You don't need a spell to be signature to use it in every slot in the remaster.I usually take slow and not fireball as my 3rd level signature spell.Really good spells with only two points of heightening like slow, invisibility, or fear are actually really good candidates for taking multiple times individually, rather than as signature spells.
I personally prefer to save my signature spells for spells that have heighten effects at several ranks, or every rank. Selecting a two-option spell (especially one that might not see any benefit for several levels) just seems like a waste or a precious signature spell slot.
I use slow so often that I prefer to use it in every available slot. I know it's boring, but it's hard to talk myself out of not using it as it only has one chance of utterly failing. In these short combats, even 1 round of slow against a boss monster is just brutal to that monster, especially when combined with a group that uses trip or some other maneuver.
Slow is the uber spell of PF2. The only counter is usually haste and immunity to slow. Haste can be fairly common depending on if a lot of casters in the module, but immunity to slow is super rare unless fighting golems or will-o-wisps who are immune to all spells.
When you have this spell 90 percent plus chance of doing something very effective, it's hard not to use it when so many other spells fail 50/50 doing almost nothing. I also use synesthesia a lot, but not as often as slow.
I am finding wail of the banshee is better than I thought it was. Hits only enemies. Full damage on a successful save. Brutal drained condition on a fail and drained 4 on a critical fail. What a hammer spell.
Wow. So they made spontaneous casting even stronger? Damn. Why would they do that?
you can downcast them, not upcast them.
So, using let's say a 4th rank slot to cast your 2nd rank spell that isn't signature as a 2nd rank spell.
For a lot of spells like single target slow or synesthesia, heightening isn't important. So it allows the sorcerer or spontaneous casters to further tailor their sig spells and slots in a way that allows more on versatility.
Don't know what all the fuss is about. "Downcasting" has always been allowed. Not sure where anyone got the idea that it wasn't permitted in Pre-remaster.
This was how I used Dispel Magic on my sorc-turned-summoner in our Age of Ashes campaign. Spoilers here if someone is playing it. ** spoiler omitted **When I see dispel magic used most frequently in combat encounters is against traps and hazard where it can be a one shot kill, although I have seen it used against spells like fly and fly like magical effects too.
Edit: also, a high rank dispel magic counters any lower rank effect even on a failure. So it can often be much greater than 50/50.
Curiously none of my players, including those playing AoA never used dispel magic. Every magic trap or hazard they solved using skills, avoiding or destroying it.
I only used it once as GM to try to disable a player's magic armor but I failed in counteract check! :P
In general dispel is just bad because for players is situational and probably you have a better top spell to use instead, specially if you are a prepared caster.
It was never actually clear in the rules whether it was or not. The rules before simply said "an appropriate spell slot". They never addressed the concept of using a higher level slot while not gaining heightening benefits at all, either to allow it or to disallow it.
The strongest support for it being legal before was in a reddit post (not where you look for game rules).
It is now a thing that rules actually address. That is both different and better.
When I see dispel magic used most frequently in combat encounters is against traps and hazard where it can be a one shot kill, although I have seen it used against spells like fly and fly like magical effects too.
Edit: also, a high rank dispel magic counters any lower rank effect even on a failure. So it can often be much greater than 50/50.
In PF1 I used dispel magic a ton. I used to keep quickened dispel magics to quickly strip enemies or remove effects off allies.
Everything is so temporary and easy to remove in this edition. Even in PF1 a dispel magic could be real good against mirror image. But in PF2 you can remove mirror image fairly quickly as only a critical fail on a hit roll fails to remove an image and there are only 3 images. Mirror image ends up getting removed without expending any permanent resources in a round or two depending on what people are doing. It used to be a much stronger spell.
So hard for me to justify its use. Then when using it against a powerful effect, you have to heighten it real high or you might fail. Using a super high spell slot for a dispel magic for a 40 to 50 percent success chance is also hard to justify and not particularly fun.
So I leave the dispel's to chance. And so far after multiple APs and 17 plus level characters, I haven't found dispel to be that important like it was in PF1. Dispel magic was a must take in PF1 and now it's a maybe you'll use it and feel like it did something once in a blue moon.
