Combat Casting

[Grishnak]

Just a quick question regarding the said item.

I know that combat casting is generally used for clerics, them being in combat and casting those much needed healing spells, but does anyone else think that any caster that's in hand to hand combat should take this feat to be able to cast in the 1st place?

I personally think the feat is a waste of time as it only gives a +4 to your check and there are much better feats to be taken. I will be running some adventures soon and will be making it a standard rule for my gaming sessions that ALL casters have to take this feat to cast in combat. Now this might seem unfair but the pc's can cast if there are no enemies facing them directly but they can only cast with the concentration check once in hand to hand.

Please feel free to nurf me but give some good arguments why I shouldn't do this.

 

[fba827]

I will start by saying I am not too fond of the idea in general. I mean, yes, it does add a +4 to an ability in a specific circumstance. But so do other feats like Mobility (and that one has prereqs) do you plan to eventually change those as well?

It does prove most useful for spell casters who are in the middle of a combat area and, generally then more useful at the lower levels since there are fewer skill points.

But it does have that purpose none the less.

Having said all that... if you do want to use this sort of thing, you should make the description more definitive such as further defining when "in hand to hand combat is" -- like "whenever you are in a threatened space"

Also, do people still have to specify casting no the defensive or will it always be assumed when in a threatened space?

aside from that, nothing too bad I suppose...

Just make sure that this (like other house rules) is made clear to the players before they start character creation.


Edit: fixing type-o... I said +5, I meant +4

 

[Rebecca Borgstrom]

Just a quick question regarding the said item.

I know that combat casting is generally used for clerics, them being in combat and casting those much needed healing spells, but does anyone else think that any caster that's in hand to hand combat should take this feat to be able to cast in the 1st place?

Hm.

I would recommend against trying to make every Feat worthwhile by removing abilities from the character classes and assigning them to Feats. Ultimately, it's more important that a PC be able to do their job than that a Feat be worth its opportunity cost.

If you have some other reason for this idea, then . . . well, okay. Have fun!

For what it's worth, IME, casting defensively is a regular part of high-level combat. It's not just for clerics, because often you don't have a choice about whether to be in the melee or not. If you have any melee competence at all, you may have to step into the fight to do your part. If you have none, the enemies see a caster and come to YOU.

Personally, I favor Skill Focus: Concentration over Combat Casting, but I wouldn't call Combat Casting a weak Feat by any means. I've seen Combat Casting-aided defensive casting successes brutalize both PCs and NPCs in combat.

Rebecca

 

[NPC]

I can give you a few good reasons why a houserule like this is a bad idea.

First, you're not being fair to spell casters. Spell casters don't get that many feats to begin with, so forcing them to take this feat to cast in combat is a bit draconian, IMO.

If you are going to force your spell casters to take this feat to perform an action that is normally allowed by the rules, then you need to force your melee characters to take a feat as well.

Second, just because you think the feat "is a waste of time" doesn't mean it is. At low levels, I think the feat is pretty useful.

Third, for argument's sake, let's say that the feat is useless. That doesn't mean that you should retrict a standard game mechanic (casting in combat), just to make the feat more important. Maybe you should increase the bonus it provides, or houserule some other benefit to make the feat more attractive.

I wouldn't be too happy about this houserule if I was playing in your campaign. It seems a bit unfair to me.

I agree with fba827, talk to your players about this ahead of time and get their reaction.

 

[rtricher]

Well the others have made great arguments and I'm with them if you want to make the feat more useful then have your spellcasters make concetration checks all the time they should anyways.. even if they aren't threatened directly, they do have to hurry up or are otherwise distracted with all that nasty figthing going on. Believe me IME it really sucks to fail a check especially when it's a 3rd or 4th level cure, why cause you just lost the spell.

 

[fba827]

Or, here's another idea altogether.

(given your power as DM to adjust stuff as you want)

If you don't like the feat, remove it as an option from the game entirely.

Given the nice plug & play nature of feats (and most add-ons), this would be the cleanest change rather than changing the mechanics of the spellcasters' capabilities.

(Don't get me wrong. I still do not personally believe it is a wasted feat, but you have every right to have your own opinion and therefore look for alternatives )

 

[Darklone]

IMHO the worst thing about the feat is that Skill Focus soon will give a +3 to ALL concentration checks.

 

[Philip]

Combat Casting is a good feat because it eliminates risk. In my campaign there were plenty of times when an enemy broke through the lines and the wizard was suddenly under attack. The wizard than needed to cast a spell to get rid of the threat or be killed. At other times it was essential for the Cleric to cure a comrade who was in severe danger of being killed. In these cases, Combat Casting can just give you the edge you need.

Example: a 8th level wizard had come under attack. She maxed out het Concentration skill to +11. She wants to cast Dimension Door to escape her assailant. If she casts it defensively, she has a 35% chance of failing, if she has Combat Casting, that chance just dropped to 15%. And if she has a above average Con, it might just drop to 0%.

Many players I know would gladly sacrifice a feat if it meant to significantly reduce their chances of dying or even remove them altogether in such life-or-death situations, even if they just occur every odd level or so. In my campaign the +4 for Combat Casting is often the difference between 0% risk of dying and 20% risk of dying, but YMMV.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I'm pretty sure they will increase the bonus you get from combat casting in 3.5e. +5, maybe even +6.

 

[Hackenslash]

I no Likey !!!!

Sorry Grishnak, but I would have to agree with the comments posted by FBA827 and NPC, where as I tend to play warrior classes anyway, I would feel that in order to fully balance the "House Rule" you are proposing for your PC's then it would only be fair to impose a manditory feat requirement for Warrior classes, such as making Combat Reflexes Mandatory to get attacks of opportunity at all !!! And at First level that would greatly effect play in a spell caster due to them not getting very many feats anyway and haveing to spend one on Combat Casting when they can normally do this with a concentration check via skill points, that in itself can get Hairy especially at lower levels. Even if you max out your concentration, there is still over 50% chance of failure if you are struck during casting. I think that maybe you have not grasped the reason for the Combat Casting Feat. It is not there to allow a player to do a thing but to let the player have a better chance at doing somthing that can already be done within the game rules. At lower levels this feat is adequate if not essential for a combat heavy game, however I can see it not being as usefull at higher levels but look at other feats, they can be equally lame when you have high level abilites and stats. I have been thinking of another option for Combat Casting in that you do not get any bonus to your concentration check and these have to be rolled in Combat but you can not get attacks of opportunity when you have the Combat Casting Feat, and then make Warriors have to have the Combat Reflexs Feat in order to make attacks of opportunity in the first place. That might balance up what you were proposing in your campaign. But my Gut feeling is that what already workd then leave as it is, Todays DnD game is deadly enough as it is without making the players have feats they can use for other things that are an integral part of their class, eg. Meta Magic Feats to improve spells and casting and/or Item Creation Feats to make that oh so crucial magic item that the PC has been dreaming of but the DM has not yet given yet as a Freebee !!! Anyway that was my 2 cents worth...hope it helps you make your final decision, but as the general opinion seems to be against the idea maybe that would be the wisest way to go. I wanted to start a campaign with only humans and make the other PC races unique and more powerfull but that was not practical from a game statistic point of view and also from the other players not wanting to only play "humans". Sometimes its a little bit of give and take with rules and guidlines. see ya soon dude.....ZAL.