Can I use dispel magic to counterspell a greater dispel magic shot at my group?

[VinnythePooh]

Fighting some diamond golems with at will GDM as a free action. Can I use a regular dispel magic against a GDM? It's an identical spell just with better success rates.

[Crake]

Fighting some diamond golems with at will GDM as a free action. Can I use a regular dispel magic against a GDM? It's an identical spell just with better success rates.

Yes and no. You could use the counterspell function of dispel as normal, and roll, but its not the same spell, so its not an auto success

[Darg]

As mentioned spell chains aren't the same spell even if they are based on the same spell. Spell versions however are the same spell. An example of this is the resist energy spell and the different energy types. As it's the same spell you can't benefit from more than one resistance type at a time.

[Crake]

As mentioned spell chains aren't the same spell even if they are based on the same spell. Spell versions however are the same spell. An example of this is the resist energy spell and the different energy types. As it's the same spell you can't benefit from more than one resistance type at a time.

Pretty sure you can. Nothing stopping you from having multiple of the same spell, each granting different effects, you just cant stack the same effect from the same spell

[Biggus]

Pretty sure you can. Nothing stopping you from having multiple of the same spell, each granting different effects, you just cant stack the same effect from the same spell

It's a disputed point. The relevant rule is this:


Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. For example, a series of polymorph spells might turn a creature into a mouse, a lion, and then a snail. In this case, the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

Taking it literally, it seems to say that multiple castings of the same spell neutralise previous castings, and some people rule it that way. Looking at the example and the words "become irrelevant" however suggests that they weren't thinking of spells like Resist Energy. There's also disagreement about whether multiple "resist energy" spells count as the same effect, or whether "resist fire" and "resist cold" are two different effects.

I think the argument that you can use multiple versions of Resist Energy together is probably stronger, but it's not an open-and-shut case.

[Crake]

It's a disputed point. The relevant rule is this:



Taking it literally, it seems to say that multiple castings of the same spell neutralise previous castings, and some people rule it that way. Looking at the example and the words "become irrelevant" however suggests that they weren't thinking of spells like Resist Energy. There's also disagreement about whether multiple "resist energy" spells count as the same effect, or whether "resist fire" and "resist cold" are two different effects.

I think the argument that you can use multiple versions of Resist Energy together is probably stronger, but it's not an open-and-shut case.

Ehhh, I think its stronger by enough of a margin, and the opposite being a very weird and unintuitive edge case that the example in question is clearly not referencing (by the fact that everything after “in this case” being example specific) its pretty damn close to being shut and close.

[Tzardok]

You can't. Spell-like abilities can't be counterspelled (and IIRC a diamond golem's dispell ability is supernatural, which all the more can't be counterspelled).

[Remuko]

Fighting some diamond golems with at will GDM as a free action. Can I use a regular dispel magic against a GDM? It's an identical spell just with better success rates.

even if you can, whats the point? they can use it an infinite number of times as a free action. you counterspell it and they just do it again. you can't stop it, assuming what you said about how their ability works is correct.

[Darg]

It's a disputed point. The relevant rule is this:



Taking it literally, it seems to say that multiple castings of the same spell neutralise previous castings, and some people rule it that way. Looking at the example and the words "become irrelevant" however suggests that they weren't thinking of spells like Resist Energy. There's also disagreement about whether multiple "resist energy" spells count as the same effect, or whether "resist fire" and "resist cold" are two different effects.

I think the argument that you can use multiple versions of Resist Energy together is probably stronger, but it's not an open-and-shut case.

It's actually the "become irrelevant" that is the important rule. We see it as the rules making an active declaration, not a passive observance. What's the point of a rule if it isn't actually declaring something?

[Jay R]

even if you can, whats the point? they can use it an infinite number of times as a free action. you counterspell it and they just do it again. you can't stop it, assuming what you said about how their ability works is correct.

The point to making the enemy keep doing the same thing is to prevent them from doing something else instead. Action economy means that each side only has a set number of actions each round. And the PCs don't have to do it forever. If the wizard can force a diamond golem to use greater dispel magic three rounds in a row, then that's three rounds that it is not attacking the party with something else, while the rest of the party is busy taking it down.

[Crake]

It's actually the "become irrelevant" that is the important rule. We see it as the rules making an active declaration, not a passive observance. What's the point of a rule if it isn't actually declaring something?

It's an example. It's observing the effects of the already stated rules on the outcome of the example. In the case of polymorph, it is observing that one shapeshifting spell will override the previous one, because you obviously cannot be in 2 different forms at once. That same logic does not apply to resist energy, because you are fully capable of having more than 1 resistance at a time. After all, it says that the other spells are still there and functionaly, but in this example they become irrelevant.

[Darg]

It's an example. It's observing the effects of the already stated rules on the outcome of the example. In the case of polymorph, it is observing that one shapeshifting spell will override the previous one, because you obviously cannot be in 2 different forms at once. That same logic does not apply to resist energy, because you are fully capable of having more than 1 resistance at a time. After all, it says that the other spells are still there and functionaly, but in this example they become irrelevant.

You aren't wrong that it's stating that the example spells become irrelevant, but as a general rule it must apply to all spells with varying effects, not just polymorph. What the paragraph does not do is give a reasoning that limits it to overriding effects only. Your interpretation for all practical purposes limits the rule to just form changing spells that already have more specific rules built in that do the same thing. It doesn't seem likely that a rule like this would be so limited in scope and yet written so broadly.

[Remuko]

The point to making the enemy keep doing the same thing is to prevent them from doing something else instead. Action economy means that each side only has a set number of actions each round. And the PCs don't have to do it forever. If the wizard can force a diamond golem to use greater dispel magic three rounds in a row, then that's three rounds that it is not attacking the party with something else, while the rest of the party is busy taking it down.

yes i understand action economy. OP said they have "At Will" as a "Free Action" so if its dispelled they can just use it again, even if its not their turn, so they have infinite action economy (if OPs claim of the ability is correct, as i said in my post).

[Crake]

yes i understand action economy. OP said they have "At Will" as a "Free Action" so if its dispelled they can just use it again, even if its not their turn, so they have infinite action economy (if OPs claim of the ability is correct, as i said in my post).

Seems like the way it ACTUALLY works is, the first time they hit a creature each round, they get a free, supernatural, targetted dispel magic against that creature, so it's not spammable, and it's not a free action, it's an effect of their attack that can happen once per round.

[Tzardok]

Twice per round. They have two slams. Also, in my version of MoF it doesn't say that it only happens on the first hit.

[Crake]

Twice per round. They have two slams. Also, in my version of MoF it doesn't say that it only happens on the first hit.

oh, for some reason, i read it as "the first time per round", but upon re-reading it, that language is literally nowhere to be seen, its literally just a rider effect of their slam attacks.

[Nihilarian]

The bad news is you can't make them spam gdm every round by counterspelling it, even if you could dispel a supernatural ability

"Due to their perfectionist obsession, diamond golems cast true strike before each of their melee attacks, even if doing so makes no tactical or strategic sense. They cannot attack in the round that they use the spell-like ability to cast true strike, and they only make one attack on rounds when they do strike. The exception to this rule is that diamond golems will make opportunity attacks."

The good news is they are very stupid