D&D Equivalent to Unix "Touch"

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:no2j31t5r40dtg1k0mhinsmgckakjfcadl@4ax.com...
> >It's obvious that this idea is being met with rather a lot of skepticism,
> >but honestly, it was just an idea to float out there. It seems like most
> >campaigns have high level wizards just hanging out in every city that has
> >wizards capable of casting defensive spells, so I guess it doesn't much
> >matter.
>
> I don't know which "most campaigns" you are talking about, but aside from
> major capitol cities, high level anythings are extremely rare.

Err, that's the whole point. I guess I should have put a sarcasm smiley in
there or something.

You can't realistically have an uber high level wizard running around
casting all sorts of spells himself with nobody else doing it as well,
especially in large cities. He simply wouldn't be able to cover all the
ground he would need to cover. So, have minor casters do the grunt work,
and mr.uber goes around and shores it up so it's magic resistant.

> Doesn't to me. The low level casters are simply wasting their time that
> could be better spent elsewhere, since the existance of high level casters
> makes the job you describe completely redundant. It doesn't save the high
> level wizards any time, since they are going over and re-doing all the
work
> again.

Only if it's a single effect that is bolstered, you're right. But then
again, that's already been granted. But if such a spell affected larger
areas? Have X miniwizards cast a few effects, and then get them all at
once. Huge timesaver for the uberwizard, city benefits, and minis do the
grunt work.

> Bolstering the caster level of a bunch of little spells like that for huge
> sections of a city (if not the whole place) could be done with a single
> Wish or Miracle spell. Assuming the wizards have the XP to burn (or have
> found a ring of 3 wishes) for the casting *that* would be a substantial
> timesaver, and doesn't require the creation of this new spell which really
> doesn't do anything very useful.

Sure, you could wish it. Personally I would find that to be a waste of a
perfectly good wish, myself.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

> You can't realistically have an uber high level wizard running around
> casting all sorts of spells himself with nobody else doing it as well,
> especially in large cities. He simply wouldn't be able to cover all the
> ground he would need to cover. So, have minor casters do the grunt work,
> and mr.uber goes around and shores it up so it's magic resistant.
>

I like the idea of having the minor-mages report back. Then the high-level
mage can take ownership of all spells cast within the last hour/day/whatever
from that mage. The uber-mage sits in his office, sends the pixie for a cup
of coffee, and waits for his minions to report back and have their spells
bolstered. I especially like the potential for abuse this provides from the
minor-mages.

Peter

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vlj_d.13206$cN6.13166@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Anivair" <anivair@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1111068671.595380.96610@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > That said, I would maybe call a spell of that nature second level.
>
> Prove it.

This only makes you look like a desperate retard.

OK, here's your proof. He said he would maybe call it second level. "May".
By his own words, his point is proven, he just may do that. Even if he
doesn't actually do that, he may. QED.

Whenever you use the phrase "prove it", you look like a somewhat anal
retentive lawyer. People hate lawyers. People hate anal retentives even
more.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <1111068671.595380.96610@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
Anivair <anivair@gmail.com> wrote:
>In fact, a higher level version of this spell (4th) might be nice to
>allow you to take control of a spell. Same gisy, caster level check to
>make it your spell. You gain the ability to end it (if dismissible) or
>control it (if concentration based) etc. That's actually not a bad
>concept. Sounds like a fun spell, esspecially against summoners.

Taking over an opponent's spell has precedent in the fantasy literature, I'm
sure, though I can't think of a specific instance at the moment.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <km2j31t5grg1r02u1mmrbq3jprfgc9qd26@4ax.com>,
Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 23:11:29 +0000 (UTC), tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu
>(Donald Tsang) scribed into the ether:
>
>>Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>>>So, he has better things to do than to cast Continual Flame on lampposts,
>>>but he doesn't have better things to do than to go around to a bunch of
>>>already cast Continual Flame spells and reinforce them?
>>>
>>>That makes a lot of sense...to you (and noone else).
>>
>>How about: the LG 20th level Wizard has a Lantern Archon as an Improved
>>Familiar. Caster level of the spell-like ability isn't improved through
>>being a familiar, so the Wizard has to go bolster all of the lamps, in order
>>for a CL=5 level Dispel Magic not to blow out each lamp...
>
>Or he could just CAST CONTINUAL FLAME HIMSELF...why purpose is served in
>having the lower level caster existing at all?

