| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uhm... 1. You can use ranged weapons against the npw defenseless wizard and 2. You cant cast spells in the AM field, conjurations or not. Yoi can cast inst. Conjs. Into the field from outside though, so the AA and any other caster can stil bombard the victim.
Heck, a wizard in an AM field has so bad defenses even a monks shuriken aredangerous to them, to take on of the most melee focused classes.
but how are you getting access to the antimagic field weapon without a wizard's help?
if you can cast instant conjurations into the field from outside, you would be able to project them outward from the inside, no such thing as a one way forcefield.
Uh, What?
You're trying to say "I CAN CAST CONJURATION SPELLS INSIDE AMF SHELLS BECAUSE I AM OOBER WIZARD?"
Uh, no.
Instant conjuration spells are being cited because AFTER they are cast, they are non-magical. Unfortunately, they do have to be cast first, and, for instance, they can be counterspelled, so they are CLEARLY magical while in the process of coming into effect.
While inside an AMF, a wizard can do squat for spellcasting, period.
And again, "My wizard will have minions in the way!" completely ignoring the fact that the rest of the party will be clearing those minions out of the way.
My wizard will put up Emergency Force Sphere!
My wizard will disintegrate it. Then the pouncing barbarian grabs you.
etc etc. Blanket statements NEVER WORK.
Regeneration is extraordinary.
DR /silver, iron, magic, and alignment are SUPERNATURAL. DR Adamantine, and blud/pierce/slash and x/- are Ex. The planetar loses his DR. Keeping its Regen is not going to help it once its dead, the barb tosses it outside the shell and someone coups it with a +5 Weapon.
And THEN you now want to customize the planetar to be evil. Yeah.
Take a look at the planar binding/calling rules. You can't compel an outsider to act against its beliefs under the summoning rules. You would literally have to dominate it, in which case its going to save each round against the spell...and if you're Evil, you can't even do that because of Aura of Menace (Prot/evil suppressing all compulsion/charms for the win!)
Blanket statements again, do not work.
==Aelryinth
Andrew: Fair enough on both points, though you should remember that perception penalties go both ways, and can quickly render the caster unable to see anything, basically. Some casters can get really good at perception, but those tend to be the divine ones.
but how are you getting access to the antimagic field weapon without a wizard's help?if you can cast instant conjurations into the field from outside, you would be able to project them outward from the inside, no such thing as a one way forcefield.
1. This is not M/C disp. You are a caster, for example an arcane archer, or you have a party member who is. I'm talking actual usability in, say, an AP, rather than purely hypothetical 1on1 scenarios where it's "wizard vs mundane".
2. Reread the spell. It is solid in it's antimagicness. You cannot cast Create Water in an AMF field because you cannot use magic in an AMF field. If I cast create water in a bucket I can throw that water at you in the AMF field, since the water isn't magical.
but then, Antimagic Field Producing Weapons are such an expensive item they are bound to be impractical to afford till much later on.
Arcane Archer is likely giving up wizard levels for the feats and BaB for Antimagic field arrows. and yes, an antimagicked wizards defenses do suck, but how many people seriously use antimagic fields in their own game. if you use it against the DM, it invites the DM to use it against you.
3. Yes, hence Arcane Archer. In fact, there is only one published AMF item, and it's crappy. However, if one uses the custom item creation rules, they could be possible in the form of missiles, which would be very very useful. But those are custom items, so very much GM territory.
4. Yes, you are giving up things for it, but it's not like you think "I'm going to be a wizard that shoots AMF's at people" - rather, it is an option for archer/casters in general. It's not what you make your build around, it's just a major cool trick that that kind of build can do.
Also, about the "what's good for the goose" comment - you seem to go from claiming this is so bad it benefits the target more than the shooter, to claiming it's so good you don't want to do it lest you risk the GM using the same trick against you. If I understood you correctly, tthat is a very weird argument to make. It's bad because if you do it the risk is the GM will do it back?
Also, I'm kind of critical towards the "what's good for the goose" attitude. It certainly has it's places - when the player abuse some badly designed rule that allows them extremely easy access to far too powerful effects (dust of choking and sneezing, I'm looking at you) that can be a valid approach. If such a powerful effect is so cheap, a lot of people WILL use it, and having the party be the only ones doesn't make sense.
