Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cheiromancer" data-source="post: 3181146" data-attributes="member: 141">Re: Avoidant Spell.  Following the discussion (linked to above) I'm wondering if using the mechanics of globe of invulnerability is problematic as a basis for a feat.  Part of the problem is that a GoI doesn't work on spells that have already been cast.  If your spell is being imbued with a GoI-type energy as it is cast it wouldn't be able to avoid anything, and the feat would be useless.  This leads to a second problem: the way that GoI interacts with magic items.  Magic items do not give supernatural or spell-like abilities; their powers are thus spell-like (or, in the case of spell trigger or spell completion items, actual spells).  The reason that GoI doesn't interfere with them is because GoI doesn't suppress effects which precede it.  But if we change the nature of the GoI-type energy that imbues an avoidant spell (so that it can actually do something), then the possibility is raised that avoidant spell avoids protection due to magic items as well.  But then *this* becomes complicated in that the spell-level of a magic item is not always clear, particularly for descriptive items.My initial version also said that an avoidant spell could not be detected or interacted with by a lesser spell.  I'm not sure what that meant, exactly, unless it meant that each spell ignored the other.  Could a summoned monster walk through an avoidant wall of fire?  Could it see a character concealed by an avoidant invisibility?  What happens if someone uses see invisibility against an avoidant (x2) invisibility?  Does see invisibility not work (because avoidant treats it as non-existent with respect to the invisibility) or does the person not count as invisible (because the spells ignore each other)?  What would happen if someone used an avoidant (x2) see invisibility against a character who is invisible?  It is starting to look like the feat would be a PITA to adjudicate.The question of whether a wall of force or a prismatic sphere can be suppressed is also unclear.  Antimagic field can't suppress them, so why should an avoidant spell?  Antimagic field doesn't interfere with another antimagic field, so it is not at all clear that a GoI type of effect could interfere with it, either.  Definitely a PITA.  Maybe dispel magic would be a more rigorous basis for the spell. How about this:Avoidant Spell [Metamagic][Epic]Your spells bypass weaker magical defenses.Prerequisites: Spell Penetration, Knowledge (arcana) 8 ranks, Spellcraft 8 ranksBenefit: A spell modified with Avoidant Spell ignores most protective spells (including spell-like abilities) of level 1 or lower. Ignored spells or abilities cannot reduce or prevent the effects of the modified spell. For example, an avoidant magic missile would ignore a shield spell. An avoidant spell can only avoid spells and abilities that can be ended by dispel magic, and thus cannot ignore supernatural or extraordinary defenses, or instantaneous effects such as a wall of stone.  Indirect effects (such as saving throw bonuses granted by spells) are not negated by an avoidant spell. However, an avoidant spell can bypass protections provided by items; the spell level of such items is determined by the DM, who should be guided by similar spells, item prerequisites and item caster level.  An avoidant spell takes up a slot 1 level higher than normal.  Special: Avoidant Spell can be applied multiple times to the same spell; each additional application of Avoidant Spell causes the modified spell to ignore an additional level of spells and take up a spell slot another level higher.  For example, an avoidant (x4) enervation could affect a target protected by death ward and would occupy an 8th level spell slot.Circumventory Spell is almost redundant if Avoidant Spell affects items.  The only place it is superior is with regard to supernatural immunities.  I think such immunities are best handled on a case by case basis, as with Animus Invictus.  So I'd say to drop it.</blockquote>

Verification