Bolster a single spell: useless almost always, as you say
Bolster all spells cast on the party: useful fairly often
Bolster all spells in a large area: very useful
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <1111069082.454571.121590@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Anivair <anivair@gmail.com> wrote:
>Also, this is a fine way to have low level wizards get some practice in
>(from the point of view of a high level wizard). if you've got all
>these tools working for you they might as well learn something.

Where I come from, calling someone a "tool" is moderately insulting.

Nonetheless, the notion of a teaching wizard having low-levels do "practice
projects" makes a lot of sense.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote in message
news:d1cdpc$rub$1@knot.queensu.ca...
> In article <1111069082.454571.121590@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> Anivair <anivair@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Also, this is a fine way to have low level wizards get some practice in
> >(from the point of view of a high level wizard). if you've got all
> >these tools working for you they might as well learn something.
>
> Where I come from, calling someone a "tool" is moderately insulting.

Ever met a high level wizard that WASN'T a wallowing mass of disdain with
respect to his apprentices? 😉

> Nonetheless, the notion of a teaching wizard having low-levels do
"practice
> projects" makes a lot of sense.

I didn't even think of it that way at first, but you're right.

The only thing I was concerned about was city defenses and having many more
lower level wizards around than higher level ones. How would a city handle
such things? They'd probably have as much grunt work as possible done by
the lower guys, and have things "stamp of approval"'d by a higher guy, just
like IRL.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:

> I suppose the city officials in your games prefer to overpay
employees
> to perform tasks that they aren't even able to perform. Well, at
> least it's realistic

That's exactly my point (though in a roundabout way). the sorts of
things that happen IRL are not always the most mechaically efficient,
which is why I like this spell. Sure it's more efficient to just have
the higher level wizard cast the spell (in most cases unless he can't
cast it or the spell can be cast on multiple enchantments at once) but
that doesn't mean that that's the most likely situation. it all
depends on the people involved.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Anivair" <anivair@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111069700.903650.36520@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> b) or, what about a city with a strong underground. Say there are
> guild thieves who regularly dispell these lights.

Lights worth 50 gp each? Think again. *Dispelling* isn't the issue, and
bolstering them doesn't help.

> plenty of reason. And the only real reason needed for a spell like
> this is personal perogative. High level wizard A thinks that casting a
> light spell is beneath him so he doesn't do it.

I'm fascinated by this belief that a spell is "beneath" someone. Does
he refuse to create a light in the dark should he find himself without one?
What logic allows "I can't cast continual flame but I'm happy to make
someone else's continual flame just as strong as the one I could cast but
refuse to perform"?

> As i said, this has RL precident.

<falls on the floor laughing>

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Anivair" <anivair@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111069082.454571.121590@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > Then why on earth should he be expected to be able to augment an
> > opposition spell in the first place?
>
> Wouldn't that be the benefit of the spell?

OPPOSITION SPELL.

Them rules is there for a reason.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4t-dnb9ggM7Dh6TfRVn-sw@comcast.com...
> > > > And what area, pray tell, is littered with low-level caster's
spells
> > > > that need shoring up against dispels?
> > >
> > > The various "wall of X" type spells, for example.
> >
> > Each of those areas is but one spell. Moron.
>
> Haven't you ever heard of multiple spells cast on the same target?

MAKE AN EXAMPLE. While we're at it, Wall of X is not low-level.

> And here I thought you were this big 3E guy, isn't that the whole point of
> "stacking", casting multiple spells on the same thing, their effects
> doubling up and other assorted benefits?

Stacking works great for people. Show us what spells are on an object.
Go on!

> In a city situation, maybe you want the wall of stone to have a wall of
> thorns at it's base or something, maybe you want continual lights at
regular
> intervals along the wall to allow your archers to see outside the wall,
etc
> etc. There are PLENTY of spells one could cast that would be useful in a
> defensive situation, spells that your opposition would seek to dispel.

You can't dispel a wall of stone. Wall of thorns is a druidic spell and
a temporary one at that - are we letting our wizard bolster divine magic,
too? Continual flame doesn't illuminate enough to be of relevance to
archers - not without hundreds of them *on the ground*. That's a lot of
money for material components that a foe can simply pick up and move - or
obliterate with Darkness instead of dispels.

Again, I ask you to come up with a relevant example.

> Use your imagination, such as it is, I'm sure even YOU could come up with
a
> rather nasty assortment of defensive spells that you would prefer were not
> dispelled at the level of the caster.