But if a player puts in work and rides out the hard times that comes from making an unusual and suboptimal multiclass combination, in order to be able to do something that's cool and efficient but not overpowered and not abusive, I feel I'd be a bad GM if I suddenly just dropped NPC's right and left that can do the same thing.
Because a player puts in lot work to be able to do this sort of thing. They played the character through many levels, had some rough ones where they felt like a subpar archer that can't cast real spells, and finally managed to get to the sweetest parts. I as a GM don't have to suffer that. Also, it doesn't really make sense that while they never encountered an archer fighter 5/wizard 2 or an archer fighter 5/wizard 4/arcane archer 3 they do encounter NPC's who's fighter 5/wizard 6/arcane archer 4 just to be able to copy the same cool trick that a player worked hard to achieve.
Personally, if I were to make an arcane archer, I'd go two ways: Either the one I specified above, or Paladin 5>Sorcerer 2>AA 4>EK rest, if I had a party caster capable of crafting scrolls of AMF. Because the AMF isn't the standard tactic, it's a cool trick to pull out in certain circumstances, and I'd rather be a good archer with some magic backup than a mediocre archer with mediocre magic and just one awesome trick.
EDIT: Or Human Urban Barbarian 6>Wizard 1>AA 2>Barbarian rest for a superstitious witch hunter. Or for something completely different, a Zen Archer 8>WiSorcerer 1>AA 2>Zen Archer rest. Zen Archer wouldn't have the durability of the barbarian, and would be more reliant on multiple attacks that mesh badly with Imbue Arrows, but it has one important thing the Barbarian and Paladin doesn't: Quickened True Strike as a spell-like ability.
So, HERE COMES A ROTRL SPOILER
I'm taking that as an example because it has a 20th level wizard as end boss and is an actual published adventure, which is quite where a trick like this would be useful. Consider Karzoug. He's got two Rune Giants and an Adult Blue as pets. Shooting him with a Imbued Antimagic Field, probably delivered with a Quickened True Strike, would be devastating if it hit. His contingency wouldn't trigger, his AC would drop from 37 to 19, his saves would drop by a lot, he'd lose mind blank, darkvision, see invisibility, contingency, freedom of movement, etc etc etc. He'd keep flight, fast healing and natural armor as those are artifact powers, as well as the powers of the crappy glaive, which are, well, kinda crappy.
Of course, it isn't a failsafe method - but no method is. Compared to similar things a high-level character might do it looks fairly effective.
The reason you don't see this is because Anti-Magic is double edged sword. The fighter pulls it out and all their magic items are nullified. That's fine against a wizard by themselves but lets say you did this at the end of the RotRL. That's dead fighter really quick. If you've played it you know what I mean.
Oh, remembered Karzougs backup wrong, he's got one rune giant and two advanced storm giants, not two rune giants.
The reason you don't see this is because Anti-Magic is double edged sword. The fighter pulls it out and all their magic items are nullified. That's fine against a wizard by themselves but lets say you did this at the end of the RotRL. That's dead fighter really quick. If you've played it you know what I mean.
Holding an AMF in your hand is stupid, yes, but shooting it into Karzoug's skinny hind would be VERY useful. Neither of Karzoug's minions have access to greater dispel magic.
AMF on an improved familiar with regen is VERY funny :P
The reason you don't see this is because Anti-Magic is double edged sword. The fighter pulls it out and all their magic items are nullified. That's fine against a wizard by themselves but lets say you did this at the end of the RotRL. That's dead fighter really quick. If you've played it you know what I mean.
I have, as we were playing as a GROUP and a TEAM, and had ARCHERS and others...if we had one guy with an AMF weapon that was activated or a Monk that activated it when grappling Karzoug...VERY useful. Karzoug goes down in one round, deactivate AMF and take out his minions.
Quick, dirty, and over rapidly.
