Search Posts
So I did a quick search on True Names and didn't find what I was looking for. What are ways in which a player character can go about acquiring a true name of a demon? Specifically, if I have a sorcerer, who in an instance of wishing to gain power, signed a devil bound contract with a demon, if he had the demon's true name, could he get out of such a contract? How would one go about doing this by the rules? Thanks
I think that's fair, but you would have to start with the spell base damage of 6d6. thus, it would be 6d6 for one, 7d6 for three, 8d6 for seven, etc.
Another way to bypass the situation is to also house rule that explosive runes by the same caster, in proximity, would harmonically resonate to the point of explosion if within a certain distance of each other - say 6" or less. Thus, you couldn't get away with stacking this up in a book, nor give out multiple parchments. I think that also would work for a viable control method by flavoring it as some kind of "time cop" situation where "two identical things can't occupy the same space at the same time" sorta deal because the magical energies would be competing and would "somehow" counter react with each other and explode. It's an idea for those that want to control this kind of thing. I don't think this is true. On page 272 of the core rulebook (I believe) it says under Dispel Magic that an inter-dimensional opening (like a bag of holding)is closed. Thus, the items would just remain in the dimensional space upon dispel, but would not just shunt into each other. Even if they did, they would explode in the extradimensional plane, not the material one. If I am wrong on that, please feel free to correct me.
I would call the fist full of pebbles one attack, and only one instance of dice rolling. I think Ravingdork is correct on this ruling. It's legit to say that multiple pebbles would affect the wall and create 2d4 x each pebble of damage. However, it would be a ruling of how many pebbles can you hold and you would have to make a successful hit roll for each pebble from a distance of X feet - assuming 20' or less? 1) Most people that have thrown pebbles know that there is a max distance of flight based on the object's size and weight so trying to toss pebbles that are 1/4" in size or less would likely not bridge a 40-50' toss so there is likely a distance limitation here. 2) There is no real accuracy in tossing pebbles at a distance. Try throwing some into a lake or other larger body of standing water and notice the pattern at a close distance of 10-20' vs. anything beyond that. The scatter is incredible once you attempt to toss further distances. 3) Following up on point 2, I'd wager that only a percentage would hit the target and a GM could allow for a percentage roll on anything beyond a 10' distance. For every additional 10' away, decrease the percentage by 10% x distance away. Meaning, at 20', it's percentage roll -20%. At 30' it's percentage roll -30%. At 40', it's percentage roll -40%. Etc. Then DC check to hit all successful attempts that could have bridged the distance. I'd personally rule it a ranged touch attack or thrown object which unless you have weapon finesse, you are using your dump stat of STR to hit with a caster. In theory you could have your tank toss the pebbles, but then that's a full round action for them and would require forethought or a successful teamwork roll in my opinion. 4) Don't be a gnome or other small creature. You will likely only fit 10 pebbles in your hand, thus making it pointless to even attempt this trick. GMs could limit the number of potential pebbles to throw, and terrain would play into this - do you have adequate terrain pebbles to throw? If not, do you happen to be carrying 20lbs of pebbles on your person?? Who does that and it better be on your character sheet. If they are using bags of holding to carry around pellets - full round action to get pellets (in multiple form) - oh... Enemy sees your trick - enemy moves 20' away. oops. Personally, I just gave this idea to the bard in our group so we will give it a go and see how it pans with our GM. I will bring up the limitations though during the combat phase if he does actually try this and go from there. Even as a player, I like to keep things legitimate vs. attempting to pull the wool over the GM's eyes with these kinds of things.
