D&D Equivalent to Unix "Touch"

[Guest]

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:

> That framework of analysis has potential. If we grant for the
sake of
> argument that a metamagical abjuration that "protects" a spell from
> dispelling is 2nd level ... how does AOE figure into raising the
level
> further?

Isn't Dispel already AoE? I think that the level still stands on that
count since we have already assumed this spell to be less useful than
dispel.

I can see the case for raising the level, though, based on the idea
that the spell protects against dispell and can also have an effect on
spell duration (the way it's been discussed). At that point third
level would be more appropriate.

As I already said later on in the thread, though, I could easily see a
series of spells for these effects. That accomplishes a lot of things.
a) it allows for Jeff's "mage shores up CL against dispell easily) at
a low level and allows for the "spell taken on the properties of the
new caster" that was also considered and even has room later for the
"caster simply takes control of your spell" archtype that has precident
in fantasy but we really lack rules for in D&D. That would be my
preference.

As we're discussing it right now, third level may be more appropriate,
but i could see an argument to leave it at second as well. It depends
entirely upon whether you alloe the Touch spell to overwrite the
current duration. I can't see going too high with that ability, though,
since, as I've already said, we're not accomplishing anyhting that a
caster of this level couldn't already do faster and easier (just with
an existing spell, which IMO, akes it less useful and therefore lowers
the level).

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:

> > > Jeffie, has it occurred to you that I am inviting the student
to
> *think*
> > > about the problem?
> >
> > Has it ever occured to you that you're not a teacher?
>
> MSB has always been a teacher.

Can we opt out of your class, by any chance?

 

[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:zov_d.13625$cN6.2042@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:8JadnWd8QqkGcKTfRVn-pA@comcast.com...
>> > "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> > > > That said, I would maybe call a spell of that nature second level.
>> > >
>> > > Prove it.
>> >
>> > This only makes you look like a desperate retard.
>>
>> Jeffie, has it occurred to you that I am inviting the student to
>*think*
>> about the problem?
>
>It would occur to me if it were in the realm of possibilities. Since it's
>not, I didn't even consider it. You are NOT inviting people to think, you
>are slapping them in the face, like you always do.

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, Peter Mork hastily scrawled:
>> 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.
>
>Accountability. As an uber-mage I would rather sign a check after the
>amount has been filled in rather than before. In addition, by "touch"ing
>after the fact, you don't have to worry about low-level mages running around
>casting 20th-level magic missiles.

If you don't want them casting 20th level magic missiles, then you
don't make wands of magic missile for them.

>Priming low-level mages could have
>profound balance issues, although this could be addressed by not allowing it
>to effect spells with a duration of instantaneous.

As I said, the balance is already covered by existing rules.

>> 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.
>
>That works, but the wand-crafter must sacrifice valuable experience.
>Personally, I'd rather have the rubber stamp option.

I'm sure you would, but the fact that a wand-crafter needs to
sacrifice XP should be a big clue about the balance of your rubber
stamp.



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:
>
>> 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).

Then your point is stupid. The fact that corruption and abuse abounds
in bureaucracies does not necessitate the spell in question, nor is
corruption the stated purpose behind introducing the spell.



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?)

>>Accountability. As an uber-mage I would rather sign a check after the
>>amount has been filled in rather than before. In addition, by "touch"ing
>>after the fact, you don't have to worry about low-level mages running
>>around
>>casting 20th-level magic missiles.
>
> If you don't want them casting 20th level magic missiles, then you
> don't make wands of magic missile for them.
>

You suggested making the proposed spell proactive rather than retroactive.
If you were being sarcastic, the point is moot. If we assume the proposal
was serious, then the critique of said proposal is that it is much harder to
balance.

>>Priming low-level mages could have
>>profound balance issues, although this could be addressed by not allowing
>>it
>>to effect spells with a duration of instantaneous.
>
> As I said, the balance is already covered by existing rules.

The existing rules do not (and cannot be expected to) cover a spell that
doesn't exist.

