How do you Dispel?

[borble]

try just rolling a dice and counting down on the players spell list
ben

 

[Plane Sailing]

Specific to your solution, it invented an entirely new mechanic - the %-versus-chart mechanic. One of the advantages of D&D (nowadays) is that there's comparitively little referencing - it's not uncommon for us to be able to resolve 4+ rounds of combat without checking any charts, tables, or rulebooks. I'm sure there are groups for whom your %-chart would be perfect (there's a player in mine, for instance, who'd adore it), but it's just not right for *me*.

I'd argue that it doesn't actually invent a new mechanic, it just gives a different mechanism for reproducing the existing mechanics with less die rolling involved - which would have met your original requirements quite nicely

I can understand that it doesn't meet your particular desires though

Cheers

 

[papastebu]

I haven't run into problems with dispel magic, but the only time it has been used in campaigns that I've been in, it was ruled as effective only against one spell, item, or magical effect, and that was that. Items got the save, of course, but I don't recall how the mechanic worked for spells and other magical effects. What you could do, if you haven't already thought of this--sorry I didn't read all posts, but I have limited internet time--is to make the dispel affect only one item, spell, or effect, unless the dispel check exceeds the DC/caster-level/whatever you are using by five or more. If this occurs, have it automatically dispel a second effect at random--though obviously "beneath" or nearby the original target. For an area-affect dispel, then the highest-level spell on the "top" layer of spells, items, effects, etc, whatever, is the one to beat, and all the lower-level "top" layer of spells are beaten by that successful roll.

Without knowing the mechanic well--obviously, and I apologise--it seems that this would eliminate all rolls except the one. There can be only one.

 

[Stalker0]

I think choosing how many buffs dispel magic takes out is a bad idea, because it encourages people to have even MORE buffs! Instead I would have it take out a certain number of spell levels.

For example, dispel magic can take out 1 spell level per caster level. That way your most likely to only lose 1 or 2 spells, but they are the big spells. That way you only have to recalculate a little, instead of having to throw out 5 or 6 spells and redo all the numbers. It allows lower level spells to remain useful, but also increases the usefulness of higher level spells as a "pad" for other buffs.

 

[Nifft]

Hesitantly. I hate re-calculating all that stuff.

Now that the PCs are getting high level, I really need to either revamp the stacking rules, or improve my spreadsheet-fu. :\

Cheers, -- N

 

[papastebu]

I think choosing how many buffs dispel magic takes out is a bad idea, because it encourages people to have even MORE buffs! Instead I would have it take out a certain number of spell levels.

For example, dispel magic can take out 1 spell level per caster level. That way your most likely to only lose 1 or 2 spells, but they are the big spells. That way you only have to recalculate a little, instead of having to throw out 5 or 6 spells and redo all the numbers. It allows lower level spells to remain useful, but also increases the usefulness of higher level spells as a "pad" for other buffs.

But still have only one roll? Kind of a level(s) versus level(s), dispel versus spell(s) sort of thing? Sounds functional, but there is going to be quite a bit of recalculating, even so. And it doesn't really answer the problem of "even more buffs". Players will simply put their strongest/highest-level buffs on last, to act as a buffer for their buffs. It would, it seems to me, negate the use of dispel altogether, or at least reduce its efficacy immensely.

 

[Stalker0]

But still have only one roll? Kind of a level(s) versus level(s), dispel versus spell(s) sort of thing? Sounds functional, but there is going to be quite a bit of recalculating, even so. And it doesn't really answer the problem of "even more buffs". Players will simply put their strongest/highest-level buffs on last, to act as a buffer for their buffs. It would, it seems to me, negate the use of dispel altogether, or at least reduce its efficacy immensely.

In my version, there is no roll. Similar to spell turning, it just works. Now I agree it won't help the issue of massive buffs, but it will help the problems of recalculating massive buffs.

Right now a GDM can strip you clean, and then you have to redo all the numbers. In mine, you cast the spell, you lose a spell or two, and then they just subtract the numbers. Its a lot faster. But the cost is an automatic dispel, which some won't like.

But you have to face facts, if you want dispel to be faster their has to be a tradeoff. If there's still a roll, your going to have to do a lot of rolling. Take away dispels and buffs will get worse, as there's no drawback to using them now. Weaken them too much and you have the same effect. Its one of those pick your poison ideas.

 

[ThatGuyThere]

Huh. The more threads around here I read, the more I think my players - and myself - are really odd.

Recalculating from buffs is really easy for us; everyone uses a "combat sheet" in addition to their character sheet, to keep track of their spells and miscellanious bonuses. Lose a spell, erase / cross off the bonus.

Likewise, they favour non-mathematical buffs. Stoneskin, Death Ward, Protection from (Element), etc; all easy to lose / cross off. I hadn't really noticed before, but spells like Bull's Strength and the like aren't terribly popular with my players. Likewise, every one of them universally detests scrolls and potions (But are fond of wands and staves. Go figure.).

Really, it's the 10+ rolls - *per character* - that each and every use of Dispel required that made it unfun, and essentially unuseable.

 

[papastebu]

Lose a spell, erase / cross off the bonus.

Likewise, they favour non-mathematical buffs. Stoneskin, Death Ward, Protection from (Element), etc; all easy to lose / cross off. I hadn't really noticed before, but spells like Bull's Strength and the like aren't terribly popular with my players. Likewise, every one of them universally detests scrolls and potions (But are fond of wands and staves. Go figure.).

Really, it's the 10+ rolls - *per character* - that each and every use of Dispel required that made it unfun, and essentially unuseable.

If the rolls are what's making it not work, then find a way to not use a roll. Do it like DR or SR, for a set number of spells or spell-levels, or do it where one roll deals with all spells according to the dispelling's level.