Post/Author/DateTime	Post
rikimaru75 03-19-07, 05:40 PM	Though this really hasn't been too much of a problem in my campaign, I just wanted to know how a DM can remove a permanency (for example, a Permanency Arcane Sight) effect when need be. Does a solid Dispel Magic/Greater Dispel Magic remove the effect completely? Antimagic Field/Ray & Mordenkainen's Disjunction can certainly suppress/obliterate it, but that really hoses everyone in the process.
Jack Greylock 03-19-07, 06:01 PM	Dispell, and greater Dispell will get rid of a Permanency spell Permanently. And boy does that ever lead to some serious tears.
Evil DM Mk3 03-19-07, 06:04 PM	Does a solid Dispel Magic/Greater Dispel Magic remove the effect completely? Yup. And when it does it is tears before bedtime usually:weep: . But it is totaly fair when you consider how much xp a slotless item of the same ability would have cost. Just don't do it too often.
olshanski_home 03-19-07, 06:09 PM	dispel magic should not be all that uncommon. At mid to high levels, there should almost always be a low-level toady casting dispel magic to remove buffs while the heavy-hitters use the big spells.
Jack Greylock 03-19-07, 06:15 PM	As a DM you got to love the Eldritch Giant: Quickend Greater Dispel Magic caster level 20 at will. MMM, thems good eat'ns
runestar 03-20-07, 02:13 AM	Considering the pittance you paid for the xp costs, were you expecting something else...:P
KingMarl 03-20-07, 08:58 AM	Of course, the big flaw with Dispel Magic and Greater Dispel Magic are the level caps. Not relevant when you're in the low levels, but when you start getting into the teens they get really painful. And when you break 20, Dispel Magic is completely pointless and Greater Dispel Magic starts to seriously break down. Of course, if you're trying to affect a friendly creature, you can have them carefully place all of their magic items over 40 feet away and then cast Mordenkainen's on them. And if they're not friendly, who cares? My big challenge in running things is to decide how often to throw a Mordenkainen's at the party. In practice, if I were the BBEG, that would be how I'd start the encounter - but that doesn't necessarily make for a fun campaign.
rikimaru75 03-20-07, 10:07 AM	When you're dispelling a permanency effect, do you do the dispel magic check on the permancy or the spell (refering to my example above: arcane sight). With regards to the big challenege, why not start with a Mordenkainen's Disjunction? I mean...it's all legal. Then again, this is coming from a DM that believes that I can use anything legal against the PCs such as Sundering and the other Combat Techniques in addition to any spell that could be make an appropriate trap (for example...apparently a Mordenkainen's Disjunction Trap is only a CR10 Trap :devil: ) And besides, it poses a great element of danger, right?
Jack Greylock 03-20-07, 11:34 AM	Dispel Magic is a caster level check so it is against the caster level of who ever cast permanency on the person not vs the spell level. However if the dispel is targeted on one creature it gets a separate check against each spell currently active on the target starting with the highest level spell and then the next highest and so on, regardless of whether it succeeds or not.
Lord Nedd 03-20-07, 12:57 PM	Of course, the big flaw with Dispel Magic and Greater Dispel Magic are the level caps. Not relevant when you're in the low levels, but when you start getting into the teens they get really painful. And when you break 20, Dispel Magic is completely pointless and Greater Dispel Magic starts to seriously break down. Of course, if you're trying to affect a friendly creature, you can have them carefully place all of their magic items over 40 feet away and then cast Mordenkainen's on them. And if they're not friendly, who cares? My big challenge in running things is to decide how often to throw a Mordenkainen's at the party. In practice, if I were the BBEG, that would be how I'd start the encounter - but that doesn't necessarily make for a fun campaign. It is only a problem if the players haven't thought ahead and were incapable of doing some preparation for said effect. I personally would start ahead with such a spell, if the BBEG has some forknowledge regarding the party and their strengths and weaknesses. For my players, it is really important for them that I play my villains smart. If the party is at a stage when they can cast 9th level spells themselves, than it seems more like a fair tactic. My party typically wanders about with at least one of their casters with a readied dispel magic in case they need to do a quick counterspell. Another option is reading a spell so that you can interrupt the casting by dropping a whole can of Whoop-Ahz on the wizard when he tries to cast said spell.
