Okay, really we're looking for a way to simplify resolution in the middle of combat. Further, all-or-nothing appear to be on the table.
What about adding a method of using the spell?
A combat dispel works like this:
1} You've got a bunch of buffs and wards and stuff running.
2} I cast dispel magic on you, using a "combat dispel".
3} You get a Will save (which you aren't permitted to voluntarily fail).
4a} If you fail, ALL spell effects on you NOT produced by magic items are immediately suppressed for 1d4 rounds.
4b} If you succeed, there is no effect.
A DM keeps two stat blocks, max. Players are responsible for knowing what's happening to their statblocks. Plot items and always-on effects are preserved. Compulsions still work. It's one roll. Like always. It's not a ridiculous save-or-die due to reasonable duration.
Details obviously are open to discussion, such as scaling this to make the save harder at higher levels since the spell level won't change and opponents' save bonuses will. Other uses might be worth changing casting time to somewhere between 1 round and 3 rounds, to encourage use of "combat dispel" but still leave legacy dispels available when they're really more appropriate.
Opinions?
No offense, but this just keeps getting more and more convoluted as we roll along . . . I'd really rather just say screw it and stay with the 3.5 version.
No offense, but this just keeps getting more and more convoluted as we roll along . . . I'd really rather just say screw it and stay with the 3.5 version.
None taken, but I'll admit to being confused. A saving throw just like 80% of the other spells in the book is convoluted? Seriously? I could wrap my head around you not liking the idea, but your choice of words has me kind of befuddled.
None taken, but I'll admit to being confused. A saving throw just like 80% of the other spells in the book is convoluted? Seriously? I could wrap my head around you not liking the idea, but your choice of words has me kind of befuddled.
Its less about the option itself, rather than that is is presented as adding another option to the casting of the spell. Its been my experience that the more text a spell has, the more likely a player is to skip over that spell in favor of something that can be summed up in a paragraph or so.
Sorry about implying that your actual mechanics were at fault. I should have worded my comment more carefully.
|
I like the idea of feats that can improve its potency, even, as suggested above.
The best way to improve the potency of a Dispel Magic is to Empower Spell it.
Even with my proposed change - rolling once against each target - adding 50% to the D20 roll is quite significant.
Since I don't think it's considered an opposed roll or random effect (such as Confusion), it should qualify for that feat.
Robert
Also, lesser globe of invulnerability is only one level higher than dispel magic, and lesser globe doesn't even require a caster level check. It just shuts down all 3rd- and lower-level spells. You have no idea how many times I've seen a lesser globe absolutely wreck havoc on spellcasting villains in various Adventure Paths.
...? This is something I don't understand.
First of all, a Globe of Invulnerability (either Lesser or not) is immobile; you cast it, and it forms right where your caster is, but then you cannot move it along with you (in fact, it states that "You can leave and return to the globe without penalty.")
Second, it clearly states that "Spells of 4th level and higher are not affected by the globe, nor are spells already in effect when the globe is cast.". This sentence is a little ambiguous, but it seems to imply that every spell that is active in the area where the Globe is created is not suppressed (to avoid the caster itself to be denied bonuses from pre-existant lower-level spells).
So, if you cast it near a foe which is under the effect of Mage Armor, Shield, and Blur, NO spells are suppressed, since the spells are already in effect when the globe is cast.
If you cast it far from a foe... well, you COULD suppress their effects, provided that such foe enters your Globe's area.
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.
Perhaps a change to the common character sheet would help with all of this. I don't use the published sheets, as I have a simple design set up in a word processing program, that allows me to customoze and modify easily.
Another idea could be a "deck" from Paizo, with all of the buff spells and their modifications to stats and abilities listed on the cards, one spell per card. With a few variants for different caster levels. So, if you have Bull's Strenght (+4 str) and Cat's Grace (+4 dex) and Divine Favor (+3 luck attack & damage) cast, you would have those cards at the ready. If you are in the effect of a Dispel Magic spell, and say the Divine Favor and Cat's Grace are dispelled, those cards quickly tell you that you lose +3 luck from attack and damage, +2 to AC, +2 from Reflex saves, +2 from Dex skills).
The cards could even make it easier to know which spells stack and which don't.
No offense, but this just keeps getting more and more convoluted as we roll along . . . I'd really rather just say screw it and stay with the 3.5 version.
I think the exception is with Robert's suggestion about using a single roll for area effect dispels. That is much simpler, I think.
