|
The ability of dispel magic to be used as an area dispel against each spell in effect is a nightmare for a DM to adjudicate. The amount of checking for, say, a high-level encounter essentially stops the game and destroys whatever rhythm has built up (and rhythm is essential for high-level encounters). This leaves the DM with the choice of slowing the game to a creeping halt, or changing dispel magic.
So, my question is, can we just dump the option of using dispel magic against every effect within an area and go with a single effect in an area?
-Skeld
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I'm not sure you're reading the spell right (either that or I've gotten it wrong for a long time.)
When you use dispel magic against an area, it targets every effect in the area that is independant (such as a wall of fire), as well as each spell present on a creature or object, but only until one is dispelled for each creature or object. Yes, this is still potentially a lot of checking, but as soon as one effect is dispelled on a given target, you're done with that target.
Also, there is an option for using dispel magic to target a spell, so if you want to just focus on one spell (say a slow spell on your party) without affecting all of their buffs, you can use the targeted version this way.
Director of Games
|
Dispel magic can be one of the most disruptive spells to cast in the middle of a combat. I have been thinking for a while about altering this spell to something a bit more user friendly.
For example, you might change the spell so that its casting time varies. The targeted dispel might remain a standard action to cast, but the area dispel might take 1 minute.
This keeps the versatility, but removes some of the time sink that occurs when this spell is cast.
Thoughts
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Dispel magic can be one of the most disruptive spells to cast in the middle of a combat. I have been thinking for a while about altering this spell to something a bit more user friendly.
For example, you might change the spell so that its casting time varies. The targeted dispel might remain a standard action to cast, but the area dispel might take 1 minute.
This keeps the versatility, but removes some of the time sink that occurs when this spell is cast.
Thoughts
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Just off the top of my head I'm not a fan of changing the casting time in that way. The group I DM for uses it both ways on a fairly regular basis and we don't have a big problem with it. I think part of it is the knowledge up front of how the spell works and what it will do...part of which is use up some time at the table. As long as the group is all ok with that it's fine to move on.
I don't have a good solution for the time sink, though...but I'd rather not take away the versatility the spell already provides. I guess it could be house-ruled back in...but, well, you know...
Dispel magic can be one of the most disruptive spells to cast in the middle of a combat. I have been thinking for a while about altering this spell to something a bit more user friendly.
A very easy way to make Dispel Magic more "user friendly" is to change the formula to determine the maximum caster level dispelled.
Instead of "1d20+Caster Level vs. DC 11+Caster Level," which requires two calculations, just use "1d20+Casterlevel-11 vs. Caster Level." One calculation instead of two.
Dispel Magic is really important to the game, and just expressing the check differently will speed it up.
-Matt
I've found that Dispel Magic isn't used *enough* in my games as it is, reducing the functionality would not be a good idea. Note, it is not failing to be used due to any complexity issues, just questions of importance/value.
Mattastrophic makes a good point.
Dispel magic can be one of the most disruptive spells to cast in the middle of a combat. I have been thinking for a while about altering this spell to something a bit more user friendly.
For example, you might change the spell so that its casting time varies. The targeted dispel might remain a standard action to cast, but the area dispel might take 1 minute.
This keeps the versatility, but removes some of the time sink that occurs when this spell is cast.
Thoughts
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
How about a concentration duration on Dispel, where the caster can remove one spell effect per round as long as they continue to concentrate?
Certainly, it would be a nerf, but much more manageable.
I like the idea of leaving the targeted dispel as is. I do agree that as an alternative you can change the AOE dispel to a maintained dispel. You cast the AOE version and all of the static effects are rolled vs. dispel as normal (wall of fire, grease, etc). All spells on creatures/players allow the player/DM a will saving throw to avoid the effect. The wizard can then choose to maintain the effect round over round up to a number of rounds equal to caster level.
If a target fails its save, then the lowest caster level effect on the target is either dispelled or checked for dispel. (Not sure which would work better, but if it is checked for dispel then you should continue to check each effect until one effect is dispelled or all effects have been checked.)
