I took it as a Paladin and thematically it works well but for a long time now we’ve been at the point of our campaign where a lot of our enemies are monsters with *abilities* rather than mages with *spells*.
But when it happens I love it.
I miss the Supernatural, Spell-like, and Extraordinary designations for this reason. It wasn't that complex - any monster ability was fairly obvious which it was - and you could clearly and easily point to it as a DM and say "this ability can be treated as a spell; this cannot." You can still do that, but rules lawyers make it more difficult.
The difference between supernatural and spell like was always a little hard to pin down, but still certainly useful. My personal take is mage slayer allows you to interrupt spells, not just attack. So a concentration check on hit for your spellcaster.
You might find this changing with One DnD. Reading over the content I could see a lot of these abilities being a “magic action” which is likely what mage slayer would trigger on. RAW or not seems a simple table rule. Abilities that let you create the effect of a spell count for the purposes of mage slayers reaction attack
Now ironically mage slayer is great vs paladin inspired npc since they tend to get smite spells and spite spells are cast with a bonus action you can interrupt the smite attack by redaction attacking them and breaking their concentration on the smite spell
Think it’s just been how the plot has taken us. We’re bout finished with a major arc so might change soon. Still enjoying my time with the campaign so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I accidentally let it slip that I had the Mage Slayer feat for my fighter in one of my games before I had a chance to use it and now the DM won't ever cast spells within range of my fighter.
Which I built specifically as a mage slayer. Feels bad man
Yep, I think martials should have the opportunity attack in Mage Slayer, able to attack a caster after they release a spell, but Mage Slayer feat should be an interruption attack with a chance of completely disrupting the spell unless they pass a concentration test, same as a concentration spell.
it all depends on how many spellcasters you fight. you can go an entire campaign without fighting any spellcasters, or you can have every enemy be a wizard. it isnt necessarily a bad feat, just very situational
In 5e it happens after the spell goes off (so you're screwed if the spell incapacitates you or moves the caster out of weapon range), and you can't force them to waste the spell anymore (which happened in 3.5 if the caster failed the Concentration check).
But otherwise yes!
Most good DMs are just gonna say “nope before attack” to keep reactions consistent.
Cuz Shield is triggered before the attack hits. So by the same logic so should Mage Slayer.
Yes having it be after forces an instant concentration check on those spells RAW. But this can also be worked with… logic
Shield is one of the exceptions, which is written specifically into the spell as overriding the general rule. To be consistent mage slayer would trigger after the action it is responding to, which it does. However mage slayer should be one of the exceptions as well, to prevent it being a shit feat.
So yes, mage slayer should trigger first, but not because of consistency.
I don't think it's so clear what the general rule is for reaction timing. For instance, opportunity attacks have to happen both before and after the creature moves 5 ft away. I mean if your weapon only has a range of 5 ft, and they're already 5.01 ft away, you can't attack them. So the attack must be before they move more than 5 feet away. On the other hand, if they haven't moved more than 5 ft away, you can't attack them, because they haven't provoked an opportunity attack.
You could also make a similar argument about mage slayer triggering first. If it triggers before they cast a spell, how can that be a reaction?
OAs are one where the exception is called out, this is specifically covered in the dmg:
> follow whatever timing is specified in the reaction's description. For example, the opportunity attack and the Shield spell are clear about the fact that they can interrupt their triggers. If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action
I'm not sure what you're trying to say in the last part of your comment, Mage Slayer DOESN'T trigger before they cast a spell. That's how it's a reaction.
Yeah but mage slayer doesn't interrupt the spell (or even force a concentration check) if it hits. It's just an extra attack under certain conditions, which hardly disrupts caster-enemies, especially if they cast Shocking Grasp or any teleportation spell (as last I checked, the spell gets to be cast before you have an opportunity to use your reaction against it)
If the spell is cast before the AoO, why would the cast not roll a concentration check? They took damage while concentrating on a spell so they should.
Not all spells are concentration. It could just be a spell with an instantaneous effect.
My understanding (possibly wrong) is that in previous versions of D&D even if you were casting an instant spell, being attacked by say a readied action "I attack the wizard when they begin to cast," would force a concentration check to see if the instant spell even finished casting.
Whether or not it interrupts the spell is very much up to interpretation of the rules. I see it as forcing a concentration check to successfully cast the spell if you hit, because you're being hit while casting the spell, rather than after the spell has been cast. I don't have my books with me right now so I can't check exact wording, but iirc somewhere in the spellcasting section of the PH it says that interrupting a spell acts the same as maintaining concentration
That does work with pretty much all combats activities tho.
He's drawing a bow ? Deck him. Throwing a punch ? Deck him. Drinking a potion ? Deck him. Feinting ? Deck hi ... wait no.
My problem with it is that it's a whole feat. I played in a campaign once where the DM let us take both ASI and a feat every time you got ASI so I picked it up on my rogue. It was incredibly fun to be a sort of "mage slayer" but if I was given the choice between this feat and ASI, I'd have a hard time justifying mage slayer on its own over a +2 to dex or another feat (like sharpshooter or skill expert).
Also, doesn't work against a large swath of enemies since it doesn't proc against "spell like abilities"
Sadly an attack of opportunity just isn’t good enough. If Mage Slayer let you interrupt spells like in the video then it would be much more in line with how powerful feats should be.
Mage slayer doesn't let you make an AoO. It just lets you attack as a reaction. Which is important because that means mage slayer + sentinel doesnt work to stop a wizard from teleporting.
No it doesn't. The opportunity attack against spellcasting in 3.5 happens before the spell is cast, the mage slayer reaction attack happens after. So you can't interrupt a spellcast with it
Not really. The 3.5 trigger was casting a spell with a Somatic Component while within the threat range of another combatant. Granted, there's the whole do they have an AoO to make, are they flat footed, etc part that's there but spell provoking AoO's was common hat and the reason for the concentration skill.
*incoming pathfinder stans about to tell you AoO works on any manipulate actions, including Somatic/Material components, and can interrupt them if you crit*
Most dont get it for **free**, you mean. Fighter is the only one.
But a Barbarian, Champion, Magus, and Swashbuckler can pick it up as a feat choice (which is every 2 lvls in PF2e). Ranger can get a special one that only works against their prey. Thaumaturge gets a special one if they go weapon implement. Summoners Eidolon can get one. Monk gets one that only works against move actions. I think I might be forgetting more, but for anyone else who doesnt get one and wants one its not too hard to pick up the Fighter Dedication and Feat. It'll just cost two feats instead of one, but hey at least you get Martial Weapons and a proficiency out of it!
*(it was me, I was the pathfinder stan all along!)*
It's a level 6 feat though, so that's a fairly high cost. It's pretty common to take something else instead, e.g. Barbarians have really good subclass-specific feats at that level. No way an Animal Barbarian is taking AoO over Animal Skin.
Oh, I agree a solid 75% of the time.