Just an idea, why not limit the number of buffs a player can have so that the spell doesn't become so disruptive during combat. Have a maximum number around 4/5/6? New buffs replace an existing one (player's choice). This would make all the combat easier to book-keep and limit the need to change so many spells (see 1 min/level thread for example).
Just an idea, why not limit the number of buffs a player can have
Several have suggested this. I personally do not like limiting players, due to the possible abuse by a few players.
I would much rather find another solution to the problem of constantly buffing players.
I keep forgetting that the lesser globe effect that I keep seeing screw with casters in high-level games wasn't the spell itself, which is immobile. It's that freakin' protective aura of the angel that our cleric keeps calling with planar ally. A protective aura that works like a mobile lesser globe of invulnerability is seriously obnoxious.
Yes, don't tell me; a Druid of one of my groups had the Saint template from BoED (as well as the Vote of Poverty !...), which gave him the angel's protective aura as well... what a pain it was !!!
|
|
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
What about removing the Dispel check completely & just giving targeted opponent/opponents a Saving Throw?
I am currently playing in a hybrid 3.0/3.5 game where it is done this way & it streamlines gameplay quite a bit.
Just an idea, why not limit the number of buffs a player can haveSeveral have suggested this. I personally do not like limiting players, due to the possible abuse by a few players.
How could you possibly abuse a system that limits you more than a system that does not?
Also, the idea of a buff limit stretches in-game logic a bit. A fighter who's never cast a spell in his life has no magical ability at all... Until someone casts buff number seven on him, and then he can suddenly and instantaneously control what magical effects do and do not apply to him.
You're making the assumption that a solution like that would allow the player to switch his "buffs" in and out as he pleases. It could be that once you have X number of "buffs", you simply don't get anymore.
A "buff" limit would entail a lot of meta-game thinking, but then again, so does resolving dispel magic in the first place.
One undeniable aspect of imposing a buff limit is that things will necessarily become more simple, and I'm a big fan of simple.
Also, there is no game definition of "buff spell." So what exactly are we going to limit, and why do only those magical effects have limits? Why can you be affected by unlimited harmful spell effects but only a limited number of beneficial ones?
A "buff" spell is a spell that provides a direct benefit to the player, and has duration. Honestly, I think it's extremely straight-forward to determine what is and is not a "buff".
While I would advocate such an idea, I guarantee that it would never implemented. We're either going to see things stay the same, or invite an unnecessary complication into dispel magic.
Still, I don't see why keeping two separate sheets is such a big deal. It seemed to be largely dismissed, but isn't it necessary to have the "unbuffed" sheet before the "buffed" sheet anyway?
Plus, with the "1024 combinations" argument, there is a very good chance that if you are running upwards of ten buffs, many of them will have no (or negligible) effect on calculations. For example, freedom of movement, death ward, contingency, stoneskin, etc. require no modification to any bonuses.
As I've said before though, if you're going to run around with magic flying out of your %^$ then expect to do the book-keeping.
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.
A targeted dispel is just as disruptive as an area dispel. Unless I'm missing something fundamental, I don't really see what this modification offers other than removing the option of area dispel from players in a combat situation.
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
Not a fan of this. You will have different DCs to calculate for each spell of different level, instead of the same DC for a spellcaster.
Instead of rolling for all spells, you will have to remember that you can't dispel more than (1/5 caster level) spells... Not sure it will be better. Once you figured the DC, it's not that long to roll, not more than rolling a 20 dice damage spell. But as someone pointed it out, it's all the debuffing that takes time. Problem is the buff spells, not the dispel magic spells.
|
Well, to me, Dispel Magic is one of those spells you don't mess too much with. It tends to be used in our group when we can't hit the target reliably. It has nothing to do with rolls, it's the fact that we get about 3-5 rounds to act and wasting one to have less than a 50% chance to get rid of effects when we need to heal or our time could better be used buffing is not an issue. I don't think it needs to change. Sometimes, you just need to do some rolls. Enough spells are all or nothing and I like that this one lets you get a chance at several spells if they have it up. It does require a recalculation but if you take it one spell at a time, it's not so hard and your players will forgive you or not let you forget that stuff has fallen. On our fight with mokmurien it took less time to do the dispel magics then it took for our fighter to get and calculate his four attacks. If you know your players may likely cast dispel magic, you can easily mark out the spells your mage has prepared and put a little checkbox by them. Maybe even mark what happens when they go away.
|
|
I don't really see a need for a change to this spell. Dispel magic hasn't been a problem at my table, nor at any of the tables I've been a player at.
