MMV: Not sure I like this...

[delericho]

I was scanning through my copy of MMV today, I noticed the Mage Slayer feat on p.85. This feat basically prevents casters in the threatened area from casting defensively (amongst other things).

I must say, I'm not keen on this idea. This means that my 20th level Wizard with maxed Concentration ranks, Skill Focus (Concentration) and a high Con bonus is completely unable to cast defensively due to the effects of a feat that any 3rd level Fighter could possess. (And note that the feat negates the ability to cast defensively, rather than giving the possessor the ability to make an AoO. Thus, if two characters threaten the caster then the caster will suffer an AoO from both.) Personally, I would much rather the feat either give the possessor an AoO in these circumstances or, better, apply a penalty to the caster's Concentration check.

Am I alone in holding this view?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Nope; I haven't like the Mage Slayer feat since it first appeared (some years back, I think).

IIRC, it first appeared in the same supplement that included the Magebane weapon property, which is also bad stuff.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I was scanning through my copy of MMV today, I noticed the Mage Slayer feat on p.85. This feat basically prevents casters in the threatened area from casting defensively (amongst other things).

I must say, I'm not keen on this idea. This means that my 20th level Wizard with maxed Concentration ranks, Skill Focus (Concentration) and a high Con bonus is completely unable to cast defensively due to the effects of a feat that any 3rd level Fighter could possess. (And note that the feat negates the ability to cast defensively, rather than giving the possessor the ability to make an AoO. Thus, if two characters threaten the caster then the caster will suffer an AoO from both.) Personally, I would much rather the feat either give the possessor an AoO in these circumstances or, better, apply a penalty to the caster's Concentration check.

Am I alone in holding this view?

This is true. Though do note that if the Mage Slayer does not wield a reach weapon, the correct response on the caster's part when flanked by a Mage Slayer and a non-Mage Slayer is to move 5 feet diagonally to be beside the non-Mage Slayer and then cast defensively. When flanked by two Mage Slayers, or when the Mage Slayer has reach, you're in trouble!

 

[dagger]

I was scanning through my copy of MMV today, I noticed the Mage Slayer feat on p.85. This feat basically prevents casters in the threatened area from casting defensively (amongst other things).

I must say, I'm not keen on this idea. This means that my 20th level Wizard with maxed Concentration ranks, Skill Focus (Concentration) and a high Con bonus is completely unable to cast defensively due to the effects of a feat that any 3rd level Fighter could possess. (And note that the feat negates the ability to cast defensively, rather than giving the possessor the ability to make an AoO. Thus, if two characters threaten the caster then the caster will suffer an AoO from both.) Personally, I would much rather the feat either give the possessor an AoO in these circumstances or, better, apply a penalty to the caster's Concentration check.

Am I alone in holding this view?

This didn't bother you when the feat came out in Complete Arcane (page 81)?

I think it would actually take a 4th level fighter thanks to Spellcraft 2.

Personally I don't think its that big of a deal, having seen it in play for awhile. You usually don't see two of these in action at the same time, and normally it can be defeated with a 5' step.

If you are a 20th level wizard and this is troubling you, you have bigger problems.

 

[Brazeku]

I don't know, tactically it seems okay, outside of rendering offensive touch spells even weaker than they already are. Even then, this is more an individual, defensive feat as opposed to an offensive threat to casters.

 

[Kunimatyu]

Oh noes, a feat that allows fighters to achieve some parity versus spellcasters!

More seriously, if you've got max ranks in Concentration, spiked chains don't deal enough damage for you to consistently fail your Concentration check. If even that's not enough, try some swift or quickened spells.

 

[Felon]

This didn't bother you when the feat came out in Complete Arcane (page 81)?

Or the time before that in the Miniatures Handbook (p 27)? Heck, its timing of publication makes it one of the earliest 3.5e feats.

Personally? I find this feat less bothersome than the way that casting defensively is so easily taken for granted in the first place. Discouraging casting in melee was one of the two main motivations behind attacks of opportunity in the first place (the other would be players do end runs around the mage's bodyguards), all the way back in 2e. Yet it's a non-consideration for most mages due to how the rules have evolved. Even blowing the Concentration roll just means losing the spell, not suffering the AoO.

 

[frankthedm]

This didn't bother you when the feat came out in Complete Arcane (page 81)?

Well it seems many Player-type folks stop liking some splat feats once the monsters get a hold of them. Many giants would be well served by the Combat Brute feat that allows cleaving after a Sunder and a few other usefull tricks. Brutal throw and power throw make the big dumn lugs a real threat at range.

Dragons gain lots of milage from Practiced Spellcaster and Arcane stike feats. {I know Dragotha had arcane strike]

Bottom line, some of the new feats are really bad once the monsters get a hold of them. Player types will tout the feats as giving some characters a needed boost, but then turn around and complain when their characters are laid low thanks to the same feats.

 

[DragonLancer]

I'm glad that there is such a feat. Its about time that the powerful mage was brought down to the level of everyone else once in a while. If every NPC had that feat then yeah, I would agree that there was an issue with that DM's game, but having access to that feat is not a problem to me.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

Mechanically, I'm not sure it's really that big a deal- as others have suggested, it's not like it's likely to come up that often.

Esthetically, I dislike the feat on the principle that it operates on the concept of constant one-upmanship. Close-Quarters Fighting (from CW) is another example of this. One person has a feat or ability that allows them to make an exception to the rules, another person picks up a feat that trumps that, and then its escalation ad nauseum.