Spell immunity is my nº1 level 4 signature target. 24 duration is one of the most potent things a spell can have and using your remaining slots for the next day to make yor party immune to your friendly fire AoE or capitalise on the info you might get about the challenges ahead is priceless.
About Breath of Life, it is a good insurance in case things go horribly wrong, but most of the time I prefer picking spells that will help me evade that situation in the first place.
I never thought of using it that way. I must admit as a GM I'd be reluctant to allow it. It's 100% RAW, but it seems like an exploit to me.
For what spell do you take spell immunity?Eclipse Burst. It's on all spell lists but Occult, and as an area of effect spell you can use it yourself on your allies. Also, the critical failure effect is crippling.
Divine Wrath if you happen to have an evil character in the party.
Divine Decree if you have neutral characters in the party.My only high level character is my Angelic Sorcerer, as you can guess.
Eclipse Burst really can be devastating. One of my players crit-failed against it mid-dungeon in AoA. Sucked for the character but made for an interesting dilemma.
Spell immunity is my nº1 level 4 signature target. 24 duration is one of the most potent things a spell can have and using your remaining slots for the next day to make yor party immune to your friendly fire AoE or capitalise on the info you might get about the challenges ahead is priceless.
About Breath of Life, it is a good insurance in case things go horribly wrong, but most of the time I prefer picking spells that will help me evade that situation in the first place.
I never thought of using it that way. I must admit as a GM I'd be reluctant to allow it. It's 100% RAW, but it seems like an exploit to me.
For what spell do you take spell immunity?Eclipse Burst. It's on all spell lists but Occult, and as an area of effect spell you can use it yourself on your allies. Also, the critical failure effect is crippling.
Divine Wrath if you happen to have an evil character in the party.
Divine Decree if you have neutral characters in the party.My only high level character is my Angelic Sorcerer, as you can guess.
Eclipse Burst really can be devastating. One of my players crit-failed against it mid-dungeon in AoA. Sucked for the character but made for an interesting dilemma.
Yeah, it's definitely a very powerful BBEG spell. Not so useful when a PC thinks they can/should use it for themselves...
Granted, I did use it a couple times, but that's about it. I kind of regret learning that spell from my initial level-up.
I don't think so. Otherwise you could use Spell Immunity (Antimagic Field) and be nearly invincible while still benefiting from all your effects and magic items.I can't imagine spell immunity having any effect on spells that do not have a target or targets, or that do not target an area.If you are saying it due to True Seeing, that's why I said it was a finicky thing. True seeing attempts a counteract against a spell, so it does target something. The thing is, does targetting a effect that affects a creature count as targetting that creature?
I just added it there because it is a fairly common spell at higher levels.
All your effects on you, yes. All your magic items, no. Spell Immunity targets the creature, and doesn't make any exceptions to their equipment, meaning a magical weapon is no longer magical, even when held by a creature affected by Spell Immunity (Antimagic Field).
At best, this would let a Spellcaster still be able to cast any level of spell while already in an Antimagic Field (and benefit from any spells cast on/from them), which is already pretty powerful. But, any defensive magic items they have wouldn't be available for them, making them much more likely to fail saves and get critically hit, as well as lose a bunch of utility (since they can't use scrolls).
That being said, this is a workaround I could have used for a certain roadblock in one of my previous adventures; I'm just bummed that it didn't occur to me until now to do so.
Never got access to the spell so a few minutes ago was the first time I read it thoroughly and I'm now realizing it is not a counteract effect, just an absolute effect with an area. The "no one can cast spells inside" part is definitely an effect with an area that affects you so it ticks all the boxes from Spell Immunity (as long as SI is one level higher than Antimagic Field so it can affect it).
Yes, items, regardless of how you read the spells, won't work, but this interaction is unfair against caster type enemies. A level 19 caster with these 2 spells can be impervious to all but level 10 spells and still be able to target anything that is outside as the spell will reappear.
What is TGTBT is SI making spells that affect you work under Antimagic Field, thus, in my opinion, invalidating SI against True Sight and the likes, but SI definitely let you cast from inside one which is wild.
Thank god it is rare.
Resurrecting the topic to continue my list
6º LvL:
Chain Lightning: The very improved artillery class version of the classic Lightning Bolt. It has a long range and also the spell have an unlimited number of targets to chain, they only need to stay 30 feet closer of each other and also this spell does a good damage.
Dragon Form: This spell is here for the same reason of the Elemental Form. To allow the caster to rapidaly change it's damage and resistance types depending from situation using only one spell slot. Also breath and fly are excellent addons. I know that many people don't like battle forms due it's restrictions, specially from be unable to cast spells during the form. But this form is a very versatile option specially for prepared spellcasters.
MisleadAn improved version of improved invisibility your illusion can simulate all your actions allowing being completely used to deceive your opponents easily at the same time that allows you to use even hostile non-visible like spells while you are invisible.
