Post/Author/DateTime	Post
daladinn 04-10-07, 07:58 AM	i was looking into a fighter build and found that the feat "mage slayer" was on the closed list. is there any reason for this? as far as i can tell this feat is the ONLY real way that a fighter can deal with a mage. on a similar line fo thought , is there any chance of feats from the ToM or ToB becoming available to LG ?
gomeztoo 04-10-07, 08:35 AM	Mage Slayer is unbalanced, as it disallows another creature's use of an ability, not only against the PC with the feat, but against everyone else as well. I.o.w. it affects other PCs abilities, rather than yours. I'll add that as a fighter you are not powerless against spellcasters. You can always ready, for instance, and if you get a hit in, that mage is likely to go down. ToM/ToB feats are not Open, not Closed.
Madfox11 04-10-07, 08:38 AM	i was looking into a fighter build and found that the feat "mage slayer" was on the closed list. is there any reason for this? as far as i can tell this feat is the ONLY real way that a fighter can deal with a mage. Huh? With the right kind of magical items a fighter will finish of a mage quiet easily as a particular wizard learned when he was standing next to the confused fighter who had to attack the nearest target. The reason for closing this feat is very simple: it is too powerful. on a similar line fo thought , is there any chance of feats from the ToM or ToB becoming available to LG ? In theory access to these books can be granted through ARs. We did so with shadow casters from Tome of Magic through the core special last year. Don't expact to see anything else being available, and even shadow magic is going to be a rare thing indeed. New complicated rules sets are difficult to implement since we cannot expect DMs to know these rules.
daladinn 04-10-07, 10:03 AM	i completely understand the power level of the feat. if the intention is that casters do not need front line defenders to do there job then your right itws overpowered. i always understood that it as the fighters job and such to protect the casters. as things stand now a caster can buff and go toe to toe and still cast while being beat on. currently my LG experience has been fairly limited but so far i have been disappointed by the mods that were written in ways that "exploit" this alteration of "common sense". it makes perfect sense to make it hard to cast when a fighter is standing overtop of you. however, so far the mods i have seen all have casters spec'd so high as single entities since they can stand toe to toe and dont need any minions to protect them. just for clarification , is this feat overpowered because that mods are written poorly or do you feel its overpowered in the same way spells like hold person are?
solbergb 04-10-07, 10:03 AM	All a fighter needs to deal with a mage is an uninterrupted full attack. There are a variety of ways to get the fighter next to the mage. Smart parties that have a minimal amount of teamwork use them. The prejudice against melee characters is an artifact of a few of the WOTC boards, especially the classes board. In actual play, most folks I know in the 8-15 game know how to properly work with melee type characters, yes including pure fightes. In 1-6, nobody thinks they're weak anyway, not even on these boards. The mageslayer line of feats isn't very well written, it's fairly confusing as to how some of it actually plays out and it's written in absolutes so scales weirdly. All things not especially good in a living campaign. They are also not at all necessary.
Mommy was an Orc 04-10-07, 10:18 AM	The prejudice against melee characters is an artifact of a few of the WOTC boards, especially the classes board. In actual play, most folks I know in the 8-15 game know how to properly work with melee type characters, yes including pure fightes. In 1-6, nobody thinks they're weak anyway, not even on these boards. It isn't against melee characters - it is against the fullBAB classes as compared to spellcasters in a no-holds barred game. It doesn't matter how powerful a Fighter build might be, the fact is that a Cleric with Divine Metamagic, Persistent Spell and a bunch of Nightsticks will crush him in the 10+ game. There's just too many good spells out there for him - he can up his AC to the point where the Fighter can't hit him with his weapon and the Cleric can dish out better damage than the Fighter all day long. That said, LG isn't a no-holds barred game, so fortunately, all those things I just mentioned are illegal. Yes, the Fighter won't have Mageslayer, but neither will the Cleric have an AC of 68.
Iswald 04-10-07, 10:35 AM	Mage Slayer is unbalanced, as it disallows another creature's use of an ability... The feat itself isn't overpowered. The spellcaster knows that they can't cast defensively. The problem occurs when reach is involved: spiked chain wielder, enlarged character or large character. The caster is then no longer able to 5' step away and cast. Large or enlarged spiked chain wielders are much more likely to be NPCs than PCs...
_metz_ 04-10-07, 10:37 AM	It isn't against melee characters - it is against the fullBAB classes as compared to spellcasters in a no-holds barred game. It doesn't matter how powerful a Fighter build might be, the fact is that a Cleric with Divine Metamagic, Persistent Spell and a bunch of Nightsticks will crush him in the 10+ game. There's just too many good spells out there for him - he can up his AC to the point where the Fighter can't hit him with his weapon and the Cleric can dish out better damage than the Fighter all day long. That said, LG isn't a no-holds barred game, so fortunately, all those things I just mentioned are illegal. Yes, the Fighter won't have Mageslayer, but neither will the Cleric have an AC of 68. well said, I'd like to add to this idea of "prejudice" that many a party has died becuase they thought they could get waway with no fighter, or teamwork often hinged around the fighter. Cadaver Collectors, Golems, high SR beasties anyone? Any LG party will want a decent hitter or tank if given the oppurtunity. Any LG party that thinks all you need are wizards and sorcerors who will blow up everything will eventually come up against a nasty opponent they can't deal with, and will wish they had the raging fighter with a two handed weapon ... (especially if the fighter sunk his gold into adamantine lol)
MatteBlack 04-10-07, 11:52 AM	Any imbalance has to do with the number of encounters per day. Most of the adventures I have played have no more than 3 encounters per day, if that. The fighter's edge is that he is generally switched on all day long while caster efficacy drops quickly as encounters pile up in number.
katrick 04-10-07, 12:10 PM	Fly, Wall of Force,Teleport, Assay Spell Resistance? Its all too easy.(mages have the most superior ability:they can run away fast!) Mages got nerfed with Poly. But nowhere near the Druid SuperNerf. I don't personally believe the Mage Slayer is overpowered anymore than Entropomancer's, if you look hard enough you'll find their flaws. It all comes back to Balance, they did a massive amount of work to balance the system when they made 3.0/3.5 but, as alaways each new book has less balance time and more "it was meant to be printed yesterday" time which brings more unbalance. Though some of this probably has to do with player choices. You may notice that there Isn't a Complete Monk or Paladin yet there is an Arcane,Mage,Tome of Magic etc...Wotc knows mage books will sell cause every little kid dreams of being a powerful wizard, only a few dream of being an extremely enlightened Monk.
solbergb 04-10-07, 12:12 PM	Actually the real fighter edge is that he's generally able to vaporize anything he's placed next to, or that moves next to him. Because he can do that, a party with one is better than one without one. He can also usually endure a slugfest longer than other characters while ALSO dishing out damage (there are a lot of ways to "cork". "tanking" is harder). The 3 encounter a day thing can work for the fighter too - it means he gets more spell support from casters, who will cast minute buffs "in case a fight breaks out" sometimes, and also his own consumables and 1/day items or abilities are more likely to come into action. Mostly though it's just a teamwork thing, and the fact that LG tends toward all of the following. 1. spells that last forever don't work 2. half or more of encounters are reactive, rather than active, making a build that is ready to go with no buffing more durable and able to contribute faster in a lot of encoutners. 3. prepared casters rarely have sufficient information to tune spell lists to the actual threat 4. All the usual infinite loop exploits are crushed very shortly after they're discovered. (eg, planar binding efreet wish exploit, divine metamagic+nightsticks, persistent spell and round/level spells) 5. anything that is sufficiently distracting in play that everyone starts doing it tends to get banned (eg, casting miracle to get quill blast, all warriors giving up weapon specced, enchanted weapons to use nonmagical clubs with spikes spell, everyone starting to add arcane levels for wraithstrike) Ie, even though we're a shared campaign, there is some modicum of DM control that doesn't allow any class to dominate through a minor loophole.
copper_wyrmling 04-10-07, 02:39 PM	well said, I'd like to add to this idea of "prejudice" that many a party has died becuase they thought they could get waway with no fighter, or teamwork often hinged around the fighter. I've never actually seen this. I've seen PCs die because the party thought they had a "tank" and played as if they had a tank and found out that they didn't (a spring-attacking high-AC low-damage monk is not a tank, even if two levels above the APL). I've seen parties fail because only one PC was capable of doing damage at all and the others weren't capable of supporting them (due to a superfluity of melee types with insufficient attack bonus / damage to actually hurt anything, or spontaneous casters focused solely on save-negates spells vs opponents who kept making saves). I've seen PCs die due to lack of teamwork. But I've played on quite a few tables which were either all-arcane, or relying on my cleric to tank (as well as being sole healer), and you know, they actually work pretty well (at high APLs) provided everyone in the party understands the situation. Cadaver Collectors, Golems, high SR beasties anyone? I would much much rather be in an all-arcane party than an all-fighter party when going up against these ;) The all-arcane party will probably have enough battlefield control to slow them down (wall of force, solid fog, sculpted grease, evards), enough mobility to completely negate the encounter if it's in an open area (fly, teleport / d-door, phantom steed), and enough SR:no blastiness to take them out (if you're the only arcane, you conserve spells for buffing / utility / divination / transport: if there are six of you that's not nearly as much of an issue ;) ) That said, against low to moderate AC foes, melee fighters do FAR more damage than spellcasters. A spellcaster optimized for damage does damage more like an archer of equivalent level, within Living Greyhawk rules (barring flukes like critting on a sudden maximized disintegrate and having the enemy blow their save... which I have seen). Melee types tend to be much more efficient than casters at blenderizing their foes, rather than hampering them in other ways. They also often have more freedom to multiclass into classes that give them useful skills or other abilities, since they don't need to worry about losing caster levels. Any LG party will want a decent hitter or tank if given the oppurtunity. Sure. If I've got five clerics on the table, though, and the sixth player asks if he should bring his sorcerer or his fighter, then unless the circumstances are very unusual (i.e. all the clerics are Str-8 pure-caster types with lots of metamagic and domain spontaneity, or extremely support+healing-focused types who refuse to memorize any offensive or personal buff spells), I'd ask him to bring the sorcerer. Arcane magic is very powerful at high APLs. If we already had five arcane casters I'd ask him to bring whichever PC he wants, but if he plays his arcane, everyone needs to remember the party's squishiness and play smart (divinations, actively reminding the GM of which buffs and sensory abilities we have running, sorcerers casting invis sphere / fly etc whenever it seems like it might be necessary, not being afraid to make a tactical withdrawal via teleport and come back a round or two later, etc) Any LG party that thinks all you need are wizards and sorcerors who will blow up everything will eventually come up against a nasty opponent they can't deal with, and will wish they had the raging fighter with a two handed weapon ... (especially if the fighter sunk his gold into adamantine lol) I have never in fact encountered this situation (in 200 or so ARs). In the two encounters where the mages initially reacted with, "Eeep! We can't deal with this!", the fighters ran in to try to take it on and got dropped to deep negatives inside one round. The mages then bypassed the encounters - in the first case (APL 10) they used walls of force and summons, in the second case (APL 16) they used forcecages. I do believe that in the mid-high levels, a mage of appropriate level has a better chance of soloing most encounters than a fighter does - simply because their spellcasting gives them more options. I also believe that this is pretty much meaningless when what you're interested in (as in LG) is how much each PC can contribute to a table. Melee types bring something to a table that casters generally do not: overwhelming full attack damage starting from the first round, plus some feat-based tactical options that casters don't usually get. (For example, the easiest way to shut down an enemy caster is usually to put Silence on a PC grapple specialist.)
_metz_ 04-10-07, 11:30 PM	I have in fact come up against several examples of this, perhaps not at higher APLs - I haven't played enough of those yet, too new to RPGA to have level 10 characters yet (have a level 8 and a level 7 - no deaths so far) BUt I have found that in a couple of games missing a fighter has made the party I have DMed for or been playing with cause massive issues. I am not saying that Fighters are more important than arcane by ANY means, the game leans towards casters as the more powerful and more flexible options. I am just saying that fighters can be extremely useful. Especially against real nasties like demons etc with high spell resistance who target other casters, and drop them in a few well placed hits. Importance of characters goes as follows in my experience: Versatile Arcane Cleric (full caster progression usually is best) Sorceror to blow everything up/cast a million fly spells etc Solid Damage Producer or Tank Bards/Marshalls Rogues. (this is because LG is very much NOT in favour of Rogues, it isn't a dungeon crawl so traps are once a mod, unlike some other campaigns where the rogue checks EVERY DOOR - and everything is often immune to sneak attack lol) Don't misinterpret me, I have only played/DMed around 100+ games so far, Its just in my personal experience I hvae seen fighter types being extremely useful to parties, and have actually seen situations where the party has said "I wish we had a tank, or I wish we had a damage producer" This aint a Fighters are better or more important than everything else post.
_metz_ 04-10-07, 11:31 PM	I do believe that in the mid-high levels, a mage of appropriate level has a better chance of soloing most encounters than a fighter does Also I never said this, I just said sometimes the mage appreciates the fighter being there and not HAVING to solo.
copper_wyrmling 04-10-07, 11:50 PM	Also I never said this, I just said sometimes the mage appreciates the fighter being there and not HAVING to solo. Like I said, I think ability to solo a situation is pretty much entirely irrelevant to LG - there's a minimum of four people / table for a reason ;)
Maesto 04-10-07, 11:59 PM	There's a gradient of desired classes in the APL system, from my observations at least. At low level, you want a fighter who can hit hard and take things out quickly. At mid level, you want a cleric who can keep everybody going to do their stuff. At high level, you want a wizard/sorceror who can disable combats so that the rest of the party can mop up what remains. Fighters always have their place - if only because they can continue to pump out damage again and again and again and again.
bitznarf 04-11-07, 12:02 AM	I seem to recall someone, I think it was solbergb, making up such a list of sorts of what one can reasonably expect from character archetypes as the APL goes up.
jstorrie 04-11-07, 12:38 AM	If your fighter is designed well you should be effective even in the high APLs. The crux of the problem is that fighters rely on their bonus feats to keep pace with other character types, and many people end up blowing those feats on useless things like Monkey Grip, and following up bad with more bad by blowing their character wealth on low-value, high-cost purchases. Some fighters lag behind at high levels: fighters who suck. Pick your feats and your equipment wisely and you will not fall behind the curve. I agree that spellcasters do eventually outpace fighters, but it's close to the 16-20 range, not the 12-15 range.
