Interrupting a spell impossible w/Core rules?

[Artoomis]

Here's a wrench for ya'. What if the wizard successfully casts defensively?

(Personally, I wouldn't allow the feat to be used in that situation.)

Doesn't matter - that avoids an AoO, but not readied action. Reactive Counterspell would still work, and so would Reactive Attack.

Readied Actions are how fighters interrupt spells (AoO's are easy for the spell catser to avoid). This feat lets you get that effect without readying an action, just as Reactive Counterspell does.

edit: Damn... this should have been in House Rules. Whoops.

 

[kreynolds]

Doesn't matter - that avoids an AoO, but not readied action. Reactive Counterspell would still work, and so would Reactive Attack.

Exactly, which is my very problem with this feat. It is supposed to be hard for a fighter to interrupt a spellcaster. IMO, fighters have no business having a feat like this. They already have enough benefits going for them. Who cares if the wizard gets off a fireball? The fighter has like 200 or more hit points. Who cares if the wizard gets off a disintegrate spell. The fighter has an ungodly Fort save bonus.

I'd wait for the ELH. Trust me.

 

[mikebr99]

I'd wait for the ELH. Trust me.

hey k...

So fighters are going to have to wait till 20th+ level to disrupt spellcasters??

(Not that I have a problem with the existing rules on this issue anyway... and I like Artoomis' feat also... after some more discussions - on the house rules board)

 

[Artoomis]

Exactly, which is my very problem with this feat. It is supposed to be hard for a fighter to interrupt a spellcaster. IMO, fighters have no business having a feat like this. They already have enough benefits going for them. Who cares if the wizard gets off a fireball? The fighter has like 200 or more hit points. Who cares if the wizard gets off a disintegrate spell. The fighter has an ungodly Fort save bonus.

I'd wait for the ELH. Trust me.

The ELH will be cool, no doubt.

But I fail to see how this is any different from Reactive Counterspell. The effect of both is to provide an action that is just as if you had readied an action.

Perhaps Reactive Counterspell is too powerful?

 

[mikebr99]

Perhaps Reactive Counterspell is too powerful?

I don't think R. counterspell is too powerful... based on the fact that spellcasters get less feats then fighters.

Your new feat is more powerful, based on the fact that fighters have feat slots to spare.

 

[Artoomis]

I don't think R. counterspell is too powerful... based on the fact that spellcasters get less feats then fighters.

Your new feat is more powerful, based on the fact that fighters have feat slots to spare.

Don't make it a "Fighter" feat.

Others besides fighters can take it.

Fighter's power is in their feats. That's just the way it is. I have no problem with that, and would never say a feat is too powerful because a fighter can take it.

However, there are a lot of S&F feats I would NOT have made fighter feats for teh saem reason you express concern here - fighter live by their feats, and not giving them EVERY fighting-related feat as a bonus feat forces them to make more hard choices. As it is, the restriction of fighter feats is not much of a restriction at all if you include S&F and other expansion books.

 

[kreynolds]

Don't make it a "Fighter" feat.

Others besides fighters can take it.

That is not a solution to the problem. When you have a powerful feat, saying that anyone can take it does not balance it out 100% of the time, and it certainly won't with this one.

Fighter's power is in their feats. That's just the way it is.

That's right. And one of the spellcaster's great strengths is that it's a real pain in the arse to disrupt his spellcasting at high level. Your feat completely destroys that.

Also, your question as to whether or not Reactive Counterspell is too powerful has no bearing on this discussion. Reactive Counterspell is only effective against other spellcasters. Yes, your feat is also only effective against other spellcasters, but I've already expressed my concern regarding it.

 

[kreynolds]

hey k...

So fighters are going to have to wait till 20th+ level to disrupt spellcasters??

Without running around on a chessboard and planning 5 moves ahead? Yes. But it's supposed to be that way. Spells are the only thing that balance out a spellcaster to a deadly fighter. Also, the difficulty involved in disrupting a spellcaster's casting is what balances them out and makes a spellcaster just as deadly as a fighter. Removing that difficulty from the equation weakens them far too much, especially since there isn't a feat that a spellcaster can take to counteract this new one. This feat just makes it easy to disrupt a spell, and it's not supposed to be easy by a long shot.

EDIT: Also, this feat, if allowed in a game that eventually reaches epic level, would completely imbalance non-spellcasters against spellcasters, especially fighters. There are already feats in there that make interupting spellcasting more likely, as well as feats that make interuption of spellcasting less likely.

EDIT: grammatical errors. doh!

 

[mikebr99]

Without running around on a chessboard and planning 5 moves ahead? Yes. But it's supposed to be that way. Spells are the only thing that balance out a spellcaster to a deadly fighter. Also, the difficulty involved in disrupting a spellcaster's casting is what balances them out and makes a spellcaster just as deadly as a fighter. Removing that difficulty from the equation weakens them far too much, especially since there isn't a feat that a spellcaster can take to counteract this new one. This feat just makes it easy to disrupt a spell, and it's not supposed to be easy by a long shot.

EDIT: Also, this feat, if allowed in a game that eventually reaches epic level, would completely imbalance non-spellcasters against spellcasters, especially fighters. There are already feats in there that make interupting spellcasting more likely, as well as feats that prevent interuption of spellcasting less likely.

Oh... I agree...

The enemy spellcasters that a well organized party faces either die after 2 or 3 spells or have to teleport away very quickly under the rules as they exist now... making things easier on mage-killers will only reduce their life-expectancy even further.

 

[scadgrad]

Does anyone play Mages or Sorcerers?

Well here's one DM w/ 24 years of experience that thinks this is just bunk. Your DM is just being obstinate.

Assuming a 1st level Fighter w/ Chain Shirt & Long Sword starts combat beside the unlucky 1st level Wizard. The Fighter wins initiative & most likely slays the Wizard outright (probably hitting on a '7' or so) before the 1st Level Wiz even gets a chance.

Assuming the 1st level Wiz wins initiative he could move off 30' or so and cast Sleep & totally neutralizes the Fighter.

So, it really depends on who wins intitiative (thus making Improved Initiative almost a requirement...or so it seems in my games) & thus balances the two classes.

It's really that simple.

This notion of I'm standing 5' away from you in Tank Armor with a Long Sword so you can't cast any spells at me is just ludicrous. Why should you be all but immune to spellcasting just because you're standing beside the guy & have a melee weapon?

Your DM seems to think that the mere fact that some brute waving a sword in front of you should be able to prevent you from doing anything other than dying. His notion of 'disrupting a spell' is locked in 1E & 2E logic. 3E does not work that way & his house rule seems to seriously cripple the effectivness of spellcasting. Why he fails to see the tradeoff for wearing Med to Hvy armor rather than Light armor (in terms of Readied Actions) totally escapes me .

Surely no one in your group is masochistic enough to actually play a Wizard or Sorcerer are they? I'd wager your chances of making it past 1st or 2nd level are pretty damn slim. But if he wants his world to be similar to 'Conan World' or whatever, I guess it makes perfect sense. Still that's a campaign rule & not an adjustment to some perceived flaw in the Core Rules.

To each his own I guess...