Dysfunctional Rules VI: Magic Circle Against Errata

[Andezzar]

Anyway, I just found a weird oversight - Talisman of Boccob gives +1CL on Knowledge domain or divination spells. Except that every single Knowledge domain spell is divination. I mean it doesn't break anything and the RAW is clear, but the writer probably wasn't thinking very clearly.

But not every divination spell is on the knowledge domain spell list. E.g. Augury, Commune, Comprehend Languages.

[Troacctid]

Yeah, it's redundant, though, is the point--half the effect does nothing at all.

[Story]

It makes me wonder if the writers just went down the list of gods and chose one Domain + one school of magic for each without even looking at what the spells in that domain were.

[georgie_leech]

It could also be future-proofing against possible errata that changed a Knowledge /domain spell into one of a different school. Probably just the Domain+School reason, though.

[nedz]

A lot of entries in these threads don't cause the game to not work properly. Going down the handbook's first category, races, only the Darfellan, Diopsid, Dvati (1), Humanoid, Spellscale, and (arguably) vampire entries actually cause game rules to implode. The other 18+ entries are things that are just counterintuitive, or broken monster entries, or otherwise weird, and only one of those is marked with an asterisk.

So if that's the purpose of the asterisk, it's not being applied consistently.

The * was only used by TuggyNE so it's not being applied consistently.

[bekeleven]

So, thoughts on the next thread's title?

Just to mix it up:
Dysfunctional Rule Episode VII: The Force Erratas

Or, as No Brains suggested last thread:
Dysfunctions VII: Where Everything is Made Up and The Rules Don't Matter.

[Kurald Galain]

So, thoughts on the next thread's title?

We had several votes for Mordenkainen's Dysfunction earlier in the thread...

[No brains]

So, thoughts on the next thread's title?

Just to mix it up:
Dysfunctional Rule Episode VII: The Force Erratas

Or, as No Brains suggested last thread:
Dysfunctions VII: Where Everything is Made Up and The Rules Don't Matter.

We had several votes for Mordenkainen's Dysfunction earlier in the thread...

For expediency's sake, I'm going to concede to Mordenkainen's Dysfunction for the seventh thread. Colin, Ryan, Wayne, and I will be biding our time for the eighth...

[Debatra]

We had several votes for Mordenkainen's Dysfunction earlier in the thread...

Another vote for this one.

Speaking of which, Disjunction is actually worse than Greater Dispel Magic for ending active spells.

"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)"

Not GDM, nothing about automatic success; just a reference to plain old 1d20+10 Dispel Magic.

[Story]

I think it's just saying that MD behaves as a successful Dispel Magic would. So no dysfunction there.

[Zaq]

Casting my vote for Mordenkainen's Dysfunction.

[Curmudgeon]

I also think Mordenkainen's Dysfunction is a fine title.

[Jormengand]

Yeah, I like Mordenkainen's Dysfunction.

Another vote for this one.

Speaking of which, Disjunction is actually worse than Greater Dispel Magic for ending active spells.

"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)"

Not GDM, nothing about automatic success; just a reference to plain old 1d20+10 Dispel Magic.

Not "Potentially ending the effect" or "Rolling 1d20+10 to end the effect." Ending the effect. It just does it, same as Reversed Spell Rebirth or Iron Heart Surge.

[Curmudgeon]

Not "Potentially ending the effect" or "Rolling 1d20+10 to end the effect." Ending the effect. It just does it...

Ah, but it can't do anything more than Dispel Magic is capable of. So the maximum dispel check is 20 (1d20) +10 (maximum CL) = 30, which has to meet or exceed 11 + the spell’s CL. Which is another way of saying that spells with CL higher than 19 aren't affected.

If you succeed on a particular check, that spell is dispelled; if you fail, that spell remains in effect.

[Story]

It is an interesting question whether Disjunction works against spells that specifically can't be dispelled.

[Jormengand]

Ah, but it can't do anything more than Dispel Magic is capable of. So the maximum dispel check is 20 (1d20) +10 (maximum CL) = 30, which has to meet or exceed 11 + the spell’s CL. Which is another way of saying that spells with CL higher than 19 aren't affected.

Well, no. It ends it in the same manner that dispel magic does, not only those spells that dispel magic could.

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),

As it does. Not if it could. In the same manner, not under the same conditions.

It is an interesting question whether Disjunction works against spells that specifically can't be dispelled.

Specific>General, so This spell can't be > All spells are.