Hold up here... there can be a limitation on greater dispel magic that is GM justifiably: This spell functions like dispel magic, except that it can end more than one spell on **a** target and it can be used to target multiple creatures. In essence, this is saying that it responds as if it were dispel magic, lesser, but that it targets more than one thing - which is all well and good and to that part of the argument, you are all correct in that it would affect multiple targets all at once. HOWEVER.... The ruling would need to be based on the following question: Is the book considered 1 item... or is the book considered multiple items (i.e. multiple pages)? In that instance, its effect would be determined through GM discretion. The GM could rule that the "book" is one item - a single book - and not to be considered as separate pages within a single book (or single object). Yet if you were to hand over a bunch of scrolls or parchments, they would, and should be counted as individual items without question of course. Area Dispel: When greater dispel magic is used in this way, the spell affects everything within a 20-foot-radius burst. Roll one dispel check and apply that check to each creature in the area, as if targeted by dispel magic. For each object within the area that is the target of one or more spells, apply the dispel check as with creatures. Thus I feel that in book form - yes, it could potentially count as a single item with the result of a single explosion... but in parchment form, it would be counted as multiples as if you had multiple letters in your hand as if you were a postal worker about to become shredded postal worker soup. If you stacked the runes though on a single parchment, according to how this is worded, it would only activate once. I think that's the key to utilizing GM discretion in this instance. Personally, I would say the book is a single item, despite the fact that I believe in cellular biology where we are billions of individual cells that make up the person, not a person made up of billions of cells. I know that sounds quirky to switch, but I can quickly see this type of thing being exploited on a regular basis. On the other hand, if a GM still had an issue with this, they could opt to house rule that you can't auto dispel your own spells which would make the attempt to try this trick obsolete by the fact that you would more than likely (unless rolling a true failure of a 1) dispel your own stuff based upon your skill level as a caster in spellcraft. By the time you get greater dispel, your spellcraft should be something like 15 or 18 anyways.... so you would be rolling against an 18 to dispel which would mean you are likely going to succeed nearly every time. Another way to bypass the situation is to also house rule that explosive runes by the same caster, in proximity, would harmonically resonate to the point of explosion if within a certain distance of each other - say 6" or less. Thus, you couldn't get away with stacking this up in a book, nor give out multiple parchments. I think that also would work for a viable control method by flavoring it as some kind of "time cop" situation where "two identical things can't occupy the same space at the same time" sorta deal because the magical energies would be competing and would "somehow" counter react with each other and explode. It's an idea for those that want to control this kind of thing. Furthermore, I appreciate the comments on this thread, but please - there is no need to get all up in everyone's grill about how they perceive or play. I want to keep this a friendly discussion - not a hate fest on one person or another. Reading and responding to text online is not as eloquent in speaking and you often miss tone or inflection and it is easy to take words and phrases out of context or imply anger or other such things where it isn't necessarily due.
Yes... I get that I missed a few posts. Geez... is that the main subject or is it the dispel being automatic vs. not. #getoverit Yeah, greater dispel seems to be the choice to use then vs. using low level dispel, or as been mentioned previously - erase.
Nothing came out glaringly. Keep in mind, some of these threads have several pages of posts. It's likely I just didn't see it because after page two or three, I didn't see any new valuable information aside from regurgitation of the same info in the previous two or three pages (or 10 or 20 posts). Bottom line - instead of a post that countered it, I saw posts approving it more-so. It's not your fault your post(s) were buried by other praises of the combo :-p
You can deliberately fail anything you attempt to do.I'm not aware of this general rule. Can you cite it? The existence of specific clauses allowing you to fail saving throws suggests there isn't a general one. Yeah, I need to see that ruling only because of the word "automatic" - which insinuates that you don't have a choice - it just happens. It would be different if it didn't use the word "automatic." Thus why I had to post the thread because I am interpreting that as "sorry - no dice on auto-failing your own dispel."
I thought so. I have read a number of threads on this but have failed to see someone point this out. It makes me curious though... Prestidigitation allows you to "erase" something - "color, clean, or soil." Granted it's a 10' range so that is not optimal, but could you, if the range were extended, use Prestidigitation to "clean" or otherwise "erase" the rune and activate the explosion?
I was looking at Explosive Rune and Dispel combo and it appears that this is a very popular low spell combo. Unfortunately, this doesn't work if the caster of the runes and the caster of the dispel are the same caster. I checked 10's of sites on this to find out if anyone else caught this, but it appears a simple thing has been very much overlooked. If you, the caster, writes the runes, and then you, the caster who wrote the runes attempts a dispel, the dispel is automatic - you can't just choose to fail the dispel. "You automatically succeed on your dispel check against any spell that you cast yourself." http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/dispel-magic This would apply to explosive runes you write yourself. So... not sure why this has become such a popular duo to use, but sadly, it won't work unless someone else (someone other than who is attempting the dispel) writes the runes for you. In all the threads I checked, there was no mention of this problem. I am pretty sure I am reading this correctly between dispel and the runes, but I'd be curious if there was a different take on this that I am not seeing? |
