Rick Swole's page

Let me tell you about a time I had in the sixth chapter of DDD. I will try to be as spoiler free as I can, sorry about that.

While investigating we found out that there would be a spell preventing a certain kind of behavior. Well, good thing we found out about it, right? I can simply burn all my 4-5 spells on Spell Immunity and that would protect us - there is a dispel check, but I like my chances and it doesn't hurt to have a back up plan, right? And in case I do fail the check, I will prepare some Dispel Magic to give me a few more checks, I can't possibly fail them all, right? Wrong.

Dispelling works like this: you automatically remove a spell of equal or lower level, and attempt a check to remove a spell of a higher level (+5 to DC per level difference).

When the need did arrive, I found out that the spell in place was impossible to dispel with the spells I prepared, and when our sorcerer with spontaneously heightened Dispel Magic tried, well - for him it was merely unlikely, since he only needed a nat 19. OH WELL.

We went ahead and some stuff happened and we were away from the social part of the adventure and cast our buffs - See Invisibility for me, True Seeing for the sorcerer. Well, when the need did arrive we again noticed that True Seeing wasn't. See Invisibility, a 2nd level spell, is somehow way more useful than a 6th level spell because dispelling. GM ruled that you can roll a check every round, but no dice.

We discussed it later with our GM, and found out that both spells were only 8th level vs our 4-7th spells. They were almost impossible to dispel (I think we attempted about ten checks) with our best spells! Without that blasted +5/level I would need to roll 15+, which would be fair, with it - 30+ (well, 20, I guess).

I actually really like that spells like True Seeing now require a check, but it's difficulty means that I would be way better off simply preparing Heals and Flame Strikes in all those wasted 4-6 slots - and not for the lack of recon and preparation! I mean, the enemy spellcaster could be ONE LEVEL HIGHER than you for his spells to be undispellable.

I hate how in 2e a few levels can be so significant, especially since PCs are unlikely to be on the higher side.

Now I am reluctant to prepare anything but damaging spells, and it sucks - I have no polite words to describe how much.

Get rid of that +5 to DC.

I don’t understand why the new restrictions on clerics’ alignments?
Specifically Lamashtu. When I first read in the blog that alignments requirements and channels will be revised (and Lamashtu was given as an example), I thought “awesome, NG goblin cleric sounds fun”. If goblins are introduced into society (and Society), why wouldn’t some of them keep faith in a goddess that provides healing and the Family domain? Why is that change a change for the worse? Why do that horrible thing (no pun intended)?
Also Abadar. True Neutral clerics are out. WHY? Isn’t N the alignment that descrides the average Joeleth, who does their job fine, but is there for the paycheck. The whole “you have to be passionate about the Law” thing sounds like something a crappy new manager says while trying to “build team spirit” or something.
And Asmodeus. Wasn’t there a clause that he doesn’t care what you think so long as you go trough the motions? But now you HAVE to be a bastard?
I can go on, but overall it looks like Paizo tried fixing what wasn’t broken. It feels unnecessary restrictive. I will certainly houserule it the hell out.