[Feats] Disruptive

[Eric Mason 37]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Disruptive (Combat)
Your training makes it difficult for enemy spellcasters to safely cast spells near you.
Prerequisites: 6th-level fighter.
Benefit: The DC to cast spells defensively increases by 4 for all enemies within your threatened area. This increase only applies if you are aware of the enemy’s location and are capable of taking an attack of opportunity. If you can only take one attack of opportunity per round and have already used that attack, this increase does not apply.

Judging this feat is difficult as you know because defensive casting as it is in Beta and 3.5 quickly becomes trivial, so a +4 DC doesn't mean much.

This feat is intended to replace the Spell Breaker feat in Complete Arcane which prevents defensive casting completely, and due to it's penalties to casting yourself is typically only taken by non-casting classes.

In the defensive casting thread I suggested a smoothly scaling defensive casting mechanic:

Roll d20 vs DC = 15 + (spell level) - (caster's max spell level)

Normal caster at any level:
Best spells DC 15
Second best spells DC 14
Third best spells DC 13
Fourth best spells DC 12
Etc.

Caster at any level with Combat Casting feat (shifting the + 4 to cast to a - 4 DC for simplicity of comparison):
Best spells DC 11
Second best spells DC 10
Third best spells DC 9
Fourth best spells DC 8
Etc.

If that mechanic were used, then this feat adding + 4 to the DC would be very useful. If the mechanic you adopt becomes a trivial roll at high levels, this will be a useless/trap feat.

[Bagpuss]

Yeah, 'Disruptive' doesn't look like enough movement in the direction of making life harder for high-level casters. I have an open mind on how best to fix it, though.

[lastknightleft]

Well I'm pretty sure that Jason intends to add the BAB to the dificulty of the casting defensively check. That would mean that a fighter with this feat had +4 over their current BAB that is a significant boost.

[primemover003]

Yeah it can't be an auto failure in one feat like it was with Mage Slayer. That feat is broken beyond all get out, as are it's chain pierce magical concealment and pierce magical protections.

Disruptive's mechanics should be the same as Feinting (Bluff) or Demoralizing Opponent (Intimidate).

--Vrocknrolla

[JoelF847]

Also, while I'm all for more fighter only feats, I don't think this one should be one. A rogue, monk, barbarian, etc. should be able to screw with a caster just as much as a fighter, and should be able to take the feats that support this option.

[Bagpuss]

JoelF847 wrote:

Also, while I'm all for more fighter only feats, I don't think this one should be one. A rogue, monk, barbarian, etc. should be able to screw with a caster just as much as a fighter, and should be able to take the feats that support this option.

I don't like fighter-only feats at all, myself. So while I disagree with you on the general virtue of fighter-only feats, I agree with you that this certainly shouldn't be one.

[lastknightleft]

I'll third that

[Jason Bulmahn]

First off, this is not parliament, so there is no need to throw up a one sentence post affirming a previous post.

Second, I am thinking this one over. Chances are this feat will change as the rules for casting defensively are altered. Stay tuned. I am still thinking about its "fighter only" status, in part because if the feat makes spellcasting rather difficult, I would prefer it limited to one class.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

[lastknightleft]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

First off, this is not parliament, so there is no need to throw up a one sentence post affirming a previous post.

I fillibuster your objection ;P

[Quandary]

Given that they need to be in threat range to be relavent (and "aware" of caster, etc),
I think there's a pretty easy way for casters to avoid disruption: avoid being in melee range.

Personally, I think 2nd Edition's take on this was pretty good, with casting speed and auto-disrupt on any hit.
That specific system doesn't need to be re-enacted, but I think it's a pretty good comparison for effectiveness.

[primemover003]

Quandary wrote:

Given that they need to be in threat range to be relavent (and "aware" of caster, etc),

I think there's a pretty easy way for casters to avoid disruption: avoid being in melee range.

Personally, I think 2nd Edition's take on this was pretty good, with casting speed and auto-disrupt on any hit.
That specific system doesn't need to be re-enacted, but I think it's a pretty good comparison for effectiveness.

