Post/Author/DateTime	Post
TheGogmagog 08-12-05, 12:56 AM	1) Saving throw see text... but the text does not mention a saving throw. 2) Can this be used offensivly to dispel the 'buffs' on an adventuring group, like bull's strength, enlarge and bless? With Break Enchantment you make a caster level check against all enchantments and transmutations on each creature within 15' radius. This would cover most of the spells you would get from party casters to prepare for a big fight. There are a few spells that it would not dispel, so it's not quite as good as a dispel targeted on several characters, but I think it would ruin an adventuring groups day. 3) What would happen if you cast it on a character who was reincarnated? It can 'free victims' from transmutations, even ones that can't be dispelled with dispel magic as long as it's a 5th level spell or lower. I don't (now) see it restoring the original body, would it slay the character, would it have no effect even though it falls within the spells terms? 4) Are there any other unusal / unforseen effects from this? Like casting it on an ally who was stunned, but dispell all effects on the target?
Bloodtide_the_Red 08-12-05, 01:16 AM	1) Saving throw see text... but the text does not mention a saving throw. The 'Saving Throw' is the 'Caster Level Check'. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Can this be used offensivly to dispel the 'buffs' on an adventuring group, like bull's strength, enlarge and bless? Yes. Nothing in the spell says anything about willing creatures, so you can cast it on anyone. It's just a Dispel Magic vairant after all. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) What would happen if you cast it on a character who was reincarnated? Going by the rules as written, you could unincarnate a creature with this spell. However, i'd say that it should not work because of reincarnates 'wish or miracle' footnote(taking that as the only way to do it, even though it does not say that word for word). -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) Are there any other unusal / unforseen effects from this? Like casting it on an ally who was stunned, but dispell all effects on the target? It sure is possible to get rid of buffs and helpful spells with Break Enchantment. If your ally has been effected by charm person and you cast break enchantment on him, you may also get rid of his bull's strgenth. BT
thedmstrikes 08-12-05, 02:25 AM	but I do disagree on one point. I believe the break enchantment spell will work and the poor character will have become deceased again. The wording about wish and miracle is not used as absolute, but as option. "A wish or miracle can be used to restore the character..." The break enchantment would not restore the character, well, at least not in a living status as it would restore the character to the same state he or she was in before being reincarnated, i.e. dead and in their original form. Wish or miracle would have him or her still alive. :twitch:
Shatteredtower 08-12-05, 02:39 AM	Break enchantment also notes that the spell frees the afflicted character from such effects. You might argue that it would work if the character would sooner die than endure the reincarnated form, but otherwise, I'm not sure they'd view death as freedom. ;) In short, the wording of the spell indicates that it's designed to get rid of effects the target does not want to endure, not all transmutations, enchantments, and curses.
TheGogmagog 08-12-05, 08:35 AM	1)A caster level check is not a saving throw. See Dispel, it has caster level checks and states no save. 2)In short, the wording of the spell indicates that it's designed to get rid of effects the target does not want to endure, not all transmutations, enchantments, and curses. The problem is that might have been the original intent, but the description says all effects and makes no mention of choosing. I don't think the caster or recipient can choose to target one spell while leaving the others unchecked. The wording however uses words like 'reverse' and 'free' instead of dispel leaving me confused about what it does do since these are undefined terms. 3) I agree that it wouldn't restore the original body of a reincarnated character, that is specified as the domain of wish and miracle. But reincarnation does fit all the other criteria of being an affected spell. I'm of the mind that if you 'reverse' a reincarnation you wind up with a dead character. Possibly no body as the reincarnated one is undone, leaving you to find the old body or cast true resurection.
TheGogmagog 08-12-05, 04:12 PM	:confused: Break Enchantment Abjuration Level: Brd 4, Clr 5, Luck 5, Pal 4, Sor/Wiz 5 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 minute Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Targets: Up to one creature per level, all within 30 ft. of each other Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: See text Spell Resistance: No This spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses. Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect. For each such effect, you make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level, maximum +15) against a DC of 11 + caster level of the effect. Success means that the creature is free of the spell, curse, or effect. For a cursed magic item, the DC is 25. If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower. If the effect comes from some permanent magic item break enchantment does not remove the curse from the item, but it does frees the victim from the item’s effects.