Too many dice rolls? Roll multiple dice at once, each one a different color. Designate a consistent order in which they are used (red, blue, white, gold, etc.)
Players not sure where buff came from, or what caster level it is at? Assume buff came from minimum caster level and apply results appropriately. Do this once and watch your players become experts at tracking buffs.
Campaign grinding to a halt when your big bad gets hit with a target dispel? Either use monsters who don't rely on multiple buffs, or note the effect of a spell next to the appropriate stat. (Something Paizo is fairly good about in their adventure paths) Cross out buff when dispelled, and subtract from appropriate stat for new value.
In the end, handling buffs gets down to play style and preparation. Find what's comfortable for you.
Just my two copper pieces. Thanks for reading.
Lots of good ideas in this thread.
Dispel Magic as written has two main problems:
1) It's too good.
2) It's a pain to adjudicate.
Folks are well on their way here with #2 but #1 is being overlooked in my opinion.
Dispel Magic is a debuff. Both in terms of "economy of actions" as well as in terms of "spell slot vs. spell slot" it is quite simply too good NOT to use.
All other debuffs have a fixed value: -1, -2, -4 etc.
Dispel Magic has a variable value and it gets more and more powerful based on how much the opponent has leveraged his own buffs.
Dispel Magic would still be worth using even if its function was reduced to counterspelling or dispelling one spell.
Dispel Magic is a debuff. Both in terms of "economy of actions" as well as in terms of "spell slot vs. spell slot" it is quite simply too good NOT to use.
If the opposing caster casts all his buffs before the encounter begins, then the "economy of actions" argument falls apart.
As for "spell slot vs. spell slot," that entirely depends on which buffs are cast, and when.
If the only buff being checked against is Freedom of Movement and I cast Greater Dispel Magic, I'm losing that battle.
If I recover my spell slots beforehand with Pearls of Power, and an opponent casts Dispel Magic on me, I'm winning that battle.
If I cast all my long-term buff spells, then rest, I've effectively spent no spell slots (or Pearls of Power, even) by the time I'm hit by Dispel.
If I put up Spell Turning, an opponent has to get through the Spell Turning before he can even check against my buffs.
And so on. One can't argue Dispel Magic being "too good" in regard to economy of actions and/or economy of spell slots.
-Matt
I like the idea of making a Will Save by the buffed character. It might seem like an oversimplification, but there's a definite appeal in that.
I also like the idea of buff spells directly affecting the ratings instead of recalculating the ability score, then the bonus, then each of the ratings. In fact, the spells don't need to change AT ALL, just include a table with those results and that will cut down on paperwork.
I am fine how dispel magic works, I do keep track of the spells with caster levels, I dont think the problem is so much with dispel magic but with the number of buffs.
reducing the effectiveness of dispel magic isn't the solution imo, reducing the number of buffs creatures can have active at one time might be.
|
I am fine how dispel magic works, I do keep track of the spells with caster levels, I dont think the problem is so much with dispel magic but with the number of buffs.
reducing the effectiveness of dispel magic isn't the solution imo, reducing the number of buffs creatures can have active at one time might be.
I concur, we should limit the number of "vulnerable buffs" at 3 at a time per character. This way we gain time also at the beginning of fights!
(a buff given by a permanent magic item does count towards this limit of course).
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
Agree, I too like the opposed checks better.
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.
I don't know really. I like Dispel magic the way it is. More important. Magic users and monsters who have special ablities must be nerfed if you gonna nerf dispel magic. Without a cleric or wizard casting dispel magic on the BBEG the tanks (fighters, Paladins, Barbarians) and other classes as rogues, monks etc. will have greater problems than the allready have.
Dispel magic is helpful to figters and all classes that depends on weapons (melee or ranged). Nerfing dispel magic is nerfing all the non spellcasting classes. IMHO. .......that is. Unless you wanna rewrite the whole spell list or rewriting the rules on how many buff spells a character can have...or both.
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
area dispel might take 1 minute = useless.
Most fights don't even last a minute. But make it 1 round.
Not a fan of the Will save idea as written, with the buffed character rolling the save. The buffed character might very well be a rogue, fighter, or barbarian-someone lacking in spellcasting prowess. That character obviously didn't do the casting, so it doesn't seem to be logical for them to make that save themselves. The original caster of a given buff, on the other hand, I could get behind. Let me ask this question: what if you had cast a spell from a scroll? How do you know what the Will save of that person was? I admit, as written, I can figure out the caster level of a scroll (or staff, or wand, or whatnot) for the spell's resolution. But the originator's Will save? Hmm.