"Nasty" defensive spell <> Low level caster.

Examples, please?

Anyone?


-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gt-dnd-6wKbQhqTfRVn-jg@comcast.com...
> > There is no time savings. There is no efficiency. There is no
reason
> > whatsoever for this moronic spell idea. The 20th level wizard can
"bolster"
> > the effect by CASTING IT HIMSELF. *That* is the "bolstered" spell. You
> > want a 20thCL continual flame? CAST CONTINUAL FLAME.
> >
> > It's Just. That. Easy. And it doesn't waste the acolytes' spells!
>
> The point of such a spell would be for when the wizard is NOT casting the
> spells for himself, you twit.

<shakes head sadly>

> If *HE* wants some spell cast, obviously
> he'll cast it, but a single wizard cannot hope to make defenses for an
> entire city of, say, 50K inhabitants.

Then why do you think he can cast a spell over each spell of the city's
inhabitants?

> How many 20th+ level wizards are be-bopping around YOUR campaign world?

Rather a lot. Atlantis was ruled by serious badasses.

> In our campaign, there is PRECISELY *ONE*. He can defend himself til the
end of time, but not a city. That's
> the point of such a spell.

YOu think that spell will defend a city?

You're getting stupider, Jeffie.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Jeff Goslin hastily scrawled:
>"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:vlj_d.13206$cN6.13166@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> "Anivair" <anivair@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1111068671.595380.96610@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> > That said, I would maybe call a spell of that nature second level.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
>This only makes you look like a desperate retard.
>
>OK, here's your proof. He said he would maybe call it second level. "May".
>By his own words, his point is proven, he just may do that. Even if he
>doesn't actually do that, he may. QED.
>
>Whenever you use the phrase "prove it", you look like a somewhat anal
>retentive lawyer. People hate lawyers. People hate anal retentives even
>more.

Prove it.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Jeff Goslin hastily scrawled:
>The only thing I was concerned about was city defenses and having many more
>lower level wizards around than higher level ones.

Why would you want to not have many more lower level wizards than
higher level ones?



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Anivair hastily scrawled:
>
>Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>
>> >What if he's a specialist?
>>
>> Then the city hires a wizard who can cast the spells they need, and
>> the specialist gets his walking papers.
>
>Ahh, of course. What a perfect solution in your mind. Esspecially
>since we're dealing with continual light. I know of many cities that
>would love to hire a 4th level wizard and fire a 20th level diviner.
>Could you please direct me to the city that you run? I have a bridge
>to sell them.

I suppose the city officials in your games prefer to overpay employees
to perform tasks that they aren't even able to perform. Well, at
least it's realistic



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Anivair" <anivair@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111085197.652427.141850@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > Allow me to repeat the question. FIND AN AREA WITH LOTS OF SPELLS
THAT
> > ARE AT RISK OF DISPELLING. What are you talking about, exactly?

> Again, the usefulness does not have to be proven to make it a valid
> spell,

It most certainly does, Ani. THAT'S HOW WE FIGURE OUT THE GAME BALANCE.

> > > That said, I would maybe call a spell of that nature second level.
> >
> > Prove it.
>
> Sure. This seems more versatile and complicated than magic aura
> because it's actually affecting the spell, and not just covering or
> altering the aura. But it seems both less useful and easier than
> dispell. That puts it squarely at two.

And yet it provides ostensible immunity to dispel when used by a 20th
level caster. Is that more or less useful than the basic dispel dweomer?
Than greater dispel?

-Michael

 

[drow]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Alien mind control rays made Anivair <anivair@gmail.com> write:
> If I were an arcane trickster with access to dispell and there were
> magic lights in my way I well might dispell them. There are a few
> reasons (like noot having darkness spells for starters or not wanting
> to cast them at that point . . . personal choice).

*fwip* i'm invisible! bwahahaha, go ahead, waste your precious higher
level spell slot.

> I think this is fine for the same reason yoou don't ask the president
> of the united states to wipe your ass. he wipes his own just fine, but
> wiping your is beneath him. just like I don't call up Stephen Hawking
> if I need some basic math done. If HE needs it done he'll do it
> himself, but he's a touch too important to tell me how to multiply, and
> I suspect also too busy.

ah, but you don't pay him. i suspect that if the vice-chancellor of
the university of cambridge rang mr. hawking and asked him what 5 + 2
equals, she would get an answer.

likewise, if a high level wizard is in a position where he's obligated
to Touch things, he might as bloody well cast Continual Flame.
(really, he might as well fireball the sodding idiots overpaying him
for an utterly stupid spell and loot the town, but we can presume a
*G aligned wizard.)

--
\^\ // drow@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
\ // - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
// \ X-Windows: A mistake carried out to perfection.
// \_\ -- Dude from DPAK

 

[drow]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Alien mind control rays made Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> write:
> They're not? Hrm. I always thought that it was only their generally high
> level that prevented people from dispelling them willy nilly. Plus, I
> didn't see anything that specifically prevented it in the spell
> description(wording along the lines of "the effect cannot be dispelled"
> etc). Where would I find that rule in the SRD?

the duration of wall of (stone|iron) is instantaneous. that is, the
spell creates the physical wall and then ends. therefore, no spell to
dispel, and the wall itself is not magical and has no duration.

> Oh well, maybe it's totally useless a concept then(the "touch" spell). In
> our campaign, any spell effect that did not act DIRECTLY on the living was
> subject to dispelling(ie healings, raise deads, cure diseases, etc could not
> be dispelled).

its noteworthy these examples are also of instantaneous duration.

--
\^\ // drow@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
\ // - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
// \ X-Windows: It could be worse... but it'll take time.
// \_\ -- Dude from DPAK

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 17 Mar 2005 17:06:36 GMT, dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb)
scribed into the ether:

>In article <km2j31t5grg1r02u1mmrbq3jprfgc9qd26@4ax.com>,
>Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 23:11:29 +0000 (UTC), tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu
>>(Donald Tsang) scribed into the ether:
>>
>>>Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>>>>So, he has better things to do than to cast Continual Flame on lampposts,
>>>>but he doesn't have better things to do than to go around to a bunch of
>>>>already cast Continual Flame spells and reinforce them?
>>>>
>>>>That makes a lot of sense...to you (and noone else).
>>>
>>>How about: the LG 20th level Wizard has a Lantern Archon as an Improved
>>>Familiar. Caster level of the spell-like ability isn't improved through
>>>being a familiar, so the Wizard has to go bolster all of the lamps, in order
>>>for a CL=5 level Dispel Magic not to blow out each lamp...
>>
>>Or he could just CAST CONTINUAL FLAME HIMSELF...why purpose is served in
>>having the lower level caster existing at all?
>
>Bolster a single spell: useless almost always, as you say
>Bolster all spells cast on the party: useful fairly often

Err...what? Going to hire a high level wizard to bolster spells with
extremely limited durations on the off chance they get dispelled?

>Bolster all spells in a large area: very useful

A very large area was not an idea previously submitted much, and Jeff still
insists on the idea of going around to each individual spell. A very large
idea is a workable solution, but it would need to in fact be a very large
area...10-20 city blocks at minimum.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:86sj31lqcrjop53rm84bgvvoht78ikuk4t@4ax.com...
> A very large area was not an idea previously submitted much, and Jeff
still
> insists on the idea of going around to each individual spell. A very large

Originally there was no mention of the implementation(range/duration wise),
and CURRENTLY, just for the record, it seems most viable if done as an area
effect type of thing. I'm not still insisting on individual spells, but
it's possible that at some point I may have alluded to such a situation.
Just so you know, the format now would be an area effect type of thing.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:21:56 -0500, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:no2j31t5r40dtg1k0mhinsmgckakjfcadl@4ax.com...
>> >It's obvious that this idea is being met with rather a lot of skepticism,
>> >but honestly, it was just an idea to float out there. It seems like most
>> >campaigns have high level wizards just hanging out in every city that has
>> >wizards capable of casting defensive spells, so I guess it doesn't much
>> >matter.
>>
>> I don't know which "most campaigns" you are talking about, but aside from
>> major capitol cities, high level anythings are extremely rare.
>
>Err, that's the whole point. I guess I should have put a sarcasm smiley in
>there or something.

Based on your previously stated campaign design in the placement of high
level clerics for ressurected player characters at whim, there was no
reason in the slightest to believe that you were being even remotely
sarcastic.

> He simply wouldn't be able to cover all the
>ground he would need to cover. So, have minor casters do the grunt work,
>and mr.uber goes around and shores it up so it's magic resistant.

If he can't cover all the ground he needs to cover to cast these spells in
the first place, then he's not going to be able to shore things up either!