KingMarl 03-20-07, 03:06 PM	If the party is at a stage when they can cast 9th level spells themselves, than [Mordenkainen's Disjunction] seems more like a fair tactic. My party typically wanders about with at least one of their casters with a readied dispel magic in case they need to do a quick counterspell. Another option is reading a spell so that you can interrupt the casting by dropping a whole can of Whoop-Ahz on the wizard when he tries to cast said spell. True - but there's a number of cool spells and other things that go away - for example Dispelling Breath is worthless, and things like Wall of Dispel Magic and Greater Wall of Dispel Magic don't have much point. And it can be made permanent, so it's almost as good as one of the Walls. On the other hand, the Will save for Mordenkainen's Disjunction will probably be between DC23-DC28 - even a bare fighter with no bonus items (in other words, a fool) will have a bonus of +8 by level 25. And if you're trotting around at level 25 with a Will save of +8, well, you likely deserve what you get.
Lord Nedd 03-20-07, 03:30 PM	From the SRD(http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magesDisjunction.htm) "All magical effects and magic items within the radius of the spell, except for those that you carry or touch, are disjoined. That is, spells and spell-like effects are separated into their individual components (ending the effect as a dispel magic spell does), and each permanent magic item must make a successful Will save or be turned into a normal item. An item in a creature’s possession uses its own Will save bonus or its possessor’s Will save bonus, whichever is higher." (Emphasis mine) M. Junction as far as I can tell only disenchants items that are not carried or worn as per the first line of the description of the spell in the SRD. That implies, at least to my understanding, that Dispel Magic and Greater Dispel Magic have an advantage in that they directly affect items that you are carrying or touching for the purposes of suppression. Does the FAQ, or other source disabuse my understanding on how it works? True - but there's a number of cool spells and other things that go away - for example Dispelling Breath is worthless, and things like Wall of Dispel Magic and Greater Wall of Dispel Magic don't have much point. And it can be made permanent, so it's almost as good as one of the Walls. That is true of most spells of the level 3 or lower at high levels. Very, very few spells scale appropriately (One of the reasons why MM is such a good spell is how well it scales). In a world of advanced body armor and HEAP capable rifles, a wheellock harmonica pistol just isn't as snazzy nor as useful as in the past. The nice thing about M. Junction, is it is sort of the great equalizer. Folks have to take it into consideration and not rely on their 'that old chestnut' as much. On the other hand, the Will save for Mordenkainen's Disjunction will probably be between DC23-DC28 - even a bare fighter with no bonus items (in other words, a fool) will have a bonus of +8 by level 25. And if you're trotting around at level 25 with a Will save of +8, well, you likely deserve what you get. Damn straight. -LN
Jack Greylock 03-20-07, 03:46 PM	ah yeah you kind of ignored the last line of that spell description: "An item in a creature’s possession uses its own Will save bonus or its possessor’s Will save bonus, whichever is higher." This is pretty much true of any damaging spell or effect. Unatended mundane items don't get saves, unatended magic items make their own save (and their saves nearly always blow), and attended (held, worn, carried) items use whichever save is better the wielder's or theirs (it is almost allways the wielders).
Jack Greylock 03-20-07, 03:50 PM	Oh and I almost forgot to mention that Dispel Magic has no real effect on magic items, it will end their current effects but the item can be activated again immediatly following the dispel. So if I am wearing a ring of invisibility and am currently using it's effect when succesfuly hit with a dispel, I am no longer invisible, however on my turn I can just activate the ring again, and go invisible again.
mvincent 03-20-07, 03:58 PM	Oh and I almost forgot to mention that Dispel Magic has no real effect on magic items, it will end their current effects but the item can be activated again immediatly following the dispel. So if I am wearing a ring of invisibility and am currently using it's effect when succesfuly hit with a dispel, I am no longer invisible, however on my turn I can just activate the ring again, and go invisible again.From the rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dispelMagic.htm): "If the object that you target is a magic item, you make a dispel check against the item’s caster level. If you succeed, all the item’s magical properties are suppressed for 1d4 rounds, after which the item recovers on its own. A suppressed item becomes nonmagical for the duration of the effect. "
Lord Nedd 03-20-07, 04:05 PM	Oh and I almost forgot to mention that Dispel Magic has no real effect on magic items, it will end their current effects but the item can be activated again immediatly following the dispel. So if I am wearing a ring of invisibility and am currently using it's effect when succesfuly hit with a dispel, I am no longer invisible, however on my turn I can just activate the ring again, and go invisible again. It does have a meaningful effect on magic items as they are suppressed for 1d4 rounds if the object itself is targeted. This can be handy when the big bad wizard is swinging his magic 'staff of magi' overhead as he is about to lay down some bad mojo or if the warforged juggernaught is thundering towards you with his human-bane weapons and you want to defray that damage for a few rounds. Otherwise, you are correct, but that forces you to use a standard action to reactivate your ring of invisibility-. So you will lag behind on your set of planned actions by one round if you choose to do so. -LN
Lord Nedd 03-20-07, 04:06 PM	From the rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dispelMagic.htm): "If the object that you target is a magic item, you make a dispel check against the item’s caster level. If you succeed, all the item’s magical properties are suppressed for 1d4 rounds, after which the item recovers on its own. A suppressed item becomes nonmagical for the duration of the effect. " Curses, you beat me to the punch, mvincent! -LN
Jack Greylock 03-20-07, 04:12 PM	my bad I was discussing targeted dispell when you target a person not a specific item. When you target a specific item you don't get to make a dispel check on every spell currently active on the person. Their are in a way 4 different kinds of targeted dispels: A targeted dispel against a specific ongoing spell A targeted dispell against a summoned creature (pretty much the same as against a specific spell) A targeted dispel against a Person (you get to make a check for each ongoing effect including those effects caused by magic items but not for their magic items themselves) A targeted dispel against a specific magic item (thats where the 1d4 comes into play) And of course that is just the targeted dispel. Dispel really is the swis army knife of spells.
