Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Funny Slaughter 02-24-04, 01:32 PM	did never see somebody mention it so i make up a thread to share this discovery. the feat is named mage slayer, mini-hb p. 27 prereq: spellcraft 2, BAB +3 it gives +1 to will and denies any spellcaster you threaten to cast defensively put yourself in front of the caster (and have some way to threaten at 5ft as well) and watch him running. i even think about some backup reach-weapon for my character, just in case i find some enemy caster... gs Funny
Namarus 02-24-04, 01:47 PM	Not really sure how useful it would be considering the mage could 5ft step out of the way. Also with mages who generally get close in combat normally take the time to get their defensive buffs going. Mirror image, blur, invisibility, etc.......
PhaedrusXY 02-24-04, 01:55 PM	Originally posted by Namarus Not really sure how useful it would be considering the mage could 5ft step out of the way. Notice he said reach fighters. And he said make sure you have a way to threaten at 5 feet also. I think this feat is probably too powerful for normal D&D.
Dirty Dan the Laundry Man 02-24-04, 02:41 PM	I think the feat sucks. if you capable of being within 10' of a spellcaster, you should via all means (charge, grappling, etc.) use your martial capabilities to snuff him out anyway. you'd be better off taking a feat that improves your charge damage (for example) and killing him outright. and you can still use your charging feat to kill non-spellcasters as well. it's a real narrow use feat. only good for extremely heavy occurences of spellcasters.
Funny Slaughter 02-24-04, 02:52 PM	now, that are some quite different opinions :eek: lets see what other people say, in my opinion its a pretty strong feat, not sure if i go as far as PhaedrusXY though, its not easy to get my balance out of order. gs Funny
HoshiAdam 02-24-04, 02:53 PM	The imbalance of the feat comes into play more with touch attacks - if a caster wants to use a touch spell, they either have to hold the charge, or take an attack of opportunity. If it didn't make them automatically fail (which makes them lose the spell), it would be closer to balanced. Like if they still drew an attack of opportunity for casting a spell, despite casting on the defensive.
Stoned Golem 02-24-04, 04:06 PM	Kinda makes Spellcasting Harrier look pathetic, doesn't it?
nyphoenix79 02-24-04, 04:18 PM	I dont have the book right in front of me so i may be getting this wrong, but...it only denies the caster the ability to cast defensively right. they can still cast it ( provoking an AoO) and if, IF, they make their concentration check it still goes off. It not like the mage couldn't get past that specially with defensive buffs in place (blur, stoneskin, etc). Not to mention, moving away, then casting as needed. The feat itself is powerful, but not overpowerd, It lacks broad application as a previous poster mention. In a low magic campaign its not that great at all. Personally alot of the stuff in the minihand book doesnt mesh well balance wise with regular D&D. I allow it on a case by case basis. just my 2cp
Boondoggle 02-24-04, 04:22 PM	The feat is definately very powerful, but is also useable in very specific instances. Even then, it is easily circumvented. About the only way to garuntee a mage can't escape your reach with this feat is to either have him flanked and both flankers have the feat or to not have the mage at the 'edge' of your reach.
HoshiAdam 02-24-04, 05:12 PM	The other problem I have with the feat is the disguisability of the feat. Most feats don't have the effect on other characters that this one does. The feats that do have a test of some sort involved usually (like Improved Feint, for example). The closest thing that I can think of that comes to this is Uncanny Dodge stopping sneak attacks, but even that has the level comparison involved, and Fortification, which also stops sneak attacks, but is expensive. Just another point of view.
LordArkan 02-24-04, 06:12 PM	Originally posted by Stoned Golem Kinda makes Spellcasting Harrier look pathetic, doesn't it? And that's my beef with the feat - a third level fighter can do MORE with this than what a 21st level fighter had to spend an epic feat on? What the crap!?
