While doing some after action strategizing after a fight with a Clay Golem I was wondering if our Wizard could have dealt with the Golems Quicken (divine, transmutation) ability using Dispel Magic. And this is where I got myself somewhat confused as the spell is not doing a good job in describing what it can actually do.
Targets 1 spell effect or unattended magic item
No mention of (magical) effects other than spell effects. So far so good.
You unravel the magic behind a spell or effect...
Aha! The "descriptive text" tells us that dealing with both spells and (magical) effects still seems possible.
...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...
Again and as per the target entry the "rules crunch" only mentions spell effects and items and does not provide a direct statement for magical effects (the page reference is pointing to the Counteracting general rules which indeed do mention "...or other effects." but in a very general way of describing what Counteracting is good for).
So what is the concensus here? Can Dispel Magic still deal with magical non-spell effects or not?
P.S.: My money is on yes, but I also want to hear your opinions, because I got really perplexed when I just read the target entry.
It seems like there might have been some intentional GM fiat left in the spell for handling what qualifies as magical vs spell. In fact the Core Rulebook doesn't have a "magic" chapter, it only has a spells chapter, and the first sentence in the spells chapter says,
Whether it comes in the form of mystic artifacts, mysterious creatures, or wizards weaving strange spells, magic brings fantasy and wonder to Pathfinder.
As a GM, I think my default position would be that if the ability has a magical school tag, then it is an effect that counts as a spell like magical effect for targeting with dispel magic. I don't think that this would qualify as a purist by RAW reading, but I think the fact that the description of the spell does split spell or effect, means that it is not changing any of the games rules either. It seems reasonably within the realm of how the spell could be read.
I would think not, especially against a golem that has general anti-magic abilities. But even against another foe, something like a quicken effect could be seen as an innate ability rather than a spell-like ability. If the critter were actually casting at a PC with an ability, I think an argument could be made for allowing a dispell magic counteract check. But innate abilities, not so much.
This said, I don't think there is a RAW answer to this question.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The spell only describes how it works against spells and magic items, and the "target" section is quite clear, so in my games I only allow to use it that way.
I think the "effect" word may be a fragment of an earlier draft of the spell before the rules were finalized.
I think that the way the chapter on spells is written, it never really defines what is and is not a spell when it comes to magical effect. The explanation of Traditions of magic, of schools of magic and of the traits for schools of magic never clearly demark how something could be magical and not be a spell, a magic item or the result of one or the other. It does feel like the dispel magic spell is not written to fully reflect the lack of non-spell magic discussed in the core rulebook, as if something were changed or left out. Like if a creature was attacking with a special ability that was magical in nature and didn't use dexterity or strength for its attack roll, it would have to be a spell attack, because that is the only other type of attack roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It does feel like the dispel magic spell is not written to fully reflect the lack of non-spell magic discussed in the core rulebook, as if something were changed or left out.
On the other hand, it could be intentional.
PF1 made great pains to distinguish spells from supernatural effects from spell-like abilities, but in PF2 that distinction seems mostly gone. Something is just either magical or it isn't.
It does feel like the dispel magic spell is not written to fully reflect the lack of non-spell magic discussed in the core rulebook, as if something were changed or left out.On the other hand, it could be intentional.
PF1 made great pains to distinguish spells from supernatural effects from spell-like abilities, but in PF2 that distinction seems mostly gone. Something is just either magical or it isn't.
While this may very well be the case, to me Dispel Magic somehow reads "incomplete", especially when compared to other bits and pieces of the rules, e.g. spells like Antimagic Field.
...You repel all magic from the target area, preventing spells and other magic from functioning. Spells can't penetrate the area, magic items cease to function within it, and no one inside can cast spells or use magic abilities...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a classical case of fluff text being... well, fluff text. I've reported this issue numerous times.
You can't allow Dispel Magic to be used against magical effects as now magical effects are so many this would just make everything illogical. Remember, Barbarian rage is magical. And dispelling a Barbarian's Rage would be completely out of proportion to me.
It's a classical case of fluff text being... well, fluff text. I've reported this issue numerous times.
You can't allow Dispel Magic to be used against magical effects as now magical effects are so many this would just make everything illogical. Remember, Barbarian rage is magical. And dispelling a Barbarian's Rage would be completely out of proportion to me.
If this was true though, then you could never dispel and effect created by a magic item either, and what defines an item? That is a nebulous term in PF2. Numerous hazzards specify that they can be dispelled but why?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember, Barbarian rage is magical. And dispelling a Barbarian's Rage would be completely out of proportion to me.
