| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
All variable, numeric effects of a spell modified by this feat are maximized. Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables.
Caster level check is not a saving throw, is not an opposed roll, and is a random variable. Right?
Seems errata worthy, anyone heard different?
|
All variable, numeric effects of a spell modified by this feat are maximized. Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables.Caster level check is not a saving throw, is not an opposed roll, and is a random variable. Right?
Seems errata worthy, anyone heard different?
It is a opposed roll Dispel Magic Caster level+1d20 vs target spell CL+11.
All variable, numeric effects of a spell modified by this feat are maximized. Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables.Caster level check is not a saving throw, is not an opposed roll, and is a random variable. Right?
Seems errata worthy, anyone heard different?
It is an opposed roll. The roll is not the effect of the spell. The effect happens or doesn't happen depending on the roll.
I couldn't find the definition of 'opposed roll' anywhere in the rules. Thanks.
|
If your GM admits 3rd party products, you should consider chechins Super Genious Game's Genious Guide to rune staffs and wyrd wands.
It's a product that gives different options of staves, and one of them is giving yu an enhancment bonus to caster level checks on some circumstances, including dispel checks.
Would you allow maximize to effect the d20 attack roll on Scorching Ray?All variable, numeric effects of a spell modified by this feat are maximized. Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables.Caster level check is not a saving throw, is not an opposed roll, and is a random variable. Right?
Seems errata worthy, anyone heard different?
Clearly not, but you must admit they're different things.
So are attack rolls 'opposed rolls?' Is the definition of 'opposed roll' any d20 fishing for a target number? That seems to be the indication from the thread, I just couldn't find a definition anywhere. Seems like a pretty important thing to state in the rules.
If your roll, after the VS portion, involves an outside influence (an opponent) then it is an opposed roll.
1d20 + Caster Level (max 15) VS Caster Level + 11.
The second caster level involves an outside influence (not yourself) and thus, it is opposed.
EDIT: Attack rolls ARE opposed rolls.
example - 1d20 + attack bonuses VS Armor Class of Target.
Armor Class involves an outside influence (originating from your target) and thus it is opposed.
They are not that different. A Caster Level check and an Attack roll seem pretty similar to me in regards to spells. They are both rolls to see if the spell is sucessful.
Every roll is a roll to see if an action is successful.
An attack roll is a roll to see if a ray misses its target. That's just as different from a caster level check as it is from a saving throw or for a damage die or for a random number of hit dice affected in the AOE. Each is a different unrelated mechanic to see whether a spell is successful, and maximize works on some but not all of those mechanics. Which is why I asked the question.
An attack roll isn't an opposed roll.
It's a roll against a target number.
That's what I thought too. Then again, the "opposed rolls" in your description are merely rolls against a variable target number, set by another character's check. Attack rolls on a mount during mounted combat can go against a replacement AC from the rider's ride check, which makes them opposed, but the mechanic is functionally the same.
I think it's clear that maximize doesn't work on attack rolls because the attack roll isn't an effect of the spell. A caster level check, however, is produced by an effect of the spell, so I thought it might be maximizable. Your CL check is a representation of how powerful your dispel is, just like your damage dice are a representation of how powerful your fireball is.
If your roll, after the VS portion, involves an outside influence (an opponent) then it is an opposed roll.
1d20 + Caster Level (max 15) VS Caster Level + 11.
The second caster level involves an outside influence (not yourself) and thus, it is opposed.
EDIT: Attack rolls ARE opposed rolls.
example - 1d20 + attack bonuses VS Armor Class of Target.Armor Class involves an outside influence (originating from your target) and thus it is opposed.
This seems like a reasonable definition to me. Where is it stated in the rules, so I can reference it in the future?
I'm very surprised that "opposed roll" doesn't have an entry in the common terminology section of the SRD.
All variable, numeric effects of a spell modified by this feat are maximized. Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables.Caster level check is not a saving throw, is not an opposed roll, and is a random variable. Right?
Seems errata worthy, anyone heard different?
Caster level check is also not an effect of the spell. The targeted spell going away is the effect, and that's not variable.
This seems like a reasonable definition to me. Where is...If your roll, after the VS portion, involves an outside influence (an opponent) then it is an opposed roll.
1d20 + Caster Level (max 15) VS Caster Level + 11.
The second caster level involves an outside influence (not yourself) and thus, it is opposed.
EDIT: Attack rolls ARE opposed rolls.
example - 1d20 + attack bonuses VS Armor Class of Target.Armor Class involves an outside influence (originating from your target) and thus it is opposed.
