Abjuration spells that negate magic are often all or nothing. Dispel Magic, Globe of Invulnaribility, Break Enchantment either succeed or they fail. I'd rather have a mechanic that allows for partial successes and failures (as intermediate outcomes help to contain the randomness/arbitrary nature of these spells), and therefore makes abjuration effects a more attractive option for casters.
I propose the following changes to the magic rules in general and the Dispel Magic spell in particular:
Power Rating
Each spell has a Power Rating (PR) equal to its caster level.
Any decreases to PR don't affect the spell's caster level, but they do change the effective caster level with regard to the spell's duration and damage (if any). Reducing a spell's PR to zero or below ends the spell. If the spell's remaining duration would be reduced to zero or below, the spell ends as well.
Any increases to PR beyond the spells original PR don't affect the spell's caster level, but they do change the effective caster level with regard to the spell's duration and area. A spell's PR may never exceed twice the spell's caster level.
Fortify Spell: After successfully casting a spell with a duration greater than instantaneous, a caster may choose to recast the same spell at any time within the spell's duration to increase its PR (provided he has prepared the spell necessary a second time/ has an open spell slot of the required spell level). Recasting a spell in this way increases the spell's PR by the caster's caster level.
Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell. The spell with the highest PR has its PR decreased by 5. If you succeed on a dispel check (1d20 + your caster level) against DC = 11 + the spell's original PR, you may reduce that spells PR by an additional amount equal to your caster level. If you reduce the spells PR to zero or below, that spell ends.
For example, a 7th-level caster casts dispel magic, targeting a creature affected by stoneskin (PR 12). The caster level check results in a 19. This check is not high enough to end the stoneskin (which would have required a 23 or higher), but it reduces the spell's PR by 5 (effectively reducing the spells remaining duration by 50 minutes and faciliating further dispel checks). Had the dispel check resulted in a 23 or higher, the stoneskin would have been dispelled completely (its PR being reduced by 15, beyond the spells original PR).
Targeted Dispel: This functions as a targeted dispel magic, but it decreases the spell's PR by 10 (instead of 5). Reducing a spell's PR to zero or below allows you to make additional dispel checks, starting with the highest level spells and proceeding to lower level spells. For each additional spell you take a cumulative -2 penalty on your dispel check.
Area Dispel: [unchanged]
The numbers probably need some fine tuning, but that is the basic idea. Break Enchantment, Dispel Evil and similar spells would work the same way as Dispel Magic.
Globe of Invulnerability would reduce the PR from hostile spells in the area (and therefore decrease their damage).
I'm not entirely sure which spell variables should be affected by a spell's PR – it's a tricky thing, because spells are so versatile and different. Obviously, number of targets and range raise too many issues.
I would like to know if this idea deserves to be pursued, which problems might arise from these changes, and if the numbers withstand scrutiny. Advice, suggestions and criticism would be greatly appreciated.
I love the concept, and I do think it is a route to be persued a a variant rule. I'd expand it to any spell which counters another (light vs darkness, true seeing bs invisibility, etc). An issue I forsee, however, is book-keeping, though the significance of it is still in the air. My meaning is after calculating the results, you'll have to go back and recalculate based on the new PR. It may or may not slow down the game; not sure yet.
|
cool idea!
one thing to consider regarding partial successes
which spells are more susceptible to PR reduction, and which spells are not?
you mentioned Damage and Duration as being reducible. so, direct damage spells and buff spells. but many 'save or die' spells have neither of these two quantities to reduce. what does a partial dispel look like on these?
(idea?)
i would consider looking over the metamagic feats again (in CRB), and have Dispel create a 'menu option' where the caster chooses one variable to reduce on partial success.
Bookkeeping would indeed be an issue, since you basically have to track 'hit points' for spells (though, technically, the GM has to keep track of spell durations anyway). But yeah, I hate mechanics that make the GM's (usually my) life more difficult and try to avoid them as a player.
I will have to think about how counterspelling (and spell pairings that cancel out each other) would work with this mechanic. I suppose spell level should be a factor.
In my experience, dispel magic is mostly used to remove buffs/debuffs/crowd control spells. There are indeed some spells with effects unrelated to CL (blindness, power word stun), and some of the save or die spells fall into that category. I'll have to think about that too.
Giving new options via feats is certainly a possibility, but I fear that dispelling/counterspelling does not come up often enough to warrant investing feats.
I am still unsure which spell variables should be tied to power rating. I could see reducing a spell's area as a result of PR loss, but it gets messy with moving or expanding area spells (like cloudkill).
I just noticed that my phrasing above is overly complicated. Also, I made an embarrassing mistake in my example.
Dispel Magic reduces a spell's PR by 5+CL on a successful dispel check/ half of that on a failed dispel check.
That means, a 5th level caster could dispel a spell with PR 5 automatically (which he should be able to, since it takes one of his precious 3rd level spells). On a successful dispel check, he could dispel a spell up to PR 10 (which is somewhat weaker than a regular Dispel Magic, that could dispel a CL 14 spell at best; though it is important to keep in mind that eating away a spells PR will reduce its potency).
A 10th level caster could dispel a spell with PR 7 with certainty (still enough for effects from low-level items, some monster's spell-like abilities and buffs cast by mooks); he could even remove a spell up to PR 15, provided he succeeds on a dispel check (compared to CL 19, which a regular Dispel Magic could achieve at best).
At 15th level, revised dispel removes any spell with PR 10 or lower; on a succesful dispel check PR 20 is possible (compared to CL 24 for the regular dispel, though in most campaigns, only god-like creatures wield magic that powerful).
Since reducing a Spell's PR also reduces its duration, with a little luck, one might still be able to remove an opponent's buff spell, even on a failed dispel check. So overall, it should work out fine.
Also, permanent spells could regenerate lost PR, remanifesting later after being dispelled.
My condensed thoughts on this topic can be found here:
I spent a lot of time researching how spell interactions work in the CRB and I learned a few new things (until now, I never noticed the difference between the effect and area entries of spells).
Still, it's only a first draft and the numbers would have to be tested in play.
UPDATED with a few minor changes and corrections.
One problem still needs to be addressed: It has now become very easy to dispel a spell cast by a very powerful spellcaster by spamming dispels. In the first place, that raises plot problems (the king slowly dying by the powerful curse of an evil witch, the enchanted door that can only be opened with the mcguffin, etc.), but there are other factors to consider (a wand of dispel magic now becomes very useful, as does binding outsiders that can use dispel magic at will).
While the feats that I introduced allow to give a spell plot armor, other solutions might be necessary. Right now, what I can think of is reducing the potency of partial effects or having them give penalties to PR instead of damage.
Any advice, suggestions and criticism would be highly appreciated.