Lupo 04-11-07, 04:25 AM	The feat itself isn't overpowered. The spellcaster knows that they can't cast defensively. The problem occurs when reach is involved: spiked chain wielder, enlarged character or large character. The caster is then no longer able to 5' step away and cast. Large or enlarged spiked chain wielders are much more likely to be NPCs than PCs... considering this feat i really wonder why they have allowed marshal and knight ;) back to the base question: spellcasters suffer the problem that base class combination always reduce their spellcaster level and (upper) spell slot alotment :weep: . spellcaster prestige classes tend to be feat and skill-point consumptive and apart from wizards, spellcasters are terribly short on feats AND skill-points. fighter types can combine all classes (even and especcially base classes) as BAB is always cumulative AND can get away easily with one level of a class that does have BAB plus zero, as the downside of being one point of BAB behind is not as dire as being one level of spell slot progression behind ;) the PHB II has added some feats that tend to be fighter (and some other classes that grant weapon spezialisation) exclusively :cool: . and please, don't start another "NERF CLASS YOU-NAME-IT, TO MAKE FIGHTERS MORE ATTRACTIVE" round :rolleyes: the last time this was done we got the wonderful :rant: "clarification" and "errata" :confused: on polymorph and wildshape. a well build fighter type is an essential party member and valuable throughout ALL APLs, if your drizzt clone doesn't do anything but being pathetic it isn't the fault of the rules and options :D ciao martin m. ps: yes, i am still suffering from a bad experience with a drizzt clone :P
daladinn 04-11-07, 07:16 AM	i am not even close to saying that i want any other class nerfed. waht i am referring to is a feat that does nothing more then take away a casters ability to cast defensively while threatened. it does NOT take away a casterrs ability to cast. all it does is avoid a "cheese" situation that i have come across many times where the concentration check to cast defensively is auto'd by the caster in question. as for my opinion (yes opinion) for all the many many ways that a caster can completely nuetrilize a fighter , a fighter should have at least one way to nuetralize a caster that is short of smashing his head inside out. on a positive note , this feat will more then likely never be taken by anything with partial caster ability as it lowers your caster level. so you limiting it to basically fighter , barb , monk , rogue , and skirmisher (lol). for those unfamiliar , the feat has two requirements ... BAB +3 , and 2 ranks in an arcane skill (damn i blanked on it)
Sieylianna 04-11-07, 07:32 AM	i am not even close to saying that i want any other class nerfed. waht i am referring to is a feat that does nothing more then take away a casters ability to cast defensively while threatened. it does NOT take away a casterrs ability to cast. all it does is avoid a "cheese" situation that i have come across many times where the concentration check to cast defensively is auto'd by the caster in question. It changes a fundamental game rule and there is no means to counter it. Ed
gomeztoo 04-11-07, 07:32 AM	waht i am referring to is a feat that does nothing more then take away a casters ability to cast defensively while threatened. it does NOT take away a casterrs ability to cast. all it does is avoid a "cheese" situation that i have come across many times where the concentration check to cast defensively is auto'd by the caster in question. What the feat does is eliminate the use of a skill to another PC _entirely_, rather than give the PC with the feat the ability to circumvent the skill use (or a way to circumvent it). It effectively DOES make a caster unable to cast, for he'll be dead before he can utter the first syllable, if not from the feat-owning PCs attack, then from everyone around him. Entirely removing an ability to cast defensively is not a triffle. The cost is very low. 4 skillpoints for a class (fighter or barbarian) that often has few skills useful enough to spend them on anyway.
MatteBlack 04-11-07, 09:45 AM	What the feat does is eliminate the use of a skill to another PC _entirely_, rather than give the PC with the feat the ability to circumvent the skill use (or a way to circumvent it). It effectively DOES make a caster unable to cast, for he'll be dead before he can utter the first syllable, if not from the feat-owning PCs attack, then from everyone around him. Entirely removing an ability to cast defensively is not a triffle. The cost is very low. 4 skillpoints for a class (fighter or barbarian) that often has few skills useful enough to spend them on anyway. Which is it? Are skill points valuable or not? It's heresy that you aren't allowed use skills from one side but, from the other, fighters have no problem spending them? There are many cases in 3.5 where a given action or skill use is taken away by another. Grappling is one that comes to mind that shuts down alot of things. That doesn't even cost a feat. All this feat does is require the caster to brave an attack in order to move out of the effect. It's great against casters but, useless against anything that doesn't cast or has a decent tumble. I suspect it was removed because it tends to shorten the encounters against big casters. Lee
Reylance 04-11-07, 10:01 AM	The feat Mage Slayer is a total and unavoidable nerf. It says "You can't cast defensively." If mages had a spell that said "Target is staggered," no save, no SR, works in an antimagic zone, that would be close to Mage Slayer's ability; to truly make it equivalent, it would have to be a reserve feat. If Mage Slayer said "Enemies you threaten take a penalty to Concentration checks equal to your BAB," that would be more appropriate. A Large fighter with a spiked chain can easily nerf a spellcaster with this feat. Attack if they cast spells, trip if they try to move out of your reach. Fighters are very effective against spellcasters. They can ready to disrupt spellcasting, grapple the caster, or just reduce their hit points below zero.
MatteBlack 04-11-07, 10:13 AM	The feat Mage Slayer is a total and unavoidable nerf. It says "You can't cast defensively." If mages had a spell that said "Target is staggered," no save, no SR, works in an antimagic zone, that would be close to Mage Slayer's ability; to truly make it equivalent, it would have to be a reserve feat. If Mage Slayer said "Enemies you threaten take a penalty to Concentration checks equal to your BAB," that would be more appropriate. A Large fighter with a spiked chain can easily nerf a spellcaster with this feat. Attack if they cast spells, trip if they try to move out of your reach. Fighters are very effective against spellcasters. They can ready to disrupt spellcasting, grapple the caster, or just reduce their hit points below zero. Honestly, any issue here is with the power of reach weapons and enlarge. The feat is fine but, the weapon/spell(size) combo is so effective it is nearly a required tactic for all parties. In 3.0 every cool tactic seemed to start with haste, now enlarge is so popular that I frequently run into fighters I would call "enlarge addicts". The feat is not in our game but, its not broken in and of itself. Lee
gomeztoo 04-11-07, 10:38 AM	An equivalent feat would be one that causes someone you threaten to draw attacks of opportunity from everyone around him whenever he makes a melee attack.
bitznarf 04-11-07, 10:42 AM	An equivalent feat would be one that causes someone you threaten to draw attacks of opportunity from everyone around him whenever he makes a melee attack. You mean similar to Robilar's Gambit? Which is also closed.
gomeztoo 04-11-07, 10:48 AM	You mean similar to Robilar's Gambit? Which is also closed. Ah yes. Such irony... the one feat that is enitirely Greyhawk and we had to close it... :P And note that that feat gives a target a benefit (+4 on attack/damage), applies only from AoO from you (not anyone else), and requires a BAB +12.
Iswald 04-11-07, 10:52 AM	The feat Mage Slayer is a total and unavoidable nerf. It says "You can't cast defensively." If mages had a spell that said "Target is staggered," no save, no SR, works in an antimagic zone, that would be close to Mage Slayer's ability; to truly make it equivalent, it would have to be a reserve feat. Have you considered quickened or swift spells, eh?
Maesto 04-11-07, 11:00 AM	Taking away the ability to cast defensively ends up with dead casters. Casters don't always have the option of moving out of the way, be it due to terrain (can't 5-foot step, or backed against a wall), other baddies (and sometimes friends), any effect which halves movement, etc. Once a caster can no longer cast defensively in these situations, he's forced to provoke an attack of opportunity. If he tries to move, he provokes and likely gets tripped (or knocked unconscious), if he tries to cast, he provokes and likely loses his spell (possibly getting knocked unconscious in the process). For a pathetically small expenditure, this feat completely disables primary casters, through the removal of a key ability (casting defensively). A more realistic feat would be to add the creature's BAB to the DC of the concentration check, and even this would be pretty powerful.
MatteBlack 04-11-07, 11:34 AM	For a pathetically small expenditure, this feat completely disables primary casters, through the removal of a key ability (casting defensively). Wrong, a feat and some skills allows a fighter to have a chance to hit a caster if he was able to out maneuver him. A smart caster can move through threatened take his chances and then cast without provoking in the most probable one on one situation. That spell could be any number of escape, defensive or take-out spells that could very likely end that situation. If he is getting surrounded by numbers, the feat just adds into compounding his mistake. The caster is in a bad spot but, he is not "completely disabled". Just because a feat gives difficulty to uninspired builds and playstyles, does not make it broken. The feat is a fairly specific use advantage that really only becomes good within certain combos and situations. A mage can play smart and be prepared to minimize it's effect or avoid it all together. Lee
Lupo 04-11-07, 03:19 PM	It changes a fundamental game rule and there is no means to counter it. Ed yes, imagine a knight (special ability: foes who start in a threatened square cannot take a 5-ft step) combined with the mage slayer feat and some ranger levels to get favored enemy "human", just to make sure . . . . . . :P the new swift spells, the reserve feat and heritage feats are some ways around the mage slayer feat, but most swift spells - at least those for primary casters - are not powerful enough to effectively deal with a BDF close to a caster and the same goes for the reserve feats and heritage feats :rolleyes: . given a hypothetical feat for a caster: "every time a foe makes a melee attack vs. you, you can cast a spell as a free action just before his attack", guess what the fighter types would scream :D . ciao martin m.
bitznarf 04-11-07, 03:53 PM	Oooh, a spell of oportunity..
just_be_glad_now 04-11-07, 05:41 PM	Actually, that would make tanks really useful. Who else could I count on to sap me 5 times a round so I can cast my 6 spells? ;) :eek: "given a hypothetical feat for a caster: "every time a foe makes a melee attack vs. you, you can cast a spell as a free action just before his attack", guess what the fighter types would scream . ciao martin m."
daladinn 04-11-07, 07:30 PM	well it seems the consensus is pretty expected.... if you play a caster you really dont want the feat. i fyou play a mellee you think its a good idea. its sad that nothing about the arguement against has anything to do with balance but what can i say. points against having the feat available... 1 - the cost to get it is to low ... 1a - loss of 4 caster levels , means that no one would ever take these feats as even a partial caster. 1b - 2 levels in a cross class skill is to low , so the primary class to use the feat would have to spend 2 levels worth of skills to learn it. from a class that everyone says needs more skill points. 1c - requires a BAB of +3 , making it equivelent to a 2nd level spell ability when in reality it is closer in power to ray of enfeeblement a 1st level spell. 2 - it completely robs many classes of their casting ability.... correction it prevents them from casting defensively not from casting. casting is still an option they now would just be required to make a concentration check (a difficult one in most cases) or move before casting. 3 - the waaahh factor .... pointing out that casters shoudl get a feat that says they can cast a spell as an immediate action when they provoke an AOO .... because by the time a caster hits 2nd level spells they "obviously" have no way to completely nuetralize a non-caster with any single spell .... and as the casters get higher they can even nuetralize masses of non-casters. 4 - the way the mods are written it would break mods... unfortunately this may be the most valid point of all, but then again most of the mods are designed to favor casters. they very rarely force casters to conserve resources and are often not written realistically in terms of leaders and minions.
King Kashue 04-11-07, 07:40 PM	yes, imagine a knight (special ability: foes who start in a threatened square cannot take a 5-ft step) combined with the mage slayer feat and some ranger levels to get favored enemy "human", just to make sure . . . . . . :P That's only true with a spiked chain knight (or an imp. unarmed/reach knight, or maybe a spiked gaunt/reach, depending on DM). Without threatening both adjacent and reach squares, the knight can't prevent a five foot step away from him/her.
clannagh 04-11-07, 07:41 PM	Actually i almost exclusively play fighter types and i would not like to see this rule permitted. The reason ?? I am a team player and do not see it as a case of "my" fighter PC's trying to outdo the "casters" and "druids" in my group. I actually LIKE the idea of having an arcanist at my back and I don't throw a tantie when they do more damage than I do or save the party with a funkie spell .. I am happy and thank them. This feat might be occasionally useful to PC's but would be absolutely awful if handed to something like an enlarged power attacking ogre with a spiked chain and stupid reach. Whatever feat you think makes your character more impressive is three times as effective in a monster who has been set up to take advantage of it.
Eric Anondson 04-11-07, 10:45 PM	well it seems the consensus is pretty expected.... if you play a caster you really dont want the feat. i fyou play a mellee you think its a good idea. its sad that nothing about the arguement against has anything to do with balance but what can i say.I exclusively play melee types, though I have had cohorts who are casters. I don't want this feat. 1a. Caster-level penalty is a trivial restriction. It's a speed bump to an optimized build of this feat. Especially for NPCs and monsters. 1b. The feat's benefit is so great that sinking 4 skill points is more than worth it, and thus is a trivial barrier. Easily achieved with a 12 Int human in a single level's worth of skill points. 1c. You are seriously underestimating this feat if you compare it to ray of enfeeblement, or else you are overestimating ray of enfeeblement. Plus you are ignoring the cost to the PC to bestow a ray of enfeeblement on a target (a standard action only on caster's turn, the number of times per day the spell can be cast) vs. a PC with Mage Slayer bestowing the effects of the feat on a target (freely, a theoretically infinite number of potential opportunities in a day). 2. Casting when threatened is immensely difficult without casting defensively. Might as well be briefly feebleminded if you can't. Give Mage Slayer to Large and bigger monsters with reach weapons plus natural attacks and the idea of moving before casting is a nonstarter. You'd have to spend your round withdrawing... waste of a round doing something productive. In LG combats can be over in 2 to 3 rounds after surprise. 3. Pointing out what a comparably obnoxious feat would look like for casters is not saying that casters should get one. It demonstrates why the comparable feat on melee types is not appropriate. Give Mage Slayer to PCs and I know what I'm putting into the Iuzian hunter-killer squads in the Shield Lands. This feat is good enough to focus a build around maximizing it. Maxmized PCs would be ugly, maximized monters are outrageous. I can think of ways of making Mage Slayer tamer. Now, if the feat simply prevented threatened casters, who were casting defensively, from casting spells at the owner of the Mage Slayer feat, that would be much improved to me and closer to the opportunity cost of the feat. But as written it effectively shuts down all casting no matter who is targeted by the caster. 4. I don't know what you said here defends the arguement for making this feat available.
eqpablon 04-11-07, 10:58 PM	Ah yes. Such irony... the one feat that is enitirely Greyhawk and we had to close it... :P And note that that feat gives a target a benefit (+4 on attack/damage), applies only from AoO from you (not anyone else), and requires a BAB +12. I never understood why Robilar's Gambit is closed. As mentioned, you have to have a BAB of +12, you give your opponent a +4 to hit you, and hit or miss you (and only you, not everyone that threatens your opponent) get an AoO on them. Its a slightly better version of Karmic Strike, only it doesn't require the expertise tree. Given the fact that Robilar is in Greyhawk, there is a high BAB bar to entry, and you give the opponent a +4 to hit the feat seems balanced. When this thread was first created I was surprised this wasn't the feat in question.
