Protection from Magic (3.5 Feat, PEACH)

[NeoSeraphi]

Design Note:Okay, so we all know that wizards have ridiculously unfair defense spells. Mirror image, stoneskin, protection from arrows, wall of x, and forcecage, along with teleporting and celerity pretty much make mages untouchable at mid to high levels. No reason, however, that mundane should have to put up with that crap without any defensive options of their own. So, with that in mind, here's a feat.



Protection from Magic (General)
Prerequisites: Unable to cast spells or spell-like abilities, unable to manifest psionic powers or psi-like abilities, unable to use any kind of supernatural attack
Benefit: Once per day, as an immediate action, you may gain the golem's magic immunity special ability for one round. You may use this ability as a caster casts a spell against you, but not before you know the results of the caster's attack roll against you or whether you failed your saving throw (you must become immune before you know if the spell would have affected you already or not).

For the purposes of this feat, treat the lesser orb of x and orb of x spells (Complete Arcane/Spell Compendium) as if they were SR: Yes.
Special: You may take this feat multiple times. Each time you take this feat, you gain an additional use of its power per day.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Yeah, I'm going to say the bonus is too high, to the point that this feat would be automatic for all non-caster builds. The "saving throws on spells without saving throws" is also an incredibly good effect, and even on its own would be a near-brokenly-good feat. The function is unclear as well-- what happens if you save against a fog cloud? A wall of stone?

I know, I know, no nice things for melee, but it's not just a balance thing. This feat makes it near-impossible for a caster to directly affect an unwilling targets, leaves light-caster-melee like hexblades gimped in comparison, and ultimately ruins large amounts of caster's fun.

[NeoSeraphi]

Yeah, I'm going to say the bonus is too high, to the point that this feat would be automatic for all non-caster builds. The "saving throws on spells without saving throws" is also an incredibly good effect, and even on its own would be a near-brokenly-good feat. The function is unclear as well-- what happens if you save against a fog cloud? A wall of stone?

I know, I know, no nice things for melee, but it's not just a balance thing. This feat makes it near-impossible for a caster to directly affect an unwilling targets, leaves light-caster-melee like hexblades gimped in comparison, and ultimately ruins large amounts of caster's fun.

Okay, I'll add a clause about the spell needing to directly affect the creature, I'll drop the bonus to 1/4 BAB for saving throws (and keep the bonus to touch AC at 1/2), and I'll make the Saving Throws on Spells Without Saving Throws its own feat with the first one as a prerequisite.

[Kuma Kode]

Still seems to be fairly compulsory, honestly.

The increase to Touch AC also completely screws grapplers, trippers, and just about any other combat maneuver that requires a touch attack, and leads to some very bizarre situations where you're easier for the brawler to punch in the face than to touch in a non-hostile manner.

Also, Warlocks and binders are technically allowed to take this feat as they do not "manifest powers" or "cast spells." Excluding those who possess spell-like or supernatural abilities would work, but you'd have to decide whether or not to also add in a clause that the Sp or Su abilities only count against you if they're from a class.

[NeoSeraphi]

Still seems to be fairly compulsory, honestly.

The increase to Touch AC also completely screws grapplers, trippers, and just about any other combat maneuver that requires a touch attack, and leads to some very bizarre situations where you're easier for the brawler to punch in the face than to touch in a non-hostile manner.

Well, that's not true. Most monsters that grapple or trip have Improved Grab or the Trip special attack, both of which let them completely ignore the touch attack. And, generally speaking, a grappler is going to have a high Strength and high BAB, so he'll probably be able to hit your improved touch AC anyway. (If you have full BAB, you usually don't have very high Dex, rangers being the obvious exception).



Also, Warlocks and binders are technically allowed to take this feat as they do not "manifest powers" or "cast spells." Excluding those who possess spell-like or supernatural abilities would work, but you'd have to decide whether or not to also add in a clause that the Sp or Su abilities only count against you if they're from a class.

True, I'll fix that.

[Kuma Kode]

Well, that's not true. Most monsters that grapple or trip have Improved Grab or the Trip special attack, both of which let them completely ignore the touch attack. And, generally speaking, a grappler is going to have a high Strength and high BAB, so he'll probably be able to hit your improved touch AC anyway. (If you have full BAB, you usually don't have very high Dex, rangers being the obvious exception). Just because melee would likely be able to hit anyway still doesn't change the fact that it is harder for them to touch you than it is for them to hit you, which is completely illogical and unjustified by a feat called "Protection from Magic."

