MMV: Not sure I like this...

[Felon]

I loathe the absolute nature of the feat. It runs totally counter to the "you can try anything" nature that 3.x was supposed to possess. Plus, it's just plain annoying.

It would be much better to have it be a modifier to the threatened caster's Concentration check. Either something like a flat +10 DC or change the DC to (15 + 1/2 aggressor's level + spell level) or change the DC to (10 + aggressor's highest attack bonus + spell level). I'm not sure those are the best numbers, but those are the sort of concepts I'd rather see.

Well, this brings us back to Spellcasting Harrier, which adds half your level to the Concentration check (IIRC).

 

[the Jester]

Well, this brings us back to Spellcasting Harrier, which adds half your level to the Concentration check (IIRC).

..which is an epic feat.

Now, is a non-epic, "Lesser Spellcasting Harrier" feat viable? Yes- but it has to be LESS THAN the epic version.

 

[Glyfair]

..which is an epic feat.

Now, is a non-epic, "Lesser Spellcasting Harrier" feat viable? Yes- but it has to be LESS THAN the epic version.

Even if the Epic variant is horrible? I can't conceive of taking it as an epic level character. I'm not wasting a feat on something that is very limited and probably will have no significant effect on the game . How likely is it that the penalty will stop casters that you are worried about from casting defensively?

I'm not saying "Mage Slayer" is ideal. However, I want an option that is reasonable for a "Mage Slayer" PC to use a feat for it.

 

[Counterspin]

I agree with Glyfair. Who cares about whether something is better or worse than an epic feat? Balance is a relationship between party members. Some feat printed in an older book which none of them has access to is the height of irrelevance.

When DMing, I control character creation options for balance, rather than uniformity or anything else. Thus, sure play a mage slayer.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

Primarily because monsters are balanced without them. If you go and take out all the crappy feat choices (toughness, alertness, etc) and replace them with more optimal choices, you are very much changing the effective CR of the critter.

Stuff like Praticed Spellcaster is there a patch for crappy combos to be brought up to par.

 

[Mercule]

Well, this brings us back to Spellcasting Harrier, which adds half your level to the Concentration check (IIRC).

Ah. So, the correct answer is:

Mage Slayer sucks. Make Spellcasting Harrier a non-epic feat with the prereqs of Mage Slayer.

Problem solved.

 

[Felix]

Ah. So, the correct answer is:

Mage Slayer sucks. Make Spellcasting Harrier a non-epic feat with the prereqs of Mage Slayer.

Problem solved.

If you must: reverse them. Make Mage Slayer the Epic feat with the prereq of Spellcasting Harrier, which becomes non-Epic.

But how is Mage Slayer such a broken feat when a 5' step defeats it in most circumstances?

 

[Gez]

It's broken because it doesn't make sense.


Look, I could make a Rogue Slayer feat that prevents sneak attacking people within five feet of the character. Would it make sense? Yeah, it would make the character well-protected against sneak attacks (except ranged or reached ones, I guess), but more importantly, it would prevent a rogue from sneak attacking someone else if the rogue is within the Sneak Attack Denial Force Field of Doom. Just. WHY?

Or what about a feat that makes it so that all your attacks against enemies wearing a purple hat are automatically criticals. It would be quite a weak feat (at least, as long as you only allow it on hats that are naturally purple, to prevent the easy combo with prestidigitation's color change effect), but it would be incredibly stupid.

Balance is not the only consideration about feats. Verisimilitude, or suspension of disbelief, is quite important too.

 

[IanB]

If you must: reverse them. Make Mage Slayer the Epic feat with the prereq of Spellcasting Harrier, which becomes non-Epic.

But how is Mage Slayer such a broken feat when a 5' step defeats it in most circumstances?

My problem with it is the interaction with melee reach. Melee reach is already really strong; this feat acts as an (unacceptable imo) force multiplier on melee reach in any fight that involves enemy spellcasters.

 

[Felix]

Look, I could make a Rogue Slayer feat that prevents sneak attacking people within five feet of the character. Would it make sense? Yeah, it would make the character well-protected against sneak attacks (except ranged or reached ones, I guess), but more importantly, it would prevent a rogue from sneak attacking someone else if the rogue is within the Sneak Attack Denial Force Field of Doom. Just. WHY?

It takes concentration to cast a spell, thus the skill. The Mage Slayer is adept at preventing casters from being able to concentrate, regardless of who the target of the spell is.

IDHMBWM, so could you post the part of the feat that links your Sneak Attack denying feat to Mage Slayer?

Or what about a feat that makes it so that all your attacks against enemies wearing a purple hat are automatically criticals. It would be quite a weak feat (at least, as long as you only allow it on hats that are naturally purple, to prevent the easy combo with prestidigitation's color change effect), but it would be incredibly stupid.

Balance is not the only consideration about feats. Verisimilitude, or suspension of disbelief, is quite important too.

I agree: Purple Hat Harrier is indeed stupid. I don't see how studying to understand spellcasting (Spellcraft ranks requirement) to be able to learn how to deny the sort of actions that a caster must take to cast defensively is at all the same. It's not a matter of what they're wearing, but what they're doing while the Mage Slayer is close enough to affect them.