Madfox11 04-12-07, 04:57 AM	You never met full power attacking fighters did you eqpablon? You see, getting an AoO against an opponent for each attack against you quickly means 4 attacks per round at full attack bonus. That is higher than the fighter ordinary gets, and he still gets his normal 2 hasted attacks. The -4 on AC is laughable downside. One of the local players around here made a quick calculation and showed me the math for his 13th lvl fighter (obviously with Combat Reflexes) and than applied the same feat on a creature like a dragon to show the pain the dragon would deal to the PCs (and really, if you have an AC of 38 that -4 is nothing). Remember, most things are not just closed to take the stuff away from players, but also from the opposition.
solbergb 04-12-07, 12:34 PM	I play both melee and spellcasters, in about an even mix. I see no need for the mage-slayer chain of feats. I don't have violent objections to them either, but I don't have any characters that really care about them one way or another. Part of this is that it is my firm belief that a caster not built to tank is toast if next to a melee enemy anyway, and that melee's are capable of killing casters reliably if they can just get next to them, backed up by 7 years of actual play. AOO's don't really enter into it past the baby levels, except to try to keep the casters from moving away before you get a full attack (which mage slayer does nothing to prevent). I don't have much experience over APL16, but in the ranges LG plays, with 4-6 person parties, parties want a good melee presence and a good caster presence and should be able to handle both types of challenges (and mixed challenges) from enemies just fine. Without needing the feat tree.
MatteBlack 04-12-07, 01:09 PM	given a hypothetical feat for a caster: "every time a foe makes a melee attack vs. you, you can cast a spell as a free action just before his attack", guess what the fighter types would scream. Technically speaking it would be "once a round per attacking character you may cast a spell on a player declaring a melee attack on you." That would be a closer equivalent. It would also cost a few ranks in climb or something and reduce your melee damage by 4pts. Even then, it would be more useful because melee attacks are far more abundant than close range casting. Folks keep inflating how good this is. The cross-class skill points (which can be tough to get for many fighter builds) BAB minimum and reduced casting levels are a more than fair cost for this feat that requires other equipment, feats and/or spells to make full use of. If you keep an unbiased view of this you will see it good but' not broken, at least in and of itself. As a player of fighter types and other characters, I'd be fine with an equivalent caster feat. It waters down feat use in other directions that might well be better and likely more overused. Maybe on the fighter it's one less feat spent on feats that everyone has or that is more effective in a broader range of situations. I am not fighting to have it added but, it seems like an awful amount of handwringing over a diverse feat that would shake up stale play strategies. Lee
Mommy was an Orc 04-12-07, 01:58 PM	You never met full power attacking fighters did you eqpablon? You see, getting an AoO against an opponent for each attack against you quickly means 4 attacks per round at full attack bonus. That is higher than the fighter ordinary gets, and he still gets his normal 2 hasted attacks. The -4 on AC is laughable downside. One of the local players around here made a quick calculation and showed me the math for his 13th lvl fighter (obviously with Combat Reflexes) and than applied the same feat on a creature like a dragon to show the pain the dragon would deal to the PCs (and really, if you have an AC of 38 that -4 is nothing). Remember, most things are not just closed to take the stuff away from players, but also from the opposition. Actually, I'm surprised that was the logic behind it - Karmic Strike does just that, but requires Combat Expertise and doesn't generate the extra +4 damage. My assumption was the problem that happens when someone takes both Karmic Strike and Robilar's Gambit.
GreatSiron 04-12-07, 03:20 PM	Part of this is that it is my firm belief that a caster not built to tank is toast if next to a melee enemy anyway, and that melee's are capable of killing casters reliably if they can just get next to them, backed up by 7 years of actual play. Ok, how does a wizard tank?
bitznarf 04-12-07, 03:47 PM	Ok, how does a wizard tank? Some gish builds can do it quite well. A Fig1/Wiz5/Spellsword1/EK X with the right spell selections and so on can do fairly well.
solbergb 04-12-07, 04:11 PM	Ok, how does a wizard tank? generally they're built along these lines, and generally need all three to make a decent tank. 1. high constitution backed by temporary hitpoints from possibly multiple sources. Hitpoints generally comparable to a cleric (clerics often have trouble getting an enhancement bonus to constitution) 2. decent AC from greater mage armor and investment in mithril buckler (with magic vestment from a friendly cleric) or shield spell in pinch, plus high dexterity and ring of deflection investments. It was easier when alter self gave +6, but my "playtest wizard" is a high int, high dex, grey elf that invests in AC this way and it keeps up with the "light armor but high dex" melee rogue type AC pretty well. 3. miss chance spells such as mirror image or displacement or blink, brought about usually via a swift action or contingency or sometimes precasting before a fight. It can be done. It's rare except on eldritch-knight type builds but I've seen one or two at all levels of play (most recently at APL14, where my own sorceress by contrast was running around with AC 12 and making heavy use of mobility and battlefield control to accomplish much the same thing as he did by standing right next to monsters and blasting away)
_metz_ 04-12-07, 09:43 PM	Wizards can get very good AC, and have decent hitpoints, but it's still not advisable to stand near the action, especially now alter self and polymorph are gone (waves bye to +6 nat armour) I basically AM a fighter, let alone play such types, and I think Mage Slayer is a stupid feat lol. I basically think the issue is, Fighters are not HAted, just really dumb feats that break game balance, remove the abilities of a whole class, and can make a single high level character encounter TPK cos it walks out and destroys the casters... You as a player might get to use it once every few mods, and you'll kill lots of NPCS with it, but all it takes is one or two optimised baddies, and BOOM there goes a swathe of characters.
gomeztoo 04-13-07, 04:25 AM	Technically speaking it would be "once a round per attacking character you may cast a spell on a player declaring a melee attack on you." That would be a closer equivalent. It would also cost a few ranks in climb or something and reduce your melee damage by 4pts. It would also need to be rewritten so *everyone* gets a free action to cast a spell at that person, not just 'you'. Feats sheould give *you* an ability. This one denies an ability to *someone else*. That is what makes it imbalanced, and, in fact, not a feat at all.
katrick 04-13-07, 01:02 PM	I was of the understanding that you only get one Attack per opportunity? (ixne Robilar the Patriot) If the DM is silly enough to let their wis\sor\bard get surrounded by all six players and then draw an Aoo then good luck! As a recently retired Sorc who was confused, it took three other char's one a Dwarf Barbarian with 36 STR, and a Half-orc Cleric of Kelanin, to take me down.If i hadn't made them fly! i don't think it is unbalanced at all(we already dealt with it in a home game and changed our tactics accordingly) Wiz tank two words VERBAL ONLY But if you really want to get silly, Favouered Soul\Sorceror\Mystic Theurge of Wee Jas with Mage Slayer and everyone else can forget about playing LG!
Flan 04-14-07, 12:32 AM	Oh noz, caster has to use a move action to get out of melee of the fighter before casting, oh noz, oh noz. And if he doesn't have tumble he might even lose one of his mirror images assuming the fighter doesn't just miss completely due to blink, greater invisibility or one of a million other blatently overpowered spells the wizard has up! Closing Mageslayer is just downright silly. It is easily avoidable by any caster with an ounce of grey matter who doesn't have two broken legs. Not like, say, Blasphemy. :rolleyes: So to the OP, I'd have to say yes, fighters are hated. Tons of obscene spells are allowed which always work, often have no save or a failed save means death, and totally screw non-casters to the wall, but a feat which is situationally useful to give a single attack (hardly random death) against a minority of opponents gets closed.
boolean 04-14-07, 02:17 AM	Actually, I'm surprised that was the logic behind it - Karmic Strike does just that, but requires Combat Expertise and doesn't generate the extra +4 damage. My assumption was the problem that happens when someone takes both Karmic Strike and Robilar's Gambit. There's one big difference between the two. Karmic Strike only triggers when an opponent successfully attacks you. Robilar's Gambit triggers every time they attack you, even if they miss.
Japangirl 04-14-07, 03:53 AM	Oh noz, caster has to use a move action to get out of melee of the fighter before casting, oh noz, oh noz. And if he doesn't have tumble he might even lose one of his mirror images assuming the fighter doesn't just miss completely due to blink, greater invisibility or one of a million other blatently overpowered spells the wizard has up! Closing Mageslayer is just downright silly. It is easily avoidable by any caster with an ounce of grey matter who doesn't have two broken legs. Not like, say, Blasphemy. :rolleyes: So to the OP, I'd have to say yes, fighters are hated. Tons of obscene spells are allowed which always work, often have no save or a failed save means death, and totally screw non-casters to the wall, but a feat which is situationally useful to give a single attack (hardly random death) against a minority of opponents gets closed. *blink* That's just slightly inaccurate, I'd say (understatement of the year, perhaps). No one should assume a caster has rounds/level or even minutes/level buffs up in order to avoid AOs or other damage, because they run out so fast and take a long time to put up. Sure, the Blasphemy series is very powerful and has no saves, but generally it won't actually kill anyone and if people don't stupidly cheese it, won't even cause a TPK. It'll be really annoying, just like Waves of Exhaustion, another 7th level spell. A single attack from a power-attacking barbarian of doom might be enough to drop a caster. It'll almost certainly be enough to make the spell fizzle. A caster would have to provoke an AO to even move out of the area because one cannot withdraw then cast, and full withdraw would 1) waste a whole round and 2) be pointless because Fighter-With-Mageslayer just moves up again anyways. Sure, there's lots of high level save or die spells. Generally they have attack rolls attached also, and they are 6th level or higher. Fighters have save or die "spells" too, they're called massive damage rolls. Or just your hitpoints dropped to zero first because you have d4s nyah nyah nyah. Almost all save or die spells are Fort saves, a fighter's strong point. A final point. This would be awesome to give to PCs who have reach and might get enlarged. It would totally suck to see a tweaked out NPC with reach who was enlarged have it, and if the feat were allowed we would see this. Add it to a monster with base of 10-15 foot reach, and you see the problems that would cause for PC wizards? Indeed, one could argue the RPGA loves fighters by banning this feat, because it does not wish to kill them when their healers go down by provoking when casting defensively.
Lupo 04-14-07, 07:37 AM	Oh noz, caster has to use a move action to get out of melee of the fighter before casting, oh noz, oh noz. And if he doesn't have tumble he might even lose one of his mirror images assuming the fighter doesn't just miss completely due to blink, greater invisibility or one of a million other blatently overpowered spells the wizard has up! Closing Mageslayer is just downright silly. It is easily avoidable by any caster with an ounce of grey matter who doesn't have two broken legs. Not like, say, Blasphemy. :rolleyes: So to the OP, I'd have to say yes, fighters are hated. Tons of obscene spells are allowed which always work, often have no save or a failed save means death, and totally screw non-casters to the wall, but a feat which is situationally useful to give a single attack (hardly random death) against a minority of opponents gets closed. do you really want to face huge giant knight/exotic weapon master with "power attack", "mage slayer", "greater cleave", and "exotic reach" wielding a spiked chain????????????? :confused: this would not only down the caster but if the caster is silly enough to try a spell another character is going to bleed a lot too.:rolleyes: guess what feat is now the most taken for fighters? any frontliner who can qualify for it is taking "elusive target" because it NEGATES one of the most nasty combinations of critters, huge monsters with huge amounts of "power attack". BUT this one has steep requirements, TWO feats and a not so fighterish stat. AND only works versus ONE foe. compare this to "mage slayer" . . . . . ciao martin m.
Simpi 04-14-07, 08:58 AM	compare this to "mage slayer" . . . . . ciao martin m. Well, I do compare and two-handed power attackers doing lots of damage is rarely that much of an issue on higher APLs than superbly tweaked wizards who fatespin a re-roll to increased DC of a swiftly true striked disintegrate. I seriously cannot recall a situation on those APL12 table I have seen that wizards would ever been in serious threat against melee type creatures, simply because they have such a high concentration bonus or because 5ft step will usually work well. I don't see mage slayer as broken. Rather I see it as something which levels the playing field on higher APLs. Cheers. Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad
Mommy was an Orc 04-14-07, 09:15 AM	There's one big difference between the two. Karmic Strike only triggers when an opponent successfully attacks you. Robilar's Gambit triggers every time they attack you, even if they miss. When you're taking a -8 to your AC, they tend to be the same thing ;)
Flan 04-14-07, 12:02 PM	*blink* That's just slightly inaccurate, I'd say (understatement of the year, perhaps). No one should assume a caster has rounds/level or even minutes/level buffs up in order to avoid AOs or other damage, because they run out so fast and take a long time to put up. Sure, the Blasphemy series is very powerful and has no saves, but generally it won't actually kill anyone and if people don't stupidly cheese it, won't even cause a TPK. It'll be really annoying, just like Waves of Exhaustion, another 7th level spell. A single attack from a power-attacking barbarian of doom might be enough to drop a caster. What are you argueing then? If a single attack is enough to kill the caster, then the caster is already dead, because in order for mageslayer to work the barbarian of doom had to get into melee range, i.e. charge. So how is Mage Slayer even helping in your games since all the casters are dying in one hit anyway, it's not even needed. Especially since as you say your mages can't even be bothered protecting themselves. Maybe, just maybe, it's YOUR example thats a little innaccurate? :rolleyes: It'll almost certainly be enough to make the spell fizzle. A caster would have to provoke an AO to even move out of the area because one cannot withdraw then cast, and full withdraw would 1) waste a whole round and 2) be pointless because Fighter-With-Mageslayer just moves up again anyways. Oh noz, an opponent who MIGHT make a caster not able to cast a spell every single round of combat with absolutely no chance of ever taking damage. Imagine that! Next up on Oprah, fighters who can't do full attacks every round march on WotC headquarters.
magebeast 04-14-07, 01:27 PM	What are you argueing then? If a single attack is enough to kill the caster, then the caster is already dead, because in order for mageslayer to work the barbarian of doom had to get into melee range, i.e. charge. So how is Mage Slayer even helping in your games since all the casters are dying in one hit anyway, it's not even needed. Especially since as you say your mages can't even be bothered protecting themselves. Maybe, just maybe, it's YOUR example thats a little innaccurate? :rolleyes: Well, I suppose if you want your fighter butt to go the whole combat without healing, then we should probably allow mageslayer, yes? I mean, it's not like a caster EVER wades INTO combat in order to try and help out some sort of fighter with a buff. Nah.
daladinn 04-14-07, 01:35 PM	have we heard any arguements from those who favor casters that are based on logic or have they all been based on fear? one of my strongest reasons for wanting this feat is it adds some more tactical impliations on both sides and gives fighters a situational answer. but i guess instead of playign a fighter and trying to work with tactics i need to multiclass into a casting class and work with the "cheddar" factor. thank you to those who use thought instead of fear for thier decision making.