[NeoSeraphi]

Just because melee would likely be able to hit anyway still doesn't change the fact that it is harder for them to touch you than it is for them to hit you, which is completely illogical and unjustified by a feat called "Protection from Magic."

True. I'll put a cap on it so that your touch AC cannot exceed your full AC.

[Kuma Kode]

True. I'll put a cap on it so that your touch AC cannot exceed your full AC. I would probably just say it only works against spells or spell-like abilities, but capping it works, too (still bothers me that it actually applies at all, though).

That makes it a bit better. It's definitely still a really good feat, so it's still pretty much going to get taken by anyone who doesn't cast spells. Maybe not immediately, but definitely by higher levels.

[NeoSeraphi]

I would probably just say it only works against spells or spell-like abilities, but capping it works, too (still bothers me that it actually applies at all, though).

Well, imagine how it applies. It's not really that your character has some kind of protection against it (that's the saving throw bonus part) but that he's learned to use his movements and body to defend himself when his armor can't. So it applies to sneaky movements like attempting to grab a creature as well.




That makes it a bit better. It's definitely still a really good feat, so it's still pretty much going to get taken by anyone who doesn't cast spells. Maybe not immediately, but definitely by higher levels.

Well, that's good then. We all need some defense against magic anyway.

[Doug Lampert]

I would probably just say it only works against spells or spell-like abilities, but capping it works, too (still bothers me that it actually applies at all, though).

That makes it a bit better. It's definitely still a really good feat, so it's still pretty much going to get taken by anyone who doesn't cast spells. Maybe not immediately, but definitely by higher levels.

If a feat intended to significantly close the gap between casters and non-casters ISN'T "must have" then it has almost certainly failed in its purpose.

The attempt is to close a significant power gap, the feat intended to deal with this must be a significant power-up from the previously available options.

I'd combine the two feats myself, a big part of "melee can't have nice things" is that the feats don't scale. And no one has all that many feats to spare. Why charge two feats to still be weaker than a caster?

However, this deals with melee's SMALLEST problem, PvP type weakness. Most enemies aren't primarily casters (even the casters tend to be gishes who buff their melee). And melee is still weak because it lacks capabilities it needs to match a buffed caster.

I'd consider a feat that let a melee with that feat share spells with an allied caster. This lets the melee guy get all those lovely cleric "self only" buffs or share the benefit of a Mirror image or whatever.

[Yitzi]

I'd consider a feat that let a melee with that feat share spells with an allied caster. This lets the melee guy get all those lovely cleric "self only" buffs or share the benefit of a Mirror image or whatever.

I prefer the approach of nerfing the "self only" buffs.

[Grod_The_Giant]

(things)

As you said, it really only deals with the PVP aspects of magic, and in a-- no offense-- somewhat clumsy way. The second feat still feels weird in the Iron Heart Surge sort of way, where you "make your save" against a wall of ice and walk right through it. The first basically renders the character immune to everything that offers a touch attack.

The save bonus is...ok. It's about equal to carrying around a second cloak of resistance. The touch AC bonus? This feat is going to be taken by anyone who can get it; largely those with full BABs and rogue-types. Assume the first, 1/2 a full BAB is the same as a wizard's entire BAB. You have converted the roll into (Dexterity Modifier + feats) against (10+Dexterity Modifier + feats/items/etc). That becomes quite difficult to hit, especially if the target has shield ward or something similar. And that's assuming equal levels-- there are a lot of monsters with BABs well above their challenge ratings. And, of course, a quickened true strike will still be a near-guaranteed hit, rendering the point moot to optimizers.

Balanced?...maybe. But this is a game of fun. If the fighter misses an attack, it's no big deal-- no resources besides time were lost, and he probably has other attacks he can make anyway. If the wizard misses a ranged touch attack, he might have just wasted one of his most powerful spells, and no-one likes that.

<pant>

I restate my previous case that these feats attack caster-dominance on the wrong end. Boosting target defenses, like nerfing spells/day and casting mechanisms, makes the classes less fun to play, and ends up requiring optimization to contribute. I've never had a big problem with casters in-game, because my players don't use cheap tricks because they're cheap, and the players are there to have fun and be challenged too. And because they don't load up on persisted buffs and plane shift into planes with different time rates to recharge, they can die pretty easily if they mess up their tactics.

tl;dr: nerf the broken offense. nerf layered defenses. Don't nerf unoptimized casters' ability to directly contribute to battle.

[NeoSeraphi]

I restate my previous case that these feats attack caster-dominance on the wrong end. Boosting target defenses, like nerfing spells/day and casting mechanisms, makes the classes less fun to play, and ends up requiring optimization to contribute. I've never had a big problem with casters in-game, because my players don't use cheap tricks because they're cheap, and the players are there to have fun and be challenged too. And because they don't load up on persisted buffs and plane shift into planes with different time rates to recharge, they can die pretty easily if they mess up their tactics.

tl;dr: nerf the broken offense. nerf layered defenses. Don't nerf unoptimized casters' ability to directly contribute to battle.

I refuse to go through magic and nerf each broken spell. That is A) far too time-consuming and B) far less likely to be approved by a DM, since even one problem with one spell's nerf is enough cause for a DM to dismiss the entire fix.

I don't see how you think the second feat could apply to wall of ice, as I very clearly stated the terms for how a spell must directly affect a character and wall of ice doesn't meet any of those terms.

Ranged touch spells are unfair to melee, as melee simply can't fight back against casters. Casters can teleport away and rain hell upon melee, so with these feats, casters will have more trouble hitting with their rays and even if they do, the main advantage of the ray (requires an attack roll to hit but offers no saving throw) no longer applies if you take the second feat, since you are allowed a saving throw anyway.

As for "casters trying to contribute", that only applies to PvP combat, which I don't want to encourage in any way. This feat is more for characters who plan to be fighting an organization of spellcasters, or worse, a lich or some other powerful casting BBEG. In any case, the BBEG is optimized, by definition, so having a feat that allows you to meet his optimization levels and forces the DM to use spells which are more creative (and therefore, more surprising, interesting, and cinematic than say, orb of force), is only a good thing.

[Yitzi]

I refuse to go through magic and nerf each broken spell.

In that case, you will never be able to balance optimized casters against merely well-built casters. You will never have a fix that keeps casters from being broken without forcing them to optimize to even be viable. There are ways to deal with large groups of broken spells at once (e.g. my "condition levels" fix), but you're going to have to balance the spells against each other if you want a truly balanced game.

[Lord_Gareth]

As for "casters trying to contribute", that only applies to PvP combat

Wow, really? Because the last time I checked, all of the iconic villains in fantasy and D&D itself have class levels, and most of these levels are in spellcasting classes. I guess they must be players and not NPCs for some odd reason. I'll inform my Dungeon Master immediately.

[DeAnno]

The first feat is mostly fine. A +5 bonus to all saving throws vs magic is a little wtf, but AC is massively a joke in this system anyway. It gives more than any other defense feat anywhere though, so it's pretty much a feat tax.

The second feat isn't fine, since saving throws (especially with a +5 bonus) are not really a functioning mechanic. With equal levels of optimization, and the first feat, you will fail saves vs equal CR opponents who don't specifically focus on save DCs probably 5% of the time. Basically, direct offense is completely shut down. If you want to play a game where mages are even more focused on BFC and self buffing than before, this feat is the way to do it.

Casters may have ways to teleport around and generally foil melee, but all these ways can be beaten with tactics or gear or stealth. The second feat offers an unbreakable always on passive defense. The opportunity cost of two feats is simply too low, this should be a 10 level PRC capstone.

Edit: at level 20, Reflex Save with 15 levels poor 5 levels good is 4+5=9 base, with a +6 item you have a dex of 18 for +4, +1 for a luck bonus from some misc piece of gear, +5 for your resistance bonus from gear, +5 from the first feat is already:

+9+4+1+5+5 = +24

This is before any friendly buffs like Conviction.

A caster without any feats to raise his DC has a stat of ~30 and if casting a 9th level spell has a save DC of 29. So it isn't quite as bad as I guessed, but against his highest DC you have a 80% chance of saving for negates. That strikes me as OP for two feats.

[ericgrau]

I'll agree to apply the touch AC to spells only simply because you're better at dodging spells. Just like dwarves are better at dodging giants and yet nothing else. In fact I'd just call it a dodge bonus so that technically it applies to non-touch AC spells too, not that it makes much difference.

I'd also say that feats like this shouldn't be viewed as a balancing factor between casters and non-casters. As pointed out if you make it too good it becomes an automatic feat choice. And that's just feat tax for something that should be a house rule given to everybody instead. Instead it should be on par with existing feats. Any other boosts should be done outside of feats.

1/2 BAB to spell touch AC would be right on the mark because caster BAB for their touch spells scale at the same rate. But there's a ring of protection plus gloves of dexterity which outclass the caster's only option of gloves of dexterity. I'd do 1/4 BAB to touch AC. Otherwise you could easily be at a touch of 30 vs. a +15 to hit. And at lower levels it's maybe a touch of 12 vs. a +2 to hit. He still hits sometimes but it's a waste of his time to use rays, rays which you also get a save on btw if you take the 2nd feat. That's a bit much for 1 feat.

The above math on saves is roughly correct and makes a good point. I might give a flat save bonus rather than a scaling bonus since the problem is mainly at high levels. It's a common mistake to want to make untyped bonuses scale, but the fact is your D20 doesn't get any bigger at high levels. Scaling works on touch AC because touch attacks get easier at high levels because touch AC doesn't scale as fast as everything else. Scaling works on typed bonuses (except obscure typed bonuses that might as well be untyped) because the system expects them and includes them in the normal existing scaling. But not here. I'd give it a flat +2.

Both bonuses put together might still be a bit much for only 1 feat, but it could be worse.

[NeoSeraphi]

Okay, I reworked the feat completely, and now there is absolutely no gray areas about which spells it protects against and which it doesn't.

[DeAnno]

For the purposes of this feat, treat the lesser orb of x and orb of x spells (Complete Arcane/Spell Compendium) as if they were SR: Yes.


Awkward. And they certainly aren't the only DD spells that don't allow SR: Hail of Stones, Acid Rain, and Doom Scarabs all will hit a golem, just off the top of my head.

[NeoSeraphi]

Awkward. And they certainly aren't the only DD spells that don't allow SR: Hail of Stones, Acid Rain, and Doom Scarabs all will hit a golem, just off the top of my head.

I'm fine with the feat being "awkward". It's one little addendum, it's easy enough to remember. And I'm fine with those spells you named affecting the Protected. They are all SR: No for good reason (especially hail of stones). My problem with the orb spells is that, by WotC definition, they should be SR: Yes.



Conjuration
These spells are usually not subject to spell resistance unless the spell conjures some form of energy.


Edit: How about the feat itself, though? Look better?

[DeAnno]

The feat itself now, to me, actually looks too weak, but that may have something to do with my hate of one/day stuff. Also, BaB +2 seems like a pretty weird requirement, not sure why this would be any worse at level 1 for fighty types.

How about something like this?

Protection From Magic (General)
Prerequisites: BaB +1, No ability to cast spells, manifest powers, use SLAs or PLAs, or use Supernatural Attacks
Benefit: You gain Spell Resistance equal to 5 + your Hit Dice. Once per day per 6 Hit Dice (minimum once per day) as a free action, you can increase your Spell Resistance by 20 and become immune to Ranged Touch Attacks and Rays until the end of your next turn.

Breaking SR 25+HD is pretty hard, especially if you aren't expecting it, and this has Ray Deflection thrown in too as a less awkward way of beating Orb Spells. Also this scales its uses by itself, since taking feats multiple times for the same thing is letting the terrorists win.

[NeoSeraphi]

The feat itself now, to me, actually looks too weak, but that may have something to do with my hate of one/day stuff. Also, BaB +2 seems like a pretty weird requirement, not sure why this would be any worse at level 1 for fighty types.

How about something like this?

Protection From Magic (General)
Prerequisites: BaB +1, No ability to cast spells, manifest powers, use SLAs or PLAs, or use Supernatural Attacks
Benefit: You gain Spell Resistance equal to 5 + your Hit Dice. Once per day per 6 Hit Dice (minimum once per day) as a free action, you can increase your Spell Resistance by 20 and become immune to Ranged Touch Attacks and Rays until the end of your next turn.

Breaking SR 25+HD is pretty hard, especially if you aren't expecting it, and this has Ray Deflection thrown in too as a less awkward way of beating Orb Spells. Also this scales its uses by itself, since taking feats multiple times for the same thing is letting the terrorists win.

I know that ranged touch attacks aren't necessarily rays, but aren't rays all ranged touch attacks? Why distinguish between them? And do you really think SR as a feat is okay? I mean, that's generally a class feature and a pretty nice one.

[Grod_The_Giant]

This is good, now. I like it very much-- it's simple, useful, and neither overpowered nor vastly better than any other feat. You just... you know, stop one or two spells per day when you really need it.

(I will note that singling the orb spells out for exclusion is a bit weird, although I fully agree that there's no excuse for them to be SR: No.)

[DeAnno]

I know that ranged touch attacks aren't necessarily rays, but aren't rays all ranged touch attacks? Why distinguish between them? And do you really think SR as a feat is okay? I mean, that's generally a class feature and a pretty nice one.

I think you're right, but I was mostly copying Ray deflection which I'm pretty sure specifies both for whatever reason.