Dispel Magic indicates under Targeted Dispel:
One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell. You make one dispel check (1d20 + your caster level) and compare that to the spell with highest caster level (DC = 11 + the spell's caster level). If successful, that spell ends. If not, compare the same result to the spell with the next highest caster level. Repeat this process until you have dispelled one spell affecting the target, or you have failed to dispel every spell.
Now if you are targeting someone, do you always have to go to the highest level spell? Could I let’s say target Fly instead of Stoneskin?
With how the spell reads, it makes it sound like you have to go after the highest level spell first and work your way down.
|
Dispel Magic indicates under Targeted Dispel:
One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell. You make one dispel check (1d20 + your caster level) and compare that to the spell with highest caster level (DC = 11 + the spell's caster level). If successful, that spell ends. If not, compare the same result to the spell with the next highest caster level. Repeat this process until you have dispelled one spell affecting the target, or you have failed to dispel every spell.Now if you are targeting someone, do you always have to go to the highest level spell? Could I let’s say target Fly instead of Stoneskin?
With how the spell reads, it makes it sound like you have to go after the highest level spell first and work your way down.
Nope.
"You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell affecting the target or one spell affecting an area (such as a wall of fire). You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way. If your caster level check is equal to or higher than the DC of that spell, it ends. No other spells or effects on the target are dispelled if your check is not high enough to end the targeted effect."
Yes, I saw that. But in the example they used with the Wall of Fire, I was not sure if that only applied to spells not being on a person.
Ok, thank you.
Edit: Ah yes, I see it now one spell affecting the target.
Yes, I saw that. But in the example they used with the Wall of Fire, I was not sure if that only applied to spells not being on a person.
Ok, thank you.
Edit: Ah yes, I see it now one spell affecting the target.
You can only use this alternate option if you know what spells are affecting the target, however.
There are only a few ways of accomplishing that:
1) Making the spellcraft check to identify the spell as they cast it upon themselves.
2) The spell having an obvious visual effect (such as stoneskin) and making the proper checks to identify it.
3) You having greater arcane sight active on you at the time you see the enemy caster.
Yes, I have actually read that was the case. I am still pretty unclear on what you need to do to determine one of the 'invisible' spell effects. Something along the lines of an ability increase, or Charm Person.
What would be needed to allow a Knowledge Arcana check for one of the nonvisual spell effects?
Also, is Stoneskin obvious? In reading the description of the spell, it doesn't give any indication that your skill visibly turns to stone or discolors in any way. Our group has always played Stoneskin as another 'invisible' spell.
Yes, I have actually read that was the case. I am still pretty unclear on what you need to do to determine one of the 'invisible' spell effects. Something along the lines of an ability increase, or Charm Person.
What would be needed to allow a Knowledge Arcana check for one of the nonvisual spell effects?
Also, is Stoneskin obvious? In reading the description of the spell, it doesn't give any indication that your skill visibly turns to stone or discolors in any way. Our group has always played Stoneskin as another 'invisible' spell.
Knowledge (arcana) says it is a "DC 20 + spell level" to identify a spell effect that is already in place. In my games, you are not allowed such a check unless you can conceive of the spell in some way (sight, sound, etc.). Some GMs allow the check regardless, making it akin to some magical sixth sense for anyone with ranks in the skill. If not, then your roleplaying group needs to clearly discuss how spells manifest themselves in your games (if the effect isn't already made obvious by its description).
Yes, I understand that. Fly was just used as an example. But as Ravingdork had said, and I agree, there are spell effects you just can’t ‘see’. I was wondering if PF had specific rules on being able to identify them or if it was like 3.5 where it was DM’s prerogative. But Ravingdork pretty much answered it in his last post.