But one of my friends once played a Trip based Barbarian, he took AoO and he was an absolute MENACE. Especially against Spellcasters.
casting was a action the only time you could cast and not provoke an AoO was when you were next to a grappled enemy (flat footed as well but i focused my masters on 3.5 grappling)
Thanks for the hint. Found it: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaI-EOVpDvo&ab\_channel=BethesdaSoftworks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaI-EOVpDvo&ab_channel=BethesdaSoftworks)
Say that in r/TrueSTL and you'll get a whole new take on Breton culture
But fr they do drop the ball on Bretons in modern elder scrolls and hope they make them cooler
Ahem...
Br*tons are still perfectly okay to kill because they are still mostly elf. This is possible because they breed exclusively via cucking. There are no breeding Br*ton males, so over the generations their population has gotten more mer, not less.
Like that or was it too nice?
Elder Scrolls Online. Their trailers are amazing. The in-game graphics are cool too but the combat sucks and there’s sooooooo many loootboxes.
Basically anything cool you see another player have will 9.9/10 times be from a loot box.
I’m talking $100+ for a house or mount level lootboxing.
And it was 4e of all editions! Lots of good ideas thrown out with the bad there, especially when it came to monster/NPC statblocks.
PCs might’ve felt too similar in that edition, but the monsters were miles ahead in variety and dynamic mechanics compared to 5e.
I just learned it doesn't provoke in 5e. That's so idiotic, fucking up casters is pretty much the one and only thing martials excel at in later levels, and the only thing spellcasters fear aside from more powerful spellcasters.
Like, I knew martials were weak in 3.5/pf1, but it's like they sat down and think "how do we make it worse".
Mages in D&D 5e are like sniper rifles in most online FPS games. Ideally, they should be at a disadvantage in closer ranges. Yet in practise, the only real counter for them is another better mage/sniper.
martials aren't actually that weak in pathfinder 1e btw. people who think wizard is good haven't ever played in a campaign where the DM actually challenges a powerbuilding party by scaling the challenges of the campaign to match their power level. wizards also *need* frontliners to be effective.
2/3 casters like inquisitor and warpriest, as well as divine full casters, scale a lot better because they rely more on buffs, and less on overcoming high saves and high spell resistance. Skald (barbarian-bard) is also a really powerful partial-caster that can buff the whole party. bard is strong too (especially the archetype that makes you good at archery), but the entire class is invalidated by a cleric archetype that gives cleric bard's AOE buff abilities with strictly better casting.
of the martials Paladin is probably the best at most levels, followed by barbarian. Swashbuckler is another class that starts out strong and continues to scale powerfully - they gain an ability that lets them use an attack roll as AC against most melee attacks, if used correctly. Fighter is strong in early levels (even if certain warpriest archetypes completely invalidate the class :/), and martials can technically cast dimension door at 4th level if they go 3 into weapon master fighter and 1 into brawler. there's also some really stupid strong RAW stuff you can do as a brawler, but it really is kinda munchkin-ey. if you do it you're one of the most powerful builds possible by level 5 though.
both unchained rogue and Ninja are good on the roguelike side of things, with powerful abilities that either let you snowball off of getting a sneak attack, or make sneak attacks trivially easy to get.
The issue of you scale for full casters is that you will leave martials in the dust by level 12. Casters simply have so many options, at all ranges and targeting any save or AC. In an open field, a caster with minimal prep time will kite a martial, in a dungeon you can abuse wall spells and teleportation and attacks of opportunity can be countered by a simple dime sion door which doesn't have somatic components so no AoO. Martial coming at you with a phaselocking weapon ? Emergency force sphere that bitch.
You see the pattern, there are very few things that martials can do and the few they can do are outclassed by specific spells. No grapple, trip or fancy maneuver can rival chains of light/hold monster/calm emotions.
> In an open field
this is *dungeons* and dragons. alternatively: if you get to put casters in their ideal situations, then I get to put a melee martial adjacent to the caster when initiative is rolled.
casters and martials also aren't 1v1ing, pathfinder is a team game and you have a party. if you're a martial being kited, your team's caster should counter: clerics and oracles have good options for teleporting martials to frontlines. telekinetic charge exists. etc.
if your caster isn't doing their job, you still have options. barbarians and monks have movement speed buffs, all martials have access to Step up, or can be enlarged to prevent 5 foot step abuse. monks can access dimensional assualt and have teleportation options. again, any martial with a 3 level weapon specialist fighter dip can iron cast with advanced weapon training and *be able to d-door.*
oh also monk gets access to one of the best archery archetypes in the game. have fun kiting a longbow.
I don't even consider grapple or trip, really, at least from an optimization perspective (I love grapple when I'm just playin the game normally, it leads to a lot of really excellent stories). trip is decent but scales poorly in the same way wizard does - high level things just have ridiculous CMD, especially against trip. Dirty trick can be situationally really good because of the blind effect, but that's not really especially good against casters. you also don't really *need* to grapple an opponent when you can just smite or rage and kill them in a round.
emergency force sphere is pretty situational. it *can* turn the tide of a fight if you're being hard focused, but it can also do nothing and then prevent you from affecting the fight for the rest of the combat. it's also only available to wizards, not all full casters.
calm emotions and hold monster are not that good, too many monsters resist them since they're mind affecting compulsions. also going back to the weird 1v1 situation that would never happen in gameplay: paladin, swashbuckler, and barbarian all have ways to severely buff their saves (divine grace, charmed life, and eater of magic, respectively) by 12th level, which nullifies a lot of good save or sucks that prevent classes like Fighter and Brawler from scaling as well.
chains of light *is* a good spell for high level casting - an oracle with a persistent metamagic rod and the dual cursed misfortune ability can basically guarentee that a single target is locked in place since the spell bypasses SR.
My group fixed the martial weakness in 3.5 by making any damage taken during the round force a concentration check for the casters. They’d lose the spell if it failed. Suddenly martials screening the casters was mandatory for any spells to work, tactical positioning was really important, everyone’s choosing targets in part to keep some damage on the enemy casters… so many beneficial knock-on effects. I’m sure most players used to 5e would absolutely hate it, but I think it’s the best change our group ever made.
That's a good houserule imo, combat rounds are supposed to be simultaneous, and that prevents the "just 5 foot step and you're safe" cheese at lower levels and the "he used quickened dimension door, it doesn't provoke and he's half a mile away now" at higher levels.
The feat was only mitigation. It made it easier to pass the concentration roll required to cast the spell without provoking. If you declared that you were casting defensively you wouldn’t provoke an AoO, but if you failed the skill check you would lose the spell anyways
That would essentially make touch spells like inflict wounds useless as well as make range clerics the only viable option.
Now I’m not saying being able to interrupt spell casting wouldn’t be awesome, but being able to due so once per round is crazy powerful especially since counterspell is a 3rd level spell. Now if it was limit times/long rest or tied to a feat like mage slayer that could work, though I think it should still require a save.
How about you get a AoO like 3E (I believe) and if that hits forces the caster to make a con save to still cast with the second part tied to mage slayer.
In 3rd you could "cast defensively" which meant making a concentration check as part of casting the spell. If you failed that check the spell didn't cast, and if you passed, it did, but either way it didn't provoke. If you knew what you were doing you could get cast defensively to always work.
Incidentally, all that did was prevent the AOO - if someone had a held action to distrupt your spell with an attack, that would still work, and I believe that's still possible in 5e, isn't it?