Lupo 04-14-07, 01:56 PM	have we heard any arguements from those who favor casters that are based on logic or have they all been based on fear? one of my strongest reasons for wanting this feat is it adds some more tactical impliations on both sides and gives fighters a situational answer. but i guess instead of playign a fighter and trying to work with tactics i need to multiclass into a casting class and work with the "cheddar" factor. thank you to those who use thought instead of fear for thier decision making. sure i can come up with a caster build that works fine specifically against "mage slayer", especially once the caster has "contingency", "greater invisibility", a quickened "mirror image" or "blur" and lots of swift spells BUT "mage slayer" is an option for fighters at level 4! so casters can face such an opponent at APL 2 and even intro mods, so, how many HPs has a wizard 3? standard tends to be 16 (13 for a grey elven int monster), that is just a minimal swing of a raging power attacking barbarian with a two handed weapon. IF the feat would be working against a single target only AND would make the concentration check harder it would be an option, but saying you automatically fail is nonsense and definitely tilting the game balance. ciao martin m. ps: the feat causes one of those "MtG" rules loops: caster declares: "i make my concentration check automatically"; mage slayer: "you automatically fail"; caster: "but i can't!"
daladinn 04-14-07, 03:39 PM	on the bright side it would mean that you would now need to work together more as a team instead of having the mage solo the encounter. please can you keep the " raging power attacking barb" out of the debate , heaven knows if he wanted he could squish the mage. the two biggest catagories to take this is the dex fighter or someone looking to take the caster alive. no matter how you try and slice it or how many hp a caster has , odds are the fighter can kill him in one hit . the point however is tactics and control , not how squishy is the squishy . the squishy should always be smart enough to stay back out of charge range or expect to die quickly.
eqpablon 04-14-07, 04:03 PM	You never met full power attacking fighters did you eqpablon? You see, getting an AoO against an opponent for each attack against you quickly means 4 attacks per round at full attack bonus. That is higher than the fighter ordinary gets, and he still gets his normal 2 hasted attacks. The -4 on AC is laughable downside. One of the local players around here made a quick calculation and showed me the math for his 13th lvl fighter (obviously with Combat Reflexes) and than applied the same feat on a creature like a dragon to show the pain the dragon would deal to the PCs (and really, if you have an AC of 38 that -4 is nothing). Remember, most things are not just closed to take the stuff away from players, but also from the opposition. Actually, I'm surprised that was the logic behind it - Karmic Strike does just that, but requires Combat Expertise and doesn't generate the extra +4 damage. My assumption was the problem that happens when someone takes both Karmic Strike and Robilar's Gambit. As previously pointed out if that was really the way people wanted to design dragon encounters, or similar encounters, they would be giving them Karmic Strike. I don't see it as a huge issue against Dragons for the simple fact that its the spell casters and archers that usually do a majority of the damage to them. As such is usually the case most designers probably don't give their Dragons Karmic Strike right now because its rare to have someone go toe to toe with a Dragon; hence its a suboptimal feat choice for a dragon. The same would probably be true for Robilars. Out of curiousity have any of you fought or ran a dragon or similar creature that used Karmic Strike or Robilars (in or out of LG)? I am guessing no. Honestly, its closed access feats like this that usually create the appearance of a bias against Fighters. As you mentioned this feat would be a huge boon to your 13th level fighting friend. If he ever ran acrost a foe that had the same feat he could adjust his tactics.
copper_wyrmling 04-14-07, 06:29 PM	Honestly, its closed access feats like this that usually create the appearance of a bias against Fighters. As you mentioned this feat would be a huge boon to your 13th level fighting friend. If he ever ran acrost a foe that had the same feat he could adjust his tactics. Oh come on... we just got a whole slew of new Open feats from new books. Opening up new feats tends to help fighter-types, as they can fit more feats into their builds (unlike casters who can't just take a few dip levels in fighter for more feats, and whose PrCs rarely give bonus feats). In contrast, almost none of the spells from those books are Open. And you want to argue that there's a bias against fighters because a very small number of those new feats are Closed? Riiiiight. (Not saying there's a bias against casters... just that it's really illogical to say that the campaign is biased against fighters because it only introduces 90% of the new cool fighter feats from the PH2 rather than 100% :rolleyes:) On a somewhat different topic (but I feel like ranting ;) ), I've found that ARs tend to give far more profuse and interesting access to weapon-and-armor-using people, rather than primary casters. Take the game I played yesterday as an example... at APL 4, which is where I played it, it grants access to weapon capsules and weapon capsule retainers, bracers of quickstrike, a lens of detection, and armbands of might. By APL 12 you can add boots of speed, a maiming weapon, mithral armor, and a quiver of Ehlonna. Oh, and a ring of counterspells. I played that mod with a sorcerer. There is nothing on the AR, or in the favors section, that I will ever buy. (My cleric has had a ring of counterspells since L8, and she's now L15. It has never triggered. Ever. We just don't fight enough spellcasters, and spell-like abilities can't be counterspelled. I'm not spending 4000gp and a ring slot on that item with another character...) My dervish feels very favored by LG, since (a) it allows dervish, (b) it allows acrobatic strike / melee weapon mastery / slashing fury, (c) it doesn't place any restrictions on multiclassing your heart out to pick up nifty low-level abilities, and (d) at L8, he already has more access than he will ever have money to spend on it, and there isn't a single item that he really really wants that he can't acquire via long-lasting access or favors. My sorcerers, not so much, since they have to jump through hoops to get access to any Limited spells they might particularly want, and both of them have substantial amounts of gold for their level sitting uselessly in their pockets, waiting for some access that's actually worth spending it (in both cases, they'll just spend it on Cha cloaks if they don't see anything better soon... but that's not very interesting and means they have a FAR higher fraction of their wealth invested in Cha-boosters than the standard guidelines). Anyway, just thought I'd present a slightly different perspective on "are fighters hated?" from someone who plays both spellcasters and fighters with no casting ability whatsoever... (Oh, and re spun-up disintegrate vs fighters at high APL: the only time I've seen disintegrate swing a combat was when I was GM'ing - the PC wizard got buffed by another PC with harmonic chorus and the fighter eliminated all the mirror images on the bad guy, then the wizard critted with a sudden maximized disintegrate and I rolled very low on my rerolled Fort save. Without the crit and the sudden maximize, even a failed save means 2d6/level, or ~84 at L12. I've watched fighters at APL 12 do 150-200 damage / round regularly with average rolls, 300+ if they get lucky. Blaster-casters kinda keep up with archers: they don't even come close to keeping up with the full attack of a melee specialist. Yes, they can do stuff that fighter-types can't - that's why there are multiple people in the party, and it's also why wizards and sorcerers have such pathetic hit dice and skill points and can't wear armor.)
Flan 04-14-07, 06:38 PM	Well, I suppose if you want your fighter butt to go the whole combat without healing, then we should probably allow mageslayer, yes? I mean, it's not like a caster EVER wades INTO combat in order to try and help out some sort of fighter with a buff. Nah. So... instead of putting the fighter between the caster and the opponent so that the fighter gives cover and stops the opponent from attacking the caster with reach, the caster decides to walk up directly beside the opponent. :rolleyes: Please guys, if your arguement against mageslayer involves casters who are complete and total idiots, who have no ability to move, can't buff themselves, and die in one hit, then you're not making a serious arguement and you can just stop now.
Sieylianna 04-14-07, 06:41 PM	on the bright side it would mean that you would now need to work together more as a team instead of having the mage solo the encounter. I realize that you are new here, but I've seen as many fighters who want mages to be their own personal buff machines as I've seen mages who can solo an encounter. I've also seen mages that concentrate on battle field control and couldn't solo an encounter on a dare. Working together as a team means everyone, not just the mage. As other people have mentioned, the threat is when you run into the large or huge creature with a spiked chain in an enclosed space. Since the bad guys generally get to choose where they fight, it's a real problem. AFAIK, there aren't any feats which PC's can use which are denied to NPC's, although the opposite is true. Ed
Flan 04-14-07, 07:18 PM	As other people have mentioned, the threat is when you run into the large or huge creature with a spiked chain in an enclosed space. So. If a caster is fighting a large creature AND they have a spiked chain or natural reach AND they have Mage Slayer AND they have attacks of opportunity available AND the caster can't 5 foot step behind another party member AND the caster can't move out of reach because of an extremely confined space AND the caster can't buff themselves sensibly AND the caster has no swift action (quickened) spells AND the creature didn't just simply kill the caster anyway or use a held action to interrupt casting THEN the creature can get an attack of opportunity on the caster IF they cast a spell instead of simply attacking, useing a device, aiding another etc. Again, an unbuffed caster stuck in a closet with a meleer and has no movement options and can't handle a single attack of opportunity is in a lot of trouble and it has nothing to do with the Mage Slayer feat. Try putting the caster in a situation that isn't ALREADY certain death WITHOUT the Mage Slayer feat before you try and say Mage Slayer is a problem.
copper_wyrmling 04-14-07, 07:31 PM	So... instead of putting the fighter between the caster and the opponent so that the fighter gives cover and stops the opponent from attacking the caster with reach, the caster decides to walk up directly beside the opponent. :rolleyes: There is some table variation on whether soft cover applies to attacks with reach weapons. I think it does, but there's variation - the PHB errata isn't as clearly worded as it could be. Also, I've been in a couple of encounters where the PC fighter/barbarian got themselves flanked by Large-or-bigger creatures and desperately needed healing. If one of those monsters has Mage Slayer, then healing the fighter becomes impossible until they can extricate themselves, unless you have some way to deliver effective in-combat healing at range. (Yes, the cleric could cast-move-touch - but if you know you can auto-make the check to cast defensively, why would you bother? It would generally be better to move in, see how the AoOs resolve, and THEN cast your spell.) Please guys, if your arguement against mageslayer involves casters who are complete and total idiots, who have no ability to move, can't buff themselves, and die in one hit, then you're not making a serious arguement and you can just stop now. As others have said: the argument against Mage Slayer is that it works in absolutes (i.e. "you can't cast defensively" rather than a penalty), so it entirely removes the value of another creature's investment in skills and possibly feats; it grants AoOs to other threatening creatures as well as the possessor of the feat; and it pretty much entirely neutralizes any caster unfortunate enough to be trapped next to a melee type with the feat (and yes, there ARE plenty of encounters set in close quarters where it's easy to trap people in corners or cul-de-sacs, especially if the bad guy is something like a demon with teleport) - these three things make it overpowered for a third-level feat with minimal prereqs. Also, monsters generally have a size and reach advantage over PCs, and it's much more common to have PC spellcasters in a party than it is to fight NPC spellcasters, so allowing it into the game would probably be of greater benefit to the bad guys than the PCs.
Japangirl 04-14-07, 07:38 PM	So. If a caster is fighting a large creature AND they have a spiked chain or natural reach AND they have Mage Slayer AND they have attacks of opportunity available AND the caster can't 5 foot step behind another party member AND the caster can't move out of reach because of an extremely confined space AND the caster can't buff themselves sensibly AND the creature didn't just simply kill the caster anyway or use a held action to interrupt casting THEN the creature can get an attack of opportunity on the caster IF they cast a spell instead of simply attacking, useing a device, aiding another etc. AND this happens all the time because no one knows the thingy has this feat AND authors set up favorable terrain all the time for their monsters AND the monsters tend to be fairly tweaked out. I don't know about you, but I generally don't Mirror Image my wizard just because . . . I stand in the back behind the fighter and cast defensively so as not to waste spells and rounds on buffing. By the time it is known that defensive self-buffs are necessary, it's too late because casting those buffs provokes. Also, wizards will not simply attack, use a device, or aid another because that is far less useful, *in general*, than casting spells. Also, soft cover doesn't prevent AOs, so you can't hide behind the fighter. You can get +4 to AC from the cover, but the AO is not stopped, so byebye spellcaster! That means the cleric still provokes even if not standing next to the bad guy but rather behind the fighter s/he is trying to heal. I'd rather PCs not have this feat and NPCs not have this feat than both get it. My opinion doesn't really matter- I'm not Triad or Circle or anywhere close. But the fact that these arguments exist, even if you think they are poor, means the Circle had valid reasons to close this feat. It isn't because they hate fighters. They allow Shock Trooper, for crying out loud!
copper_wyrmling 04-14-07, 07:43 PM	So. If a caster is fighting a large creature AND they have a spiked chain or natural reach AND they have Mage Slayer AND they have attacks of opportunity available AND the caster can't 5 foot step behind another party member AND the caster can't move out of reach because of an extremely confined space AND the caster can't buff themselves sensibly AND the creature didn't just simply kill the caster anyway or use a held action to interrupt casting THEN the creature can get an attack of opportunity on the caster IF they cast a spell instead of simply attacking, useing a device, aiding another etc. A readied action prevents the creature's full attack (unlike an AoO which happens in addition to the full attack) and can't be done in the same round as (for example) a demon teleporting into position. A caster can't buff themselves if they're within the threatened area of a Mage Slayer monster from the first round, barring Contingency, or if they're a team player and spend the early rounds throwing spells that actually help their friends or hurt their foes rather than making themselves unhittable. A reasonably high-level caster who attacks in melee or aids another (assuming normal levels of sorc/wiz melee proficiency, rather than a multithreat fighter/caster who can actually hurt stuff with weapons) might as well fall to the ground and pretend to be unconscious, they'll probably help the party more that way (since the monster might ignore them and turn to the remaining threats, meaning the party won't have to spend resources on fixing them). Again, an unbuffed caster stuck in a closet with a meleer and has no movement options and can't handle a single attack of opportunity is in a lot of trouble and it has nothing to do with the Mage Slayer feat. Uh... the problem is that the Mage Slayer feat is STOPPING the movement options. If the AoO hits, it most likely stops the spell from going off. The spell would be something like invisibility (to move without drawing a trip/grapple AoO), or d-door / teleport if the monster is blocking the exits, or wall of force / evards to try to block the monster off, or orb of force / metamagicked scorching ray to try to kill it before it got an action (this last would be for desperate situations only). Mage Slayer kills all those options. It only really leaves "move, and hope it's not smart enough to try to keep you in the area rather than just swinging for damage".
