My instincts here are useless, since I would have expected haste to haste normal creatures, and instead dispel slow effects on creatures affected by them. The FAQ surprises me.
Still, if I swallow that and then begin addressing arguments here, I must ask the people that think that the spells should cancel out:
You say that the spells must cancel out because the alternative is that slow is more powerful than haste (given that the bonuses and penalties cancel out, but haste grants an additional attack that slow makes impossible and exacts even further hindrances).
However, if you allow creatures affected by slow to be affected by haste, suppressing both and also affecting other creatures, doesn't your solution make haste more powerful? Creatures cast slow on a group, and it only works on creatures that fail their saving throws. However, haste works on everything, granting buffs and stripping debuffs with 100% efficiency. How do you justify the balance component of your argument, when it seems that your solution works against that balance as well?
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Troubleshooter - I asked a very similar question: If using a diametrically-opposed spell to dispel its opposite doesn't give you any "spillover" (i.e., you don't haste your non-slow'd allies and you don't bless your non-bane'd allies), but casting it normally *will* give you that "spillover" while also simultaneously "suppressing" the debuff on affected targets (and even that will turn into a buff when the debuff's duration expires first), then why would anyone EVER cast it as a dispel instead of just casting it normally?
Unless I missed it, no one has answered that question.
Which I think tells us a lot.
@Troubleshooter - I asked a very similar question: If using a diametrically-opposed spell to dispel its opposite doesn't give you any "spillover" (i.e., you don't haste your non-slow'd allies and you don't bless your non-bane'd allies), but casting it normally *will* give you that "spillover" while also simultaneously "suppressing" the debuff on affected targets (and even that will turn into a buff when the debuff's duration expires first), then why would anyone EVER cast it as a dispel instead of just casting it normally?
Unless I missed it, no one has answered that question.
Which I think tells us a lot.
You wouldn't.
Which is why I interpret it to be that if a diametrically opposed spell is present, your spell always acts as a dispel to it, even if you are not aware of its presence. This also avoids the "affected by both haste and slow" or "bane and bless" issues.
|
Both haste and slow have the same duration, have the same number of targets and have the same save, although haste's is (harmless).
You seem to be implying that the fact that buff spells don't require saves while spells intended to be cast on enemies do, means that there is an inherent unbalance between the two!
What is your solution to this alleged problem? Both should require saves? No-one would cast buff spells, choosing to target enemies instead! Neither require save? Right! Because wizards are a notoriously weak class and only denying their opponents saving throws will make them a balanced class!
This alleged imbalance is a product of your imagination!
If you cast one specifically to dispel its opposite then, as the FAQ makes clear, the spell does not have it's usual effect (including number of targets) and instead has the effect of dispelling its opposite on a single creature.
The FAQ does not address the issue of casting one spell (normally) on a creature already affected by its opposite. In this case the line 'haste counters slow' (and vice versa) indicates that the effects of each spell counters the effects of the other while both spells are on the same creature, leaving it acting as if neither spell were affecting it.
The duration of each spell continues to expire as normal, and if one runs out while the other still has remaining duration then it will affect the creature normally.
We know that the phrase 'haste counters slow' (and vice versa) must mean this and cannot be limited to meaning 'may be used to counterspell', because the phrase existed in the game long before the counterspelling mechanic ever existed!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Tarantula - That interpretation would also mean that if any one ally within a rather large radius of you has been affected by bane, you're now incapable of blessing the party.
Not to mention making it a bit weird that the FAQ never bothered to mention that "automatic" nature and even used the phrase "when you cast it to dispel".
|
|
@Troubleshooter - I asked a very similar question: If using a diametrically-opposed spell to dispel its opposite doesn't give you any "spillover" (i.e., you don't haste your non-slow'd allies and you don't bless your non-bane'd allies), but casting it normally *will* give you that "spillover" while also simultaneously "suppressing" the debuff on affected targets (and even that will turn into a buff when the debuff's duration expires first), then why would anyone EVER cast it as a dispel instead of just casting it normally?
Unless I missed it, no one has answered that question.
Which I think tells us a lot.
This actually was addressed on the last page (I forget by who).