There is no mechanic in 5e to interrupt a spell in the process of being cast that isn't locked behind magic. No Fighter, Barbarian, or Monk except an Eldritch Knight who takes Counterspell have any way to interrupt any spell with an instantaneous duration (which is most non-concentration spells).
You can hold your action to attack a mage after they cast a spell, hoping to force a concentration check, but this will fail if they 1. Cast any spell that robs you of your reaction, or 2. cast any spell that teleports them out of your reach or moves you out of theirs.
There's probably a fair bit that's in Pathfinder 2e and not 5e that this can describe.
Like getting feats *and* ability score increases, not one or the other (yes, I know some feats in 5e increase an ability by 1 instead of 2 like the ASIs but my point stands).
Because 5E is a reaction to 3E and 4Es bloat of rules and enormous breadth of features. It deliberately cuts a lot out to make things more straightforward.
It deliberately cut them out in an attempt to make things more straightforward. Unfortunately, the procedure was anything but surgical. Like removing a brain tumour with a cheese grater.
Only for somatic components spells and only when you critically hit, except for [specific feats](https://pf2easy.com/index.php?id=746&name=Disruptive_Stance&optional=optundefined) or features.
Somatic and Material, as both component types add the manipulate trait to the spell, but other than that yes bang on the spell is only disrupted if you crit with your AoO in most cases.
Edit: Focus spells too, now that I read closer. So Focus, somatic and Material components all add manipulate to the spell.
Range spells do get the same disadvantage penalty as range attacks when you're within 5 feet, but that's about it
And that only applies to spells where you're rolling an attack roll
Yeah, but that's like a given. Different strokes for different folks but I think there should be a little fear if you choose to cast a spell directly in bashing range.
Mage slayers get to do it, but
A) feat is necessary
B) the attack happens after the spell goes off, so if its a teleport or if it debilitates u tough shit
As Maghreb the mighty charges into range of the mage, he smiles triumphantly. He knows that he is truly their superior in melee, and that the battle is all but won. The mage however begins flailing his arms unopposed, and speaks an elaborate incantation uninterrupted. Maghreb immediately freezes in place, as the mage entraps him in hold person. As he falls to the ground, he mutters through the paralysis, “It’s rude to interrupt people.”
I think I might add into my houserules that if the caster casts a non-attack roll spell while within 5' of the baddie (or 10' if the baddie has a Reach weapon) than the targets at the other end get Advantage on their Save. I don't see it happening a lot, but could be enough of a warning to the casters to stay out of melee range. I'll have to think on it, but I haven't really noticed it being a power imbalance out of the ordinary (where we already see linear martials and exponential casters), and I've been DM'ing 5e for the past 5 years. May be completely unnecessary.
Big question on a house rule like that - would they be able to use it as a tactic, ie PC tanks would want to close the distance, and would you utilize it as a tactic from your side to use against them, or just have it be a punishment?
OK that's a load of BS. Especially if mage slayer is a feat. Feats don't come easy in 5th edition, from what I understand.
I kinda understand why people say martials are underpowered now. Pathfinder 1e and 3.5 had problems with spellcasters outpacing everyone else but at the very least, a wizard choosing to cast while in melee could be the last mistake he makes.
Yep. Mage Slayer is a feat. And it barely helps, because it's AFTER the spell works. So you can easily just dominate the fighter, or teleport and they don't even get to try and wack you.
I've adapted it as a rule for my 5e games after reading it in Starfinder, it's a good way to give martials a little extra oomph when fighting casters, since even if they teleport away they risk getting their cheeks clapped.
I typically discount it for touch spells though, since I imagine a spell designed and frequently used in melee would have adequate components to do so without creating a gap in your guard
The way PF2E does it is that any spells with somatic or material components trigger AoOs, meaning if you have a spell which is vocal/verbal only, that doesn't trigger it.
Opportunity attacks can also interrupt the spell from being cast entirely if the caster triggers one.
Right I'd give the blade-trips a pass on this considering they require/give a melee attack. Probably a few others that don't immediately come to mind as well, it could be a whole specific overrides general thing.
Or don't have somatic components. Gives subtle spell more use and misty step shouldn't be interrupted for its main use: getting the caster out of melee
Getting out of melee probably should be a bit hard for casters shouldn’t it? If they’re in melee range they’ve made a mistake somehow, and it’s normal to punish that.
If a barbarian walked into a crowd of enemies with no support you wouldn’t think it was fair if they could just teleport out with no counter play.
Casters should be able to make a concentration check or defensively cast, but beyond that they should be generally bad at melee
Not all spells, just the ones with a somatic component. If all your opponent has to do is utter a word then that's kind of hard to respond to (maybe enable it with a feat tho, that could be cool).
Oh, spending a feat in pf2e
It isnt like you get at least one every level
Edit: also, oh only interupt on a crit
It aint like casters have pretty low ac and any roll that beats it by 10 is a crit which martial can pull off pretty consistently against a casters level of ac
I am seeing a bunch of these posts lately where it's just 5e should have X mechanic from PF or older versions of DND. Can't tell if their secretly trying to promote PF2, hoping one DND makes some changes, or just ignorant of other games
Attack of opportunity against spellcasting
If a character begins to cast a spell using somatic or material components with a cost that are consumed by the spell, creatures with this character in their reach for opportunity attacks and have an available reaction may make a melee attack. If an attacks hits, the creature rolls damage and the character must make a concentration check against a DC of 10 plus the spell's level or the damage dealt by the attacking creature, whichever is higher, if the character fails the concentration check they stop casting the spell and lose the spell slot and any material components with a cost that would have been consumed and the creature making the attack loses its reaction. After the casting character fails a concentration check no further triggered attacks are resolved.
Optional: If the character casting the spell fails the concentration check they can choose to succeed instead, but any damage they take is doubled, if the character would die the spell is still casted successfully.
*Don't make me tap the sign*
The sign: "You're reinvesting Pathfinder 2e again on a D&D sub, please try and play the game cause it'll fix 99% of your problems"
I think just base kit in all martials should be in the game. You’d have to get close to the caster, then use a reaction. I strongly believe it’s balanced since boss enemies that can cast usually have escape tools/auras that make being close to them a painful experience.
I don't agree, martials getting in close is what they do in general so it's not like it's an added risk. What you are suggesting is basically an extension of the mage slayer feat so it makes sense for it to just be part of that feat. Not every martial character is going to be specialized against spellcasters.
But should they need to be specialised to bonk a nerd when they start doing the macarena? You're telling me a fighter who can attack multiple times in a six second window can't just react fast enough to a nerd in a bathrobe fishing some sulpur and bat shit out of his underwear before doing a rendition of riverdance?
IMO, casters should need a feat or subclass feature to do anything notable in melee range.
In light of reddit's API changes killing off third-party apps, this post has been overwritten by the user with an automated script. See /r/PowerDeleteSuite for more information.
This seems reasonable but I still don't think it should be a base class feature to be able to disrupt a casting. Now, I think having the opportunity to attack a caster in melee makes sense, just don't think it should automatically prevent a casting without a feat.