Just because one guy engages the Wizard, doesn't mean the rest of the team suddenly goes away.
so essentially, the sole proposed and contrived method to defeat a wizard is to find a way to turn it into a commoner and gang up on the crippled peasant?
that isn't very heroic or climatic at all.
it's also not very sportsmanly or very honorable either
i guess i retract my argument about it stripping away PC gear because of assumptions you could use instantaneous conjurations in an antimagic field.
here is what i say about abusing antimagic field against enemy spellcasters
every class is dependant on supernatural or spell like abilities with the exception of fighters and cavaliers, and even then, every class depends on magical equipment
it may be fun to turn your equipment off in order to kill a crippled wizard turned commoner like once. such a tactic reeks of cheating because it is like no different then creating a spell called "the pen is mightier than the sword" which creates an emanation that strips away every feat or feat equivalent class feature a character possesses such as rage powers or rogue talents.
being stripped of your class features sucks as a player, and well, stripping an NPC of their class features so you can game the system by ganging up on what amounts to a suboptimally built high level commoner, is bad taste both in the literary sense, and in the RPG sense because beating up a handicapped opponent isn't fun, it feels quite empty and doesn't provide the same rush.
i find anyone whom uses antimagic field to defeat an enemy wizard, to be the same kind of player whom would pickpocket a blind man's wallet, trip him, and leave him prone.
*shrug* That's what the chaotic alignment is for, I guess.
I'm grasping that the answer to the original question is: Because it requires a large investment of resources in both gold and class levels to (very handily) defeat a specific type of enemy with this strategy in a way that is remotely efficient.
Also, it comes dangerously close, once the gold and level issue is out of the way, to being a strategy that players stop using because the DM will do it back. Which might not be particularly dangerous in total, but damn if a high level fight without magic wouldn't be boring.
*shrug* That's what the chaotic alignment is for, I guess.
I'm grasping that the answer to the original question is: Because it requires a large investment of resources in both gold and class levels to (very handily) defeat a specific type of enemy with this strategy in a way that is remotely efficient.
Also, it comes dangerously close, once the gold and level issue is out of the way, to being a strategy that players stop using because the DM will do it back. Which might not be particularly dangerous in total, but damn if a high level fight without magic wouldn't be boring.
a high level fight without magic is basically
Move and Attack
Full Attack
Use a Useless Manuever
Run Away from the big bad armored dude with the massive weapon and get hit by archers
essentially, makes combat even more monotonous and even more dull. because you removed the primary options belonging to 17 out of 19 classes, assuming we count Ninja, Antipaladin and Samurai as archetypes
10 more classes? 8 of those have magic so we moved it to 25 out of 29 classes.
either way, 5 out of every 6 classes use magic and well, magic seems to be the default method to make combat exciting by opening up different tactical options and different party synergies.
in fact, if you removed magic via antimagic field
combat gets a lot more lethal due to the high damage values being balanced around the PCs having full health every fight
and well, high CR monsters become unusable
as well as Wizards, Witches, Sorcerers and Arcanists becoming useless and several other classes to a lesser extent becoming weaker than intended.
*shrug* That's what the chaotic alignment is for, I guess.
I'm grasping that the answer to the original question is: Because it requires a large investment of resources in both gold and class levels to (very handily) defeat a specific type of enemy with this strategy in a way that is remotely efficient.
Also, it comes dangerously close, once the gold and level issue is out of the way, to being a strategy that players stop using because the DM will do it back. Which might not be particularly dangerous in total, but damn if a high level fight without magic wouldn't be boring.
That's one of the reasons I drew the parallels when I asked why didn't every really high level wizard over level 19 have a bunch of wish items. In many aspects, it can be a very similar situation.
Which of course, I think really boils down to what the GM is like and what he wants that world to be like.
There's no reason a high level wizard couldn't have a bunch of wishes if he so invested in them...but it's probably not going to be everyone's cup of tea to say the least.
To tell the truth, the only thing I wanted to really see was a recognition.
There is what I consider a fallacy that you have to have an optimized character in order to be effective. That because some see the game as unbalanced, that one can't have fun.
I've been told directly on these boards that I'm lying when I say I have fun when I play a Rogue...because that would be impossible for me to enjoy such a broken class.
However...I think if anyone puts their mind to it, of course they can break the system, or munchkin their way to make it non-fun (NPC with many items just full of wishes ready to be used)...whether GM or PC.
It doesn't matter if one is a wizard, a fighter, or a rogue...everyone has a way or situation where they may be suboptimal.
Being suboptimal does NOT make it NOT fun. You can have a suboptimal character that both contributes meaningfully to the game as well as have fun.
If there's anything that I wanted to have pointed out in this, it's that point.
That I can play a Rogue, and I can contribute to the team/party, and I can have fun with it.