This change would allow players or monsters the opportunity to have some feeling of control over if their spells get dispelled as well as allowing the caster to get more bang for his buck when he feels it is needed by maintaining the spell. Also, as each player only rolls one save per round it should speed up the overall process as everyone except the DM is each rolling one dice VS the caster rolling many times.
Finally, I would suggest that the greater versions of Dispel get a built in extension of the durations beyond just concentration. Such as Concentration +1 round or maybe Concnetration +3 rounds.
You could even build in some feats along the lines of improved counterspell to improve the dispel spell itself. Below is a suggestion for the feat... although that may be too much and the powers could be spread over two or three feats.
Dispel Magic Focus - Any dispel effect has its unmaintained concentration effect extended by X rounds and the caster receives a +Y bonus to caster level checks to dispel magic. The caster also gets a +1 DC to the save if a creature or player is allowed a save vs. the effect.
|
So... do I understand the original issue correctly that there's nothing wrong with the actual spell other than it causes a lot of rolls? Stuff the wizard does generally doesn't generate a lot of rolls (especially compared to other classes. The quickest way to do this might be to have the caster prepare a chart when he casts. Use the simplified calculation mentioned above (d20 + CL(max 10 or 20 depending) - 11) and write down 20 results. That's really quick to do, and the caster could even do it when he commits to casting the spell. Then the DM runs down the spells it can affect, listing off the caster level of the spell in play. If line 1 matches/beats spell 1, it's down. Carry on.
Dispel magic is an absolutely essential spell. It may not get used a lot, but when it's needed it really is needed.
I would really like to see it stay the way it is.
I like the idea of feats that can improve its potency, even, as suggested above.
Dispel magic can be one of the most disruptive spells to cast in the middle of a combat. I have been thinking for a while about altering this spell to something a bit more user friendly.A very easy way to make Dispel Magic more "user friendly" is to change the formula to determine the maximum caster level dispelled.
Instead of "1d20+Caster Level vs. DC 11+Caster Level," which requires two calculations, just use "1d20+Casterlevel-11 vs. Caster Level." One calculation instead of two.
Dispel Magic is really important to the game, and just expressing the check differently will speed it up.
-Matt
or 1d10 + Caster Level vs. Caster Level,
or 1d20 + 1/2 Caster Level vs. Caster Level.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
In my experience, the real time sink is not so much determining which spells are dispelled, but rather recalculating the stats of the now-debuffed character. Consider an NPC with a half-dozen buffs active at the start of a battle. If the PCs cast Dispel Magic, and get rid of, say, half of those, it takes quite a while to recalculate that NPC's stats without his Bull's Strength, Divine Power, and Aid in effect. Especially if said buffs affect multiple variables (Attack, AC, HP, damage, saves, etc. etc.).
Compared to that, the d20 rolls are a cinch!
|
|
Matt's "formula" is just a different way to say the same thing already, he's not suggesting anything that will result in a difference to the spell. I don't think it needs to change, really - but Matt's moving the 11 to the "other side" of the challenge just means a single calculation before you can compare results instead of two calculations to compare results.
It would be like calculating whether an attack hits by figuring out d20+ to-hit bonus - target AC and seeing if you get 0 or higher. Same result, just a different calculation.
|
Counterspelling is too easy in our campaigns. It is almost 100% done through dispel magic, which is a 3rd level spell that can wipe out a dozen higher level spells all at once.
I believe that the spell dispel magic is too utilitarian, and should be limited – dispel magic should only be able to be used as a counterspell versus spells up to 3rd level. Greater Dispel Magic should work against spells up to 6th level, and a third version should be created that will counter spells up to 9th level.
And I do agree that the caster level check should be simpler. Perhaps 1d20 + half caster level vs opposing caster level?
If casting dispel magic is too disruptive in the middle of combat, then there are too many buffs in play. Let's turn this around. If you don't want to have to recalculate a whole bunch of your bonuses, don't use too many vulnerable buffs as your combat strategy.
The clunkiness of dispel magic stems from the differences in adjudicating targeted vs area and remembering how each one works (I have to look them up each time).
The one nerf I would consider reasonable would be dispel magic's effect on magic items and other permanent magic. I'd consider leaving that to a more specialized spell along the lines of break enchantment rather than a combat-oriented abjuration like dispel magic.