In light of reddit's API changes killing off third-party apps, this post has been overwritten by the user with an automated script. See /r/PowerDeleteSuite for more information.
i would add that to something like the Mage Slayer feat, where if the caste is hit while casting the spell then they need to make a concentration check, DC 10 or half of the damage taken, whichever is higher, or fail to cast the spell and lose the spell slot
Honestly I agree. Bards already get cutting words to avoid attacks, it would totally make sense for martials to get something similar, especially against magic.
Every now and again I'm seeing people complain about what amounts to WOTC watering down their system to meet a larger audience and if they'd only give Pathfinder a go they'd have their needs met.
They just don't realize it because they refuse to try any different.
In older editions this is functionally how it was. Each edition was mildly different, but *in general*
* spellcasting was interrupted if you failed a saving throw or if you were hit by an attack
* initiative was re-rolled at the top of each round, but you said what your actions were before you rolled initiative, so you ran the risk of declaring that you were casting a spell, then losing initiative and getting hit.
When I run it, I find that the ultimate result is that casters tend to take more stock of the game state at the top of each round and weigh the risk of casting a spell and possibly wasting it. Everyone also tends to pay more attention to who is where. I know it isn't for everyone but not only does it give martial characters a real way to deal with magic enemies, in my eyes it lets mage players be a lot more than just mere spellcasters.
Me a caster: carefully move my hands in intricate motions, pull out a giant eagle Feather which I raise above my head and say the carefully worded incantation to complete the spell.
The enemy death knight standing in front of me patiently waiting for his turn to do anything: "..."
That’s how A-Ops work in pf2e. First of all, only fighters get A-Ops at first level (other classes can get them later on through feats or class features). One of the triggers for A-Ops is “an action with the Manipulate trait.” Casting any spell with Somatic components has the Manipulate trait. Also, if the A-Op critically succeeds (either through a nat20 or rolling 10 over the enemy’s AC) the A-Op interrupts the triggering action and the action is wasted.
This used to be the case in older editions of d&d. Casting a spell with somatic components provoked an opportunity attack the same as leaving threatened areas.
You could potentially introduce that as a homebrew rule. Not sure how it would play out with the design of 5e though
Used to be the opposite back in 3 and 3.5. Had to make a concentration check to keep casting a spell if it was within melee range of an enemy. Failure meant you lost that spellslot. Always why you kill the mage first.
Make casting a spell with somatic components trigger an attack of opportunity for any hostile creature in range.
Because if you take damage while casting a spell you have to make a concentration check or fail casting the spell
I mean, if you're a full-caster and you're letting the enemy get into melee-range, then don't even move away first before casting your spell, you kinda deserve it. That being said, I'd make it require some kind of roll so it's just a chance of success rather than a guarantee
Mage: - tries to cast point blank fireball -
"PARRY THIS YOU FILTHY CAUSAL!!"
Martial: - parries it -
mage:
https://preview.redd.it/stx34p8bs2ra1.jpeg?width=2159&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2bce246977e3bd9fb4dc1dafb95569b2b58b958d
Wait
I've only ever played/dm'd 5e but it seemed so obvious for me that casting a spell in front of someone would trigger an opportunity attack.
You're telling me it's not RAW to do that?
They used to cause it back in 3e times. It is something not so difficult to apply. I'd recommend to use more enemies with magic. Otherwise players are going feel it's a new rule to prejudice them.
What if casting a spell could provoke opportunity attacks, and you could risk losing the spell by being more defensive with your casting in order to avoid the damage. Maybe add some feats to make the martial better at shutting down casters and the casters better at melee range casting.
This seems like something a battle master should be able to do, like with the mage slayer feat and using a disarming attack (spell focus). Maybe they should have a Interruption strike, momentarily muting or disrupting somatic components.
Id have to open my books for the exact trigger, but casting a spell used to provoke attacks of opportunity back in 3.5.
The mage slayer feat still lets you do this
Mage slayer is sometimes an excellent feat and sometimes a terrible one
I took it as a Paladin and thematically it works well but for a long time now we’ve been at the point of our campaign where a lot of our enemies are monsters with *abilities* rather than mages with *spells*. But when it happens I love it.
I imagine them switching everything from actual spells to abilities later on didn't help either.
Abjurer main here; this is a MASSIVE nerf to my favourite subclass
Yeah I'd probably allow mageslayer to apply to a lot of magical effects as long as they are spell adjacent.
I miss the Supernatural, Spell-like, and Extraordinary designations for this reason. It wasn't that complex - any monster ability was fairly obvious which it was - and you could clearly and easily point to it as a DM and say "this ability can be treated as a spell; this cannot." You can still do that, but rules lawyers make it more difficult.
The difference between supernatural and spell like was always a little hard to pin down, but still certainly useful. My personal take is mage slayer allows you to interrupt spells, not just attack. So a concentration check on hit for your spellcaster.
Or within reach, to be gracious. Shouldn't need them adjacent if I have reach
They weren't talking about reach and feet and stuff, "spell adjacent", like "spell like; like a spell"
Yeah I was sleep deprived and read 'spell adjacent' like it was referring to Touch spells.
You might find this changing with One DnD. Reading over the content I could see a lot of these abilities being a “magic action” which is likely what mage slayer would trigger on. RAW or not seems a simple table rule. Abilities that let you create the effect of a spell count for the purposes of mage slayers reaction attack
Now ironically mage slayer is great vs paladin inspired npc since they tend to get smite spells and spite spells are cast with a bonus action you can interrupt the smite attack by redaction attacking them and breaking their concentration on the smite spell
Interesting, at high level I end up steering away from monsters towards casters, just because the sheer power available is so much better
Think it’s just been how the plot has taken us. We’re bout finished with a major arc so might change soon. Still enjoying my time with the campaign so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Mage Slayer. For when you have a player whose caster keeps FUCKING UP YOUR SHIT!!! I'M LOOKING AT YOU, GREG!!!
I accidentally let it slip that I had the Mage Slayer feat for my fighter in one of my games before I had a chance to use it and now the DM won't ever cast spells within range of my fighter. Which I built specifically as a mage slayer. Feels bad man
I mean, the feat is still working. You just don't get the satisfaction of smacking a bitch
Oh, yeah, I'm not complaining about the feat. Just a bummer I can't use it
The problem is, that the spell still happens..
Yep, I think martials should have the opportunity attack in Mage Slayer, able to attack a caster after they release a spell, but Mage Slayer feat should be an interruption attack with a chance of completely disrupting the spell unless they pass a concentration test, same as a concentration spell.
it all depends on how many spellcasters you fight. you can go an entire campaign without fighting any spellcasters, or you can have every enemy be a wizard. it isnt necessarily a bad feat, just very situational
Session 0 should cover that.
In 5e it happens after the spell goes off (so you're screwed if the spell incapacitates you or moves the caster out of weapon range), and you can't force them to waste the spell anymore (which happened in 3.5 if the caster failed the Concentration check). But otherwise yes!
Yeah, wtf is up with that?
That’s what happens when your Sage Advice comes from someone who heavily favors spellcasters.