>
>>> 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.
>>
>>That works, but the wand-crafter must sacrifice valuable experience.
>>Personally, I'd rather have the rubber stamp option.
>
> I'm sure you would, but the fact that a wand-crafter needs to
> sacrifice XP should be a big clue about the balance of your rubber
> stamp.
>

Wands and "rubber stamp" have different mechanics. The wand costs XP, and
can be used at any point in the future. The rubber stamp does not cost XP
and only applies to spells that are currently active. As a result, the
rubber stamp does not impact instantaneous spells. I recognize that there
are balance issues, which is why I was opposed to your suggestion that the
spell be made proactive.

Peter

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:

> > Isn't Dispel already AoE? I think that the level still stands on
that
> > count since we have already assumed this spell to be less useful
than
> > dispel.
>
> Dispel is AOE, but it is also instantaneous. Is this ward used
up by
> one contest? How long will it have to last before it rates 3rd
level? Is
> it mobile? Bolster-and-go? Or is it a shield one must remain within?

IMO, provided the spell is an instant effect that raises effective
vaster level on one spell as an instant effect it's second level. And
if it does that on multiple spells (maybe half your caster level) as an
instant effect then it's third. Either way the effect is instant, even
if the spell allows you to hold a charge. Say you get five spells. So
you Touch a Bull's Strength and as an instant effect it's caster level
is increased. You've still got four charges. I'd say that's third
level, putting it on par with Dispel. This is, individually, less
useful than dispel, but the diversity and number allows for the higher
level.

> > I can see the case for raising the level, though, based on the idea
> > that the spell protects against dispell and can also have an effect
on
> > spell duration (the way it's been discussed).
>
> Affecting spell duration is a recipie for disaster. There are
already
> mechanisms for extending spell duration (feat); letting someone else
extend
> your spell's duration (short of permanency) gets fishy, fast. This
sort of
> thing is why "raising the CL" is such a dangerous and foolish
paradigm.
> Armoring against dispels is easy - make a bonus against dispels.
Raising
> caster level in order to accomplish that single thing is overdesign
and
> loophole-o-rama.

Maybe, but I wouldn't mind it in a more powerful version. because if
you extend the idea out to a more powerful spell and you're just taking
control of a spell you didn't cast (which is an exciting idea, IMO)
it's easy enough to say that the spell acts in all ways as if you had
successfully cast it on the round it was initially cast. So if you
take over a spell four rounds after it's cast four rounds are already
gone from the duration you would have had if you'd cast it.

In effect this often raises the duration, but that's noot the true
effect of the spell. It has implecations past those of extend feats
and permanancy and the like. for example, say by some miracle that a
lower level caster gets a hold of the spell of a higher level caster.
This may or may not simply end the spell prematurely, which IMO, is the
price he pays for trying to handle magics above his ability. And the
mechanic is still the same as dispel (opposed caster level check).

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:du6dnXEvMYIaA6ffRVn-og@comcast.com...
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > YOU were the idiot who assumed we were talking about single spell
effects,
> >
> > Jeffie, don't make me dig up your first post, you lying bitch.
>
> Go for it. I just re-read it to make sure. Nothing was mentioned about
the
> method of delivery, the range, the duration, nothing. Like I said, it was
> just some spitballing.

QUOTE:
For example, a minor wizard casts some citybuilding spell(Continual Light,
say) in some city. The wizards in the city don't want them to be dispelled
at will, so they get their big wizard dude to run around every now and then
and "shore up" the caster level of *****the spell in question***** with
**this** "Touch"
spell or whatever you'd want to call it. Instead of being dispelled as if a
caster of 3rd level, now you're dispelling ****the spell**** as a caster of
20th+
level. The first guy casts the spell, the second guy casts "Touch" and it
updates the caster level to 20th level or whatever the level of the caster
of touch.

You lose, jackass. You were talking about *a* "Touch" spell to shore up *a*
spell. You did not come even _close_ to describing a wizard shoring up
multiple spells with one casting. You are *LYING*.

We're all getting tired of your delusions, Jeff.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:YfadnTY2JoWROKffRVn-3w@comcast.com...
> "Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
> You still have to come close to the creator's level and roll the dice, and
> even then, the thing gets a save. It's not something that often comes up,
> this I grant you, but still, it would seem logical that two 20th level
> wizards would be potentially able to dispel the magic in their opponent's
> constructs, at least for a while.