PhaedrusXY 02-24-04, 06:16 PM	If my grappler character got his hands on a mage and had this feat, it is quite possible the mage would die without getting a single spell off. And it is WAY stronger than an epic feat, Spellcasting Harrier. And that is a feat that I came close to getting with one of my epic characters, so I don't consider it too weak to merit discussing. Or am I wrong in assuming that mages still draw attacks of opportunity for casting spells while grappled?
Laelenie 02-24-04, 06:51 PM	yeah.. I noticed this feat the first time I went into the minHB. Great feat. fundamental to balance figthers with spellcasters (tries to at least)
rollplayer 02-24-04, 08:24 PM	yeah.. I noticed this feat the first time I went into the minHB. Great feat. fundamental to balance fighters with spellcasters (tries to at least). I would've agreed with you during 3.0, but with the 3.5 Haste and 3.5 Power Attack, among other things, I certainly think the gap has narrowed. As far as the feat goes I think it might be too situational, and a fighter could perhaps benefit more in just taking a feat that would allow him to kill mages quicker (I know that my mage couldn't last a full round of attacks from any of my party's fighters). In 3.0 when mages became godly at mid levels, this feat would've ruled the school. I think that in the 3.5 environment, fighters got better things to do then worry about the puny wizard and his one spell per turn, the only thing wizards do really well now is teleport:D
PhaedrusXY 02-24-04, 08:32 PM	Good luck getting a full attack on a wizard, unless you have Dire Charge or some similar ability. If he stands there while you full attack him normally, he deserves to die. And at the higher levels, it is hard to be so badassed that you are sure you'll kill the mage on a charge (which is likely the only kind of attack you're going to get on one). It's possible, but only if you play a min/maxed fighter against a non-min/maxed wizard. So this feat is very good, in that you can charge the mage, damage him, and then if he tries to cast a spell defensively to get away (Dimension Door, etc), he will fail and take an AoO. This will be quite a suprize to him, unless he's seen you or someone else with this feat fight before. If you play a grappler, it will go something like this: You charge the mage, grab him and damage him. Then he tries to cast a spell to get away. He can't cast defensively, and he's grappled, so he's limited on what he can cast anyway. And he takes an AoO, which might make him fail his Conc. check. If he does, you get a full attack on him next round. I'm not sure how Attacks of Opportunity work in grapples, though. Do you make an opposed grapple check to damage him on an AoO? Or do you make a normal unarmed attack? If it's the latter, do you take the -4 penalty for using a light weapon in a grapple? Maybe this feat isn't as good for most characters as it would be for mine, and that's why I think it seems so strong. He fights with a guisarme and his unarmed strikes, and is specialized in grappling and tripping, so this would make him alot more deadly to spellcasters.
Hanniball 02-24-04, 08:33 PM	this feat is powerful when used in the right situation...but so are many other feats. if you have a spellcaster doing his job in your party then the enemy spellcaster should constantly be close enough for this feat to work. that doesn't always occur, however, thus this feat is balanced. after all WWA is super-cool when you're surrounded by goblins... either way...just my 0.02 cp
Skyblade 02-24-04, 08:45 PM	Could a monster take a feat like this? I mean, if you have this creature with, say, a 20-foot reach... :D I incorporated this feat in my Spike Chain build - works with you moving adjacent to the target and tripping the mage, of course, and disarming any wand/staff he is holding. That's when the rest of the fun begins. This is just the perfect feat for Spiked Chain users, as no mage could cast a spell without provoking AoO if you ever move next to them. This has got to be one of the best feats I've seen to date; this single feat makes some anti-mage PrCs look bad. (Edit: Oh, and seeing as I didn't really elaborate.. I don't think using a wand provokes an AoO, nor does using a magic staff; those could, of course, be disarmed.)