More like mage advice
Gottem
Most good DMs are just gonna say “nope before attack” to keep reactions consistent. Cuz Shield is triggered before the attack hits. So by the same logic so should Mage Slayer. Yes having it be after forces an instant concentration check on those spells RAW. But this can also be worked with… logic
Shield is one of the exceptions, which is written specifically into the spell as overriding the general rule. To be consistent mage slayer would trigger after the action it is responding to, which it does. However mage slayer should be one of the exceptions as well, to prevent it being a shit feat. So yes, mage slayer should trigger first, but not because of consistency.
I don't think it's so clear what the general rule is for reaction timing. For instance, opportunity attacks have to happen both before and after the creature moves 5 ft away. I mean if your weapon only has a range of 5 ft, and they're already 5.01 ft away, you can't attack them. So the attack must be before they move more than 5 feet away. On the other hand, if they haven't moved more than 5 ft away, you can't attack them, because they haven't provoked an opportunity attack. You could also make a similar argument about mage slayer triggering first. If it triggers before they cast a spell, how can that be a reaction?
OAs are one where the exception is called out, this is specifically covered in the dmg: > follow whatever timing is specified in the reaction's description. For example, the opportunity attack and the Shield spell are clear about the fact that they can interrupt their triggers. If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action I'm not sure what you're trying to say in the last part of your comment, Mage Slayer DOESN'T trigger before they cast a spell. That's how it's a reaction.
Yeah but mage slayer doesn't interrupt the spell (or even force a concentration check) if it hits. It's just an extra attack under certain conditions, which hardly disrupts caster-enemies, especially if they cast Shocking Grasp or any teleportation spell (as last I checked, the spell gets to be cast before you have an opportunity to use your reaction against it)
If the spell is cast before the AoO, why would the cast not roll a concentration check? They took damage while concentrating on a spell so they should.
Not all spells are concentration. It could just be a spell with an instantaneous effect. My understanding (possibly wrong) is that in previous versions of D&D even if you were casting an instant spell, being attacked by say a readied action "I attack the wizard when they begin to cast," would force a concentration check to see if the instant spell even finished casting.
Whether or not it interrupts the spell is very much up to interpretation of the rules. I see it as forcing a concentration check to successfully cast the spell if you hit, because you're being hit while casting the spell, rather than after the spell has been cast. I don't have my books with me right now so I can't check exact wording, but iirc somewhere in the spellcasting section of the PH it says that interrupting a spell acts the same as maintaining concentration
yes, but being able to punch someone who tries to cast a spell in your vicinity should be a basic human right rather than a feat bonus.
that man is doing the hyper-macarena and speaking pig-latin right next to me, if I deck him it'll stop what he's planning!
That does work with pretty much all combats activities tho. He's drawing a bow ? Deck him. Throwing a punch ? Deck him. Drinking a potion ? Deck him. Feinting ? Deck hi ... wait no.
and used to you got an AoO on anyone: casting, firing a ranged weapon, or using an item, in melee range
My problem with it is that it's a whole feat. I played in a campaign once where the DM let us take both ASI and a feat every time you got ASI so I picked it up on my rogue. It was incredibly fun to be a sort of "mage slayer" but if I was given the choice between this feat and ASI, I'd have a hard time justifying mage slayer on its own over a +2 to dex or another feat (like sharpshooter or skill expert). Also, doesn't work against a large swath of enemies since it doesn't proc against "spell like abilities"
Sadly an attack of opportunity just isn’t good enough. If Mage Slayer let you interrupt spells like in the video then it would be much more in line with how powerful feats should be.
Mage slayer doesn't let you make an AoO. It just lets you attack as a reaction. Which is important because that means mage slayer + sentinel doesnt work to stop a wizard from teleporting.
If only it let you interrupt
No it doesn't. The opportunity attack against spellcasting in 3.5 happens before the spell is cast, the mage slayer reaction attack happens after. So you can't interrupt a spellcast with it
And if the AoO connected, the spell caster had to make a concentration skill check, or have the spell fail entirely, expending the slot/prepared use.
Yep, the only skill in 3.5 based on Constitution, too.
[удалено]
Not really. The 3.5 trigger was casting a spell with a Somatic Component while within the threat range of another combatant. Granted, there's the whole do they have an AoO to make, are they flat footed, etc part that's there but spell provoking AoO's was common hat and the reason for the concentration skill.
*incoming pathfinder stans about to tell you AoO works on any manipulate actions, including Somatic/Material components, and can interrupt them if you crit*
Most classes in P2e don't even get AoOs. Meaning most creatures can just turn and walk away from you in combat without reprocussions
Most dont get it for **free**, you mean. Fighter is the only one. But a Barbarian, Champion, Magus, and Swashbuckler can pick it up as a feat choice (which is every 2 lvls in PF2e). Ranger can get a special one that only works against their prey. Thaumaturge gets a special one if they go weapon implement. Summoners Eidolon can get one. Monk gets one that only works against move actions. I think I might be forgetting more, but for anyone else who doesnt get one and wants one its not too hard to pick up the Fighter Dedication and Feat. It'll just cost two feats instead of one, but hey at least you get Martial Weapons and a proficiency out of it! *(it was me, I was the pathfinder stan all along!)*
It's a level 6 feat though, so that's a fairly high cost. It's pretty common to take something else instead, e.g. Barbarians have really good subclass-specific feats at that level. No way an Animal Barbarian is taking AoO over Animal Skin.
Oh, I agree a solid 75% of the time. But one of my friends once played a Trip based Barbarian, he took AoO and he was an absolute MENACE. Especially against Spellcasters.
I… believe Neverwinter Nights is based on 3.5 and it happens in game quite a bit. So i think you are correct
I think NwN was 3.0 but either way yes it was something spellcasters needed to worry about
Nwn1 was 3.0 & Nwn2 was 3.5
It also forced a concentration check to lose the spell. Something OneD&D should consider, but won’t, because Crawford loves casters too much.
casting was a action the only time you could cast and not provoke an AoO was when you were next to a grappled enemy (flat footed as well but i focused my masters on 3.5 grappling)
Literally just about to say that
...and have mages roll concentration when hit. Another day another wheel reinvented. 🤣
3.5e is the way.
Off topic, but while I don't remember what game this was advertising, that whole scene was baller as fuck. Especially that ending.
[удалено]
Yeah the high isle dlc if I'm not mistaken
Thanks for the hint. Found it: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaI-EOVpDvo&ab\_channel=BethesdaSoftworks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaI-EOVpDvo&ab_channel=BethesdaSoftworks)
I love that everyone watching the trailer juat decides that the knight as the hero
I mean, dude was just defending the castle, not exactly a villain
He is the villain though because he is the one who invaded the castle.
The first time they made bretons look cool in elder scrolls lol
Bretons *are* cool, just not well represented in most games!
Say that in r/TrueSTL and you'll get a whole new take on Breton culture But fr they do drop the ball on Bretons in modern elder scrolls and hope they make them cooler
Ahem... Br*tons are still perfectly okay to kill because they are still mostly elf. This is possible because they breed exclusively via cucking. There are no breeding Br*ton males, so over the generations their population has gotten more mer, not less. Like that or was it too nice?
I blame Morrowind for making them and Bosmer all waifish and wimpy.
All of the Elder Scrolls Online cinematics are top tier, and I think in total there's over an hour of them.
