Mage Slayer and Pierce Magical [X]

[Scharlata]

Hello!

I was wondering, if someone with the Mage Slayer feat from the Complete Arcane and therefore by 4 reduced caster level has her caster level reduced AGAIN by any of the two feats: Pierce Magical Concealment and/or Pierce Magical Protection?

Both of the latter feats require the Mage Slayer feat as a prerequisite.

Is that:

a) a reduced caster level of 4 for any combination of the three feats,

or

b) a reduced caster level of 4 per feat (-4 for 1 for 1 feat, -8 for 2 feats, and -12 for all three feats)?

Kind regards and thanx in advance

 

[hong]

(b) would be the obvious answer, I thought.

Still dumb feats.

 

[Taren Seeker]

Well the only dumb part about them is the part about how "your disdain" is what allows you to dispel or ignore these protections. Bad flavor text, but some good ideas, especially the concealment one. Feats like this probably should get a new classification, or at least be Su. For ex: In the XPH feats that give Supernatural style abilities are classified as Psionic.

Regarding Pierce Magical Protections, I'm trying to figure out if you would dispel a Polymorph spell if it gave a target Natural Armor. I would have said no, but it states that it dispels spells and spell effects that increase AC.

Oh wait, there was a topic in this thread wasn't there...
yeah, b)

 

[Scharlata]

[...] Oh wait, there was a topic in this thread wasn't there...
yeah, b)

Thanx to both of you.

I still tend to favor the "a)" option, but you two may make that a "b)".

Kind regards

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'm with Hong in thinking that they are dumb feats. Mechanically stupid and oh - is that balanced by a loss of caster levels? Well that won't hinder the straight fighter or barbarian or monk or rogue will it? The only class that might want to kill mages that would be inconvenienced is the assassin.

Given the options I think it would have to be (b): -4 per feat. But for most people who might want to take them it is a non-issue anyway.

The idea of a natural feat that allows you to ignore magical protections is way screwy though. It is the kind of thing that you might expect to find on an artifact grade weapon but not something that any johnny-come-lately could do.

I'll chalk that up as another one of the "what on earth were they thinking" rules.

Cheers

 

[strongbow]

b) and I agree with Plane Sailing

 

[beaver1024]

They're not dumb feats. The designer's reasoning is that anything that nerfs arcane spellcasters is good. They should have gone further and made it so that all arcane spellcasters within 1000 feet of anyone with those feats drops dead instantly and all their items disintegrate.

 

[Scharlata]

They're not dumb feats. The designer's reasoning is that anything that nerfs arcane spellcasters is good. They should have gone further and made it so that all arcane spellcasters within 1000 feet of anyone with those feats drops dead instantly and all their items disintegrate.

Hi!



I support the faction that does not take the "them feats are dumb"-side, but your PoV is intriguing at best.

Kind regards

 

[Marshall]

I'm with Hong in thinking that they are dumb feats. Mechanically stupid and oh - is that balanced by a loss of caster levels? Well that won't hinder the straight fighter or barbarian or monk or rogue will it? The only class that might want to kill mages that would be inconvenienced is the assassin.

Given the options I think it would have to be (b): -4 per feat. But for most people who might want to take them it is a non-issue anyway.

Very dumb, and b.)

The idea of a natural feat that allows you to ignore magical protections is way screwy though. It is the kind of thing that you might expect to find on an artifact grade weapon but not something that any johnny-come-lately could do.

I dont have as much of a problem with 'bypassing' the magical protections, as long as they somehow do a better job of defining which protections you can bypass. I do have a problem with you auto-freaking-matically DISPELLING them....

I'll chalk that up as another one of the "what on earth were they thinking" rules.

Cheers

I chalk it up more to "They can think?!?"

 

[Saeviomagy]

It's interesting that
1) A non magical ability can ignore magic
2) A non magical ability can dispel magic
3) A caster, someone who is intricately knowledgable about just when to disrupt an incantation will suffer a penalty to his spellcasting ability if he decides to use this knowledge to interrupt someone's cast defensively check
4) If he applies his knowledge of illusions to avoid hitting the wrong mirror image, or hits a displaced image, he gets even WORSE at casting spells
5) If he applies his knowledge of magical protections to avoid those protections, he gets worse still.

In short, the feats are stupid. Mage slayer should be changed so that a caster provokes an attack of opportunity from you even when casting defensively (not from everyone). None of the feats should reduce caster level, and pierce magical protection should, at the very least, require a magic weapon be used before it is effective, should not automatically dispel, should dispel only those effects that give an enhancement bonus to armour, natural armour or shield bonus, and should probably suppress magical items that provide the same.

Oh, and magebane should have a divine counterpart.