Qaetar 02-24-04, 09:22 PM	This feat doesn't seem very well thought out. Most feats increase your own abilities, (Prone Attack, you don't take -4 for attacking from Prone. Dodge, you gain a +1 dodge bonus to AC, Skill Focus (Basketweaving), you gain a +3 to all Craft (Basketweaving) checks.) Few feats limit the options of those around you. The only ones that come close are feats like Improved Disarm, which provides you "You do not suffer an attack of opportunity," but that is limiting your opponent by increasing your own abilities. In other words, I think this "feat" does not fulfill the spirit of Feats in general. (Qaetar)
Hot Rod 02-24-04, 09:29 PM	Originally posted by PhaedrusXY So this feat is very good, in that you can charge the mage, damage him, and then if he tries to cast a spell defensively to get away (Dimension Door, etc), he will fail and take an AoO. This will be quite a suprize to him, unless he's seen you or someone else with this feat fight before. 1. It prevents the mage from using his Lvl+3 skill points in concentration, and his defensive casting feats. Where's the balance here? How about I make a feat and your fighter can't get his armor bonus to defense? Or another that makes his BaB not count against me. Fair? (roll in free 1/2 Iron Will feat to boot) :lol: 2. When do you tell the mage he cannot cast defensively? (Before action starts? - can change his action at least) (During? - Takes AoO, possibly loses spell, probably dies) (After? - [if there is an after, he was probably counting on that spell to get away, and will now take additional AoO for moving out of a threatened square]) 3. A failed defensive cast does not give the attacker AoO, he loses the spell. If the mage was permitted to think he was casting defensively, but was not, he would cast the spell sucessfully if he made his concentration check for the damage you did with your AoO. Most importantly, this feat does something no other feat does, it prevents the threatened person from attempting something they should (normally) be able to do. No chance to avoid, you just cannot attempt it. (I see some saying you cannot succeed which is worse than preventing in many ways) The Lvl3 fighter mentioned above can stop a Lvl 50 mage with maxed concentration (53) from casting a Level 1 spell (DC 16). Really, who's idea was this abomination? Probably the best example of MiniHB not being compatible with core rules yet IMO.
nihility 02-24-04, 09:51 PM	Hot Rod's analysis is excellent. In particular, point 2 addresses an issue that seems extremely problematic with this feat: when does the caster find out? I don't have the book; does it offer any discussion on this? Is it just a complete surprise when they take an AoO out of nowhere? Or does the DM say, "You cannot use that action right now. Try another."
foxylady 02-25-04, 12:06 AM	Originally posted by Hot Rod 2. When do you tell the mage he cannot cast defensively? (Before action starts? - can change his action at least) (During? - Takes AoO, possibly loses spell, probably dies) 3. A failed defensive cast does not give the attacker AoO, he loses the spell. Most importantly, this feat does something no other feat does, it prevents the threatened person from attempting something they should (normally) be able to do. No chance to avoid, you just cannot attempt it. 2) I believe during. He won't know his attempt to cast defensively will fail until he attempts it, therefore he cannot change his action. 3) I believe that's false. A failed defensive cast doesn't automatically lose the spell, it merely allows an attack of opportunity. Only if it hits and the caster fails a concentration check vs damage does the spell fail. Note that he is not prevented from attempting to cast defensively; he is prevented from succeeding.
Boondoggle 02-25-04, 03:41 AM	Originally posted by foxylady A failed defensive cast doesn't automatically lose the spell, it merely allows an attack of opportunity. Incorrect. Read "Casting on the Defensive" (PHB pg.140). A failed concentration check means you lose the spell, nothing else.
