The Prismatic Dragon strikes back!

[magic9mushroom]

So I saw this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?243900-3-5-Of-Killing-a-Prismatic-Dragon) old thread, in which Chained Birds challenged the Playground to beat up a great wyrm prismatic dragon, the highest-CR monster in D&D 3.5. And I was a little disappointed, because some of the answers don't really take into account the epic cheese of the Prismatic Dragon's statblock.

I'd like to point out a few things.

1) The dragon is an extremely-capable spellcaster. Without any magic items or feat selection, its spell slots are 6/13/13/13/12/12/12/12/11/11/6/6/5/5/5/5 (it gets Improved Spell Capacity as a bonus feat six times). That's 43 9th-levels per day.

2) The dragon has a ton of skills. It gets 33 skill points per Hit Die, and has Concentration, Diplomacy, Escape Artist, Intimidate, all Knowledges, Listen, Search, Sense Motive, Spot and Use Magic Device as class skills from being a True Dragon - its ELH writeup implies Spellcraft is one as well. With all of those class skills maxed out, it's got +108 to Spot, Listen, UMD, Sense Motive, and Concentration, as well as +116 to Spellcraft (+8 synergy from the 81 ranks of Know(arcana)). The Spot is particularly notable, because the DC to ignore illusions is only 80; the dragon effectively has True Seeing out to 600ft., where the -30 distance penalty (not -60, because of Keen Senses) finally becomes large enough that it doesn't succeed on a rolled 1. Again, this is all without magic items or feats (I mention feats because Epic Skill Focus doesn't require Skill Focus and gives +10).

3) The dragon has a ludicrous amount of gear. The epic table for treasure doesn't even go up to CR 66, but using the 10%-per-level extrapolation in the sidebar a double-treasure CR 66 should have a bit over 12.7 million gp worth of stuff. Now, I know, it says in Draconomicon that dragons aren't NPCs and shouldn't use most of their treasure as gear, which probably puts it out of the market for a Ring of Universal Energy Immunity (though the old prismatic dragon statted up in the ELH does have a Staff of the Cosmos, so eh). But, well, getting all the stuff from the Necessary Magic Items list is under 500k, so it can grab that plus a full set of tomes and +6 items for maybe a tenth of its actual hoard value. Monk's Belt is also hilariously good.

4) Regarding ritual epic spells specifically; Epic Leadership isn't the magic bullet some think it is for lowering DCs. This is because followers are, by default, warriors, experts or commoners. ELH suggests that other classes could be allowed, but adepts and aristocrats have +2 LA and PC classes +3 as followers. You still don't get to choose their class/race/alignment as you do for a cohort, so presumably only some fraction of your higher-level followers will have casting classes. Ironically, the dragon can actually make some real use of Epic Leadership/Epic Spellcasting due to its ludicrous Leadership score of 106, which lets it get a 58th-level cohort and over 8,000 followers (only 761 are high-enough level to even theoretically be casters, and the highest-level follower is still only EFL 12th - 9th-level for a PC class - but it could probably scrounge up a -100 to -150 mitigation out of a ritual, or ten times that with Legendary Commander). Unlike force dragons, this wouldn't even be particularly OOC for a prismatic dragon.

4a) If the dragon has access to high-end ritual mitigation, anything based on nonepic spells is probably going to get hard-countered by Epic Spell Reflection. Boosting its own SR by 50 as a daily buff doesn't even need mitigation (Fortify seed gives a DC of 117 for 40-hour duration, which it automatically makes). Epic spells are really expensive, though, even for Mr. "I can literally make a bed of gold pieces" here, so it still can't have too many.

5) Falling objects are treated as attack rolls in the only place in the DMG where they're actually statted out (traps), which is why they don't give a save. There are, however, no real rules for determining the attack bonus of a particular falling object. So rather than "falling damage kills everything", it's really more of a "falling objects are reliant on DM fiat". The dragon's 106 AC is also moderately relevant here.


Of the ways suggested in that thread:

Gate-chain + Epic Spellcasting: Works if allowed (though you'll have to get creative to kill the dragon by remote, as rituals aren't really combat spells), but you might as well just use Pun-Pun because this is a known infinite-power exploit. Worse, the dragon literally has Gate on its spell list, so unless it's unworthy of its 60+ mental stats this degenerates into an undefined result. Indeed, the dragon can directly access Pun-Pun by using the epic seed Summon to summon and control a sarrukh.

Epic Leadership + Epic Spellcasting: Misunderstanding of rules: not a huge improvement over Epic Spellcasting itself at low epic.

Epic Spellcasting itself: Dragon's SR and saves are too high at low epic with ordinary mitigation (particularly if its SR is boosted). Does work at high epic (i.e., similar to the dragon's actual CR), as there's a factor for boosting caster level vs. SR and epic spells aren't hard-countered by the Reflect seed.

Rocks Fall, Dragon Dies: Misunderstanding of rules: would depend on DM fiat for the attack bonus. If a bunch of small objects are used, the dragon's DR 25/epic also comes into play.

