Halaster's Teleport Cage

[alex1g]

I got a player that is under the impression that you can dispel the Halaster's Teleport Cage. Is this possible?

http://dnd.arkalseif.info/spells/expedition-undermountain--139/halasters-teleport-cage--4990/index.html

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I got a player that is under the impression that you can dispel the Halaster's Teleport Cage. Is this possible?

http://dnd.arkalseif.info/spells/expedition-undermountain--139/halasters-teleport-cage--4990/index.htmlIts duration is Permanent, not Instantaneous, and nothing in the description says anything about not being dispellable, or functioning as though it's an undispellable effect, so yes, (greater) dispel magic should work on it, if you make the CL check.

[Jack_Simth]

I got a player that is under the impression that you can dispel the Halaster's Teleport Cage. Is this possible?

Permanent, and doesn't have any of the "Undispellable" clauses found in such spells as Bestow Curse, so yes.

That said: Cannonically, Halaster's caster level is very, very high. This makes dispelling... problematic.

[Manyasone]

Halaster Blackcloack is 1100 years old and is a wizard 25 archmage 5 and batsh*t insane. So uhh... Good luck?

[tiercel]

Scroll of Mage’s Disjunction: 3825gp
Entering Undermountain: 1 gp/person
Wiping out Halaster’s Teleport Cage and Halaster’s Scrying Cage for all of Undermountain in one go because the Mad Mage made both spells a giant single point of failure: Priceless

I mean, come on, it’s Waterdeep. Getting a nuclear weapon Disjunction scroll is pretty much “ask some guy in a trenchcoat in an alleyway” territory; Elminster probably uses them as napkins and tips them out with the garbage.

[Manyasone]

Scroll of Mage’s Disjunction: 3825gp
Entering Undermountain: 1 gp/person
Wiping out Halaster’s Teleport Cage and Halaster’s Scrying Cage for all of Undermountain in one go because the Mad Mage made both spells a giant single point of failure: Priceless

I mean, come on, it’s Waterdeep. Getting a nuclear weapon Disjunction scroll is pretty much “ask some guy in a trenchcoat in an alleyway” territory; Elminster probably uses them as napkins and tips them out with the garbage.

Yeah. But this is forgotten realms. Plot armor in every tree, Gary stu and Mary sue in every bar. And lots of 'becaude reasons'. Isn't Khelben Arunsun and his bed warmer in charge of waterdeep? And aren't they both chosen of mystra? If they haven't done it, a mere pc can't hope to do it

[Crake]

Halaster Blackcloack is 1100 years old and is a wizard 25 archmage 5 and batsh*t insane. So uhh... Good luck?

Just because the spell is named after him, doesn't mean the cage in question is necessarily cast by him, just the same as not ever disjunction is cast by mordenkainen.

That said, since greater dispel is capped at +20, all you would need to do is bump your caster level up to 30 to make the DC impossible to beat, even with a natural 20, short of using some of the various methods to boost your dispel check that are independant of your CL (inquisition domain, dispelling cord, elven spell lore etc). Get your CL up to 40, quite doable with red wizard of thay circle magic, and you should be good to go for anything pre-epic bar disjunction, but let's face it, if you're facing off against another 9th level caster, the two of you probably aren't worrying about teleport cages.

[Deophaun]

Halaster Blackcloack is 1100 years old and is a wizard 25 archmage 5 and batsh*t insane. So uhh... Good luck?
Dweomer vortex don't care 'bout no CL.

[Goaty14]

Dweomer vortex don't care 'bout no CL.

You really love that spell, don't you?

A sufficiently leveled truenamer and a somewhat-permissive reading of Spell Rebirth don't care 'bout no CL either.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Empowered Maximized greater dispel magic = done.

[ben-zayb]

Empowered Maximized greater dispel magic = done.How much is that worth investing into without acorns or custom demiplanes, though? I'd prefer just disjoining than spending at least two feats and either more feat or PrC levels that I could've invested elsewhere.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

How much is that worth investing into without acorns or custom demiplanes, though? I'd prefer just disjoining than spending at least two feats and either more feat or PrC levels that I could've invested elsewhere.Like Maximize and Empower aren't some of the best Core feats in existence. Along with Extend, of course.

[Deophaun]

You really love that spell, don't you?
One of my three favorites.

Empowered Maximized greater dispel magic = done.
There is the question as to whether those MMs even work with the spell, however.

[Goaty14]

There is the question as to whether those MMs even work with the spell, however.

The 1d20 dispel check is in the spell description, so I don't think that there is something to say that it isn't a variable, numeric effect of it.

[Silly Name]

There is the question as to whether those MMs even work with the spell, however.

Why wouldn't they? Greater Dispel Magic involves a check, meaning a dice is rolled. This means that there is a variable, numeric effect that can be Empowered and Maximised.

[Deophaun]

Why wouldn't they?
This has gone around the board about a hundred times already. If you want to see the arguments, go look up one of them. Rehashing it for the 101st time isn't going to do anything but derail.

[tiercel]

Yeah. But this is forgotten realms. Plot armor in every tree, Gary stu and Mary sue in every bar. And lots of 'becaude reasons'. Isn't Khelben Arunsun and his bed warmer in charge of waterdeep? And aren't they both chosen of mystra? If they haven't done it, a mere pc can't hope to do it

It seems like the writers of the module could have at least written the spell to not collapse from a dispel anywhere in its area, or instead just specified it as wondrous architecture or plot-undispellable or whatever, but then we are talking about a module that has a dying archmage’s panicked cry 1) go to a bunch of 1st level adventurers when you can’t throw a rock in FR without hitting an epic NPC not responding to Halaster and 2) the whole “come save Undermountain” thing is completely unresolved anyway

[Deophaun]

It seems like the writers of the module could have at least written the spell to not collapse from a dispel anywhere in its area
Generally, the origin of the teleport cage would have to be within the area dispel for it to actually be affected. There is some vagueness in what "spell currently in effect on the object or creature" means that can allow a targeted version to take it out, but the first sentence of the spell ("spell that have been cast on a creature or object") points to RAI as not allowing that.

