take out greater teleport sla spam without dimensional anchor?

[newguydude1]

i have to burn a feat to get dimensional anchor on my psion so i really hate it. is there a way to take out those annoying greater teleport spam sla fiends from running away and coming back over and over and over?

grapple doesnt do anything

attacks of opportunity doesnt do anything because they can use the sla defensively

trace teleport doesnt work because i can easily be tricked and teleport to my death

ready action doesnt work because sla has no components so how can i make it trigger on "my opponent uses a standard action".

im not an ubercharger or mailman so i cant one shot him

im not a spellcaster so i cant use planar binding to get some guy that does have dimensional anchor.

[Xervous]

Ring of spell battle will allow you to detect the cast if you are within 60 ft. This gives you something you can ready an action against.

[Elkad]

Anticipate Teleport.

Doesn't keep him from running away, but gives you a round to arrange a nice reception if he teleports IN. Including if he uses it for combat relocation.
Further, he doesn't even know it happened.

If he's dead, he can't teleport out.

(And Greater version for 3 rounds).

[Piggy Knowles]

Came here to say that. Even as a psion, anticipate teleportation is low enough of a level to be easily obtainable as an item. Since it is only a 3rd-level spell, lasts 24 hours per use and does not require a high caster level to function, you can easily get it on a wand if your DM doesn't like custom items. A cross-class rank in UMD should be enough to let you try to activate it every morning; since failed UMD attempts don't consume wand charges and the 24 hour duration means you can take your time while casting it, you can just keep trying until you succeed or roll a 1.

[Segev]

Maybe a nice Psicrown with anticipate teleport and dimensional anchor both? Dimensional lock maybe, too, for flavor.

Imagine anticipate teleport telling you they're incoming, then putting dimensional lock up so they're diverted elsewhere.

[Troacctid]

You could get dimensional anchor in a dorje. A fully-charged one would cost 21,000 gp.

[Psyren]

ready action doesnt work because sla has no components so how can i make it trigger on "my opponent uses a standard action".

If it was impossible to detect that your opponent is using a SLA, then they wouldn't provoke either. They have to concentrate and their eyes glaze over for a bit, that should be enough of a trigger.

[Troacctid]

According to the Spellcraft rules, you can only identify a spell as it's being cast if you can see or hear the somatic or verbal components, but nothing stops you from perceiving the casting; you just won't know what spell it is. (Once you see the effects of the spell, you can make the Spellcraft check at a higher DC.) If you can ready an action to disrupt psionics, you can ready an action to disrupt SLAs.

[Crake]

grapple doesnt do anything

Uhh, yes it does. Casting in a grapple requires a DC20+spell level concentration check, so for greater teleport, that's DC27. Many monsters with SLA teleport don't even have ranks in concentration, making the check usually impossible.


If it was impossible to detect that your opponent is using a SLA, then they wouldn't provoke either. They have to concentrate and their eyes glaze over for a bit, that should be enough of a trigger.

One could argue though, that a defensively cast SLA would have no outward signs of casting. I say that, because that's the ruling at my table.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Linked synchronicity + synchronicity. Use the readied action to blast the crap out of it if it tries to teleport. Enough damage means a failed Concentration check. Plus, y'know, damage.

You could also try things like status effects to screw it over. Deja vu or energy stun or a number of other powers could do it.

[Crake]

Linked synchronicity + synchronicity. Use the readied action to blast the crap out of it if it tries to teleport. Enough damage means a failed Concentration check. Plus, y'know, damage.

You could also try things like status effects to screw it over. Deja vu or energy stun or a number of other powers could do it.

You know double synchronicity doesn't work right?

"Then, any time before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition."

As soon as you take an action, your readied is lost, so after taking the first action from synchronicity, the second would be lost.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

You know double synchronicity doesn't work right?Err... Yes it does.

You manifest it during your turn, immediately get access to a readied standard action. The second synchronicity doesn't come into effect until just before your next turn, wherein you can immediately use that standard action. Then you hit your turn and immediately have another round of actions.

