Destructive Dispel for area dispel


Rules Questions


14 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have a doubt.
If i use greater dispel magic for "area dispel" against a group of opponents, can i use the feat Destructive Dispel to make all them stunned?

The Exchange

No because the area dispel mode is not a targeted dispel.


Ragoz is correct. An area dispel is not a targetted dispel. The feat does not come into play.


Ok but in the description of the spell Greater Dispel Magic it's written:
"Roll one dispel check and apply that check to each creature in the area, as if targeted by dispel magic."

So, the group of opponents is considered targeted for the feat?


That's not what it says.

Dispel Magic has two options:
1) Targetted Dispel
2) Counterspell

Greater Dispel Magic gas three options:
1) Targetted Dispel
2) Area Dispel
3) Counterspell

The line where it says "roll one dispel check..." is just explaining how the mechanics of an area dispel works. It is still an area dispel and not a targetted dispel.


I don't know, but the terminology is very important in this game.
I think it is as you say Claxon, but my master doesn't believe this. He believes that the word "targeted" in that line allows to use the feat Destructive Dispel for area dispel...


TheJoker15 wrote:

I don't know, but the terminology is very important in this game.

I think it is as you say Claxon, but my master doesn't believe this. He believes that the word "targeted" in that line allows to use the feat Destructive Dispel for area dispel...

He's right. "As though targeted by dispel magic" means just that. Destructive Dispel doesn't care that there's multiple targets, just that you get to roll a targeted dispel check.


TheJoker15 wrote:

I don't know, but the terminology is very important in this game.

I think it is as you say Claxon, but my master doesn't believe this. He believes that the word "targeted" in that line allows to use the feat Destructive Dispel for area dispel...

If your GM thinks that is how it works...there isn't really much to been done.

The whole of it depends on how you parse "as if targetted by dispel magic". I think most people are likely to understand this as an explaination of the mechanics, which is why it says "as if". However it is still an Area Dispel affect, which differs significantly from the targetted dispel version of Dispel Magic. Targetted dispel magic affects only a single target for 1 spell while Greater Dispel Magic targetted version affects 1 target for multiple spells, but the Area Dispel affects multiple targets for 1 spell each.

Is your GM using this against you and the party? If so just express your concern over how powerful this affect can be. Potentially TPK'ing a party because everyone is stunned is a big deal. Alternatively have someone in your party use the same tactic. No one gets pre-fight buffs because screw everybody.

On the upside, fighters and barbarians (and anyone else) who runs around without actives buffs on most of the time is probably going to be ok.


My GM thinks that is how it works because the feat is ambiguous. The word "targeted" is the key of the question.
I think that the feat is only for one target opponent for two points:

1) the feat says "an opponent, that opponent", and it is in singular;

2) if the feat works for area dispel it is too powerful. If we think that Sickening Spell is a +2 metamagic feat, and the feat Distructive Dispel can also stun, we can understand that it is too powerful.

Maybe, IMHO, this feat need an official reply.


The feat is not too powerful. Sickening Spell can apply to any spell you want, whereas Destructive Dispel only works on one or two spells and requires that you successfully dispel to work at all which, by the way, you're immune to if you don't have any spells on you to dispel.

Your GM is right, and it's his game anyway. Even if Paizo did errata this, he could still say "Nope. It still works."

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Greater dispel magic is very clear there are two modes; targeted or area dispel magic.

Area dispel magic then describes how it functions. Roll one dispel check and apply that check to everything in its area as if, just like, but is not the targeted dispel mode.

As if by definition is a conjunction describing likeness, similarity, and mimicry. He ran as if his life depended on it doesn't mean his life actually depends on running.

The feat means exactly what it says and the spell means exactly what it says. There is no need for Paizo to errata the spell.

Now if your GM wants it to work that way perhaps to challenge you or something that's his own right.