If you want to haste all of the party, but one of them is affected by slow, then casting haste on them all will have the normal effect on everyone except the one affected by slow; that person, affected by both, will act as if affected by neither. Casting haste (normally) on him again will have absolutely no effect because the spell doesn't stack. He is still affected by neither.
This is where casting haste specifically to dispel slow will work where casting it normally will not! When the slow is dispelled by casting haste as a deliberate dispel, that guy will now have the previously (normally) cast haste still affecting him!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
We know that the phrase 'haste counters slow' (and vice versa) must mean this and cannot be limited to meaning 'may be used to counterspell', because the phrase existed in the game long before the counterspelling mechanic ever existed!
Even if your premise is true (can someone with old books check on that?), your conclusion (that "counters" is incapable of only meaning "counters" and nothing more) does not logically follow from it. Lots of things existed in earlier versions of D&D which now do entirely different things without carrying over their old functions. For instance, sneak attack used to not work against undead, and Pathfinder rules do not say anywhere that it does. But it *does* work against undead in Pathfinder, because the Pathfinder definition fully replaced the old definition and we don't carry over past definitions.
Saying that a term which has gained a new definition also retains its old uses is an assumption (and a weak one at that), not a fact.
Furthermore, just because the term existed before doesn't mean that it had the meaning you now ascribe to it. You would need to prove (among other things) that its original meaning was what you claim.
Quotes and page numbers, please.
@Troubleshooter - I asked a very similar question: If using a diametrically-opposed spell to dispel its opposite doesn't give you any "spillover" (i.e., you don't haste your non-slow'd allies and you don't bless your non-bane'd allies), but casting it normally *will* give you that "spillover" while also simultaneously "suppressing" the debuff on affected targets (and even that will turn into a buff when the debuff's duration expires first), then why would anyone EVER cast it as a dispel instead of just casting it normally?
Unless I missed it, no one has answered that question.
Which I think tells us a lot.
This actually was addressed on the last page (I forget by who).
If you want to haste all of the party, but one of them is affected by slow, then casting haste on them all will have the normal effect on everyone except the one affected by slow; that person, affected by both, will act as if affected by neither. Casting haste (normally) on him again will have absolutely no effect because the spell doesn't stack. He is still affected by neither.
This is where casting haste specifically to dispel slow will work where casting it normally will not! When the slow is dispelled by casting haste as a deliberate dispel, that guy will now have the previously (normally) cast haste still affecting him!
Now I see how you're handling being effected by both spells. This might be the simplest to apply while in game, if not the simplest to understand. :) I think I'll use this method in the future.
|
|
Now I see how you're handling being effected by both spells. This might be the simplest to apply while in game, if not the simplest to understand. :) I think I'll use this method in the future.@Troubleshooter - I asked a very similar question: If using a diametrically-opposed spell to dispel its opposite doesn't give you any "spillover" (i.e., you don't haste your non-slow'd allies and you don't bless your non-bane'd allies), but casting it normally *will* give you that "spillover" while also simultaneously "suppressing" the debuff on affected targets (and even that will turn into a buff when the debuff's duration expires first), then why would anyone EVER cast it as a dispel instead of just casting it normally?
Unless I missed it, no one has answered that question.
Which I think tells us a lot.
This actually was addressed on the last page (I forget by who).
If you want to haste all of the party, but one of them is affected by slow, then casting haste on them all will have the normal effect on everyone except the one affected by slow; that person, affected by both, will act as if affected by neither. Casting haste (normally) on him again will have absolutely no effect because the spell doesn't stack. He is still affected by neither.
This is where casting haste specifically to dispel slow will work where casting it normally will not! When the slow is dispelled by casting haste as a deliberate dispel, that guy will now have the previously (normally) cast haste still affecting him!
Understanding it is simple; one spell makes you act faster by the same amount the other is making you act slower, effectively cancelling out!
Original speed multiplied by two divided by two = original speed
What is your solution to this alleged problem?
Tentatively speaking, perhaps that a spell cast on the recipient of its diametric-opposite effect instead cause both spells to be neutralized without additional effect.
The FAQ may go against my intuition, but I'm also warming to the reasoning I perceive behind it.
Edit: Removed taking offense where perhaps none was intended.
Now I see how you're handling being effected by both spells. This might be the simplest to apply while in game, if not the simplest to understand. :) I think I'll use this method in the future.