But again, dweomer vortex don't care 'bout no origins.

[tiercel]

Generally, the origin of the teleport cage would have to be within the area dispel for it to actually be affected.

What is the origin when spells “merge”? The origin of the first spell? The origin of the most recent? The weighted average of all origin positions?

Also, can’t the targeted version target a spell?

[ExLibrisMortis]

Also, can’t the targeted version target a spell?
Dispel magic targets a spellcaster, a creature, or an object. I don't think spells are objects normally, but it could be argued either way... they certainly don't have Wisdom or Charisma scores, so that's a good start :smalltongue:.

[Deophaun]

What is the origin when spells “merge”? The origin of the first spell? The origin of the most recent? The weighted average of all origin positions?
That's a good "ask your DM" question, but anyone able to properly identify the spell should have the knowledge to know it. Whatever the answer, there should be some kind of structure built around the origin to prevent exactly that.

[tiercel]

Dispel magic targets a spellcaster, a creature, or an object.

Now I’m confused, since the Target line of the Dispel Magic spell does say that, but the text says

Targeted Dispel
One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell.

On the other hand, Disjunction is phrased a bit differently:


Area: All magical effects and magic items within a 40-ft.-radius burst
All magical effects and magic items within the radius of the spell, except for those that you carry or touch, are disjoined. That is, spells and spell-like effects are separated into their individual components (ending the effect as a dispel magic spell does)....

If only an “effect” has to be within the radius, then it’s arguable that the “origin” language of Dispel Magic doesn’t necessarily apply.

[Silly Name]

Isn't the "target a spell" referring to when you use Dispel Magic as a Counterspell? Meaning it can target spells only as they are being cast?

Another possible reading is, I guess, that when you target a creature/object you can try to dispell all the magical effects currently affecting it, or just one specific spell (say, for instance, you want to end a debuff but not the various buffs affecting the creature).

[weckar]

The teleport cage is so useful though. Can skip so much with it.

[tiercel]

Isn't the "target a spell" referring to when you use Dispel Magic as a Counterspell? Meaning it can target spells only as they are being cast?

Another possible reading is, I guess, that when you target a creature/object you can try to dispell all the magical effects currently affecting it, or just one specific spell (say, for instance, you want to end a debuff but not the various buffs affecting the creature).

I guess I’d thought that you could, for instance, target the effect of a Wall of Fire (and just try to dispel the actual burning wall, without having to drop an area dispel, for instance); now I’m not sure if you technically can? (It seems like “I want to dispel that particular magical effect” is a thing Dispel Magic should do, but RAW often doesn’t care about “should,” I suppose.)

Also, though, as I noted above, Disjunction uses different language than Dispel Magic, so it might hit effects differently. (I’ll admit I haven’t paid as much attention to Disjunction because (1) I’ve so rarely gamed at levels where it was in play and (2) it’s been considered sort of a “nuclear weapon” at the tables I’ve been at.)

[Silly Name]

Since we're dealing with RAWery, let's do a read-over of Dispel Magic (because re-reading the SRD is fun and I need to do it anyway to ensure my players aren't pulling shenanigans):


Target or Area: One spellcaster, creature, or object; or 20-ft.-radius burst.
This would mean that you can't do the "dispel Wall of Fire only" trick you mentioned (I do agree that it should be something you can do, though). "Spells" aren't listed as valid targets.


You can use dispel magic to end ongoing spells that have been cast on a creature or object, to temporarily suppress the magical abilities of a magic item, to end ongoing spells (or at least their effects) within an area, or to counter another spellcaster’s spell.

This is pretty clear so far: you can A) End one or more ongoing magical effects on a creature or object, B) suppress a magical item, or C) counter a spell, keeping in mind that, according to the "Target" line, your target is the spellcaster and not the spell itself.


You choose to use dispel magic in one of three ways: a targeted dispel, an area dispel, or a counterspell:
Currently, we are interested in targeted dispels.


Targeted Dispel
One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell. You make a dispel check (1d20 + your caster level, maximum +10) against the spell or against each ongoing spell currently in effect on the object or creature. The DC for this dispel check is 11 + the spell’s caster level. If you succeed on a particular check, that spell is dispelled; if you fail, that spell remains in effect.
(Emphasis mine).
In order to dispel only a specific spell, it needs to be affecting a creature or an item. This means that area spells can't be dispelled with a targeted dispel.

Let's check Area Dispel, specifically the parts about area spells:

For each ongoing area or effect spell whose point of origin is within the area of the dispel magic spell, you can make a dispel check to dispel the spell.

For each ongoing spell whose area overlaps that of the dispel magic spell, you can make a dispel check to end the effect, but only within the overlapping area.
An Area Dispel would end a Wall of Fire... But also everything else within a 20 ft. radius burst. It goes without saying that sometimes this is inconvenient.

Interestingly, the second paragraph tells us that we can't use Dispel Magic to bring down Halaster's Cages in Undermountain all at once - we'd need to do so one 20 ft. radius at a time.

[ben-zayb]

Just because the spell is named after him, doesn't mean the cage in question is necessarily cast by him, just the same as not ever disjunction is cast by mordenkainen. But we are talking about the same person who tried to make Halaster's Fetch happen, and that line of spells just didn't catch on.

[Silly Name]

Eh, the Fetch spells are there to explain how Halaster managed to fill Undermountain with tons of monsters. I guess that if your character wanted to create a mega-dungeon as well, these spells could come in handy, but otherwise they aren't going to be useful to your average adventurer.

[Crake]

(Emphasis mine).
In order to dispel only a specific spell, it needs to be affecting a creature or an item. This means that area spells can't be dispelled with a targeted dispel.

Except the part that you emphasized had an or statement in it, saying


Targeted Dispel

One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell. You make a dispel check (1d20 + your caster level, maximum +10) against the spell or against each ongoing spell currently in effect on the object or creature.