Poison spell: Epic Spell Reflection and/or (boosted) SR. You could maybe overcome the latter with Greater Consumptive Field cheese and/or the questionable reading of UMD on staves. And, of course, the dragon could have immunity to poison or ability damage from somewhere (I don't recall a spelled-out way to do this in Core, but the Ward seed seems up to the task if Eternal Freedom's any indication, and outside there's of course Sheltered Vitality). There's also the question of how you're getting close enough at nonepic/low epic when the dragon can see you out to 600ft and Dire Charge you for an instakill (hey, it's from core and used fairly often in Draconomicon).

Dust of Sneezing and Choking: The above issues with immunity (Eternal Freedom explicitly does it in core, though it's epic; outside there's a few ways), and the dragon speedblitzing you before you get into range.

Shadows: The hell is this? The dragon is way too fast and can kill the Shadows with its breath or its zillion spells. Dunno why this was even listed.

[Goaty14]

I'd like to also point out that the OP presumes everything is core-only. Sheltered Vitality, for example, would not be taken into account.

If it was non-core, then all we'd have to do is Teleport back in time to when it was a wyrmling, and murderhobo it then. This'd make the dragon die in one of two ways:
1) We (the goody-two-shoes adventurers) kill the dragon while it's a wyrmling and only CR 14. This retroactively removes the dragon from existence and we teleport back to the presence where our services of dragon-killing were never needed.
2) The dragon is smart enough to know that we're going to kill it as a wyrmling and follows us back in time whereupon it is forced to kill its younger self. This retroactively removes the dragon from existence and we teleport back to the presence where our services of dragon-killing were never needed.

[Ruethgar]

If it Dominated itself to commit suicide, would the effect of Teleport Through Time’s meeting yourself fail since Dominate prevents you from taking a suicidal action?

[Goaty14]

If it Dominated itself to commit suicide, would the effect of Teleport Through Time’s meeting yourself fail since Dominate prevents you from taking a suicidal action?

I believe you mean to *not* commit suicide. If it commanded itself to commit suicide then it's no longer our problem :smallbiggrin:

If the dragon did so, then it's pretty much DM discretion. As per Dominate Person:


Once you have given a dominated creature a command, it continues to attempt to carry out that command to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth).

Thus once communicated to not kill itself, the dragon cannot and will not attack itself. No exceptions, unless it has to do so to survive. As per Teleport Through Time (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/pg/20030409b):


In the case that a traveler meets himself, the two travelers instantly lose control and attack each other with every ability and item at their disposal.

Depends how the DM interprets "lose control". On the one hand, "control" has already been lost to Dominate Monster, but on the other, the dragon is fully capable of redirecting the command disallowing himself. Then again, he could exclude himself from changing the anti-suicide command as well...

TL;DR It's a rules-foggy area; Expect table variation.

[Ruethgar]

Commanding itself to commit suicide has the same effect, "obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out." So it basically retains the compulsion to never commit a self-destructive act. Removing his own domination would also be an "obviously self-destructive order." But then it gets into whether taking your normal actions counts as an order. So yeah, foggy.

[Bronk]

Rocks Fall, Dragon Dies: Misunderstanding of rules: would depend on DM fiat for the attack bonus. If a bunch of small objects are used, the dragon's DR 25/epic also comes into play.

Not a complete misunderstanding. The rules for falling objects dealing damage to characters below are in Heroes of Battle on page 68. Summarized, falling objects deal damage based on their weight and the distance fallen. There is an attack roll, but only to hit the correct square, which is AC5. The creature in the square gets a DC 15 reflex save to avoid the damage.

I'd imagine that under normal circumstances the dragon would take damage whenever it rolls a one.

[tiercel]

I'd imagine that under normal circumstances the dragon would take damage whenever it rolls a one.

I’d imagine the 64 Int dragon with 78 HD worth of feats and a gigaton of money—and that is still alive to achieve all of that—probably has invested in “don’t fail saves on a 1” effects (minimally, Martial Study for the Diamond Mind save-replacer maneuvers).

As for time travel shenanigans, (A) time travel is always problematic (B) if time travel is in the game, I’d imagine there is a Divination-fueled level of paranoia to obliterate any potential foes who might ever become powerful enough to access time travel.

Also, I’m kind of under the impression that Epic spellcasting can do pretty much anything, given enough resources — and resources are certainly not lacking for a fully advanced Prismatic.....

Basically, beating a Prismatic Great Wyrm seems to depend on what resources/optimization the dragon is allowed?

[ColorBlindNinja]

How optimized is this dragon, exactly? Does it have Epic Spellcasting?

Past a certain point, the answer to this challenge is, "Don't bother, the over-sized lizard is nigh invincible."

[Dusk Raven]

Ironically, the dragon can actually make some real use of Epic Leadership/Epic Spellcasting due to its ludicrous Leadership score of 106, which lets it get a 58th-level cohort and over 8,000 followers (only 761 are high-enough level to even theoretically be casters, and the highest-level follower is still only EFL 12th - 9th-level for a PC class - but it could probably scrounge up a -100 to -150 mitigation out of a ritual, or ten times that with Legendary Commander). Unlike force dragons, this wouldn't even be particularly OOC for a prismatic dragon.

What I'm getting from this is that, somewhere, there is a plane of existence or alternate Material Plane where a Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon rules as Emperor of Everything, because it's not only powerful enough but also charismatic enough to do so, even if it rules in a very claws-off fashion. And by Great Wyrm age, with 25 more HD than Bahamut himself, it would probably also qualify as God-Emperor.