Repulsion: A very good spell to prevent melees from approach. Don't need to be sustained and don't have incapacitant making it useful even in higher levels. If combed with Spell Immunity + Antimagic Field and Wall of Wind can make the caster virtually invulnerable from many opponents.
Spirit Blast: At first glance may be appear to be worse version than Chain Lightning due it's single target and short range but force damage is the damage type that have less resistance available. Also this is a rare offensive divine/occult spell that doesn't does less damage than primal offensive versions of same level.
True Seeing: Doesn't need too much explanation. A spell that allows the caster to see through all forms and illusions without any concealment penalty.
Unexpected Transposition: It's an interesting reaction spell to avoid an attack at same time "redirects" it to another foe. It's a shame that there's no other teleport reaction spell like this in lowest levels.
Vampiric Exsanguination: It's a cone attack of vampire touch. It's good to receive some temp HP while make some damage.
Don't forget that chain lighting needs the caster to have line of effect to all targets. But yes, it is quite powerful. The 11th level magus in my party did 654 total damage to ten targets with it (all enemies in the fight).
I forgot another use - for melee casters. I suppose melee magus could survive this better as he is melee anyway.
I use blink on my melee magus. Very handy when I don't have to spend an action to get out of flanks.
|
Don't forget that chain lighting needs the caster to have line of effect to all targets. But yes, it is quite powerful. The 11th level magus in my party did 654 total damage to ten targets with it (all enemies in the fight).
I love chain lightning.
In one fight the bad guys were riding aerial mounts and were supposed to be peppering us with missiles. One chain lightning later and over half of them were on the ground with some falling damage. Tip to scenario makers : do NOT put in weak mounts that you want to live :-)
Don't forget that chain lighting needs the caster to have line of effect to all targets. But yes, it is quite powerful. The 11th level magus in my party did 654 total damage to ten targets with it (all enemies in the fight).I love chain lightning.
In one fight the bad guys were riding aerial mounts and were supposed to be peppering us with missiles. One chain lightning later and over half of them were on the ground with some falling damage. Tip to scenario makers : do NOT put in weak mounts that you want to live :-)
Was it the xulgath fight at the beginning of siege of the dinosaurs ?
Yes the good part of Horrid Wilting is that it's a minion killer once that have unlimited number of targets and can affect every creature in 500 feet radius from caster!
Yes the good part of Horrid Wilting is that it's a minion killer once that have unlimited number of targets and can affect every creature in 500 feet radius from caster!
Plus it targets fortitude, which can be a plus in some cases (High level swarms or whatnot)
7º LvL
Corrosive Body: A very good polymorph spell for magus or melee with a arcane/primal MC dedication. Without need to sustain and enduring 1 minute (basically an entire encounter) gives acid immunity, returns 3d6 of acid damage for each time a melee attack damages you and gives 1d4 additional acid damage (I know it's too little for this spell's level) at same time that if you receive or does a melee damage you gain 3d6 temp HP, also gives a extra dice for you acid spells (what's interesting for spellstrikes an acid spell but still don't make acid splash much better than other cantrips) and allows you to cast acid splash as an innate spell (this part is just mee).
Divine Vessel: A great spell for battle oracle and martials with cleric's MC especially monks and animal barbarians. Gives 40 temp HP, fly speed, weakness 10 against opposite alignment damage (thats the bad part but can be avoided with RK checks to know if some opponent could do such damage), +1 status bonus for all saves, +1 alignment damage (good to exploit opponent alignment weakness) and your attacks do 2d8 agile or 2d10. Due the having just a morph trait this damage can be combined with handwraps to allow you to use extra benefits from runes. So it's a great spell that does a very good temp HP, fly and a good extra damage dice.
Eclipse Burst: A very good damage spell that's is also present in divine tradition breaking the tradition of many levels with almost none good offensive and direct damage spell that don't depending from alignment.
Fiery Body: While Corrosive Body is fantastic for melee martial spellcasters, Fiery Body is incredible for ranged spellcasters. Give fire immunity, resistance 10 to precision damage, but weakness 5 to cold and to water and also does 3d6 fire damage to those who tries to touch/attack you a gives you a 1d4 extra fire damage. But the best part starts here is that increases the fire spell dices by 1, give you the fly ability and allows you to cast produce flame as 1-action! This basically allow in one spell to take a secure position in open area against non-flying opponents while can combo save spells with produce flame to maximizer your damage.
Finger of Death: Similar situation of Eclipse Burst. Gives you a good damage spell to hit a creature and also is accessible to divine spellcasters.
Frigid Flurry: The 3º good direct offensive spell of this level. Does very good cold/slashing damage in a line. And allows you to move too.
Regenerate: One of the best heal/support spell, recover 15 HP per round and make's the target basically unkillable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
True Seeing: Doesn't need too much explanation. A spell that allows the caster to see through all forms and illusions without any concealment penalty.
This falls under the same problems of Dispel Magic that was discussed before; you perform a Counteract check against the existing Illusion (or Transmutation) effect once, and if you fail, you don't see through it. This might be helpful against an enemy downcasting benefits, but this is few and far between. If an enemy is using higher level spells, and has a ridiculous Save DC, this won't be very helpful.
The factor that this has to be heightened at all times, not unlike the Remove X spells, to maintain relevance to the encounters via Couneracting, really sours my feelings on this spell.
Eclipse Burst: A very good damage spell that's is also present in divine tradition breaking the tradition of many levels with almost none good offensive and direct damage spell that don't depending from alignment.
I do agree that Eclipse Burst does some decent damage, and one portion is hard to resist against. The problem I have is with the ridiculous radius and being at high risk of damaging allies by using this spell. In my opinion, a Chain Lightning of equal level is far more effective in both damage and practicality than this spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eclipse burst is the nuclear option for when you want everyone to see it from orbit.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
True Seeing: Doesn't need too much explanation. A spell that allows the caster to see through all forms and illusions without any concealment penalty.This falls under the same problems of Dispel Magic that was discussed before; you perform a Counteract check against the existing Illusion (or Transmutation) effect once, and if you fail, you don't see through it. This might be helpful against an enemy downcasting benefits, but this is few and far between. If an enemy is using higher level spells, and has a ridiculous Save DC, this won't be very helpful.
The factor that this has to be heightened at all times, not unlike the Remove X spells, to maintain relevance to the encounters via Couneracting, really sours my feelings on this spell.
Thats a good thing.
That True Seeing totally hosed a whole class of character - illusionist - was awful. This means they are still relevant, and a whole category of effects remain viable, and True Seeing is still a useful spell to take.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eclipse Burst: A very good damage spell that's is also present in divine tradition breaking the tradition of many levels with almost none good offensive and direct damage spell that don't depending from alignment.I do agree that Eclipse Burst does some decent damage, and one portion is hard to resist against. The problem I have is with the ridiculous radius and being at high risk of damaging allies by using this spell. In my opinion, a Chain Lightning of equal level is far more effective in both damage and practicality than this spell.
That's why you use Spell Immunity for it. The issue of Chain Lightning is that it can fizzle if the GM rolls a natural 20 in their first check, making it very random. And also the need for the enemies to be 30ft. away from each other can generate stupid issues if they are a bit scattered (at high level, 30ft. is not that much).
True Seeing: Doesn't need too much explanation. A spell that allows the caster to see through all forms and illusions without any concealment penalty.This falls under the same problems of Dispel Magic that was discussed before; you perform a Counteract check against the existing Illusion (or Transmutation) effect once, and if you fail, you don't see through it. This might be helpful against an enemy downcasting benefits, but this is few and far between. If an enemy is using higher level spells, and has a ridiculous Save DC, this won't be very helpful.
The factor that this has to be heightened at all times, not unlike the Remove X spells, to maintain relevance to the encounters via Couneracting, really sours my feelings on this spell.
Thats a good thing.
That True Seeing totally hosed a whole class of character - illusionist - was awful. This means they are still relevant, and a whole category of effects remain viable, and True Seeing is still a useful spell to take.
I agree. True Seeing is no more a perfect spell that was once and this is good yet is a good spell to have in a sorcerer/bard repertoire, you may need to put it as signature spell to be more effective but still fair because don't break all stealthy and disguise strategies anymore.
Eclipse Burst: A very good damage spell that's is also present in divine tradition breaking the tradition of many levels with almost none good offensive and direct damage spell that don't depending from alignment.I do agree that Eclipse Burst does some decent damage, and one portion is hard to resist against. The problem I have is with the ridiculous radius and being at high risk of damaging allies by using this spell. In my opinion, a Chain Lightning of equal level is far more effective in both damage and practicality than this spell.
But remember that I'm comparing it with other divine offensive spells. I know that compared with other spells like chain lightning these still better and less situational but is more fair to compare with a fire ball instead where you need to choose a good point to use it or do like SuperBidi said, prepare some Spell Immunity to prevent it's effects.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
True Seeing: Doesn't need too much explanation. A spell that allows the caster to see through all forms and illusions without any concealment penalty.This falls under the same problems of Dispel Magic that was discussed before; you perform a Counteract check against the existing Illusion (or Transmutation) effect once, and if you fail, you don't see through it. This might be helpful against an enemy downcasting benefits, but this is few and far between. If an enemy is using higher level spells, and has a ridiculous Save DC, this won't be very helpful.
The factor that this has to be heightened at all times, not unlike the Remove X spells, to maintain relevance to the encounters via Couneracting, really sours my feelings on this spell.
Also most illusion effects you typically want to counter with this (invisibility, illusory disguise, mirror image, mislead) are on or lower level than this and do not benefit much from being upcast. In fact they're often cast BECAUSE they don't require upper spell slots.
When I build a caster NPC I usually reserve my upper slots for big aoe incapacitating spells, and lower level spells for buffs like mirror image and invisibility heightened to 4th. Cause they're cheap and maybe the PC's will f~!@ up a stealth check and allow them to prebuff (or time stop)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree. True Seeing is no more a perfect spell that was once and this is good yet is a good spell to have in a sorcerer/bard repertoire, you may need to put it as signature spell to be more effective but still fair because don't break all stealthy and disguise strategies anymore.
I don't find True Seeing to be much useful in PF2. I faced an enemy with Disappearance recently, and I've just cast Dispel Magic on "the effect that makes them undetectable". As I was targeting the effect (and I was aware of the enemy's position), there was no miss chance and it worked fine.
True Seeing is personal, has a small duration and asks for a counteract check. So the only case where it's more useful than Dispel Magic is if you face a lot of Illusions or Transmutations. It's pretty niche in my opinion.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is good. True seeing will get all these. But if your really want to upcast an Invisibility in a level 7 slot well you can, you just can't do it so often.
8º LvL:
Boil Blood: The interesting of this spell is the combination of damage + drained condition that does an interesting amount of damage and at same time diminishes de effective of heal. But is just an one shot spell because the drained effect doesn't stack.
Canticle of Everlasting Grief: A non-incapacitant spell that says "target...can't benefit from circumstance or status bonuses...". This curse spell a extremely efficient against anyone with almost any buff from heroism to rise a shield and also causes frightened and gives some mental damage.
Clone Companion: Excellent spell to those who have an Animal Companion. Simply gives you a copy of your companion. OK this copy is restricted to do same things that you companion do but yet is another source of damage, another creature to distract opponents and aren't weak as summons are. But requires an action to sustain but if you are a druid this is nothing that Effortless Concentration cannot solve.
Disappearance: A improved version of LvL 4 invisibility that make you "invisible" to all other senses. But although this you still can be found due seek action. It's little expensive for an "invisibility" but as many opponents in end game are able to invisible things in some way this still useful.
Divine Inspiration: A spell that recharges all focus spell of a character. A very useful spell for any chars with good focus spells but it's divine exclusive making it more focused to support others. Yet you can still get it through MCD or with Trick Magic Item and some scrolls/wands.
Horrid Wilting: We alredy talked about this spell. It doesn't do too much damage for a lvl 8 spell but can affect any number os targets 500 feets around you making this spell a very effective minion and army killer.
Maze: Very useful non-incapacitant spell to separate strong target from the weakling. Possibly making many encounters easier.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
True Seeing: Doesn't need too much explanation. A spell that allows the caster to see through all forms and illusions without any concealment penalty.This falls under the same problems of Dispel Magic that was discussed before; you perform a Counteract check against the existing Illusion (or Transmutation) effect once, and if you fail, you don't see through it. This might be helpful against an enemy downcasting benefits, but this is few and far between. If an enemy is using higher level spells, and has a ridiculous Save DC, this won't be very helpful.
The factor that this has to be heightened at all times, not unlike the Remove X spells, to maintain relevance to the encounters via Couneracting, really sours my feelings on this spell.
Thats a good thing.
That True Seeing totally hosed a whole class of character - illusionist - was awful. This means they are still relevant, and a whole category of effects remain viable, and True Seeing is still a useful spell to take.
I didn't say it wasn't. I'm merely pointing out that it's just Dispel Magic with a different theme behind it, meaning that again, unless it's downcast and/or is with a lower spell DC, it's not going to be a relevant spell, in the same vein that Remove Curse/Blindness/Disease/Whatever ceases relevance.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's why you use Spell Immunity for it. The issue of Chain Lightning is that it can fizzle if the GM rolls a natural 20 in their first check, making it very random. And also the need for the enemies to be 30ft. away from each other can generate stupid issues if they are a bit scattered (at high level, 30ft. is not that much).Eclipse Burst: A very good damage spell that's is also present in divine tradition breaking the tradition of many levels with almost none good offensive and direct damage spell that don't depending from alignment.I do agree that Eclipse Burst does some decent damage, and one portion is hard to resist against. The problem I have is with the ridiculous radius and being at high risk of damaging allies by using this spell. In my opinion, a Chain Lightning of equal level is far more effective in both damage and practicality than this spell.
Spell Immunity follows the same rules as Dispel Magic, True Seeing, Remove X, et. al. If my highest spell level is 7, using a 6th level slot for Spell Immunity and hoping I roll high enough to counteract my own DC for that casting is a poor use of spell slots, IMO. Especially when you could have probably learned/memorized a better spell (in either of those slots) instead. It also doesn't protect my allies if I only memorize 1 casting, meaning if the plan is to just pre-cast 4 (or more) Spell Immunities, while then slotting all of my highest slots with that same spell, then that leaves me only with lower level utility spells, which is just plain poor planning. It might be more feasible with a Spontaneous Spellcaster, but a Prepared spellcaster is just dumb for doing this.
