Let's say an ally is affected by a multi-target spell imposing a Condition, let's say Dirge of Doom, and I use an Elixir on them with the Improved Invigorating Elixir Additive. If I succeed at the counteract check, what happens?
Invigorating Elixir counteracts an effect imposing the Condition so from a strict RAW reading it looks like I counteract Dirge of Doom entirely, which is a bit unexpected. On the other hand if I was not counteracting Dirge of Doom itself I'd be counteracting nothing, which would be annoying, too.
I'm 2 days early and the content is available easily :)
Here's the important excerpt of Invigorating Elixir: "The elixir attempts to counteract an effect imposing
[the Frightened condition]."
There's also a note stating that it can't Counteract Curses and Diseases, so it's clearly meant to remove what imposes the Condition and not just the Condition.
Why can't the elixir counteract the effect only on the drinker?
Nothing like that is stated. It's also how Dispel Magic works: you target an effect of a spell and Counteract the entire spell. So it seems to be RAW to me despite the lack of sense of the ruling in these specific cases.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Dispel Magic is targeting Dirge of Doom as a whole (by targeting the Bard casting it), then yes, it would counteract the effect entirely for everyone affected by it.
If Dispel Magic is targeting the effect of Dirge of Doom on one ally, then it would counteract the effect on that one target.
I'm not sure why it would be different for Invigorating Elixir other than being unable to target the source of Dirge of Doom and therefore being unable to counteract the effect for all other characters being affected by it. Invigorating Elixir only has the option to target the drinker and counteract the Dirge of Doom effect for that one character.
If Dispel Magic is targeting Dirge of Doom as a whole (by targeting the Bard casting it), then yes, it would counteract the effect entirely for everyone affected by it.
If Dispel Magic is targeting the effect of Dirge of Doom on one ally, then it would counteract the effect on that one target.
I'm not sure why it would be different for Invigorating Elixir other than being unable to target the source of Dirge of Doom and therefore being unable to counteract the effect for all other characters being affected by it. Invigorating Elixir only has the option to target the drinker and counteract the Dirge of Doom effect for that one character.
The complication of that is the effect would then be instantly re-applied, yes?
That's why Bidi is using an example that's just "if you're in the area, suffer this effect".
There's not even a save.
It does seem that as written, counteracting the effect either disables the source (this might be the techincal RaW, I'm not 100%) or does nothing to help the patient. The Feat could have been written differently, but it was not.
To be honest, I think I have to go with the "Soothing is worthless sometimes" ruling on this one.
Either that, or you homebrew new lines into it to grant the patient temporary immunity.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I'm absolutely not suggesting that using Dispel Magic against Dirge of Doom is a worthwhile tactic or use of resources. Yeah, it would absolutely be reapplied the next round when the Bard casts a new instance of Dirge of Doom again.
Just, since that was the way the examples were already headed, that is how I would run it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's say an ally is affected by a multi-target spell imposing a Condition, let's say Dirge of Doom, and I use an Elixir on them with the Improved Invigorating Elixir Additive. If I succeed at the counteract check, what happens?
Invigorating Elixir counteracts an effect imposing the Condition so from a strict RAW reading it looks like I counteract Dirge of Doom entirely, which is a bit unexpected. On the other hand if I was not counteracting Dirge of Doom itself I'd be counteracting nothing, which would be annoying, too.
You technically could do this, but there's a couple issues with this:
1. No sane GM would rule that an ally drinking a potion counteracts an entire spell effect, as the source of the effect (the spellcaster) isn't being targeted by the elixir, but the ally is. So, realistically, this would only counteract the effect affecting the ally, and not the entire effect itself, RAW be damned.
2. Dirge of Doom only lasts for 1 round, takes only 1 action, and can be spammed, so even with the most fortuitous of rulings, it can just be re-applied the following round, and you just wasted 2 actions to just potentially counteract 1 action.
So, realistically, this would only counteract the effect affecting the ally, and not the entire effect itself, RAW be damned.
I'm a bit curious what this RAW argument is that if you counteract a multi-target effect on one target, then all targets have the effect counteracted as well.
Something like Dispelling Globe, except that it doesn't say that it only counteracts the part that enters the warded area.
Like, if you cast Blazing Bolt at two targets, but one of them is inside the Dispelling Globe, the other one is still affected because Dispelling Globe explicitly says that it doesn't counteract the target that is not protected.
And if (going back to Legacy spells since the details have changed in the Remaster) you cast Magic Missile against two targets and one of them blocks with the Shield cantrip, the other target with no Shield is still taking damage. But that isn't a counteract effect.
So, I can't think of any scenario that properly describes what I am thinking of, and I can't think of any rules that indicate that counteracting an effect on one target counteracts the entire effect for all targets.
Ok, it looks like there'll be some table variation on this one.
In the case of Dirge of Doom, what is "the effect imposing the Frightened Condition" for you?
In the case of Dirge of Doom, what is "the effect imposing the Frightened Condition" for you?
This isn't the source of the table variation. The effect imposing the Frightened condition is Dirge of Doom. I don't think this is a question that needs asking.
In the case of counteracting Dirge of Doom on one target, what causes the effect to end on all targets?
Similarly, if an enemy casts Rank 7 Resist Energy on themselves and four allies, and I use Dispel Magic to counteract the effect on one of them, why would it end Resist Energy on all of the enemies?
Edit: Dispelling Spellstrike is an even better example. If I use Dispelling Spellstrike on one of those 5 enemies under the effect of Rank 7 Resist Energy, what rule says that it would dispel the entire effect for all of the enemies.