Feel free to Link an immediate action power to synchronicity so you can use that between turns whenever you like.

[Psyren]

One could argue though, that a defensively cast SLA would have no outward signs of casting. I say that, because that's the ruling at my table.

How does Mage Slayer work at your table?

[Crake]

Err... Yes it does.

You manifest it during your turn, immediately get access to a readied standard action. The second synchronicity doesn't come into effect until just before your next turn, wherein you can immediately use that standard action. Then you hit your turn and immediately have another round of actions.

Feel free to Link an immediate action power to synchronicity so you can use that between turns whenever you like.

Oh, for some reason I was thinking linked power functioned more like twin spell, rather than repeat spell.


How does Mage Slayer work at your table?

Uhh, exactly the same? They simply can't cast defensively.

[newguydude1]

According to the Spellcraft rules, you can only identify a spell as it's being cast if you can see or hear the somatic or verbal components, but nothing stops you from perceiving the casting; you just won't know what spell it is. (Once you see the effects of the spell, you can make the Spellcraft check at a higher DC.) If you can ready an action to disrupt psionics, you can ready an action to disrupt SLAs.


Uhh, yes it does. Casting in a grapple requires a DC20+spell level concentration check, so for greater teleport, that's DC27. Many monsters with SLA teleport don't even have ranks in concentration, making the check usually impossible.

you guys are right. but bone devils for example has +18 to concentration. higher level enemies arent gonna fail a dc27 concentration check or whatever damage you inflict past their dr.

anticipate teleport isnt gonna work because theyre not gonna teleport to my face. theyre gonna teleport somewhere i will be and setup an ambush again and again and again and again.

so my choices are buy a dorje or burn a feat.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Anticipate Teleportation will not help, it only affects arrivals, not departures:

The subject of the spell is surrounded
with an invisible aura that anticipates
and delays the teleportation of any
creature into the spell’s area.
.....
The spell has no effect on creatures
attempting to teleport away from the
spell’s area, although if their destina-
tion is within the area, the spell will
affect their reentry as normal.

Get (someone in your party to get) a +1 Binding (MIC) weapon, it's a swift action to activate and the next target hit by the weapon gets Dimensional Anchored for 10 minutes. It functions twice per day, and even works on projectile weapons.

Edit: If you're the one using it, also get a few potions of Find the Gap, for a round per caster level your first attack each round is resolved as a touch attack.

[Psyren]

Uhh, exactly the same? They simply can't cast defensively.

But why can't they, if there's no difference in what the attacker perceives? Or is the attacker just getting an AoO for no reason?

Clearly there's some stimulus even with a defensive cast, it's just that normally it's either too slight or too fast for a non-Mage Slayer to perceive.

[Crake]

But why can't they, if there's no difference in what the attacker perceives? Or is the attacker just getting an AoO for no reason?

Clearly there's some stimulus even with a defensive cast, it's just that normally it's either too slight or too fast for a non-Mage Slayer to perceive.

Or a mage slayer puts on too much of a distracting offensive to give the caster a chance to have the freedom to cast nonchalantly.

[Psyren]

Or a mage slayer puts on too much of a distracting offensive to give the caster a chance to have the freedom to cast nonchalantly.

But not too "distracting" for one that doesn't have to cast defensively, e.g. swift action or invisible? Or when the attacker has no AoOs left?

The stimulus originating from the caster makes more sense to me.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Bad news on the dorje front: since they're power trigger items, you have to have the power on your class list to activate them without a UPD check. Psionic dimensional anchor is only on the nomad list and the planes mantle. Gonna have to get the feat or a different item with the same effect.

I'd go with the binding net. It's a touch attack anyway and you entangle the enemy at the same time.

If the GM allows the web archive content, the mind's eye article "Getting Wired" gets you tatt's above 3rd level so maybe a few crawling tattoos of psionic dimensional anchor spread accross the whole party could help.