I don't disagree that Chain Lightning can be finnicky with GM rolling, but that would be true with Eclipse Burst as well, or for any spell with a saving throw for that matter. GMs rolling Natural 20s is just part of the game, and there isn't really a mechanic to deal with that besides using a spell that doesn't involve a saving throw. Even despite that, when I first cast it, Chain Lightning was, and still is, to this day, one of my most damaging spells I've ever cast, even when the GM rolls a Natural 20 earlier than I expected/hoped. And this is coming from someone that is still playing a 19th level Wizard.
Honestly, the biggest reason why I don't use Chain Lightning anymore is because of the prevalence of enemies with stronger resistances/immunities, combined with better uses for spell slots given the current circumstances. Using Maze on an enemy is a lot more effective at defeating the encounter than a Disintegrate, for example. But really, spells stop getting interesting by Spell Level 8. They're either rarity-barred, super niche, or are just plain ineffective against a lot of prevalent enemies. Meteor Swarm, a 9th level spell, was my most disappointing damaging spell cast yet, and between that and its infeasible ranges and areas of effect, I can't reasonably ever cast this in combat again without damaging allies, or even myself for that matter. That's really just poor spell design.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is good. True seeing will get all these. But if your really want to upcast an Invisibility in a level 7 slot well you can, you just can't do it so often.
Disappearance isn't a Level 7 Invisibility spell, because a basic True Seeing spell requires a Critical Success to "counteract" the effects of Disappearance, which is 8th level. Which means I must Heighten to get more reliability from this utility spell, which means it competes with my other higher level spell slots to maintain its relevance as a utility spell. Short of the Third Eye magic item providing a once per day 8th level True Seeing benefit, there's no reasonable way for a character to reliably counteract this effect without being extremely action-starved.
Furthermore, I can't utilize an effect like See Invisibility to make note of where the creature is if they are under the effects of Disappearance, meaning my "lower level utility spells" start falling off even more than what they already have. Compared to a 7th level Invisibility spell, I would still know their location from my lower level See Invisibility spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is good. True seeing will get all these. But if your really want to upcast an Invisibility in a level 7 slot well you can, you just can't do it so often.Disappearance isn't a Level 7 Invisibility spell, because a basic True Seeing spell requires a Critical Success to "counteract" the effects of Disappearance, which is 8th level. Which means I must Heighten to get more reliability from this utility spell, which means it competes with my other higher level spell slots to maintain its relevance as a utility spell. Short of the Third Eye magic item providing a once per day 8th level True Seeing benefit, there's no reasonable way for a character to reliably counteract this effect without being extremely action-starved.
Furthermore, I can't utilize an effect like See Invisibility to make note of where the creature is if they are under the effects of Disappearance, meaning my "lower level utility spells" start falling off even more than what they already have. Compared to a 7th level Invisibility spell, I would still know their location from my lower level See Invisibility spell.
My comment preceeded the discussion of Disappearance so I don't know why you are bringing it in like it was about it! Obviously you need a higher level in this case. Which is right and how it should be. If you invest in the higher level slot then you should get value for it.
The point is that True Seeing no longer automatically hoses an entire school of magic. Its a contest now. That is how it should be.
Yes See Invisible and Faerie Fire will partially reveal Invisible or Disappearance(d) creatures but they don't negate it like True Seeing does for the caster.
I agree with both of you.
Now True True Seeing is no more that "use a spellslot and pay some gold to see how the things really are without fail". But is still useful. If the target effect is lower than the spellslot you used you will see even if you fail in counteract check, if the target is same level or 1 level better then your spellslot you have to pass in the check. Only if the target effect being stronger than this that the spell becomes useless.
So is an interesting spell to put as signature. A player will choose what spell level he/she will try. And against invisibility and disappearance you still can use the good old See Invisible, Faerie Fire and Glitterdust. But these creature still benefit from concealed making them more difficult to attack.
So PF2 ended that "perfect detection spells" and put a more balance contest between detect and disguise spells.
I don't find True Seeing to be much useful in PF2. I faced an enemy with Disappearance recently, and I've just cast Dispel Magic on "the effect that makes them undetectable". As I was targeting the effect (and I was aware of the enemy's position), there was no miss chance and it worked fine.
True Seeing is personal, has a small duration and asks for a counteract check. So the only case where it's more useful than Dispel Magic is if you face a lot of Illusions or Transmutations. It's pretty niche in my opinion.
I'm not not sure if was right you do this. Due the Targets rule says clearly "...you must be able to see it (or otherwise perceive it with a precise sense) to target it normally." so just "aware of the enemy's position" isn't enough IMO.
I'm not not sure if was right you do this. Due the Targets rule says clearly "...you must be able to see it (or otherwise perceive it with a precise sense) to target it normally." so just "aware of the enemy's position" isn't enough IMO.I don't find True Seeing to be much useful in PF2. I faced an enemy with Disappearance recently, and I've just cast Dispel Magic on "the effect that makes them undetectable". As I was targeting the effect (and I was aware of the enemy's position), there was no miss chance and it worked fine.
True Seeing is personal, has a small duration and asks for a counteract check. So the only case where it's more useful than Dispel Magic is if you face a lot of Illusions or Transmutations. It's pretty niche in my opinion.
But I was not targeting the enemy, I was targeting the effect that made them invisible.
But how did you see the effect?
But how did you see the effect?
Well, if I was not seeing it I would be seeing the creature.
Actually, if I had See Invisibility, I'd find that logical to have a flat check as I can't perceive the effect. But I was not having it and as such I was perfectly seeing the creature's invisibility.
O_o!
Sorry because english isn't my primary language but..
Are you saying that due you are not seeing the creature because it's undetected due Disappearance this made you consider not see it as effect of disappear so you used this to dispel it?
O_o!
Sorry because english isn't my primary language but..
Are you saying that due you are not seeing the creature because it's undetected due Disappearance this made you consider not see it as effect of disappear so you used this to dispel it?
Dispel targets an effect. And the fact that I don't see the creature is an effect. And this effect is perfectly perceivable.
You don't need to know about the creature to cast Dispel Magic, you need to know about a spell effect.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, after this I have no words! kkkkk
Please someone complain about this.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK, after this I have no words! kkkkk
Please someone complain about this.
Don't worry. We are with you on this. Super Bidi is distorting common sense. I'm not sure if he is pulling your leg.
There is this little word in the targetting rules normally which is getting missed in the conversation. The effect of Invisibility is clearly not visible, although it would be reasonable to say the casting of it was visible. We are supposed to apply some common sense here.
Further See Invisible doesn't target excepting the caster. Faerie Fire, and Glitterdust affect everything in an area so don't really directly target individuals and you fall back to the general rule on areas A spell that has an area but no targets listed usually affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately. So the issue you are talking about just doesn't come up here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
O_o!
Sorry because english isn't my primary language but..
Are you saying that due you are not seeing the creature because it's undetected due Disappearance this made you consider not see it as effect of disappear so you used this to dispel it?
Dispel targets an effect. And the fact that I don't see the creature is an effect. And this effect is perfectly perceivable.
You don't need to know about the creature to cast Dispel Magic, you need to know about a spell effect.
That's not how that works. You can't just target an effect with no capacity to know that the effect is in a given area, or even a flat check if you surprisingly manage to spot the effect in place, especially if you are unaware that such an effect is even there to begin with. I wouldn't let a player simply blanket-cast Dispel Magic on an effect, even if they know what that effect is from a successful Recall Knowledge/Recognize Spell check. They still need to know where the effect is (thus being able to draw a line of effect for their Dispel Magic), and Disappearance makes that short of impossible besides using a Seek action to decipher their actual location without sheer luck or metagaming what spot they could possibly be in.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The effect of Invisibility is clearly not visible
And the effects of Haste? Fly? Fear? Bane?
Would you roll a miss chance for a Mirror Image because you have a chance to target an image? Do you automatically fail to dispel Mislead or Drop Dead?Bringing the concept of "visibility of effects" will lead to some crazy houserules.
If you are fully aware of an effect and nothing blocks your perception of it, I don't think there should be a miss chance. You can bring one, but this is just your choice as a GM.
You can't just target an effect with no capacity to know that the effect is in a given area
That was not the case. I had recognized Disappearance and I knew where the creature was. There's no way I could have been more aware of the spell. In that case, I don't see a legitimate reason to bring a miss chance.
Gortle != Darksol
I did not make the comment he did. I'm not sure if its the forum software doing this....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The effect of Invisibility is clearly not visibleAnd the effects of Haste? Fly? Fear? Bane?
Would you roll a miss chance for a Mirror Image because you have a chance to target an image? Do you automatically fail to dispel Mislead or Drop Dead?
Bringing the concept of "visibility of effects" will lead to some crazy houserules.
What! Because having Invisible things being Invisible is against the spirit of the rules??? There is no house rules here this is just how it works. For sure casting the spell is totally visible, but the effect clearly is not.
If you want Invisible characters to glow cast Faerie Fire.
Yes effects are visible by default. If you see a hasted character you probably can see a visible effect on him. If you have True Seeing up maybe you can see a visible effect on an Invisibility spell.
Gortle != Darksol
I did not make the comment he did. I'm not sure if its the forum software doing this....
Sorry about that, I must have made an error somewhere.
Because having Invisible things being Invisible is against the spirit of the rules???
You don't target the creature and as such are not affected by it's visibility. You choose to apply the miss chance of the creature to it's effects, that's a houserule. One that I find fine for some effects as I agree you'll have harder time targeting Haste on an invisible creature. But Invisibility is very much perceivable, as it's the reason you don't see the creature, so I find your houserule unfit for this spell.
Yes effects are visible by default.
No, unless you explain me that all Charmed and Dominated characters have a visible effect on them or that you can't target Charm and Dominate without a 50% miss chance.
As I said, asking for "visibility" of effects will bring crazy houserules.
Most spells are not visible unless stated otherwise. The GM can say that the Status, Tongues, See Invisibility and Spell Immunity my Sorcerer casts every morning are visible, but this isn't RAW.
Before my Spell Immunity blocks a spell, the enemy can't say that I am under a magical effect. And once it has blocked a spell, the enemy can cast Dispel Magic on "the effect that blocked the spell" and even if they don't know what spell it is, whether it's an Antimagic Field, a Spell Immunity, a Globe of Invulnerability or whatever, they will try to dispel it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And the effects of Haste? Fly? Fear? Bane?
Would you roll a miss chance for a Mirror Image because you have a chance to target an image? Do you automatically fail to dispel Mislead or Drop Dead?
Bringing the concept of "visibility of effects" will lead to some crazy houserules.If you are fully aware of an effect and nothing blocks your perception of it, I don't think there should be a miss chance. You can bring one, but this is just your choice as a GM.
You can't just target an effect with no capacity to know that the effect is in a given areaThat was not the case. I had recognized Disappearance and I knew where the creature was. There's no way I could have been more aware of the spell. In that case, I don't see a legitimate reason to bring a miss chance.
I also don't think this work like this.
Haste, Fly, Fear, Bane effects is applied in or from a creature so when a caster thinks that one creature is affected by a magical effect he/she can target this creature because it's the subject of effect and try to dispel because the spell's effect is in the creature or changes something in the creature or enchants it in someway and the creature and the effect turns into the same target for dispel purpose.
The same happens to invisibility and disappearance. The effect affects the creature and you need to target this creature in order to target this effect. If you aren't seeing the creature you are unable to correct target it even if you know it's square. At least you would have to do a flat check due hidden condition.
Haste, Fly, Fear, Bane effects is applied in or from a creature so when a caster thinks that one creature is affected by a magical effect he/she can target this creature because it's the subject of effect and try to dispel because the spell's effect is in the creature or changes something in the creature or enchants it in someway and the creature and the effect turns into the same target for dispel purpose.
You can't target a creature unless you want to dispel a creature (from a Summoning for example). But otherwise, it would make your dispel fizzle as you don't target a valid target.
You can target the effect of a spell on a creature, like the effect that makes a creature fly.The rest is an interpretation that is quite far from RAW.
For example, you can dispel Mislead by targeting the decoy. There's no miss chance whatsoever, you don't even need to know the position of the caster, you just target an effect and it dispels the spell.
You can also dispel Haste 7 by just targeting one affected creature.
You can dispel Bane by targeting the effect it has on you, even if you don't know or see the creature who cast it.
Haste, Fly, Fear, Bane effects is applied in or from a creature so when a caster thinks that one creature is affected by a magical effect he/she can target this creature because it's the subject of effect and try to dispel because the spell's effect is in the creature or changes something in the creature or enchants it in someway and the creature and the effect turns into the same target for dispel purpose.You can't target a creature unless you want to dispel a creature (from a Summoning for example). But otherwise, it would make your dispel fizzle as you don't target a valid target.
You can target the effect of a spell on a creature, like the effect that makes a creature fly.
The rest is an interpretation that is quite far from RAW.For example, you can dispel Mislead by targeting the decoy. There's no miss chance whatsoever, you don't even need to know the position of the caster, you just target an effect and it dispels the spell.
You can also dispel Haste 7 by just targeting one affected creature.
You can dispel Bane by targeting the effect it has on you, even if you don't know or see the creature who cast it.
But you need to both know the effect (otherwise how can you tell what is or isn't an effect of a spell) and see where the effect is to target it. With Disappearance, you don't have line of sight without a successful Perception check to dispel it.
But you need to both know the effect (otherwise how can you tell what is or isn't an effect of a spell) and see where the effect is to target it. With Disappearance, you don't have line of sight without a successful Perception check to dispel it.
As I told you, my character knew the position of the creature and the effect he was facing (thanks to a successful recall knowledge check, so I was fully aware of what was happening).
I had line of sight and line of effect to the spell effect I was targeting.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK but did you at last made a flat check? Because at last the effect is hidden.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK but did you at last made a flat check? Because at last the effect is hidden.
No, I didn't. You don't need to target a creature to Dispel Magic, you need to target an effect. As such the notion of Hidden doesn't apply.
For example, if a creature casts Bane and I'm affected by it, I can target the effect on me, on my square, and remove the spell on them, on their square.
You don't need vision or whatever to Dispel Magic. You need to be aware of the effect.
Now, the GM has a say about how much you are aware of the effect. But knowing the square of the creature and considering that the spell has a very visible effect there's no reason to ask for any kind of flat check. And anyway, it would be GM interpretation, not RAW.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK but did you at last made a flat check? Because at last the effect is hidden.No, I didn't. You don't need to target a creature to Dispel Magic, you need to target an effect. As such the notion of Hidden doesn't apply.
For example, if a creature casts Bane and I'm affected by it, I can target the effect on me, on my square, and remove the spell on them, on their square.
You don't need vision or whatever to Dispel Magic. You need to be aware of the effect.Now, the GM has a say about how much you are aware of the effect. But knowing the square of the creature and considering that the spell has a very visible effect there's no reason to ask for any kind of flat check. And anyway, it would be GM interpretation, not RAW.
While this is all pretty sound by RAW, as a GM, I would still be inclined to warrant a flat check, simply because the effect is tied to the creature. If the creature isn't precisely pinpointed (because of the effect), neither is the effect, by comparison. Unless you have a precise sense on them, they aren't precisely pinpointed. Dispel Magic isn't an area of effect anymore, and does have a target line.
Just as well, Visible Invisibility sounds like an oxymoron. Suggesting an oxymoron is all you need to be able to dispel an effect is dubious.
While this is all pretty sound by RAW, as a GM, I would still be inclined to warrant a flat check, simply because the effect is tied to the creature. If the creature isn't precisely pinpointed (because of the effect), neither is the effect, by comparison. Unless you have a precise sense on them, they aren't precisely pinpointed. Dispel Magic isn't an area of effect anymore, and does have a target line.
And that's fine. I was also expecting such a ruling from the GM. As a GM, I could make such a rule if the character is targeting an effect on an invisible target and that effect would be masked by Invisibility, but not if it's Invisibility itself as I find you are perfectly aware of the effect and can hardly be more aware of it (as any effect that sees through Invisibility would actually make you less aware of the effect instead of more aware of it).
Just as well, Visible Invisibility sounds like an oxymoron. Suggesting an oxymoron is all you need to be able to dispel an effect is dubious.
Invisibility has an effect on your vision, it is "visible". It's an oxymoron but is also really true.
Anyway, visibility doesn't seem to be the proper sense used to Dispel Magic as most spells aren't visible. It would make the spell unusable otherwise.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While this is all pretty sound by RAW, as a GM, I would still be inclined to warrant a flat check, simply because the effect is tied to the creature. If the creature isn't precisely pinpointed (because of the effect), neither is the effect, by comparison. Unless you have a precise sense on them, they aren't precisely pinpointed. Dispel Magic isn't an area of effect anymore, and does have a target line.And that's fine. I was also expecting such a ruling from the GM. As a GM, I could make such a rule if the character is targeting an effect on an invisible target and that effect would be masked by Invisibility, but not if it's Invisibility itself as I find you are perfectly aware of the effect and can hardly be more aware of it (as any effect that sees through Invisibility would actually make you less aware of the effect instead of more aware of it).
Just as well, Visible Invisibility sounds like an oxymoron. Suggesting an oxymoron is all you need to be able to dispel an effect is dubious.Invisibility has an effect on your vision, it is "visible". It's an oxymoron but is also really true.
Anyway, visibility doesn't seem to be the proper sense used to Dispel Magic as most spells aren't visible. It would make the spell unusable otherwise.
Except by your arguments, that would make no sense, simply because an effect being based on sight, as you claim, does not affect your ability to, you know, affect it, with Dispel Magic. Furthermore, See Invisibility has a specific call-out stating that Invisible creatures are translucent shapes, meaning if the shape you see after it casting a spell, or an entity simply appearing, is described as that, you would most likely know that is from the result of See Invisibility, which tells you that the creature is Invisible. The real problem can then stem from if the creature is naturally invisible (in which case Detect Magic does nothing), or if the creature simply cannot be detected by usual means (as in the case of Disappearance).
Sure, artificially altering what others see (which would be the lack of your form being present) by modifying your own being would constitute an effect of a spell (which can also simply be an illusion, I might add, which See Invisibility would not help with), but in terms of being aware of that, it really depends on the senses being used to detect the creature, and if you know from character knowledge that an effect is indeed in place. After all, Abilities which give you senses usually describe what you use to locate creatures and such with said senses, and if it's a precise or imprecise sense. If I am given a precise sense of echolocation, which lets me hear minute noises and breathing, I can still pinpoint a creature's exact location with it (largely because it's precise), but that doesn't mean I can see the creature with my other precise sense (sight), which means I am still unable to actually see said creature. And that's nothing short of having a spell memorized/prepared, with a Recognize Spell feat for good measure.