Flan 04-14-07, 07:43 PM	Also, I've been in a couple of encounters where the PC fighter/barbarian got themselves flanked by Large-or-bigger creatures and desperately needed healing. If one of those monsters has Mage Slayer, then healing the fighter becomes impossible until they can extricate themselves, unless you have some way to deliver effective in-combat healing at range. (Yes, the cleric could cast-move-touch - but if you know you can auto-make the check to cast defensively, why would you bother? It would generally be better to move in, see how the AoOs resolve, and THEN cast your spell.) Again, a very unlikely situation, and one that even you have pointed out as not being at all a real problem thanks to multiple ways to get around it like holding the charge, ranged heals, quickened heals, wands of healing and the like. As well you can again simply place one of the fighters between the opponent and the caster and the entire feat is rendered useless. As others have said: the argument against Mage Slayer is that it works in absolutes (i.e. "you can't cast defensively" rather than a penalty), so it entirely removes the value of another creature's investment in skills and possibly feats; And I could probably pull up at least a hundred spells that deal in absolutes as well. Whats a monk's AC and arrow deflection worth vs. magic missle? Nothing. Meleers basically have to sit there and suck damage from casters that is completely and totally unavoidable ALL THE TIME regardless of how good their AC is, how high their saving throws are, what feats or skills they take. There are so many ways to circumvent Mage Slayer it isn't even funny, if anything it is WAY WAY too weak.
copper_wyrmling 04-14-07, 07:48 PM	Also, soft cover doesn't prevent AOs, so you can't hide behind the fighter. You can get +4 to AC from the cover, but the AO is not stopped, so byebye spellcaster! Japangirl, do you have a reference for this? My PHB just says soft cover doesn't give a bonus on Ref saves or allow Hide checks - nothing about AOs. I know there's table variation as to whether soft cover applies to reach attacks.
copper_wyrmling 04-14-07, 08:04 PM	Again, a very unlikely situation, and one that even you have pointed out as not being at all a real problem thanks to multiple ways to get around it like holding the charge, ranged heals, quickened heals, wands of healing and the like. As well you can again simply place one of the fighters between the opponent and the caster and the entire feat is rendered useless. No, you can't - I'm talking one fighter between two vrocks. There is nowhere the cleric can stand where she's adjacent to the fighter and not threatened by at least one vrock. You can't quicken spontaneous cures. I don't think I've ever seen a cleric prep a quickened cure spell. Holding the charge works once every second round, if you know before going in that you can't cast defensively, which I don't think is true. The first time this happened to me (at L8, iirc), my best ranged cure was Mass Lesser Vigor, which healed 7 points on the first round due to Augment Healing. My touch-range healing was an average of 42 points (augmented cure serious wounds empowered from an item). Only one of those would keep the barbarian standing for another round... And it's not that rare, it happened to me several times between L8 and L12 (after that I moved, and played less often with two particular fighters who liked charging big groups of big monsters). And I could probably pull up at least a hundred spells that deal in absolutes as well. Whats a monk's AC and arrow deflection worth vs. magic missle? Nothing. And when the magic missile gets through, it does a small amount of damage. Mage Slayer stops the caster from using ANY form of their only significant class ability, if they can't get out of the way. Nobody would have nearly as much of a problem with it if the AoO just did damage and couldn't disrupt the spell being cast. More importantly, comparing Mage Slayer to spellcasting misses the point. Mage Slayer isn't a spell, it's an always-on ability that takes no action to activate. To determine its balance, you can't compare it to what spells can do, you have to compare it to other feats. This sort of absolute negation of other PCs' abilities is extraordinarily rare in feats (the only other one I can think of is elusive target, and it's acknowledged as being very powerful, it has two not-so-useful prereq feats, and it only applies to one opponent at a time). There are so many ways to circumvent Mage Slayer it isn't even funny, if anything it is WAY WAY too weak. Then why are you so upset that your PC can't use it?
Timlagor 04-14-07, 08:24 PM	For Healing (and other things): you can move between casting a spell and delivering it in the same round. Says so in the PHB magic chapter.
cycloptic_squirrel 04-14-07, 08:45 PM	Japangirl, do you have a reference for this? My PHB just says soft cover doesn't give a bonus on Ref saves or allow Hide checks - nothing about AOs. I know there's table variation as to whether soft cover applies to reach attacks. PHB errata: Soft cover works against ranged attacks, not melee attacks. In the first sentence of the paragraph, change "melee" to "ranged." Pretty clear cut to me. Though I didn't realize it until I looked it up. Printing and sticking it in my PHB as we speak. As far as mage slayer... Great feat. Too good. If there were a few more prereqs and didn't give +1 to will, I think it'd be in. As it stands, too powerful. Compare to grappling: also nerfs mages, but you have to actively enter a grapple (which leaves you vulnerable to ankle-biting rogues), which is a two feat investment to pull off without an AoO, and though it severely restricts what a caster can do, there are still a few options. If you have mage slayer, all you have to do is move in, have reach, be smart enough to trip with your AoO, and have combat reflexes. Any 3rd level guard (heck, even a warrior) with a guisarm and spiked armor is now a major threat. Although a 3rd level monk-grappler was never fun for casters, imagine now that same monk-grappler with a mancatcher (even if they're untrained it's scary). Too few prereqs. BAB of +8, maybe. Not as it stands.
Arcane Guyver 04-14-07, 09:42 PM	Mage Slayer would be a perfectly fine feat if it had no prerequisites and merely increased the 'casting defensive' Concentration DC for threatened casters by +4, and possibly a +2 bonus on Spellcraft checks to identify cast spells. That, IMO, would be a balanced counterpart to Combat Casting.
Flan 04-15-07, 02:19 AM	No, you can't - I'm talking one fighter between two vrocks. There is nowhere the cleric can stand where she's adjacent to the fighter and not threatened by at least one vrock. Have the fighter move before you go in... It's not like a 5 foot step is exactly challenging for them to do. If they want to stand in the absolute worst possible spot on the entire battlefield then let them die. You can't quicken spontaneous cures. I don't think I've ever seen a cleric prep a quickened cure spell. Bad clerics? You can't spontaneously cast heal so thats an obvious one even if your clerics aren't doing quicken serious. There are also SEVERAL ways a cleric can heal at range via feats, and they're not exactly crappy ones that no one would want to take either. As well as things like Friend Shield which is such a potent spell if just to keep wizards from flopping over dead all the time or the fighter from dying due to massive damage every couple rounds that it's practically necessary. Holding the charge works once every second round, if you know before going in that you can't cast defensively, which I don't think is true. You're better off casting before moving in anyway. The Vrock could have contingent silence, they might have a readied action etc. You do know that really all Mage Slayer gives you most of the time is the ability for a fighter to move and threaten a wizard to force them to move and thats it? A readied action to interrupt casting is far far better than mage slayer if the meleer is already beside the caster or the caster is dumb enough to move up beside the meleer. The first time this happened to me (at L8, iirc), my best ranged cure was Mass Lesser Vigor, which healed 7 points on the first round due to Augment Healing. My touch-range healing was an average of 42 points (augmented cure serious wounds empowered from an item). Only one of those would keep the barbarian standing for another round... Cast, move, free touch on ally, tell ally not to be an idiot and to take a 5 foot step next time so they're not flanked. Mage Slayer would do nothing. And it's not that rare, it happened to me several times between L8 and L12 (after that I moved, and played less often with two particular fighters who liked charging big groups of big monsters). You know what, you're talking about a cleric, the most blatently overpowered class in existence aside from the outright broken (horizon walker etc.), IF on the RARE occasion a monster has mage slayer, and you're in some bizaar and completely implausible scenario where it actually prevents you from acting, SUCK UP THE ATTACK OF OP. My GOD. It's like they're instantly killing you or something instead of probably missing and doing nothing, or turning an automatic success on concentration into a small chance to fail. If concentration checks are a problem take combat casting and get a +concentration item. By 12th level you'll have a +35 on concentration. They'd need to do 16 damage before you even have a CHANCE of losing a 6th level spell. And when the magic missile gets through, it does a small amount of damage. Mage Slayer stops the caster from using ANY form of their only significant class ability, if they can't get out of the way. Nobody would have nearly as much of a problem with it if the AoO just did damage and couldn't disrupt the spell being cast. Harm, minimum 75 damage. Irresistable Dance. The list is huge. If the AoO couldn't interrupt the spell then Mage Slayer would be totally useless always instead of nearly useless for NPCs to take and only occasionally useful for PCs to take as it is now. More importantly, comparing Mage Slayer to spellcasting misses the point. Mage Slayer isn't a spell, it's an always-on ability that takes no action to activate. To determine its balance, you can't compare it to what spells can do, you have to compare it to other feats. This sort of absolute negation of other PCs' abilities is extraordinarily rare in feats (the only other one I can think of is elusive target, and it's acknowledged as being very powerful, it has two not-so-useful prereq feats, and it only applies to one opponent at a time). Fighters don't get spells. Comparing feats to spells IS balanced. You just don't like it because there are nearly endless spells that completely and totally overpower feats let alone skills. Mage Slayer would be a perfectly fine feat if it had no prerequisites and merely increased the 'casting defensive' Concentration DC for threatened casters by +4, and possibly a +2 bonus on Spellcraft checks to identify cast spells. That, IMO, would be a balanced counterpart to Combat Casting. It would be useless. The simplest and most obvious example of why that isn't balanced is the fact that many/most opponents people who take mage slayer will fight aren't even casters so it's often useless, while Combat Casting is nearly always useful for a caster who throws themselves into harm's way, against both non-casters and casters alike. Second, since the concentration check to cast defensively is so stupidly low, +4 is meaningless as soon as you can afford the severely underpriced +concentration items. At higher levels +concentration items aren't even needed as even 9th level spells with +4 will be automatic.
Iswald 04-15-07, 02:30 AM	Well, I suppose if you want your fighter butt to go the whole combat without healing, then we should probably allow mageslayer, yes? I mean, it's not like a caster EVER wades INTO combat in order to try and help out some sort of fighter with a buff. Nah. And? Delay death, close wounds, wands of cure light, wands of lessor vigor, mass lessor vigor, mass cure light, insignia of healing, stalwart pact, etc... Would it be less offensive if the feat were worded differently? 'You may take an attack of opportunity against spellcasters you threaten when they cast defensively. Normal: Casting defensively doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.' I'm much less concerned with the feat, than what authors will do. Authors don't need mageslayer to TPK a party.
cycloptic_squirrel 04-15-07, 03:30 AM	Wow, Flan, take it down a notch. Sharp is a quality that's appreciated in wits, but not in tongues. You do know that really all Mage Slayer gives you most of the time is the ability for a fighter to move and threaten a wizard to force them to move and thats it? A readied action to interrupt casting is far far better than mage slayer if the meleer is already beside the caster or the caster is dumb enough to move up beside the meleer. Mage slayer allows you to move up, hit the wizard's buddy, and still negate the wizard. Can't do the same with a readied action, can't do it with a grapple. If concentration checks are a problem take combat casting and get a +concentration item. By 12th level you'll have a +35 on concentration. They'd need to do 16 damage before you even have a CHANCE of losing a 6th level spell. What are these items I'm missing? (I'm honestly curious.) The highest I can find are +5. Max ranks, a +5 check item, and decent Con gives me around +23 at level 12. And combat casting doesn't help because you're not casting defensively, you're making a concentration check because you took damage. Average damage of a Vrock? 13. Without power attacking or other buffs. Only a 25% chance of losing the 6th level spell, but now say they decide to grapple you instead; now you're screwed. That's at CR 9, three below 12th. You can run into these at level 6, where concentration is +11. Now that 13 damage means a 70% chance of losing your 3rd level spell. Harm, minimum 75 damage. Irresistable Dance. The list is huge. Is this huge list entirely composed of 6th and 8th level spells? Whenever you have to go to this high level to get comparable spells, the feat shouldn't be attainable by absolutely every warrior type at 3rd level with a feat to burn. Second, since the concentration check to cast defensively is so stupidly low, +4 is meaningless as soon as you can afford the severely underpriced +concentration items. At higher levels +concentration items aren't even needed as even 9th level spells with +4 will be automatic. I fail to see how this is an issue. Casters can't interrupt your attack sequence with a spell, I don't understand why you feel you should be entitled to interrupt their spell with an attack. Not to mention that caster types (with the exception of wizards) tend to be starved for skill points. Being able to cast defensively is not a given.
Arcane Guyver 04-15-07, 06:53 AM	It would be useless. The simplest and most obvious example of why that isn't balanced is the fact that many/most opponents people who take mage slayer will fight aren't even casters so it's often useless, while Combat Casting is nearly always useful for a caster who throws themselves into harm's way, against both non-casters and casters alike. All I'm saying is that if there needs to be a Mage Slayer feat, it should be balanced off of existing rules items. Combat Casting is sort of a benchmark feat for this. The two feats should at best cancel each other out; unfortunately, the published version of Mage Slayer instead completely renders Combat Casting useless.
eqpablon 04-15-07, 09:20 AM	Oh come on... we just got a whole slew of new Open feats from new books. Opening up new feats tends to help fighter-types, as they can fit more feats into their builds (unlike casters who can't just take a few dip levels in fighter for more feats, and whose PrCs rarely give bonus feats). In contrast, almost none of the spells from those books are Open. And you want to argue that there's a bias against fighters because a very small number of those new feats are Closed? Riiiiight. I'll agree to disagree :) No matter what, I still love LG :inlove:
_metz_ 04-15-07, 09:29 AM	Ok, this arguement is kinda losing the point. Essentially, mage slayer is pretty broken, not duie to the intent of the feat, but due to the nature of how it can be exploited. Excluding all thoughts on casters vs fighters in usefulness, etc etc power attacking, etc etc... There is still the conclusion that ANY feat or spell that can be clearly abused or breaks the existing game mechanic (however unbalanced/balanced it is already) it is not LG suitable. It takes time for such feats to be rooted out, or for someone to see all the possible downsides of allowing that feat. Especially whenNPCs start using it with characters built around it... I think we can close the book on this one really, There are plenty of ways of argueing for made slayer, but they are outshone by the downsides of allowing it.