This very clearly states that a spell can be targeted individually, despite the target line omitting that detail. The targeted dispel spell description text is more specific than the general target line, and it says you can target a spell, so specific trumps general here, it's pretty clear.

[Silly Name]

Ah, my bad. English isn't my first language, sometimes those details escape me. So, you can dispel an area spell specifically... Which would destroy the Cage. Uh. I get that Halaster is mad, but this is plain stupid.

[EldritchWeaver]

Dweomer vortex don't care 'bout no CL.

I don't think that dweomer vortex can dispel any spells with spell level 7 or higher. Halaster's Teleport Cage is level 9.


Also, as a swift action, you can have the spell's cone reach out to a single target creature or 5-foot square that is up to 60 feet away and within line of sight. Without the need for an attack roll or dispel check, the dweomer vortex dispels any spell or spell-like ability currently affecting the target creature or area. If the target creature or area has more than one spell or spell-like ability in effect upon it, dweomer vortex starts by dispelling the lowest-level spell (choose between spells of the same level randomly) and continues to dispel additional, higher-level spells until it reaches its limit (see below).

Once the dweomer vortex negates six levels of spells, it is discharged, vanishing in a harmless whirl of winking motes. 0-level spells count as 1st level spells for this purpose.

[Bronk]

Except the part that you emphasized had an or statement in it, saying


This very clearly states that a spell can be targeted individually, despite the target line omitting that detail. The targeted dispel spell description text is more specific than the general target line, and it says you can target a spell, so specific trumps general here, it's pretty clear.

Per thar quote, you can target the spell, but only if it is in effect ‘on’ the object or creature which is the target.

[AnonymousPepper]

Per thar quote, you can target the spell, but only if it is in effect ‘on’ the object or creature which is the target.

Correct, but:

"You see that rock over there? Pretty sure it's got the Teleport Cage effect on it. I CAST FISTDISPEL!"

Edit: In any case, the difficulty lies not in dropping the cage, but in surviving the aftermath.

Because Halaster can and will kick your *** seven ways to Sunday, and I imagine Blackstaff (Wiz24 Archmage 3) and Laeral Silverhand (Wiz19) might get in on the fun just for screwing with their city like that.

[Deophaun]

I don't think that dweomer vortex can dispel any spells with spell level 7 or higher. Halaster's Teleport Cage is level 9.Strange that you would think that, when you went out of your way to quote how dweomer vortex works:

1) Dweomer vortex is used on square containing teleport cage
2) Check to see if vortex has dispelled six levels of spells comes back negative.
3) Vortex moves to next spell in effect on area and dispels it (teleport cage)
4) Check to see if vortex has dispelled six levels of spells comes back positive.
5) Vortex ends.

[AnonymousPepper]

Strange that you would think that, when you went out of your way to quote how dweomer vortex works:

1) Dweomer vortex is used on square containing teleport cage
2) Check to see if vortex has dispelled six levels of spells comes back negative.
3) Vortex moves to next spell in effect on area and dispels it (teleport cage)
4) Check to see if vortex has dispelled six levels of spells comes back positive.
5) Vortex ends.

I dunno, it seems to me that that implies, reasonably, that it can only give the magical succ, so to speak, to six levels total. At the very least that's how I'd rule it. The implication is pretty clearly there and you'd have to stick to a pretty intensely obtuse and downright myopic reading otherwise. (No offense! That sounds harsh, but I'm just imagining a player trying to get that past me...)

Also, flaw in your plan: the Undermountain is absolutely brimming with magic. And dweomer vortex starts with the lowest level spell first. Meaning that there is a pretty solid chance that you just hit some of the other random magical bull **** that Halaster or one of his pets has floating around instead. Hell, perhaps Halaster has a resetting trap down there constantly resetting a completely unimportant sixth-level field spell of some sort just for precisely that eventuality. Certainly something I would do if I were a hyperintelligent and somewhat bat-**** insane epic archmage who wanted to have the best dungeon ever and I knew there was a third-level spell that could completely nuke the thing that makes it, well, the Undermountain, and I could counter it fairly easily that way.

Halaster Blackcloak: "Sorry, buddy, Disjunction or GTFO." :xykon:

[Deophaun]

I dunno, it seems to me that that implies, reasonably, that it can only give the magical succ, so to speak, to six levels total.
Then it would say "up to six levels." But it doesn't. It only stops after it has dispelled six levels. As such, it implies no such thing.

At the very least that's how I'd rule it.
Your house rules are your house rules. As I don't play at your house, I really don't care.

Edit: An your resetting trap idea doesn't work. It just takes setting up a lead box in the middle of any given room. That blocks LoE to the square. Nothing more is being cast there.

[EldritchWeaver]

Strange that you would think that, when you went out of your way to quote how dweomer vortex works:

1) Dweomer vortex is used on square containing teleport cage
2) Check to see if vortex has dispelled six levels of spells comes back negative.
3) Vortex moves to next spell in effect on area and dispels it (teleport cage)
4) Check to see if vortex has dispelled six levels of spells comes back positive.
5) Vortex ends.


continues to dispel additional, higher-level spells until it reaches its limit (see below).

This implies that that it can't go beyond 6 spell levels. No house rule needed.

[Crake]

Strange that you would think that, when you went out of your way to quote how dweomer vortex works:

1) Dweomer vortex is used on square containing teleport cage
2) Check to see if vortex has dispelled six levels of spells comes back negative.
3) Vortex moves to next spell in effect on area and dispels it (teleport cage)
4) Check to see if vortex has dispelled six levels of spells comes back positive.
5) Vortex ends.

By this same reasoning, this is how it SHOULD work:

1) Dweomer vortex is used on square containing teleport cage
2) Check to see if vortex has dispelled six levels of spells comes back negative.
3) Vortex moves to next spell in effect on area and dispels it (teleport cage)
4) Check to see if vortex has dispelled six levels of spells comes back NEGATIVE -> Nine levels of spells have been dispelled, nine is not six.
5) Vortex now lasts until it's normal duratione expires, dispelling everything and anything.