It is indeed the simplest to apply while in game, however it still makes casting haste as a dispell an extremely weak option. I prefer the 'affected by both' option if both are cast normally.
|
|
We know that the phrase 'haste counters slow' (and vice versa) must mean this and cannot be limited to meaning 'may be used to counterspell', because the phrase existed in the game long before the counterspelling mechanic ever existed!Even if your premise is true (can someone with old books check on that?), your conclusion (that "counters" is incapable of only meaning "counters" and nothing more) does not logically follow from it. Lots of things existed in earlier versions of D&D which now do entirely different things without carrying over their old functions. For instance, sneak attack used to not work against undead, and Pathfinder rules do not say anywhere that it does. But it *does* work against undead in Pathfinder, because the Pathfinder definition fully replaced the old definition and we don't carry over past definitions.
Saying that a term which has gained a new definition also retains its old uses is an assumption (and a weak one at that), not a fact.
Furthermore, just because the term existed before doesn't mean that it had the meaning you now ascribe to it. You would need to prove (among other things) that its original meaning was what you claim.
Quotes and page numbers, please.
I'm afraid I no longer have my first or second edition books. The only page number I committed to memory is that the combat tables were on pages 176 and 177 of the 1st ed DMG. Quite a random memory. : /
I'm sure there is someone out there who can provide a quote that the 1st and/or 2nd ed spell descriptions for both spells included the phrase 'haste dispels and counters slow' or 'slow dispels and counters haste'.
In previous editions the counterspell mechanic did not exist, but the dispel mechanic did! In previous editions 'dispels and counters' must have had a meaning that made sense in that system. If the normal casting of one automatically dispelled its opposite the 'and counters' part of the phrase would have no valid application; the phrase 'dispels' would be the only needed phraseology. The 'and counters' part must mean something separate from 'dispels' and that is simply that the effects cancel out if on the same creature, without any dispelling.
Although counterspelling now exists, it doesn't take away the meaning of that phrase. 'Counters' is different from 'may be used to counterspell'. It logically includes both, since the situation of what happens if a creature is affected by both spells still exists and has the same solution i.e. the effects cancel each other out.
If the devs of 3.0, 3.5 or PF wanted to take away the 'effects cancel out' meaning, then that would have been a deliberate change, and it is beyond belief that they would indicate this change by leaving the wording exactly the same! They could very easily have said 'may be used to counterspell'.
Official Rules Response
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ update 5 June 2013: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qjy
FAQ clarified as to the difference between using an opposed spell to counterspell and using it as a dispel.
Dispelling: If I use a "diametrically opposed" spell to counter or dispel another spell (bless vs. bane, haste vs. slow, and so on), does my spell have any effect other than dispelling?
It depends on whether you are using the spell as a counterspell or as a dispel.
If used as a counterspell, your spell has no effect other than to counter the target spell. If used as a dispel, there may be "spillover" from your spell or the target spell, depending on whether you affect more or fewer targets than the opponent's spell.
Counterspell Example: You are a 5th-level wizard, your opponent is a 6th-level sorcerer. On your turn, you ready an action to counterspell. The sorcerer begins to cast slow. You succeed at the Spellcraft check to identify the spell and cast haste as a counterspell against it. Your haste counters the slow, and neither spell has any effect.
Dispel Example: You are a 5th-level wizard, your opponent is a 6th-level sorcerer. On her turn, the sorcerer casts slow and targets 6 of your allies; all 6 of them fail their saves and are slowed. On your turn, you cast haste and target 5 of your allies; this automatically dispels (no caster level check needed) the slow spell on those allies, leaving them without the effect of slow or haste (your 6th ally is still affected by slow). Note that this does not merely suppress the slow effect for the duration of your haste—the effect is completely dispelled on those 5 allies.
Aha! My original thought was the way the FAQ ruled it! Even better!
this is still slightly vague because it does not address what happens if the order is reversed. if the party is hasted first, then slow is cast on them it seems a will save would prevent that character's haste from being removed... but it is not entirely clear that they would get a save at all since the effect is automatic in the other order. would be good to have this detail confirmed one way or another.FAQ update 5 June 2013: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qjy
FAQ clarified as to the difference between using an opposed spell to counterspell and using it as a dispel.