Lord Nedd 03-20-07, 04:16 PM	ah yeah you kind of ignored the last line of that spell description: "An item in a creature’s possession uses its own Will save bonus or its possessor’s Will save bonus, whichever is higher." This is pretty much true of any damaging spell or effect. Unatended mundane items don't get saves, unatended magic items make their own save (and their saves nearly always blow), and attended (held, worn, carried) items use whichever save is better the wielder's or theirs (it is almost allways the wielders). You are correct, I did somewhat ignore that last sentence. How do you correlate the last sentence with the first? This is just bad editing then, as you have the first sentence of the paragraph directly contradicting the last sentence as you read it. That poses a question, then, can you have an item in your possession that is neither carried nor touched but still in your possession? What objects can you have that are carried, but not touched? Perhaps an ioun stone would count under that circumstance, hmm? How about an example of an object that is not carried, but is touched? Psychic tatoo, perhaps? Now, can we think of an example of something that is in our possession that is neither carried or touched? Would that be a homonculi or other autonomous item like a construct? Any thoughts? Not trying to be difficult... -LN
Jack Greylock 03-20-07, 04:26 PM	I think your reading to much into it. The only time an object is unatended is if you drop it. When it comes to things like the Ion stone I would say that as long as it is currently circiling you then it is being worn. A construct however is either considered a summoned creature or it's own creature, depending.
Jack Greylock 03-20-07, 04:30 PM	Oh hey Lord Ned, I just noticed that you are in Lynwood. Pacific Northwest in the house. Nice. Oh and last day for PAX pre-reg is fast approaching, and this years should be excellent. Back to the topic, Psychic Tattos not carried or touched? Come on man, I have tons of tats and I willl tell you right now I am allways carrying them and they are allways touching me.
KingMarl 03-20-07, 04:32 PM	Dancing sword, perhaps? That's certainly a possestion that you're neither touching, wearing, nor carrying. And it's not like it's even 'sort of' worn like an Ioun stone is.
Jack Greylock 03-20-07, 04:35 PM	but you are controlling it. So I would consider it as being weilded hence carried.
Lord Nedd 03-20-07, 04:46 PM	I think your reading to much into it. The only time an object is unatended is if you drop it. When it comes to things like the Ion stone I would say that as long as it is currently circiling you then it is being worn. A construct however is either considered a summoned creature or it's own creature, depending. I don't disagree with the concept of unattended items. However, You just glossed over my question entirely, which is your right. My point is that both sentences (the aforementioned first and last), as far as I can read your understanding of it are contradictory as written. We can assume that this was caused by poor editing. I was positing that if, in fact, that it wasn't an editing issue, than how are to reconcile these two contradictory statements? Are there objects that are possessed but are not touched or carried? These are not unattended items. Perhaps it is more like the following: A homonculi is semi-automatous as is a dancing weapon. How about construct familiars or for that matter, druid's boguns? M. Junction as written would be particulary nasty to folks to use lots of homonculis... -LN
Lord Nedd 03-20-07, 04:58 PM	Oh hey Lord Ned, I just noticed that you are in Lynwood. Pacific Northwest in the house. Nice. Oh and last day for PAX pre-reg is fast approaching, and this years should be excellent. Back to the topic, Psychic Tattos not carried or touched? Come on man, I have tons of tats and I willl tell you right now I am allways carrying them and they are allways touching me. I typically think of 'carry' with the connotation of being a medium of transportation (its the EE in me. :D), or to bear as a burden or weight or to sustain. I considered that 'tats' have relatively negible mass so they weren't carried in that fashion. I do recognize that 'carry' can also imply 'bear' or 'wear' which fits your definition easily. It just wasn't the definition that came readily to mind for me with my circumstances. I doubt very much that I will have the energy to get to PAX this year, as my wife and I are expecting twins around the first week of July and I think that we will be 'swamped' (in my best Prince Humperdink voice). -LN p.s. Regarding control of an item implies carrying it with the dancing weapon, in the definition of dancing, it explicitly states "In all other respects, it is considered wielded or attended by the creature for all maneuvers and effects that target items." So we have to disregard dancing weapons as a possible possessed item that is neither touched or carried.