But that's a stupid reading, and I think it's quite clear that the spell intends to mean it can dispel 6 levels worth of spells in it's entirety.

[Deophaun]

This implies that that it can't go beyond 6 spell levels.
No, it doesn't. Just because you choose to infer it does not mean the text implies it.

4) Check to see if vortex has dispelled six levels of spells comes back NEGATIVE -> Nine levels of spells have been dispelled, nine is not six.
Comes back positive, because it has dispelled six. The spell doesn't ask if the levels dispelled equal six, only that six levels have been dispelled. This is fulfilled whether you dispel six levels or a hundred and six.

But that's a stupid reading,
Correct.

and I think it's quite clear that the spell intends to mean it can dispel 6 levels worth of spells in it's entirety.
The spell says what it says. You can houserule it however you want. Willful misreading of what it says and presenting self-described stupid readings in your defense is just a waste of pixels.

[EldritchWeaver]

No, it doesn't. Just because you choose to infer it does not mean the text implies it.


a prescribed maximum or minimum amount, quantity, or number

"Until it reaches its limit" means simply "stop here, don't go further". Any other reading is a houserule.

[Anthrowhale]

Just for completeness, two other methods around Teleport Cage are:

a) Initiate of Mystra + AMF.

b) High caster level + Otiluke's Supressing Field [Abjuration].

[AnonymousPepper]

There's also Wish. Transport travelers clause gives less of a **** than honey badgers. Only way to stop Wish teleportation, as far as I know, would be a mythal or deity. Because epic.

[ExLibrisMortis]

"Until it reaches its limit" means simply "stop here, don't go further". Any other reading is a houserule.
You can't exactly stop halfway dispelling a spell, though. Until the entire 9th-level spell has been dispelled, no levels have been dispelled, and no limit is reached. Hence dweomer vortex can dispel any one spell of 7th level or higher.

[Bronk]

Correct, but:

"You see that rock over there? Pretty sure it's got the Teleport Cage effect on it. I CAST FISTDISPEL!"

It's being affected by the spell, but as an area spell, the it's actually emanating from a grid intersection somewhere.




Edit: In any case, the difficulty lies not in dropping the cage, but in surviving the aftermath.

Because Halaster can and will kick your *** seven ways to Sunday, and I imagine Blackstaff (Wiz24 Archmage 3) and Laeral Silverhand (Wiz19) might get in on the fun just for screwing with their city like that.

Heh, plot armor is the best armor!

[Manyasone]

Heh, plot armor is the best armor!
Don't forget that the Harpers will come to harp about the fact that you're upsetting the balance of power or some such rot...

[AnonymousPepper]

Don't forget that the Harpers will come to harp about the fact that you're upsetting the balance of power or some such rot...

Ugh, don't get me started on them. The Harpers are the most unnecessary waste of space since Commorragh and its inhabitants.

The only "balance" you need is to not go full Last Kingpriest of Istar.

[EldritchWeaver]

You can't exactly stop halfway dispelling a spell, though. Until the entire 9th-level spell has been dispelled, no levels have been dispelled, and no limit is reached. Hence dweomer vortex can dispel any one spell of 7th level or higher.

With that argument, if a fifth level spell had been dispelled, then you could still dispel 2+ level spells. Or infinite high level spells. Which should demonstrate how wacky your interpretation is.

No, you don't half dispel a spell, you simply exclude such an effect from being dispelled in the first place.

[ExLibrisMortis]

With that argument, if a fifth level spell had been dispelled, then you could still dispel 2+ level spells. Or infinite high level spells. Which should demonstrate how wacky your interpretation is.

No, you don't half dispel a spell, you simply exclude such an effect from being dispelled in the first place.
Wacky? If that's what the rules say, it's what the rules say. The rules are often wacky, certainly, but the interpretation is correct. The spell says nothing about excluding spells of a higher level than the number of levels still available to be dispelled, hence that doesn't happen.

[AnonymousPepper]

As a suggestion, why not just handle it like Spell Turning and have a proportional chance of negating it?

That's definite houserule territory but it at least follows a similar example.

[Crake]

We should have a rule like occams razor for this community. Something akin to "When there are multiple ways of interpreting some rules text, take the most sensible reading, or the one that seems the most intended."

Both Deo and Eldritch's readings of the spell could be correct, simply due to the nature of the english language, one thing can be interpreted different ways. But when you actively favour on the side of a, as you agreed, "wacky" interpretation, when there's a perfectly reasonable interpretation available, I just gotta feel like that's a fallacy, especially when you claim that the other interpretation is invalid for no apparent reason.

Person 1: "This spell is broken by reading it in this particular way, RAW is so stupid!"
Person 2: "But there's a much more reasonable way to read it, that makes far more sense, like this...."
Person 1: "No, that is not a correct reading of the spell, what you're saying is a houserule, you're wrong, RAW is still stupid."
Person 2: *facepalms*

It's a far too common occurance on this forum honestly.

[tiercel]

Heh, plot armor is the best armor!

This thread got me to find my copy of this adventure and, oh my gods, while they’ve made a token effort to make this “runnable in any campaign setting,” it’s always going to be a FR dungeon.

The guy who runs the bar atop the most public entrance to Undermountain isn’t just a retired adventurer, he’s an 18th level Fighter. Forget exploring Undermountain: figure out how this guy survived to 18th level taking only Fighter levels!

One of the regulars in the bar is a 19th level wizard/techsmith/archmage. Don’t ask why he hasn’t Won Everything as an immediate action.

Speaking of which, there’s a 19th level sorcerer who is also a living Wish spell, hanging around the first level of the dungeon just to hand the PCs a minor artifact. #ImNotMakingThisUp Seriously, this is her only purpose in the module; I suppose actually naming her Monty Haul would have been a little too on the nose.

[AnonymousPepper]

We should have a rule like occams razor for this community. Something akin to "When there are multiple ways of interpreting some rules text, take the most sensible reading, or the one that seems the most intended."