Counterspelling is too easy in our campaigns. It is almost 100% done through dispel magic, which is a 3rd level spell that can wipe out a dozen higher level spells all at once.
I believe that the spell dispel magic is too utilitarian, and should be limited – dispel magic should only be able to be used as a counterspell versus spells up to 3rd level. Greater Dispel Magic should work against spells up to 6th level, and a third version should be created that will counter spells up to 9th level.
A simple solution that I use for my important fights is a spell/DM fiat (though I'd allow the PCs to use it, too, if they captured the appropriate scrolls or spellbooks, etc):
Vesper's Spellward
Abjuration
Level: Sorceror/Wizard 5
Components: S, F
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 10 minutes/level
Vesper's Spellward interfaces with all beneficial spells cast upon the caster. Any such spell with a duration other than "Instantaneous" is protected from any effect which would remove it before its duration naturally expires for as long as Vesper's Spellward remains active. Note that this offers no protection against Anti-Magic Field or similar anti-magic effects with a duration.
For example, if Vesper had Bull's Strength and Vesper's Spellward cast upon him and someone were to cast Dispel Magic on him, the Bull's Strength spell would be protected from the effect of Dispel Magic. If the Spellward was destroyed by the Dispel Magic, a second casting of Dispel Magic could then remove Bull's Strength from Vesper.
Focus: A crystal prism worth at least 250 gold.
...
Basically, it's a "you have to dispel me first" spell. Not really on-topic, but it's a decent way to solve the problem of "dire tiger to paper tiger with a single Dispel Magic" that happens with certain villains.
Basically, it's a "you have to dispel me first" spell.
That spell already exists. It's called Spell Turning.
-Matt
We actually have much insight on the resolution of these spells as they are used extensively in our AoW campaign. We personally don't find them any slower than most actions during a high level game actually.
Just thinking out loud:
Dispel Magic: limit it to being able to dispel one spell only, be it an area effect, buff on foe, etc. Consider removing the +10 cap.
Greater Dispel magic: limit it to removing all the buffs on one foe only, or all the spells cast upon an area.
You still have to roll for success in both cases of course.
These are how they are most commonly used in our games anyway (the buffs on foes that is)
Well, Dispel Magic sure cause a lot of troubles. But once you get the idea and have played it a few times it's no so hard to apply. This spell is a key to winning battles with casters and shouldn't be changed slightly. I've seen many times a Dispel magic turning the tide of a battle...
Now just a clarification : The aera dispel states that magical items are not affected. But what if the magical item is the target of a magical effect such as a sword affected by a keen edge spell ? My opinion is to test the effect only if the magical item is not somehow in contact with someone ( eg : lying on the ground ) but I might be wrong ?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I imported Dispelling Buffer from the XPH into a spell, but made it Wizard 7, since it's psychic warrior only power, level 5.
(also a level 5 spell for my Arcane Legionary, but thats beside the point)
Dispelling buffer (Arcane)
Evocation
Level: Arcane Legionary 5, Wizard/Sorcerer 7
Components: V,S,F
Casting Time: 1 round
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1 hour/level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)You complete the words to the spell and the crystal figure grows warm in your hand. Faint sparkles of energy swirl around you once, then seem to sink into your flesh, giving a brief itching feeling.
Effect: As Dispelling Buffer, except as noted.
Focus: a small crystal figurine, worth 350 GP.
That's my version
The problem I have with dispel magic is multiple casters. If you have a PC with buffs cast by a cleric 5 and wizard 7 being dispelled by an enemy spellcaster it is not fun trying to keep track of which spell was cast by whom and the DC for each.
What about giving dispel magic a 50% chance to dispel a spell, or 11 to 20 on a d20? Much easier to keep track of and is within 5% of the normal chance of success assuming the spellcasters involved are the same level. You could add/subtract 5 for every 5 level difference between them. As for greater dispel magic, allow the caster to reroll for two spells of their choice that they failed to dispel that they've identified plus 1 for every 5 level difference.
The last time I did this, I had a Mystic Theurge with cleric and wizard levels that took on the whole party. He was completely insane and an "epic" encounter for the party, using the PF encounter rules, including the -2 level CR figuring.