[Zanos]

(Permanent) Arcane Sight should solve the issue with not being able to perceive the SLA, no? I would recommend that or something like it for a wide variety of things(magical traps, illusions, finding magic items, determining people's magical threat level based on worn items, etc.)


Ring of spell battle will allow you to detect the cast if you are within 60 ft. This gives you something you can ready an action against.
Battlemagic perception is the spell version of this, and also allows a free action counterspell by discharging the spell.

[Fizban]

you guys are right. but bone devils for example has +18 to concentration. higher level enemies arent gonna fail a dc27 concentration check or whatever damage you inflict past their dr.
What kinda damage powers you got? Devils are not resistant to all damage types, and DC 10+spell level (7)+10d6 will probably do the job. Even 5d6, 17+15ish= 32, that requires a roll of 14 to pull off.

If you officially can't notice when an SLA is being activated because you can't "see" anything, acquire either an Arcane Sight item (getting it via Permanency being rather a difficult trick for you), a psionic version of the spell, or demand an augment option for Detect Psionics to become the psionic version. Now you can see all magic at all times and ready an action for if you see a Strong aura begin to form. Or any magical aura- it doesn't matter what SLA you interrupt, wasting their turn is a Good Idea.

You could also try something like, "If it fails to move a square or attack for more than 2 seconds, I blast it," but if the DM has already made a ruling that you can't ready vs SLAs, then they're not likely to be on board with you trying to get around it. While standard actions aren't necessarily 3 seconds, they're probably at least 2, so by requiring an attack or movement every 2 seconds you allow no other standard actions to happen without blasting. You could also say, blast if it doesn't attack or move X, where X is greater than its move speed (thus indicating it has double moved and will not SLA).

Don't forget the loltastic power of Psychic Reformation, the standard XPH power that just lets you repick your powers and feats, because already having a better spell progression than sorcerers wasn't bad enough. You can just un-spend the feat later, or indeed, swap a power instead of burning a feat. Just need to hire a manifester or buy a power stone- and this is the kind of world crushing power you'd expect everyone to take.

It goes without saying, but presumably your party lacks a Cleric, else they could just cast the spell themselves.

[Nifft]

But not too "distracting" for one that doesn't have to cast defensively, e.g. swift action or invisible? Or when the attacker has no AoOs left?

The stimulus originating from the caster makes more sense to me.

It kinda looks like you're arguing that your own flavor text and his mechanics are in disagreement.

When that happens, I'd suggest choosing flavor text which doesn't conflict.

His table rule seems internally consistent.

[Psyren]

It kinda looks like you're arguing that your own flavor text and his mechanics are in disagreement.

When that happens, I'd suggest choosing flavor text which doesn't conflict.

His table rule seems internally consistent.

What I'm arguing is that it should always be possible to react to something using an SLA, whether via an AoO or readying an action, despite the lack of verbal or somatic components. This is explicitly how it works in Pathfinder (https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9tza), but 3.5 has been ambiguous about this. If you're asking what I personally do, I play Pathfinder so it's a moot point - so I don't actually care what his "table rule" is, he can do whatever he wants. I was merely explaining why I think the PF ruling makes the most sense.

[Segev]

What I'm arguing is that it should always be possible to react to something using an SLA, whether via an AoO or readying an action, despite the lack of verbal or somatic components. This is explicitly how it works in Pathfinder (https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9tza), but 3.5 has been ambiguous about this. If you're asking what I personally do, I play Pathfinder so it's a moot point - so I don't actually care what his "table rule" is, he can do whatever he wants. I was merely explaining why I think the PF ruling makes the most sense.

Huh. Kind-of makes charm person useless unless you can get them alone.

[Psyren]

Huh. Kind-of makes charm person useless unless you can get them alone.

You can hide the manifestations with things like Cunning Caster or Conceal Spell. The idea though is that there is always a chance for your casting to be noticeable instead of it being automatic, which makes it so that creatures who can cast quietly (e.g. using metamagic, psychic spells, or SLAs) don't run ramshackle over an entire setting.

[Crake]

What I'm arguing is that it should always be possible to react to something using an SLA, whether via an AoO or readying an action, despite the lack of verbal or somatic components. This is explicitly how it works in Pathfinder (https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9tza), but 3.5 has been ambiguous about this. If you're asking what I personally do, I play Pathfinder so it's a moot point - so I don't actually care what his "table rule" is, he can do whatever he wants. I was merely explaining why I think the PF ruling makes the most sense.

I mean, you're talking about mage slayer, which is a 3.5 feat.

When it comes down to it, when a spell lacks a description of a physical manifestation, and there are no outward signs of casting, even to the point where the caster doesn't provoke an AoO, then, well, there's no signs of casting. How do you think demons like succubi get away with reading people's thoughts or charming people in public.

[Heavenblade]

The hellbreaker prc from fiendish codex can both neutralize SLAs and hook himself into enemy's teleports when they are adjacent.
however, since you are a psion it might not really fit you///perhaps using a psi thief + master spellthief and then take that prc?

[Psyren]

How do you think demons like succubi get away with reading people's thoughts or charming people in public.

By not doing it in public? They don't just waltz into the throne room while court is in session and enslave the king right in front of everybody, even though they easily could under this silly ruling.

[sorcererlover]

If we're going by spellcraft rules you can't tell that the opponent is casting an SLA. But it is definitely doing something to provoke an attack of opportunity like standing still or moving less. And you can definitely tell if the opponent is casting defensively.

So tie your readied action to that. If your opponent casts defensively your readied action goes off. If your opponent doesn't cast defensively your attack of opportunity goes off.

[Nifft]

By not doing it in public? They don't just waltz into the throne room while court is in session and enslave the king right in front of everybody, even though they easily could under this silly ruling.

Maybe she wants to do it in public. Don't kink-shame the exhibitionist succubus.


As an aside, can Telepathy provide a sufficient communication channel for a [Language-Dependent] SLA like suggestion, even if the two participants don't share a language?

[Psyren]

If we're going by spellcraft rules you can't tell that the opponent is casting an SLA. But it is definitely doing something to provoke an attack of opportunity like standing still or moving less. And you can definitely tell if the opponent is casting defensively.

So tie your readied action to that. If your opponent casts defensively your readied action goes off. If your opponent doesn't cast defensively your attack of opportunity goes off.

Agreed.


As an aside, can Telepathy provide a sufficient communication channel for a [Language-Dependent] SLA like suggestion, even if the two participants don't share a language?

It requires a language which suggests that it should work as a delivery mechanism for such commands.

[sorcererlover]

Maybe she wants to do it in public. Don't kink-shame the exhibitionist succubus.


As an aside, can Telepathy provide a sufficient communication channel for a [Language-Dependent] SLA like suggestion, even if the two participants don't share a language?

By RAW? No.


A language-dependent spell uses intelligible language as a medium for communication. If the target cannot understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependant spell says the spell fails.

That OR makes it so that you only need one of the two to disqualify it. Being unable to hear despite understanding it is a condition for the spell to fail.

[Crake]

By not doing it in public? They don't just waltz into the throne room while court is in session and enslave the king right in front of everybody, even though they easily could under this silly ruling.

I mean, the king likely has his court mage with his invisible permanencied arcane sight around for reasons like that. Not to mention the king probably has an item of mind blank.

There are counters for it, but it's above notice of the random level 1 commoners in the tavern.

[Psyren]

I mean, the king likely has his court mage with his invisible permanencied arcane sight around for reasons like that. Not to mention the king probably has an item of mind blank.

There are counters for it, but it's above notice of the random level 1 commoners in the tavern.

There is a vast, vast gulf of possible scenarios between the extremes of "random level 1 commoners in the tavern" and "ultra-rich king with permanent mind blank and invisible court mage at his beck and call." SLAs or even just silent/still spellcasting can roughshod over a campaign world long before endangering someone with a king's resources. That's why I'm glad Paizo ruled the way they did; "if you want to control someone's mind without consequences, it helps to be a bit subtle and careful about it" is not an unreasonable stance to have.

[Crake]

There is a vast, vast gulf of possible scenarios between the extremes of "random level 1 commoners in the tavern" and "ultra-rich king with permanent mind blank and invisible court mage at his beck and call." SLAs or even just silent/still spellcasting can roughshod over a campaign world long before endangering someone with a king's resources. That's why I'm glad Paizo ruled the way they did; "if you want to control someone's mind without consequences, it helps to be a bit subtle and careful about it" is not an unreasonable stance to have.

I mean, I guess we just disagree on what constitutes being subtle. Casting a spell with no outward signs of casting (whether it be an SLA, or via still+silent spell), and no physical manifestation counts as being subtle in my book. Paizo ruling that "even spells without a physical manifestation or spell componets have some kind of noticable sign of existing" seems like it obviates the point of certain other spells that are meant to fill that niche, such as arcane sight.

[Psyren]

I mean, I guess we just disagree on what constitutes being subtle. Casting a spell with no outward signs of casting (whether it be an SLA, or via still+silent spell), and no physical manifestation counts as being subtle in my book. Paizo ruling that "even spells without a physical manifestation or spell componets have some kind of noticable sign of existing" seems like it obviates the point of certain other spells that are meant to fill that niche, such as arcane sight.

By "subtle" I mean investing into feats like Conceal Spell/Cunning Caster, and investing into skills like Sleight of Hand or Bluff that enable some counterplay. In other words, even with this rule, being a sneaky caster is still possible in PF - it just requires a bit of effort on the caster's part, and it means that a single garden-variety monster with these SLAs can't run roughshod over society. (Gosh, casters needing to put in effort, how terrible.)

You might prefer a world where every guard, merchant, banker, lord, and every other single person at risk of being targeted by a charmer needs to get permanencied arcane sight and/or mind blank to prevent a single enchanter or manipulative monster who isn't even trying from causing societal collapse. If that's the case, feel free to ignore that rule. Me, I prefer a world that makes more sense than that.

[Crake]

By "subtle" I mean investing into feats like Conceal Spell/Cunning Caster, and investing into skills like Sleight of Hand or Bluff that enable some counterplay. In other words, even with this rule, being a sneaky caster is still possible in PF - it just requires a bit of effort on the caster's part, and it means that a single garden-variety monster with these SLAs can't run roughshod over society. (Gosh, casters needing to put in effort, how terrible.)

If you ask me, investing in two feats, over 1 feat, and tacking on 2 extra spell levels onto your spell is a bigger investment than a single feat and some skill points, with no spell adjustment. SLAs have that benefit built in of course, which I'm fine it. Naturally if a spell has a physical manifestation, like fireball, it just being an SLA won't help, and there's no invisible spell for SLAs, but if a spell lacks a physical manifestation, to seems more tacky and shoehorned to me to just say "yeah, it's got no physical manifestation, but there's still some physical manifestation anyway, just because".


You might prefer a world where every guard, merchant, banker, lord, and every other single person at risk of being targeted by a charmer needs to get permanencied arcane sight and/or mind blank to prevent a single enchanter or manipulative monster who isn't even trying from causing societal collapse. If that's the case, feel free to ignore that rule. Me, I prefer a world that makes more sense than that.

I prefer a world where you go by whats written in the spells. Nothing says that charm person has some obvious outward signs of being cast beyond the DC25 sense motive check to notice a charm on someone, and so there's no obvious signs, the end. The fact that you need to point to an FAQ from paizo, which most people aren't going to see, to prove your point, seems like a tacky argument that you're using just because that's the way you want to play.

As an aside, I like "garden variety monsters" actually being a threat to a normal populace, and actually taking some effort to weed out, rather than having a world where everyone and everything is capable of using detect magic on a constant basis innately.