Both Deo and Eldritch's readings of the spell could be correct, simply due to the nature of the english language, one thing can be interpreted different ways. But when you actively favour on the side of a, as you agreed, "wacky" interpretation, when there's a perfectly reasonable interpretation available, I just gotta feel like that's a fallacy, especially when you claim that the other interpretation is invalid for no apparent reason.

Person 1: "This spell is broken by reading it in this particular way, RAW is so stupid!"
Person 2: "But there's a much more reasonable way to read it, that makes far more sense, like this...."
Person 1: "No, that is not a correct reading of the spell, what you're saying is a houserule, you're wrong, RAW is still stupid."
Person 2: *facepalms*

It's a far too common occurance on this forum honestly.

Not to be a butt, but QFT. When honest interpretation of the written language of a rule can lead to both A. an appropriately balanced and level-appropriate [thing] and B. a broken-as-hell game exploit that belongs in the Rules Dysfunction thread, you should probably err on the side of the former.

[death390]

Like Maximize and Empower aren't some of the best Core feats in existence. Along with Extend, of course.

generally 3.5 metamagic is not worth the feat cost ANYWAY without some way to minimize it. doing something like this to spells that don't have a better alternative is one of the few caveats. maximized empowered fireball for example SPlvl 3 + 3 +2 = effective spell level 7. Damage = 10d6 maxed = 60 * 1.5 = 90 fire damage with DC 13 + casting stat modifer for 1/2 damage reflex. in a 20ft radius (40ft diameter). Min caster level = 13 wizard.

vs chain lightning: hits 1 target + CL# of secondary target within 30ft of primary (effective 60ft radius). 1d6/cl 20 max electric damage to primary 1/2 to secondary: 13d6 to primary damage range(13-78) 1/2 that to secondaries. mind you it get stronger the more levels it has this is AT MINIMUM CL at max damage range(20-120). does have reflex 1/2 but DC is 4 higher at 17+casting stat modifier.

chain lightning is already better heck delayed fireball is at this level and is ALSO better just because its damage increases to 20d6 max as well.

then again why use those when you have PRISMATIC SPRAY!!!
1 Red 20 points fire damage (Reflex half)
2 Orange 40 points acid damage (Reflex half)
3 Yellow 80 points electricity damage (Reflex half)
4 Green Poison (Kills; Fortitude partial, take 1d6 points of Con damage instead)
5 Blue Turned to stone (Fortitude negates)
6 Indigo Insane, as insanity spell (Will negates)
7 Violet Sent to another plane (Will negates)
8 Struck by two rays; roll twice more, ignoring any 8 results.

yes rolling a 1 or 2 kind of sucks but any of the other ones are already better. 3 is basically the samage damage (tiny bit less), 4 is a SoD that causes Con Dmg on success, 5 if SoD, 6 is SoL, 7 is SoL, and 8 is a giant F U.

the only good way to use metamagic in 3.5 is spont. energy sub to get around resistances, arcane thesis to super charge 1 spell to insane levels, or put enough metamagic reducers on it to make it = +1 (looking at you persist). otherwise you should have better options than metamagic.

[zergling.exe]

generally 3.5 metamagic is not worth the feat cost ANYWAY without some way to minimize it. doing something like this to spells that don't have a better alternative is one of the few caveats. maximized empowered fireball for example SPlvl 3 + 3 +2 = effective spell level 7. Damage = 10d6 maxed = 60 * 1.5 = 90 fire damage with DC 13 + casting stat modifer for 1/2 damage reflex. in a 20ft radius (40ft diameter). Min caster level = 13 wizard.

2 things: 1) 3 + 3 + 2 is 8, so a maximized empowered fireball would have an effective spell level of 8; and 2) empower and maximize explicitly do not stack like that. From the text of Maximize Spell:
An empowered, maximized spell gains the separate benefits of each feat: the maximum result plus one-half the normally rolled result. An empowered, maximized fireball cast by a 15th-level wizard deals points of damage equal to 60 plus one half of 10d6.
So you would roll 10d6, halve the result, then add 60 (the max of 10d6). This would result in a range of 65-90, avg 77.

[ericgrau]

The 1d20 dispel check is in the spell description, so I don't think that there is something to say that it isn't a variable, numeric effect of it.

It's not an effect, it's a check, like an attack roll. Both are equally intangible non-effects. Empower is still nice for boosting actual effects including those that aren't damage. Dispelled or not dispelled is an effect, but that part isn't variable.

While all interpretations of dweomer vortex and dispel magic are possible, some are much more likely by English and some are a bit more of a stretch. Not all interpretations are equally valid. Often they wouldn't even be considered unless the reader wanted to believe a certain way.


Metamagic stuff



Metamagic versions of spells tend to be intentionally weaker than other spells of equal level. The reason is because different is automatically better, or what I call the law of horsemanship. The rules from Magic the Gathering say:
Flying creatures may only be blocked by flying creatures.
Horsemanship creatures may only be blocked by horsemanship creatures.

Both are the same right? Uh, no, because almost no opponent has horsemanship creatures. Horsemanship is 99% of the way to unblockable purely from being different. it's not broken cheese in MtG solely because it costs about as much as unblockable, but that's a tangent. Simply having more options is adding power.

A sorcerer especially with metamagic effectively has many more spells known which gives him more options in combat. And unlike a wizard's spells "known" they are always prepared and available. But even a wizard gets access to effects he might not otherwise have. Either because they aren't in his spellbook, or because they simply don't exist in any book. Comparing maximised fireball to chain lightning only fails because both are multi-target damage. Even then the maximized fireball is 60 dmg DC 13+int save half. At CL 11 chain lighting starts at 38.5 avg dmg 1 target and 19.25 dmg other targets. DC 16+int save half. But chain lighting is more selective at avoiding allies. In many situations the maximized fireball is more powerful. Sometimes it isn't, but merely having the option to cast it when it is and to cast something else when it isn't is an increase in power. Being able to select one or the other is an increase in average damage because you can select whichever is higher. Likewise making an argument from bad options such as CL 20 maximized fireball is completely pointless. If you can merely find 10 or 20 good options then 10 million bad options have no effect because you don't have to select them. The sorcerer is helped more who can select metamagic on the fly, but so is a TO wizard who somehow knows which one to pick ahead of time. Or even a PO wizard to a lesser extent with a little planning. Such as mass energy resistance (fire) + maximized fireball. Or better yet you empower an enervation or some such non-damage effect. And better yet mix the metamagicked spell with unrelated spells rather than similar spells to grant the most options for the highest average power. Instead of picking the higher of two damages, you pick which more general category better matches the encounter.
And yeah sometimes you empower damage too. It's a great feat.

