d'oh
So, our party rogue has a negating weapon. And it's also phase-locking. And every time he sneak-attacks, which is very very often, it dispels magic.
Because:
Dispelling Attack* (Su): Opponents that are dealt sneak attack damage by a rogue with this ability are affected by a targeted dispel magic, targeting the lowest-level spell effect active on the target. The caster level for this ability is equal to the rogue's level. A rogue must have the major magic rogue talent before choosing dispelling attack.
Again, the ability directly references dispel magic and it's effects. I cannot find any dispel checks in the rules that are not part of the dispel magic spell's effects.
Again, the ability directly references dispel magic and it's effects. I cannot find any dispel checks in the rules that are not part of the dispel magic spell's effects.
Sorry Char, I didn't mean to misdirect you. In no way was I saying the dispel check is not part of the spell. I'm only saying that it is not part of the spell's effects. Just as the range, duration, spell level, or saving throw is not part of the effects.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I decided to see if the 3.5 FAQ had any input on this matter, and it turns out it did:
Do Empower Spell and Maximize Spell affect d20 rolls made as part of a spell's effect (such as an attack roll or dispel check)?
No. Any attack roll, saving throw, skill check, dispel check, or any other d20 roll required to adjudicate a spell's success or failure is not considered a "variable, numeric effect" of the spell and thus is unaffected by feats such as Empower Spell or Maximize Spell.
Of course, Paizo may choose to rule otherwise. However, with no such ruling currently available, the old system is a good indicator of RAI.
Again, the ability directly references dispel magic and it's effects. I cannot find any dispel checks in the rules that are not part of the dispel magic spell's effects.Sorry Char, I didn't mean to misdirect you. In no way was I saying the dispel check is not part of the spell. I'm only saying that it is not part of the spell's effects. Just as the range, duration, spell level, or saving throw is not part of the effects.
Unfortunately, the dispel check is written in the effects section of the spell, and those other things are not. There is no rule that says the the dispel check isn't part of the effects for dispel magic, so we have to assume it is, because it is in the effects section of the spell. As I said earlier, your distinction between being part of the spell, but not part of the effects is splitting a very fine hair.
I decided to see if the 3.5 FAQ had any input on this matter, and it turns out it did:
Do Empower Spell and Maximize Spell affect d20 rolls made as part of a spell's effect (such as an attack roll or dispel check)?
No. Any attack roll, saving throw, skill check, dispel check, or any other d20 roll required to adjudicate a spell's success or failure is not considered a "variable, numeric effect" of the spell and thus is unaffected by feats such as Empower Spell or Maximize Spell.
Of course, Paizo may choose to rule otherwise. However, with no such ruling currently available, the old system is a good indicator of RAI.
I was pretty sure that RAI, it was not supposed to work. At least this gives me something to refer to so that I am not just making an arbitrary ruling.
I think the key is that a "check" produced by the spell is not an "effect of the spell", for the same reason your to-hit roll isn't. The spell's effects are the things the spell itself is doing, not the things it is causing other people to do.
Think about a hypothetical spell which causes an enemy to attack another enemy. That attack is not one of the spell's "effects" in this sense. The dispelling of the effect is a spell effect, but the dispel check is a different kind of thing.
Again, there is clear rules precedent for the attack of a spell being separate from the spell(See the touch attack stuff up thread) in that the attack is actually a separate free action separate from the action that casts the spell. There is no clear RAW establishing that the dispel check is separate from the effects of the spell, and the dispel check is written into the effects section of the spell. Everything else is opinion and RAI.
An opposed roll is when you roll against a set number from another character such as their saving score, caster level. Two opposing skill checks would also be opposed rolls. In short if you have to bypass a number set by another character it is an opposed roll.
An example is bluff vs sense motive.Skilled Liar (Ex): Whenever a spy uses Bluff to attempt to deceive someone, she gains a bonus on the opposed roll equal to 1/2 her rogue level (minimum +1). This bonus does not apply to feint attempts or attempts to pass secret messages. This ability replaces trapfinding.Inquisitor Inquisitor: Add a +1/2 bonus on Stealth checks while motionless and on opposed Perception checks.As an example a spell may allow me to grapple someone such as black tentacles. That spell much like dispel magic involves me using my caster level + 1d20 to see what the results of the spell are. I dont think anyone would say that spell allows for empower magic to affect the d20 roll.
The number I have to defeat much like dispel magic is a set number, making it an opposed roll.
