RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 54 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We appear to have something of a "ghost" mechanic in the Core rules, folks. There seems to be an ability to dispel an active spell using something other than dispel magic, but it's not spelled out how it works. The rules for counterspelling hint at it, and some individual spells mention being able to dispel each other, but I can't seem to find a section in the Core Rulebook where it actually says "Here's how to dispel something".
Let's start with what we know:
First, there's the similar mechanic of counterspelling. This mechanic *is* laid out for us in the book, and it goes something like this:
1) First, ready an action to counterspell. You can only counter a spell as it's being cast, not after.
2) If you successfully identify the spell your enemy is trying to cast, you can try to counter it.
2a) You can auto-counter it by casting the same spell (i.e., fireball can counter fireball).
2b) You can counter it by casting dispel magic (this doesn't require knowing what spell was cast, and it works against most any spell instead of needing just the right counter; but in exchange, you have to make a CL check to succeed, or else your action and your spell are wasted).
2c) In some cases, you can auto-counter the spell by casting a specific, diametrically-opposed spell. (For instance, haste can counter slow.) These specific pairings are noted in their spell descriptions.
To sum up, you can counter a spell by casting the same spell at the same time, by casting a specifically-named opposite spell at the same time, or by succeeding on a CL check for a dispel magic cast at the same time.
With me so far?
Okay, so let's look at some of these "specific exceptions", the spells which can counter more than just themselves:
Bless counters and dispels bane.
Slow counters and dispels haste.
Cause fear counters and dispels remove fear.
Well, that certainly seems to fit what we learned about counterspells, right? So if someone is casting bane, then we could use our readied action to counter it by casting bless, and neither spell would then perform its normal effect.
Peachy. But what about that "and dispels" clause in all of those spell descriptions? It doesn't just say "Bless counters bane", it says "Bless counters and dispels bane."
How does bless dispel bane? What does that mean? One idea might be that it's really just further referring to the act of counterspelling. But that doesn't make sense, as "dispel" is a specific game term that refers to the ending of an already-ongoing spell effect, whereas countering only happens at the time that the target spell is being cast. Spell-like abilities can be dispelled but cannot be counterspelled. Furthermore, the Magic chapter of the CRB notes that "Some spells negate or counter each other", again seeming to reference two different actions. Clearly "dispel" and "counter" are two separate things.
More to the point, "dispel" and "counter" are two separate things, and bless can do either one of them to bane.
So how do we go about dispelling something without dispel magic? This is what we're never actually told in the rules. It's clear we can do it, but we're given no rules about how.
Here are some extrapolations and educated guesses, as best I can figure:
1) First, the spell you want to dispel (for example, bane) needs to already be active. I think that's fairly well established.
2) To perform the dispel, you need to cast something (for example, bless). Having it already active when the spells "meet" would not perform a dispel. Otherwise, things get complicated fast: one party under the effects of bless and another under the effects of bane pass each other in the hallway and spells start dispelling each other as you walk by? That sounds pretty absurd, so I think dispelling requires a fresh cast.
3) You're still subject to the normal range and targeting rules of the spell you're casting. For instance, bless affects a 50ft radius area centered on the caster. Thus, you could only dispel bane on targets within 50ft of yourself. Similarly, cause fear targets one creature within close range, so you couldn't use it to dispel remove fear on a whole group of baddies or from the other end of a football field. Counterspelling uses your spell's range (as opposed to a range of its own), so there's precedent as well.
4) There's no check to make to determine success. In the case of counterspelling (which seems to be considered similar, given all the "counters and dispels" lines in spell descriptions), you only have to make a check if you're using dispel magic, essentially trading reliability for versatility. One would assume that dispelling works the same way.
5) If you use a spell to dispel something, your spell produces no other effect. Again, we speculate this as a parallel to counterspelling - if fireball counters fireball, there's no explosion. Presumably if bless dispels bane, you don't also get a +1 to attacks. (Though if only half the targets within your bless area were under a bane effect, do the other half get the normal bless effect? Nobody knows...)
6) Can a spell be used to dispel itself? That's the baseline standard for counterspelling, with the "opposites" being special exceptions (and even those always do both; there's no spells which can counter an opposite but can't dispel it). It would follow precedent if I could dispel a bless by casting my own bless, though that feels a bit weird, so I'm not so sure.
-----------------------------------
Phew! So that, as far as I know, is where dispelling stands. Its rules are nonexistent, yet it's referenced as though it were there. We can guess and speculate as to how it works, and for the most part these guesses seem like they fit in with the rest of the magic system.
But it's not actually written anywhere! Well, it needs to be. Please, everyone, click the FAQ button on the top-right corner of this post so we can get this properly addressed. And if you have any helpful references to relevant commentary or whatever, please share!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think you're overthinking this.