Back on topic yeah you can dispel Halaster's Teleport Cage just fine for reasons given in thread, unless the caster's level is too high. Even if it is too high you can disjunction it, but by then the whole game is crazy anyway. I strongly suspect you can't disjunction the one cast on Waterdeep simply because that setting is full of unbeatable screw yous. EDIT: A quick Google says yeup, screw any of your non-epic attempts to disable anything like this in Waterdeep. So alex1g, yes your player can absolutely dispel an ordinary Halaster's Teleport Cage. But he can't dispel the one on Waterdeep.

[ExLibrisMortis]

We should have a rule like occams razor for this community. Something akin to "When there are multiple ways of interpreting some rules text, take the most sensible reading, or the one that seems the most intended."
"Sensible" is too easy a way to dismiss a reading someone doesn't agree with.

Dweomer vortex, by EW's argument, would do nothing if it encountered a 7th-level spell, but the spell description doesn't mention anything of the sort--in fact, it says it dispels "any spell or spell-like ability". In my view, the "sensible" reading is the one that lets the spell do something rather than nothing. That makes the spell very powerful in theory, or "wacky" in EW's terms, but in actual play, it'll just function as a hard counter to at most a few spells, of which the last may be of any level. It's powerful at its spell level, but that's not without precedent.

[death390]

2 things: 1) 3 + 3 + 2 is 8, so a maximized empowered fireball would have an effective spell level of 8; and 2) empower and maximize explicitly do not stack like that. From the text of Maximize Spell:
So you would roll 10d6, halve the result, then add 60 (the max of 10d6). This would result in a range of 65-90, avg 77.

ah yes apologies, i was rushing cause i had to work an overnight shift shortly before i posted. however the MAX of an empowered maximized as you stated is 90.

the bit about how metamagic allowing variations to widen the apreciable list of spells for those of the spontaneous restricted listing is understandable. HOWEVER i disagree that the cost associated with them is in any way appropriate. assuming all metamagic reducers were removed from the game, most +1 metamagics could be listed as +.5, persist could be +4, and each of the other levels of metamagic could lost 1-1.5 costs for their effects. and even then the there should be some way to negate some of the issue by adding things to the spell: longer casting times, extra components, ect.

as is most metamagic is unusable to me unless using reducers or arcane thesis.

[Crake]

"Sensible" is too easy a way to dismiss a reading someone doesn't agree with.

Dweomer vortex, by EW's argument, would do nothing if it encountered a 7th-level spell, but the spell description doesn't mention anything of the sort--in fact, it says it dispels "any spell or spell-like ability". In my view, the "sensible" reading is the one that lets the spell do something rather than nothing. That makes the spell very powerful in theory, or "wacky" in EW's terms, but in actual play, it'll just function as a hard counter to at most a few spells, of which the last may be of any level. It's powerful at its spell level, but that's not without precedent.

You agreed that it was wacky. It can't be both wacky and sensible. If you honestly believe the spell was intended to function that way, so be it, but the way you talk implies otherwise, and I sincerely doubt you believe the spell is intended to be what essentially equates to a single spell disjunction.

[ExLibrisMortis]

You agreed that it was wacky. It can't be both wacky and sensible. If you honestly believe the spell was intended to function that way, so be it, but the way you talk implies otherwise, and I sincerely doubt you believe the spell is intended to be what essentially equates to a single spell disjunction.
No, you're misunderstanding me. I said the rules are often wacky, implying that wacky is not a disqualification of RAW. As such, I also don't agree with you that something can't be "wacky" (in EW's terms) and "sensible" (in my terms).

[Crake]

No, you're misunderstanding me. I said the rules are often wacky, implying that wacky is not a disqualification of RAW. As such, I also don't agree with you that something can't be "wacky" (in EW's terms) and "sensible" (in my terms).

Be that as it may, EW's reading of the rules is also a perfectly acceptable way to read it as per the english language. Calling his interpretation a houserule, when it is an equally reasonable way to read it as RAW is what the fallacy is all about. It's one thing to say "this is how we read it and play it at my table" and another to say "This is the only way to read it, anything else is a houserule", especially when there are indeed multiple ways to read it legitimately.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Calling his interpretation a houserule, when it is an equally reasonable way to read it as RAW is what the fallacy is all about. It's one thing to say "this is how we read it and play it at my table" and another to say "This is the only way to read it, anything else is a houserule", especially when there are indeed multiple ways to read it legitimately.
Yes, calling a reading you disagree with a houserule is a passive-aggressive way to call it "wrong", and I didn't do it because it's annoying. I gave a reason to support my view that a different reading should be preferred. If you'll forgive me for pointing fingers: you may want to quote the people who actually used the fallacy (and seemed to be okay with it), instead of me.

Additionally, might I suggest that calling an interpretation "wacky" or "intensely obtuse and downright myopic" or "stupid" (as you did) is also less than courteous?

[Crake]

Yes, calling a reading you disagree with a houserule is a passive-aggressive way to call it "wrong", and I didn't do it because it's annoying. I gave a reason to support my view that a different reading should be preferred. If you'll forgive me for pointing fingers: you may want to quote the people who actually used the fallacy (and seemed to be okay with it), instead of me.

Additionally, might I suggest that calling an interpretation "wacky" or "intensely obtuse and downright myopic" or "stupid" (as you did) is also less than courteous?

The only reading I called stupid was one that I made, to prove a point. It was very much a stupid reading, and intentionally so.

