Can I use Empower Spell on _dispel magic_?

[Deset Gled]

IMC, I was playing a wizard who kept the barbarians spell storing greatsword buffed with Vampiric touch. Just a thought if you have a friendly wizard...

It should be noted that there is ambiguity as to who gets the temp HP from this. According to the spell, the caster is the one that gains the temporary HP. It has been argued in the past that this could refer to the wielder of the sword, the original caster, or the sword itself.

 

[Gloombunny]

I think you could empower a dispel magic, actually, but all it would do is suppress magic items for 50% longer than the usual 1d4 rounds.

 

[azhrei_fje]

Er... according to the rules, a dispel magic check is an opposed roll (even if the opposition is a static number).

Yep. I just reviewed the section in the SRD dealing with skill checks and opposed checks. An opposed check is defined as a skill check that is compared to another creature's check result.

So a dispel check is an opposed roll. Darn.

The fact that examples like this are not provided in the SRD only gives one excuse for not knowing it initially (assuming one uses the SRD as your primary reference souce, instead of the PHB), but not an excuse for ignoring it once known.

I do not own a PHB. So yes, the SRD is my primary reference source.

And having read the definition of "opposed roll", I now know my previous interpretation was incorrect. (However, I wasn't "ignoring" it, as you accuse. I had previously assumed that I knew what an opposed roll was based on context, not on remembering its exact definition.)

In any case, empowering a dispel magic in order to add 50% to the amount of time that a magic item is non-functional is not "cost effective" for this encounter. I'll have to look elsewhere...

 

[mvincent]

I wasn't "ignoring" it, as you accuse.

Note that the syntax of my post did not accuse you of anything... it simply made a generalized statement (i.e. referring to "one").

As to your reasoning for switching back after (apparently) reading, agreeing with, and responding to posts that provided the correct information... one can only speculate.

 

[irdeggman]

I do not own a PHB. So yes, the SRD is my primary reference source.

As discovered with this case - using only the SRD will get you in trouble. It would not have required any "interpretation" of what an opposed roll was since the feat description itself contains the text that it will not work with dispel magic.

There is just too much "missing" from the printed rules to rely on the SRD as a "primary" rules source.

And when 4th ed comes you will not be able to "play" using only the SRD.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Keep in mind that there are quite a few questions about spell storing weapons and what to use will depend upon how they are answered.

A spell storing weapon is limited to a 3rd level spell. Most people interpret that to mean a spell that would require a 3rd level spell slot. Thus in most campaigns an empowered vampiric touch is out of the question.

There is also the question of the caster level. I have found that most people I play with seem to take the interpretation, that like a ring of spell storing, the caster level of the spell cast from the weapon is the minimum required to cast the spell. Others allow the spell to retain the original caster level.

Finally, there is the question of the DC. If it functions as being cast from an item, then the lowest possible DC for the spell is used. Thus a 1st level spell is DC 11, a 2nd DC 13, and a 3rd DC 14.

All that said, there are still some spells that are good with any interpretation of the spell:

Empowered Shocking Grasp. This caps out at 5d6 and the minimum caster level for an empowered shocking grasp is 5. It also has no save, so you always get your 5d6x1.5

Touch of Idiocy. Caster level is irrelevant and there's no save. It doesn't get better than that--well, it would if it affected combat stats but nerfing an opposing caster can be pretty nice too.

Cure serious wounds can have some interesting applications if you want to be a cheeseball. Attack an ally for non-lethal damage and then drop the cure serious wounds on them. You heal the non-lethal and get a cure serious wounds AND to attack someone else if you have iterative attacks. If you have iterative attacks, you can also attack someone else AND attack yourself for non-lethal damage to drop the cure. Outside of these cheesy and abusive manuevers, you can also use it to damage undead.

There are a few that get good if you don't use the minimum caster level interpretation.

IIRC Poison is a 3rd level druid spell with a DC based on caster level rather than stat, thus it maintains a passable DC at all levels.

Dispel Magic can be pretty effective if you don't use the minimum caster level interpretation--at least until 12th level or so.

If you don't use the minimum caster level interpretation, vampiric touch gets nice at high levels--a potential 10d6 non-typed no-save damage is nice even if you don't get the hit points.

I'm reviewing a cleric build for the campaign that I'm running and looking for unusual uses or combinations of spells. Since the cleric has the Empower Spell feat, I'd like to find a good use for it. So here come some questions.

The first one is in the subject line: if this cleric uses Empower Spell on dispel magic, is the 1d20 roll increased by 50%? Is that considered a "variable, numeric effect"? Regardless, I plan to have this cleric use the area effect version of dispel magic for the first couple of rounds while his melee machine partner engages the party.

Also, I may give this cleric a spell storing weapon. What are some good spells to store in the weapon? I'm considering bestow curse and blindness/deafness. Any other ideas?

It looks like plane shift and slay living are great spells for this cleric to use against fighter types and spellcasters, respectively. Any comments on this?

Thanks everyone! I humbly await the response of the hivemind.

 

[azhrei_fje]

Thanks for the reply, EB. Good stuff there.

There is also the question of the caster level. I have found that most people I play with seem to take the interpretation, that like a ring of spell storing, the caster level of the spell cast from the weapon is the minimum required to cast the spell. Others allow the spell to retain the original caster level.

Hmm, I hadn't considered that. Thank you for pointing it out. I think I'm going to play it the same way.

All that said, there are still some spells that are good with any interpretation of the spell:

Empowered Shocking Grasp. This caps out at 5d6 and the minimum caster level for an empowered shocking grasp is 5. It also has no save, so you always get your 5d6x1.5

Touch of Idiocy. Caster level is irrelevant and there's no save. It doesn't get better than that--well, it would if it affected combat stats but nerfing an opposing caster can be pretty nice too.

I like both of these. I can give my cleric a level of wizard/sorceror so that he can put the shocking grasp in there himself, but I don't want to spend 3 levels to get touch of idiocy (although that's also a good choice). In the BBEG's hideout, clerics are plentiful but wizards not so much so.

In this scenario, the cleric knows that one of his allies will be using feeblemind, so for this cleric to use touch of idiocy on a party cleric makes a lot of sense... I'll have to find a mage willing to do so.

Thanks again.