Tell me if I've got this right:
Per page 458-450 of the Core Rulebook, dispel magic can only dispel 3rd-level or lower spells unless you get a critical success (at which point it can dispel up to 5th-level spells) or unless you heighten it to increase its counteract level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, to dispel higher level effects, you need to use higher level dispel magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it seems that heightening a few key spells to your highest possible level is really going to be a thing.
Whereas in PF1 you'd almost *never* do it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Correct. The same is true for all Counteract effects.
If you want to counteract something, you'll usually want to use a spell one level higher to have a nearly guaranteed success.
If that's not available/possible, you want to use a spell one level lower than the target effect since it's the same chance as using a same level spell but comes a bit cheaper (costs a lower level slot).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many spells, like dispel magic, are not marked as being able to be heightened.
If not for these boards, I wouldn't have known that you COULD apply it to a spell that mentions nothing at all about heightening.
I hope a lot of new players don't fall into that trap.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many spells, like dispel magic, are not marked as being able to be heightened.
If not for these boards, I wouldn't have known that you COULD apply it to a spell that mentions nothing at all about heightening.
I hope a lot of new players don't fall into that trap.
I wouldn't call it a trap. Every spontaneously casting class description includes a paragraph like this one. (Copied from the Sorcerer Spellcasting section.)
HEIGHTENING SPELLS
When you get spell slots of 2nd level and higher, you can fill those slots with stronger versions of lower-level spells. This increases the spell’s level to match the spell slot. You must have a spell in your spell repertoire at the level you want to cast in order to heighten it to that level. Many spells have specific improvements when they are heightened to certain levels (page 299). The signature spells class feature lets you heighten certain spells freely.
So they didn't try to hide the rules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think it would make sense for spells inherently based around Counter-act to explicitly reference "minimum spell level or as Heightened" to "remind" player the (Heightened) spell level is critical to it's function, and even use standard Heighten boilerplate format just to say "increases Counter-act level".
I mean, abstractly one can see Heighten as being no more relevant than for any other spell (i.e. if you really want Blur to stick and not be Dispelled, Heighten it even though it doesn't have any special Heighten effect) but since Counter-act is inherent to something like Dispel's effect it really is appropriate to highlight front and center. When other spells list explicit Heighten effects, it's an easy assumption to not consider Dispel for Heightening (like Blur isn't normally) because it doesn't list any Heighten effects. I mean, that is just the psychological consequence of making standard Heighten effect block standard, when it's not there people will think Heighten is irrelevant to it.
Since description is very short, I would hope they consider Errate to add that in to spell block.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They didn't try to hide how the dynamics work out, but they didn't do much to highlight it either. I keep noticing that with things in PF2, where you have to have a eureka moment for something (or have someone else explain it) to grok how it really fits into the game. I blame the demands of page count. Hope it doesn't screw up too many newcomers too badly.... :-/
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, I don't think the "you can heighten dispel magic?!?" thing is from playing 3.5 or PF1, I think it's because the rule "you can heighten any spell" is briefly mentioned once and then you see "Heightened (+1): +1d6 damage" all over the place. I think it's easy to unconsciously conclude from the latter that the absence of a Heightened entry means you can't heighten it or that heightening it is useless.
I'm not going to angst about it, but I do think it's a real flaw.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I fail to see how that's different from, say, 3.5/PF mentioning in one place that you can't make a spell with range: personal into a potion and spell descriptions not having a "you can/can't make a potion of this" line. There's some level of information you can assume that a new reader will pick up while reading the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
since you could Heighten any spell for real mechanical benefit in 3.x/1E (if it has save), i have hard time seeing how 3.x/1E experience leads to difficulty understanding every spell can be Heightened. EDIT: although to be fair, Heighten cost a MM Feat so could be entirely ignored, my houserule giving Heighten MM for free obviously changing that.
regardless, Paizo has themselves affirmed the concept of standard formatting used to reinforce understanding especially from usability perspective. Every spell block has diamond action icons even though that information is superfluous since the action types are listed. it just doesnt' hurt anything to say "spell blocks list heighten block for things relevant to their active effect. +Counteract Level is relevant to active effect of this spell, so we will list that, even though technically that is automatic for every spell".