Speaking of which, my original post regarding the fallacy didn't mention you at all, I simply responded to your reply to the post, and perhaps I misinterpreted your post regarding whether or not you thought the ruling was wacky, but you cleaned up that misunderstanding, and beyond that I don't believe I have accused you of anything, though I can see how my last post may have seemed like it was directing that accusation at you, it was more intended to point out the purpose of the fallacy rather than point fingers at anyone in particular.

Sure, sensible is subjective, but when on one hand you have a spell that could automatically dispel up to 6 levels, vs a nuke that can dispel deific level magic, I think it's objectively clear to say one is more sensible than the other.

[AnonymousPepper]

Oh, hell, that's right. That reaaaaaally doesn't pass the san check. That'd wreck any magic that isn't explicitly protected by a "not affected by mortal magic" clause. Which... I don't think actually shows up on the deity side, now that I think about it.

Man, why didn't Mystryl just cast that to instantly nuke Karsus' Avatar? Woulda saved her a death. :confused:

[ksbsnowowl]

Empowered Maximized greater dispel magic = done.This one is easily debunked by reading the actual PHB, not the SRD.


EMPOWER SPELL [METAMAGIC]
You can cast spells to greater effect.
Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half. An empowered spell deals half again as much damage as normal, cures half again as many hit points, affects half again as many targets, and so forth, as appropriate. For example, an empowered magic missile deals 1-1/2 times its normal damage (roll 1d4+1 and multiply the result by 1-1/2 for each missile). Saving throws and opposed rolls (such as the one you make when you cast dispel magic) are not affected, nor are spells without random variables. An empowered spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell’s actual level.Emphasis added.


The 1d20 dispel check is in the spell description, so I don't think that there is something to say that it isn't a variable, numeric effect of it.
Again, get off the internet and pick up the rule book.


MAXIMIZE SPELL [METAMAGIC]
You can cast spells to maximum effect.
Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of a spell modified by this feat are maximized. A maximized spell deals maximum damage, cures the maximum number of hit points, affects the maximum number of targets, etc., as appropriate. For example, a maximized fireball deals 6 points of damage per caster level (up to a maximum of 60 points of damage at 10th caster level). Saving throws and opposed rolls (such as the one you make when you cast dispel magic) are not affected, nor are spells without random variables. A maximized spell uses up a spell slot three levels higher than the spell’s actual level.
...



Easiest way for a DM to keep Halaster's Teleport Cage intact is to say the epic Halaster Blackcloak has the epic feat Tenacious Magic.

Tenacious Magic [Epic]
Prerequisites: Spellcraft 15 ranks.

Benefit: Choose one spell you know or spell-like ability you possess. Whenever the chosen form of magic would otherwise end due to a dispel effect, the magic is instead only suppressed for 1d4 rounds. The magic still ends when its duration expires, but the suppressed rounds do not count against its duration. You can dismiss your own spell or spell-like ability (if dismissible) or dispel your own tenacious magic normally.

Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Each time you take this feat, it applies to a different spell or spell-like ability.Disjunction, Dweomer Vortex, whatever. The cage is coming back on-line in 1d4 rounds.

[AnonymousPepper]

Don't think Disjunction dispels per se, does it?

[noob]

Oh, hell, that's right. That reaaaaaally doesn't pass the san check. That'd wreck any magic that isn't explicitly protected by a "not affected by mortal magic" clause. Which... I don't think actually shows up on the deity side, now that I think about it.

Man, why didn't Mystryl just cast that to instantly nuke Karsus' Avatar? Woulda saved her a death. :confused:

So you except gods to be sapient?
Gods are as much dumb as the sum of the mistakes of all the people who write their stories which makes them so deeply dumb they could implode from dumbness.
Mystryl could have cast disjunction too it would have worked since disjunction just works automatically.

[ksbsnowowl]

Don't think Disjunction dispels per se, does it?

"All magical effects and magic items within the radius of the spell, except for those that you carry or touch, are disjoined. That is, spells and spell-like effects are separated into their individual components (ending the effect as a dispel magic spell does), and each permanent magic item must make a successful Will save or be turned into a normal item. An item in a creature’s possession uses its own Will save bonus or its possessor’s Will save bonus, whichever is higher."



dispel: Negate, suppress, or remove one or more existing spells or other effects on a creature, item, or area. Dispel usually refers to a dispel magic spell, though other forms of dispelling are possible. Certain spells cannot be dispelled, as noted in the individual spell descriptions.Given the game rules definition of "dispel," there's no way you can argue that Mordenkainen's Disjunction isn't "a dispel effect."

[AnonymousPepper]

"All magical effects and magic items within the radius of the spell, except for those that you carry or touch, are disjoined. That is, spells and spell-like effects are separated into their individual components (ending the effect as a dispel magic spell does), and each permanent magic item must make a successful Will save or be turned into a normal item. An item in a creature’s possession uses its own Will save bonus or its possessor’s Will save bonus, whichever is higher."

Given the game rules definition of "dispel," there's no way you can argue that Mordenkainen's Disjunction isn't "a dispel effect."

Fair enough, broski. Had it in my head that it said something more along the lines of just outright destroying the effect and I'm away from my PHB.

[EldritchWeaver]

"Sensible" is too easy a way to dismiss a reading someone doesn't agree with.

Dweomer vortex, by EW's argument, would do nothing if it encountered a 7th-level spell, but the spell description doesn't mention anything of the sort--in fact, it says it dispels "any spell or spell-like ability". In my view, the "sensible" reading is the one that lets the spell do something rather than nothing. That makes the spell very powerful in theory, or "wacky" in EW's terms, but in actual play, it'll just function as a hard counter to at most a few spells, of which the last may be of any level. It's powerful at its spell level, but that's not without precedent.

The "I can dispel any effect regardless of spell level" interpretation creates an edge case, while "you apply the limit before deciding if the spell is affected" is internally consistent.


Additionally, might I suggest that calling an interpretation "wacky" or "intensely obtuse and downright myopic" or "stupid" (as you did) is also less than courteous?

