the forces of the arcane, it gets... harder to concentrate?

Well, you're presumably casting higher level spells.

So perhaps if it went up with the level of the spell you're casting.

Unless it already does, and that's something I've neglected to realise...

[Yuki Akuma]

You channel more and more arcane energy the higher your understanding becomes. Why wouldn't it be harder to concentrate on a 5-missile Magic Missile than a 1-missile Magic Missile? Why isn't a 10d6 Fireball more taxing than its weaker 5d6 brother?

Why is a Mage Armor that lasts ten hours easier to cast than one that lasts only one hour?

[paddyfool]

This reminds me of an idea someone once mentioned, where the DC for safe casting inscreased by the BAB of the dudes threatening you.

And you had then to make a concentration check for every dude threatening you, so it would be harder to suceed if cornered by multiple oponents.

Sounds good, on the whole.

[jindra34]

I wouldn't remove it because there are several classes for which it is highly likely to be needed. However if your going that direction why not change combat casting so instead of giving a bonus to defensive casting it enables it and those without the feat cannot defensively cast?

[Oslecamo]

Removing defensive casting wouldn't be fair to low-level wizards - when a slight tactical blunder makes you waste 75% of your total resources, it's just not cool.

Making the DC scale with caster level would be better.

Oh , that's another nice idea!

What I like more on it it's that it punishes casters who cheese out super high CLs!

jindra34:That's yet another good idea. Sounds fair that if the fighter needs feats to avoid aoos, so the wizard also needs to burn one feat for it.

[Yuki Akuma]

"Hahah! I, Shadowcraft Mage, cast a Miracle with a caster level of 29!"

"You provoke an AoO. *roll* Hit. Make a DC 103 Concentration check."

"...Well crap."

[Mercenary Pen]

IMO Defensive casting needs to scale rather more than it already does, so that you have something of a curved progression rather than a straight linear progression...

For example, without giving it much thought at all (and please bear in mind that 3.5 is not really my system of choice) make the DC 15+ 1/2 (spell level²)

[lesser_minion]

Re-tool it to work the same way as Justin's tumble fix - as an immediate action, you may make a concentration check to negate an attack of opportunity that just hit you as a result of a spell you cast.

You may also make a concentration check to gain a +4 to AC vs. attacks of opportunity vs. your spellcasting, which stacks with the benefit provided by the Combat Casting feat (which would change to "you gain +4 to AC vs. attacks of opportunity provoked by your spellcasting").

That just leaves 5ft steps as a way out of attacks of opportunity. There are some feats in Dragon which can get around that problem.

[Jack_Simth]

Well, you're presumably casting higher level spells.

So perhaps if it went up with the level of the spell you're casting.

Unless it already does, and that's something I've neglected to realise...

DC is currently 15+Spell Level, per the Skill Description (it's under "Special"). So Magic Missle is DC 16, Shapechange is DC 24 ... and if you don't have a +23 modifier to Concentration by 17th level as a Wizard... well, you're asking for it.

Something like DC 10 + 2* Spell level... would still only be 28 at 9th level spells. DC 10 + 2.5 * spell level (treating cantrips as level 1/2)?
{table=head]Spell Level|DC
0|11
1|12
2|15
3|17
4|20
5|22
6|25
7|27
8|30
9|32.5
[/table]

[Optimystik]

You channel more and more arcane energy the higher your understanding becomes. Why wouldn't it be harder to concentrate on a 5-missile Magic Missile than a 1-missile Magic Missile? Why isn't a 10d6 Fireball more taxing than its weaker 5d6 brother?

Why is a Mage Armor that lasts ten hours easier to cast than one that lasts only one hour?

But then you run into the can of worms that are spells that don't scale at all (like Time Stop) or spells that only scale up to a point (like Divine Favor.) Would THOSE spells have a flat DC? Would the DC scale only until the spell stops scaling? How much would it start at, and how much would it change by?

And unless every enemy you send after the caster has a reach weapon, he can still just take a 5ft. step.