Wait a moment... The question is not about my interpretetion or my GM's interpretation. This is not a competition between me and my GM.
The question is about this feat and how is the correct use of it. And if I interpret in one way and my GM in an other way, and there are a lot of people like you that think in differenti way about this feat, maybe is better if the Paizo make an official FAQ (not necessarely an errata) for clarify.


Getting an actual errata for this will take weeks if not months. There is a long line of things waiting errata. The chance that this will suddenly jump to the front and be clearly resolved are near nil.

At this time, the best you can do is try for a majority opinion to submit as evidence of collective understanding.


Game Master wrote:

The feat is not too powerful. Sickening Spell can apply to any spell you want, whereas Destructive Dispel only works on one or two spells and requires that you successfully dispel to work at all which, by the way, you're immune to if you don't have any spells on you to dispel.

Your GM is right, and it's his game anyway. Even if Paizo did errata this, he could still say "Nope. It still works."

How can you say that is not too powerful?

This feat is for the best debuff spell in the game. Expecialy at high level, it's not so rare that all the party has at least one spell active. Remember that you can dissolve also a spell of a potion, of a wand, or of a wondrous item (like boots of speed for example), and for this spell the check for dissolve is very easy...
In this case, you dissolve the spell (and this alone is already very powerful), you may STUN (one of the worst condition of the game), and, that goes wrong, you may make sickened all (a very good debuff, -2 on all check!!!!).

And it is not too powerful??


dissolve=dispel...
Sorry for my bad english...


Much like other smart combos of abilities, it is powerful. It's not any stronger than the Dazing Spell feat. What does a Lesser Metamagic Rod of Dazing Spell do to a Fireball? Makes it powerful as hell. Does this mean you should ban Dazing Spell as a feat?


Game Master wrote:
Much like other smart combos of abilities, it is powerful. It's not any stronger than the Dazing Spell feat. What does a Lesser Metamagic Rod of Dazing Spell do to a Fireball? Makes it powerful as hell. Does this mean you should ban Dazing Spell as a feat?

Actually, I think so and have done so it home games.

Under your interpretation all you have to do is successfully dispel a single spell and they're stunned. Which isn't bad when it's an individual, but it's awful when you can catch an entire party in it.

Imagine it this way, you can always cast a spell at a reduced caster level. You cast a buff on an the enemies at minimum caster level. Your friend uses this feat and dispels that buff and stuns everyone. The remaining members of your party proceed to kill everyone without resistance.

In any event, as a I said it depends on your interpretation of "as if" and what that means in relation to choosing the area dispel option.


Game Master wrote:
Much like other smart combos of abilities, it is powerful. It's not any stronger than the Dazing Spell feat. What does a Lesser Metamagic Rod of Dazing Spell do to a Fireball? Makes it powerful as hell. Does this mean you should ban Dazing Spell as a feat?

Stun is more powerful then Daze. Dispel Magic is on all spellcasters' list, unlike fireball wich is only for 3 classes.

For make a dazing fireball by a Rod of Metamagic, i need to find it or i need to by it for 14000 gp. In this way is only 3/day and if the opponent succeds in the saving throw, he is safe, and maybe if he have evasion he doesn't take any damage.
Dazing spell is a +3 metamagic feat.
Destructive dispel is a general feat. It is cheaper then a metamagic rod and if the opponent (in the case of your interpretation, the opponentS) succeds the saving throw he is sickened.
I don't want to ban nothing, I want to play by the rules.
I don't remember a stunning spell for multiple target. There are some of high level, but they are for single target.


Claxon wrote:

Getting an actual errata for this will take weeks if not months. There is a long line of things waiting errata. The chance that this will suddenly jump to the front and be clearly resolved are near nil.

At this time, the best you can do is try for a majority opinion to submit as evidence of collective understanding.

Please, click FAQ near my question in the top of the topic.

In this way we can candidate the question for an official answer!!!


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I've clicked it, but I'll reiterate that this is unlikely to get answered. There are other topics which have had hundreds of people click for FAQ and are still unresolved.

If this is resolved it will likely be months before it is responded to.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Destructive Dispel for area dispel All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.