I don't know, maybe the thought it could be inversely confusing, if people started thinking that didn't apply unless explicitly stated. but even if they don't want to include Heighten block to state +Counteract Level, the spell already includes explicit "attempt a counteract check" which would be trivial to alter to reference "(minimum level 2, or as Heightened)". there is really few effects actively invoking Counteract check, even though every spell passively interacts with it, so it doesn't seem heavy burden for active mentions of counteract to also mention level and Heighten.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I fail to see how that's different from, say, 3.5/PF mentioning in one place that you can't make a spell with range: personal into a potion and spell descriptions not having a "you can/can't make a potion of this" line.
That was a flaw in PF1. The 'no personal-spell potions' rule wasn't well highlighted. Many players failed to spot it. Even Paizo employees frequently gave NPCs potions of personal spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...the rule "you can heighten any spell" is briefly mentioned once...For quantities of "briefly mentioned" including roughly half a page of text with a nice bold heading, and values of "once" including in each of the spellcasting classes and in the spells chapter.
Except only the first sentence of that section indicates that you can heighten anything; the rest is about how heightening works, and its length does nothing to attract attention to the first sentence.
Let's not pretend that a rule-set that includes the sentence "In addition, many spells have additional specific benefits when they are heightened, such as increased damage." isn't doing everything within reason to communicate that's it's not just spells that have specifics mentioned that can be heightened.
What you're pretending is that someone looking at dispel magic will say to themselves "gee can this be heightened?" instead of "gee how do I counteract higher-level spells with this?" People asking the first will go look under heightening and find what they need. People asking the second will look under counteracting in Spells, be pointed to general counteracting on page 458, and not find what they need. Either of those latter two spots could contain the sentence "You may need to heighten your spell in order to counteract a high-level effect." But maybe you find that "beyond reason."
The reality here is that when learning a new edition of a game you are already familiar with, it takes deliberate effort to actually read the new material instead of skimming it and assuming you're going to be right about how the rest of it works - and a whole heap of people just don't make that deliberate effort.
I envy your confidence that newcomers always read material slowly and carefully, missing nothing.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It takes up half of page 299 at the beginning of the Spells chapter with two headers.
Both prepared and spontaneous spellcasters can cast a spell at a higher spell level than that listed for the spell. This is called heightening the spell. A prepared spellcaster can heighten a spell by preparing it in a higher-level slot than its normal spell level, while a spontaneous spellcaster can heighten a spell by casting it using a higher-level spell slot, so long as they know the spell at that level (see Heightened Spontaneous Spells below). When you heighten your spell, the spell's level increases to match the higher level of the spell slot you've prepared it in or used to cast it. This is useful for any spell, because some effects, such as counteracting, depend on the spell's level. In addition, many spells have additional specific benefits when they are heightened, such as increased damage. These extra benefits are described at the end of the spell's stat block. Some heightened entries specify one or more levels at which the spell must be prepared or cast to gain these extra advantages. Each of these heightened entries states specifically which aspects of the spell change at the given level. Read the heightened entry only for the spell level you're using or preparing; if its benefits are meant to include any of the effects of a lower-level heightened entry, those benefits will be included in the entry. Other heightened entries give a number after a plus sign, indicating that heightening grants extra advantages over multiple levels. The listed effect applies for every increment of levels by which the spell is heightened above its lowest spell level, and the benefit is cumulative. For example, fireball says “Heightened (+1) The damage increases by 2d6.” Because fireball deals 6d6 fire damage at 3rd level, a 4th-level fireball would deal 8d6 fire damage, a 5th-level spell would deal 10d6 fire damage, and so on.
If you're a spontaneous spellcaster, you must know a spell at the specific level that you want to cast it in order to heighten it. You can add a spell to your spell repertoire at more than a single level so that you have more options when casting it. For example, if you added fireball to your repertoire as a 3rd-level spell and again as a 5th-level spell, you could cast it as a 3rd-level or a 5th-level spell; however, you couldn't cast it as a 4th-level spell. Many spontaneous spellcasting classes provide abilities like the signature spells class feature, which allows you to cast a limited number of spells as heightened versions even if you know the spell at only a single level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah yes, can't have those pesky players filling their fifth, sixth, and seventh level spell slots with fifth, sixth, and seventh level spells. Why that would be madness.Yes, it seems that heightening a few key spells to your highest possible level is really going to be a thing.
Whereas in PF1 you'd almost *never* do it.
In PF1 you'd have greater/lesser versions that were different spell levels. Don't think of it as putting a 2nd level Dispel Magic in a 5th, 6th, or 7th level slot, think of it as being able to use Greater Dispel Magic without having to learn it separately.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm surprised there seems to be so much resistance to our wanting a little more rules visability.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm surprised there seems to be so much resistance to our wanting a little more rules visability.It’s in the opening of the Spells chapter under the heading “Heightening”. What more do you want?
How about a general heightening entry like for "spells with additional benefits", but instead of "Heightened (+1) The damage increases by 2d6" it reads "Heightened (+1) The spell level increases by 1.
Would such an entry be redundant. Yes it would. Would such an entry be helpful. Yes it would.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm surprised there seems to be so much resistance to our wanting a little more rules visability.It’s in the opening of the Spells chapter under the heading “Heightening”. What more do you want?How about a general heightening entry like for "spells with additional benefits", but instead of "Heightened (+1) The damage increases by 2d6" it reads "Heightened (+1) The spell level increases by 1.
Would such an entry be redundant. Yes it would. Would such an entry be helpful. Yes it would.
In every spell? It would be a colossal waste of space and word count.
The rule section on Heightening already says what you’re asking.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I were a new player trying to figure out how to use Dispel Magic, I would probably start at Counteracting and note that the spell's level matters. If I wanted to figure out if there was a way to increase Dispel Magic's spell level, I would probably check the text in that nifty Heightened Spells ability I picked up at Level 3, which should answer the question. If I was unsure, I'd check the Heightened Spells rules, which are clearly noted in the section of the book I would expect them to be in, or I'd check the index/glossary in the back to locate the information if it wasn't immediately obvious where to look.
This stuff isn't hidden. It's not difficult to locate. It's in every casting class writeup, as well as in a named section in the chapter on magic and spells. It's like searching for Waldo if he was circled in red ink on every page.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm surprised there seems to be so much resistance to our wanting a little more rules visability.It’s in the opening of the Spells chapter under the heading “Heightening”. What more do you want?How about a general heightening entry like for "spells with additional benefits", but instead of "Heightened (+1) The damage increases by 2d6" it reads "Heightened (+1) The spell level increases by 1.
Would such an entry be redundant. Yes it would. Would such an entry be helpful. Yes it would.
In every spell? It would be a colossal waste of space and word count.
The rule section on Heightening already says what you’re asking.
Reminds me of the Golden Rule of 3.P Psionics: "Thou shalt not spend more power points on a given manifestation than your manifestor level (no, not even with a Wild Surge or the Overchannel feat, since those work by first increasing your ML)". It too was clearly stated (once... somewhere) in the XPH, and because it wasn't visible enough, players often kept breaking psionics where it wasn't actually broken, just suffering from poor optics.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It probably wouldn't be too bad to add a section to the part on spell counteracting. That wouldn't be too much extra, but it would help clarity.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dispel Magic
Spell 2
Abjuration
Cast: Two Actions; somatic, verbal
Range: 120 feet
Targets: 1 spell effect or unattended magic item
You unravel the magic behind a spell or effect. Attempt a counteract check against the target (page 458). If you succeed against a spell effect, you counteract it. If you succeed against a magic item, the item becomes a mundane item of its type for 10 minutes. This doesn't change the item's non-magical properties. If the target is an artifact or similar item, you automatically fail.
Heightened (+1): You increase this spell's counteract level by 1 (to be equal to it's heightened spell level).
...
I agree that for this specific spell, a heightening section would significantly improve user-friendliniess.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dispel Magic
Spell 2
Abjuration
Cast: Two Actions; somatic, verbal
Range: 120 feet
Targets: 1 spell effect or unattended magic item
You unravel the magic behind a spell or effect. Attempt a counteract check against the target (page 458). If you succeed against a spell effect, you counteract it. If you succeed against a magic item, the item becomes a mundane item of its type for 10 minutes. This doesn't change the item's non-magical properties. If the target is an artifact or similar item, you automatically fail.
Heightened (+1): You increase this spell's counteract level by 1 (to be equal to it's heightened spell level)....
I agree that for this specific spell, a heightening section would significantly improve user-friendliniess.
2 problems.
1) If you're gonna put that entry on Dispel Magic, why not put it on Remove Curse/Disease, Restore Senses, Spell Immunity, etc. At which point we've used up a lot of page count.
2) Including THAT text in Dispel Magic but not the other spells might lead people to conclude they work differently. One might be able to avoid this by taking a page from some of the early class feats, such as ”You can heighten the spell to raise it's level for counteract purposes, as you can for all spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One might be able to avoid this by taking a page from some of the early class feats, such as ”You can heighten the spell to raise it's level for counteract purposes, as you can for all spells.
Put it in the class descriptions and everybody will be happy. Page count will stay the same and it will also be harder to overlook.
People will at least read their class descriptions, right?
Heightening Spells
When you get spell slots of 2nd level and higher, you can fill those slots with stronger versions of lower-level spells. This increases the spell’s level, heightening it to match the spell slot, which can be beneficial for counteract purposes. In addition many spells have specific improvements when they are heightened to certain levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One might be able to avoid this by taking a page from some of the early class feats, such as ”You can heighten the spell to raise it's level for counteract purposes, as you can for all spells.Put it in the class descriptions and everybody will be happy. Page count will stay the same and it will also be harder to overlook.
People will at least read their class descriptions, right?
You'd think so, but not necessarily. If someone is coming from 5e and thinks they know how heightening works, they might skip it. Much as you might skip the general text on spellcasting if you've played spellcasters before.
|
|
Try #2:
Dispel Magic
Spell 2
Abjuration
Cast: Two Actions; somatic, verbal
Range: 120 feet
Targets: 1 spell effect or unattended magic item
You unravel the magic behind a spell or effect. Attempt a counteract check against the target (page 458). This spell has a counteract level of 2 (and can be heightened normally). If you succeed against a spell effect, you counteract it. If you succeed against a magic item, the item becomes a mundane item of its type for 10 minutes. This doesn't change the item's non-magical properties. If the target is an artifact or similar item, you automatically fail.
...
There, one sentence reminder text (in italics) smack in the middle of the spell description, just after the first mention of "counteract".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm surprised there seems to be so much resistance to our wanting a little more rules visability.
I think it's less a case of resistance to more visibility and more a case of "just because you didn't spot it doesn't mean it's a trap" or intent to "hide" rules by the writers.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
All I can say is it's definitely something I overlooked, and I've been playing since the closing years of D&D Second Edition.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules are fine.
Every new player will have played 5th Edition before, where this is already second-nature.
This is only a problem for people stuck in a PF1 mindset.
This feels like a very bold assumption. A lot of people's first tabletop was Pathfinder in my community. That might just be one case, but given the scope and scale of the entire world, I'm sure this is true in other towns, too. Remember that not everyone whose interested in playing Pathfinder also shares that same interest in D&D.
The two systems are obviously similar, but they have differences that can turn players off for one reason or another and they don't even have to be negative criticisms. Some people just don't like certain things but do like others.
For the record, I only tried playing 5e this year, wondering what could possibly interest someone and wanting to give it a fair shot. These heightening mechanics are thus totally new to me, someone with 10+ years of experience in tabletops.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This doesn't have anything to do with 1E-trained expectations.
If you took the Feat in 1E, Heighten applied mechanical benefits to every single spell.
So being mechanically useful with every single spell isn't a change that players might overlook based on 1E experience.