He had a ton of spells on him, due to his forewarning that the PCs were on the way, and I had various stats written up for him (i.e. a note on how many hp he would lose if a spell was dispelled, different sets of AC and attack lines).
It was a pain, but at the same time, most of my casters didn't fight a party one on one, and didn't have time to cast that many spells before a fight. Lots of NPC casters cast buffs on themselves or others, but usually there isn't time for more than one or two.
So I guess, having run a massive dispel target not too long ago, I'm actually pretty happy with how it worked out, but then again, I knew what I was getting into and worked it out really carefully ahead of time.
I don't really want to see this nerfed, but I have to admit that any character built to hold a ton of buff and ongoing effects has to be very carefully statted up to minimize the problems when the encounter itself comes around.
|
|
That's a bad thing? :)
The disruption I'm referring to, and what I believe Jason is also talking about, isn't disrupting opponents' ability to fight, or monkeying with their plans, of anything of that nature; it's the disruption of game flow. In my experience, that's not a good thing.
In order to correctly adjudicate one character (PC or NPC) against another, each player has to have some sort of list with all the spells currently in effect on them with the associated caster levels (to figure the DC). For a DM, it's multiple lists. This probably isn't a big deal .. most characters keep a list of the spells that are cast on them. Items are slightly different because the effects are "permanent," such that the player probably doesn't intend for that item to be removed except during re-equipping or downtime when they expect to have to recalculate a few things and can take their time doing so. And, by the way for items, there's the potential for someone needing to recalculate stats every round for the next 4 rounds since items are suppressed for 1d4 rounds.
The real time sink to dispel magic is when the players (or the DM even more so) have to recalculate bonuses, stats, or skills in the middle of a combat. This is the disruption. The game halts for a minute or 2 while the DM recalculates the NPC's attack bonuses to factor out spells he's already factored in. The DM wants to get it right because he doesn't want to cheat the players out of their tactic. Meanwhile, the player start chit-chatting about the latest WoW mod or somesuch.
That's the issue with dispel magic ... wasted time at the table.
-Skeld
|
Director of Games
|
So, I am just working with some ideas here on how to ease up on this spell a bit, as far as time expenditure is required. Note that these are just some ideas I am toying with, nothing is set in stone.
When using a targeted dispel magic, you can dispel X number of spells on a target, where X is equal to 1 + 1/five caster levels above 5th (2 at 10th, 3 at 15th, 4 at 20th). This means that you start with the highest level spells on a target and work your way down until you run out of spells to check against, or you run into your maximum number that you can dispel. Area dispel would be unaffected.
In addition, what if the check made to remove a spell is simplified a bit. It is still a caster level check, but the DC is equal to 10 + twice the spell's level (10 for 0, 12 for 1st, 14 for 2nd, 16 for 3rd, etc). I am less certain about this part than I am the previous part.
I am still toying with this issue.. thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
|
In addition, what if the check made to remove a spell is simplified a bit. It is still a caster level check, but the DC is equal to 10 + twice the spell's level (10 for 0, 12 for 1st, 14 for 2nd, 16 for 3rd, etc). I am less certain about this part than I am the previous part.
If I understand you correctly, a mage armor spell cast by a Wizard-1 would be just as difficult to dispel as mage armor cast by a Wizard-20.
That's a pretty significant departure from how things currently work (again, unless I misunderstood what you've posted). I think I liked the opposed checks better.
-Skeld
When using a targeted dispel magic, you can dispel X number of spells on a target, where X is equal to 1 + 1/five caster levels above 5th (2 at 10th, 3 at 15th, 4 at 20th). This means that you start with the highest level spells on a target and work your way down until you run out of spells to check against, or you run into your maximum number that you can dispel. Area dispel would be unaffected.
This method actually makes Dispel Magic take longer to adjudicate, because you have to figure out which spells are being checked against. As it stands now, even though an order to targeted dispelling is expressed in the spell description, it doesn't really matter, since you're checking against everything.
You also run into the problem of using it against active spell-like and supernatural abilities, which don't always have a level assigned to them.
The second method makes dispelling way too easy to pull off, and you still have the problem of having to look up spell levels.
