MMV: Not sure I like this...

[Gez]

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

I'm not familiar with that feat, but as you describe it, it doesn't prevent someone in your threatened area to perform a power attack -- it just lets you resist part of the effect. Someone power attacking your buddy could still do it.

Mage Slayer, on the other hand, prevents an opponent from doing something. It doesn't affect you. Which means it forces the foe to take an AoO from you but also from all your nearby buddies.

 

[Cheiromancer]

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.

It's not quite symmetrical with Mage Slayer. How about if the victim's taking a full attack action were to draw an attack of opportunity?

 

[Felix]

Would someone with the book post the text of the feat?

 

[the Lorax]

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.

No, not all all. I do not advocate a suprise nature to the feat, the caster would still be aware that casting defensively would not function against the possessor of the feat, just that other people/monsters/whatever who also threaten the caster would not get any direct benefit.

 

[3catcircus]

I just don't see the problem.

All this feat does is return the game to its pre-3.x roots, when spellcasters could potentially be disrupted while casting *much* more often than in 3.x, with its Casting Defensively and Concentration checks.

What this feat does is tie up a fighter-type to stay and defend the spellcaster. Thats it.

 

[Malk]

Seems to me low level wizards can most often take a five foot step and cast sleep, while high level ones just cast that quickened dimension door. Not a big deal, ive seen a few pc's take it, and it never amounted to anything.

Flavor wise, the Mage Slayer is obviously trained well enough, that when a wizard attempts the defensive casting he would be able to strike out with deadly force...the wizard (knowing this) decides not to.

That is just one interpretation out of many possible. I can kinda see where this would be annoying to a pc spellcaster because it removes the choices that the human player can make, but there is no problem with npc casters that I can see.

 

[Sejs]

No, not all all. I do not advocate a suprise nature to the feat, the caster would still be aware that casting defensively would not function against the possessor of the feat, just that other people/monsters/whatever who also threaten the caster would not get any direct benefit.

Right. Exactly. Lorax nailed it, Corsair.

The whole idea is that the possessor of the feat still gets their AoO, whether or not you cast defensively.

As it stands now with Mage Slayer, the caster's action is impossible. Not "you can do it, but I'm hip to your tricks", but rather "you just cannot do it within my range".

That (Mage Slayer) version benefits people who arn't the possessor of the feat, which is part of the problem.

I'm a wizard, and I'm threatened by 3 guys, one in front, one left, one right. One of them has Mage Slayer. Doesn't matter which. Because I can't cast defensively at all, that means all 3 of those guys gets an AoO on me unless I move.

If instead, with the Spellcasting Harrier tweak, the situation would be that I can still cast defensively as normal - the one guy that has the feat would be able to pop off an AoO as if I hadn't cast defensively at all, but the other two featless guys would denied their AoOs as they should be.