Say you have a bunch of buffs you care about. Stuff like foresight, or mind blank.
Step 1: Cast your buffs at your normal CL -1.
Step 2: Cast endure elements at full CL several times.
If I understand it, this replaces "you have to beat my caster level by 11 or more to dispel these buffs" with "you have to beat my caster level by exactly 10 to dispel these buffs".
PRD wrote: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell. You make one dispel check (1d20 + your caster level) and compare that to the spell with highest caster level (DC = 11 + the spell's caster level). If successful, that spell ends. If not, compare the same result to the spell with the next highest caster level. Repeat this process until you have dispelled one spell affecting the target, or you have failed to dispel every spell. Greater Dispel says you repeat this, removing the highest-level spells first. But you still always target the highest caster-level effects your dispel check will beat, so far as I can tell.
For GSD it seems that you go after the highest level spell, not caster level. I know dispel magic is different, but why would you still target the caster level with GSD if GSD calls out the higher level spells specifically?
Basically the way I read it is that GSD goes by the spell, and normal dispel magic goes by the caster level, so that way your idea would work.
Can you actually cast a spell at a lower caster level?
Quote: Caster Level
A spell's power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to her class level in the class she's using to cast the spell.
You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.
Quote: Under Stacking Effects
One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant
Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion.
I think multiple spells of the same type over lap, so they would all still be active.
So by RAW this works. I wouldn't allow it. I would say that it targets the highest level spell first, not the highest caster level.
However....
Quote: 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). You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way. You might get away with it once, but after that your opponents will target specific spells.
This is brilliant! And certainly, Splendor, you can houserule that it targets spell level rather than caster level, but it will be a houserule.
Honestly, though, if we are talking mind blank and such, and being able to load up on lots of endure elements, you are already at a level where dispel magic is not your only, or even a very good, option for dispelling.
wraithstrike wrote: For GSD it seems that you go after the highest level spell, not caster level. I know dispel magic is different, but why would you still target the caster level with GSD if GSD calls out the higher level spells specifically?
Basically the way I read it is that GSD goes by the spell, and normal dispel magic goes by the caster level, so that way your idea would work.
I had read GSD as still highest-caster-level first, but since it can hit multiple spells, they say which order it will take them in within a given caster level. So if you make a dispel check of 29, it will clear any 18th level spells, highest-level first, then any 17th, highest-level first, until you run out of spells or hit your count for effects dispelled.
So I was viewing it as saying "do that previous thing, but several times", but your view would be that they're actually changing the order the effects are processed in, so it'd be "highest caster level 9th level spell you can affect", and once it'd run out of 9th level, it'd try 8th, and so on?
Well, in general, I'm assuming greater-dispel-magic. Which I use pretty aggressively, because with feats and things, I can autodispel effects up to about CL+4 to me. I am the reason our melee sorts go through the enemies like a hot knife through butter. "Oh, geeze, you really liked having those buffs, didn't you."
Just buy a few scrolls of heightened endure elements for those times when you want to really annoy the bad guys.
I believe by the rules this works.
As a GM, I would tell you sorry but no. Otherwise the enemy would employ the same tactic, and it's just going to add additional book keeping and such that makes it annoying for me (as a GM).
Claxon wrote: I believe by the rules this works.
As a GM, I would tell you sorry but no. Otherwise the enemy would employ the same tactic, and it's just going to add additional book keeping and such that makes it annoying for me (as a GM).
The general consensus within the game world is that enemies do not necessarily use the same tactics we do, especially when our tactics are ludicrously paranoid.
Backup spellbooks? Of course. More than one set. Distributed to different epic-level casters known to us (and *substantially* more epic-level than we are). I keep at least two full sets nearby.
... Note: I have the mythic "perfect preparation" path ability, and don't need spellbooks. The backup spellbooks are there so that people who know I'm a wizard will view the spellbooks as a possible target.
So basically, the GM's conclusion is that if I am willing to spend the time and effort and roleplaying and resources to be Ludicrously Paranoid, that this does not create a necessity that other characters also use similar tactics unless it would be characteristic for them, and the only character I know of who is comparably paranoid is probably on our side unless she's *really* deep cover.
seebs wrote: Claxon wrote: I believe by the rules this works.
As a GM, I would tell you sorry but no. Otherwise the enemy would employ the same tactic, and it's just going to add additional book keeping and such that makes it annoying for me (as a GM).
The general consensus within the game world is that enemies do not necessarily use the same tactics we do, especially when our tactics are ludicrously paranoid.
Backup spellbooks? Of course. More than one set. Distributed to different epic-level casters known to us (and *substantially* more epic-level than we are). I keep at least two full sets nearby.
... Note: I have the mythic "perfect preparation" path ability, and don't need spellbooks. The backup spellbooks are there so that people who know I'm a wizard will view the spellbooks as a possible target.
So basically, the GM's conclusion is that if I am willing to spend the time and effort and roleplaying and resources to be Ludicrously Paranoid, that this does not create a necessity that other characters also use similar tactics unless it would be characteristic for them, and the only character I know of who is comparably paranoid is probably on our side unless she's *really* deep cover. Maybe within your game world. I tell my players from the get go that if they think they find an ingenious tactic to use that will start seeing it employed by the enemy. Especially when this tactic relies solely on the idea of being able to cast spells at lower than full caster level to get around dispels. If magic truly worked this way, then it seems everyone would know to do this exploit. And if they at all thought they would be facing someone with the ability to dispell they would prepare accordingly. Of course, your average run of the mill schmuck wont benefit from it, but anyone with any ability to be slightly warned about the PCs I would expect to use it.