>> Bolstering the caster level of a bunch of little spells like that for huge
>> sections of a city (if not the whole place) could be done with a single
>> Wish or Miracle spell. Assuming the wizards have the XP to burn (or have
>> found a ring of 3 wishes) for the casting *that* would be a substantial
>> timesaver, and doesn't require the creation of this new spell which really
>> doesn't do anything very useful.
>
>Sure, you could wish it. Personally I would find that to be a waste of a
>perfectly good wish, myself.

If you've got the magic item or the XP to burn, there's no such thing as a
wasted wish. You can always make more.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:9bsj31tfed2ai8u7op7ou9tdru6pnia6k3@4ax.com...
> >> I don't know which "most campaigns" you are talking about, but aside
from
> >> major capitol cities, high level anythings are extremely rare.
> >
> >Err, that's the whole point. I guess I should have put a sarcasm smiley
in
> >there or something.
>
> Based on your previously stated campaign design in the placement of high
> level clerics for ressurected player characters at whim, there was no
> reason in the slightest to believe that you were being even remotely
> sarcastic.

OH *HELL* NO. Don't even try to pin that on me. In that other
conversation, I was simply supposing how a high-attrition rate campaign
would have to work(the need for more high level clerics than I would
normally include in a campaign setting). In my campaign, high level
spellcasters are appropriately rare.

> > He simply wouldn't be able to cover all the
> >ground he would need to cover. So, have minor casters do the grunt work,
> >and mr.uber goes around and shores it up so it's magic resistant.
>
> If he can't cover all the ground he needs to cover to cast these spells in
> the first place, then he's not going to be able to shore things up either!

Depends on how long the spell lasts and how big the area is. I have always
envisioned REALLY large cities have inner cores that are much more
defensible than the suburbs(if you will). Like "Old City" vs "New City", a
huge wall around the old city, another newer smaller wall around the rest of
it.

> >Sure, you could wish it. Personally I would find that to be a waste of a
> >perfectly good wish, myself.
>
> If you've got the magic item or the XP to burn, there's no such thing as a
> wasted wish. You can always make more.

Wishes are *extremely* rare in our campaign. I wouldn't want to waste a
wish on city defenses.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <86sj31lqcrjop53rm84bgvvoht78ikuk4t@4ax.com>,
Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>On 17 Mar 2005 17:06:36 GMT, dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb)
>scribed into the ether:
>>Bolster a single spell: useless almost always, as you say
>>Bolster all spells cast on the party: useful fairly often
>
>Err...what? Going to hire a high level wizard to bolster spells with
>extremely limited durations on the off chance they get dispelled?

Somebody gave an example of a party with many buff spells, some cast at low
caster level, updated by the party's own wizard.

>>Bolster all spells in a large area: very useful
>
>A very large area was not an idea previously submitted much, and Jeff still
>insists on the idea of going around to each individual spell.

Not recently, and I suspect that even originally he wasn't so tied to the
one-spell update as people assume.

> A very large
>idea is a workable solution, but it would need to in fact be a very large
>area...10-20 city blocks at minimum.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that. I haven't thought of how to decide
what radius is needed. Are there other spells with such a wide radius?
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

>> A very large
>>idea is a workable solution, but it would need to in fact be a very large
>>area...10-20 city blocks at minimum.
>
> I'm perfectly willing to believe that. I haven't thought of how to decide
> what radius is needed. Are there other spells with such a wide radius?
> --

Alternatively, the "touch" spell might apply to all spells cast by a given
person in the last 24 hours. Now the big mage doesn't even have to leave
his office.

Peter

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Peter Mork hastily scrawled:
>>> A very large
>>>idea is a workable solution, but it would need to in fact be a very large
>>>area...10-20 city blocks at minimum.
>>
>> I'm perfectly willing to believe that. I haven't thought of how to decide
>> what radius is needed. Are there other spells with such a wide radius?
>> --
>
>Alternatively, the "touch" spell might apply to all spells cast by a given
>person in the last 24 hours. Now the big mage doesn't even have to leave
>his office.

For that matter, why not have the spell apply to all spells cast by a
given person in the *next* 24 hours. Makes more sense that way, if
you ask me. Oh wait, we've already got wands and scrolls and other
magic items that allow wizards to achieve the same effect.

An excellent example would be the Lamplighter's Guild which would
consist of a single wizard who crafts Continual Flame wands (or
scrolls or whatever item is most efficient for this use) and several
acolytes who go around actually lighting the streetlights when needed.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin