Protection From Targeted Dispell

[Infiniti2000]

If your party has a mage with a familiar, the familiar has two free ring slots for more Rings of Counterspeling.

Even ignoring the fact that it's an SLA, what would putting rings on the familiar accomplish? Sure, the familiar then gets to counter two (G)DM's, but that doesn't help you.

At higher level, the spellcasters can spread higher level "mass" buff spells (such as mass bear's endurance) on all allies to work as a buffer against area effect dispels.

Keep in mind that some (like Hyp) rule that dispel the mass buff spell on one creature, dispels it for all other creatures currently in range of the origin of the spell, or something like that.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Keep in mind that some (like Hyp) rule that dispel the mass buff spell on one creature, dispels it for all other creatures currently in range of the origin of the spell, or something like that.

Range has nothing to do with it.

If there is a Mass Buff spell affecting me, Bob, and Fred, and Fred is targeted with a Dispel Magic, there is a chance that Mass Buff is dispelled. When that happens, Mass Buff is treated as though its duration has expired.

What happens when Mass Buff's duration expires? Bob, Fred, and I are no longer affected by a Mass Buff spell.

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Oh, I thought all the "parts" of the effect had to be within range of the DM or that the DM area effect had to hit the center of the mass buff spell. I misremembered your point on that, sorry. Quite honestly, I still don't understand it, but okay.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Even ignoring the fact that it's an SLA, what would putting rings on the familiar accomplish? Sure, the familiar then gets to counter two (G)DM's, but that doesn't help you.

Go at it from the other direction. Give the familiar a Ring of Spell Storing with Dispel Magic stored inside, and have it ready an action to counterspell any Dispel Magic coming your way. As the familiar has access to all the skill ranks of its master, it has a good chance of making that Spellcraft roll to identify the spell being cast.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Oh, I thought all the "parts" of the effect had to be within range of the DM or that the DM area effect had to hit the center of the mass buff spell.

Well, that's a separate issue. If the point of origin of a spell is included in an area dispel, the spell can also be dispelled.

-Hyp.

 

[moritheil]

I'm a little torn here. While I have personally worked out many legal methods to avoid dispel (including a few that haven't been mentioned yet due to sheer obscurity), I fundamentally don't think the approach the OP is taking is right.

Basically, the DM is well within his rights to use the threat of dispels to stop a melee cleric from rampaging all over campaign balance. I don't think that rings of counterspells or other methods will constitute anything but an arms race, and when the players are in an arms race with the DM, everybody loses. I would talk to your DM about how dispels are ruining your fun and how you find frequent use of them to be excessive before going with this route.

 

[Khelvan]

Using 2 rings of counterspells with the same spell is kind of tricky, rules wise, as there's really no reason (that I can see) why they wouldn't trigger simultaneously.

What you want is the spellblade weapon ability from Player's Guide to Faerun (+6000 gp). You choose one spell, and when you're hit by that spell it's absorbed by the weapon. You can redirect the absorbed spell at an opponent as a free action on your next turn.

Question.
I read the Spellblade in the Players Guide but there is missing as what enchatnment
( + 1 + 2 ) it one want that to get on a Weapon
Anybody knows that?


Khelvan

 

[Plane Sailing]

Another solution that might work...

Obscuring Mist.

They can't target you if they can't see you, right? Sure you get a 20% miss chance against the foe you are actually in melee with, but it might be worth it.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Basically, the DM is well within his rights to use the threat of dispels to stop a melee cleric from rampaging all over campaign balance. I don't think that rings of counterspells or other methods will constitute anything but an arms race, and when the players are in an arms race with the DM, everybody loses. I would talk to your DM about how dispels are ruining your fun and how you find frequent use of them to be excessive before going with this route.

Is it wrong to want to increase your touch AC beause enemies use touch attacks against you? Or to cast freedom of movement because you expect to be fighting enemies with swallow whole? Or to cast spell immunity against a monsters' spell-like abilities or common wizards spells before you attack them? Whats' wrong with wanting to protect yourself from a spell that you are more vulnerable to than usual?

 

[moritheil]

Is it wrong to want to increase your touch AC beause enemies use touch attacks against you? Or to cast freedom of movement because you expect to be fighting enemies with swallow whole? Or to cast spell immunity against a monsters' spell-like abilities or common wizards spells before you attack them? Whats' wrong with wanting to protect yourself from a spell that you are more vulnerable to than usual?

It's not inherently wrong, but if the DM is hell-bent on dispelling your buffs, it's futile to oppose him by making yourself immune to a single spell such as dispel magic. There are other spells - reaving dispel, slashing dispel, greater dispel magic, wall of dispel magic, and so on. Consider that if the DM allows psionics, he can easily throw a psionic dispel at you (overchanneling or wild surging if need be.)

If the DM is even remotely competent, trying to make yourself immune to the dispel magic spell when the DM is dead-set against you keeping your buffs is like offering a decapitation victim a band-aid. There is a more fundamental problem that you are not addressing.

Therefore, I suggest talking the problem over with the DM and first making sure that he isn't dead-set against you keeping spells up. If he is, nothing you do will matter in the long run unless he's incompetent.