Actually I think it is only one Instict that has its rage converted to a magical ability per se, namely Animal. Dragon and Spirit are only magical if they specifically chose to be magical and Fury, Giant and Superstitious are nonmagical from the very start.
Which means while you could indeed "dispel" a Giant Instinc's barbarians Giant's Stature class feat you can not dispel his rage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this was true though, then you could never dispel and effect created by a magic item either, and what defines an item? That is a nebulous term in PF2. Numerous hazzards specify that they can be dispelled but why?It's a classical case of fluff text being... well, fluff text. I've reported this issue numerous times.
You can't allow Dispel Magic to be used against magical effects as now magical effects are so many this would just make everything illogical. Remember, Barbarian rage is magical. And dispelling a Barbarian's Rage would be completely out of proportion to me.
Yes, you can target a potion but once it's imbibed you can't target the effect. This is important, as potions of flying are better than scrolls of flying if you face a dispeller.
Most magical hazards can be dispelled. So, it seems to me that a hazard qualifies as an unattended item.
In my opinion, it's a story element. If the GM wants something to be dispellable, he just has to decide it. There's a PFS adventure where you dispel an effect over a big area. In my opinion, it's a case of specific over generic, if it's dispellable then it is, even if it shouldn't be a legitimate target.
But dispelling effects is not supported by the rules. Effects are not legitimate targets and there's no info about the effect of Dispel Magic on an effect. So, it seems quite clear that you can't dispel an effect per RAW.
Remember, Barbarian rage is magical. And dispelling a Barbarian's Rage would be completely out of proportion to me.Actually I think it is only one Instict that has its rage converted to a magical ability per se, namely Animal. Dragon and Spirit are only magical if they specifically chose to be magical and Fury, Giant and Superstitious are nonmagical from the very start.
Which means while you could indeed "dispel" a Giant Instinc's barbarians Giant's Stature class feat you can not dispel his rage.
Animal Skin has the Primal and Transmutation. What would happen if you dispel Animal Skin?
I think it's a bad idea to include effects to the things you can target with a Dispel Magic. There could be crazy interactions. They are the old Supernatural Abilities of PF1 and these were not dispellable (if it has any value in a PF2 discussion).
Animal Skin has the Primal and Transmutation. What would happen if you dispel Animal Skin?
What happens to your Animal Skin if you walk into an Antimagic Field?
I think it's a bad idea to include effects to the things you can target with a Dispel Magic. There could be crazy interactions. They are the old Supernatural Abilities of PF1 and these were not dispellable (if it has any value in a PF2 discussion).
I can see your line of reasoning and tend to agree. However I have to admit that your potion example looks equally wonky (read inconsistent to e.g. potion of Barkskin or Haste).
The potion thing is a bit weird because some of them, like barkskin and truesight do seem to give the user a spell effect rather than a raw magical ability, like the wording for the potion of flight.
There is also a
I agree that GM fiat on what can and can't be dispelled is pretty important for the game overall, and that generally APs do a good job of giving specific guidance, but if you are homebrewing content, there is very little advice or logic to guide you through the process of how PCs should handle magical hazzards, especially natural or divinely inspired magical hazards that don't have a specific item associated with them.
I mean for the clay golem in the OP example, a GM seems well within their rights to think that the golem itself is a magical item and might be able to be dispelled (if it wasn't generally immune to magic).
Animal Skin has the Primal and Transmutation. What would happen if you dispel Animal Skin?What happens to your Animal Skin if you walk into an Antimagic Field?
Animal Skin is momentarily dispelled, but so is Rage. So it stays consistent. Also, remember that Antimagic Field is a Rare spell despite being in the core rulebook, certainly for a reason.
I think it's a bad idea to include effects to the things you can target with a Dispel Magic. There could be crazy interactions. They are the old Supernatural Abilities of PF1 and these were not dispellable (if it has any value in a PF2 discussion).I can see your line of reasoning and tend to agree. However I have to admit that your potion example looks equally wonky (read inconsistent to e.g. potion of Barkskin or Haste).
Not inconsistent. You can Dispel the potion of Quickness but not it's effects once imbued. It gives you the effects of Haste but doesn't cast Haste on you. Potions are no more applying spells on the drinker. For an example of an item that casts a spell on the wearer, you can read the Winged Boots.
