MMV: Not sure I like this...

[Felix]

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.

What do you mean, "melee reach is really strong"? Melee reach is close combat. The melee guys have to close the distance to have a shot at using the feat; and melee reach for a vast, vast amount of enemies is going to be 5'.

That, and when I play an arcanist, the first thing I do is put myself beyond the possibility of being meleed. Walls, Illusions, Levitate... it's not too difficult a prospect.

 

[Felon]

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

[snip the awful analogies]

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

And who's the arbiter of verisimilitude? Because Mage Slayer makes sense to me. No issues with collapsing disbelief whatsoever.

What "makes sense" about casting provoking an AoO in the first place, and what "makes sense" about using Concentration to do it defensively? Whatever that little magic-theory crib sheet is that allows for defensive casting, the Mage Slayer can short-circuit it. A spell cast in his threat zone requires genuine effort. As usual, rationalizations aren't hard to come by when dealing with something that's fundamentally nonsensical to begin with.

 

[Sejs]

Regarding Spellcasting Harrier, apparently it doesn't impose a penalty to concentration checks. Heh, had to look it up as I don't normally bother with epic material. It's SRD'd though, so here's the text:

SPELLCASTING HARRIER [EPIC]
Prerequisite: Combat Reflexes.

Benefit: Any spellcaster the character threatens in melee provokes an attack of opportunity if he or she tries to cast defensively. The character gets a +4 bonus on this attack roll.

So... yeah. File off the [Epic] tag.. because epic it ain't, remove the +4 attack bonus, slap on 2 ranks of Spellcraft as a pre-req and you're good to go.

That seems easy enough.

 

[the Lorax]

Really the problem is not just the absolute nature of the feat, the problem is that it creates an effect upon the caster.

It would be better to keep the feat more or less as is with the exception that the feat allows the possessor to do something, as opposed to forbiding the target from doing something. The feat should allow the possessor to make an AoO even if the adjacent caster is casting on the defensive, allowing the caster to gain the benefits of their skills (and potentially their feats) against other threats.

Spellcasting Harrier is not exciting, but it is an epic feat that has very easy pre-reqs.

 

[Corsair]

So... yeah. File off the [Epic] tag.. because epic it ain't, remove the +4 attack bonus, slap on 2 ranks of Spellcraft as a pre-req and you're good to go.

That seems easy enough.

Wait time out.


You want to make a feat... that allows you to take an attack of opportunity... on someone who is trying to cast defensively...

Now compare that to a feat that ALSO give you AoO, but at least gives the enemy spellcaster a warning first (in that he realizes he cannot cast defensively).


Which of those sounds more powerful? You just invented a feat MORE powerful than Mage Slayer.

 

[Corsair]

It would be better to keep the feat more or less as is with the exception that the feat allows the possessor to do something, as opposed to forbiding the target from doing something. The feat should allow the possessor to make an AoO even if the adjacent caster is casting on the defensive, allowing the caster to gain the benefits of their skills (and potentially their feats) against other threats.

So again: You want to make the feat make it so casting defensively does nothing. The fighter would get an AoO against someone who casts defensively.

That is explicitly MORE powerful than Mage Slayer.

 

[JRR_Talking]

How about Strength Bane

PreReq: 2 ranks in intimidate

Such is the aura of the owner of this feat that those around him feel 'wobbly and weak', they are thus unable to make power attacks against him.
Does that balance Mage-Slayer?

 

[Gez]

What "makes sense" about casting provoking an AoO in the first place

Anything that shifts your focus away from melee combat opens up the possibility of getting AoO, because it prevents you from efficiently watching your opponents and dodging their blows.

It makes sense, thus, that spellcasting -- which has always been described as needing serious mental effort in addition to the possible verbal, somatic, and material components -- provokes AoOs.

and what "makes sense" about using Concentration to do it defensively?

Spellcasting defensively means continuing to pay attention to what's happening around you at the same time as you're focused on channeling magical energies. So it makes sense that concentrating on the spell is going to be harder, requiring a skill check.

Whatever that little magic-theory crib sheet is that allows for defensive casting, the Mage Slayer can short-circuit it.

That's what is weird. It's like a feat that prevents people in your threatened area to, say, make a full attack. It's not a game option, it's a metagame option, because it's not changing what you can do but what the other people can do around you.

 

[Felon]

Regarding Spellcasting Harrier, apparently it doesn't impose a penalty to concentration checks. Heh, had to look it up as I don't normally bother with epic material. It's SRD'd though, so here's the text:

Oh, I was thinking of the 3.0 version. My bad.

 

[Felon]

How about Strength Bane

PreReq: 2 ranks in intimidate

Such is the aura of the owner of this feat that those around him feel 'wobbly and weak', they are thus unable to make power attacks against him.
Does that balance Mage-Slayer?

As this has nothing to do with Mage Slayer or defensive spellcasting, how could it possibly balance the former?

Btw, the Elusive Target tactical feat already cancels Power Attack damage bonuses (but not the penalties).