Sieylianna 04-15-07, 10:52 AM	Again, an unbuffed caster stuck in a closet with a meleer and has no movement options and can't handle a single attack of opportunity is in a lot of trouble and it has nothing to do with the Mage Slayer feat. Try putting the caster in a situation that isn't ALREADY certain death WITHOUT the Mage Slayer feat before you try and say Mage Slayer is a problem. Actually, it's the authors. I've been in a 30 x 30 room where a Glabrezu with a spiked chain appeared in the center of the room. And of course, he had combat reflexes. Ed
katrick 04-15-07, 03:15 PM	I reiterate, this feat is not even close to being broken. Something very interesting for those on this thread Reach Spell +2lvl touch spells become ranged touch spells(CD) (Captain Meta-Game) if your lucky you get three combats, if your real lucky you get one caster(usually Cleric) if your really, really lucky s\he is on their own. At any time s\he can withdraw to leave her minions to deal for a round and start again. What are these Items. Sorc retired, apart from +6 Amulet of health never saw access to any Concentration items.18 Con,Combat Casting,Max ranks, 26 total, there's at least two items we didn't get off of the Shadow Dragons Spiral !! As for AUTHORS we all play too!!! Katrick P.S. Bring it, just means more Blood Mages for LG.
magebeast 04-15-07, 08:48 PM	I reiterate, this feat is not even close to being broken. Something very interesting for those on this thread Reach Spell +2lvl touch spells become ranged touch spells(CD) (Captain Meta-Game) if your lucky you get three combats, if your real lucky you get one caster(usually Cleric) if your really, really lucky s\he is on their own. At any time s\he can withdraw to leave her minions to deal for a round and start again. What are these Items. Sorc retired, apart from +6 Amulet of health never saw access to any Concentration items.18 Con,Combat Casting,Max ranks, 26 total, there's at least two items we didn't get off of the Shadow Dragons Spiral !! As for AUTHORS we all play too!!! Katrick P.S. Bring it, just means more Blood Mages for LG. I gotta say I can pretty much never understand what it is you're trying to say.
magebeast 04-15-07, 08:49 PM	Would it be less offensive if the feat were worded differently? 'You may take an attack of opportunity against spellcasters you threaten when they cast defensively. Normal: Casting defensively doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.' This isn't what the feat does. That would indeed be a slightly less broken feat.
katrick 04-16-07, 01:21 PM	I gotta say I can pretty much never understand what it is you're trying to say. I was saying, I think Mage Slayer is fine and could\should be allowed. I don't think Fighters are hated nor any other character class, depending on your own opinions of what you think is extremely powerful, makes other classes seem more or less powerful.(i think the classes as close to balanced as is possible in this kind of game) Also, several postee's, were complaining about trying to heal fallen party members within the reach of a Large\Huge critter with Mage Slayer, to which i noted that no-one had mentioned the feat, Reach Spell, thus avoiding the problem. Also several postee's had said that this feat in the hands of an Unscrupulous Author would create problems, i replied that the authors also play LG and would therefore have to face this problem as well. And the Post Script was a witty remark about how many casters would now meet the Pre-reqs for Blood Magus ie they will have died at least once when they meet a Fighter-type with this feat. The Captain Meta-game bit was in relation to the fact that in most LG Mods you will be lucky if you even get to use this feat once every three or four Mods, and then you'll have to beat everyone else in Initiative and not be surprised, etc.. I try to be efficient wherever possible. Hope that clarifies things, Clear as Mud as they say. Katrick
Ralis 04-16-07, 02:33 PM	Okay. I've read all the arguments here, and everyone can "What If" themselves blue in the face. So let me try to sum this up. 1. Anything you can use so can the monsters you fight. And that is bad. 2. There is a counter for everything. It doesn't matter what level that counter becomes available. Alright. So Mage Slayer has been closed: If it causes this sort of argument then I think we're better off without it. So my advice is: Fighters, Just don't go fighting spellcasters solo. Mages: have your own fighter friends to keep you safe.
magebeast 04-16-07, 05:20 PM	I was saying, I think Mage Slayer is fine and could\should be allowed. I don't think Fighters are hated nor any other character class, depending on your own opinions of what you think is extremely powerful, makes other classes seem more or less powerful.(i think the classes as close to balanced as is possible in this kind of game) Also, several postee's, were complaining about trying to heal fallen party members within the reach of a Large\Huge critter with Mage Slayer, to which i noted that no-one had mentioned the feat, Reach Spell, thus avoiding the problem. Also several postee's had said that this feat in the hands of an Unscrupulous Author would create problems, i replied that the authors also play LG and would therefore have to face this problem as well. And the Post Script was a witty remark about how many casters would now meet the Pre-reqs for Blood Magus ie they will have died at least once when they meet a Fighter-type with this feat. The Captain Meta-game bit was in relation to the fact that in most LG Mods you will be lucky if you even get to use this feat once every three or four Mods, and then you'll have to beat everyone else in Initiative and not be surprised, etc.. I try to be efficient wherever possible. Hope that clarifies things, Clear as Mud as they say. Katrick Ah, that makes more sense. Also, I *wish* Blood Magus were an open PRC! I was totally gunning for it on my Sorcerer - I was hoping when we switched from T&B to Complete Arcane they might allow it. Alas, it's apparently too "gory" a class!
Japangirl 04-16-07, 06:30 PM	Ah, that makes more sense. Also, I *wish* Blood Magus were an open PRC! I was totally gunning for it on my Sorcerer - I was hoping when we switched from T&B to Complete Arcane they might allow it. Alas, it's apparently too "gory" a class! He really did want it. How many other sorcerors who are level 4 have died twice and gone unconscious at least five times?
Flan 04-16-07, 11:58 PM	I fail to see how this is an issue. Casters can't interrupt your attack sequence with a spell, I don't understand why you feel you should be entitled to interrupt their spell with an attack. They can't? What DnD game do you play because it must not have Contingency or immediate action spells and buffs. Oh look, fighter is about to swing at me, shapechange into a titan as a free action. Oh look, fighter grappled me, freedom of movement to completely counter it with heart of water. And of course readied action... oh he's swinging... 5 foot step out of range so he can't hit me at all and loses his action and cast spell back at him. Freedom of movement completely counters and negates grapple and all grapple feats. Invisiblity's +40 renders spot useless at the level you can start casting it at. Silence render's listen useless. Casters can pretty much render every feat and skill useless or surpase them easily. And of course you get into garbage like Enervation and Ray of Enfeeblement... good thing you got +1 to hit with weapon focus, you'll need it after I give you -6 to hit with no save. :rolleyes: A fighter getting one AoO from a caster that for some perverse reason can't simply get away is hardly broken. It's mind boggling that people think it's okay mages can do automatic damage with no chance of missing but it's not okay for a meleer to be able to swing at them while suffering miss chances, mirror image and other buffs auto-negating, blink misses etc. etc. for a CHANCE to interrupt a spell IF the caster can't simply move away or do a quickend spell. Then you get garbage like Fire Shield where even when the melee hits they automatically take damage themselves, again with no chance to avoid, no AC check, nothing.
jstorrie 04-17-07, 02:27 AM	And how often do you see Contingent Shapechange in Living Greyhawk, Flan? 20th-level casters with access to everything definitely wallop mundanes. 15th-level casters with restricted access are a completely different matter.
Eric Anondson 04-17-07, 02:40 AM	They can't? What DnD game do you play because it must not have Contingency or immediate action spells and buffs.It would be the one where contingency is a 6th level Sorcerer/Wizard spell. Available to 11th-level wizards, with a 1,500gp cost for the figurine. Mage Slayer is available to 3rd level fighters at a trivial cost.Oh look, fighter is about to swing at me, shapechange into a titan as a free action.Shapechange? A 9th-level spell in a game that caps at 15th level characters? We happen to be playing the version of D&D used in Living Greyhawk... where shapechange is banned regardless of character level, PC or NPC. And how would that stop the melee attack like Mage Slayer stops casting of spells?Oh look, fighter grappled me, freedom of movement to completely counter it with heart of water.Heart of what? I have the LGCS, I don't see that on the Open list of spells. While freedom of movement is a nice counter to a grapple, it hardly stops regular attacking.And of course readied action... oh he's swinging... 5 foot step out of range so he can't hit me at all and loses his action and cast spell back at him.5-ft. steps don't get you far enough from monsters with reach plus a reach weapon. Open to PCs make it Open to monsters... who will get it. And really, it is rather less than optimal tactics to ready an action to cast a spell for an event that might never happen anyway... might as well be under a Mage Slayer's treatened coverage without the feat being in play.It's mind boggling that people think it's okay mages can do automatic damage with no chance of missing but it's not okay for a meleer to be able to swing at them while suffering miss chances, mirror image and other buffs auto-negating, blink misses etc. etc. for a CHANCE to interrupt a spell IF the caster can't simply move away or do a quickend spell.PC casters will rarely get the chance to get up all those buffs to benefit them against a Mage Slayer, spells better spent taking down enemies when combats last a bare few rounds, while NPC casters will likely get all of them up beforehand due to the nature of BBEGs almost always getting preptime in LG adventures. Again, Opening this feat is plain ugly for players.Then you get garbage like Fire Shield where even when the melee hits they automatically take damage themselves, again with no chance to avoid, no AC check, nothing.I dunno, as often as I have seen fire shield I have seen it countered by getting the melee teammate a resist energy or protection from energy. And it isn't like taking damage is something meleers aren't built for. Taking damage is part of their role. Spellcasters, not so much. Most outrage at casters isn't directed at the damage dealing capability. It is at their ability to deliver game winning spells like save or die spells, save or game over spells like hold person, dominate, feeblemind, and countless others.
Flan 04-17-07, 12:58 PM	And how often do you see Contingent Shapechange in Living Greyhawk, Flan? 20th-level casters with access to everything definitely wallop mundanes. 15th-level casters with restricted access are a completely different matter. Contingency and Shapechange aren't related, Shapechange by itself allows changing as a free action. And since we're talking about NPCs having these, it could be any time the authors want, they already have chain blasphemy in a module, do you seriously think they don't have contingency? Lets see, 10th level human fighter, Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization, Melee Weapon Mastery, Lightning Reflexes, Iron Will, Great Fortitude, Improved Toughness, Improved Grapple, Improved Trip Thats +2 all saves, +4 to hit, +6 damage, +10 HP, +4 trip, +4 grapple. Level 7 wizard hits him with Enervation and rolls a 4. No save the fighter ends up being... -2 all saves, +0 to hit, +6 damage, -10 HP, +0 trip, +0 grapple, -4 all skill and ability checks and DCs. So with one spell the fighter effectivly has 6 feats worth of abilities stripped from him with no save and half of the benefits of 3 others feats stripped, thats 9 of his 11 feats, and loses an additional 4 to all skills and ability checks and -2 to all saves and 10 HP beyond his bonus 10. Unlike the wizard being faced with mage slayer the fighter can't take a tumble or move action to counter this, he's basically screwed and has to hope the cleric can deal with it with a Restoration and 100GP of diamond dust and 20 HP of curing.
Eric Anondson 04-17-07, 01:22 PM	Level 7 wizard hits him with Enervation and rolls a 4.So the wizard has a maximum dice roll, and the target is hurtin' for certain. Nice job building a remarkably weak fighter, too.
magebeast 04-17-07, 03:04 PM	So the wizard has a maximum dice roll, and the target is hurtin' for certain. Duh. Nice job building a remarkably weak fighter, too. It's almost like Flan is a reincarnated Bob_the_Theurge. The indignant tone, the performance anger, greivance theatrics. Oh come now. No need to get all ad hominem before he does.
Eric Anondson 04-17-07, 03:15 PM	True. I've just been exasperated by his demeanor in this and another thread. I'll edit.
katrick 04-17-07, 04:08 PM	Uhh Enervation, negative energy, isn't that an evil act (ear i say ,hearsay i say, hear i say, heresy i said) is that what happens when you add homonyms? Sarcasm intended katrick
Rerednaw 04-17-07, 04:53 PM	I'd be more worried as a player fighting against mobs with this feat. If I was playing a LG tank class, I'd have doubts about taking it. In a home game, it would not be as bad. In LG, with auto-surprise, point-blank ambush close-quarters encounters...it would be kind of scary. I've played arcanes who sucked up the AoO just to get the action off (usually to give the downed fighter/healer a healing potion or attempt to stabilize). Sadly, my arcane went from full hp to unconscious. Once he went from full to dead. Non-raisable dead. (bye bye) That aside, I would still play LG if the feat was NONC or even just plain open. And yes, my mains are casters. I'd be forced to adapt, try new builds, so I'd request a free rebuild if the feat were made open. Other than that though, I could live with it.
TWG_Prometheus 04-17-07, 07:03 PM	Contingency and Shapechange aren't related, Shapechange by itself allows changing as a free action. And since we're talking about NPCs having these, it could be any time the authors want, they already have chain blasphemy in a module, do you seriously think they don't have contingency? Lets see, 10th level human fighter, Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization, Melee Weapon Mastery, Lightning Reflexes, Iron Will, Great Fortitude, Improved Toughness, Improved Grapple, Improved Trip Thats +2 all saves, +4 to hit, +6 damage, +10 HP, +4 trip, +4 grapple. Level 7 wizard hits him with Enervation and rolls a 4. No save the fighter ends up being... -2 all saves, +0 to hit, +6 damage, -10 HP, +0 trip, +0 grapple, -4 all skill and ability checks and DCs. So with one spell the fighter effectivly has 6 feats worth of abilities stripped from him with no save and half of the benefits of 3 others feats stripped, thats 9 of his 11 feats, and loses an additional 4 to all skills and ability checks and -2 to all saves and 10 HP beyond his bonus 10. Unlike the wizard being faced with mage slayer the fighter can't take a tumble or move action to counter this, he's basically screwed and has to hope the cleric can deal with it with a Restoration and 100GP of diamond dust and 20 HP of curing. At caster level 7, Enervation only lasts 7 minutes. Unless you're in a chain fight, that's only until the end of the current battle. Besides which...Mage Slayer helps with this how? The Wizard could cast Enervation whether or not you have the feat. Most of the time it requires a 5' step at most. Even if Mr. Mage Slayer has a reach weapon, the Wizard can either take a hit (Wizard moves 10' and negates Mage Slayer) or can't. (Why hasn't the Fighter downed him yet?) In either case, Mage Slayer is useless. Fighters are not hated. They're still plenty strong, and almost every table has at least one good strong fighter or ends up badly wanting one. They're critical to the way the game is played. Mage Slayer wouldn't change any of this one bit, and there are plenty of reasons to restrict it. If there was a major balance problem in the game, you'd see one of the major archetypes missing in large numbers. Fighters are probably one of the best represented. With Melee Weapon Mastery backing them up, they've never been stronger. Around here, at least, what I don't see much of is Rogues. If you have a problem with casters, get your teammates to help you out with it. This isn't a one on one duel to the death game.
katrick 04-17-07, 07:56 PM	well noted prometheus. Rogues are indeed a rarity in perrenland as well. Perhaps they are the hated? I do know of a certain Spiked Chain wielding 17th level rogue who was well hunted by Iuz (insert all available triad names here)(staggering strike with Greater Invis Enlarge and Freedom) But i yet haven't seen any get above 1st (yes Rob thats a backstab not a Sneak attack mwahhhaha) katrick
Flan 04-17-07, 08:08 PM	So the wizard has a maximum dice roll, and the target is hurtin' for certain. Because 25% chance is like winning the lottery. :rolleyes: Also I was being generous, it's not exactly a hard spell to empower, add in a surprise round and 2 castings can strip as many as 12 levels from someone before they even take an action and do it with no save. It also stacks with itself. A level 10 wizard can kill the 10th level fighter with no saves, regardless of his HP just with a few touch attacks. Nice job building a remarkably weak fighter, too. Well I'd have taken Mage Slayer, but, well, you know... At caster level 7, Enervation only lasts 7 minutes. 7 hours.
katrick 04-17-07, 08:20 PM	Ahh dude Duration: Instantaneous???? katrick
cycloptic_squirrel 04-17-07, 08:59 PM	Because 25% chance is like winning the lottery. :rolleyes: Also I was being generous, it's not exactly a hard spell to empower, add in a surprise round and 2 castings can strip as many as 12 levels from someone before they even take an action and do it with no save. It also stacks with itself. A level 10 wizard can kill the 10th level fighter with no saves, regardless of his HP just with a few touch attacks. So you've given said wizard an action, a hit, and a decent roll on the damage and you've managed to severely hamper the fighter. For comparison, let's give the fighter the first action. Charge, confirmed critical (keen falchion), dead mage. Oh, look, no save on that. :P The point is that Mage Slayer doesn't even require an action. If all you wanted to do was prevent casting, you've always had the option of moving in and readying an attack if they cast a spell. It's true that casters get quickened actions which might seem comparable, but this doesn't happen regularly until at least 9th level. Mage slayer is attainable by third level by almost any warrior type. Until you throw out some comparable spells available a third level caster, I don't think you're going to convince anybody. I've agreed from the first that it wouldn't be so horrible to allow the feat if it had some higher prereqs. But the availability of it to low level enemies would scare the *%$# out of me.