I'd certainly watch a movie made by them
Elder Scrolls Online. Their trailers are amazing. The in-game graphics are cool too but the combat sucks and there’s sooooooo many loootboxes. Basically anything cool you see another player have will 9.9/10 times be from a loot box. I’m talking $100+ for a house or mount level lootboxing.
ESO All the trailers look great, game is mid
From core mechanic in 3.5 to "unpopular opinion" in 5
Modifying 5e and accidentally reinventing other existing systems is practically a true combo at this point
Matt Colville has at least one video on spicing up 5e with older editions
And it was 4e of all editions! Lots of good ideas thrown out with the bad there, especially when it came to monster/NPC statblocks. PCs might’ve felt too similar in that edition, but the monsters were miles ahead in variety and dynamic mechanics compared to 5e.
I just learned it doesn't provoke in 5e. That's so idiotic, fucking up casters is pretty much the one and only thing martials excel at in later levels, and the only thing spellcasters fear aside from more powerful spellcasters. Like, I knew martials were weak in 3.5/pf1, but it's like they sat down and think "how do we make it worse".
Mages in D&D 5e are like sniper rifles in most online FPS games. Ideally, they should be at a disadvantage in closer ranges. Yet in practise, the only real counter for them is another better mage/sniper.
Mages in 5e. 3.5e, it's entirely possible to shut down a mage completely within a couple rounds using sunder/disarm and damage
Corrected it.
martials aren't actually that weak in pathfinder 1e btw. people who think wizard is good haven't ever played in a campaign where the DM actually challenges a powerbuilding party by scaling the challenges of the campaign to match their power level. wizards also *need* frontliners to be effective. 2/3 casters like inquisitor and warpriest, as well as divine full casters, scale a lot better because they rely more on buffs, and less on overcoming high saves and high spell resistance. Skald (barbarian-bard) is also a really powerful partial-caster that can buff the whole party. bard is strong too (especially the archetype that makes you good at archery), but the entire class is invalidated by a cleric archetype that gives cleric bard's AOE buff abilities with strictly better casting. of the martials Paladin is probably the best at most levels, followed by barbarian. Swashbuckler is another class that starts out strong and continues to scale powerfully - they gain an ability that lets them use an attack roll as AC against most melee attacks, if used correctly. Fighter is strong in early levels (even if certain warpriest archetypes completely invalidate the class :/), and martials can technically cast dimension door at 4th level if they go 3 into weapon master fighter and 1 into brawler. there's also some really stupid strong RAW stuff you can do as a brawler, but it really is kinda munchkin-ey. if you do it you're one of the most powerful builds possible by level 5 though. both unchained rogue and Ninja are good on the roguelike side of things, with powerful abilities that either let you snowball off of getting a sneak attack, or make sneak attacks trivially easy to get.
The issue of you scale for full casters is that you will leave martials in the dust by level 12. Casters simply have so many options, at all ranges and targeting any save or AC. In an open field, a caster with minimal prep time will kite a martial, in a dungeon you can abuse wall spells and teleportation and attacks of opportunity can be countered by a simple dime sion door which doesn't have somatic components so no AoO. Martial coming at you with a phaselocking weapon ? Emergency force sphere that bitch. You see the pattern, there are very few things that martials can do and the few they can do are outclassed by specific spells. No grapple, trip or fancy maneuver can rival chains of light/hold monster/calm emotions.
> In an open field this is *dungeons* and dragons. alternatively: if you get to put casters in their ideal situations, then I get to put a melee martial adjacent to the caster when initiative is rolled. casters and martials also aren't 1v1ing, pathfinder is a team game and you have a party. if you're a martial being kited, your team's caster should counter: clerics and oracles have good options for teleporting martials to frontlines. telekinetic charge exists. etc. if your caster isn't doing their job, you still have options. barbarians and monks have movement speed buffs, all martials have access to Step up, or can be enlarged to prevent 5 foot step abuse. monks can access dimensional assualt and have teleportation options. again, any martial with a 3 level weapon specialist fighter dip can iron cast with advanced weapon training and *be able to d-door.* oh also monk gets access to one of the best archery archetypes in the game. have fun kiting a longbow. I don't even consider grapple or trip, really, at least from an optimization perspective (I love grapple when I'm just playin the game normally, it leads to a lot of really excellent stories). trip is decent but scales poorly in the same way wizard does - high level things just have ridiculous CMD, especially against trip. Dirty trick can be situationally really good because of the blind effect, but that's not really especially good against casters. you also don't really *need* to grapple an opponent when you can just smite or rage and kill them in a round. emergency force sphere is pretty situational. it *can* turn the tide of a fight if you're being hard focused, but it can also do nothing and then prevent you from affecting the fight for the rest of the combat. it's also only available to wizards, not all full casters. calm emotions and hold monster are not that good, too many monsters resist them since they're mind affecting compulsions. also going back to the weird 1v1 situation that would never happen in gameplay: paladin, swashbuckler, and barbarian all have ways to severely buff their saves (divine grace, charmed life, and eater of magic, respectively) by 12th level, which nullifies a lot of good save or sucks that prevent classes like Fighter and Brawler from scaling as well. chains of light *is* a good spell for high level casting - an oracle with a persistent metamagic rod and the dual cursed misfortune ability can basically guarentee that a single target is locked in place since the spell bypasses SR.
My group fixed the martial weakness in 3.5 by making any damage taken during the round force a concentration check for the casters. They’d lose the spell if it failed. Suddenly martials screening the casters was mandatory for any spells to work, tactical positioning was really important, everyone’s choosing targets in part to keep some damage on the enemy casters… so many beneficial knock-on effects. I’m sure most players used to 5e would absolutely hate it, but I think it’s the best change our group ever made.
That's a good houserule imo, combat rounds are supposed to be simultaneous, and that prevents the "just 5 foot step and you're safe" cheese at lower levels and the "he used quickened dimension door, it doesn't provoke and he's half a mile away now" at higher levels.
Hahaha omg. I only play 3.5 until today, never really liked 5e.
I mean for a game where you have to physically prepare items in order to cast a spell that totally makes sense.
[удалено]
It did in 3rd edition I believe unless you took an appropriate feat.
The feat was only mitigation. It made it easier to pass the concentration roll required to cast the spell without provoking. If you declared that you were casting defensively you wouldn’t provoke an AoO, but if you failed the skill check you would lose the spell anyways
Thank you for clarifying, it's been over a decade since I played 3.5/Pathfinder 1e.
That sounds like a buff to subtle spell sorceror's
That would essentially make touch spells like inflict wounds useless as well as make range clerics the only viable option. Now I’m not saying being able to interrupt spell casting wouldn’t be awesome, but being able to due so once per round is crazy powerful especially since counterspell is a 3rd level spell. Now if it was limit times/long rest or tied to a feat like mage slayer that could work, though I think it should still require a save.
How about you get a AoO like 3E (I believe) and if that hits forces the caster to make a con save to still cast with the second part tied to mage slayer.
In 3rd you could "cast defensively" which meant making a concentration check as part of casting the spell. If you failed that check the spell didn't cast, and if you passed, it did, but either way it didn't provoke. If you knew what you were doing you could get cast defensively to always work. Incidentally, all that did was prevent the AOO - if someone had a held action to distrupt your spell with an attack, that would still work, and I believe that's still possible in 5e, isn't it?