[Andezzar]

Specific>General, so This spell can't be > All spells are.

Is the description of one spell really more specific than the description of another spell?

[Jormengand]

Is the description of one spell really more specific than the description of another spell?

Uhm, yes? Because one of them is referring to spells in general, and the other to a spell in specific.

[No brains]

So Disjunction can not remove the effect of bestow curse because it can't be dispelled, right?

[Andezzar]

Uhm, yes? Because one of them is referring to spells in general, and the other to a spell in specific.

I disagree. Both are specific spells that have effects. So their effects are equally specific. That one effect has a broader application is irrelevant for the decision which effect takes precedence.

Additionally Bestow Curse only says that it cannot be dispelled, Mordenkaine's Disjunction does not dispel spells it disjoins them or separates them into their individual components. The part in parentheses references the manner of this disjunction, which is

A dispelled spell ends as if its duration had expired.

[Jormengand]

I disagree. Both are specific spells that have effects. So their effects are equally specific. That one effect has a broader application is irrelevant for the decision which effect takes precedence.

You mean, it is more general than the other?

Mordenkaine's Disjunction does not dispel spells it disjoins them or separates them into their individual components.

*Sigh*.

(ending the effect as a dispel magic spell does),

[Andezzar]

You mean, it is more general than the other?

One effect affects has more applicable targets, but that does not make the rules of the effect more general i.e. liable to be superseded by another rule. From a rules hierarchy perspective Hide from Undead and Invisibility are equally specific even though invisibility affects more diverse targets.

*Sigh*.

Look, more quotes:

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)

Ending, not dispelling. Dispel magic also tells us how spells end:

A dispelled spell ends as if its duration had expired

MDJ does not say that it dispels spells. It just ends them. Since it does not dispel anything it works on Bestow Curse.

[Jormengand]

One effect affects has more applicable targets, but that does not make the rules of the effect more general i.e. liable to be superseded by another spell. From a rules hierarchy perspective Hide from Undead and Invisibility are equally specific even though invisibility affects more diverse targets.

[A]ffecting or concerning all or most people or things; widespread.

Look, more quotes: Ending, not dispelling. Dispel magic also tells us how spells end:MDJ does not say that it dispels spells. It just ends them. Since it does not dispel anything it works on Bestow Curse.

MKDJ tells us that it ends spells in the way DM does. How does DM end spells?

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.

MKDJ ends spells "[A]s a dispel magic spell does": by dispelling them. The fact that it separates the spells into their constituent parts doesn't mean it's not dispelling them, it just tells you how, because, y'know, flavour. Role-playing game. That kind of thing.

[Andezzar]

You quoted how the dispelling works with the spell Dispel Magic. That is irrelevant for MDJ, because it never says anything about dispelling an effect. What I quoted is how the spell ends. DM requires the spell to be dispelled to end, MDJ does not. A more elaborate explanation:
To successfully use dispel magic you must do three things
1. Cast dispel magic
2. Succeed at the caster level check -> spell is dispelled
3. End the spell as if the duration had expired

Now if you use MDJ, you have to cast the spell and it goes directly to step 3 of DM.

[Jormengand]

You quoted how the dispelling works with the spell Dispel Magic. That is irrelevant for MDJ, because it never says anything about dispelling an effect.

Again, I repeat:

MKDJ tells us that it ends spells in the way DM does. How does DM end spells?

MKDJ ends spells "[A]s a dispel magic spell does": by dispelling them. The fact that it separates the spells into their constituent parts doesn't mean it's not dispelling them, it just tells you how, because, y'know, flavour. Role-playing game. That kind of thing.

[illyahr]

I'm with Andezzar on this one. The way the text is written, only step 3 of the DM process is repeated by MKDJ. All it says is all spell effects in the area are ended, then it clarifies by mentioning a similar spell-ending effect. This doesn't effect the first part of the description, however, that just says the spells end.

[Jormengand]

All it says is all spell effects in the area are ended, then it clarifies by mentioning a similar spell-ending effect.

Again, again, again:

MKDJ tells us that it ends spells in the way DM does. How does DM end spells?

MKDJ ends spells "[A]s a dispel magic spell does": by dispelling them. The fact that it separates the spells into their constituent parts doesn't mean it's not dispelling them, it just tells you how, because, y'know, flavour. Role-playing game. That kind of thing.

It does indeed "[C]larif[y] by mentioning a similar spell-ending effect." It clarifies that the spell is ended as a dispel magic spell does, and as a dispel magic spell does would be by dispelling them. Why would it clarify that the ending of the spell was in the manner of dispel magic if it didn't dispel them?