Back to the topic, I do think some of the arguments made for defeating this thing are silly, but mobbing it with Shadows really takes the cake. We're talking about things that need a natural 20 to hit, and have a lot of STR to get through, and that's assuming the dragon just sits there...

[Endarire]

Perhaps this is a better question:

How do you think the book authors intended parties and characters to beat it?

[ColorBlindNinja]

Perhaps this is a better question:

How do you think the book authors intended parties and characters to beat it?

This the Epic Handbook we're talking about, one of the most incompetently designed books in all of D&D 3.5.

I'm not certain the game designers themselves knew.

[Goaty14]

How do you think the book authors intended parties and characters to beat it?

Well, the dragon is CR 66(.6!). Thus, according to the game designers, you just round up a party of level ~65 characters and set them loose on the dragon, which will give them a "Very Difficult" to "Easy" chance of victory.

[Dusk Raven]

Well, the dragon is CR 66(.6!). Thus, according to the game designers, you just round up a party of level ~65 characters and set them loose on the dragon, which will give them a "Very Difficult" to "Easy" chance of victory.

To be honest, I’m terrified of what an even halfway-optimized party of level 65 characters would look like. WBL alone would be insane... and at that point, they’re probably above taking things on in a straight fight. They probably could, at that point, but why would they?

[ColorBlindNinja]

To be honest, I’m terrified of what an even halfway-optimized party of level 65 characters would look like. WBL alone would be insane... and at that point, they’re probably above taking things on in a straight fight. They probably could, at that point, but why would they?

Sounds like an interesting exercise, build a level 65 party...

EDIT: I can't seem to find a WBL table for epic. :smalleek:

[tyckspoon]

Sounds like an interesting exercise, build a level 65 party...

EDIT: I can't seem to find a WBL table for epic. :smalleek:

It's in the Epic Level Handbook. The physical one - WBL is one of the things that is not open content and will not be found in any license-respecting online content. I want to say it stops at about level 40, too, but the way it scales you can pretty much say wealth for level 65 is a fairly meaningless concept - you can buy any printed item, and the only things that could possibly put a dent in it would be buying outrageously enhanced weapons/armor/+stat items that have similar infinite scaling based on a formula. (Although by that point the basic stat numbers provided by these items should be covered by permanent instantaneous [ie, undispellable] Epic Spell buffs instead.)

[Anthrowhale]

It seems like it's only fair to stick with the original premise when evaluating the outcome. So SRD minus variants. Given this, the SR of 90(?) seems quite formidable. I don't see a way to reliably penetrate this with an L66 Wizard. Also given these constraints, the dragon might indeed be immune to all elemental damage (via the ring) and all poison (via the periapt). The dragon also probably has a means to escape constricting situations via Still/Silent escape spells.

A Psion+Wizard might be able to do the deed.

A Wizard can use Disjunction to strip all spells (but not magic items given the saves) from the dragon.

A L66 Psion could use:
Temporal Acceleration for 3 rounds:
Round 1: Fission
Round 2a+2b: Fission
Round 3a+3b+3c+3d: Schism
To instantaneously get 3 Fissions each with a Schism.

Then, each Psion and Fission could fire off a Crystal Shard, then do it again with a Quickened Crystal Shard, then do it a 3rd time as Schism Crystal Shard, each with Overchannel to maximize damage. The augment levels are:
Psion: L69 (Overchannel), L63 (Quickened), L63(Schism)
2xFission: L67 (Overchannel), L61(Quickened), L61(Schism)
Fission^2: L65 (Overchannel), L59(Quickened), L59(Schism)
which does an expected 2646 damage if all 12 attacks hit.

[ColorBlindNinja]

It's in the Epic Level Handbook. The physical one - WBL is one of the things that is not open content and will not be found in any license-respecting online content. I want to say it stops at about level 40, too, but the way it scales you can pretty much say wealth for level 65 is a fairly meaningless concept - you can buy any printed item, and the only things that could possibly put a dent in it would be buying outrageously enhanced weapons/armor/+stat items that have similar infinite scaling based on a formula.

I found a chart for treasure per encounter, but not wealth by level.


(Although by that point the basic stat numbers provided by these items should be covered by permanent instantaneous [ie, undispellable] Epic Spell buffs instead.)

Actually, you can't store Epic Spells in Epic Magic items, only artifacts.

EDIT:


It seems like it's only fair to stick with the original premise when evaluating the outcome. So SRD minus variants. Given this, the SR of 90(?) seems quite formidable. I don't see a way to reliably penetrate this with an L66 Wizard. Also given these constraints, the dragon might indeed be immune to all elemental damage (via the ring) and all poison (via the periapt). The dragon also probably has a means to escape constricting situations via Still/Silent escape spells.

A Psion+Wizard might be able to do the deed.

A Wizard can use Disjunction to strip all spells (but not magic items given the saves) from the dragon.

A L66 Psion could use:
Temporal Acceleration for 3 rounds:
Round 1: Fission
Round 2a+2b: Fission
Round 3a+3b+3c+3d: Schism
To instantaneously get 3 Fissions each with a Schism.