In both of those examples, 2 rolls are being made. d20 + stealth vs d20 + perception and d20 + Bluff vs d20 + Sense Motive. Every example I have checked in the rules, opposed check means opposed rolls.
That is the problem with your definition of opposed check. It is not supported by the rules. Can you find any example of an "opposed roll" in the rules that doesn't involve a d20 roll being taken on both sides?
If your idea is correct is there any reason not to do this. Even if you are only a 10th level caster you are guaranteed a 15. Your caster level is not a result of the spell. Therefore it is not empowered. The result of the spell is other magic affects being ended. You get get to roll to see if that effects takes place. You have to prove caster level checks are a spell effect, but we know they are not because you have a caster level no matter if you cast the spell or not.
edit:I see a satisfactory answer has been given.
There is a large list of things which are explicitly not-effects, and there's a few examples of things that definitely are effects. If I were to put the two lists side-by-side, and then someone asked me which list "dispel check" went on, I'd put it on the Not Effects list.Again, there is clear rules precedent for the attack of a spell being separate from the spell(See the touch attack stuff up thread) in that the attack is actually a separate free action separate from the action that casts the spell. There is no clear RAW establishing that the dispel check is separate from the effects of the spell, and the dispel check is written into the effects section of the spell. Everything else is opinion and RAI.I think the key is that a "check" produced by the spell is not an "effect of the spell", for the same reason your to-hit roll isn't. The spell's effects are the things the spell itself is doing, not the things it is causing other people to do.
Think about a hypothetical spell which causes an enemy to attack another enemy. That attack is not one of the spell's "effects" in this sense. The dispelling of the effect is a spell effect, but the dispel check is a different kind of thing.
Again, that is based on assumption, RAI, and opinion. I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying that your opinion is not supported by RAW.
Again, that is based on assumption, RAI, and opinion. I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying that your opinion is not supported by RAW.There is a large list of things which are explicitly not-effects, and there's a few examples of things that definitely are effects. If I were to put the two lists side-by-side, and then someone asked me which list "dispel check" went on, I'd put it on the Not Effects list.Again, there is clear rules precedent for the attack of a spell being separate from the spell(See the touch attack stuff up thread) in that the attack is actually a separate free action separate from the action that casts the spell. There is no clear RAW establishing that the dispel check is separate from the effects of the spell, and the dispel check is written into the effects section of the spell. Everything else is opinion and RAI.I think the key is that a "check" produced by the spell is not an "effect of the spell", for the same reason your to-hit roll isn't. The spell's effects are the things the spell itself is doing, not the things it is causing other people to do.
Think about a hypothetical spell which causes an enemy to attack another enemy. That attack is not one of the spell's "effects" in this sense. The dispelling of the effect is a spell effect, but the dispel check is a different kind of thing.
The rules have things like this were common used words or not better defined. Generally I look as an effect as the end result of the spell. The dispel check itself is not the end result. It helps determine the end result. Fire damage from a fireball spell is the end result, and empower lets you change how much of it is done.
The summon monster spell can summon several monsters, and the empower feat could affect that.Basically as shown by the FAQ(3.5) you can empower the actual effect, but not any checks to determine if the effect takes place.
No that is not in the rules, but considering the things you can not empower that is the basic rule of thumb.
PS:I am aware you saw the 3.5 ruling.
Again, that is based on assumption, RAI, and opinion. I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying that your opinion is not supported by RAW.
And we are saying the exact same thing, back to you.
The fact that the spell does not explicitly say, "The caster level check is a mechanic of the spell, not an effect," does not automatically mean the spell is an effect.
The term 'effect' is not defined in the rules; your assumption is that because it's listed in the spell, and there's no precedent to state otherwise, it's an effect - but that's still an assumption.
The 3.5 FAQ places the caster level check in the same category as the attack roll; if, as you say, the attack roll is clearly not an effect, then you're saying by RAW it's not an effect - and by rational argument, the same would be true of the caster level check for dispelling.
Again, that is based on assumption, RAI, and opinion. I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying that your opinion is not supported by RAW.And we are saying the exact same thing, back to you.
The fact that the spell does not explicitly say, "The caster level check is a mechanic of the spell, not an effect," does not automatically mean the spell is an effect.
The term 'effect' is not defined in the rules; your assumption is that because it's listed in the spell, and there's no precedent to state otherwise, it's an effect - but that's still an assumption.