Gallaway 04-17-07, 09:08 PM	It seems to me you do not come up against enough NPC mages to make this feat overly worthwhile for PC's to take. Which leads to the conclusion that people are in favor of this feat because they would like to see NPC fighters use it :) very odd ...
_metz_ 04-17-07, 09:17 PM	well noted prometheus. Rogues are indeed a rarity in perrenland as well. Perhaps they are the hated? I do know of a certain Spiked Chain wielding 17th level rogue who was well hunted by Iuz (insert all available triad names here)(staggering strike with Greater Invis Enlarge and Freedom) But i yet haven't seen any get above 1st (yes Rob thats a backstab not a Sneak attack mwahhhaha) katrick I had a Rogue get to level 5 before he left Perrenland for Ratik. But yes, too many undead for a lot of players to play them in the numbers game. Doesn't mean we can't actually roleplay for once, Mine is a 7th level Rogue 1st level Dread Pirate who is taking Scarlett Corsair as well (has access already) and maybe some Legendary Captain (will be regional) So I have Legendary Pirate Corsair Captain Sarian the Rogue! (hehehe)
chesspiece 04-18-07, 04:56 PM	It sounds to me like Flan should really be playing caster PCs. He seems to think very highly of their abilities. My favorite Mage Slayer example has to be the Roper (large with 50' reach) - able to threaten 348 squares (IIRC). Since the 'Soft Cover blocks AoOs' ruling, this is reduced to a maximum of 56 medium creatures (assuming 2-dimensions). Using 3 dimensions (flying Roper?), you can get back into the triple digits again. So this one critter can prevent hundreds of wizards from casting defensively, all thanks to 4 skill points and 1 feat. :confused: IMO, that's messed up.
MatteBlack 04-19-07, 01:44 AM	It sounds to me like Flan should really be playing caster PCs. He seems to think very highly of their abilities. My favorite Mage Slayer example has to be the Roper (large with 50' reach) - able to threaten 348 squares (IIRC). Since the 'Soft Cover blocks AoOs' ruling, this is reduced to a maximum of 56 medium creatures (assuming 2-dimensions). Using 3 dimensions (flying Roper?), you can get back into the triple digits again. So this one critter can prevent hundreds of wizards from casting defensively, all thanks to 4 skill points and 1 feat. :confused: IMO, that's messed up. After a certain point, casting defensively would be meaningless since the roper has a limited number of AoOs. If they actually approved a mod where a roper with that combo was there to support another force of NPCs by removing defensive casting, I dare say I'd be willing to quit LG.
clannagh 04-19-07, 02:55 AM	After a certain point, casting defensively would be meaningless since the roper has a limited number of AoOs. If they actually approved a mod where a roper with that combo was there to support another force of NPCs by removing defensive casting, I dare say I'd be willing to quit LG. The Roper also can only have a maximum of 6 strands attached at a time so the example of neutering dozens of wizards actually does not work. However, having faced one of these recently I suspect that its the 2D8 strength damage that will really get to most casters. Especially (table variation warning!!) if your GM decides that the 2D8 applies every round you are in contact with the strands.
gomeztoo 04-19-07, 03:42 AM	After a certain point, casting defensively would be meaningless since the roper has a limited number of AoOs. Except that if there are any minions, he need not have to make his AoO - they can.
Madfox11 04-19-07, 04:39 AM	However, having faced one of these recently I suspect that its the 2D8 strength damage that will really get to most casters. Especially (table variation warning!!) if your GM decides that the 2D8 applies every round you are in contact with the strands. Erm... the SRD states that a character 'grabbed' by a strand can loose Strength. 'Grabbed' is a distinct game mechanical state that returns every round as long as you are stuck to the strand. If it would only works once it would state something like "strand +11 touch (drag plus strength drain)". Although this is another discussion that has nothing to do with being a fighter, and we all dread ropers ;)
JamesMaissen 04-19-07, 02:31 PM	After a certain point, casting defensively would be meaningless since the roper has a limited number of AoOs. Umm doesn't the wording of Mage Slayer say that casting defensively *fails*? So until you know it has Mage Slayer you automatically loose the spells that you try to cast defensively within it's threatened area. When you fail to cast defensively you loose the spell rather than simply provoke. It's these kinds of absolutes that make the feat so annoying. And to a prior poster saying: Well, I do compare and two-handed power attackers doing lots of damage is rarely that much of an issue on higher APLs than superbly tweaked wizards who fatespin a re-roll to increased DC of a swiftly true striked disintegrate. Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad So a 15th level disintegrate backed by a 5th level quickened truestrike AND using the fatespinner's reroll does what? On average 105 damage right? Unless the target has a really high AC, any moderate to decent 15th level fighter is going to outstrip that damage without needing to use rage or any other daily resources. -James
magebeast 04-19-07, 02:43 PM	Umm doesn't the wording of Mage Slayer say that casting defensively *fails*? So until you know it has Mage Slayer you automatically loose the spells that you try to cast defensively within it's threatened area. When you fail to cast defensively you loose the spell rather than simply provoke. It's these kinds of absolutes that make the feat so annoying. You know that you'll auto fail - the feat actually states this. So no fizzles in that sense. It's still pretty evil.
Jay_Ibero_911 04-19-07, 03:03 PM	...they already have chain blasphemy in a module... Which is completely illegal...the chain spell metamagic feat is a +3 adjustment, so it would make blasphemy a 10th level spell if prepared...a greater chain rod could do it, but that doesn't change the fact that blasphemy is not a legal choice for that metamagic feat, as it is not a spell that specifies a single target...
Rerednaw 04-19-07, 05:28 PM	Which is completely illegal...the chain spell metamagic feat is a +3 adjustment, so it would make blasphemy a 10th level spell if prepared...a greater chain rod could do it, but that doesn't change the fact that blasphemy is not a legal choice for that metamagic feat, as it is not a spell that specifies a single target... Maybe he meant chain in the literal sense and not the feat? Like several being cast by multiple opponents or one after another as a SLA, etc. Or perhaps there was a feat/combo that worked, dunno.
Sieylianna 04-19-07, 05:57 PM	Which is completely illegal...the chain spell metamagic feat is a +3 adjustment, so it would make blasphemy a 10th level spell if prepared...a greater chain rod could do it, but that doesn't change the fact that blasphemy is not a legal choice for that metamagic feat, as it is not a spell that specifies a single target... Divine metamagic would have done it before the latest LGCS. Ed
magebeast 04-20-07, 01:24 AM	[/SIZE] Maybe he meant chain in the literal sense and not the feat? Like several being cast by multiple opponents or one after another as a SLA, etc. Or perhaps there was a feat/combo that worked, dunno. This. Multiple opponents daisy-chaining blasphemies.
katrick 04-20-07, 04:21 PM	Umm doesn't the wording of Mage Slayer say that casting defensively *fails*? So until you know it has Mage Slayer you automatically loose the spells that you try to cast defensively within it's threatened area. When you fail to cast defensively you loose the spell rather than simply provoke. It's these kinds of absolutes that make the feat so annoying. And to a prior poster saying: So a 15th level disintegrate backed by a 5th level quickened truestrike AND using the fatespinner's reroll does what? On average 105 damage right? Unless the target has a really high AC, any moderate to decent 15th level fighter is going to outstrip that damage without needing to use rage or any other daily resources. -James As we found out the hard way, Fatespinners can only spin others rolls, not their own. And only d20's(but if you roll it it's more like eleventy-one) I seem to remember 2nd ed Chain Contingencies(oooh yeah baby)! Auto fail means you tried to cast the spell and it fizzled.(you lose that slot) katrick
King Kashue 04-20-07, 04:37 PM	As we found out the hard way, Fatespinners can only spin others rolls, not their own. He said reroll, not adding spin. The 2nd level Fatespinner ability is a 1/day force of a reroll of any roll, from an ally or an enemy...At 4th level, the fatespinner can reroll his/her own roll.
Timlagor 04-20-07, 09:24 PM	As we found out the hard way, Fatespinners can only spin others rolls, not their own. And only d20's(but if you roll it it's more like eleventy-one) I'm afraid this is just plain wrong (I imagine you are confusing Spin with Fickle Finger of Fate). "Spin Fate (Ex): A mage of many fates understands that "chance" is not as random as many belive it to be, and he can adjust the probability of certain events by applying a force that fatespinners refer to as "spin". Each day, a fatespinner can use a number of points of spin equal to his fatespinner class level. As a free action, a fatespinner can use stored spin to boost the save DC of a spell he casts, adding some or all of his spin to the DC, on a point-for-point basis. ..." "Spin Destiny" (3rd level ability) applies only to the Fatespinner's rolls and lets him add spin to skill checks/saves etc instead of spell DCs. The only thing that applies to other people is "Fickle Finger of Fate" which is the 2nd level reroll KK mentioned. (well that and the nigh-worthless 5th level Seal Fate) ...and you get the self-reroll only two levels later.
King Kashue 04-21-07, 12:00 AM	Good catch, I just saw the spin/reroll confusion and didn't even notice he was describing the use of spin incorrectly... So, describing all the abilities wrong...ouch :D
katrick 04-21-07, 03:04 PM	Yeah poor phrasing. I think he was 2nd Fatespinner at 15th. katrick
Iswald 04-25-07, 11:52 AM	Mage Slayer is available to 3rd level fighters at a trivial cost. For a PC, it's not a trivial choice. They have to give up some other feat, probably postponing other feats that will work on a more regular basis. Most NPCs are used once. Building one around the mage slayer feat isn't as costly. Even though a third level fighter could take mage slayer, a second level bard already has invisibility swift. At what level can a wizard afford a wand of magic missile?
Jay_Ibero_911 04-25-07, 12:18 PM	For a PC, it's not a trivial choice. They have to give up some other feat, probably postponing other feats that will work on a more regular basis. Most NPCs are used once. Building one around the mage slayer feat isn't as costly. Even though a third level fighter could take mage slayer, a second level bard already has invisibility swift. At what level can a wizard afford a wand of magic missile? A wizard can afford a wand of magic missile after his 2nd apl2 mod typically...of course it's a matter of if he really wants the wand right then or not...
Japangirl 04-25-07, 05:00 PM	It is the same or higher opportunity cost for the bard though. A 2nd level bard only has two first level spells known, and cannot change one out until 7th level if one spell is not the best choice. Spell choice on a limited caster is as big or bigger an opportunity cost as feat choice is for a fighter. That Swift Invisibility could be a Tashas Hideous Laughter, a Charm Person, an Inspirational Boost, or myriad other first level spells.
AnexCDC 04-25-07, 05:31 PM	When the Complete Arcane came out, I initially was hoping mageslayer would be allowed. But a friend of mine mentioned to me that I should do a test we came up with to check if something is broken. If an option available to players (doesn't matter the game) creates a situation in which, all players that can use the option do use the option, and all players who can be threatened by the option have to have a significant counter investment. When I ran mageslayer through this test, I could not think of a single fighter(except archers - not effective with no threat area) that should not get this feat. The requirements are minimal in for a fighter (4 skill points they had no use for anyways) and a single feat. Meanwhile, if you know that it is possible to encounter this feat a caster must go about ensuring that they are not threaten in any situation. There are a number of ways to do this, but they all involve spells and actions.
_metz_ 04-25-07, 09:01 PM	I'm surprised this post is still going. Can we just accept the feat is broken already and move on? I hate argueing the obvious with people. If there was a spell that you could hit fighters with for no save or SR that made them unable to attack would people say its the fighter's job to not get hit by it? no. this is a stupid arguement quite frankly and I have no idea why its still going. Sorry to seem rude, I am not singling anyone out here, but it seems easier to move on.
cycloptic_squirrel 04-25-07, 09:36 PM	I'm surprised this post is still going. Can we just accept the feat is broken already and move on? I hate argueing the obvious with people. If there was a spell that you could hit fighters with for no save or SR that made them unable to attack would people say its the fighter's job to not get hit by it? no. this is a stupid arguement quite frankly and I have no idea why its still going. Sorry to seem rude, I am not singling anyone out here, but it seems easier to move on. In that case can't you just ignore the thread instead of berating others who might still wish to comment? The issue is pretty clear cut to me, but I'd rather not dissuade people from bringing new insights to the table. So long as they're not offended when I don't respond because the I feel the exact issue was addressed thirty posts ago.
_metz_ 04-26-07, 12:01 AM	Yeah good point. Let me then at least suggest that everyone new to this thread read the WHOLE thing before posting anything ;)
cycloptic_squirrel 04-26-07, 12:38 AM	Yeah good point. Let me then at least suggest that everyone new to this thread read the WHOLE thing before posting anything ;) Wholeheartedly agreed. :) Though I generally recomend it for any thread, it can't hurt to reiterate it for particular threads.
daladinn 05-03-07, 07:50 AM	I'm surprised this post is still going. Can we just accept the feat is broken already and move on? I hate argueing the obvious with people. If there was a spell that you could hit fighters with for no save or SR that made them unable to attack would people say its the fighter's job to not get hit by it? no. this is a stupid arguement quite frankly and I have no idea why its still going. Sorry to seem rude, I am not singling anyone out here, but it seems easier to move on. i would have to agree with you that its a stupid arguement , however i have good reasons for starting it. i "was" playing a fighter except that in his first 5 adventures i was hit by a sudden maximized ray of enfeeblement every single time. this resulted in my dropping from a 16 strength to a 9 (1d6+1). the net effect was to change my stats as follows... strength bonus +3 to -1 movement 30ft to 20ft dex AC +3 to +1 loss of power attack and cleave so for 1 spell that a human can cast at 1st level i lost 4 points off my to hit , 6 points off my damage , 2 points off my AC , 10ft off my move , and all of my feats that i had taken at level 1. so yes , its situations like this that want me to say fighters are hated . when i see this come up at least once in 5 sessions in a row there is no other oppinion i can come up with. the ONLY thing i could think of to even this disparity was this feat. i STILL contend that the only arguement i have heard that is based on reason is that people dont want npc's with this feat. even with that , all thats required is a change in writing style and for players to adjust tactics. as for the arguements i have heard thus far from casters , its all fear , balance is never an issue on the caster side of the discussion.