Then, each Psion and Fission could fire off a Crystal Shard, then do it again with a Quickened Crystal Shard, then do it a 3rd time as Schism Crystal Shard, each with Overchannel to maximize damage. The augment levels are:
Psion: L69 (Overchannel), L63 (Quickened), L63(Schism)
2xFission: L67 (Overchannel), L61(Quickened), L61(Schism)
Fission^2: L65 (Overchannel), L59(Quickened), L59(Schism)
which does an expected 2646 damage if all 12 attacks hit.

A single spell could render the dragon entirely immune to that set up.

[Goaty14]

A Wizard can use Disjunction to strip all spells (but not magic items given the saves) from the dragon.


A single spell could render the dragon entirely immune to that set up.

I, too, comment on things without reading them fully.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I, too, comment on things without reading them fully.

Can you elaborate? I'm not certain I understand what you mean.

EDIT: That single spell will make the dragon immune to Disjunction as well.

[zfs]

Can't you still beat it with Searing Spell + Orb of Fire shenanigans? Epic Spell Reflection only works up to 9th level spells, so it shouldn't work if you heighten it to a 10+ level slot. I'm not a good optimizer so I don't know how to make sure it does the ~2,700 damage you need to kill it (well, actually ~5,400 because searing spell only lets half damage go through).

Edit: Saw that the original challenge is Core Only, so obviously this wouldn't work for this particular exercise.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Can't you still beat it with Searing Spell + Orb of Fire shenanigans? Epic Spell Reflection only works up to 9th level spells, so it shouldn't work if you heighten it to a 10+ level slot. I'm not a good optimizer so I don't know how to make sure it does the ~2,700 damage you need to kill it (well, actually ~5,400 because searing spell only lets half damage go through).

It could still be immune to damage or magic in other ways.


Edit: Saw that the original challenge is Core Only, so obviously this wouldn't work for this particular exercise.

Is it?

[zfs]

Is it?

The thread linked in the OP specifies core only. Though I don't know if that carries over to this thread.

[ColorBlindNinja]

The thread linked in the OP specifies core only. Though I don't know if that carries over to this thread.

Everyone's been suggestion non-core tactics, so I didn't realize that. Or did you mean SRD only? Since the Prismatic Dragon isn't actually core.

[Anthrowhale]

The thread linked in the OP specifies core only. Though I don't know if that carries over to this thread.
The OOP specified SRD minus variations (i.e. unearthed arcana).

W.r.t. ways for the Prismatic Dragon to defeat the Wizard/Psion duo, please specify more.

[tyckspoon]

It could still be immune to damage or magic in other ways.



Is it?

For anything based on trying to blast it with ranged touch spells: Infinite Deflection + Exceptional Deflection covers this without, as far as I know, any means to beat it, covers an otherwise significant hole in the dragon's defense, and is a fairly trivial cost to the dragon with its huge supply of feats from its pile of HD.

[Anthrowhale]

For anything based on trying to blast it with ranged touch spells: Infinite Deflection + Exceptional Deflection covers this without, as far as I know, any means to beat it, covers an otherwise significant hole in the dragon's defense, and is a fairly trivial cost to the dragon with its huge supply of feats from its pile of HD.

Infinite Deflection requires Dex 25 which may be a problem for a dragon?

Psions also have access to Swarm of Crystals which is an augmentable area of effect SR:No Save:No that does 1d4 instead of 1d6 damage per power point. This could be used instead although it's a little bit less efficient.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Infinite Deflection requires Dex 25 which may be a problem for a dragon?

A dragon with epic magic items and epic spells?


Psions also have access to Swarm of Crystals which is an augmentable area of effect SR:No Save:No that does 1d4 instead of 1d6 damage per power point. This could be used instead although it's a little bit less efficient.

Wouldn't work VS the Reflect Seed..

[Anthrowhale]

A dragon with epic magic items and epic spells?
I think you are right. Inherent+5 reduces the gap to +10, and the magic item is only 1M.


Wouldn't work VS the Reflect Seed..
As long as the party can trade standard spells for epic reflect spells, I think they end up winning because they can put out many more standard spells.

[zfs]

Everyone's been suggestion non-core tactics, so I didn't realize that. Or did you mean SRD only? Since the Prismatic Dragon isn't actually core.

The post said Core, but you're correct that it should be SRD because the Epic level challenges/monsters are SRD but not Core.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I think you are right. Inherent+5 reduces the gap to +10, and the magic item is only 1M.

Yep, I think the dragon can easily hit 25 DEX.



As long as the party can trade standard spells for epic reflect spells, I think they end up winning because they can put out many more standard spells.

That depends on how much mitigation the dragon does. The Reflect spell could have thousands of uses, if the dragon wants it to.

[zfs]

For anything based on trying to blast it with ranged touch spells: Infinite Deflection + Exceptional Deflection covers this without, as far as I know, any means to beat it, covers an otherwise significant hole in the dragon's defense, and is a fairly trivial cost to the dragon with its huge supply of feats from its pile of HD.

Make it flat footed so it can't deflect? Or deliver it in such a way that it won't be aware of it, though that seems exceedingly difficult given the dragon's senses.