Not inconsistent. You can Dispel the potion of Quickness but not it's effects once imbued. It gives you the effects of Haste but doesn't cast Haste on you. Potions are no more applying spells on the drinker.
I did not mean for your line of reasoning to be inconsistent but the wording used within the potion section either is very, very deliberate or pretty inconsistent. As such I can not see our GM distinguishing in between the individual potions when it comes to dispelling their effects.
Not inconsistent. You can Dispel the potion of Quickness but not it's effects once imbued. It gives you the effects of Haste but doesn't cast Haste on you. Potions are no more applying spells on the drinker.I did not mean for your line of reasoning to be inconsistent but the wording used within the potion section either is very, very deliberate or pretty inconsistent. As such I can not see our GM distinguishing in between the individual potions when it comes to dispelling their effects.
What do you mean by "the wording used is pretty inconsistent"?
To me, it looks like all potions have the same behavior and the wording used is deliberate to keep it consistent.
Animal Skin has the Primal and Transmutation. What would happen if you dispel Animal Skin?What happens to your Animal Skin if you walk into an Antimagic Field?Animal Skin is momentarily dispelled, but so is Rage. So it stays consistent. Also, remember that Antimagic Field is a Rare spell despite being in the core rulebook, certainly for a reason.
Not inconsistent. You can Dispel the potion of Quickness but not it's effects once imbued. It gives you the effects of Haste but doesn't cast Haste on you. Potions are no more applying spells on the drinker. For an example of an item that casts a spell on the wearer, you can read the Winged Boots.I think it's a bad idea to include effects to the things you can target with a Dispel Magic. There could be crazy interactions. They are the old Supernatural Abilities of PF1 and these were not dispellable (if it has any value in a PF2 discussion).I can see your line of reasoning and tend to agree. However I have to admit that your potion example looks equally wonky (read inconsistent to e.g. potion of Barkskin or Haste).
If something gives you the effects of spell, is that not a spell effect? There is no support for thinking that they are not.
If something gives you the effects of spell, is that not a spell effect? There is no support for thinking that they are not.Animal Skin has the Primal and Transmutation. What would happen if you dispel Animal Skin?What happens to your Animal Skin if you walk into an Antimagic Field?Animal Skin is momentarily dispelled, but so is Rage. So it stays consistent. Also, remember that Antimagic Field is a Rare spell despite being in the core rulebook, certainly for a reason.
Not inconsistent. You can Dispel the potion of Quickness but not it's effects once imbued. It gives you the effects of Haste but doesn't cast Haste on you. Potions are no more applying spells on the drinker. For an example of an item that casts a spell on the wearer, you can read the Winged Boots.I think it's a bad idea to include effects to the things you can target with a Dispel Magic. There could be crazy interactions. They are the old Supernatural Abilities of PF1 and these were not dispellable (if it has any value in a PF2 discussion).I can see your line of reasoning and tend to agree. However I have to admit that your potion example looks equally wonky (read inconsistent to e.g. potion of Barkskin or Haste).
Considering the way the sentence is spelled, I'd say no. Actually, if I say that something "gives the effects of Haste", I naturally understand that it's not Haste. Otherwise, it would just say that you are affected by Haste. PF1 had wordings in this direction: "Potions are like spells cast upon the imbiber.". So, the very specific wording makes me think they don't want potions to cast spells. Otherwise, you end up with a lot of problems with counteracting checks: How do you counteract a Haste spell (third level spell) cast by a Potion of Quickness (9th level item equivalent to 5th spell level)? The second you imbibe the potion the counteract check becomes easier?
Otherwise, you end up with a lot of problems with counteracting checks: How do you counteract a Haste spell (third level spell) cast by a Potion of Quickness (9th level item equivalent to 5th spell level)? The second you imbibe the potion the counteract check becomes easier?
What level do you need to be to be able to cast Haste? 5th. What level do you need to be to be able to create a potion of Quickness? 8th. So indeed the magic item itself might not be as easy to counteract as the effect it contains.
Or just take a look at the Truesight Potion which has a 7th level effect while being an 16th level item.
However I could easily get behind a potions <> spells idea, if only it where clearly mentioned somewhere...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However I could easily get behind a potions <> spells idea, if only it where clearly mentioned somewhere...
In my opinion, we keep old reflexes of PF1 where potion effects were specifically spells. I don't see why stating that if it's not the case. There is nothing in the rulebook suggesting that potions could be spells.