Dispelling: If I use a "diametrically opposed" spell to counter or dispel another spell (bless vs. bane, haste vs. slow, and so on), does my spell have any effect other than dispelling?
Dispel Example: You are a 5th-level wizard, your opponent is a 6th-level sorcerer. On her turn, the sorcerer casts slow and targets 6 of your allies; all 6 of them fail their saves and are slowed. On your turn, you cast haste and target 5 of your allies; this automatically dispels (no caster level check needed) the slow spell on those allies, leaving them without the effect of slow or haste (your 6th ally is still affected by slow). Note that this does not merely suppress the slow effect for the duration of your haste—the effect is completely dispelled on those 5 allies.
I think it's clear. The order of operations given requires haste to be cast on a target. In order to successfully cast slow on a target, the target needs to fail a saving throw.
"Once you know which creatures (or objects or areas) are affected, and whether those creatures have made successful saving throws (if any were allowed), you can apply whatever results a spell entails."
http://paizo.com/prd/magic.html
|
|
I am content with this ruling.
So both get dispelled instead of both being effectively supressed; fair enough. : )
At least it avoids the absurd 'apply both equal-but-opposite spells but end up with unequal results' situation.
BTW, kudos to Jiggy for his continuing efforts to get things like this cleared up.
Fingers crossed for the whole magical light/darkness mess, eh?
Also, thanks to the design team!
The haste description says it dispels and counters slow. The slow description says it dispels and counters haste.
You CANNOT be under both spells at once because when you cast one into the area/onto the person onto which the other is attached, it simply negates both. You cannot CHOOSE for this not to be the case. It simply happens when one of these spells touches the other.
Not only do the 14 people who marked this thread as a FAQ candidate need to crack open a book once in a while, but the thread doesn't need to exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
this is still slightly vague because it does not address what happens if the order is reversed. if the party is hasted first, then slow is cast on them it seems a will save would prevent that character's haste from being removed... but it is not entirely clear that they would get a save at all since the effect is automatic in the other order. would be good to have this detail confirmed one way or another.FAQ update 5 June 2013: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qjy
FAQ clarified as to the difference between using an opposed spell to counterspell and using it as a dispel.
Dispelling: If I use a "diametrically opposed" spell to counter or dispel another spell (bless vs. bane, haste vs. slow, and so on), does my spell have any effect other than dispelling?
Dispel Example: You are a 5th-level wizard, your opponent is a 6th-level sorcerer. On her turn, the sorcerer casts slow and targets 6 of your allies; all 6 of them fail their saves and are slowed. On your turn, you cast haste and target 5 of your allies; this automatically dispels (no caster level check needed) the slow spell on those allies, leaving them without the effect of slow or haste (your 6th ally is still affected by slow). Note that this does not merely suppress the slow effect for the duration of your haste—the effect is completely dispelled on those 5 allies.
Since there is no caster level check to dispel slow with haste then I'd say there is no will save to avoid the slow removing haste.
|
The haste description says it dispels and counters slow. The slow description says it dispels and counters haste.
You CANNOT be under both spells at once because when you cast one into the area/onto the person onto which the other is attached, it simply negates both. You cannot CHOOSE for this not to be the case. It simply happens when one of these spells touches the other.
Not only do the 14 people who marked this thread as a FAQ candidate need to crack open a book once in a while, but the thread doesn't need to exist.
Actually, as the PDT's further clarification stated, one spell does not negate the other (the guy who was Slowed and not Hasted is still Slowed). It is their effects on the same target that cancel each other.
|
Official Rules Response
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ update 5 June 2013: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qjy
FAQ clarified with respect to dispelling, saving throws, and spell resistance.
"Note that it doesn't matter if the target would normally get a saving throw or spell resistance to negate or avoid the spell used to dispel (such as casting slow to dispel an already-caste haste); to speed up gameplay and prevent lopsided applications of this sort of dispelling, the "diametrically opposed" spell automatically dispels its opposite, regardless of the desires of the creature affected by the opposite."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PDT is in the house!
|
|
FAQ update 5 June 2013: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qjy
FAQ clarified with respect to dispelling, saving throws, and spell resistance.
