COUNTERSPELLING: Dispel Magic Qustion

[Hypersmurf]

Are you saying the rules are wrong?

I'm saying the Glossary is for quick reference, and doesn't always contain the full rules text.

The Glossary is correct when it describes how a Dispel Check used for dispelling works. It is incomplete in that it doesn't acknowledge that a Dispel Check is also used for purposes other than dispelling.

If we refer to the rules text of counterspelling and the Dispel Magic spell, there is more to the rules than what is contained in the quick reference in the Glossary, and a distinction is drawn between Dispel Magic used to dispel (which uses the Dispel Check mechanic) and Dispel Magic used to counterspell (which uses the Dispel Check mechanic, but for a purpose other than that shown in the Glossary).

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I'm saying the Glossary is for quick reference, and doesn't always contain the full rules text.

Only when there's no conflict. The glossary is explicit in using the word dispel. What in counterspells/dispel magic does it further expand "dispelled" to mean something other than not dispelled such that there's ambiguity? I don't see any. In fact, your looser interpretation directly contradict part of the rules, so I can't see how it's valid. Your additional search isn't looking for a fuller explanation, it's looking for contradictory text.

 

[moritheil]

(Sorry for the thread hijack. Perhaps this should be a separate thread?)

How would you do a Concentration check when hit by multiple magic missiles or multiple rays from searing light?

Do the individual damages count as separate checks? For magic missile, there is no attack roll so I can see it being ruled either way. For searing light, there is a separate ranged touch attack for each ray. However, in both cases the missiles or rays are fired all at once during a single standard action, and usually a standard action only allows a single attack.

Or would you add up the damage from each missile/ray in a progression and use the result? Say that the first ray deals 12 points, the second deals 14, and the third deals 12. Would you use 100% of the first ray and 50% of the others, making the total 12+7+6 = DC 10+25? Or maybe 100%, 50%, and 25% for a total of 12+7+3 = DC 10+22?

I have no idea where you got the % method, but you seem to have omitted the most intuitive way to do it: have them make multiple Concentration checks, one for each time they get damaged.

 

[Hypersmurf]

What in counterspells/dispel magic does it further expand "dispelled" to mean something other than not dispelled such that there's ambiguity?

Dispel magic draws a distinction between dispelling and countering: "you may dispel (but not counter)..."

Thus, when you are countering, you are not dispelling, despite using a dispel check, and this dispel check falls outside the too-narrow definition in the glossary.

Is a shield bonus a positive modifier to a die roll? Or is it not in fact a bonus? Or is the glossary definition incomplete?

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Dispel magic draws a distinction between dispelling and countering: "you may dispel (but not counter)..."

Thus, when you are countering, you are not dispelling, despite using a dispel check, and this dispel check falls outside the too-narrow definition in the glossary.

Not true. Counter could simply be a subset of the dispel possibilities, which it is. So, you can dispel and not counter, but whenever you counter, you dispel. It fits perfectly logically within all the text and you have not found contradictory rules to that.

 

[moritheil]

Not true. Counter could simply be a subset of the dispel possibilities, which it is. So, you can dispel and not counter, but whenever you counter, you dispel. It fits perfectly logically within all the text and you have not found contradictory rules to that.

Inf, if you were not using dispel magic and not making a dispel check, would you still argue that counterspelling is inherently dispelling?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Not true. Counter could simply be a subset of the dispel possibilities, which it is. So, you can dispel and not counter, but whenever you counter, you dispel. It fits perfectly logically within all the text and you have not found contradictory rules to that.

When an epic spell is brought into an antimagic field and a successful dispel check is made, is the epic spell dispelled?

-Hyp.

 

[ardentmoth]

As merely a part-time rules lawyer (hyuk hyuk), I'm still inclined to agree with Hyp on this one. For one thing, he's not taking anything personally (despite others' best efforts it seems). way to go.

Secondly, and much more to the point, he is correctly interpreting the glossary definitions. Crack a glossary for ANY other book, and the definitions presented will not be complete, even if they are accurate within the bounds that are mentioned. Seriously. Any book, say, a History Textbook, will have incomplete definitions, where you actually have to refer to other descriptions of the spell and the mechanics of the game to figure it out.

A whole book could be (and probably has been) written on dispel magic and counterspelling alone, just as a whole book could be (and probably has been) written on the 3/5 compromise. Thank goodness for the quick look-up capabilities granted us by the glossary, else we'd have to read whole books to figure it out.

 

[Infiniti2000]

When an epic spell is brought into an antimagic field and a successful dispel check is made, is the epic spell dispelled?

-Hyp.

Easy enough, there are no such things as epic spells.

I don't use epic rules, and never will, so I have little reason to look at them.

As merely a part-time rules lawyer (hyuk hyuk), I'm still inclined to agree with Hyp on this one. For one thing, he's not taking anything personally (despite others' best efforts it seems). way to go.

I'm not sure why you would think that, unless it's for someone else talking to Hyp in this thread. Hyp's not taking anything personal because he knows for sure that there's nothing personal going on here. I'll point you back to the beginning of the thread where I've already stated that my opinion is similar to Hyp's.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't use epic rules, and never will, so I have little reason to look at them.

You have one now

Here you go:
DISPELLING,EPIC SPELLS,AND ANTIMAGIC FIELD
A lucky nonepic spellcaster casting greater dispel magic might be able to dispel an epic spell. The game mechanics do not change, and epic spells do not occupy any privileged position allowing them to resist being dispelled other than their presumably high caster level. Likewise, epic spells using the dispel seed can dispel nonepic spells. Such epic spells use the same game mechanic: The check to dispel is 1d20 + a specified number (usually dispeller’s level), and the DC is 11 + the spellcaster’s level.

Antimagic field does not automatically suppress epic spells as it does standard spells. Instead, each time an epic spell is subject to an antimagic field, make a dispel check as a 20th-level caster (1d20 + 20). The epic spell has a DC of 11 + the epic spell’s spellcaster level. If the suppression check is successful, the epic spell is suppressed like any other spell. If the dispel check is unsuccessful, the epic spell functions normally.

-Hyp.