Jack Greylock 03-20-07, 05:00 PM	I don’t think the two sentences contradict each other at all. I think the first is saying that unattended objects (those not carried or touched) are disjoined with no save Unless they are permanent magic items in which case they get their own will save (which by the way is 2 + ½ the items caster level). The last sentence in that paragraph is saying that attended items get to make a will save using the current possessors will save or the items which ever is better. While this is certainly a case of over writing a spell description till it sounds more complex than it is, I don’t think it is contradictory at all. As to the homunculus thing, well um, heck if I know, I mean really how often does that come up. Geez, if you force your DM to figure that out you deserve the worst he can do to you ;)
Jack Greylock 03-20-07, 05:04 PM	Congratulations Lord Nedd. Welcome to the least exclusive club in the world. My oldest just made his first character (a dwarven wizard) and my youngest would be happy to spend all day rolling dice. The token female in our group just had her first and one party member got the newborn a stuffed beholder, very cute.
Lord Nedd 03-20-07, 05:12 PM	Congratulations Lord Nedd. Welcome to the least exclusive club in the world. My oldest just made his first character (a dwarven wizard) and my youngest would be happy to spend all day rolling dice. The token female in our group just had her first and one party member got the newborn a stuffed beholder, very cute. Heheh. Sort of like the little stuffed Cthulu toys that I see popping up at our gaming sessions. My favorite was the little bubonic plague virus (it is black and has the same sickle shape that they have in nature) that was given to the wife (who works at the Hutch) of one of my players. She brought it to gaming session for a while and threatened to infect any who dared oppose her. Incidentally, this will be number 3-4. My youngest are not ready to start these kinds of games yet. -LN P.s. You are definitely in the bad editing group on this spell. I would have to concur.
Merestil Haye 03-20-07, 07:11 PM	LordNedd, I think you're misinterpreting the text of Mordenkainen's Disjunction. All magical effects and magic items within the radius of the spell, except for those that you carry or touch, are disjoined. That is, spells and spell-like effects are separated into their individual components (ending the effect as a dispel magic spell does), and each permanent magic item must make a successful Will save or be turned into a normal item. An item in a creature’s possession uses its own Will save bonus or its possessor’s Will save bonus, whichever is higher.You = Caster of the Disjunction. Every magic item within 40' of you, except for those in your possession or that you touch, are disjoined. The last sentence is a reminder of the general rule that an attended object uses the better of its own save modifier and that of its possessor.
Lord Nedd 03-20-07, 09:45 PM	LordNedd, I think you're misinterpreting the text of Mordenkainen's Disjunction. You = Caster of the Disjunction. Every magic item within 40' of you, except for those in your possession or that you touch, are disjoined. The last sentence is a reminder of the general rule that an attended object uses the better of its own save modifier and that of its possessor. Actually this is not correct, as the range of the spell is close, not personal. Your items are protected, true. But other folks items are not if they are caught within the 40 foot sphere of influence. Your emphasis on the word 'You' was the clarification that I needed to reread though. You might or might not be within the range of the spell (given that you could effectively cast this spell at 70 feet away, you and your allies could entirely be out of range). Thanks once again, -LN
Marcus Majarra 03-21-07, 01:33 AM	Keep in mind, however, that if you center the spell at the end of the available range, only the area of the spell within the range of the spell will be subjected to the disjoining effect. This is true for all area effects, BTW.
Merestil Haye 03-21-07, 06:46 AM	Actually this is not correct, as the range of the spell is close, not personal. Your items are protected, true. But other folks items are not if they are caught within the 40 foot sphere of influence. Your emphasis on the word 'You' was the clarification that I needed to reread though. You might or might not be within the range of the spell (given that you could effectively cast this spell at 70 feet away, you and your allies could entirely be out of range). Thanks once again, -LNFor some reason I always think of this as Personal range. Thanks for pointing that out.
Evil DM Mk3 03-21-07, 06:54 AM	The token female in our group just had her first and one party member got the newborn a stuffed beholder, very cute. :twitch: