How does the dispel check work for single-target spells becoming multi-target using higher levels? [duplicate]

The 2nd level spell Hold Person can affect multiple targets when upcast with a higher level slot.

Suppose a wizard uses a 6th level slot and successfully holds 5 humanoid king’s guards with the spell.

The Dispel Magic spell simply works automatically if it targets any spell 3rd level and below. The caster needs to make an ability check to ends spells of a higher level with a DC of 10+spell level.

If the king’s adviser wished to dispel the spell on one of the guards, would a check be unnecessary because he is attempting to end a 2nd level spell that affects multiple targets or does he need to attempt a DC16 ability check?

Can a spontaneous caster use higher level slots to cast non-heightened lower level spells?

I’m an Oracle. I’ve picked up Divine Access (Ragathiel) which adds True Strike to my spell list. I’ve also added it to my spell repertoire as a 1-st level spell.

Since it is not one of my signature spells I can’t heighten it (not that it can be heightened to begin with).

I’m out of 1-st level spell slots. Can I use a 2-nd level spell slot to cast True Strike?

Can a 4th level or higher Dispel Magic dispel the effects of a Duration: Instantaneous spell?

When cast at 3rd level, dispel magic ends a spell that is currently effecting the target:

Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range. Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends. For each spell of 4th level or higher on the target, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell’s level. On a successful check, the spell ends.

Notably, this does not work on effects from spells with instantaneous duration, as those spells have already ended.

But when cast at 4th level or higher, it appears as though it should end spell effects from spells having Instantaneous duration:

When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, you automatically end the effects of a spell on the target if the spell’s level is equal to or less than the level of the spell slot you used.

Is this the correct ruling? Does a 4th level dispel magic end spell effects from instantaneous duration spells?

Opposing d6 Pools, # of higher dice

I’ve read dozens of posts here, and wrestled with with anyDice suggested code, but nothing matches quite what I am looking for. I think it is simple in concept: for opposing dice pools of 1..6d6, I want to figure the probability of of higher dice.

In my case, the count of higher dice includes a dice with a higher face than the opponents highest, and/or a higher count of the opponent’s highest face. A = 1234, B = 456: B nets 2 (5 and 6 > 4) A = 1233, B = 1223, A nets 1 (2 3s to 1 3) I want to analyze the probability of each 3 of higher dice for 2d6 versus 2..6d6. Any help would be appreciated.

The closest I’ve come is, but that just tells me the relative probability of X # of dice of the same face.


  • John

Embiggening monster for higher CR for Polymorph [Homebrew]

Although the party wizard has had a wand of polymorph since finding it in a hand-converted U3 (before the release of Ghosts of Saltmarsh) she has typically used it defensively, turning enemies into slugs and such. Only recently has she begun to use it offensively. After fighting some carnivorous apes, she turned the party member L7 Barbarian into a CR7 Giant Ape when he was low on hp.


The new form can be any beast whose challenge rating is equal to or less than the target’s (or the target’s level, if it doesn’t have a challenge rating).

As a result of that battle, the party has leveled, and the wizard can now polymorph the barbarian into a beast of CR8.

Unfortunately, I know of only one CR8 creature that is a beast – the Tyrannosaurus rex. While RAW there is no restriction on using polymorph to achieve forms not seen before, it would harm the verisimilitude of my game, in which none of the characters have even heard of dinosaurs.

However, if the wizard knows that Giant Apes exist, I think it is plausible for her to reason that there must be even-more-giant Apes, and simply try to make the barbarian bigger the next time she casts the spell.

Thus, I am considering allowing a larger version of a Giant Ape, in which some of the stats have been embiggened to achieve the low end of CR8. I am interested in responses to this as a homebrew concept.

Useful answers could include:

  1. Information about other publicly-available non-dinosaur CR8 beasts
  2. Conformation or refutation of my assumption that such ‘variable size’ polymorphing is not allowed RAW
  3. Conformation or refutation of my assumption that so long as the new form is a variation of an official one and the CR is calculated correctly, there are unlikely to be balance issues.
  4. Confirmation or refutation that I have calculated CR correctly for the larger version (below).