It doesn't seem reasonable to me. Almost every roll in a d20 system is opposed by some DC. Can you jump that chasm? Roll Acrobatics VS the distance to cover. Can you pick a lock? Roll Disable Device VS the lock's DC. Can you make progress on the sword you're crafting? Roll Craft VS the crafting DC.
If you can fail it, it's opposed. I don't like that logic. I prefer to say an opposed roll is one where someone is actively interfering with you. As in, they roll a die to counter your die. I'm pretty sure that was explicitly called out in the 3.x books (mostly in relation to grappling), but that text may have been cut in PF.
Caster level check is also not an effect of the spell. The targeted spell going away is the effect, and that's not variable.
Sure it is, it's binary. Yes/No is a variable.
I think the case that caster level checks are opposed rolls is a pretty good one. I just wish I could find a definition of "opposed roll" somewhere.
It doesn't seem reasonable to me. Almost every roll in a d20 system is opposed by some DC. Can you jump that chasm? Roll Acrobatics VS the distance to cover. Can you pick a lock? Roll Disable Device VS the lock's DC. Can you make progress on the sword you're crafting? Roll Craft VS the crafting DC.
If you can fail it, it's opposed. I don't like that logic. I prefer to say an opposed roll is one where someone is actively interfering with you. As in, they roll a die to counter your die. I'm pretty sure that was explicitly called out in the 3.x books (mostly in relation to grappling), but that text may have been cut in PF.
Yes... those are opposed rolls... and therefore Maximize Spell doesn't apply to those dice rolls.
In other words, Maximize spell was intended for such things as:-Doing maximum damage with a fireball or lightning bolt.
-Doing the max amount of negative levels with enervation.
-Fascinite the maximum hit dice of creatures.
-Cause fear for the maximum number of rounds.
Your definition of opposed roll is incorrect. Passive perception checks vs hidden creatures are opposed rolls... but not "active" on both sides of the check.
It doesn't seem reasonable to me. Almost every roll in a d20 system is opposed by some DC. Can you jump that chasm? Roll Acrobatics VS the distance to cover. Can you pick a lock? Roll Disable Device VS the lock's DC. Can you make progress on the sword you're crafting? Roll Craft VS the crafting DC.
If you can fail it, it's opposed. I don't like that logic. I prefer to say an opposed roll is one where someone is actively interfering with you. As in, they roll a die to counter your die. I'm pretty sure that was explicitly called out in the 3.x books (mostly in relation to grappling), but that text may have been cut in PF.
So by your logic, if I cast Maximized Shocking Grasp I don't just get all sixes on my damage roll, I also get an automatic 20 on my touch attack. Oh, and that's an automatic critical hit, since I'd get a 20 on my confirmation roll too.
Yeah, I don't think it works like that.
|
|
If you can fail it, it's opposed. I don't like that logic. I prefer to say an opposed roll is one where someone is actively interfering with you. As in, they roll a die to counter your die. I'm pretty sure that was explicitly called out in the 3.x books (mostly in relation to grappling), but that text may have been cut in PF.
Look the combat manoeuvres. In the 3.0 and 3.5 version they were the epitome of the opposed rolls.
Now Paizo has replaced the d20 with a flat value of 10 to make it faster.So by your argument they are no more opposed rolls.
My point is that most the 10+xx DC for players rolls are opposed check, including hitting a guy AC, overcoming his spell resistance and so on.
Simply, to save game time, the "roll" of the opponent has been removed and given an average value.
It is an interpretation, but to me it seem logic.
Maximized spells with attack rolls don't get natural 20s. Things like rays and touch attacks are an effect of the magic rules, not the specific spell's rules. As such, they cannot be maximized. However, the opposed roll is specifically mentioned in dispel magic and as such IS part of the spell's random variables. Seeing as how maximize spell gives the maximum possible result on ALL VARIABLES OF A SPELL, than I think it would apply here. RAW, though not likely RAI.
Same thign would happen with a maximized awaken: You would end up with a REALLY smart animal or tree.
So the person wants to use a Maximized Dispel Magic rather than a Greater Dispel Magic?
Sure go for it, not really a balance issue.
Oh wait now he wants to use a Maximized Greater Dispel magic instead of Disjunction... what is the problem?
Is it fun for the player? Yes
Is it overpowered? No
As a DM I woudl say sure.
As per Raw? Shrug can be ruled either way.
