Maximized Dispel?

[Pielorinho]

That said, I would allow someone to use Maximize or Empower on dispel magic. The only thing affected would be the 1d4 rounds of suppression on a magic item, though.

Also a fair point. Just make sure they know ahead of time that that'll be the only effect .

Daniel

 

[Wolffenjugend]

Just out of curiousity, would allowing the dispel chance to be increased really be that bad a thing? IMO, increasing the 1d4 round duration is not worth it whereas the chance definitely would be. It is a metamagic feat afterall (and is burning a higher level spell slot).

 

[Li Shenron]

Just out of curiousity, would allowing the dispel chance to be increased really be that bad a thing? IMO, increasing the 1d4 round duration is not worth it whereas the chance definitely would be. It is a metamagic feat afterall (and is burning a higher level spell slot).

Doubling the numerical effects (what Maximize grossly does against the average) is very different than maximising a check.

If the DC of the check is for example 11 points higher than your normal modifier to the check, you basically have 50% chance of success; a Maximized check has 100% of success.

If the DC is lower than that, the chance would be still 100%, and the gain would be less than double. But who cares? The point is if you succeed or not, and you always succeed if the DC is not more than 20 points higher than your normal modifier. If it is more, you don't succeed but you would not succeed in any case.

In other words, it lets you "Take 20" on the Dispel check, with 100% chance of success unless it was impossible from the start to succeed at all. Doesn't sound a good idea for me to allow, even at the +3 slot cost.

 

[James McMurray]

Maximized Dispel Magic being allowed to change the caster level check would be bad for a number of reasons, but the primary reason would be that it would obviate the need for Greater Dispel Magic until much higher levels. A Maximized Dispel Magic will automatically dispel caster level 19 or lower effects. Until you are facing 20th level foes there would be no reason to ever memorize a Greater Dispel.

 

[Scion]

While it probably would make it a bit too strong, there are almost no uses for maximize right now anyway

Still though, greater dispel can remove anything that remove curse can remove. So at least a few times here and there it is still better to use greater dispel over maximized dispel.

Not saying a whole lot here, just that getting the spell, plus spending a feat, I would expect it to be slightly better. Especially since maximize has about 2 uses to begin with So while it definately doesnt work by the raw, I am unsure if it would be too strong to allow it or not.

 

[James McMurray]

Slightly better, sure.However, going from "make a roll and lets see what you dispelled" to "great, you dispelled every possible spell" is way too much of an increase. Any metamagic that invalidates a spell of an equal level is highly suspect, and in this case, a house rule allowing Dispel Magic to be more power ful than Greater Dispel Magic is, IMO, ludicrous.

And what about when you get up to where you are casting 9th level spells. Why risk an MDJ to take out your opponent's buffs when a maximized GDM will do it until you start facing 29th level foes?

 

[Scion]

Slightly better, sure.However, going from "make a roll and lets see what you dispelled" to "great, you dispelled every possible spell" is way too much of an increase. Any metamagic that invalidates a spell of an equal level is highly suspect, and in this case, a house rule allowing Dispel Magic to be more power ful than Greater Dispel Magic is, IMO, ludicrous.

Not much of a change, useing the feat merely gives the caster a couple of extra points above the greater dispel on average, the greater dispel can still do 'better'. Greater dispel can still do more things than dispel magic as well, and as you get higher greater just becomes much better to use all of the time.

So for the cost of a feat the character is somewhat better early on, but then are still forced to take the other spell later. Seems all right to me.

And personally, if the player pays the cost I would rather that cost be a better choice than not chooseing it at all. Know what I mean?

And what about when you get up to where you are casting 9th level spells. Why risk an MDJ to take out your opponent's buffs when a maximized GDM will do it until you start facing 29th level foes?

Risk a mdj to take out buffs? There is no risk unless the opponent has an artifact, not very likely one would hope, even at those levels. The disjunction automatically kills all buffs, kills the opponents magical items, and pretty much renders a good portion of the character balancing system moot. It is a horrible spell.

If you are saying that useing the option of maximizing the greater dispel gets rid of the need for disjunction then that is a reason TO allow it. Sounds like a great plan to me!