Say an enemy casts bane. You didn't ready an action to counter it when it was cast, but luckily you have bless prepped. Next round, you cast it. Bane is now dispelled. Doesn't seem that complicated to me.
The issue is not whether I understand the dispelling rules or not, the issue is that they're not printed anywhere.
THAT is what needs FAQ-ing.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I just ran three games where we did this regarding the various light and darkness descriptor spells. Really fun, actually.
Yeah, after about my fifth long discussion about how light/darkness spells work, I started researching countering and dispelling. Seems most people try to use the "X counters and dispels Y" line of those spells in ways that:
1) Break/ignore the counterspelling rules;2) Would be completely ridiculous if applied to any of the dozen or so other spells with that verbiage besides the light/darkness spells; and
3) Break other rules explicitly listed in the darkness spell descriptions.
Then you try to explain countering and dispelling as existing Core mechanics instead of something specific to light/darkness, and you get blank stares.
Core rulebook, pg 209 Stacking Effects under Spells with Opposite Effects
"Some spells negate or counter each other. This is a special effect that is noted in a spell's description."
This is an exception to the normal rules for stacking effects with opposite effects which state that "all bonuses, penalties, or changes accruing in the order that they apply."
In other words, when you cast Slow on someone who is already Hasted, you don't have to figure out if they have only a standard action (standard plus move plus haste all reduced to single standard) or two standard actions (standard plus move reduced to single standard plus haste); the two spells simply negate each other and the target is uneffected by either spell.
You can also use one to counterspell the other.
Also, your #3 is incorrect, when counterspelling only the range of the spell you are counterspelling with matters. You always target the opposing caster so targets don't matter, but he must be "within range."
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Core rulebook, pg 209 Stacking Effects under Spells with Opposite Effects
"Some spells negate or counter each other. This is a special effect that is noted in a spell's description."
This is an exception to the normal rules for stacking effects with opposite effects which state that "all bonuses, penalties, or changes accruing in the order that they apply."
I already cited (even linked!) that rule. That makes it clear that dispelling is something you can do, but there's still nothing telling us how it works. There's no "Dispelling Ongoing Effects" section in the Magic chapter, for instance.
Like I said, dispelling is referenced as though it were an established mechanic, but the mechanic itself isn't there.
Kind of looking like you didn't really read my post...
In other words, when you cast Slow on someone who is already Hasted, you don't have to figure out if they have only a standard action (standard plus move plus haste all reduced to single standard) or two standard actions (standard plus move reduced to single standard plus haste); the two spells simply negate each other and the target is uneffected by either spell.
...and apparently you haven't read haste in the last few years, either.
Your credibility is dropping fast. Not that it matters, because the issue isn't so much "How does dispelling work?", it's "Can we get it written down somewhere, please?"
Also, your #3 is incorrect, when counterspelling only the range of the spell you are counterspelling with matters. You always target the opposing caster so targets don't matter, but he must be "within range."
My #3 is talking about dispelling, not countering. Though I see where it looks like I'm implying more about counterspelling than I meant to. I'll edit it for improved clarity, if my window hasn't passed yet. Thanks for the heads-up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for calling my 'cred' into question. ;) I don't think these rules need to be written out. they are all just easily extrapolated from the rules for stacking and the words Negate and Dispel. So for me, restating the Rules for Stacking were found on page 209 WAS answering your question, since that is all you need to look at.
I don't see whats so complicated. The one section says that specific spells negate and counter each other. You seem to have that.
You seem to understand counterspelling, so that's clear.
The dispel/negate is if you target the same person with both spells neither has an effect, both just go away. No tracking effects, duration, whatever. Both are gone.
1)Yeah, the spell would already need to be active, otherwise there's nothing to dispel.
2)Yeah, you cast the specific spell that counters/negates it (Slow for Haste/Haste for Slow, Bless/Bane or Bane/Bless)
3)The negation only works where the two effects overlap. So if bad guy Slowed 5 members of the party, but you can only Haste 4 people for some reason (say 5th was out of range), only those 4 people have the effect have the effect negated.
4)Since it says the spells negate each other, yeah, I would say no check involved.
5)They negate each other, so no effect either way.
6)No. It doesn't say Bless negates Bless. It says Bless negates Bane. Bane negates Bless. So this doesn't work with the same spell.
I think we can extrapolate the rules of Dispel Magic into the ruleset you need, but I don't hate the idea of it actually having a rules block somewhere.
(I already clicked the FAQ flag. :) )
Was it written down in 3.5 anywhere? Cause, I don't think it was written in the rules there either. It's just one of those things you should be able to figure out.
That said, having it written would be nice.
|
Bless counters Bane if you use Bless as a counterpell to counter Bane.
Bless dispels Bane if you cast Bless to dispel a Bane that's already in effect.