I wouldn't allow it, personally. But if this is allowed, then I'd opt to Empower a Dispel Magic instead. If you roll higher than a 13, you are more effective than Maximize. Roll a 20, and you are looking at 30 + CL for the dispel check. For 9k, you can get a Metamagic rod to Empower the spell 3/day to boot.
Just not in my game. :-).
Maximized spells with attack rolls don't get natural 20s. Things like rays and touch attacks are an effect of the magic rules, not the specific spell's rules. As such, they cannot be maximized. However, the opposed roll is specifically mentioned in dispel magic and as such IS part of the spell's random variables. Seeing as how maximize spell gives the maximum possible result on ALL VARIABLES OF A SPELL, than I think it would apply here. RAW, though not likely RAI.
Same thign would happen with a maximized awaken: You would end up with a REALLY smart animal or tree.
Agreed on the Awaken, disagree still on everything else. You said right in your post that the Dispel check is an opposed roll, and is therefore not Maximizable.
What about the CMB check for Black Tentacles? Attacks and saves by Summoned Monsters? Or Spiritual Weapon?
Agreed on the Awaken, disagree still on everything else. You said right in your post that the Dispel check is an opposed roll, and is therefore not Maximizable.Maximized spells with attack rolls don't get natural 20s. Things like rays and touch attacks are an effect of the magic rules, not the specific spell's rules. As such, they cannot be maximized. However, the opposed roll is specifically mentioned in dispel magic and as such IS part of the spell's random variables. Seeing as how maximize spell gives the maximum possible result on ALL VARIABLES OF A SPELL, than I think it would apply here. RAW, though not likely RAI.
Same thign would happen with a maximized awaken: You would end up with a REALLY smart animal or tree.
An opposed roll can't also be a variable? Why?
|
|
An opposed roll can't also be a variable? Why?Agreed on the Awaken, disagree still on everything else. You said right in your post that the Dispel check is an opposed roll, and is therefore not Maximizable.Maximized spells with attack rolls don't get natural 20s. Things like rays and touch attacks are an effect of the magic rules, not the specific spell's rules. As such, they cannot be maximized. However, the opposed roll is specifically mentioned in dispel magic and as such IS part of the spell's random variables. Seeing as how maximize spell gives the maximum possible result on ALL VARIABLES OF A SPELL, than I think it would apply here. RAW, though not likely RAI.
Same thign would happen with a maximized awaken: You would end up with a REALLY smart animal or tree.
Maximize Spell (Metamagic)
...
Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables.
I have some trouble swallowing the maximized awakening.
Even worse, a maximized, empowered awaken.An awakened plant would get 18+(3d6)/2 int, wis and cha.
Get it 4 levels as a druid (taking it as a follower) and it will become mobile while transformed in animal (human) form.
An animal will get 18+(3d6)/2 int and +(3+1d3/2) cha. Train it as a wizard (with eschew materials). He will have a problem initially with the somatic components of the spells, but the spells he can easily (with that intelligence) research spells with alternate somatic components appropriate for his physiology.
It can be problematic.
The term "variable numeric effect" is not defined, but a d20 rolled to determine success is not a variable numeric effect of a spell, and therefore is never affected by maximize or empower.
Whether you're rolling a skill check, a concentration check, a caster level check, an attack roll, or anything else, when you pick up that d20 to check against a DC, what you're doing does not count as a variable numeric effect.
So is the "opposed roll" text just legacy then, since nowadays there are no real "opposed" rolls? Did they really just mean "checks" ? I mean, even in the case where I'm spotting you hide, it's not so much an opposed roll as it is you roll hide once to set the DC of my or other people's perception checks, right?
I'm still boggled that there's no definition for what an "opposed roll" is in the book.
I'm pretty sure that if this isn't explicitly stated somewhere, my current GM is not going to allow me to do what I want to do to his big bad paladin NPC by maximizing my dispel check on his holy avenger, so I'm operating under a 'no' premise right now. But I still want to know what "opposed roll" means to Pathfinder.
It is a dispel check. This is not an opposed roll, for reasons I have previously mentioned.
Either way, it can't be maximized. It's not an actual effect. It's a chance to succeed on the effect.
All spell variables are chances to succeed on an effect. I'm not buying that. When I disintegrate you, I'm trying to produce the effect of turning you to a ziplog bag of compost, and the damage dice I roll (which can be maximized) determine whether or not I achieve that effect.
I'll buy that you can't maximize it because it qualifies as an "opposed roll," or I'll buy that the words "opposed roll" in the spell description were a holdover from 3.5 and it should say "checks" or something like that in its place that would also include dispel checks. But I'm not buying the line that a dispel check isn't a spell variable. It pretty clearly is.