The 3.5 FAQ places the caster level check in the same category as the attack roll; if, as you say, the attack roll is clearly not an effect, then you're saying by RAW it's not an effect - and by rational argument, the same would be true of the caster level check for dispelling.
So to reduce to the absurd....
The damage in a fireball spell uses the formula for a standard spell damage roll. It is clearly damage roll, and thus like attack rolls it is a special roll that is not actually part of the spells effect. Thus, the damage on a fireball cannot be maximized.
That is my problem with your logic. I can use it to declare than any numerical roll written into a spells description is actually some special roll that is not really part of the spells effects, and thus exclude it from being maximized in a clear circumvention of the RAI for maximize.
PS:I am aware you saw the 3.5 ruling.
Yes, and that makes the RAI clear. At this point, I am annoyed with the gap between the RAI and RAW.
If the rules for dispel magic said, make a dispel check, and the dispel check was defined elsewhere in the rules or said that a dispel check is a special type of caster level check, that would be enough separation to make the RAI clear, but the rules don't do that. The one and only place where a dispel check is defined is inside the effects section of the dispel magic spell.
Let's be clear on something.
There is no variable on Dispel Magic. It's a yes/no effect. There's nothing to maximize for the spell. Either it works or it does not.
The mechanism to see if the yes/no effect happens is a dice roll against an enemy's caster level...a variable DC that is effectively an opposed check, exactly like an attack roll or saving throw.
In no cases and examples are such rolls ever maximized. They are not effects of a spell. They are the rolls to see if the spell ever takes effect.
==Aelryinth
Let's be clear on something.
There is no variable on Dispel Magic. It's a yes/no effect. There's nothing to maximize for the spell. Either it works or it does not.
The mechanism to see if the yes/no effect happens is a dice roll against an enemy's caster level...a variable DC that is effectively an opposed check, exactly like an attack roll or saving throw.
In no cases and examples are such rolls ever maximized. They are not effects of a spell. They are the rolls to see if the spell ever takes effect.
==Aelryinth
That is a great way to explain RAI, but it still doesn't close the gap between the RAW and RAI.
Absurd Troll Logic here. "There is no variable effect on Fireball It's effects always happen. The damage roll, SR check, and saving throw are all standard rolls that determine what happens after the effect comes into play"
So to reduce to the absurd....
The damage in a fireball spell uses the formula for a standard spell damage roll. It is clearly damage roll, and thus like attack rolls it is a special roll that is not actually part of the spells effect. Thus, the damage on a fireball cannot be maximized.
But you don't reduce to the absurd; your argument can be thrown out in that instance, because the designers have stated that RAW should always be read with common sense.
'Common sense' dictates that the end result of the spell is the effect. The end result of 'shooting an arrow' is that the arrow strikes or does not strike its target. The end result of casting Dispel Magic is that you remove or do not remove a spell effect from the target.
The nocking of an arrow is not the effect of shooting an arrow, just as the caster level check is not the effect of Dispel Magic. They are a component that leads to the effect, but not the effect itself.
Absurd Troll Logic here. "There is no variable effect on Fireball It's effects always happen. The damage roll, SR check, and saving throw are all standard rolls that determine what happens after the effect comes into play"
Violates the "RAW read through common sense" concept the designers have stated numerous times.
So to reduce to the absurd....
The damage in a fireball spell uses the formula for a standard spell damage roll. It is clearly damage roll, and thus like attack rolls it is a special roll that is not actually part of the spells effect. Thus, the damage on a fireball cannot be maximized.
But you don't reduce to the absurd; your argument can be thrown out in that instance, because the designers have stated that RAW should always be read with common sense.
'Common sense' dictates that the end result of the spell is the effect. The end result of 'shooting an arrow' is that the arrow strikes or does not strike its target. The end result of casting Dispel Magic is that you remove or do not remove a spell effect from the target.
The nocking of an arrow is not the effect of shooting an arrow, just as the caster level check is not the effect of Dispel Magic. They are a component that leads to the effect, but not the effect itself.
Absurd Troll Logic here. "There is no variable effect on Fireball It's effects always happen. The damage roll, SR check, and saving throw are all standard rolls that determine what happens after the effect comes into play"Violates the "RAW read through common sense" concept the designers have stated numerous times.
Common Sense also dictates that everything written in the Effects section of a spell is part of the spells effects unless clearly shown otherwise.
