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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Banshee16" data-source="post: 4095081" data-attributes="member: 7883">Yes, this is kind of it.  It's limited to particular spells.  There's a limitation that I hadn't thought of though....if a caster has a spell that uses the feat, and doesn't detect magic, then he might still be revealed by his items, which have an aura.  So either this feat would need to be changed to encompass items, or maybe be the first in a small feat chain, with the second being responsible for hiding the items.No, the trap isn't immune to dispel magic.  But if someone *tries* to dispel magic, they trigger the trap.So, let's say a wizard uses the spelltrap feat on a confusion spell, and casts it on your party.  The rogue and fighter both fail their saves, the cleric doesn't.  When the cleric tries to cast dispel magic on the fighter, to remove the confusion effect, the cleric triggers the trap, and himself has to now save (again) or suffer the effects of the spell himself.  If he fails his save and is affected, the dispel magic won't work.So he has to try casting h is dispel.  Save vs. trap.  If he passes that save, he makes his dispel check to life the confusion spell off his target.Yes, I think it would.  The intent of the feat is to make a magic really difficult to dispel...sort of like a "Reinforce Spell" effect.I think that a feat that does nothing in terms of giving the spell more power *except* make it harder to dispel shouldn't have too much of a modifier...the suggestions of +1 for 2 lvls gained makes a certain amount of sense.Banshee</blockquote>

Verification