The dispel in PF2 is way more weaker and it's efficiency is pretty questionable.
First because if your aren't facing an humanoid you probably won't be able to use it. Most monster doesn't have active effects nor uses magical equipment.
For the rest it's only able to counteract a single effect or item. If the target effect or item is low rank the usage of the spell as top level fells overkill. You grant that you will win but also you are wasting your higher rank spell slot.
Also the single target aspect of dispel doesn't help too much. Because in most cases you can simple "counter" a buff effect with a debuff effect in PF2.
Curiously due the counteract effectiveness depends from target spell effect rank is one of the best candidates for signature spell and IMO due its circunstancial aspect is one of the worse spells to have for prepared casters.
I Definitely prefer Pf2's system with Prepared and Spontaneous rather then 5:e's system.But why?
** spoiler omitted **
I actually have a hard time to pinpoint exactly why, even after thinking about it a while.
But after playing alot of both all i can say is that i prefer pf2.
Maybe its the lack of identity in 5:e or the lack of real choices.
IMO it's the lower number of spell slots and the high number of hacks and workaround you can do with it the gives the PF2 a better experience.
Many people like how good they are able to break the limits with MC, items and feats in 5e. But honestly this gives me the opposite impression. That if I don't break the 5e limits my caster experience will end being weakened and chained.
While my experience as caster in PF2 is different. While the casters looks pretty meh in lower levels, when you reach mid and higher levels your gameplay experience as caster is way more interesting without need to break the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've trivialized a few encounters, including a completely broken one, with Dispel Magic. It's there in all my casters. For Spontaneous as a Signature Spell and for Prepared I generally have one in my level -2 slots for annoying spells. It's very niche, but extremely efficient when properly used.
One way to use it is to dispel the annoying Fly spells from many Fiends: I love when the GM suddenly realizes that Fly (constant) can be dispelled and that his super nasty demon now travels a bunch of feet to the ground and break his neck without even the ability to avert a fall. Free damage + Prone + no need to fly for the party = win!
Don't forget that you don't even have to know what spell effect you are dispelling with dispel magic.
Meet a NPC that is acting really weird? With conceal spell you can cast dispel magic on them without even knowing whether they are wearing an illusory disguise, under the effects of a charm, suggestion or domination spell, using nondetection, using a form spell, have a nasty prebuff cast as they are preparing to ambush you, etc., and no one will know it was you.
As for using dispel to counter magical traps, the huge benefit is 120ft range (150ft with reach spell) and almost always a lower DC than skill requirements, as well as no minimum proficiency requirement. Also most traps require multiple skill checks (and disable device is usually a 2 action check anyway that has to be done from an adjacent position. Even magical traps that don't have a specific entry for dispelling can still be counteracted with dispel magic if they have the magical trait, or a tradition trait or a school trait, because they are magical objects, as called out in the "Counteracting a magical hazard" section of the core rulebook. The difference is that it might require more than one casting as it would otherwise work like using a skill check to disable the hazard.
It doesn't work on mechanical traps, so it can't completely replace a good rogue, but Paizo loves their weird magical traps in APs and dispel magic is usually a very effective way of countering them.
I agree it is a great spell for spontaneous casters, hence why I brought it up that I think it would be weird to choose a spell like sudden bolt over dispel magic as a signature spell, but it is still excellent for prepared casters. With most prepared casters, I will usually have one in a top slot or top-1 slot any time I know I am hunting a caster or have evidence that there are going to be magical hazards around. Otherwise, I will maybe have it in a -2 or lower rank slot, plus I usually have a scroll or two of dispel magic at some lower ranks. It is a scroll I will buy frequently with most prepared casters, because there are often creative ways to use it.
With a spell substitution wizard, I will usually start the day with one in a top rank slot every day, then switch that spell out later in the day if I need the slot. Sometimes I will switch it into a top rank -1 one slot if I can, or just rely on scrolls if it really doesn't seem necessary. The ability to start the day with a couple of "maybe incredibly useful spells" memorized, but then the ability to switch those spells out after a challenging encounter if the party wants to continue on is just awesome. It is one of the coolest features of any class.