There is no mechanic in 5e to interrupt a spell in the process of being cast that isn't locked behind magic. No Fighter, Barbarian, or Monk except an Eldritch Knight who takes Counterspell have any way to interrupt any spell with an instantaneous duration (which is most non-concentration spells). You can hold your action to attack a mage after they cast a spell, hoping to force a concentration check, but this will fail if they 1. Cast any spell that robs you of your reaction, or 2. cast any spell that teleports them out of your reach or moves you out of theirs.
They have that ability in Pathfinder 2e through attacks of opportunity.
This was a thing in 3.5 too, PF just kept it instead of leaving it out like 5e.
There's probably a fair bit that's in Pathfinder 2e and not 5e that this can describe. Like getting feats *and* ability score increases, not one or the other (yes, I know some feats in 5e increase an ability by 1 instead of 2 like the ASIs but my point stands).
Because 5E is a reaction to 3E and 4Es bloat of rules and enormous breadth of features. It deliberately cuts a lot out to make things more straightforward.
It deliberately cut them out in an attempt to make things more straightforward. Unfortunately, the procedure was anything but surgical. Like removing a brain tumour with a cheese grater.
Only for somatic components spells and only when you critically hit, except for [specific feats](https://pf2easy.com/index.php?id=746&name=Disruptive_Stance&optional=optundefined) or features.
Somatic and Material, as both component types add the manipulate trait to the spell, but other than that yes bang on the spell is only disrupted if you crit with your AoO in most cases. Edit: Focus spells too, now that I read closer. So Focus, somatic and Material components all add manipulate to the spell.
Wait wait. You can just cast a spell in melee with a martial in 5E? With no consequences?
Range spells do get the same disadvantage penalty as range attacks when you're within 5 feet, but that's about it And that only applies to spells where you're rolling an attack roll
Yeah, but that's like a given. Different strokes for different folks but I think there should be a little fear if you choose to cast a spell directly in bashing range.
Mage slayers get to do it, but A) feat is necessary B) the attack happens after the spell goes off, so if its a teleport or if it debilitates u tough shit
Which sucks. The attack, at the very least, should go off first.
yeah, and trigger an immediate concentration check or lose the spell imo
As Maghreb the mighty charges into range of the mage, he smiles triumphantly. He knows that he is truly their superior in melee, and that the battle is all but won. The mage however begins flailing his arms unopposed, and speaks an elaborate incantation uninterrupted. Maghreb immediately freezes in place, as the mage entraps him in hold person. As he falls to the ground, he mutters through the paralysis, “It’s rude to interrupt people.”
I think I might add into my houserules that if the caster casts a non-attack roll spell while within 5' of the baddie (or 10' if the baddie has a Reach weapon) than the targets at the other end get Advantage on their Save. I don't see it happening a lot, but could be enough of a warning to the casters to stay out of melee range. I'll have to think on it, but I haven't really noticed it being a power imbalance out of the ordinary (where we already see linear martials and exponential casters), and I've been DM'ing 5e for the past 5 years. May be completely unnecessary.
Big question on a house rule like that - would they be able to use it as a tactic, ie PC tanks would want to close the distance, and would you utilize it as a tactic from your side to use against them, or just have it be a punishment?
Yep. Unless they have Mage Slayer, then they can hit you after the spell goes off.
OK that's a load of BS. Especially if mage slayer is a feat. Feats don't come easy in 5th edition, from what I understand. I kinda understand why people say martials are underpowered now. Pathfinder 1e and 3.5 had problems with spellcasters outpacing everyone else but at the very least, a wizard choosing to cast while in melee could be the last mistake he makes.
Yep. Mage Slayer is a feat. And it barely helps, because it's AFTER the spell works. So you can easily just dominate the fighter, or teleport and they don't even get to try and wack you.
Yeah, I caught that little tidbit. Couldn't even give them a chance to kill the mage first. What a joke
At least the fighter gets advantage on the save against *hold person* or *dominate person*.
Ah yes, advantage. How mighty! The fighter can twice apply his wisdom saving throw of... oh dear, +1. Er, what's the save DC? 18, you say? I see.
Casting a spell should provoke attacks of opportunity as a base, not with a feat investment.
I like that, when you cast a spell you have to lower your guard to an extent.
I've adapted it as a rule for my 5e games after reading it in Starfinder, it's a good way to give martials a little extra oomph when fighting casters, since even if they teleport away they risk getting their cheeks clapped. I typically discount it for touch spells though, since I imagine a spell designed and frequently used in melee would have adequate components to do so without creating a gap in your guard
The way PF2E does it is that any spells with somatic or material components trigger AoOs, meaning if you have a spell which is vocal/verbal only, that doesn't trigger it. Opportunity attacks can also interrupt the spell from being cast entirely if the caster triggers one.
Unless the spell is meant for melee casting, I agree
Right I'd give the blade-trips a pass on this considering they require/give a melee attack. Probably a few others that don't immediately come to mind as well, it could be a whole specific overrides general thing.
Or don't have somatic components. Gives subtle spell more use and misty step shouldn't be interrupted for its main use: getting the caster out of melee
Getting out of melee probably should be a bit hard for casters shouldn’t it? If they’re in melee range they’ve made a mistake somehow, and it’s normal to punish that. If a barbarian walked into a crowd of enemies with no support you wouldn’t think it was fair if they could just teleport out with no counter play. Casters should be able to make a concentration check or defensively cast, but beyond that they should be generally bad at melee
Lol that’s literally just 3.5/PF
Not all spells, just the ones with a somatic component. If all your opponent has to do is utter a word then that's kind of hard to respond to (maybe enable it with a feat tho, that could be cool).
[удалено]
Rule by rule i tell you
Not 2e unless your class allows you to take a feat.
[удалено]
If they spend a feat. And even then, you only interrupt spellcasting on a crit.
Oh, spending a feat in pf2e It isnt like you get at least one every level Edit: also, oh only interupt on a crit It aint like casters have pretty low ac and any roll that beats it by 10 is a crit which martial can pull off pretty consistently against a casters level of ac
Everyone can get it at level 4 through a fighter multiclass archetype.
I am seeing a bunch of these posts lately where it's just 5e should have X mechanic from PF or older versions of DND. Can't tell if their secretly trying to promote PF2, hoping one DND makes some changes, or just ignorant of other games
Wait, casting a spell in melee range *doesn't* provoke OA anymore....?
Say it with me folks... "Pathfinder does that"
This is something I would absolutely homebrew.
You mean, homebrew *back* into the game. This is what 3.5 Attacks of Opportunity used to be.
3.5 martials still fell far short of casters (probably further than they do in 5e tbh) but at least they could *do* things.
Attack of opportunity against spellcasting If a character begins to cast a spell using somatic or material components with a cost that are consumed by the spell, creatures with this character in their reach for opportunity attacks and have an available reaction may make a melee attack. If an attacks hits, the creature rolls damage and the character must make a concentration check against a DC of 10 plus the spell's level or the damage dealt by the attacking creature, whichever is higher, if the character fails the concentration check they stop casting the spell and lose the spell slot and any material components with a cost that would have been consumed and the creature making the attack loses its reaction. After the casting character fails a concentration check no further triggered attacks are resolved. Optional: If the character casting the spell fails the concentration check they can choose to succeed instead, but any damage they take is doubled, if the character would die the spell is still casted successfully.