I know it's gone on a LOT about AMF and such, and people love to discuss numbers, but at the end of the night, any system probably CAN be broken, especially if the GM allows you to munchkin it enough (AND I'LL ADMIT, MY ENTIRE THING ABOUT THE AMF IS A MUNCHKIN THING...and really could be up to how the GM interprets the rules)...but the REAL question people should be asking isn't if they can break a system, or if one class outshines the other...but if everyone actually has fun or not.
Which I think is what I really wanted to point out in the first place. It's not as fun when someone else is trying to destroy the fun or break the game...
So instead of people saying one can't play this or play that because it's suboptimal...or such and such needs to be repaired (and maybe it does...but that doesn't mean others should discourage someone from playing something they want to play), why not encourage others to play and have fun instead?
Umm.. literally no one is saying you can't have "fun" with Rogue. Having "fun" isn't tied to optimization (unless that is "fun" for you). I can and have had "fun" playing an adept. Even though I had "fun" playing that character, you won't see me on here going "Adepts are mechanically superior to Wizards!"... because they aren't. Everything my adept did (ok I would have needed some tricks to get some spells on my list but still) a Wizard or Cleric or Druid could do better. And they could call themselves an Adept, because they fill a similar role.
Also no one is saying you can't play X because its unoptimized, but rather saying "X does everything you want from Y, but is more mechanically sound have you considered that?" Well unless someone is saying "No Y is mechanically better then X." Then people are saying no you are wrong because of all these reasons.
my Problem with Antimagic Fields, is threefold
1. they eliminate any BBEG fight involving an Evil Spellcaster and Thier Minions, whether a cult leader, a fey, or a powerful corrupted celestial
2. they take away the chance at contribution from any PC whose niche is spells. effectively, the wizard goes from problem solver to dead weight
3. they make everything more anticlimatic and less fun, removing dramatic tension from a fight, making a difficult battle turn into a cakewalk or TPK depending on who uses it and how it's used.
AMF on an improved familiar with regen is VERY funny :P
Having the familiar UMD a scroll?
so essentially, the sole proposed and contrived method to defeat a wizard is to find a way to turn it into a commoner and gang up on the crippled peasant?
that isn't very heroic or climatic at all.
it's also not very sportsmanly or very honorable either
Uhm... what are these rules of sportmansship? Only sword duel to death, in foppish clothes?
I'm fairly certain the party could preface the fight by sending a Whispering Wind or similar, giving Karzoug the option to take the honorable option - a one on one with axe and shield with our party barbarian, only mundane equipment allowed, no trickery. Perhaps it would be inside the anti-magic field.
That would be honorable combat. Unfortunately I don't think Karzoug would go for it. And if he bows out of honorable combat, all bets are off.
The REASON why casters are so strong are because they are experts at deception and disabling. A wizard caught in "honorable battle" where debuffs and deception is prohibited will be basically suck, unless it is specifically built for that purpose (and even so will be mediocre).
here is what i say about abusing antimagic field against enemy spellcasters
"WIZARDS ARE TEH BEST WIZARDS ARE BETTER THAN EVERYTHING ELSE!!!!!"
"Well, shooting an AMF into them does seem to limit them a bit""ABUUUUSE!!!!"
it may be fun to turn your equipment off in order to kill a crippled wizard turned commoner like once. such a tactic reeks of cheating because it is like no different then creating a spell called "the pen is mightier than the sword" which creates an emanation that strips away every feat or feat equivalent class feature a character possesses such as rage powers or rogue talents.
It reeks of cheating because it might be effective against your favorite class.
Or I suggest the following could be a list of stuff that is considered cheating:Geas/Quest, Dominate Person/Monster, Maze, Greater Invisibility, Dazing Spell, Persistant Spell, Energy Drain, basically any save-or-suck (or miss-or-suck such as energy drain)
being stripped of your class features sucks as a player, and well, stripping an NPC of their class features so you can game the system by ganging up on what amounts to a suboptimally built high level commoner, is bad taste both in the literary sense, and in the RPG sense because beating up a handicapped opponent isn't fun, it feels quite empty and doesn't provide the same rush.
I'm SURE your wizards would never consider using Dazing spell on a low-ref martial NPC.
i find anyone whom uses antimagic field to defeat an enemy wizard, to be the same kind of player whom would pickpocket a blind man's wallet, trip him, and leave him prone.