CR7 Giant Ape
AC12, 157hp (15d12+60), At. 2 @ +9 to hit, 3d10+6 dmg, ADPRH 45

CR8 Proposed Giant Ape [all other stats as RAW Giant Ape]
AC13, 168hp (16d12+64), At. 2 @ +9 to hit, 3d12+6 dmg, ADPRH 51

CR7 Giant Ape Calculation
Hp 146-160 = CR6, AC is more than two below 15, adjust DCR -1 to 5
DPR 45-50 = CR7, to hit is more than two above +6, adjust OCR +1 to 8
Average CR 6.5, round to CR7

CR8 Proposed Giant Ape Calculation
Hp 161-175 = CR7, AC is two below 15, adjust DCR -1 to 6
DPR 51-56 = CR8, to hit is more than two above +6, adjust OCR +1 to 9
Average CR 7.5, round to CR8

Higher than 20 AC and Crits

If a character or creature has an AC that with all bonuses requires a 20 to hit does that mean that every hit is a crit? or alternately the creatures AC is so high that with all bonuses no hit would be possible except that a 20 always hits. So if a nat 20 is rolled you hit and crit and then the only way you can hit the impossible to hit creature always results in a crit. I feel like the impossible to hit would grant you a hit on a nat 20 but not the crit.

How to alleviate the tedium of PC death at higher levels?

In our high-level Pathfinder game, player characters die relatively often, whether to save-or-die or just to high damage.

When a PC dies, then players either defeat the enemy or escape, and unless the player wants to start playing a new character, they then teleport to a safe place, bring the corpse to a temple, pay for raise dead and restoration and hopefully remember to cast the second restoration again in a week.

This seems like a simple process, but in practice it tends to eat up quite a bit of time which is not particularly interesting. The teleport could miss, inhabitants of town might react to PCs returning, PCs might want to haggle down on the price of raise dead and the party might want to spend the downtime between the two restoration spells somehow. It is noticeably slower in real time than a PC falling unconscious and getting tapped with a wand of cure light wounds until at full HP.

Can this time somehow be minimized or made more fun?

Can a monster cast a higher level spell using a lower level spell slot? (Shadow Fey Enchantress)

Is there a (monster creation) rule that allows a higher level spell to be cast using a lower level? I ask because I came across the "Shadow Fey Enchantress" (Kobold Press "Tome of Beasts", pages 170-172), as it states:

Spellcasting. The shadow fey is a 10th-level spellcaster. Her spellcasting ability is Charisma (save DC 15, +7 to hit with spell attacks). She knows the following bard spells.

Cantrips (at will): blade ward, friends, message, vicious mockery
1st level (4 slots): bane, charm person, faerie fire
2nd level (3 slots): enthrall, hold person
3rd level (3 slots): conjure fey, fear, hypnotic pattern
4th level (3 slots): confusion, greater invisibility, phantasmal killer
5th level (2 slots): animate objects, dominate person, hold monster

However, Conjure Fey is a level 6 spell:

Shadow Fey Enchantress, stats:

I checked with the Errata, but it doesn’t mention this as an error. Perhpaps it was overlooked, or perhaps there is a monster creation mechanic that I’m not aware of?

EDIT: Bonus points for a suitable replacement spell (if indeed an error)!

What can cause higher CPU time and duration for a given set of queries in trace(s) ran on two separate environments?

I’m troubleshooting a performance issue in a SQL Server DR environment for a customer. They are running queries that consistently take longer in their environment than our QA environment. After analyzing traces that were performed in both environments with the same parameters/filters and with the same version of SQL Server (2016 SP2) and the exact same database, we observed that both environment were picking the same execution plan(s) for the queries in question, and the number of reads/writes were close in both environments, however the total duration of the process in question and the CPU time logged in the trace were significantly higher in the customer environment. Duration of all processes in our QA environment was around 18 seconds, the customer was over 80 seconds, our CPU time was close to 10 seconds, theirs was also over 80 seconds. Also worth mentioning, both environments are currently configured to MAXDOP 1.

The customer has less memory (~100GB vs 120GB), and slower disks (10k HHD vs SSD) than our QA environment, but but more CPUs. Both environments are dedicated to this activity and should have little/no external load that wouldn’t match. I don’t have all the details on CPU architecture they are using, waiting for some of that information now. The customer has confirmed they have excluded SQL Server and the data/log files from their virus scanning. Obviously there could be a ton of issues in the hardware configuration.

I’m currently waiting to see a recent snapshot of their wait stats and system DMVs, the data we originally received, didn’t appear to have any major CPU, memory or Disk latency pressure. I recently asked them to check to see if the windows power setting was in performance or balanced mode, however I’m not certain that would have the impact we’re seeing or not if the CPUs were being throttled.

My question is, what factors can affect CPU time and ultimately total duration? Is CPU time, as shown in a sql trace, based primarily on the speed of the processors or are their other factors I should be taking in to consideration. The fact that both are generating the same query plans and all other things being as close as possible to equal, makes me think it’s related to the hardware SQL is installed on.