[Anthrowhale]

That depends on how much mitigation the dragon does.
Epic spells are a mess this way.

I think we can only succeed if we don't allow custom epic spells or custom magic items. In both cases, the rules specifically call of GM oversight.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Make it flat footed so it can't deflect? Or deliver it in such a way that it won't be aware of it, though that seems exceedingly difficult given the dragon's senses.

It'll probably have Foresight up and be immune to being flatfooted.


Epic spells are a mess this way.

They're a mess, period.


I think we can only succeed if we don't allow custom epic spells or custom magic items. In both cases, the rules specifically call of GM oversight.

Epic spells are typically seen as more acceptable than custom magic items in general.

Even without them, it's possible for the dragon to make itself invincible. This assumes all 3.5 content, though, not just the SRD.

[Anthrowhale]

Epic spells are typically seen as more acceptable than custom magic items in general.

If so, I expect that's just a question of exposure as they seem more imbalanced in the abstract.


Even without them, it's possible for the dragon to make itself invincible. This assumes all 3.5 content, though, not just the SRD.
The OOP said SRD minus variants.

[ColorBlindNinja]

If so, I expect that's just a question of exposure as they seem more imbalanced in the abstract.

Could be that the Epic Spell rules are a lot more detailed and contain quite a few example spells.


The OOP said SRD minus variants.

Well, that changes things significantly.

EDIT: The dragon can still be immune to magic thanks to Dweomer of Transference (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/spells/dweomerOfTransference.htm).

[Dusk Raven]

EDIT: The dragon can still be immune to magic thanks to Dweomer of Transference (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/spells/dweomerOfTransference.htm).

Given the spell's level, and its wording, I have to wonder if it's intended to only convert spells the caster themselves uses on the subject.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Given the spell's level, and its wording, I have to wonder if it's intended to only convert spells the caster themselves uses on the subject.

That's what it was intended to do, but not what it actually does:



For the duration of the spell, any spells cast at the subject don’t have their usual effect, instead converting themselves harmlessly into psionic energy that the subject can use as energy for psionic powers.

Emphasis mine.

[Dusk Raven]

That's what it was intended to do, but not what it actually does:


With this spell, you form a radiating corona around the head of a psionic ally, then convert some of your spells into psionic power points. When you finish casting dweomer of transference, a red-orange glow surrounds the psionic creature’s head. For the duration of the spell, any spells cast at the subject don’t have their usual effect, instead converting themselves harmlessly into psionic energy that the subject can use as energy for psionic powers. You can cast any spell you like at the subject, even area spells, effect spells, and spells for whom the subject would ordinarily not be a legitimate target. The spells don’t do anything other than provide the subject with power points, but you must still cast them normally, obeying the component and range requirements listed in the description of each spell.

For each spell you cast into the dweomer of transference, the psionic creature gets temporary power points, according to the following table. The transference isn’t perfectly efficient. The temporary power points acquired through a dweomer of transference dissipate after 1 hour if they haven’t already been spent.

Emphasis mine. At the very least, the subject only gets temporary power points from spells the caster themselves use, since the only sentence that mechanically describes that specifies that the caster of the Dweomer has to cast them.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Emphasis mine. At the very least, the subject only gets temporary power points from spells the caster themselves use, since the only sentence that mechanically describes that specifies that the caster of the Dweomer has to cast them.

That contradicts the portion of the spell that says, "Any spells cast at spells cast at the subject don't have their usual effects."

EDIT: "Any" means any spells, not just the person who cast Dweomer of Transference.

[Doug Lampert]

Could be that the Epic Spell rules are a lot more detailed and contain quite a few example spells.

When the 3.0 Epic Level Handbook first came out there was a challenge posted on the USENET group rec.games.frp.dnd, still very active at the time.

The challenge was, find even ONE example epic spell that matched the written rules for epic spells.

No one succeeded, IIRC most suggested possibilities had 2-3 serious problems pointed out within hours of being posted.

The existence of examples does not prove that the rules are usable.

[Dusk Raven]

That contradicts the portion of the spell that says, "Any spells cast at spells cast at the subject don't have their usual effects."

EDIT: "Any" means any spells, not just the person who cast Dweomer of Transference.

If you take that sentence by itself, yes, but I would argue the repeated references to "you" carry over. Otherwise, while they do contradict, I'm not sure why the "any" should necessarily take precedence over the rest of the entry, which consistently makes reference to the caster's own spell.

[ColorBlindNinja]

When the 3.0 Epic Level Handbook first came out there was a challenge posted on the USENET group rec.games.frp.dnd, still very active at the time.

The challenge was, find even ONE example epic spell that matched the written rules for epic spells.

No one succeeded, IIRC most suggested possibilities had 2-3 serious problems pointed out within hours of being posted.

I find that absolutely hilarious.


The existence of examples does not prove that the rules are usable.

To be sure, but they may lend the rules a veneer of credibility (as undeserved as it may be).

EDIT:


If you take that sentence by itself, yes, but I would argue the repeated references to "you" carry over. Otherwise, while they do contradict, I'm not sure why the "any" should necessarily take precedence over the rest of the entry, which consistently makes reference to the caster's own spell.

It must take precedence because it's a much more broad statement.