I would let the PCs get away with a newly invented tactic for a short time, but use GM fiat to make sure there are at least 1-2 survivors who escape. Word spreads and soon the party is celebrated in songs and tavern tales. If they're good at playing up the celebrity they might not even have to buy their own drinks for a while.
Then other people start copying what they did. Before long it's a standard tactic. However, the PCs did get to take advantage of their cleverness for a while, and end up with the satisfaction of having made a small but real change in the world.
seebs wrote: wraithstrike wrote: For GSD it seems that you go after the highest level spell, not caster level. I know dispel magic is different, but why would you still target the caster level with GSD if GSD calls out the higher level spells specifically?
Basically the way I read it is that GSD goes by the spell, and normal dispel magic goes by the caster level, so that way your idea would work.
I had read GSD as still highest-caster-level first, but since it can hit multiple spells, they say which order it will take them in within a given caster level. So if you make a dispel check of 29, it will clear any 18th level spells, highest-level first, then any 17th, highest-level first, until you run out of spells or hit your count for effects dispelled.
So I was viewing it as saying "do that previous thing, but several times", but your view would be that they're actually changing the order the effects are processed in, so it'd be "highest caster level 9th level spell you can affect", and once it'd run out of 9th level, it'd try 8th, and so on? Yes. GSD specifically calls out spell level as opposed to caster lvel. I know they both have "dispel" in the name but they arevstill different spells with different rules.
I also think your idea with dispel is rules legal but I don't think the devs thought of that when they made the rule. However it is a clever idea.
Huh, now I am confused and think it is ambiguous. I just assumed the intent was to repeat the previous algorithm several times.
So that would mean we now have no fewer than three different rules for dispels:
PRD wrote: Benefit: Opponents that are dealt sneak attack damage by a rogue with this ability are affected by a targeted dispel magic, targeting the lowest-level spell effect active on the target. The caster level for this ability is equal to the rogue's level. Note the distinction; it targets the lowest-level spell, not the lowest caster level. And not the highest caster level you can hit, but the single lowest-level spell.
The rogue special ability is not a normal rule. it is its own thing. The only general rule for dispelling is the opposefd caster level check. Nothing in the book says dispel magic trumps GDS with regard to how t apply it so you have to go by GDM when using it. just like you have to go by the rogue ability rule when using it.
GDS=GDM
I think what confuses me is that greater dispel magic says it's repeated checks as per dispel magic. So I'd expect it to use dispel magic's rules. I can't tell whether they intended this as a clarification or a change.
I believe it was an intended change, as the OP's proposed tactics were pretty much de rigueur in 3.5.
Jeff Merola wrote: I believe it was an intended change, as the OP's proposed tactics were pretty much de rigueur in 3.5. Wouldn't using a heightened endure elements still at least help protect your "real" buff spells a bit?
seebs wrote: I think what confuses me is that greater dispel magic says it's repeated checks as per dispel magic. So I'd expect it to use dispel magic's rules. I can't tell whether they intended this as a clarification or a change. I don't see that quoted. I see where it says it functions as a target dispel magic, but it does not say it repeats checking the same way.
I see it like this.
GGM calls out spell level so that is what you go by. That is specifically written into the spell so it has to take precedence. If you had two 9th level spells at varying caster levels I would understand user caster level as a tie breaker, but other than that you have to follow the rule spelled out in a spell.
The Human Diversion wrote: Jeff Merola wrote: I believe it was an intended change, as the OP's proposed tactics were pretty much de rigueur in 3.5. Wouldn't using a heightened endure elements still at least help protect your "real" buff spells a bit? It would, but that costs a bit more to do than just casting your important buffs at -1 CL.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
My wizards have been doing this for years.
GSD?
Jeff Merola wrote: I believe it was an intended change, as the OP's proposed tactics were pretty much de rigueur in 3.5. There are quite a few changes between 3.5 and Pathfinder. In 3.5, both dispel and greater dispel could dispel multiple effects. You simply rolled CL checks against every effect. And 3.5 had area dispel in the base dispel magic.
Ah-hah. They used the "highest caster level first" to pick the one spell per target hit by an area dispel. Also, they had you roll a new check against each spell, rather than rolling a single check and using the highest-caster-level spell that check result would hit.
So this is new wording. That said, it is not immediately obvious to me that they meant "level" to mean "spell level" rather than "caster level", since everything else seems to stick with caster level. It's not a change to existing wording from the previous spell; it's a new block of text, and it doesn't specifically state which level it means. It seems like an unusual choice for them to select their first target by completely different means.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Caster level doesn't make sense in this context. Wouldn't all of a person's personal buffs have the same caster level?
Ravingdork wrote: Caster level doesn't make sense in this context. Wouldn't all of a person's personal buffs have the same caster level? Not if they came from different sources. In a group of PCs a character could conceivably have some buffs cast by the party sorcerer, some by the cleric, some from the bard, and some from a potion, scroll, or wand. (Okay probably not all those sources at once, but you get the idea.)
Seebs the 2nd spell says "spell level" not just level
Ravingdork wrote: Caster level doesn't make sense in this context. Wouldn't all of a person's personal buffs have the same caster level? Items don't.
wraithstrike wrote:
Seebs the 2nd spell says "spell level" not just level
Huh?
PRD wrote: Targeted Dispel: This functions as a targeted dispel magic, but it can dispel one spell for every four caster levels you possess, starting with the highest level spells and proceeding to lower level spells. "highest level spells". And normally level of spell is spell level, but it seems a bit odd in a context where it's otherwise just like something that went by caster level.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