Another really fun way to exploit spell substitution for great effect is to use nonlethal spell on some damaging spells early on in a dungeon raid against minions, then question one or more of the minions after the combat about the rest of the dungeon, and especially about any casters that might be present (this is also an excellent opportunity to use Mind Reading if greed or fear don't seem like they would work in this situation). Then, based upon how confident you feel about your intel, you have very good clues about what spells will be worth bringing into the next couple of encounters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. You must know what it is you are dispelling. Maybe not exactly, with Identifying, but you must have some understanding what you want to do. Definitely not just 'NPC is acting really weird'.
"Targets 1 spell effect <...> You unravel the magic behind a spell or effect. Attempt a counteract check against the target."
You (as a player) must name the target (or see it as a PC). 'Some weirdness' is absolutely not it. 'Illusion on them', 'false affection', 'mind control', 'concealment from divinations', 'transformation' are ok.
That's very much GM dependent. Still, dispelling "the effect that makes the guy act weird" seems perfectly fine for a targetting (well, if there's such effect).
Also, the PC doesn't need to "see anything", just be able to describe the effect (and a line of effect obviously).
I guess that is up to GM arbitration. As a GM, I would let someone cast dispel magic on a presumed spell effect, and as a player, if I encountered such a restrictive GM, I would ask about whether higher ranked detect magic would be enough to target. I have not encountered many GMs that have had any issue with that before.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There was a reason for 'or' in parenthesis. Also, targets demand line of sight. If it's an invisible magic effect it gets weirder, but I guess you'd need to see a creature or a place which have the effect on them.
Many effects are not really visible and all the rules about invisibility are focused on creatures, so there's no real RAW on that.
I personally ask my players to point a square or object affected by the spell and that's all. I don't see a point in adding complexity (and nerfing) to Dispel Magic by asking for a flat check if the effect is not visible per se (I also don't ask for a flat check to dispel Invisibility as long as they have the correct square).
IMO this strongly depends if you know if the target is under effect of a spell or not.
If you face a dragon with a constant spell (this link has AoA spoiler) you don't know that it had a undergoing effect of a spell unless you cast a Detect Magic spell or RK about it. The GM doesn't has any reason to reveal that the target is under effect of a spell without any reason.
Even if you see a target casting a spell you don't really know what this spell is (unless you have it prepared/in repository). You need to RK or you just know that the target cast a spell without know what was the target and its effects.
Simply just cast a Dispel because someone cast a spell is russian roulette because you don't know what's doing nor what's the target.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Strike can only target a creature. But if I have a player character that believes a creature is in the square next to her, I have always allowed that player’s character to make a strike where they believe a creature is, then resolve the action and tell them they don’t hit anything, the same as if a creature was there and they missed on a concealment check, or just didn’t roll high enough to hit. The player doesn’t need to know what the creature is, or if it is actually a creature or statue or an illusion. I play dispel magic and spell effects the same way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess that is up to GM arbitration. As a GM, I would let someone cast dispel magic on a presumed spell effect, and as a player, if I encountered such a restrictive GM, I would ask about whether higher ranked detect magic would be enough to target. I have not encountered many GMs that have had any issue with that before.That's not restrictive at all. If this were a spell with "Target: object, area or creature under magical effect. | The spell counteracts magical effect on the target. You can choose which one" - sure! Fire away! But that's not such a spell.
But we are speaking of presumed spell effects. So the target is fine.
I have the feeling we are speaking past each other.
If a creature has multiple spell effects on it and you're not specifying which one you're trying to dispel then how do you handle it? One at random?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a creature has multiple spell effects on it and you're not specifying which one you're trying to dispel then how do you handle it? One at random?
If the caster was casting the spell without any further direction than "I think there is a spell effect there" than I would probably randomly roll to decide which effect. That is also how I would handle a character deciding to attack a square adjacent to them that contained more than one potential target (like a couple of tiny creatures).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a creature has multiple spell effects on it and you're not specifying which one you're trying to dispel then how do you handle it? One at random?