You don't roll to determine your AC.
If I'm trying to stab a Paladin's horse, he absolutely rolls to determine his horse's AC. He rolls his ride skill.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/mounted-combat-combat---final
Your ride check supercedes the horse's AC, and if the ride check is high enough, no hit.
Your definition of opposed roll is incorrect. Passive perception checks vs hidden creatures are opposed rolls... but not "active" on both sides of the check.
Sure it is. The hidden creature rolls stealth, and you roll perception. The fact that there might be 2 in-game hours between the rolls, or that one or the other side might choose to take 10 doesn't negate the fact that they're directly opposed.
Edit: ninja'ed
An opposed roll can't also be a variable? Why?Agreed on the Awaken, disagree still on everything else. You said right in your post that the Dispel check is an opposed roll, and is therefore not Maximizable.Maximized spells with attack rolls don't get natural 20s. Things like rays and touch attacks are an effect of the magic rules, not the specific spell's rules. As such, they cannot be maximized. However, the opposed roll is specifically mentioned in dispel magic and as such IS part of the spell's random variables. Seeing as how maximize spell gives the maximum possible result on ALL VARIABLES OF A SPELL, than I think it would apply here. RAW, though not likely RAI.
Same thign would happen with a maximized awaken: You would end up with a REALLY smart animal or tree.
Maximize Spell (Metamagic)
...
Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables.
I have some trouble swallowing the maximized awakening.
Even worse, a maximized, empowered awaken.An awakened plant would get 18+(3d6)/2 int, wis and cha.
Get it 4 levels as a druid (taking it as a follower) and it will become mobile while transformed in animal (human) form.An animal will get 18+(3d6)/2 int and +(3+1d3/2) cha. Train it as a wizard (with eschew materials). He will have a problem initially with the somatic components of the spells, but the spells he can easily (with that intelligence) research spells with alternate somatic components appropriate for his physiology.
It can be problematic.
Thanks Diego! I don't think I've ever really noticed that blurb in Maximize spell before.
...a d20 rolled to determine success is not a variable numeric effect of a spell, and therefore is never affected by maximize or empower.
I see no evidence of this whatsoever.
Lol.
At some point, people, you have the terms defined... not by Paizo, but by a frickin' DICTIONARY!
Opposed Roll - A dice roll which is opposed by something, an outside source or target number. If you can put VS in a sensible way anywhere near the Die roll... then it is opposed.
I think we can all see how Rolling 10d6 for Fireball damage isn't opposed, and can thus extrapolate the rest of the rules from this.
An opposed roll can't also be a variable? Why?Agreed on the Awaken, disagree still on everything else. You said right in your post that the Dispel check is an opposed roll, and is therefore not Maximizable.Maximized spells with attack rolls don't get natural 20s. Things like rays and touch attacks are an effect of the magic rules, not the specific spell's rules. As such, they cannot be maximized. However, the opposed roll is specifically mentioned in dispel magic and as such IS part of the spell's random variables. Seeing as how maximize spell gives the maximum possible result on ALL VARIABLES OF A SPELL, than I think it would apply here. RAW, though not likely RAI.
Same thign would happen with a maximized awaken: You would end up with a REALLY smart animal or tree.
Maximize Spell (Metamagic)
...
Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables.
I have some trouble swallowing the maximized awakening.
Even worse, a maximized, empowered awaken.An awakened plant would get 18+(3d6)/2 int, wis and cha.
Get it 4 levels as a druid (taking it as a follower) and it will become mobile while transformed in animal (human) form.An animal will get 18+(3d6)/2 int and +(3+1d3/2) cha. Train it as a wizard (with eschew materials). He will have a problem initially with the somatic components of the spells, but the spells he can easily (with that intelligence) research spells with alternate somatic components appropriate for his physiology.
It can be problematic.
Thanks Diego! I don't think I've ever really noticed that blurb in Maximize spell before.
...a d20 rolled to determine success is not a variable numeric effect of a spell, and therefore is never affected by maximize or empower.That d20 has to do with the caster level, not with the spell. As an example the d6 from the fireball is a function of the spell.
Your caster level check(which always exist) is a result of your caster level which is there with or without the spell.I see no evidence of this whatsoever.
That d20 has to do with the caster level, not with the spell. As an example the Xd6 from the fireball is a function of the spell.
Your caster level check(which always exist) is a result of your caster level which is there with or without the spell. A dispel magic check is nothing but a caster level check.