Your idea of what seems logical has nothing to do with logic.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

Matt Frisch wrote:

> >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?

As has been suggested before (and I didn't think of it either) this is
almost always useful in a party that relies on spells from rangers,
paladins, bards, or multiclass characters. One wizard could shore up a
lot of defences to a rather appropriate level.

 

[Guest]

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

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:

> I have yet to see evidence that Jeff is a real person.

I'm willing to make the intuitive leap, even if you're not.

> We're not talking about what *I* would or wouldn't use, we're talking
> about something that only stupid/crazy people would use.

Please go read the thread. there are plenty of instances in which
bolstering even A spell could be useful to a party (or a city) and even
more instances where this could be useful if the spell provides for
bolstering more than one spell per casting. Or if you prefer to just
sit in hte corner and out you can do that, too, but try not to bother
people who are contributing.

> >Further, the fact that this spell premise isn't the most economical
use
> >of power (a premis that I find flawed, really, since it's entirely
> >situational but we'll let that go for now) has nothing to do with
> >whether it's a valid spell.
>
> In the context of a game, it most certainly does.

No. In a video game it does. In a roleplaying game the only
justification for any action, be it writing a spell or punching someone
in the face is that it seemed like the thing to do to your character.
if you've failed to grasp that perhaps it's time to find a new hobby.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:53:38 +0000, Michael Scott Brown wrote:

> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:du6dnXEvMYIaA6ffRVn-og@comcast.com...
>> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> > > YOU were the idiot who assumed we were talking about single spell
> effects,
>> >
>> > Jeffie, don't make me dig up your first post, you lying bitch.
>>
>> Go for it. I just re-read it to make sure. Nothing was mentioned about
> the
>> method of delivery, the range, the duration, nothing. Like I said, it was
>> just some spitballing.
>
> QUOTE:
> For example, a minor wizard casts some citybuilding spell(Continual Light,
> say) in some city. The wizards in the city don't want them to be dispelled
> at will, so they get their big wizard dude to run around every now and then
> and "shore up" the caster level of *****the spell in question***** with
> **this** "Touch"
> spell or whatever you'd want to call it. Instead of being dispelled as if a
> caster of 3rd level, now you're dispelling ****the spell**** as a caster of
> 20th+
> level. The first guy casts the spell, the second guy casts "Touch" and it
> updates the caster level to 20th level or whatever the level of the caster
> of touch.
>
> You lose, jackass. You were talking about *a* "Touch" spell to shore up *a*
> spell. You did not come even _close_ to describing a wizard shoring up
> multiple spells with one casting. You are *LYING*.
>
> We're all getting tired of your delusions, Jeff.
>

I'm not getting tired of what you call Jeff's delusions.
Please don't pretend to speak for 'all' others, that's silly.

Jeff used the unix touch command as an example. No more, no less.
The above can be interpreted in the sense that all spells of one type
in an area are 'touched'. If you could have multiple files of the same
name foo in a directory (=area) what would happen when you
say 'touch foo' in that directory?

Read it the following *favorable* way:

> For example, a minor wizard casts some citybuilding spell(Continual Light,
> say) in some city

City is quite a large area, or do you think it's sensible to assume he
casts it only once?

>. The wizards in the city don't want them to be dispelled
> at will, so they get their big wizard dude to run around every now and then
> and "shore up" the caster level of *****the spell in question*****

....everywhere it is used / has been cast (subject to the 'touch' spells
limits of area)...

> with
> **this** "Touch"
> spell or whatever you'd want to call it. Instead of being dispelled as if a
> caster of 3rd level, now you're dispelling ****the spell****

....everywhere it is used / has been cast (subject to the 'touch' spells
limits of area)...

> as a caster of
> 20th+
> level. The first guy casts the spell,

....not once, but everywhere the city needs it, and ...

> the second guy casts "Touch"

....with an appropriate area for a balanced spell of whatever level
it is finally said to be...

> and it
> updates the caster level to 20th level or whatever the level of the caster
> of touch.

Of course you can insist on your interpretation, but why should you?
What benefit will you gain from continuing?
(or Jeff or the other readers and writers of r.g.f.d)

You *could* be more productive and help with the spells parameters, balance
etc, instead of being such a pettifogger. Or you could leave the
discussion, if you're not interested in such a spell for some reason.

LL

 

[Guest]

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

Mere moments before death, Peter Mork hastily scrawled:
>>>Accountability. As an uber-mage I would rather sign a check after the
>>>amount has been filled in rather than before. In addition, by "touch"ing
>>>after the fact, you don't have to worry about low-level mages running
>>>around
>>>casting 20th-level magic missiles.
>>
>> If you don't want them casting 20th level magic missiles, then you
>> don't make wands of magic missile for them.
>>
>
>You suggested making the proposed spell proactive rather than retroactive.
>If you were being sarcastic, the point is moot. If we assume the proposal
>was serious, then the critique of said proposal is that it is much harder to
>balance.

What ever would make you think I was being sarcastic?

>>>Priming low-level mages could have
>>>profound balance issues, although this could be addressed by not allowing
>>>it
>>>to effect spells with a duration of instantaneous.
>>
>> As I said, the balance is already covered by existing rules.
>
>The existing rules do not (and cannot be expected to) cover a spell that
>doesn't exist.

*sigh*

>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>That works, but the wand-crafter must sacrifice valuable experience.
>>>Personally, I'd rather have the rubber stamp option.
>>
>> I'm sure you would, but the fact that a wand-crafter needs to
>> sacrifice XP should be a big clue about the balance of your rubber
>> stamp.
>>
>
>Wands and "rubber stamp" have different mechanics. The wand costs XP, and
>can be used at any point in the future. The rubber stamp does not cost XP
>and only applies to spells that are currently active. As a result, the
>rubber stamp does not impact instantaneous spells. I recognize that there
>are balance issues, which is why I was opposed to your suggestion that the
>spell be made proactive.

So was I.



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:
>
>> >That's exactly my point (though in a roundabout way).
>>
>> Then your point is stupid. The fact that corruption and abuse
>abounds
>> in bureaucracies does not necessitate the spell in question, nor is
>> corruption the stated purpose behind introducing the spell.
>
>Are you on crack? The only reason yoou would ever need to have for the
>spell in question is that some wizard wanted to write it. This is a
>spell that a real fleshed out person would think up (and did, in fact).

I have yet to see evidence that Jeff is a real person.

> I don't nbeed any more justification than that. the fact that YOU
>don't like it is irrelevant because YOU are not the wizard in question.
> I'm sure plenty of things exist that you don't and wouldn't use. It
>doesn't make the premise behind them unrealistic.

We're not talking about what *I* would or wouldn't use, we're talking
about something that only stupid/crazy people would use.

>Further, the fact that this spell premise isn't the most economical use
>of power (a premis that I find flawed, really, since it's entirely
>situational but we'll let that go for now) has nothing to do with
>whether it's a valid spell.

In the context of a game, it most certainly does.



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 wrote:
> The question here is: is the idea to make this spell useful in an
> average party? If it is, then the basic idea isn't anywhere near
> useful. In a party all casters are close to the same caster level
> ....

Only if you have no rangers, paladins, mystic theurges, arcane
tricksters, eldritch knights, arcane archers, or *wands*.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

"Anivair" <anivair@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111152283.195660.160290@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > Two: The fundamental idea "let's make the party's spells harder to
> > dispel by our enemies" is meritorious.
>
> The question here is: is the idea to make this spell useful in an
> average party? If it is, then the basic idea isn't anywhere near
> useful.

"Let's make the party's spells harder to dispel" is very useful. As is
so often the case, *Jeffie's* attempt to reach that ideal (by raising to
caster's CL) is not.

> Again, I don't think that the intended effect is greater than even a
> normal dispell. take a look at it in reverse (it shouldn't be
> reversible nessisarily, but in theory) it would lower the caster level,
> duration, and other caster level based effects of a spell. dispell,
> OTOH, actually destroys the effect, which is a greater power. So I
> still say second level. And the effect I've been talking about is
> modeled on dispel (since I suggested it be based on a caster level
> check) leaving room to stop that check at +10 and create a 4th level
> greater touch spell (in the same line as dispell).

That framework of analysis has potential. If we grant for the sake of
argument that a metamagical abjuration that "protects" a spell from
dispelling is 2nd level ... how does AOE figure into raising the level
further?

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news😛yE_d.13950$cN6.7627@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Let's make the party's spells harder to dispel" is very useful. As
is
> so often the case, *Jeffie's* attempt to reach that ideal (by raising to
> caster's CL) is not.

So, what's your plan for accomplishing the goal? Broad strokes, that is...
care to take a stab at it?

--
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?)

"Anivair" <anivair@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111152407.078201.92860@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > Jeffie, has it occurred to you that I am inviting the student to
*think*
> > about the problem?
>
> Has it ever occured to you that you're not a teacher?

MSB has always been a teacher.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:U9mdncg6UqP1R6ffRVn-qQ@comcast.com...
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > For example, a minor wizard casts some citybuilding spell(Continual
Light,
> > say) in some city. The wizards in the city don't want them to be
dispelled
> > at will, so they get their big wizard dude to run around every now and
then
> > and "shore up" the caster level of *****the spell in question***** with
> > **this** "Touch" spell or whatever you'd want to call it.
> > Instead of being dispelled as if a
> > caster of 3rd level, now you're dispelling ****the spell**** as a caster
of
> > 20th+ level. The first guy casts the spell, the second guy casts
"Touch" and it
> > updates the caster level to 20th level or whatever the level of the
caster
> > of touch.
> >
> I reiterate. Nothing limited the range, duration, target, anything.

You're making the same microsoft weasel you accuse others of engaging,
fatass.

This and subsequent descriptions of your proposal were one casting per
spell.
You know it.
Stop lying.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca wrote:

> Bolster a single spell: useless almost always, as you say

BTW, if you had the bolstering spell give a bonus to the underlying
spell's dispelling DC, instead of setting CL to equal the CL of the
bolstering spell, it might be useful even if it only worked on a single
spell.

Imagine a 10th level wizard who cast water breathing to go to the
bottome of the sea. If he had a relatively low level spell (1st, 2nd?)
that he could use to give, say, +1/2 levels to the dispelling DC of the
water breathing, I don't think it'd be useless. Equal caster dispels his
water breathing only 25% of the time instead of 50%.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr

 

[Guest]

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

mistermichael@earthlink.net wrote:

> > > 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!
> >
> > How about a bolstering spell with a very large area? You have a bunch of
> > Wiz3 types cast continual light all over the city, then you have a Wiz20
> > cast the bolstering spell that covers the entire city. Isn't that more
> > efficient than having the Wiz20 cast the dozens of continual lights
> > himself?
>
> Wish.

Does that mean that all spell research (and, meta-game, proposing new
spells) is pointless, since most anything that's within the possibility
of D&D magic can be done via wish?

> > How about adventuring applications? The 20th-level party is going
> > against a vampire wizard. The paladin death wards himself (CL 10th). The
> > eldritch knight polymorphs himself (CL 18th). The cleric gives everyone
> > protection from evil... from a wand (CL 1st). The rogue uses UMD to cast
> > barkskin from a scroll, since there's no druid or ranger in the party
> > (CL 5th). It'd be rather useful now if the wizard had a spell that could
> > make all those spells effectively CL 20th against the vampire's dispels.
>
> Or he could just ... counter the dispels with dispels of his own.
> <yawn>

Or he could cast undeath to death and hope the vampire is low enough on
HD. Or he could be a fighter and kill the vampire with in melee using an
axe.

But he *could* wish to make the allies spells harder to dispel, and I
don't think there's anything inherently stupid about the general
concept.

> However, now you're getting somewhere. But the mechanism is wrong - it
> should not be "raise caster level to mine", it should be "give bonus to
> caster level check".

Perhaps.

> Dispelling Ward, or whatnot, would be a lovely (cuts
> both ways) abjuration spell - or even a feat option to make spells harder to
> splatter.

There's a feat somewhere called Spell Girding that makes your spells
harder to dispel (+2 to dispelling DC).