So lets see, allowing this makes it so that a feat choice is more worth it, still isnt much more powerful than just useing the higher level spell, and keeps certain options over while, at the same time, allowing me to give an even better reason to get rid of disjunction? I am sold! Where do I sign up?

 

[James McMurray]

Not much of a change, useing the feat merely gives the caster a couple of extra points above the greater dispel on average,

At 11th level when you first get to do this trick, the difference is an average of caster level 10 dispelled versus an automatic caster level 19. 9 is "a couple"? Even at 16th level the difference 4 levels (19th vs. 15th). 4 is "a couple"? You have to get to 20th level before GDM even equals Maximized DM with an average roll. Yeah, that's balanced...

the greater dispel can still do 'better'.

Yes, if you roll a 20 at 11th level you greater dispel will do better by one caster level. But does it really need to?

Risk a mdj to take out buffs? There is no risk unless the opponent has an artifact, not very likely one would hope, even at those levels. The disjunction automatically kills all buffs, kills the opponents magical items, and pretty much renders a good portion of the character balancing system moot. It is a horrible spell.

The risk is that you lose a crapload of nice gear that you would have gotten had you maximized a Greater Dispel. If you allow things like this in your game, I can see why the Miniatures Handbook has proposed no balance issues for you.

If you are saying that useing the option of maximizing the greater dispel gets rid of the need for disjunction then that is a reason TO allow it. Sounds like a great plan to me!

No, I'm saying that maximized Greater Dispel is even more powerful than the horribly powerful Disjunction. It still takes out every buff your foe has, can't destroy the loot, doesn't risk your foe having an artifact, and can't possibly catch any of your buffed companions in its radius. You have to be facing multiple highly buffed foes that haven't closed to melee for MDJ to even be considered over max GDM.

So lets see, allowing this makes it so that a feat choice is more worth it, still isnt much more powerful than just useing the higher level spell, and keeps certain options over while, at the same time, allowing me to give an even better reason to get rid of disjunction? I am sold! Where do I sign up?

Maximize is already a valuable feat, it doesn't need to become a Disjoin that takes out every spell on your opponent. And I really don't understand how you can say it "isn't much more powerful". Apparently we are not only using different definitions of the word balance, but we're also using different definitions of "much" and/or a different system of mathematics.

Yes, Disjunction is a powerful spell, and I house rule it in my games to make it useful but not a party-killer. Its existance is not grounds for making another feat and spell combination vastly superior to disjunction unless facing multiple foes that haven't closed to melee with the party yet. YMMV

 

[Scion]

At 11th level when you first get to do this trick, the difference is an average of caster level 10 dispelled versus an automatic caster level 19. 9 is "a couple"?

At caster level 11 it shouldnt be too hard to have a few items to increase caster level. So the difference is probably more like 6 or less. That isnt a huge problem, and it gives a reason to get the feat and cast it vs this. Yes, 6 is a 'couple' especially when the difference disapears within a couple of levels.

Yes, if you roll a 20 at 11th level you greater dispel will do better by one caster level. But does it really need to?

Assuming that the caster has no items to increase caster level, or feats that might accomplish the same, and that you ignore what I said earlier about greater dispel being 'better'. Greater dispel can still do things that dispel magic cannot hope to do, no matter how many metamagics are applied to it.

The risk is that you lose a crapload of nice gear that you would have gotten had you maximized a Greater Dispel.

This is not, I repeat, NOT a balancing factor. Just like harm was not balanced in earlier editions because, 'the enemy can do it too' or other various combos that are too strong as written. Just because someone else can do it doesnt make it balanced, just because you might risk 'destroying some precious l33t' does not make it balanced. Not even close. Disjunction is a horrible spell, all it does is disrupt and destroy major portions of the campaign, nothing it does is balanced.

If you allow things like this in your game, I can see why the Miniatures Handbook has proposed no balance issues for you.

Isnt that nice, you dislike something for no reason (or misguided reasons, one of the two), and then you decide to trash it all over. Good job.

There is nothing wrong with the miniatures handbook, every book will have a few problems here and there, the fact that it only has the one, and it is as easy to fix as adding a single line of text in.....

No, I'm saying that maximized Greater Dispel is even more powerful than the horribly powerful Disjunction. It still takes out every buff your foe has, can't destroy the loot, doesn't risk your foe having an artifact, and can't possibly catch any of your buffed companions in its radius. You have to be facing multiple highly buffed foes that haven't closed to melee for MDJ to even be considered over max GDM.

It 'might' take out buffs that your foes have. Targeted dispel might take out all of the ones that they have on one person. Strong? yes, overpowered? doubtful.

Plus, at those levels a dc 25 will save for a primary caster will fail 10% of the time or less.. especially if they are planning ahead for it, which, if they have it memorized, they will be.

Remember, area dispel will only get one buff per person at best. Plus there are ways to protect your buffs from dispels.

I think you are way overstating your case. It isnt horribly overpowered. Can you even give one case where it is? Other than, 'there is one bad guy, who for some reason has a thousand buffs on him and he cannot possibly do anything without all of them'. That is a pretty shallow case. Usually one bad guy vs the party has little chance anyway, the fact that the debuffing might be the parties only choice sounds like a good tactical plan for them, not a game breaking choice.

Maximize is already a valuable feat, it doesn't need to become a Disjoin that takes out every spell on your opponent. And I really don't understand how you can say it "isn't much more powerful". Apparently we are not only using different definitions of the word balance, but we're also using different definitions of "much" and/or a different system of mathematics.

Maximize is a pretty poor feat. It has a large cost and its benefits can be counted on one hand, with fingers left over. In other words giving it a beanie here and there will hardly matter. You have failed to state even one time when this would be overpowered. Greater dispel still has its place, and it is still better than dispel at higher levels. A spell plus a feat in order to be slightly better than the curve for a few levels, sounds like a good plan to me. Especially when it is such a bad feat that has so few other uses.

Yes, Disjunction is a powerful spell, and I house rule it in my games to make it useful but not a party-killer. Its existance is not grounds for making another feat and spell combination vastly superior to disjunction unless facing multiple foes that haven't closed to melee with the party yet.

Greater dispel with maximize is still much, much weaker than disjunction in nearly every way. So I fail to see how this matters at all for this conversation.

Disjunction automatically dispells all buffs, maximized greater dispel still might fail.
Disjunction kills all of the opponents items leaveing them easy prey, maximized greater dispel does nothing.
Disjunction can destroy an antimagic field, maximized greater dispel does nothing.
Disjunction can be used to destroy an artifact with little risk to the caster (although it is a serious risk, less than 10% chance is pretty laughable, especially when it can be reduced to 0% with planning), maximized greater dispel does nothing.


Really, it isnt an overpowered combo by anything you have put forth yet. Is there anything you see to be horribly overpowering? Getting rid of one buff on a few different people, or getting rid of all buffs on one target. Nice, but rarely a huge problem in the normal d&d sense.

Is there anything you can come up with that shows it to be overpowered?

 

[James McMurray]

At caster level 11 it shouldnt be too hard to have a few items to increase caster level. So the difference is probably more like 6 or less. That isnt a huge problem, and it gives a reason to get the feat and cast it vs this. Yes, 6 is a 'couple' especially when the difference disapears within a couple of levels.

An ioun stone for +1 caster level would be 30,000gp. What other items are there? I could be wrong, but don't most dictionaries define "couple" as "two"? Again, more proof we're using the same words to mean different things.

Greater dispel can still do things that dispel magic cannot hope to do, no matter how many metamagics are applied to it.

The vast majority of the time, the ability to dispel anything that a remove curse can remove is not a big deal. Certainly not enough to warrant using it over maximized dispel magic. Got a problem with a curse? Memorize a Remove Curse.

This is not, I repeat, NOT a balancing factor. Just like harm was not balanced in earlier editions because, 'the enemy can do it too' or other various combos that are too strong as written. Just because someone else can do it doesnt make it balanced, just because you might risk 'destroying some precious l33t' does not make it balanced. Not even close. Disjunction is a horrible spell, all it does is disrupt and destroy major portions of the campaign, nothing it does is balanced.

You're preaching to the choir here. I already said that I house rule MDJ to make it more palatable to my group. I was just refuting your assertion that there are no risks involved in casting MDJ, something that is demonstrably not true.

Isnt that nice, you dislike something for no reason (or misguided reasons, one of the two), and then you decide to trash it all over. Good job.

Isn't that nice. You like something, so disregard others' opinions as having "no reason." Good job.

There is nothing wrong with the miniatures handbook, every book will have a few problems here and there

a) "There is nothing wrong with the miniatures handbook"
b) "every book will have a few problems"

thus we can deduce

c) The Miniatures Handbook is not a book.

Intriguing. Not only are we using different dictionaries and math, we're also using different ruls for what makes an argument valid and sound.

the fact that it only has the one, and it is as easy to fix as adding a single line of text in.....

It only has one "in your opinion." But I don't have it with me so I can't point to the rest of them. And as you said in another thread "this thread isnt about that."

It 'might' take out buffs that your foes have. Targeted dispel might take out all of the ones that they have on one person. Strong? yes, overpowered? doubtful.

Targetted maximized Dispel Magic will take out all of the buffs on one person, unless that person is caster level 20. Targetted maximized Greater Dispel Magic will take out all of the buffs on one person, unless that person is caster level 29.

I think you are way overstating your case. It isnt horribly overpowered. Can you even give one case where it is? Other than, 'there is one bad guy, who for some reason has a thousand buffs on him and he cannot possibly do anything without all of them'. That is a pretty shallow case. Usually one bad guy vs the party has little chance anyway, the fact that the debuffing might be the parties only choice sounds like a good tactical plan for them, not a game breaking choice.

I think you are way overstating your case. Can you give instances where maximied dispel isn't more powerful than a non-maximized dispel? Other than "you need to remove a curse or your foe is 20th level." That is a pretty shallow case.

Looking back at my posts I fail to see where I ever said anything about there being a single foe with thousands of buufs that can't work without them. If you're trying to take out any spell except those that require remove curse, a maximized dispel magic is better than a greater dispel magic until you begin facing spells with a caster level of 20. In most cases the differential is quite large.

Or its only a "couple" of levels, depending on whether we use Webster's or Scion's dictionary.

Greater dispel still has its place, and it is still better than dispel at higher levels. A spell plus a feat in order to be slightly better than the curve for a few levels, sounds like a good plan to me. Especially when it is such a bad feat that has so few other uses.

Just because you ignore things I say doesn't mean I didn't say them. How is +9 "slightly better"? For that matter, how is +6 "slightly better"?

You keep saying maximize has few uses. I disagree. I think maximize is a fine metamagic feat as written. Granted it isn't as powerful as some, but its better than others.

Greater dispel with maximize is still much, much weaker than disjunction in nearly every way. So I fail to see how this matters at all for this conversation.

Its weaker if you don't mind destroying the gear you would have gotten when the foe is killed. Its weaker if you don't mind risking catching your allies in the area of effect and posible destroying their gear. In other words, its only sometimes weaker.

Disjunction automatically dispells all buffs, maximized greater dispel still might fail.

If your foe is 30th caster level. How often does that happen?

Disjunction kills all of the opponents items leaveing them easy prey, maximized greater dispel does nothing.

Yep, dispel does nothing to destroy your gear or the loot. I would rather just debuff my foe and then reap the rewards.

Disjunction can destroy an antimagic field, maximized greater dispel does nothing.

That's one for you, two for me.

Disjunction can be used to destroy an artifact with little risk to the caster (although it is a serious risk, less than 10% chance is pretty laughable, especially when it can be reduced to 0% with planning), maximized greater dispel does nothing.

Looks like we're tied at one for one. Technically though, you'll never reduce it to 0%, because no matter what you do, a 1 will always fail. An even if you do manage to keep your spellcasting abilities, what about the powerful being whose interest you just attracted. I hope it isn't someone who didn't want that artifact destroyed.

Is there anything you can come up with that shows it to be overpowered?

I already have. Try scrolling up. Until you can do that, my end of this conversation is over.