You can just as easily interpret dispel magic as "A spell that creates a effect that has a chance to disrupt other magic" and thus the chance to dispel is an inherent part of the effect of the spell.
Fireball has an effect of 'does some amount of fire damage'. That amount is variable, as dictated by the dice roll, and thus is subject to maximize.
Dispel magic has an effect of 'removes some magic'. There is no variableness in that.
Shocking grasp
Your successful melee touch attack deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level (maximum 5d6).
Also:
Common Sense also dictates that everything written in the Effects section of a spell is part of the spells effects unless clearly shown otherwise.
Can you definitively show that the attack from shocking grasp is not part of the spell? The presence of rules about making attacks elsewhere in the rules does not mean it is not part of the spell. Just like the description of threatening under the rules for AoO's does not mean the action of taking an AoO is the only time you threaten.
You likewise cannot maximize planar binding to get a natural 20 on your charisma check.
A maximized invisibility does not grant you a natural 20 on your stealth check rolls.
A maximized augury does not make you automatically roll a 100 on the percentile and thus fail to get anything useful from the spell.
A maximized awaken does not give you a natural 20 on your will roll to succeed on the spell.
A maximized summon spell does not give creatures summoned by it max hit points.
A maximized confusion does not result in a 100 roll every time, causing those creatures confused to attack an ally every round.
Maximized dismissal still has a 20% chance of sending the creature to another plane, it does not force a 100 roll preventing that chance.
Break enchantment does not give you a nat 20 on all of your caster checks against each enchantment you are hoping to break.
A maximized raise dead does not allow the raised character to kepp all their spells do to auto rolls of 100.
A maximized reincarnate does not make the creature type always GM's Choice.
A maximized wind wall does not negate the 30% miss chance. Same with displacement or blur spells.
Maximized teleport does not auto mishap.
etc. ad nasuem.
There is no need to FAQ this, not every detail of every rule interaction need a FAQ.
An SR check confirms whether or not a spell affects a creature. It is not a product of the spell itself. THat's like saying AC is a product of swinging a sword at someone.
A save is not an affect of the spell, it is something rolled by the TARGET of the spell, to determine just what affect the spell has on the creature. Whether the creature saves, has evasion or not, means nothing to the spell...its STILL a 42 pt fireball.
the dice from a fireball are intrinsically part of the spell...they ARE the spell, really.
That was a silly example, Charender, unless you were really trying to be sarcastic.
==Aelryinth
Common Sense also dictates that everything written in the Effects section of a spell is part of the spells effects unless clearly shown otherwise.
There is no "Effects" section in a spell. The section you're quoting is the Description section. Specifically, this section "...details what the spell does and how it works." i.e., it not only describes effects, but it describes the mechanics required to invoke the effects ("how it works").
If there were an "Effects" section, there wouldn't be any room for debate (IMO).
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Ok, so were you admitting it was variable or not? I'm confused.
No, I showed you how it isn't part of the spell and wouldn't be set to 20 when Dispel Magic is maximized.
fireball spell uses the formula for a standard spell damage roll. It is clearly damage roll, and thus like attack rolls it is a special roll that is not actually part of the spells effect. Thus, the damage on a fireball cannot be maximized.
There is no logic in that and it isn't the same thing as the d20 roll in a Dispel Check.
Meh. I'm at the point of saying that a clarification is definitely needed.
A clarification is extremely unlikely here. There are very few people who wouldn't intuitively grok the right path.
I sometimes thing some of us (maybe me included at times) take such a pedantic stance on some rules and often obsess over the use of one word or another. Especially when the meaning of the rule is very clear (like here) but we get caught up on the use of "dispel check" instead of "caster level check to dispel" despite knowing that 11 characters is shorter than 24 characters.
Has this been resolved yet at all? I really need to know. I want to have my encounters be able to maximize Dispel Magic so they can stop the PC Wizard's spells, he has class features and items to get his dispel DC to 38 and even a 20th level caster needs 18+ to dispel his stuff!
It'd be great if Paizo clarified. I personally think Dispel Magic SHOULD be able to be empowered/maximized.
The game came from 3.5. That is why 3.5 was quoted above. If they are going to use the same words as 3.5 but give them different meaning they would have spelled it out. Of course it could have in theory been an oversight. In that case you would have to FAQ it to be sure or you can go to Mark(developer's) thread and ask him. I dont know how fast he will respond, but he typically replies faster than an FAQ will appear.