| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Your magical energies cling to enemies, interfering with their spellcasting.
Benefit: Targets affected by a disruptive spell must make concentration checks when using spells or spell-like abilities (DC equals the save DC of the disruptive spell plus the level of the spell being cast) for 1 round. Targets that avoid the spell's effects avoid this feat's effect as well. A disruptive spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.
Does the above emphasized text mean that the Disruptive Spell feat can only be applied to spells that have saves?
Also, do ongoing spells apply ongoing disruption? Say I have an enemy cleric caught in the effects of a Web spell. Do they have to make Concentration checks for as long as they are trapped?
And one more thing, does a spellcaster trapped in a disruptive web need to make two concentration checks per spell (one for being entangled and one for the metamagic), or do they just make one check against the higher of the two DCs?
|
1. Any spell can have a save DC for purposes of concentration checks, even if it doesn't normally allow a save (p. 206, "Spell" heading).
2. No, only for 1 round after they are affected. However a cleric who entered the web 2 rounds after you cast it would have to make a concentration check for any spell he cast in the next round.
3. Interesting. Normally I would say two checks, since the physical entangled condition is a distinct and separate source of interference with their spell, but the feat's description suggests its effect is similar to entanglement.
It can get worse: if you cast the disruptive web as a readied action when the enemy starts casting and they fail their save, I think they still need two checks - since both the check they would otherwise have to make and the Disruptive Spell check are due to being affected by your spell, only the highest DC applies, but they still have to check again due to the entangled condition - but I can see a possible argument for three checks, or one.
2. No, only for 1 round after they are affected. However a cleric who entered the web 2 rounds after you cast it would have to make a concentration check for any spell he cast in the next round.
Has a developer ruled thus? I can't seem to find any support for this answer.
2. No, only for 1 round after they are affected. However a cleric who entered the web 2 rounds after you cast it would have to make a concentration check for any spell he cast in the next round.Has a developer ruled thus? I can't seem to find any support for this answer.
Well the text you quoted actually says "... for 1 round".
Whether spells need a save, I would say no. I would seem that you can choose spells, which cannot be avoided, to ensure that disruptive takes effect.
Eventhough it is unclear, it would rule, that if you save, you avoid disruptive even if the save is only half or partial.
I think this one needs to be errata'd to be more clear. I don't think an auto-fail was the intention since Paizo is trying to move away from such things like auto fails and auto successes.
Well the text you quoted actually says "... for 1 round".
It says you are disrupted for 1 round when effected by the spell. Ongoing spells continue to effect you. As long as you are effected by the spell you are disrupted for 1 round. Therefore, if you are ongoingly effected, you are ongoingly disrupted as well.
Does that not seem like a valid interpretation of the feat?
Well the text you quoted actually says "... for 1 round".It says you are disrupted for 1 round when effected by the spell. Ongoing spells continue to effect you. As long as you are effected by the spell you are disrupted for 1 round. Therefore, if you are ongoingly effected, you are ongoingly disrupted as well.
Does that not seem like a valid interpretation of the feat?
That is not what it says. It says one round. If it said "you are disrupted while being affected..." I would agree.
I think 1 round was intended to be only 1 round or they would not have specifically limited it to that number.
Eventhough it is unclear, it would rule, that if you save, you avoid disruptive even if the save is only half or partial.I was thinking about this also. I'd rule the other way: if you're affected even partly by the spell, your casting gets disrupted for one round.
RAW I think that works because even partially affected is still affected. In the end it is a GM call though.
Well the text you quoted actually says "... for 1 round".It says you are disrupted for 1 round when effected by the spell. Ongoing spells continue to effect you. As long as you are effected by the spell you are disrupted for 1 round. Therefore, if you are ongoingly effected, you are ongoingly disrupted as well.
Does that not seem like a valid interpretation of the feat?
You have a point there. The text could be clearer.
For what it is worth, I would go with Wraithstrike's interpretation, that 1 round isn't supposed to be more than 1 round. That seems to be the intended effect of the feat.
Furthermore, if it was continual, it can become way too powerful. I imagine casting a disruptive message, as a 1 level spell with no saves, demanding saves each round for multiple casters.
Well the text you quoted actually says "... for 1 round".It says you are disrupted for 1 round when effected by the spell. Ongoing spells continue to effect you. As long as you are effected by the spell you are disrupted for 1 round. Therefore, if you are ongoingly effected, you are ongoingly disrupted as well.
Does that not seem like a valid interpretation of the feat?
You have a point there. The text could be clearer.
For what it is worth, I would go with Wraithstrike's interpretation, that 1 round isn't supposed to be more than 1 round. That seems to be the intended effect of the feat.
Furthermore, if it was continual, it can become way too powerful. I imagine casting a disruptive message, as a 1 level spell with no saves, demanding saves each round for multiple casters.
A disruptive blank tentacles with no save would be devastating.
|
And one more thing, does a spellcaster trapped in a disruptive web need to make two concentration checks per spell (one for being entangled and one for the metamagic), or do they just make one check against the higher of the two DCs?
For this you would have to decide how the "disruptive" works. I would view it as causing 2 myself, one to get the movements down (unless stilled) and then one to basically "power" you way through the clinging magical energies.