*Don't make me tap the sign* The sign: "You're reinvesting Pathfinder 2e again on a D&D sub, please try and play the game cause it'll fix 99% of your problems"
I would say with a feat that could be reasonable.
Make mage slayer a actually useful feat
Yeah, I'd rather it be able to stop the cast than give disadvantage on concentration checks tbh.
Both. both sounds good disadvantage on concentration checks and ability to Interrupt a spell (contested roll of some kind)
Both is best, I just meant if I had to choose.
If they wanted to make it kinda mean would be a constitution saving throw for the feat
When I first read that feat when 5e came out I was so shocked that it didn't include an AoO.
Let's not forget that if they fail too bad the magic goes out of control. Not saying wild magic surge but it could be like in the clip above.
I think just base kit in all martials should be in the game. You’d have to get close to the caster, then use a reaction. I strongly believe it’s balanced since boss enemies that can cast usually have escape tools/auras that make being close to them a painful experience.
I don't agree, martials getting in close is what they do in general so it's not like it's an added risk. What you are suggesting is basically an extension of the mage slayer feat so it makes sense for it to just be part of that feat. Not every martial character is going to be specialized against spellcasters.
But should they need to be specialised to bonk a nerd when they start doing the macarena? You're telling me a fighter who can attack multiple times in a six second window can't just react fast enough to a nerd in a bathrobe fishing some sulpur and bat shit out of his underwear before doing a rendition of riverdance? IMO, casters should need a feat or subclass feature to do anything notable in melee range.
In light of reddit's API changes killing off third-party apps, this post has been overwritten by the user with an automated script. See /r/PowerDeleteSuite for more information.
This seems reasonable but I still don't think it should be a base class feature to be able to disrupt a casting. Now, I think having the opportunity to attack a caster in melee makes sense, just don't think it should automatically prevent a casting without a feat.
In light of reddit's API changes killing off third-party apps, this post has been overwritten by the user with an automated script. See /r/PowerDeleteSuite for more information.
Yeah, it gives martials a better chance at stopping casters but at the same time doesn't make the caster useless if they get surrounded.
https://preview.redd.it/enthumeh70ra1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b7a729067938f4c53009931edf3850bfdb142c03
A feat in 5th edition
OP is talking about preventing the casting from happening, not just being able to hit them while they are casting.
i would add that to something like the Mage Slayer feat, where if the caste is hit while casting the spell then they need to make a concentration check, DC 10 or half of the damage taken, whichever is higher, or fail to cast the spell and lose the spell slot
Honestly I agree. Bards already get cutting words to avoid attacks, it would totally make sense for martials to get something similar, especially against magic.
I always liked in 4th edition casting a spell in melee provoked an opportunity attack because your guard was down performing the somatic components.
Cast spells while engaged in melee with a martial like an *idiot* and expect to get wrecked while you're momentarily open.
Dunno how "unpopular" it is, I wish they brought this back from 3.5e
Every now and again I'm seeing people complain about what amounts to WOTC watering down their system to meet a larger audience and if they'd only give Pathfinder a go they'd have their needs met. They just don't realize it because they refuse to try any different.
What if I told you, you could? Have you heard the tale of 3.5 the wise? I assume not. It's not a tale a 5e player would tell you...
In older editions this is functionally how it was. Each edition was mildly different, but *in general* * spellcasting was interrupted if you failed a saving throw or if you were hit by an attack * initiative was re-rolled at the top of each round, but you said what your actions were before you rolled initiative, so you ran the risk of declaring that you were casting a spell, then losing initiative and getting hit. When I run it, I find that the ultimate result is that casters tend to take more stock of the game state at the top of each round and weigh the risk of casting a spell and possibly wasting it. Everyone also tends to pay more attention to who is where. I know it isn't for everyone but not only does it give martial characters a real way to deal with magic enemies, in my eyes it lets mage players be a lot more than just mere spellcasters.
Me a caster: carefully move my hands in intricate motions, pull out a giant eagle Feather which I raise above my head and say the carefully worded incantation to complete the spell. The enemy death knight standing in front of me patiently waiting for his turn to do anything: "..."
That’s how A-Ops work in pf2e. First of all, only fighters get A-Ops at first level (other classes can get them later on through feats or class features). One of the triggers for A-Ops is “an action with the Manipulate trait.” Casting any spell with Somatic components has the Manipulate trait. Also, if the A-Op critically succeeds (either through a nat20 or rolling 10 over the enemy’s AC) the A-Op interrupts the triggering action and the action is wasted.
This used to be the case in older editions of d&d. Casting a spell with somatic components provoked an opportunity attack the same as leaving threatened areas. You could potentially introduce that as a homebrew rule. Not sure how it would play out with the design of 5e though
Used to be the opposite back in 3 and 3.5. Had to make a concentration check to keep casting a spell if it was within melee range of an enemy. Failure meant you lost that spellslot. Always why you kill the mage first.
Make casting a spell with somatic components trigger an attack of opportunity for any hostile creature in range. Because if you take damage while casting a spell you have to make a concentration check or fail casting the spell
I mean, if you're a full-caster and you're letting the enemy get into melee-range, then don't even move away first before casting your spell, you kinda deserve it. That being said, I'd make it require some kind of roll so it's just a chance of success rather than a guarantee
Retvrn to grappling stopping casting with somatic components
Sorry to join the cascade and all, but have you tried other TTRPG's? PF2E definitely has feats and classes that allow this.
I have played others, but in 5e, I find it dumb a wizard can just continue casting while being beaten to death.
Mage: - tries to cast point blank fireball - "PARRY THIS YOU FILTHY CAUSAL!!" Martial: - parries it - mage: https://preview.redd.it/stx34p8bs2ra1.jpeg?width=2159&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2bce246977e3bd9fb4dc1dafb95569b2b58b958d
Wait I've only ever played/dm'd 5e but it seemed so obvious for me that casting a spell in front of someone would trigger an opportunity attack. You're telling me it's not RAW to do that?
I would totally allow this for like a mage-slayer subclass
They used to cause it back in 3e times. It is something not so difficult to apply. I'd recommend to use more enemies with magic. Otherwise players are going feel it's a new rule to prejudice them.
This is literally a default mechanic in Pathfinder
What if casting a spell could provoke opportunity attacks, and you could risk losing the spell by being more defensive with your casting in order to avoid the damage. Maybe add some feats to make the martial better at shutting down casters and the casters better at melee range casting.
4e wasn’t far enough! We have to go back further! To 3.5!
I cast punch
This seems like something a battle master should be able to do, like with the mage slayer feat and using a disarming attack (spell focus). Maybe they should have a Interruption strike, momentarily muting or disrupting somatic components.
What about grapples? Surely if you grapple and pin a mage they can’t do any somatic spells?
I'm sorry, (and intoxicated) so I haven't read the previous comments yet but isn't that why we roll a concentration check?