-Matt
|
|
So, I am just working with some ideas here on how to ease up on this spell a bit, as far as time expenditure is required. Note that these are just some ideas I am toying with, nothing is set in stone.
When using a targeted dispel magic, you can dispel X number of spells on a target, where X is equal to 1 + 1/five caster levels above 5th (2 at 10th, 3 at 15th, 4 at 20th). This means that you start with the highest level spells on a target and work your way down until you run out of spells to check against, or you run into your maximum number that you can dispel. Area dispel would be unaffected.
In addition, what if the check made to remove a spell is simplified a bit. It is still a caster level check, but the DC is equal to 10 + twice the spell's level (10 for 0, 12 for 1st, 14 for 2nd, 16 for 3rd, etc). I am less certain about this part than I am the previous part.
I am still toying with this issue.. thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I very much like the suggestion to limit the number spells a targeted dispel would target.
Whoa.. what a mouthfull
I like the limit on amount it can dispel, but considering most of the spells PC's are trying to dispel are usually from higher level casters anyways doubling the DC would make this spell useless (a 5th level wizard vs a 7th level cleric spell would have a DC of 24 instead of 17... huge difference!).
I'd like to see a margin effect—
the Dispeller makes a CL check against a DC equal to the target effects CL. If he beats the DC, zero level effects are dispelled. For each point (or two, or five, or a table of margins if needed) over the DC an additional level of effects is dispelled. This means you still get the feel of a "good dispel" or a "fizzled dispel" that is tied to the difference in Caster Levels, but it all works on a single roll.
That said, I can appreciate Mr. Meepo's all-or-nothing approach as well.
That said, I can appreciate Mr. Meepo's all-or-nothing approach as well.
I can appreciate it as well. It does have a certain simplicity to it.
I'm going to think about it a bit, but on its surface I really don't think its a terrible idea, and I'm not really warming up to Jason's idea just reading over it. No offense to Jason, its just feels like its adding more complexity for less of a chance to do the same thing, but with the potential to be just as complicated.
When using a targeted dispel magic, you can dispel X number of spells on a target, where X is equal to 1 + 1/five caster levels above 5th (2 at 10th, 3 at 15th, 4 at 20th). This means that you start with the highest level spells on a target and work your way down until you run out of spells to check against, or you run into your maximum number that you can dispel. Area dispel would be unaffected.
This could work well - others have noted that it may end up just as complicated if you end up running through the whole list of spells before hitting the max, but it puts a fairly hard limit on how much recalculations would need to be done. That said I'd make it 1/4 caster levels (2 at 8th, 3 at 12th, 4 at 16th, 5 at 20th). Particularly since it rarely is cast after 10th because of the cap.
In addition, what if the check made to remove a spell is simplified a bit. It is still a caster level check, but the DC is equal to 10 + twice the spell's level (10 for 0, 12 for 1st, 14 for 2nd, 16 for 3rd, etc). I am less certain about this part than I am the previous part.
Please no - that would change the whole nature of dispelling.
---As much as I usually like Epic Meepo's ideas, this one I sincerely do not. All or nothing would highly complicate encounters, setting CR's, etc., basing far too much on a single roll. It would also encourage spamming a random spell from the highest caster just to protect the rest (for Rangers, Paladins, or just lower level characters).
"Bull's Strength me!" "But you have a Belt of Giant Strength" "Yeah but it'll protect my Pro Energy and Barkskin!"
Maybe we're looking at this the wrong way.
It seems that the big problem with dispel magic is stopping to recalculate stats when tons of buff spells are dispelled; figuring out what types of bonuses there are and what stacks and what doesn't. So what if instead of being dispelled they were, for lack of a better word, penalized?
Target opponent: When dispel magic is targeted against a specific opponent they are magically hindered proportionately to the number of spells active on their person. For every active spell affecting them they suffer a -1 penalty to attack, AC, and saving throws. The penalty is lessened by 1 for each active spell that is dismissed or has its duration run out. Multiple castings of dispel magic overlap but do not stack.