What Bidi's trying to explain/lead toward is that Dirge of doom is like one magician sustaining some magical rainshower; standing in that shower hurts the victims.
The only thing that logically happens if you counteract the effect imposing/causing the condition is to disrupt the shower itself, ending the D o Doom for all victims.
That's why it was problematic to make Soothing a counteract instead of an immunity.
A counteract is like a jammer/disruptor , not a medicine that bolsters a patient.
A counteract usually is fine for ranged magical spells, or when they designer knows the harmful effect will be independent of its creator and cling to the patient.
That's why this never came up for Contagion Metabolizers, which counteract diseases and poisons. Both of those are inside the patient and sensibly can be destroyed.
Counteracting the source of a D o Doom effect via a drinkable vial is to inflict spooky action at a distance. Breaking the ongoing magical shower / aura because someone drank an elixir is nonsensical enough that I think a lot of tables will homebrew the written counteract into a different mechanism.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
None of that is game rules.
Especially not this:
The only thing that logically happens if you counteract the effect imposing/causing the condition is to disrupt the shower itself, ending the D o Doom for all victims.
or this:
A counteract is like a jammer/disruptor , not a medicine that bolsters a patient.
So my thought is that:
Counteracting the source of a D o Doom effect via a drinkable vial is to inflict spooky action at a distance. Breaking the ongoing magical shower / aura because someone drank an elixir is nonsensical enough that I think a lot of tables will homebrew the written counteract into a different mechanism.
the homebrew is saying that counteracting a multi-target effect on one target ends the effect on all targets. I still see no rules stating that, or even suggesting that it should happen.
Not that there is anything wrong with houserules. But let's call the thing that makes no sense and has no rules support the houserule.
Ok, it looks like there'll be some table variation on this one.
In the case of Dirge of Doom, what is "the effect imposing the Frightened Condition" for you?
There is no issue in defining what the effect imposing the condition is, because the effect imposing the condition is obviously defined. The issue is sheer relevance; I drink a potion that counteracts the effects of that spell on me. It doesn't really track when that spell effect is essentially an aura around the spellcaster. I would have to feed said potion into the source of the spell (the caster) to counteract the effect, except your ability doesn't work that way because the source isn't affected by a condition.
Dirge of Doom isn't a targeted spell like Dominate or a lingering independent effect like a poison. So expecting the counteract to affect the entire thing like a lit match on a trail of black powder in Looney Tunes is strictly just that; a skit out of Looney Tunes. It's basically an aura effect.
It also makes the counteract effect way more powerful than intended. Because again, if this works against any condition (such as Mass Fear), then it would counteract every ally affected by Mass Fear, which isn't intended.
In the case of counteracting Dirge of Doom on one target, what causes the effect to end on all targets?
The lack of language stating otherwise.
Take Spell Immunity, it clearly states that it only counteracts the effects on the target. Invigorating Elixir lacks this language and that's what's creating the issue.Similarly, if an enemy casts Rank 7 Resist Energy on themselves and four allies, and I use Dispel Magic to counteract the effect on one of them, why would it end Resist Energy on all of the enemies?
Why would you end the effect on one target when you can end it on all of them?
Reading through the rules again, I think there is a bit of ambiguity on if a spell has a single effect shared across all targets or if each target is affected by the spell separately.
Spell Targets doesn't fully define that. It does say that a spell that has an area but no target line affects all creatures indiscriminately, which is a small indicator that a spell target is not the same as a spell effect.
Counteracting also states that "at least one creature, object, or manifestation of the spell" must be within range. But again it is silent on if successfully "eliminating the effect" of the spell on that one creature, object, or manifestation will end the entire spell if the spell also affects other creatures, objects, or has additional manifestations.
Lack of language goes both ways. Nothing says that ending the effect on one creature ends the effect on all creatures. And Dispel Magic targets "one spell effect", not necessarily the entire spell. So why do you think that you can target all 5 creatures affected by Rank 7 Resist Energy with one casting of Dispel Magic?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Take Spell Immunity, it clearly states that it only counteracts the effects on the target. Invigorating Elixir lacks this language and that's what's creating the issue.
This sounds like one of the two Affirming the Consequent fallacies. Which have the names, The Exception Proves the Rule, and Specific Defines General.
The rule is that Specific Overrides General. There also exists reminder text.
Not having a general rule, but having a specific bit of rules language in one or more spells/items/feats/etc..., does not indicate what that general rule is in either direction.
So no, Spell Immunity specifically saying that it only counteracts the part of the spell that would apply in its warded area does not prove that there is a general rule that counteracting part of a spell's effect will counteract the entire spell. It is not an exception to the general rule. It is also not reminder text to the general rule.
At least, not unless we have the general rule. At that point we can know if Spell Immunity's specific rule language is an exception to the general rule, or reminder text of the general rule.
Not having a general rule, but having a specific bit of rules language in one or more spells/items/feats/etc..., does not indicate what that general rule is in either direction.
Yes it does. It doesn't prove it but it still indicates a more probable direction (Occam's razor if you prefer).
I also fully agree with Errenor: preventing Dispel Magic to affect all targets of a spell seems way too bad to be true.
Also, I'd make a big difference between Slow 6 or Fear 3 that affects multiple target with the same effect and Fireball or Dirge of Doom who don't target anything but affect an area (and the poor creatures inside it).
And no, an elixir can't counteract any multitarget effect fully, on the drinker only.
Nothing states it but it looks like it's too much of a stretch to accept otherwise. That's the point of my rules posts to determine how the community reacts to different rulings.