There's also a psionic power called ablative something, I think, that
somehow protects from dispelling...? I cannot recall the exact
mechanism.

> > It's you who's coming across as an idiot, what with your Jeff-hating
> > knee-jerk, not Jeff for suggestion the spell.
>
> Bullshit. Jeffie stood up and public and thought it would somehow be
> "more efficient" for the high level wizard to go around and cast a spell on
> all the spells that the little acolytes cast. This is idiotic, for obvious
> reasons, and I told him as much. He has only amended his idea to an 'area'
> model BECAUSE OF MY CRITICISM.
> Please explain how it is *me* being an idiot, when my work has improved
> on his proposal?

By wasting time and bandwidth by couching your suggestions for
improvement in detailed laboured rants about how Jeff is stupid.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr

 

[Guest]

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

"Anivair" <anivair@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111170317.093181.268400@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > That framework of analysis has potential. If we grant for the sake
of
> > argument that a metamagical abjuration that "protects" a spell from
> > dispelling is 2nd level ... how does AOE figure into raising the level
> > further?
>
> Isn't Dispel already AoE? I think that the level still stands on that
> count since we have already assumed this spell to be less useful than
> dispel.

Dispel is AOE, but it is also instantaneous. Is this ward used up by
one contest? How long will it have to last before it rates 3rd level? Is
it mobile? Bolster-and-go? Or is it a shield one must remain within?

> I can see the case for raising the level, though, based on the idea
> that the spell protects against dispell and can also have an effect on
> spell duration (the way it's been discussed).

Affecting spell duration is a recipie for disaster. There are already
mechanisms for extending spell duration (feat); letting someone else extend
your spell's duration (short of permanency) gets fishy, fast. This sort of
thing is why "raising the CL" is such a dangerous and foolish paradigm.
Armoring against dispels is easy - make a bonus against dispels. Raising
caster level in order to accomplish that single thing is overdesign and
loophole-o-rama.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:a%F_d.11980$oO4.10040@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Affecting spell duration is a recipie for disaster. There are already
> mechanisms for extending spell duration (feat); letting someone else
extend
> your spell's duration (short of permanency) gets fishy, fast. This sort
of
> thing is why "raising the CL" is such a dangerous and foolish paradigm.
> Armoring against dispels is easy - make a bonus against dispels. Raising
> caster level in order to accomplish that single thing is overdesign and
> loophole-o-rama.

Well, why not just give the dispelling a penalty, then? The net effect is
the same. I get -10 to dispel this shored up spell, or the spell is assumed
to have been cast by someone ten levels higher than normal. The difference
is non-existant, from game mechanics implementation. In other words, why
are you dead set against simply saying "cast as a 20th level wizard", vs "my
tenth level wizard gets +10 to avoid dispel checks by use of this spell"??

--
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?)

"Anivair" <anivair@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111170397.184146.5120@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>
> > > > Jeffie, has it occurred to you that I am inviting the student to
*think*
> > > > about the problem?
> > >
> > > Has it ever occured to you that you're not a teacher?
> >
> > MSB has always been a teacher.
>
> Can we opt out of your class, by any chance?

The killfile is always there for those without the bravery to learn from
their mistakes.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 04:45:19 -0500, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:800l31hh0jrkg7vtjpno9ht8j3h7vgh3qt@4ax.com...

>> If you have the spell scribed, it is only as rare as you want it to be. In
>> the hypothetical mageocracy, it would be pretty unlikely that nobody would
>> have access to the spell.
>
>That's precisely the point. I don't want wishes to be common at all in my
>campaign. Odds are very good that my PC's will NEVER get to scribe wish
>into their spell books. At best, they'd find a ring of wishes, and even
>that is extremely unlikely.

Who said anything about the PCs? Are the PCs the leaders of your mage-run
city? You've stated that they are level 6 or so, so I'm inclined to say
that they are not. NPCs can cast whatever spells you want them to.
Expending a Wish or ten to beef up the town's defenses against dispelling
is less than trivial, and far less of a can of worms than inventing this
new spell which seems to be chock-full of loopholes that can lead to rather
huge abuse.