The difference between countering and dispelling is that countering prevents a spell from having effect for even a fragment of time, while dispelling is stopping an ongoing effect. So "counters and dispels" is not redundant.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I don't see whats so complicated. ... You seem to have that.
Yeah, I think dispelling rules can be pretty reliably extrapolated from the information we have. I agree.
Problem is, if someone hasn't made that extrapolation, they might do all kinds of weird stuff. Then you correct them, and they say "According to what?"
An awful lot of people are very resistant to being corrected when you can't even point to anything to say "It says so right here". After all, why is my interpretation any better than their interpretation that the "dispel" line means the BBEG can dispel the daylight effect on my shield from across the room, despite deeper darkness having a range of "touch"? When it comes to matters of interpretation (as opposed to matters of "I'm touching where the page says +2, not +3"), a lot of people equate being challenged to being called stupid, and react accordingly.
When it comes up in a game, I could explain the thought process, but then it's "a rules discussion at the table". When you're GMing and someone challenges a ruling, I bet you give them a chance to look up the rule, but if it's gonna take longer than about 60 seconds, it's "We'll do it this way, and look it up later". Am I right? That's how a lot of folks in my area run their tables (myself included). If a player interrupted me with something, and I said "Show me that rule", and they said "Well it's not actually written per se, but if you look at this related mechanic and the last line of these half-dozen spells, you can extrapolate..." I'd be cutting him off and saying "Show me after the game"... if I even took him seriously at all. Taking up table time to talk about a rule that isn't actually in the book is pretty high on a lot of people's list of what it means to be a jerk.
This is a big enough thing that it should have its own rules block somewhere.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Bless counters Bane if you use Bless as a counterpell to counter Bane.
Bless dispels Bane if you cast Bless to dispel a Bane that's already in effect.
The difference between countering and dispelling is that countering prevents a spell from having effect for even a fragment of time, while dispelling is stopping an ongoing effect. So "counters and dispels" is not redundant.
Agreed. Please click the FAQ button on the OP if you think dispelling should have a rules block somewhere instead of needing to be extrapolated or common-sense'd out of other rules, or if you can at least respect others' desire for it.
Thanks.
You know, I used the word "extrapolate" first, so I see your argument somewhat in your response to me.
But your aren't extrapolating as in using logic to create a new rule, if a=b and b=c then a=c type way. You just apply the rules that exist.
In your hypothetical situation, the DM says "Bad guy hits you with slow" Half the party saves. On his turn the bard says "I cast Haste, all the Slowed people aren't Slowed anymore, anyone who saved vs. Slow is Hasted."
DM asks why, point out because Haste specifically says in the spell description it dispels Slow (or Bless/Bane, Remove Fear/Cause Fear), so anywhere the effect overlaps both effects are completely negated.
The rules for stacking address that normally all penalties and bonuses apply in the order they occurred, but for spells that have this special clause they negate each other completely. But in play there wouldn't be a reason to actually refer to that rule, since you would just refer to the spell, and people understand what "dispel" means.
I am not going to FAQ this, I think it is self explanatory and I think we have a ton of stuff that is more confusing or flat out contradictory to worry about. But if you get it, congats.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This must be Step 1 in Jiggy's ultimate plan to finalize the arguments between Light and Darkness =P
Pffft, nothing so small would be part of my "ultimate" plan. ;)
Seriously though, it's been repeated discussions about light/darkness spells that eventually brought my attention to this unfortunate omission in the rules, but my interest in the topic extends well past those spells. I like systems that work smoothly. :)
You've caught my interest Jiggy, I've always taken this for granted (and always run my games that the spells just negated when slow is cast on someone with haste).
It is indeed an important enough issue that we need some errata to cover it. Although, does it lessen the relevance of some spells' abilities to disperse things, like gust of wind to disperse fog spells?
FAQ'ed and interested to see where this goes from the devs.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Although, does it lessen the relevance of some spells' abilities to disperse things, like gust of wind to disperse fog spells?
Funnily enough, dispel magic doesn't work against obscuring mist (and therefore, presumably, other related spells). There are also no spells (that I'm aware of) which state that they can dispel it. So in this specific case, it's a non-issue.
Actually...that makes sense once I stop and think about it...obscuring mist uses magic to create the mist...but the mist itself is not magical once it is there. So dispel magic shouldn't work against it. Neat.
I am being lazy..Why wouldn't it work against obscuring mist?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can use dispel magic to end one ongoing spell that has been cast on a creature or object...
Targeted Dispel, paragraph 3: "You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell affecting the target or one spell affecting an area (such as a wall of fire)."
|
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hmm. Maybe the "dispels" part could be clearer. Not because I agree with everything said before about unearthing some unwritten rule, but rather the following:
BBEG casts Slow. PCs A and B save, C and D don't. Then a PC casts Haste. C and D aren't slowed anymore, but are A and B hasted?