Example: An opponent has bull's strength, mage armor, and true strike currently active. They are hit with a targeted dispel magic. With 3 spells active, they suffer a -3 penalty to attack, -3 penalty to their AC, and a -3 penalty to their saving throws. Once the true strike is used up, the penalty drops to -2. If they were later blessed, the penalty would remain at -2, but if dispel magic were cast on them after being blessed the penalty would increase to -3 (overlaps).
It still takes a little calculation, but hopefully a lot less than changing their stats spell by spell. It also provides a penalty that might make them think twice about buffing themselves up too much to begin with (and thus helping to stem the source of the headache before it starts). The penalty also doesn't always specifically affect what they were trying to buff; if someone had mage armor active and was hit with dispel magic they might dismiss it to remove the saving throw penalty. And as a specific spell, dispel magic can still be targeted and removed.
Basically, it's a "you have to dispel me first" spell.That spell already exists. It's called Spell Turning.
-Matt
Spell Turning would not work against an area dispel.
So, I am just working with some ideas here on how to ease up on this spell a bit, as far as time expenditure is required. Note that these are just some ideas I am toying with, nothing is set in stone.
When using a targeted dispel magic, you can dispel X number of spells on a target, where X is equal to 1 + 1/five caster levels above 5th (2 at 10th, 3 at 15th, 4 at 20th). This means that you start with the highest level spells on a target and work your way down until you run out of spells to check against, or you run into your maximum number that you can dispel. Area dispel would be unaffected.
In addition, what if the check made to remove a spell is simplified a bit. It is still a caster level check, but the DC is equal to 10 + twice the spell's level (10 for 0, 12 for 1st, 14 for 2nd, 16 for 3rd, etc). I am less certain about this part than I am the previous part.
I am still toying with this issue.. thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
This suggestion is a tad radical, but here goes. Change Dispel Magic to an AoE spell and allow the caster to apply a number of dispel attempts to targets in the area. Up the maximum number of 1 dispel check plus 1 per 2 caster levels. A 5th level caster could apply all three of these checks against one target or split them between three creatures or ongoing spell effects within the area.
This limits the number of effects that can be removed at one time, but allows for more affects than your method.
Why don't we limit the number of spells that can affect a character at once? Five seems like a decent number. In my epic game, between the two casters we end up with something around 14 buffs per person that run all day long, and only shows signs of getting worse. Depending on how low we set the limit, this can also make Persistent Spell playable.
I don't believe dispel magic is the problem, in fact, I think dispel magic must stay the way it is. If we start limiting how many things it can bring down, it completely loses its usefulness in high level play (where if you don't have a myriad buffs, you get laughed at).
As for recalculating everything on the NPC/monster/PC, you don't deserve any sympathy. If you're going to tromp around with 10 buffs running, you're responsible for carrying a "buff sheet" and a "base sheet". If dispel magic takes too long to resolve, it's just a result of poor prep work (on either side of the table).
Another point, if we decrease the power of dispel magic, mage's disjunction will be virtually required to even step in the ring against casting opponents at CR 17+.
If we impose an artificial limit, we will decrease the power of mage's disjunction (and while this is one of the best changes in PFRPG, I think it could still use a bit of toning down), and make things simpler in every aspect to run on both sides of the table.
As for recalculating everything on the NPC/monster/PC, you don't deserve any sympathy. If you're going to tromp around with 10 buffs running, you're responsible for carrying a "buff sheet" and a "base sheet". If dispel magic takes too long to resolve, it's just a result of poor prep work (on either side of the table).
I think a "buff sheet" is not feasible. With 10 buffs active when a Dispel Magic hits, there are 1024 possible outcomes (from all buffs dispelled to none buffs dispelled and all combinations inbetween).
If you're going to tromp around with 10 buffs running, you're responsible for carrying a "buff sheet" and a "base sheet". If dispel magic takes too long to resolve, it's just a result of poor prep work (on either side of the table).
Bah.
Which is why I use buff index cards. Just keep the ones out you are using and put the rest away. Roll, add, flip through the cards to add.
Or just write it on a different piece of paper that you don't mind marking all over.
I really think we need one roll that strips out spells from weakest to strongest. The Margin of Success on a CL check vs. the enemy caster's CL is a good tool for that. Beyond that, there are many factors that can be manipulated, such as the "DCs" [Enemy CL + (SL * x)] where x could be anything the designers think is fair.