Or the same kind of player whom would play any kind of full or 2/3 caster.
my Problem with Antimagic Fields, is threefold
1. they eliminate any BBEG fight involving an Evil Spellcaster and Thier Minions, whether a cult leader, a fey, or a powerful corrupted celestial
2. they take away the chance at contribution from any PC whose niche is spells. effectively, the wizard goes from problem solver to dead weight
3. they make everything more anticlimatic and less fun, removing dramatic tension from a fight, making a difficult battle turn into a cakewalk or TPK depending on who uses it and how it's used.
My problem with Dazing Fireball is threefold
1. they eliminate any BBEG fight involving a low-ref martial.
2. they take away the chance at contribution from any PC who has a low ref. Regardless of niche.
3. they make everything anticlimatic and less fun.
EDIT: And I suppose, one more point:
4. they only cost two feats and a 4th level spell slot and are available at level 7, rather than specific class levels, a handfull of feats and scrolls or 5th level slots.
You literally went from "there really isn't a way to use anti-magic field without screwing yourself" to that it's "making a difficult battle turn into a cakewalk".
The wizard is the uberclass, but if anyone starts developing counter-tactics, they're abusive cheaters.
i generally don't use Dazing Fireballs or never considered it, because i consider that to be abuse too. but i go for a less restrictive version of Honorable than most.
Not Single Sword combat in foppish clothes, but at the same time, anything can be considered honorable as long as it doesn't strip a character of their ability to contribute or their ability to fight back. Antimagic Field and Dazing Spell, both strip NPCs of their ability to fight back
but at the same time, i don't use unfair but legal exploits such as Dazing Fireball or Blood money or the like. but i rarely really play wizards, so i don't know much about them and the last wizard i played, was a buffer whom made her companions into better combatants and occasionally provided summons to soak enemy hits
that was like long before Pathfinder. my last Pathfinder Sorcerer didn't even have access to Dazing Spell because i didn't own the APG and she was more of a martial caster hybrid than a proper full caster
and well, when i do play a wizard or other caster, i ignore 80% of the exploits listed on these boards and generally build my spells around a theme.
i admit wizards are powerful. but the exploits involving them, all assume the wizard has the unlimited access in theory craft and forget to account for serious play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your example falls flat.
Stripping a wizard of his class features and exposing his weaknesses as having no viable combat ability without spells is BADWRONGFUN, but a flying wizard with wind walls up making him immune to missile fire from non-casters who he can bombard at will is PERFECTLY FINE, despite all the non-casters sitting around with their thumbs up their bums, being able to do nothing but sit and take it while the casters duke it out.
Yeah, no, not seeing it. If the party can pull this off, it's a win. There's definite risks to doing it, but it's a great tactic if it works.
==Aelryinth
Items do not have spell perfection. Nor do they have metamagic efficiency metafeats.
You cast the extended antimagic shell into the ring, the ring does not have spell perfection or lineage antimagic, and the Shell is a 7th level spell.
This also applies if, for instance, you are making a rod or staff that can cast the spell.
Metafeats for metamagic only affect the caster. items that cast spells receive no benefit from those feats. In short, it doesn't matter who inputs the spell into a magic item, they are all the same.
==Aelryinth
Though there are some magic items that act as if they have been enhanced through metamagic. The boots that give you haste act as though the effect is quickened despite the fact that the cost of the item is already less than what it would be without said metamagic.
Your example falls flat.
Stripping a wizard of his class features and exposing his weaknesses as having no viable combat ability without spells is BADWRONGFUN, but a flying wizard with wind walls up making him immune to missile fire from non-casters who he can bombard at will is PERFECTLY FINE, despite all the non-casters sitting around with their thumbs up their bums, being able to do nothing but sit and take it while the casters duke it out.
Yeah, no, not seeing it. If the party can pull this off, it's a win. There's definite risks to doing it, but it's a great tactic if it works.