EDIT 2: Worth noting that is no contradiction if you read it as "any" spell as any spell, since that means the person who cast it can't affect the subject with their spells either.

[Dusk Raven]

It must take precedence because it's a much more broad statement.

That's an odd standard to go by. Isn't it the usual standard that specific trumps general? It's what I've always seen in RAW discussions.


EDIT 2: Worth noting that is no contradiction if you read it as "any" spell as any spell, since that means the person who cast it can't affect the subject with their spells either.

I thought that was the point of the spell?

[ColorBlindNinja]

That's an odd standard to go by. Isn't it the usual standard that specific trumps general? It's what I've always seen in RAW discussions.

The description says "any" that isn't contradicted by the parts talking about "you" in the spell description.

[Segev]

Yeah, dweomer of transference is broken, because it does specify that any spell cast on the target fails to have its usual effects. The fact that it only goes on to describe effects of spells YOU cast on the target doesn't make the spells you don't cast on it have any new effect at all.

I fully expect DMs to house rule that one, but by the RAW, it is an "immunity to spells cast at him" effect.

Please note, however, that it is not an immunity to all spell effects. Even though you CAN cast AoEs at him to have them do nothing (but possibly give him pp), it doesn't say that AoEs which include him in the area count as cast at him. So if you fireball him without deliberately casting it "at him" as per how dweomer of transference permits, fireball functions normally and he'll take damage as normal.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Please note, however, that it is not an immunity to all spell effects. Even though you CAN cast AoEs at him to have them do nothing (but possibly give him pp), it doesn't say that AoEs which include him in the area count as cast at him. So if you fireball him without deliberately casting it "at him" as per how dweomer of transference permits, fireball functions normally and he'll take damage as normal.

That last bit is debatable.

[Segev]

That last bit is debatable.

Only in the sense that anything is "debatable" if people will debate it. The RAW are clear: you CAN cast spells at him that you normally couldn't, but if you don't cast it TARGETING HIM SPECIFICALLY, it doesn't fail to have its normal effect.

Put another way: the text that says it doesn't have its normal effect only comes into play if the spell targetted him. AoEs don't target. Now, the spell provides that you MAY target him with spells you normally couldn't, including AoEs, but it in no way forces you to do so, nor denies you the ability to include him in an AoE of a spell that you cast normally that doesn't target him.

[Dusk Raven]

The description says "any" that isn't contradicted by the parts talking about "you" in the spell description.

Oh, I see what you mean. I reiterate my earlier statement about how, if nothing else, the subject can't gain temporary power points from spells others cast on them. But yes, you are correct.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Oh, I see what you mean. I reiterate my earlier statement about how, if nothing else, the subject can't gain temporary power points from spells others cast on them. But yes, you are correct.

Ah, I see what you were trying to say. I apologize for not grasping that. :smallredface:

Honestly, it really doesn't matter for most spellcasters, what are they going to do with PP anyway?

[Dusk Raven]

Ah, I see what you were trying to say. I apologize for not grasping that. :smallredface:

Honestly, it really doesn't matter for most spellcasters, what are they going to do with PP anyway?

I mean if you cast it on a psionic ally, than your spells give them PP, but (going with the "any spell is absorbed" interpretation), anyone else casting a spell on said person will merely have their spell nullified, and it will not give them PP.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I mean if you cast it on a psionic ally, than your spells give them PP, but (going with the "any spell is absorbed" interpretation), anyone else casting a spell on said person will merely have their spell nullified, and it will not give them PP.

I can see that. Again, it doesn't really matter for spellcasters, they don't care about PP.

[Dusk Raven]

I can see that. Again, it doesn't really matter for spellcasters, they don't care about PP.

Well, you can't cast the spell on non-psionics, so I'm not sure why that's relevant.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Well, you can't cast the spell on non-psionics, so I'm not sure why that's relevant.

And the answer to that is to take the Wild Talent feat. You are now Psionic.

[Kelb_Panthera]

This the Epic Handbook we're talking about, one of the most incompetently designed books in all of D&D 3.5.

I'm not certain the game designers themselves knew.

The rather shallow thinking I've come to expect from early 3e volumes would be something to the effect of "how you'd take on a red dragon, just moreso."


Given the spell's level, and its wording, I have to wonder if it's intended to only convert spells the caster themselves uses on the subject.

That was almost certainly the intent. Arguments abound over the semantics you discussed but the design intent is certainly obvious with even a modicum of honest thought.

[ColorBlindNinja]

The rather shallow thinking I've come to expect from early 3e volumes would be something to the effect of "how you'd take on a red dragon, just moreso."

Clearly, the dragon will melee the party, right? :smallwink:


That was almost certainly the intent. Arguments abound over the semantics you discussed but the design intent is certainly obvious with even a modicum of honest thought.

Oh yeah, RAI it's crystal clear what the spell is meant to do. Too bad the game designers suck at their job.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Clearly, the dragon will melee the party, right? :smallwink:

Honestly; not the least horrifying prospect I've ever heard. Those melee numbers are no joke.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Honestly; not the least horrifying prospect I've ever heard. Those melee numbers are no joke.

Fair enough, but a lot of low OP parties don't fare so well VS dragons that circle overhead and blast them with its breath weapon.