But it's simple, and fast, and it accounts for much of the old system. Probably the biggest time saver when using one roll is that you determine the highest level affected by the dispel, then all spells of that level and lower are dispelled instead of handling it on a case by case basis. But a powerful caster is unlikely to find himself losing his best spells to a novice dispel.
Spell Turning would not work against an area dispel.
If Spell Turning is forcing your opponent to area dispel you instead of targeted-dispel you, then it's certainly done its job.
But anyways...
Changing targeted dispel effects to force the players and DM to assign any sort of order to the dispel checks would only slow the process down.
Or, it works just fine; just clean up the text to make it clearer to resolve.
-Matt
|
|
In addition, what if the check made to remove a spell is simplified a bit. It is still a caster level check, but the DC is equal to 10 + twice the spell's level (10 for 0, 12 for 1st, 14 for 2nd, 16 for 3rd, etc). I am less certain about this part than I am the previous part.
I am still toying with this issue.. thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Jason, (and others) allow me to share an idea that I have been trying (with some success); after running the Shackled City AP (we are starting chapter 12 next week) and fighting all those demodands in the Fiery Sanctum - all of which cast Dispel Magic several times on PCs that had bookoo amount of buff - resolving was a nightmare - I presented an alternative for my next campaign to my players for AREA DISPEL.
OLD WAY: Roll 1d20 plus Caster leve (up to 10) against each spell (starting at the highest level spell) in effect on a creature in the area - which usually resulted in 2-5 rolls of a D20 PER creature in the area..... (totalling 12-25 rolls just for Dispel magic from EACH demodand - x 4 demodands all doing this in the same round...(we rolled like 50-60 in one round!)
NEW WAY: Roll 1d20 against each creature - add Caster Level (up to 10).
DC to dispel a spell: HALF caster level (round down) PLUS Level of spell. (so 18th level wizard casting Mage Armor is easier to be dispelled than the same wizard's Polymorph Any Object.)
Take the result of the D20 + caster level and compare it to creature target. Start at the highest level spell in place and work your way down until the ONE roll removes a spell.
Number of rolls: 5 (provided there are 5 creatures in AoE). Difference of about 15 rolls per spell use!
For instance:
Kharnak 12th level wiz casts Dispel Magic as AoE over a rival adventuring group - 4 targets in AoE.
Kharnak's player rolls 4d20 assigning one to each character, and adds 10 from his caster level. Results are (14, 17, 22, 28)
14 vs the fighter: fighter has Bull Strength (8th level cleric - DC to dispel: 16), Heroism (10 level wizard - DC: 17), Haste (10th wiz, DC: 18), Protection from Fire (8th cleric: DC 17) and Polymorph (10 wiz DC: 19) Summation - result of 14 dispelled nothing.
If the paladin had all of the same buffs on and the 17 was assigned to the paladin, you'd work your way down until either the Heroism or Prot from Fire would be dispelled - the latter was cast at a lower caster level, so the paladin loses his Prot from Fire.
Finally the 22 and 28 result against the rogue and the monk would remove the the polymorph from both.
Note: Half caster level plus level of spell means that a caster casting his highest level of spell is equal to what the old way of dispel needed to succeed with; and we just work our way down from there.
(this similarly resembles your idea, Jason). Regardless, it significantly reduces the time spent using this spell.
Robert
I kinda like Robert's idea. Making Dispel all-or-nothing, or at least use a single roll so that (with ten spells), there are 10 outcomes and not 1024, certainly simplfies the recalculating time, too.
|
|
*snip*Consider this shamelessly stolen for my own games. : )
Feel free - and have no shame; that's why I shared it. :-)
While playtesting, our players got in the habit of writing the Dispel DC next to each spell in effect on their character.
DC = 10 + Half Caster level + level of spell
so the players kept a sheet that looked like:
Haste (DC 18)
Invisibility potion (13)
Fly potion (15)
Heroism (18)
Protection from Evil (16)
Magical Vestment Scroll at 8th level (17)
That way when a dispel was cast, its just an easy thing to look up....
Robert