Or variant: C and D are slowed. Someone casts Haste at C but not D. What happens to the Slow spell?
Variant: Haste expires sooner than Slow. Are C and D slowed again?
Variant: Slow expires before Haste. Are C and D now hasted?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Variant: Haste expires sooner than Slow. Are C and D slowed again?
Variant: Slow expires before Haste. Are C and D now hasted?
Related: When you cast, do you have to decide between casting "normally" and casting to dispel (as with counterspelling), or is the dispel function something that happens automatically in any circumstance in which your target is already under the specified "opposite" effect?
Hmm. Maybe the "dispels" part could be clearer. Not because I agree with everything said before about unearthing some unwritten rule, but rather the following:
BBEG casts Slow. PCs A and B save, C and D don't. Then a PC casts Haste. C and D aren't slowed anymore, but are A and B hasted?
Or variant: C and D are slowed. Someone casts Haste at C but not D. What happens to the Slow spell?
Variant: Haste expires sooner than Slow. Are C and D slowed again?
Variant: Slow expires before Haste. Are C and D now hasted?
Related: When you cast, do you have to decide between casting "normally" and casting to dispel (as with counterspelling), or is the dispel function something that happens automatically in any circumstance in which your target is already under the specified "opposite" effect?
These all seem answerable since the rule comes from Stacking Effects with Opposite Effects.
Ascalaphus ex 1) Yes, the effects only "stack" on C and D, on A and B the Slow spell was never in effect so it isn't there to negate and be negated by Haste.
Ascalaphus ex 2)Dispelled on C, but not on D, for the same reason, Haste can only dispel where it "stacks"
Ascalaphus ex 3)No, the spells specifically negate and dispel one another, so both spells are gone, no tracking remaining durations
Ascalaphus ex 4)No, same reasoning as 3
Jiggy ex 5)The dispel happens whenever the two opposing effects are both "stacked" on the same character, per Stacking Opposite Effects.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy ex 5)The dispel happens whenever the two opposing effects are both "stacked" on the same character, per Stacking Opposite Effects.
Okay, then I have a follow-up question about remove fear:
If the subject is under the influence of a fear effect when receiving the spell, that effect is suppressed for the duration of the spell.
Remove fear counters and dispels cause fear.
So if my buddy is under the influence of cause fear, and I cast remove fear on him, what happens? Is it suppressed, or dispelled?
Dispelled, because specific rules (Remove fear counters and dispels Cause Fear) trumps general rules (Remove Fear suppresses a fear effect for the duration of the spell).
Jiggy ex 5)The dispel happens whenever the two opposing effects are both "stacked" on the same character, per Stacking Opposite Effects.Okay, then I have a follow-up question about remove fear:
So if my buddy is under the influence of cause fear, and I cast remove fear on him, what happens? Is it suppressed, or dispelled?If the subject is under the influence of a fear effect when receiving the spell, that effect is suppressed for the duration of the spell.
Remove fear counters and dispels cause fear.
*headsplosion*
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dispelled, because specific rules (Remove fear counters and dispels Cause Fear) trumps general rules (Remove Fear suppresses a fear effect for the duration of the spell).
Nope, the correct answer was "Make Pendin Fust's head explode". ;)
Yeah, your answer makes sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But making Pendin Fust's head explode is an awesome side effect and should be noted in the spell's description and under Stacking Effects that Make Heads Explode
I FAQd cause after Magical Knack, I believe that Jiggy can change the world!
Uh oh....I better stock up on heads if that effect gets errata'ed in!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The rules for dispelling are effects of the normally cast spell.
Source?
Because the only place where the rules say that bless can dispel bane is in the same sentence that says bless can counter bane. We know that countering a spell requires you to cast your spell in a slightly different way (that's explicit in the rules for counterspells) so that it produces no other effect than to counter the opposing spell.
If bless had a line in its description that said something like "If a target is currently affected by bane, bless dispels that effect" and then separately had a line saying it could counter bane, I'd probably agree with you.
But that's not the case. Bless's only reference to dispelling is the same as its reference to countering. So why *shouldn't* we port over some of the details of countering to dispelling (especially since there are no explicit rules about how dispelling works)?
If I counter bane with bless, that's all I get to do; allies don't get the bonuses normally granted by bless, even if they weren't targeted by the countered bane. So if I dispel bane with bless, do allies who weren't affected by bane get the effects of bless or not?
If dispelling is part of the normal effect of bless (as you say), then yes, allies who had nothing to be dispelled will get +1 to attack rolls. If instead it's handled similarly to counterspelling, then they don't. How do we know which way it is? How did you arrive at your conclusion?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Made a more specific (and therefore hopefully more likely to get the FAQ treatment) post HERE. Please FAQ that one, as this thread's subject was dismissed from the FAQ queue (probably due to not having a single, concise question being asked).
Thanks everyone!