If it said, for example, "(ending the effect as a reversed spell rebirth utterance does)" - RSR saying "This utterance dispels the highest-level spell affecting the target creature" - would you maintain that it didn't dispel it? If not, why is dispel magic any different?

Further, it makes no difference to whether or not the spell is dysfunctional. Either it can end undispellable spells or it can't. I say it can't, because it tries to dispel them, you say it can because it doesn't specify that it dispels them (except for when it says that it ends them the way DM does, which is by dispelling them), either way, it doesn't make any difference and I don't see why MKDJ should be considered dysfunctional.

Can we please resume saving the world?

[illyahr]

Again, again, again:



It does indeed "[C]larif[y] by mentioning a similar spell-ending effect." It clarifies that the spell is ended as a dispel magic spell does, and as a dispel magic spell does would be by dispelling them. Why would it clarify that the ending of the spell was in the manner of dispel magic if it didn't dispel them?

If it said, for example, "(ending the effect as a reversed spell rebirth utterance does)" - RSR saying "This utterance dispels the highest-level spell affecting the target creature" - would you maintain that it didn't dispel it? If not, why is dispel magic any different?

Further, it makes no difference to whether or not the spell is dysfunctional. Either it can end undispellable spells or it can't. I say it can't, because it tries to dispel them, you say it can because it doesn't specify that it dispels them (except for when it says that it ends them the way DM does, which is by dispelling them), either way, it doesn't make any difference and I don't see why MKDJ should be considered dysfunctional.

Can we please resume saving the world?

See, now this is the point that is causing confusion. It doesn't matter if it says it 'dispels' or not. It says it ends the effect as DM does. DM ends the effect by forcing the duration to run out, so that's what MKDJ does. It forces all spell effects in the area to stop by forcing them to the end of their duration.

Does it dispel effects that say they can't be dispelled? That depends on how the individual spell is written. If the spell has a finite duration, then yes it does. If it has a duration of Instantaneous or Permanent, then no it doesn't. These are the exact same stipulations that DM has so, fundamentally, there shouldn't be an issue. Are there spells out there that this particular nit needs to be picked? I seriously doubt it but it needs to be said as that's what MKDJ says.

It's a scholastic difference that will probably never come up in game, but it's strange enough to warrent discussion.

[Jormengand]

See, now this is the point that is causing confusion. It doesn't matter if it says it 'dispels' or not. It says it ends the effect as DM does. DM ends the effect by forcing the duration to run out, so that's what MKDJ does. It forces all spell effects in the area to stop by forcing them to the end of their duration.

DM also ends the spell effect by dispelling it. MKDJ ends the spell as DM does. Therefore?

Yes, MKDJ ends the spell as though its duration had run out.

I mean, on the point of "Ending" the spell, DM makes reference to "Ending" a spell:

You can use dispel magic to end ongoing spells that have been cast on a creature or object

But it also tells you how it achieves this:

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.

If you target an object or creature that is the effect of an ongoing spell (such as a monster summoned by monster summoning), you make a dispel check to end the spell that conjured the object or creature.

So, what does "[A]s a dispel magic does" mean? It means:

• The spell is dispelled.
• It ends as though its duration had expired.
• The effect of a spell with instantaneous duration can't be ended in this way.

Why? Because those are three different things that are listed in the Dispel Magic spell description. Why choose only the second one? (Because DM says that instantaneous spell effects can't be dispelled but not that they can't be ended, so if it's not dispelling, well...). There's no reason to pick out the idea of ending as though its duration had expired, but not to pick out the idea of being dispelled, when both are equally descriptions of how DM ends spells, and therefore how MKDJ ends spells.

[illyahr]

So, what does "[A]s a dispel magic does" mean? It means:

• The spell is dispelled.
• It ends as though its duration had expired.
• The effect of a spell with instantaneous duration can't be ended in this way.

I think you are misunderstanding me a bit here. Explicitly stated in the description:

• DM: dispel spell, end as though duration had expired
• MKDJ: end as though duration had expired

The core of the dysfunction here is simply: does MKDJ mean

• A: dispel = end as though duration had expired
  or
• B: dispel =/= end as though duration had expired

A means that MKDJ doesn't get through dispel, B means that it does. I'm not arguing either of these statements is true or false, I'm simply pointing out that the text does not make it clear which is correct. That makes this a dysfunction.