Well if more people readied an action to disrupt spellcasting (which I almost never see, nor counterspelling unless by an item -ring of greater counterspell or ring of spellbattle) it might not be such a problem.

Readied Actions... oft overlooked.

[Quandary]

I agree, I feel the rules should make more clear how effective an action that is.
Maybe the problem is that Fighter-types don't like to read the Spellcasting rules :-)
And when Full Attack is available, it's a mighty seductive option compared to a Readied Standard Attack, since you have a decent chance of finishing off most casters given the STR, Weapon, and Feats.

I really don't see why damage dealt not-on-exact-Initiative isn't treated like DoT Spell damage
(1/2 DC increase compared to damage dealt exactly-on-Initiative)

[Bagpuss]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

First off, this is not parliament, so there is no need to throw up a one sentence post affirming a previous post.

Second, I am thinking this one over. Chances are this feat will change as the rules for casting defensively are altered. Stay tuned. I am still thinking about its "fighter only" status, in part because if the feat makes spellcasting rather difficult, I would prefer it limited to one class.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I would prefer that spellcasting should get more difficult, under attack, across the board, including this feat or its successor. Anyhow, surely it'd be natural for a Barbarian to have access to the feat? They're not overly fond of casters and should surely be quite effective against them. But in general, I'd like meleers to have the chance to stick it to the casters as much as possible, I guess...

[Abraham spalding]

I believe that having any professional competent attack waving a piece of steel in your face should make it very difficult to complete a spell.

I also have a hard time seeing any wizard allowing (if he can do anything at all about it) a group of people regularly teaching and training others in the best ways to ruin his day.

[Eric Mason 37]

Jason, I look forward to seeing what the casting defensive mechanic you choose is, and hope we can have a chance to test the next incarnation of this feat.

Abraham spalding wrote:

I believe that having any professional competent attack waving a piece of steel in your face should make it very difficult to complete a spell.

I also have a hard time seeing any wizard allowing (if he can do anything at all about it) a group of people regularly teaching and training others in the best ways to ruin his day.

It's kind of hard to stop them. There are generally a lot of people in the world who hit things with weapons. You can't murder them all... Or can you? ;)

Whenever you have combat, you have people teaching each other and learning. They are going to figure out what works and doesn't work. The higher magic your setting, the more common this knowlege would be.

[Epic Meepo]

primemover003 wrote:

Well if more people readied an action to disrupt spellcasting (which I almost never see, nor counterspelling unless by an item -ring of greater counterspell or ring of spellbattle) it might not be such a problem.

Readied Actions... oft overlooked.

Very true.

Instead of seeing feats that make defensive casting harder, I'd rather see feats that make readied attacks against spellcasters easier. Or feats that simulate readied attacks.

For example, Disruptive could read: "Whenever a creature you threaten with a melee weapon casts a spell, you may attack that creature as an immediate action. If you do, this attack counts as your standard action for your next turn."

[MegaPlex]

Epic Meepo wrote:

primemover003 wrote:

Well if more people readied an action to disrupt spellcasting (which I almost never see, nor counterspelling unless by an item -ring of greater counterspell or ring of spellbattle) it might not be such a problem.

Readied Actions... oft overlooked.

Very true.

Instead of seeing feats that make defensive casting harder, I'd rather see feats that make readied attacks against spellcasters easier. Or feats that simulate readied attacks.

The reason no one uses readied actions to disrupt spell casting is that people like to do stuff, not to have their entire turn negated by a free 5' step.

I'd like to see the Injury section on spell casting be modified to include any damage dealt before a spell is cast. That way you could pound away at a spell caster, they could free 5' step (or defensive cast) but the damage you had just done could still disrupt their spell.

[Epic Meepo]

MegaPlex wrote:

The reason no one uses readied actions to disrupt spell casting is that people like to do stuff, not to have their entire turn negated by a free 5' step.

Good point. Amend my above suggestion as follows:

Disruptive could read: "Whenever a creature within 10 feet of you casts a spell, you may attack that creature with a melee weapon as an immediate action, even if the creature would otherwise be outside your reach. If you do, this counts as your standard action for your next turn."