Difference between revisions of "Talk:Spellcutting Strike (3.5e Feat)"
From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Tarkisflux (talk | contribs) (→Prereqs) |
Tarkisflux (talk | contribs) (→Prereqs: moar words) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
:Well, the effects you're dealing with can screw you over at any level, so I'm not seeing the real temptation in making an arbitrary BAB cap at all. As mentioned on the IRC, the BAB cap is a way to prevent full casters from getting access to it as easily, but Spell Parry requires an attack roll against an AC that can be missed even by someone with full BAB, and Spellcutting Strike is a standard action which can reasonably be replicated by preparing ''(greater) dispel magic'' and/or ''disintegrate'', so it's not likely to be particularly enticing to casters in the first place. --[[User:Foxwarrior|Foxwarrior]] 08:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC) | :Well, the effects you're dealing with can screw you over at any level, so I'm not seeing the real temptation in making an arbitrary BAB cap at all. As mentioned on the IRC, the BAB cap is a way to prevent full casters from getting access to it as easily, but Spell Parry requires an attack roll against an AC that can be missed even by someone with full BAB, and Spellcutting Strike is a standard action which can reasonably be replicated by preparing ''(greater) dispel magic'' and/or ''disintegrate'', so it's not likely to be particularly enticing to casters in the first place. --[[User:Foxwarrior|Foxwarrior]] 08:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::If you're worried about the "no, you" aspect of it, tweak the effect down a bit. Instead of ending the effect entirely, set it up so that it just dispels the effect in one space. So you can carve tunnels through a wall of wind/ice/force and clean spaces in a grease patch, but you're just making a path through it and not a ending the entire effect. Maybe drop it to an attack action to make up for the reduced effect. | ||
| − | :: | + | ::As for prereqs, I have my own concerns about Witch Slayer (getting there), but I wouldn't think a BAB of +5 or +6 prereq out of line here. That gives the full casters a couple of levels to do control stuff before they need to do different control stuff to deal with this counter. As Fox points out though, you could probably even get away with no bab cap at all if you wanted. - [[User:Tarkisflux|Tarkisflux]] <sup>[[User talk:Tarkisflux|Talk]]</sup> 21:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:20, 11 December 2011
Rating
|
Tarkisflux is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4. |
|---|---|
| I like the concept, but the prereqs don't quite work for me. It's keyed off of Mage Slayer, another feat that I sort of like the effect of but not the prereqs. You have to take things you are unlikely to care about the qualify for it, suck at and SLAs you might get in the future, and even then you're just forcing a caster to shift around the field a bit if you get into range. The BAB +12 requirement is weird as well, since the sorts of battlefield control spells this could counter have been online for many levels already. This could be an effective counter to grease or early wall spells, but it's not because you can't take it. So while I want to like it, it's a mixed bag and doesn't get a full thumbs up. |
Prereqs
Sorry, didn't see your PM online before you logged off. That said, I'm open to changing the prereqs if you think they should be lower. Note that Mage Slayer IMO should be replaced with something a little stronger, something like this for example. But yeah, I'm fine changing it if it seems high. It just felt right at the time, since being able to go, "No you" to a mage's limited resources with a similar action seems really powerful. But if you think lowering the reqs would be a good idea I'd be fine with that. Something like 6 BAB? And should these two feats also have the same prereqs lowered? Or maybe to +9 and +12 BAB respectively so there's not only some progression, but also because they're arguably stronger? --Ghostwheel 07:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the effects you're dealing with can screw you over at any level, so I'm not seeing the real temptation in making an arbitrary BAB cap at all. As mentioned on the IRC, the BAB cap is a way to prevent full casters from getting access to it as easily, but Spell Parry requires an attack roll against an AC that can be missed even by someone with full BAB, and Spellcutting Strike is a standard action which can reasonably be replicated by preparing (greater) dispel magic and/or disintegrate, so it's not likely to be particularly enticing to casters in the first place. --Foxwarrior 08:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- If you're worried about the "no, you" aspect of it, tweak the effect down a bit. Instead of ending the effect entirely, set it up so that it just dispels the effect in one space. So you can carve tunnels through a wall of wind/ice/force and clean spaces in a grease patch, but you're just making a path through it and not a ending the entire effect. Maybe drop it to an attack action to make up for the reduced effect.
- As for prereqs, I have my own concerns about Witch Slayer (getting there), but I wouldn't think a BAB of +5 or +6 prereq out of line here. That gives the full casters a couple of levels to do control stuff before they need to do different control stuff to deal with this counter. As Fox points out though, you could probably even get away with no bab cap at all if you wanted. - Tarkisflux Talk 21:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