[Psyren]

If you ask me, investing in two feats, over 1 feat, and tacking on 2 extra spell levels onto your spell is a bigger investment than a single feat and some skill points, with no spell adjustment. SLAs have that benefit built in of course, which I'm fine it. Naturally if a spell has a physical manifestation, like fireball, it just being an SLA won't help, and there's no invisible spell for SLAs, but if a spell lacks a physical manifestation, to seems more tacky and shoehorned to me to just say "yeah, it's got no physical manifestation, but there's still some physical manifestation anyway, just because".

I assume that by "two feats" you mean Still and Silent Spell?

First, even if you only go with Cunning Caster or Conceal Spell, it's actually still two feats (both also need Deceitful) - and realistically you do still need Still and Silent spell as well if you want to maximize your success of casting openly, making it four feats rather than two. And even then it's not totally guaranteed. Second, if the only barrier was metamagic as before, that's easily bypassed with metamagic rods, making such an "investment" trivial for any caster; not to mention that psychic casters and SLA-using monsters (or those who can conjure those monsters) don't even need to clear that tiny hurdle. You said you were okay with that from an SLA standpoint, but you didn't mention psychics.

In short, this is an unqualified nerf to casters by PF, which going by this forum many people believe are sorely needed, and in the case of magic-using monsters also guarantees that the only ones that can get away with truly running amok are the ones that either play smart or are a bit more advanced than their basic kin - either by investing in these techniques to use their powers openly, or by making an effort to conceal themselves before firing off a bunch of SLAs, or by catching marks away from onlookers instead of charming them in full view/broad daylight/etc. You can still have a story like "succubus charms the duke at his party and becomes his 'wife'" if you want to, it just means she has to be sneaky about that initial contact - which is perfectly on-brand for a succubus anyway.


I prefer a world where you go by whats written in the spells. Nothing says that charm person has some obvious outward signs of being cast beyond the DC25 sense motive check to notice a charm on someone, and so there's no obvious signs, the end. The fact that you need to point to an FAQ from paizo, which most people aren't going to see, to prove your point, seems like a tacky argument that you're using just because that's the way you want to play.

That check still exists in PF, and like 3.5 it's for detecting someone who has already been charmed; it's not related to magic being noticeable at the point of casting/activation. And as stated above, the caster still has to be seen while they're using it, which for an SLA is easy to hide as long as the caster isn't walking up to someone openly and trying to do their shtick in full view.


As an aside, I like "garden variety monsters" actually being a threat to a normal populace, and actually taking some effort to weed out, rather than having a world where everyone and everything is capable of using detect magic on a constant basis innately.

It's hardly "constant detect magic" though. Seeing a manifestation isn't guaranteed (you have to perceive the caster to even have a chance at being an "onlooker") and even if you do notice it, it doesn't tell you anything about the magic being used like the school. Even an ordinary succubus, with her +14 stealth and +27 bluff, is still very much a threat to a "normal populace." Having to put a little effort into picking her battles, especially if PCs happen to be snooping around, doesn't change that. And things like detect magic and arcane sight, which work even if the caster is hiding or distracting you from their manifestations, are still valuable.

[Crake]

You said you were okay with that from an SLA standpoint, but you didn't mention psychics..

Psions already have this system built into them with psionic displays (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm#display). Yes at high levels they become trivial to ignore, but that's how it is

[Psyren]

Psions already have this system built into them with psionic displays (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm#display). Yes at high levels they become trivial to ignore, but that's how it is

I actually meant Psychic Magic (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/occult-adventures/psychic-magic/) (i.e. the Pathfinder first-party system), which was released right about when Paizo posted this ruling.

But speaking of psionics though - yes, it's true that they can hide their displays much more easily than a spellcaster can hide manifestations, but psionics has drawbacks of its own. Detecting that someone is a spellcaster is hard, and requires powerful magic like arcane sight; For a psionicist however, the far weaker detect psionics (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/detectPsionics.htm) can not only tell what they are, but how powerful they are, and that is a power weak enough that a campaign world that has psionics at all can be reasonably expected to have it available well below the "rich king with court mage on staff" level. Running amok even if you can perfectly suppress your displays is thus that much harder.