Lupanis_Blackpaw 02-25-04, 05:19 AM	Originally posted by rollplayer I would've agreed with you during 3.0, but with the 3.5 Haste and 3.5 Power Attack, among other things, I certainly think the gap has narrowed. As far as the feat goes I think it might be too situational, and a fighter could perhaps benefit more in just taking a feat that would allow him to kill mages quicker (I know that my mage couldn't last a full round of attacks from any of my party's fighters). In 3.0 when mages became godly at mid levels, this feat would've ruled the school. I think that in the 3.5 environment, fighters got better things to do then worry about the puny wizard and his one spell per turn, the only thing wizards do really well now is teleport:D :uh-huh: Umm....except when wizards can get multispell and auto quicken spell.....3 spells a round can be pretty damn devestating to any character. I got an Arcane Lord with 3 multispells (4 spells per round) and 0-9th spells quickened. I'd love to see the look on a charging fighter's face as I lay in with time stop, delayed blast fireball, iron wall, and summon monster XI. Can we say wam, bam, thank you ma'am? :mage: :devil:
Funny Slaughter 02-25-04, 05:50 AM	i didnt realized the connection to spellcasting harrier, thats some quite unbalancing stuff, then. there were some wise words spoken here about the general nature of feats, that they should make you stronger and not influence others, i agree to this. i could see this feat better balanced if it gave a malus to the enemies concentration-check in some way or allowed him to use his check vs. an AoO he gets. maybe it was this what they intended, it would make the feat at least usable even if it still means that you give a lvl3+ char a feat more powerful then an epic one. in my opinion casters are still very much more powerful after a certain level and around this level a feat like this could be introduced, maybe around 10-12 i will change the feat to "you are allowed to make an AoO even if the enemy is casting defensively, if you do damage the enemy has to make a successful concentration check or lose the spell" how about this as a houserule? gs Funny
Laelenie 02-25-04, 05:56 AM	huh yeah... probably has more sense this way. I don't like abilities that completely hinder other's abilities. (heavy fortification for instance). So, yep, good house rule.
Qaetar 02-25-04, 09:21 AM	Sorry, Funny, but your re-write of the feat is actually worse and more powerful than the original. 1. It gives the original feat's power (effectively): You may take an AoO on a spellcaster that attempts to cast defensively while you threaten them. 2. It expands upon the original power: The enemy now must make his Casting Defensively roll and his damage concentration check. In the original feat, the mage only had to worry about the concentration check for damage. Now he has to worry about that check and the standard Casting on the Defensive check. A fair feat could possibly be that you increase the Casting on the Defensive check while threatening a mage (which you specify on your action) by some amount X. X could be 5, d20 + BAB, or some other combination. That's a question for balance tweaking though. (Qaetar)
HoshiAdam 02-25-04, 10:50 AM	Originally posted by Qaetar 1. It gives the original feat's power (effectively): You may take an AoO on a spellcaster that attempts to cast defensively while you threaten them. It would make more sense if the attack of opportunity was drawn for them casting the spell, not trying to cast on the defensive. So if they pass their concentration check to cast on the defensive, they still draw an attack for casting a spell. If they fail, they lose the spell and don't draw another AoO. 2. It expands upon the original power: The enemy now must make his Casting Defensively roll and his damage concentration check. In the original feat, the mage only had to worry about the concentration check for damage. Now he has to worry about that check and the standard Casting on the Defensive check. Only the first time it happens. With the original version, they automatically fail their concentration check and lose the spell. If a caster tries to cast on the defensive and still gets attacked, he will probably realize that he can't and will stop trying when threatened by that character. With the new feat, the caster can still cast on the defensive to avoid other AoO, but still need to check again if the Mage Slayer causes damage. In both cases the caster can chose to not cast on the defensive and only make one Concentration check.