I would not allow that. Dispel Magic targets an effect and not a creature so you have to somehow describe the effect you want to dispel.
If I Detect Magic and detect the strongest spell on a creature, but there are actually two effects of equally high ranks, will you let me pick one of those at random?
Strike can only target a creature. <...> I play dispel magic and spell effects the same way.I don't see it as the same at all. The procedure of striking Undetected creatures is fully RAW: "Targeting an undetected creature is difficult. If you suspect there’s a creature around, you can pick a square and attempt an attack. This works like targeting a hidden creature, but the flat check and attack roll are both rolled in secret by the GM. The GM won’t tell you why you missed—whether it was due to failing the flat check, rolling an insufficient attack roll, or choosing the wrong square. The GM might allow you to try targeting an undetected creature with some spells or other abilities in a similar fashion. Undetected creatures are subject to area effects normally."
I agree.
You cannot use non-aoe spell that requires a target without Line of Sight. If a GM wants to allow this at last applies the full hidden and unotice rules to it (what means that you have 20-50% chance of failure what usually inviabilize the spell).
And has well pointed by SuperBidi the spell target an effect so if you aren't able to detect it you cannot target it specifically.
If I Detect Magic and detect the strongest spell on a creature, but there are actually two effects of equally high ranks, will you let me pick one of those at random?
It's random in practice but you have to choose one of them. Your GM will say "you feel 2 effects of same rank in the target, the effect 1 and effect 2. What do you will choose?". It's random because you don't know what each effect does without a RK but you are still able to choose one of them.
In pre-remaster you can know the effect school instead what helps the choice if they aren't of same school.
Anyway. In practice probably noone will try to Dispell an effect that it doesn't have any suspect what it is. So this case is way more theoretical than practical. In practice is more like "that enemy is flying without use wings, it's probably a magical effect. Let's try to detect to see if I feel magic emanating from it and then try to dispell this effect that I'm seeing in practice (but remember that not all effect are noticiable like air walk and fly is).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would not require additional spells or checks for a creature that is clearly flying via magic.
If I Detect Magic and detect the strongest spell on a creature, but there are actually two effects of equally high ranks, will you let me pick one of those at random?
Detect Magic: "If multiple effects are equally strong, the GM determines which you learn."
So the GM determines which effect you learn about and you don't learn about the other effect. When trying to dispel it you'll dispel the one the GM told you about as you don't know about the other one.
I would not require a player to have detected magic to cast dispel magic targeting a specific effect they describe.
To return to an old example: My level 5 wizard meets a guard at castle where a crime has just taken place. This is the guard who was supposedly on duty at the time of the crime. She gives a generic report to our party who is investigating the situation, but our party is not acting as official investigators on behalf of the owner of the castle (as is usually the case with adventuring parties). I ask to sense motive on the guard and am told that the guard looks a little out of it, with a dopy smile on her face. I subtly cast detect magic, but I am fifth level, so all I get told is that there is a 8th level magical effect in place. I have every reason to believe that the guard's weapon is magical with a property rune on it (as this guard has been described as having a flaming sword (they are a major plot figure we think we might either fight or fight along side later in the adventure), so that is probably going to be the highest rank/level of magic in the area. They could also be under the effect of a charm spell, a modified memory spell, a suggestion spell, or possibly even something like a domination spell or something higher rank if that effect has been disguised in some way). They could also not be the guard and are using an illusory disguise spell or a humanoid form spell. They could also be drugged with something that could be magical or could not be magical, or they could just be happy because they hate their boss. My character really doesn't know.
If my wizard has a rank 3 dispel magic memorized, that is going to counter a rank 4 spell effect on a success and a rank 2 or lower spell effect on a failure.
It sounds like most of us have very different ways we would handle this situation as a GM if the player said "I think there is some kind of magic affecting this NPC's mind or disguising something about this person, I want to cast Dispel Magic to try and counter that magical effect."
Personally, I am pretty comfortable letting a PC cast dispel magic in this circumstance, regardless of which of the cases it may be. If they roll well, I would personally let the dispel magic affect any one of the above possible effects. It is probably a difficult check to make, and I would rather players try to become active agents in the adventure as quickly as possible, rather than try to railroad some plot point of them being unable to figure out what is going on until later. Spell slots are limited resources and the odds of a very challenging combat encounter (probably at least level +2 or 3 at one of the most challenging level differences for parties to handle) breaking out with a success are going to be enough consequence to make the payout worth it. If there was supposed another level or two gained before this encounter takes place, then I might have the guard fight to escape rather than fight to the death. It is also possible that the guard was duped by a spell, and the total gain to the party is instead learning that a powerful caster is involved in the plot that has access to some rank 4 enchantment spells, as well as maybe more about the circumstances where the guard was enchanted. Again, this is probably a better thing for my party to learn now than later for the sake of their fun in navigating this adventure.
It sounds like many of you would say the player would have to treat "some kind of magic affecting this NPC's mind as one potential spell effect" and then "disguising something about this person" as a separate potential effect and that the player would have to choose one per casting of the spell. As a player I would accept this ruling without a complaint, even if it isn't how I would do it. People read things differently and I will probably have more than 1 dispel magic available to me at this point anyway, so I can try one, maybe both cases, and we can keep an eye on the character to see if they are still around in 10 minutes after I have substituted in another dispel magic.
If a GM told me I just cannot cast dispel magic in this circumstances without being able to investigate the spell effect and have a stronger sense of what it is, I would probably be a little frustrated as a player, because identify magic also requires that you know for certain that an object or effect is magical and then spend minimally 1 minute (maybe 10 depending on whether I have quick identify by level 5) investigating. If the GM lets me do that investigating in scene, than I probably swallow my frustration and go along with it. At least a path forward has been made clear to me and I will be sure to make sure that I am taking feats and items in the future that help with the identifying magical effects. But it is also quite likely that a GM that is already ruling that I can't dispel a magical effect without identifying it is going to let me subtly investigate and identify magic on a guard in a castle in an active social encounter, at least without adding in so many additional skill checks and/or additional spell castings that the message becomes a pretty clear:
"this obvious clue you found is an intentional dead end until a later point in the adventure when you can finally look back and say 'ah ha! I knew it!'"
I hope I wouldn't be so upset that I would rage quit or anything that dramatic, but I would probably be upset enough to (leading finally back to the OP conversation) realize that I made a mistake playing a wizard in this campaign, because the GM has a very different view of how spells can be used in this game than I do, and it is unlikely that I am going to have fun using the kind of spells that make playing a prepared caster/wizard fun for me personally. I will either have to look over my spell list and see if there is a different way I can have fun playing this character, or talk to the GM about either making changes to my character or bringing in a different character that I can have more fun with knowing the GM's play style better.
This conversation has helped me as a player because I realize that talking to a GM about how they run dispel magic is a great session 0 conversation for me to have, as it (like illusory object) is a good way to express what makes playing a prepared caster fun for me, and for the GM to make it clear whether that is a good fit for their campaign.
I used dispel magic yesterday to kill adamantine golems. Glad I at least keep it in the repertoire. Far easier than obtaining a vorpal adamantine weapon.
Maybe someone could let me know: it seem like you didn't need a counteract check to slay the adamantine golem, just needed to cast a 9th level dispel magic on them as they were vulnerable to it. So as long as you have level 9 dispel magic slotted or as a sig spell, then you're good.
That was one time we absolutely needed dispel magic in a 9th level slot.
If I Detect Magic and detect the strongest spell on a creature, but there are actually two effects of equally high ranks, will you let me pick one of those at random?Detect Magic: "If multiple effects are equally strong, the GM determines which you learn."
So the GM determines which effect you learn about and you don't learn about the other effect. When trying to dispel it you'll dispel the one the GM told you about as you don't know about the other one.
In effect Unicore can randomly decide which same level effect to provide.