"Note that it doesn't matter if the target would normally get a saving throw or spell resistance to negate or avoid the spell used to dispel (such as casting slow to dispel an already-caste haste); to speed up gameplay and prevent lopsided applications of this sort of dispelling, the "diametrically opposed" spell automatically dispels its opposite, regardless of the desires of the creature affected by the opposite."
Please clarify this clarification, for the cheap seats. : )
Imagine I am benefitting from haste. The baddy casts slow on me.
Usually, I get to attempt a saving throw versus slow, and if successful I am not slowed.
But I am already hasted! So, what happens? Is it:-
• as soon as slow targets me, the presence of the haste effect means that both spells mutually dispel, with no saving throw at any point?
OR
• I get a save. If I fail, both spells mutually dispel, but if I make my save then I was never subject to the effects of slow so my haste remains intact?
FAQ update 5 June 2013: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qjy
FAQ clarified with respect to dispelling, saving throws, and spell resistance.
"Note that it doesn't matter if the target would normally get a saving throw or spell resistance to negate or avoid the spell used to dispel (such as casting slow to dispel an already-caste haste); to speed up gameplay and prevent lopsided applications of this sort of dispelling, the "diametrically opposed" spell automatically dispels its opposite, regardless of the desires of the creature affected by the opposite."
Please clarify this clarification, for the cheap seats. : )
Imagine I am benefitting from haste. The baddy casts slow on me.
Usually, I get to attempt a saving throw versus slow, and if successful I am not slowed.
But I am already hasted! So, what happens? Is it:-
• as soon as slow targets me, the presence of the haste effect means that both spells mutually dispel, with no saving throw at any point?
OR
• I get a save. If I fail, both spells mutually dispel, but if I make my save then I was never subject to the effects of slow so my haste remains intact?
I'll go out on a limb and say that with the new rules it is clear that you don't get a saving throw to avoid the dispel.
FAQ update 5 June 2013: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qjy
FAQ clarified with respect to dispelling, saving throws, and spell resistance.
"Note that it doesn't matter if the target would normally get a saving throw or spell resistance to negate or avoid the spell used to dispel (such as casting slow to dispel an already-caste haste); to speed up gameplay and prevent lopsided applications of this sort of dispelling, the "diametrically opposed" spell automatically dispels its opposite, regardless of the desires of the creature affected by the opposite."
Please clarify this clarification, for the cheap seats. : )
Imagine I am benefitting from haste. The baddy casts slow on me.
Usually, I get to attempt a saving throw versus slow, and if successful I am not slowed.
But I am already hasted! So, what happens? Is it:-
• as soon as slow targets me, the presence of the haste effect means that both spells mutually dispel, with no saving throw at any point?
OR
• I get a save. If I fail, both spells mutually dispel, but if I make my save then I was never subject to the effects of slow so my haste remains intact?
I bolded the relevant part of the PDT post. No save, your haste is gone, the end.
In that case, what's your reasoning process that leads you to believe it should involve adding a suppression effect instead of simply applying both spells' effects?1 its easier.
2 slow's restriction to a standard action would overpower the extra attack while making a full attack since you can never make that full attack. I see it as these two being opposites. The suppression idea keeps them even. Without checking the book I think the other bonuses and penalties even out to include the effects related to speed.
If having both spells active suppresses them both, then why would you ever use the dispel option? Same action/resource cost, still removes the undesired effect, but kicks in a beneficial effect if the undesired spell runs out of duration first (and it will, since it was cast first) and allows "spillover" to other targets who don't need the suppression - something the dispel option doesn't give you.
Can that really be right?
sorry Jiggy. I forgot to come back.
Jiggy under the suppression idea, both spells are still in affect so even if someone cast another haste or slow nothing happens. Two slows or even 1000 slows are still stopped by 1 haste spell for example.
If one of them is actually dispelled the next casting actually does something.
edit:I also explained it here. :)
edit2: I see there is an FAQ on it. I am so late.
The haste description says it dispels and counters slow. The slow description says it dispels and counters haste.
You CANNOT be under both spells at once because when you cast one into the area/onto the person onto which the other is attached, it simply negates both. You cannot CHOOSE for this not to be the case. It simply happens when one of these spells touches the other.
Not only do the 14 people who marked this thread as a FAQ candidate need to crack open a book once in a while, but the thread doesn't need to exist.
Someone missed the original FAQ. It read differently than the way it does now.