I'm not a native speaker. What is the PC speak for "wacky"? How should I have expressed that the second interpretation goes outside anything what you can reasonable expect from such a spell?

[Crake]

Fair enough, broski. Had it in my head that it said something more along the lines of just outright destroying the effect and I'm away from my PHB.

Considering disjunction destroys magical items, which would normally only be suppressed for 1d4 rounds, I would probably houserule that disjunction trumps tenacious magic, since it seems to make spells follow similar rules to magic items. Maybe adding that the original caster can save vs the disjuction, just like a magic item can, to prevent it from being permanently dispelled.

Edit: Actually, i just noticed that tenacious magic is for a single spell, so maybe not.

[tiercel]

Easiest way for a DM to keep Halaster's Teleport Cage intact is to say the epic Halaster Blackcloak has the epic feat Tenacious Magic.
Disjunction, Dweomer Vortex, whatever. The cage is coming back on-line in 1d4 rounds.

Seems like one of the best ways of handling the issue without straight fiat. Other than that Halaster would have to take the feat twice to protect both his Teleport Cage and Scrying Cage, it makes one wonder why the module didn’t just invoke this (especially given the number of high-level spellcasters running around the setting, at least some of whom arguably might have a vested interest in bringing down Halaster’s Cage effects).

[ExLibrisMortis]

The "I can dispel any effect regardless of spell level" interpretation creates an edge case, while "you apply the limit before deciding if the spell is affected" is internally consistent.
Both are internally consistent, what do you mean?


I'm not a native speaker. What is the PC speak for "wacky"? How should I have expressed that the second interpretation goes outside anything what you can reasonable expect from such a spell?
Um, do you need an answer to that?

[EldritchWeaver]

Both are internally consistent, what do you mean?

Let me reword this. My interpretation says: "You can only dispel spells with a cumulative level of 6." Which is consistent with "Once the dweomer vortex negates six levels of spells, it is discharged..." Yours says: "You can dispel spells until you have dispelled at least 6 spell levels, but the last one can be any of any spell level." Which means that the maximum number of cumulative spell levels counting only the dispelled spells is variable.


Um, do you need an answer to that?

Why would you think that this is rethorical question? Yes, I want to know, what words should I have used to not offend you.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Let me reword this. My interpretation says: "You can only dispel spells with a cumulative level of 6." Which is consistent with "Once the dweomer vortex negates six levels of spells, it is discharged..." Yours says: "You can dispel spells until you have dispelled at least 6 spell levels, but the last one can be any of any spell level." Which means that the maximum number of cumulative spell levels counting only the dispelled spells is variable.
Your reading requires--in my view--an extra assumption, which is that a spell can be ignored by dweomer vortex. That issue aside, your reading is consistent with the text, absolutely.

In my reading, the text says (paraphrased): "if, after dispelling, you find that you have dispelled six levels' worth of spells, dweomer vortex ends". This reading is also consistent with the text, and the total number of spell levels you can dispel is indeed variable. That's actually what makes it interesting. If you're dispelling an unknown stack of spells, you're never quite sure how much you're going to get, just like with dispel magic (which uses a check) or divination (which uses a percentile roll) or summon monster III to get fiendish hawks (which uses a d4 roll). All you know is that you're taking away at least the lowest-level spell, and possibly as many as six spells (in the case of five first-level spells or cantrips).


Why would you think that this is rethorical question? Yes, I want to know, what words should I have used to not offend you.
The bolded part of the quote is exactly that. You establish a baseline of what third-level spells regularly do (should do), then show how dweomer vortex deviates from that norm. Or, in a nutshell, you just say "it's too powerful for its level".

As an aside, "wacky" is not so bad a term that I was offended by it, precisely, but it's a bit unspecific as to what's actually wrong with the spell in question, so you're more or less inviting me to fill in what I think you think is the problem, when I don't think there's a problem. If that makes sense :smalltongue:.

[ericgrau]

I feel like discussing spell text is like a child saying to another child "N'uh, you said _ so that's exactly what I'm doing!" Finding out the intent of the text is ALWAYS involved and there's no such thing as "RAW" without it. Over-literal readings rarely work at all, and almost always involve sneaking in at least some level of intent into your personal interpretation. And don't pretend it's not your personal interpretation.

So even in "RAW" discussions you need to figure out what was originally meant by the text. Sometimes it may not be possible to a have a 100% clear answer on everything. Sometimes it could have explained it better but you can still figure it out. But to say things like "It doesn't say I can't X therefore I can" is nonsense that is nothing more than a shoddy attempt at figuring out the meaning of the spell. And a slightly less shoddy attempt to make it say what you want it to say.

I mean I could go into various examples from other spells or certain arguments. But it feels like I'll be diving into a trap when I already see people intentionally ignore basic reading comprehension to make their point. I'm betting that will repeat. That's a lot of work for a tangent.

O.P. already has an answer: Yeah you can dispel or disjunction it, unless it comes from Halaster himself. In which case FR has methods that protect against non-epic spells.

[Goaty14]

Again, get off the internet and pick up the rule book.

Why? I'm not going to go page through a pesky lil book when the SRD is right there (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#maximizeSpell). (The SRD is also more recent -- the PHB had to have existed for the site to get published.)


Maximize Spell [Metamagic]
Benefit
All variable, numeric effects of a spell modified by this feat are maximized. Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables. A maximized spell uses up a spell slot three levels higher than the spell’s actual level.

An empowered, maximized spell gains the separate benefits of each feat: the maximum result plus one-half the normally rolled result.

I'm not seeing this specific rule that you're quoting.

[Crake]

Why? I'm not going to go page through a pesky lil book when the SRD is right there (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#maximizeSpell). (The SRD is also more recent -- the PHB had to have existed for the site to get published.)



I'm not seeing this specific rule that you're quoting.

That's because all specific examples were stripped from the SRD. That said, if you read the last line of the thing you quoted, it explains how maximize and empower function together quite clearly.