Zherog 08-12-05, 05:05 PM	The reincarnate spell has a duration of Instantaneous, and therefore is not dispellable. Even with break enchantment. :)
Zherog 08-12-05, 05:20 PM	nevermind. I just saw this in break enchantment: Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect
tiercel 08-12-05, 06:17 PM	2) Can this be used offensivly to dispel the 'buffs' on an adventuring group, like bull's strength, enlarge and bless?Nasty, and I hadn't thought of this. On the other hand, in most circumstances it isn't practical.... Casting time: 1 minute. (And Range: Close.) 3) What would happen if you cast it on a character who was reincarnated?This I also hadn't thought of... and presumably, by RAW the new reincarnated body would simply disappear, leaving behind any possessions, and sending the soul off to wherever it was before being called back. Of course, if you wanted to house rule that reincarnation was not subject to break enchantment I think it would be highly reasonable. 4) Are there any other unusal / unforseen effects from this? Like casting it on an ally who was stunned, but dispell all effects on the target?You have to target one or more persons, not spell effects, so presumably any enchantments and transmutations (even helpful ones) are subject to a caster level check or are dispelled. (Also, using it in-combat is presumably not practical due to its casting time.)
TheGogmagog 08-13-05, 10:28 PM	Nasty, and I hadn't thought of this. On the other hand, in most circumstances it isn't practical.... Casting time: 1 minute. (And Range: Close.) Ack!! Thanks for pointing this out. So it's not that practical as an offesnive spell. 4) I came across another debatable case: Feeblemind. The rules of Break Enchantment classifies it as a spell that can be affected. The text of Feeblemind states that a Heal, Wish, Limited Wish, or Miracle will free the subject. 5) Even though Break Enchantment spell list description specifies it works against Petrification and the spell uses Flesh to Stone as an example, Flesh to stone doesn't satisfy the second paragraph, it's a 6th level instantaneous effect that's not dispellable. Ugh!! My original plan was to memorize it for combat, paralize my buddy, hah, undone!. Then I thought about the other buffs on him and thought maybe offensive would be cool. Now I notice the casting time and thats shot. I also don't know what spell it does and doesn't work against. Now I probably won't ever use it.
Shatteredtower 08-13-05, 11:16 PM	2) The problem is that might have been the original intent, but the description says all effects and makes no mention of choosing. "The spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses." That's the first sentence of the spell text, so it's not an intention, but what the spell does. Furthermore, note that the spell, unlike dispel magic, does not have an entry of "No" for saving throw, but rather "See text," despite the fact that both spells employ a caster level check to determine results. Based on that, I'm forced to conclude that the difference between the two spells is that in the case of break enchantment the caster level check is the target's saving throw. Therefore, it can be voluntarily failed, and since each applicable effect is checked separately, the target can decide when to make the check and when to automatically fail it. I believe that ought to cover the matter.
TheGogmagog 08-14-05, 08:09 AM	"The spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses." That's the first sentence of the spell text, so it's not an intention, but what the spell does.The spell does not say does not say anything about selecting spells the target does not want. However you may be right. But they DO specify that you target a character and make a check against all enchantment, transmutations, and curses. That is contradictory. Furthermore, note that the spell, unlike dispel magic, does not have an entry of "No" for saving throw, but rather "See text," despite the fact that both spells employ a caster level check to determine results. Based on that, I'm forced to conclude that the difference between the two spells is that in the case of break enchantment the caster level check is the target's saving throw. Therefore, it can be voluntarily failed, and since each applicable effect is checked separately, the target can decide when to make the check and when to automatically fail it. I believe that ought to cover the matter.A caster level check is not a saving throw. There are three types of saving throws, Fort Will Ref. If it's not one of those, it's not a saving throw. If it is one of those, which one do you propose it is, and why? 5) I also noticed they removed the flesh to stone example from the SRD version.
Shatteredtower 08-14-05, 07:52 PM	The spell does not say does not say anything about selecting spells the target does not want. However you may be right. But they DO specify that you target a character and make a check against all enchantment, transmutations, and curses. That is contradictory.Not really. Where it says "For each such effect..." it's referring to the effects from which the character is to be freed. A caster level check is not a saving throw.Then why is there an entry of "Saving Throw: See text" when no other roll of any sort is mentioned in the spell entry. In the absence of errata telling me to change this to read "Saving Throw: No," there is nothing else it can be. There are three types of saving throws, Fort Will Ref. If it's not one of those, it's not a saving throw. If it is one of those, which one do you propose it is, and why?Whichever of Fortitude or Will is most appropriate, though this is academic. In effect, the caster level check is similar to a bard's Perform check for a countersong attempt -- it replaces a normal saving throw. However, it also allows this effective save even in cases that wouldn't allow one, such as reincarnate. Note that reincarnate, like raise dead, has an entry that reads "Saving Throw: None; see text." What this means is that there is no standard saving throw, but the spell's success is up to the target, as long as said target is not otherwise ineligible for reasons listed in the spell description. Break enchantment, on the other hand, doesn't include "none" in that saving throw entry, just "see text." With that stated, success or failure, within the limits of the spell, are entirely up to the character's player (or non-player :P) and the result of a caster level check. 5) I also noticed they removed the flesh to stone example from the SRD version.Academic point, however, since the primary source is the PHB (and its errata), not the SRD.