The confusion of expecations comes from the graphic formatting/layout, the repetition of Heighten block can give impression that without that there is no other benefit... Especially when Counteract checks aren't really THAT common a mechanic in most games, thus easy to overlook and forget when the overt effects of Heighten blocks do deal with commonly impactful mechanics.
As I wrote before, putting a Heighten block with "+1 Counteract level" on specific spells like Dispel, could itself be counterproductive because that could then give impression other spells don't allow that (when they in fact do, it's usually just passively rather than actively useful for them). Putting that Heighten line on every single spell would also be silly and take up alot of space.
But it doesn't take up much space for spells that actively trigger Counteract check to, alongside their mention of Counteract check to state "(minimum level X or as Heightened)". That's a very small amount of words that subtley reinforces how Counteract checks actually work.
Also, there is spells which don't PER SE use Counteract but which function similarly, such as Darkness VS Light (in this case, equalling or surpassing Light level = automatically suppresses Light). Those cases could also benefit from adding to the text "This also suppresses magical light of your darkness spell's level or lower" -> "(minimum level 2 or as Heightened)"
Personally, I wish that kind of function (for Darkness VS Light) was subsumed under Counteract, perhaps as subvariant called "Automatic Counteract" that never rolled but succeeded vs equal or lower levels. Just seems cleaner conceptually, helping the learning curve by explaining both dynamics in one place, and potentially would allow those to benefit from bonuses to Counteract checks (although just as plausibly those wouldn't matter since they wouldn't need to roll and everything could come down to level). Either ways seems cleaner, rather than Counteract rules pretending Darkness VS Light doesn't exist. It might also open the door to easily extending the Automatic Counteract mechanic to other spells/effects via Feat or whatever.
|
|
Also, there is spells which don't PER SE use Counteract but which function similarly, such as Darkness VS Light (in this case, equalling or surpassing Light level = automatically suppresses Light). Those cases could also benefit from adding to the text "This also suppresses magical light of your darkness spell's level or lower" -> "(minimum level 2 or as Heightened)"That's covered by the Darkness and Light spell traits.
Personally, I wish that kind of function (for Darkness VS Light) was subsumed under Counteract, perhaps as subvariant called "Automatic Counteract" that never rolled but succeeded vs equal or lower levels. Just seems cleaner conceptually, helping the learning curve by explaining both dynamics in one place, and potentially would allow those to benefit from bonuses to Counteract checks (although just as plausibly those wouldn't matter since they wouldn't need to roll and everything could come down to level). Either ways seems cleaner, rather than Counteract rules pretending Darkness VS Light doesn't exist. It might also open the door to easily extending the Automatic Counteract mechanic to other spells/effects via Feat or whatever.
The spell traits section (where the Darkness and Light traits are) is 2 pages away from Heightening, so it's not like it's in another section of the book.
A potential problem if I were to guess with your suggestion is that it leaves it too open, which might cause issues down the way.
That's NOT covered by Darkness or Light traits, those traits simply reference normal Counteract. The only variations of Darkness/Light traits is whether they require specific targetting or "automatically" ATTEMPT to Counteract any opposed effect they intersect. The true Auto-Counteract of Darkness SPELL (requiring no Counteract roll, only equal/lower level) is function of Darkness' specific spell wording, not any Trait.
The interaction between them could be alot more explicit, because reading Darkness spell you might think "well the light is higher level, so Darkness doesn't work" when actually just it's specific autosuppression doesn't work, but Darkness trait (Counteract check) still works fine, even though you might not use it when the specific autosuppression effect is applicable.
Which goes back to my statement that any spell whose active effect causes Counteract check (whether from Trait or whatever) should explicitly describe that in text, with "(X level or as Heightened") casually reminding of Heighten level relevance. Darkness could reference that with specific addition re: automatic suppression vs equal/lower level effects (since there's no sense rolling Counteract if spell automatically wins vs lower level Light). The current Darkness wording doesn't even use the word "automatic" or anything similar to describe WHY the effect is actually unique VS normal Darkness trait Counteract function, or even acknowledge relevance of that function to the Darkness trait's Counteract function: the rules pretend the other doesn't exist.
AFAIK nothing about my suggested formatting is inherently any more "open".
Anything that is desired to apply only to Counter checks (i.e. not Automatic) can specify "checks" or "rolls",
it isn't hard to distinguish the two functions even while recognizing them as conceptually related under same umbrella.
As with my above suggestion, even if the Darkness-style autosuppression isn't mentioned in core Counteract rules,
at least the spells/abilities can be written such that the autosuppression 'exception' is presented in context of Counteract.
|
|
That's NOT covered by Darkness or Light traits, those traits simply reference normal Counteract. The only variations of Darkness/Light traits is whether they require specific targetting or "automatically" ATTEMPT to Counteract any opposed effect they intersect. The true Auto-Counteract of Darkness SPELL (requiring no Counteract roll, only equal/lower level) is function of Darkness' specific spell wording, not any Trait.? I'm not seeing anything like that in the Darkness spell.
The interaction between them could be alot more explicit, because reading Darkness spell you might think "well the light is higher level, so Darkness doesn't work" when actually that just forces a check.It does, they just exist at the same time and the higher level Light spell can be seen within the darkness, which is from the Traits.
Which goes back to my statement that any spell who's active effect causes Counteract check should explicitly describe that in text, with "(X level or as Heightened") casually reminding of Heighten relevance. Darkness could reference that with specific addition re: automatic suppression vs equal/lower level effects. The current Darkness wording doesn't even use the word "automatic" or anything similar to describe WHY the effect is actually unique VS normal Darkness trait Counteract function, or even acknowledge relevance of that function to the Darkness trait's Counteract function: the rules pretend the other doesn't exist.Ah I see what it is. I don't believe "suppress" in this case is a stand in for Counteract/Dispel. Because neither of those things occur, once the Lighted object leaves the area of magical Darkness you can see it again if it's lower level, it's not canceled or turned off.
AFAIK nothing about my suggested formatting is inherently any more "open".
Anything that is desired to apply only to Counter checks (i.e. not Automatic) can specify "checks" or "rolls".
I mean allowing spells that shouldn't be or some other hiccup.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I mean "end" vs "suppress" can be distinct, but in many cases fucntionally aren't, right? (non-mobile non-permanent target) Suppress is basically just duration-limited Counteract. So it makes sense that when Darkness does that, that it's mentioned parallel with Counteract reference because why should basic spell dynamics not be clear from description? If they did that, it would make clearer to people that if the target IS mobile they definitely DO want to make Counter-Act check even if it's autosuppressed. As is, the relationship of those functions just isn't clear to casual perusal.
Again, totally apart from this specific case, I absolutely believe it helps usability for spells whose active effect hinges on Counteract, to explicitly state that in spell description which is opportunity for conveninent reminder of Heighten relevance. I would say same thing for any other spell Trait which inherently invokes active mechanics: not mentioning those in description of spell effect is un-necessarily obtuse and not user friendly. Paizo has demonstrated they value "superfluous" repetition for usability, and IMHO it clearly applies here.
EDIT: As an aside, I wonder whether it's reasonable for observers to know whether a Light spell is simply temporarily autosuppressed VS permanently counteracted? Would there be ongoing magical modulations making that clear? Or would they either assume it IS permanently counteracted... OR assume a permanent counteract may just as well be a temporary autosuppression? Hmmmm.......
|
|
No, they're not the same. Counteract is you shutting the other spell down completely. It's not suppressed, it's gone. You have dispelled it.
It's clear to me, actually making "Supress" a specific game term would add to confusion rather than clear it. Light/Darkness spells supress each other if they're higher level, but they don't auto-dispel unless you actually cast on them to Counteract.
Having those call outs would be superfluous, and detrimental. Right now we have the trait rules and the Heightening Rules handling them all, adding in those unneeded specifics for every qualifying spell would cause issues if overlooked for any.
Edit: unless they can see/sense specific magics they probably wouldn't know. Could make for some interesting setups if you're needing to sneak some magical light around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure what you're arguing with ("No they're not the same"), I never stated they are literally the same, I stated they "can be" functionally distinct, describing them not as identical but as similar/related. You're saying Counteract is permanent, I agree, and posed Suppression as temporary and duration-limited. Where is the disagreement?
I don't understand your concern re: "Suppress" as game term, Darkness does use this wording, which isn't actually defined (the "starts working again when moved outside, or suppression duration ends" isn't explained) How does defining it cause confusion? Or how does depending on logical inferrence avoid confusion or variation in play?
But however that is treated, doesn't impact the case for explicitly stating Counteract checks in spells whose active effect triggers them. There really isn't many of these spells. I don't understand the "overlooked" logic, which could be used to justify not having any bonus types since one could be overlooked in editing.
EDIT: OK... I searched AON for "suppress". That comes up with:
Cognitive Loophole Feat, Unblinking Flame Revelation, Word of Freedom, Calm Emotions, Darkness, Dispel Magic, Negate Aroma spells.
Cognitive Loophole uses "suppress" indirectly associated with "Until the end of your next turn, you ignore a single mental effect"
Unblinking Flame uses "suppress" in context of temporary/duration-limited Counteract check
Word of Freedom uses "suppress" indirectly associated with "isn't affected by condition... until spell ends"
Calm Emotions just says "suppressed" with no further explanation
Darkness just says "suppress" with no further explanation
...This is where it gets weird...
Dispel Magic and Negate Aroma both come up via AON's search as having 1 instance of "suppress".
But weirdly, there is no mention of that word anywhere in either spell entry. I don't even know what's going on.
Is there some "secret" Suppress trait that exists somewhere but isn't being displayed?
It's not like the search is returning a bunch of unrelated garbage, Dispel and Negate Aroma ARE conceptually related to suppression.
Anyhow, Dispel Magic is another example (besides Unblinking Flame) of non-permanent or temporary/duration-limited Counteract check...
Which seems substantially identical to all these Suppression effects, although that's not formally defined.
Since the concept and word is fairly widely used, I'm not sure why it doesn't deserve definition.
Certainly, "suppress" is entirely compatible with being related to Counteract,
since Unblinking Flame explicitly establishes that, as well as Dispel Magic's temporary/duration-limited Counteract.
|
|
I think we're reading/talking past each other and that's causing some confusion at this point.
Cognitive Loophole, a feat not a spell, works since you merely suppress an effect rather than end or roll a check.
Unblinking Flame, used here because unlike Light/Darkness the effects don't exist at the same time, you temporarily remove the effect.
Word of Freedom, suppresses conditions, including grapple, in which case the target is freed. No check required.
Calm Emotions has a duration.
Darkness the Light is suppressed until the Lighted object leaves or the Darkness does.
Precisely because the word is widely used in slightly different ways is why it shouldn't be a trait, suppress is used against spells and abilites (Word of Freedom suppresses grapple checks). So if you were to Trait it/add it to expanded Counteract rules you'd also have to go over rules of when you can use spells/abilties to Counteract non-spell abilities as well. That's a rabbit hole.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One way to clarify would be to put three or four examples in the Heightening rules section to show why you'd want to do it for spells with no 'Heightened' effect listed.
Many spells, like dispel magic, are not marked as being able to be heightened.
If not for these boards, I wouldn't have known that you COULD apply it to a spell that mentions nothing at all about heightening.
I hope a lot of new players don't fall into that trap.
I wouldn't call it a trap. Every spontaneously casting class description includes a paragraph like this one. (Copied from the Sorcerer Spellcasting section.)
So they didn't try to hide the rules.HEIGHTENING SPELLS
When you get spell slots of 2nd level and higher, you can fill those slots with stronger versions of lower-level spells. This increases the spell’s level to match the spell slot. You must have a spell in your spell repertoire at the level you want to cast in order to heighten it to that level. Many spells have specific improvements when they are heightened to certain levels (page 299). The signature spells class feature lets you heighten certain spells freely.
It definitely could have been clearer though.
A big part of fixing quadratic wizard/linear fighter is to make it so your lower level spells stop being as useful as they once were. Dispel magic's usefulness in PF1 was independent of its spell level. That isn't true for PF2.