==Aelryinth
though i see lots of theory craft examples where martial characters can't do a thing
i have never seen a legitimate play example where martial characters couldn't do anything in combat. whether ranged or melee, it may have been suboptimal but what i have seen more of is
encounters where the PC casters are out of spells and plinging a crossbow ineffectually for minimal damage because they used their last 3rd level spell giving the fighter flight to take on the flying enemy wizard
and before you say wind wall makes you immune to missile fire, it is useless against bullets, energy bows, and well, a lot less useful against slings.
enemy caster casts wind wall? time for the fighter to use that pepperbox musket he acquired off a dead rifleman like 2 months ago and held onto because it still bypasses wind wall when his bow isn't good enough.
fighters in my groups tend to hold onto a few excess looted weapons useful for fighting different foes in their golf bag, because we are lucky if we even reach level 10, and well, being it takes us a year to get to level 8, we loot every backup weapon we can that is useful in a corner case and tend to rarely sell things that are not of immediate benefit when they could be useful later
you never know when that masterwork longspear you looted off that dead pikeman you fought could be useful, with the help of a cheap arcane oil or few, and that flaming sword you looted my not be your best primary weapon, but it sure helps against those trolls.
but then Weekly William tends to be closer to Ashiel in that the weapons of your enemies are an excellent adaptability option and that one trick ponies are screwed.
Is there a reason why people don't use this a LOT.
People who are willing to see casters brought down to earth like that don't tend to play 3e/PF...
For older editions where magic-resistant and magic-immune monsters were common, yes it's a reasonable notion. It would not be common though, except perhaps as a Monk item, since an (eg) high level 1e Fighter would likely have a lot of other magic gear he wouldn't want to see made useless. I think a moving Globe of Invulnerability effect might be more common.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your example falls flat.
Stripping a wizard of his class features and exposing his weaknesses as having no viable combat ability without spells is BADWRONGFUN, but a flying wizard with wind walls up making him immune to missile fire from non-casters who he can bombard at will is PERFECTLY FINE, despite all the non-casters sitting around with their thumbs up their bums, being able to do nothing but sit and take it while the casters duke it out.
Yeah, no, not seeing it. If the party can pull this off, it's a win. There's definite risks to doing it, but it's a great tactic if it works.
==Aelryinth
though i see lots of theory craft examples where martial characters can't do a thing
i have never seen a legitimate play example where martial characters couldn't do anything in combat. whether ranged or melee, it may have been suboptimal but what i have seen more of is
encounters where the PC casters are out of spells and plinging a crossbow ineffectually for minimal damage because they used their last 3rd level spell giving the fighter flight to take on the flying enemy wizard
and before you say wind wall makes you immune to missile fire, it is useless against bullets, energy bows, and well, a lot less useful against slings.
enemy caster casts wind wall? time for the fighter to use that pepperbox musket he acquired off a dead rifleman like 2 months ago and held onto because it still bypasses wind wall when his bow isn't good enough.
fighters in my groups tend to hold onto a few excess looted weapons useful for fighting different foes in their golf bag, because we are lucky if we even reach level 10, and well, being it takes us a year to get to level 8, we loot every backup weapon we can that is useful in a corner case and tend to rarely sell things that are not of immediate benefit when they could be useful later
you never know when that masterwork longspear you looted off that dead pikeman you fought could be useful, with the help of a cheap arcane oil or...
You now have degenerated into theorycrafting.
I would venture that most games actually do NOT include firearms, for instance.
A caster throwing fly on the fighter means its a caster fight. He's dispelled the second he's twenty feet off the ground...its a caster fight.
Like the wizard who assumes the party can't automatically make use of AMF impossible, you're assuming a DM can't set the stage to make non-casters basically useless...and casters seem to think that's perfectly fine, them being able to do stuff while non-casters can't.
Which is the point I was trying to make. Trying to use a 'you must be prepared' argument is basically lapsing into Schroedinger's.
==Aelryinth
When you're theorycrafting scenarios, Schroedinger's pops up too often.
Just like you can't say the mage will automatically have the proper solutions to someone inside an AMF charging him, you can't say the fighter will have all the solutions for a mage prepared to stop him from harming him.
In your solution, the dispel against the potion works as well as it would against the spell, and we are back to caster fight. As soon as the enemy wizard is beyond the fighter's melee reach, it's no longer his fight...sure, he can pal around with the wizard's melee minions and both of them pretend they're important, but the battle is now a caster fight, and they can't do squat about it.
it's basically the uber wizard mindset, that thinks it should never, ever be forced into melee and can always prevent it. But the fact is, if the wizard prepares and sets up the ground, they pretty much CAN do this. Much easier then a fighter can pop an AMF on top of a caster, too.
==Aelryinth
In your solution, the dispel against the potion works as well as it would against the spell
Often much better, even.
one caster running away alive to bedevil you again in the future, 'nyah nyahing' you the whole while?
==Aelryinth