[Anthrowhale]

Only in the sense that anything is "debatable" if people will debate it. The RAW are clear: you CAN cast spells at him that you normally couldn't, but if you don't cast it TARGETING HIM SPECIFICALLY, it doesn't fail to have its normal effect.

Put another way: the text that says it doesn't have its normal effect only comes into play if the spell targetted him. AoEs don't target. Now, the spell provides that you MAY target him with spells you normally couldn't, including AoEs, but it in no way forces you to do so, nor denies you the ability to include him in an AoE of a spell that you cast normally that doesn't target him.

I don't see a flaw in this reasoning and it has a nice 'live by the RAW die by the RAW' aspect.

In any case, DoT is only a round/level spell so keeping it up on a semi-permanent basis is not realistic. It also takes a minute to cast, so combat use is not particularly viable.

The infinite exceptional deflection does mean the swarm of crystals approach for AoE damage is necessary. Presumably, we want 1 wizard and 2 psions given the somewhat lower damage of Swarm of Crystals.

I'm somewhat curious if there are other approaches. For example, could a SRD-only archer do a manyshot fell shot which does enough damage to matter? I'm guessing 'no'. It seems difficult to do more than 100 damage/arrow which is to low.

Maybe a Xill could use perfect multiweapon fighting with rapiers of puncturing. If the 16 attacks hit (high odds as a touch attack), they would inflict an expected 56 constitution damage which seems an adequate contribution to victory.

[ColorBlindNinja]

In any case, DoT is only a round/level spell so keeping it up on a semi-permanent basis is not realistic. It also takes a minute to cast, so combat use is not particularly viable.

I was going to talk about Persistent spell when I remembered this is SRD only. :smallfrown:

[magic9mushroom]

To be entirely clear here, I'm not disputing that there are ways to beat the dragon for an actual high-epic party (though I have no idea whether the CR of 66 is appropriate). Beyond a point the PCs' ludicrous wealth (WBL passes the Prismatic Dragon's hoard at level 40) and better spellcasting (dragon has CL 38th; Spellcraft takes a bit longer to catch up depending on whether you use custom competence-bonus items, and Epic Leadership takes until somewhere in the 80s or 90s) are going to tell. In the limit, you can just give yourself a ton of DR with Fortify seed and effective magic immunity with Reflect seed and then wail on the dragon with Destroy seed until it dies (a half-dozen uses of Vengeful Gaze of God would do the trick), pursuing the dragon every time it teleports or planeshifts away (with Wish, if you can't finagle an epic spell to do the trick; Wish explicitly can teleport you to a specific creature).

All I'm saying here is that the dragon is actually worthy of a high-epic CR (unlike, say, the CR 50 Devastation Beetle, which dies to Walls of Force plus a Shadow).

I did miss the "get around Reflect with heightened spell level" trick, so props for that; I guess Improved Heighten Spell isn't so bad after all (Heighten only goes up to 9th, or 10th with Earth Spell).

[Anthrowhale]

All I'm saying here is that the dragon is actually worthy of a high-epic CR (unlike, say, the CR 50 Devastation Beetle, which dies to Walls of Force plus a Shadow).

That seems correct.

Incidentally, the Rapiers of Puncturing approach won't work because the dragon is plausibly immune to critical hits.

The only viable low-epic attack modes I've found are Swarm of Crystals and Deep Impact for hp damage and Disjunction for spell stripping.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Well, if both sides abuse epic magic enough, this contest becomes a draw.

[Endarire]

Persistent Spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#persistentSpell) is SRD.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Persistent Spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#persistentSpell) is SRD.

Yeah but all the ways to make it not a burdensome waste of a feat are not.

[Anthrowhale]

Yeah but all the ways to make it not a burdensome waste of a feat are not.

The great wyrm prismatic dragon has the spell slots to take advantage of it anyways.

I still don't see a path to keeping DoT up all the time though---how are you going to make it fixed range?

[ColorBlindNinja]

I still don't see a path to keeping DoT up all the time though---how are you going to make it fixed range?

Normally, you'd use Ocular Spell, but here, you'd probably want Contingency or something similar.

[Anthrowhale]

Normally, you'd use Ocular Spell, but here, you'd probably want Contingency or something similar.

Contingency[Dweomer of Transference] seems valid.

It also seems like a high-risk choice since you are locked out of casting spells on yourself for 38 rounds. Is there a good way to end it early if desired? It looks like a targeted dispel magic (critically, targeting the spell, not you) would work.

But, what does DoT give you? Between SR effective infinity, infinite exceptional deflection, and Segev's comment about AoE attacks remaining valid, I can't think of an additional spell DoT intercepts.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Contingency[Dweomer of Transference] seems valid.

It also seems like a high-risk choice since you are locked out of casting spells on yourself for 38 rounds. Is there a good way to end it early if desired?

Not that I know of, I'd assume the dragon would have most of its buffs already cast.


It looks like a targeted dispel magic (critically, targeting the spell, not you) would work.

Dispel Magic does not target spells:



One spellcaster, creature, or object; or 20-ft.-radius burst



But, what does DoT give you? Between SR effective infinity, infinite exceptional deflection, and Segev's comment about AoE attacks remaining valid, I can't think of an additional spell DoT intercepts.