_metz_ 05-03-07, 09:13 AM	Take a level of Barbarian and rage. boom, there is your movement and power attack back. I would like to point out that a first level archer could have taken a first level fighter down with two ok shots, or any critical hit. And If you pulled out a bow and shot the first level wizard and rolled an 8, unless they have 20 con, boom, the wizard is now down. There are ways around the issue. You are arguing that because you couldn't power attack your character was useless. and this loss: movement 30ft to 20ft dex AC +3 to +1 Isn't actually str based, thats you being too reliant on one stat. If my fighter loses 7 str he can rage and have 15 str. Its all good. Also you could have whipped out a thunderstone and thrown it at him, tanglefoot bag, who knows. The Mage slayer feat is somewhat broken, I will agree casters are more powerful than fighters, doesn't make em hated. Also doesn't make a broken feat viable cos of existing class issues.
JamesMaissen 05-03-07, 10:26 AM	i would have to agree with you that its a stupid arguement , however i have good reasons for starting it. i "was" playing a fighter except that in his first 5 adventures i was hit by a sudden maximized ray of enfeeblement every single time. this resulted in my dropping from a 16 strength to a 9 (1d6+1). I'm sorry? What's really the problem here? You took a ray of enfeeblement. It's a good spell, wizards and sorcerers will load it on both sides of the fence. As far as nastiness goes it could have been a maximized scorching ray doing 24hp of damage. Then your combat capabilities would look to be much lower I'd suspect. If you have any problem its that you seem to have found 5 mods at APL 2 in a row where the bad guys had casters and they had sudden maximize. That seems, well, absurd. But it has nothing to do with fighters vs other party roles. -James PS: As to ray of enfeeblement there are counters for it at higher levels. Rings of counterspells and potions of lesser restoration work wonders.
Mattastrophic 05-04-07, 04:42 PM	My own take: Yes, Mage Slayer is possible to deal with. However, in order to deal with it, one has to modify their entire build AND spell selection... to deal with one feat. No, thank you. As for fighters being hated? That's laughable at best. Flan, if you're throwing out the 9th level spell Shapechange (which, fyi, you cannot activate on someone else's turn), Contingent Greater Blink (gotta be a 15th-level caster), Heart of Water (which you also cannot activate on someone else's turn, AND you'd have to spend your standard action escaping the grapple), and Fire Shield (blah spell, requires spending a turn preparing to get hit rather than preventing being hit) as "counters," you... obviously haven't played a wizard all the way up. And to anyone who has a beef with wizard damage... a wizard's single-shots may seem large, but they're nothing compared to fighter-classes' full-attack totals. Even a Disintegrate at CL15 averages out to 105 points of damage. Assuming you touch the guy. And beat his SR. And he fails a Fort save. Yah-hoo. -Matt
Japangirl 05-06-07, 04:03 AM	And to anyone who has a beef with wizard damage... a wizard's single-shots may seem large, but they're nothing compared to fighter-classes' full-attack totals. Even a Disintegrate at CL15 averages out to 105 points of damage. Assuming you touch the guy. And beat his SR. And he fails a Fort save. Yah-hoo. -Matt I agree. Matt, you make a lot of sense on this (not to say you don't make sense other times, I'm just struck this time in particular). I don't have a fighter, but I do have a melee (a rogue) who can fairly easily do well over 105 damage, and it won't run out like spells do. I've seen Spirited Charge Shock Trooper fighter/barbarians do well over 150-200 points of damage in a single hit. The most damage I've ever seen from a single-target spell was 118 or so, and that was from an Empowered Maximized Orb of Fire with Metamagic School Focus (Conjuration), so it took four feats to put it together as an 8th level spell. A Maximized Disintegrate with Metamagic School Focus (Transmutation) down to an 8th level spell would do 180 damage, taking three feats, an eighth level spell slot, and requiring a Fort save that if made drops the damage down to 30. There are no Fort saves against someone hitting you.
Southernskies 05-06-07, 06:29 AM	There are no Fort saves against someone hitting you. With that sort of damage, failing the DC15 Fort save against massive damage is really insulting the monster you just hit. :D
Sieylianna 05-06-07, 12:23 PM	The most damage I've ever seen from a single-target spell was 118 or so, and that was from an Empowered Maximized Orb of Fire with Metamagic School Focus (Conjuration), so it took four feats to put it together as an 8th level spell. My retired PC doubled this with a critical hit from a sudden empowered polar ray versus a creature that was vulnerable to cold. I've also seen critical hits with disintegrate do in excess of 150 points of damage on a failed save. Ed
magebeast 05-06-07, 12:43 PM	My retired PC doubled this with a critical hit from a sudden empowered polar ray versus a creature that was vulnerable to cold. I've also seen critical hits with disintegrate do in excess of 150 points of damage on a failed save. Ed Well, certainly weaponlike spells are going to do a pretty good amount of damage on a crit. But that spirited charge shock trooper power attacking barbarian is also going to do some pretty ridiculous damage on a crit. Upwards of 300 damage if the normal hit is doing 150-200.
Japangirl 05-06-07, 01:23 PM	My retired PC doubled this with a critical hit from a sudden empowered polar ray versus a creature that was vulnerable to cold. I've also seen critical hits with disintegrate do in excess of 150 points of damage on a failed save. Ed Well, I didn't take vulnerabilities into account, because things are also sometimes immune/resistant to a lot of energy types. Crits are always special, whether spells or weapons. I am not arguing that either fighters or casters are more powerful than the other; I am saying that fighters are not hated and that the feat Mageslayer is too powerful to be allowed into the campaign, and attempting to debunk Flan's arguments about the 'overpoweredness' of casters in general by comparing approximately average damage totals. Crits are always spike damage, so I don't consider them terribly valid for the purpose I was trying to use the comparison for. Grats on the crit though :). Those are always fun.
copper_wyrmling 05-06-07, 02:01 PM	Grats on the crit though :). Those are always fun. Yeah *sigh*. The biggest single-hit damage I have ever seen came from a fatespinner who managed to crit on his once / day, fully spun-up, Sudden Maximized Disintegrate while under the effects of Harmonic Chorus. The damage was well over 300... total overkill, my bad guy had about 70 HP at that point, but it was still hilarious to watch. (The enemy caster had been pounding the party with horrible spells, and they'd been almost helpless to do anything to him thanks to his prebuffs: they FINALLY got to attack him in about round 4 and... yeah. Natural 20 on a truestriked Sudden Maximized Disintegrate... and then he made me reroll my first save.)
Dr.Cornelius 05-07-07, 04:10 AM	... as soon as you can afford the severely underpriced +concentration items.I believe Skill boost items are NONC and therefore access will vary widely between regions. Don't assume that since some AR access is common as dirt in your region that players in other regions will ever see access.
Dr.Cornelius 05-07-07, 04:18 AM	And of course readied action... oh he's swinging... 5 foot step out of range so he can't hit me at all and loses his action and cast spell back at him.Have not seen this tactic before - can you walk a newbie through this sequence of actions? What's to keep the fighter from taking one more step and swinging away?
Dr.Cornelius 05-07-07, 05:44 AM	In the discussion of casters vs non-casters it is strange that no one has brought up the fact that craft feats allow casters to accumulate a substantial wealth advantage relative to non-crafters. I think this is one of the biggest issues in relative power differences. Crafting works well in home games where the XP cost is likely to cause the crafter to lag a level behind for some period of time. On the other hand, crafting XP and TU loss in a living campaign are not that significant for most players. Consider the following points: Why is the discount for crafting set at 50%? Why not a 25% or 75% discount? Since nearly every optimized caster build takes at least one craft feat, the empirical evidence seems to point to the crafting discount being set a bit too high. Metamagic Rods further upset the balance. Spellcasters tend to be feat starved, and crafting costs a feat but allows a caster to turn XP and TUs into magic items (wealth). So fighter types have lots of feats but not as much magical gear, while casters have fewer feats to play with but more magic items. Now a Metamagic Rod is an item that turns wealth into a feat. See where I am going... Why shouldn't non-casters have a feat that allows them to turn XP and TU into wealth? I can imagine a feat something like this: Personal Services (Feat) You offer your services to a powerful person on a contract basis. In exchange for your time are awarded with gold proportional to your level. Due to not being in a challenging environment, your class levels atrophy over time (XP loss). Note that this is effectively an adventure that generates a fixed amount of gold and no (or negative) XP. Now someone proposing this kind of adventure would be laughed out of D&D, but somehow crafting persists. Bottom Line: does crafting really add any value to the overall campaign?
Iswald 05-07-07, 09:03 AM	I believe Skill boost items are NONC and therefore access will vary widely between regions. Don't assume that since some AR access is common as dirt in your region that players in other regions will ever see access. There is no NONC, only limited. Tunics of steady spellcasting seem fairly common, at least two of my spellcasters have them. One also has access to a +10 concentration face slot item that he will probably craft.
Iswald 05-07-07, 09:07 AM	Have not seen this tactic before - can you walk a newbie through this sequence of actions? What's to keep the fighter from taking one more step and swinging away? The fighter probably can move another 5' but, then they can no longer make a full attack. The spellcaster readies an action to 5' step if attacked and then cast a spell. As soon as the fighter starts to attack, the readied action goes off, interrupting the fighter's action. After the spellcaster's readied action is completed, the fighter continues his turn. The fighter's standard action was used but, they may be able to 5' step or take a move action.
Eric Anondson 05-07-07, 11:21 AM	There is no NONC, only limited.:uh-huh:
magebeast 05-07-07, 01:04 PM	The fighter probably can move another 5' but, then they can no longer make a full attack. The spellcaster readies an action to 5' step if attacked and then cast a spell. As soon as the fighter starts to attack, the readied action goes off, interrupting the fighter's action. After the spellcaster's readied action is completed, the fighter continues his turn. The fighter's standard action was used but, they may be able to 5' step or take a move action. You can't do that. You can only ready a standard action. Delaying causes you to enter the initiative after a person.
Mattastrophic 05-07-07, 01:08 PM	Bottom Line: does crafting really add any value to the overall campaign? Not this AGAIN... If you don't like it, play a Crafter. All the way up to 15th. THEN come back and tell me crafting's unbalanced. -Matt
Dr.Cornelius 05-07-07, 01:37 PM	There is no NONC, only limited.Recommend you read LGCS 597 carefully. The terminology has changed to "Open" and "Closed". Things that require AR access are now "Non-Open, Non-Closed" or NONC. Tunics of steady spellcasting seem fairly common, at least two of my spellcasters have them. One also has access to a +10 concentration face slot item that he will probably craft.Was the access in Core or Regional/Metaregional mods? Note that Regional/MR access is well known to vary widely.
Dr.Cornelius 05-07-07, 01:48 PM	...All the way up to 15th. THEN come back... So anyone who hasn't been in LG for years and played a character all the way up cannot possibly hold a valid opinion? I see the "play to 15th" comment on this forum from time to time and it gets old. Seems like a crutch for those without a strong counterpoint.
Mattastrophic 05-07-07, 08:49 PM	Seems like a crutch for those without a strong counterpoint. There's already a thread, that's why I say "Not again." (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=832330) My favorite quote from it: Usually the only person that complains when someone else in the party is powerful is the one that wants to hog all the glory and always be the hero.
Japangirl 05-07-07, 10:46 PM	Can't we just leave it at crafting is powerful, not broken, possibly unfair, and then stop talking about it over and over and over and over . . .
chesspiece 05-08-07, 12:47 PM	The fighter probably can move another 5' but, then they can no longer make a full attack. The spellcaster readies an action to 5' step if attacked and then cast a spell. As soon as the fighter starts to attack, the readied action goes off, interrupting the fighter's action. After the spellcaster's readied action is completed, the fighter continues his turn. The fighter's standard action was used but, they may be able to 5' step or take a move action. You can't do that. You can only ready a standard action. Delaying causes you to enter the initiative after a person. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialInitiativeActions.htm#ready You can only ready one action (standard, move or free). You can move on your turn and then ready something other than a 5’ step (spellcasting). Or you can remain stationary on your turn and ready a 5’ step with spellcasting. You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don’t otherwise move any distance during the round. So the concept is: - BBEG Arcanist starts his turn outside range vs the fighter - Arcanist does a Ready action (5' back and defensively cast Spell o' Doom) if an enemy starts to take a melee attack at him - Fighter does a move+attack or a charge to lay the hurt on the Arcanist. The attack action is interrupted by the Ready (as mentioned above) - Arcanist is now 5' out of Fighter's reach - Fighter gets hit by Spell o' Doom and luckily survives - Fighter finishes his interrupted attack action but Arcanist is out of reach; No valid target = miss - Fighter has spent his Move (movement) and Standard (failed attack) actions; he can't continue moving this round since it was broken up with the attack - Fighter's turn ends; Arcanist has the next Init - If we're talking about a BDF (emphasis on D), this can work again and again Of course, this plan fails if we have: - spiked chain (or longaxe or reach+unarmed or large grappler) Fighter that moves up adjacent & attacks - archers / spellcasters / tanglefoot bags - PCs that ignore BBEG for a round so they can mop up the hench-monsters - terrain / vision effects that prevent 5' steps - round 2+ where they corner / flank / use Reach on the Arcanist - DMs like me that won't allow you to ready a 5' to get out of reach of an incoming melee attack (IMO this is not well modelled by the rules); you could 5' step before the attack goes off (permitting the Fighter to continue moving, then attack); YMMV
bitznarf 05-08-07, 12:56 PM	- DMs like me that won't allow you to ready a 5' to get out of reach of an incoming melee attack (IMO this is not well modelled by the rules); you could 5' step before the attack goes off (permitting the Fighter to continue moving, then attack); YMMV :cheer: A DM who doesn't let a ready to 5' away from a lance charge completely avoid the attack, thats what your Dex bonus is for.