DodgerJPS 02-25-04, 10:53 AM	Originally posted by Hot Rod 1. It prevents the mage from using his Lvl+3 skill points in concentration, and his defensive casting feats. Actually it doesn 't prevent him from using these abilities, it just makes him fail the first time he tries, afterwards he knows that he can 't cast defensively, but he still can cast normaly and attemp the concentration check against the damage done which shouldn 't be to hard to do if ur not up against some uber fighter (if he hits u, remember those buffs ...). Originally posted by Hot Rod Where's the balance here? How about I make a feat and your fighter can't get his armor bonus to defense? Or another that makes his BaB not count against me. Fair? (roll in free 1/2 Iron Will feat to boot) :lol: Actually there are things like this, just think about the above mentioned time stop. The fighter get no save against it and u can do what u like for at least 2 rounds which will most likely result in the death of the fighter ... U not only prevent the fighter from doing something like using a skill or so, u even prevent him from doing anything! But okay, it 's a lvl 9 spell so it should be powerful at least the fighter can do ... well, nothing nearly as powerful as any spell a mage can dish out at that lvl, so where is the balance here? Through all his lvls the mage can use spells to easily kill/avoid being hit/use the fighter which are all options (except for the first) a fighter does not have e. g.: 1. charm person 2. mirror image 2. tasha 's hideous laughter 2. Invisibility 3. Dispel Magic 3. Displacement 3. Fly 3. Hold person 4. Fear 4. greater invisibility 4. polymorph 5. dominate person 5. wall of force 6. geas 7. forcecage 7. power word blind 7. reverse gravity 8. clone 8. trap the soul 9. meteor swarm 9. power word kill 9. time stop 9. wish and all the summon spells that are a lot of things a fighter can, no matter how much min/maxing he does, never achiev. And u complain because u might get hit while doing all those stuff? because there is finally a feat that allows a fighter to maybe get his puny little sword where it belongs (into the guts of a mage)? yeah it is such an overpowered feat allright ... perhaps its strong untill the mage hits lvl 5, afterwards u 'll be much to busy drinking see invis and fly potions to get close enough to the mage to use it. I don 't see why this feat is overpowered, actually something alike should have been in the core rule book if u ask me! p.s.: Hm guess i got a little carried away ... sry for the long post.
Funny Slaughter 02-25-04, 12:14 PM	Sorry, Funny, but your re-write of the feat is actually worse and more powerful than the original. 1. It gives the original feat's power (effectively): You may take an AoO on a spellcaster that attempts to cast defensively while you threaten them. i dont agree here. if you use the feat as written a caster has no chance to cast his spell. he automatically fails his check and this means his spell is lost. assume you are a grappled caster who has a single still dimension door prepared. you want to cast it, defensively of course, but lose the spell automatically. in my opinion it would be better to take damage and get the chance to cast the spell via a concentration check, as if you have cast not defensively. gs Funny
PhaedrusXY 02-25-04, 03:26 PM	How is the original feat worded? Does it say they automatically fail their concentration check when trying to cast defensively, or that they can't cast defensively? If it's the former, then yeah, that is stupid. If it's the latter, they probably meant that the caster just can't cast defensively, and the DM will just tell him that, or ignore it when he announces it, and instead have him draw an attack of opportunity for casting while threatened. I think this is just another case of a poorly worded feat, and possibly poorly thought out also. It needs some DM interpretation.
HoshiAdam 02-25-04, 03:32 PM	The original benefits: Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all Will saving throws. Spellcasters you threaten may not cast defensively. (They automatically fail Concentration checks to do so.)
horndgod 02-25-04, 03:43 PM	I'd be inclined to modify Funny's proposal. "You are allowed to make an AoO even if the target is casting defensively, if you hit, the DC of the casting defensively concentration check is increased by the amount of damage you do. You may do this once a round." This essentially turns it into the fighter equivalent of Reactive Counterspell.
PhaedrusXY 02-25-04, 03:49 PM	Originally posted by HoshiAdam The original benefits: Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all Will saving throws. Spellcasters you threaten may not cast defensively. (They automatically fail Concentration checks to do so.) :OMG! Yeah, that's way broken.
Qaetar 02-25-04, 04:16 PM	Was under the impression that you were denied the option of casting on the defensive, not caused to fail all casting on the defensive checks. Either way, I think the feat still does not fulfill the spirit of feats in general as written or as re-written. Personally, I think the best rewrite would to make it give a penalty or increase the DC of the Cast on the Defensive Check while threatening a [targetted] mage. Balance issues would state whether you must declare a target or not and how much it affects the check. I like the look of Declare a Target (Similar to the use of the Dodge feat) and Cast on the Defensive DC increases by BAB + CHA modifier. (Qaetar)