Antimagic Field.

Also, did Segev mean that AoE spells can't affect the dragon? If they can, DoT will block those.

[Anthrowhale]

Not that I know of, I'd assume the dragon would have most of its buffs already cast.
Still, an inability to teleport (for example) could be inconvenient.


Dispel Magic does not target spells:

The text part says it does:


Targeted Dispel

One ... spell is the target of the dispel magic spell.

Hence, dispel magic can target a spell. Interestingly, a hostile spellcaster can't use Dispel Magic because it is cast at a to-high caster level.


Antimagic Field.

Also, did Segev mean that AoE spells can't affect the dragon? If they can, DoT will block those.
No, Segev's claim is that AoE spells cast by a hostile spellcaster are not generally targeted at the Prismatic Dragon and hence would not be intercepted by DoT. Hence, AMF would suppress the DoT as normal.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Still, an inability to teleport (for example) could be inconvenient.

It would be.


Hence, dispel magic can target a spell.

I'm not buying that, DoT would keep the user's spells from being affected.


You can cast any spell you like at the subject... and spells for whom the subject would ordinarily not be a legitimate target...


A spell cast at the user's spells is cast at the user too.



No, Segev's claim is that AoE spells cast by a hostile spellcaster are not generally targeted at the Prismatic Dragon and hence would not be intercepted by DoT. Hence, AMF would suppress the DoT as normal.

Then he's wrong:


You can cast any spell you like at the subject, even area spells, effect spells, and spells for whom the subject would ordinarily not be a legitimate target. The spells don’t do anything other than provide the subject with power points...

Emphasis mine.

[unseenmage]

...

A spell cast at the user's spells is cast at the user too.

...
Could you please cite the source for this assertion? Could come in handy.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Could you please cite the source for this assertion? Could come in handy.

In this case? It's mostly common sense, with a touch of grammar.

More specially, it's also the way DoT works:


You can cast any spell you like at the subject... and spells for whom the subject would ordinarily not be a legitimate target...

"Cast at" is very vague and the spell even calls out illegally targeted spells as being subject to its effect. It's not unreasonable to conclude that Dispel Magic wouldn't work in this case.

[Anthrowhale]

A spell cast at the user's spells is cast at the user too.

I don't believe this. Dispel Magic specifically calls out the ability to target a creature or a spell.


Then he's wrong:

Emphasis mine.
You are missing a word.

You can cast any spell you like at the subject, even area spells, effect spells, and spells for whom the subject would ordinarily not be a legitimate target.
Emphasis mine. In particular, DoT provides an ability, but it does not enforce the use of that ability. It's unlikely that hostile spellcasters will choose to use the ability.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I don't believe this. Dispel Magic specifically calls out the ability to target a creature or a spell.

DoT doesn't care if the user is valid target or not, if you cast a spell "at them" the spell fails.


You are missing a word.

Emphasis mine. In particular, DoT provides an ability, but it does not enforce the use of that ability. It's unlikely that hostile spellcasters will choose to use the ability.

That would be a nonsensical reading of the spell. The "can" refers to "can cast spells at them".

EDIT: In other words, you can choose to not cast spells, but you can't choose to ignore the effect.

[Anthrowhale]

DoT doesn't care if the user is valid target or not, if you cast a spell "at them" the spell fails.
"at them" is not a part of the spell description.


That would be a nonsensical reading of the spell.

I disagree: nonsense is believing that a 4th level spell provides immunity to all spells.

More directly, this interpretation doesn't subvert the ability to convert spells into power points so it seems eminently sensible.


The "can" refers to "can cast spells at them".

No, it refers the 'subject'. The text of the spell is here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/spells/dweomerOfTransference.htm#).

You can cast any spell ... at the subject... In common english, 'can' denotes an ability but not a requirement. If you cast a fireball that affects 12 psions each with an active DoT you have not cast the spell at any of them because you cast it at a grid intersection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#area). Given this, all 12 psions get burnt.

[ColorBlindNinja]

"at them" is not a part of the spell description.

Now you're being pedantic:



Any spells cast at the subject don’t have their usual effect...




I disagree: nonsense is believing that a 4th level spell provides immunity to all spells.

Then this debate is over.


More directly, this interpretation doesn't subvert the ability to convert spells into power points so it seems eminently sensible.

Doesn't matter how "sensible" you think it is, the text doesn't support it.

EDIT: Nor do I accept that my interpretation subverts the spell's ability to convert spells into PP.



No, it refers the 'subject'.

Which is exactly what I said.


In common english, 'can' denotes an ability but not a requirement. If you cast a fireball that affects 12 psions each with an active DoT you have not cast the spell at any of them because you cast it at a grid intersection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#area). Given this, all 12 psions get burnt.

Except you have to ignore the part of DoT that talkss about AoE effects.

You are twisting the word "can" to mean something that it clearly doesn't.

[Anthrowhale]

I don't see a resolution.

I prefer Segev's interpretation to yours as it seems to satisfy both RAW and RAI.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I don't see a resolution.

I prefer Segev's interpretation to yours as it seems to satisfy both RAW and RAI.

Very well, let's agree to drop the subject, then.