Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

D&D Equivalent to Unix "Touch"

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 9:59:15 PM

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

There is a unix command that allows you to update datestamps and stuff on
files in the directory structure. (I'm sure it has other uses, I'm not a
unix geek).

Is there a spell in D&D that will allow lesser wizards to create something,
and then have it resist the effects of a dispel magic at a higher level?

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.

It's really roughly laid out, I know, but thoughts are appreciated.

BTW, I don't know if the rules for dispelling are different in 3E, but in
2E, you have a base 50% chance, +- 5% per level of difference between the
casters.

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

More about : equivalent unix touch

Anonymous
March 16, 2005 10:05:36 AM

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:

> That's complete cheese, Jeffie. You have the 20th level caster
casting
> a spell. Imagine what happens if he .. casts the spell himself! Why
involve
> the lower level caster at all? Foolish. If the high level caster
doesn't
> know the spell, have the rookie write him a scroll.

What if he's a specialist? If it's a school he can't cast in the first
place a scroll won't do him any good.

Furthermore, I don't think it's nessisarily unrealistic as a situation.
I can eaasily see a high level caster being willing to "shore up
defenses" but being unwililng to do the magical equivalent of servant's
work. This happens IRL all the time (though not with magic,
obviously). I code some grunt stuff and a much better programmer will
look at it and make minor alterations to enhance stability.
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 10:10:21 AM

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:

> Use a little logic here, jackass. The wizard apparently has the
time to
> cast a bunch of empowering spells on every spell someone else has
cast -
> whatever "work" he does, it INCLUDES CASTING A SPELL FOR EVERY SINGLE
SPELL
> THEY WANT REINFORCED.

I think what is or is not in character for a specific high level wizard
seems to be best left out of a debate.

> > The minor caster casts the appropriate spells,
> > and maybe this spell would be an area effect type of thing,
affecting
> dozens
> > of spells at once or something.
>
> Wish. Carry on!

This I agree with. If he's that high a level wish (or the lesser
version thereof) will do this just fine.

Then again, this seems like a basic enough concept that it shouldn't
require a wish to get it done. I don't think a spell that accomplishes
this should be more than first level, personally. Just have it scale
in size with caster level (ten feet or so plus 5/level) and you make a
caster level check versus the caster of the spell. if you succeed the
level based effects take on your own properties.

I wouldn't call it particularly useful, but not bad for utility. I've
always thought the game was a touch light of actual utility spells
anyway, and this one is interesting. it sounds like the sort of thing
magic geeks would come up with to me.
Related resources
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 12:16:09 PM

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:nt6dndKLTdSE6qrfRVn-tg@comcast.com...
> 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.
> It's really roughly laid out, I know, but thoughts are appreciated.

That's complete cheese, Jeffie. You have the 20th level caster casting
a spell. Imagine what happens if he .. casts the spell himself! Why involve
the lower level caster at all? Foolish. If the high level caster doesn't
know the spell, have the rookie write him a scroll.

> BTW, I don't know if the rules for dispelling are different in 3E,

What about the words "online SRD" don't you understand?

-Michael
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 12:16:10 PM

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tPSZd.12156$cN6.11038@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> That's complete cheese, Jeffie. You have the 20th level caster
casting
> a spell. Imagine what happens if he .. casts the spell himself! Why
involve
> the lower level caster at all? Foolish. If the high level caster doesn't
> know the spell, have the rookie write him a scroll.

Maybe he's got other stuff to do? You know, a high level wizard's work is
never done, type of thing. The minor caster casts the appropriate spells,
and maybe this spell would be an area effect type of thing, affecting dozens
of spells at once or something. Maybe the high level wizard just doesn't
want to be bothered with such trivialities. I don't know, I'm just
spitballing.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 4:10:58 PM

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:geydnWjEq7NhvqXfRVn-jA@comcast.com...
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:tPSZd.12156$cN6.11038@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > That's complete cheese, Jeffie. You have the 20th level caster
casting
> > a spell. Imagine what happens if he .. casts the spell himself! Why
involve
> > the lower level caster at all? Foolish. If the high level caster
doesn't
> > know the spell, have the rookie write him a scroll.
>
> Maybe he's got other stuff to do? You know, a high level wizard's work is
> never done, type of thing.

Use a little logic here, jackass. The wizard apparently has the time to
cast a bunch of empowering spells on every spell someone else has cast -
whatever "work" he does, it INCLUDES CASTING A SPELL FOR EVERY SINGLE SPELL
THEY WANT REINFORCED. .

Is there any arena where you can actually display even the smallest,
tiniest shred of *thought* before posting?

> The minor caster casts the appropriate spells,
> and maybe this spell would be an area effect type of thing, affecting
dozens
> of spells at once or something.

Wish. Carry on!

-Michael
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 4:11:11 PM

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

In article <nt6dndKLTdSE6qrfRVn-tg@comcast.com>, autockr@comcast.net wrote:

>There is a unix command that allows you to update datestamps and stuff on
>files in the directory structure. (I'm sure it has other uses, I'm not a
>unix geek).
>
>Is there a spell in D&D that will allow lesser wizards to create something,
>and then have it resist the effects of a dispel magic at a higher level?

Don't be silly; either Heighten it and/or have someone other than the
apprentice cast the spell.
March 16, 2005 4:39:11 PM

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

Alien mind control rays made Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> write:
> There is a unix command that allows you to update datestamps and stuff on
> files in the directory structure. (I'm sure it has other uses, I'm not a
> unix geek).
>
> Is there a spell in D&D that will allow lesser wizards to create something,
> and then have it resist the effects of a dispel magic at a higher level?

"Why are you looking at me like that? I just said that our
arch-nemesis has probably gone up a level or two since we last saw him,
of course I'd want to update my own permanent buffs. When I think
about him, i Touch myself."

regarding your situation, the lower-level spell is always Suggestion,
cast upon the higher level wizard to compel them to cast the other
spell in the first place. but i'd caution, high level wizards have
excellent Will saves and often tons of Fireballs at their disposal.

--
\^\ // drow@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/&gt;
\ // - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
// \ X-Windows: The cutting edge of obsolescence.
// \_\ -- Dude from DPAK
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 7:53:47 PM

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

Mere moments before death, Anivair hastily scrawled:
>
>Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>
>> That's complete cheese, Jeffie. You have the 20th level caster
>casting
>> a spell. Imagine what happens if he .. casts the spell himself! Why
>involve
>> the lower level caster at all? Foolish. If the high level caster
>doesn't
>> know the spell, have the rookie write him a scroll.
>
>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.



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
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 9:33:20 PM

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

"Anivair" <anivair@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110985536.240646.167840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> What if he's a specialist? If it's a school he can't cast in the first
> place a scroll won't do him any good.

Then why on earth should he be expected to be able to augment an
opposition spell in the first place?

> Furthermore, I don't think it's nessisarily unrealistic as a situation.
> I can eaasily see a high level caster being willing to "shore up
> defenses" but being unwililng to do the magical equivalent of servant's
> work.

Hmm. Go to place, cast spell. Go to place, cast spell. Same work.

-Michael
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 9:33:21 PM

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:QZ_Zd.12365$cN6.976@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Anivair" <anivair@gmail.com> wrote

>> Furthermore, I don't think it's nessisarily unrealistic as a situation.
>> I can eaasily see a high level caster being willing to "shore up
>> defenses" but being unwililng to do the magical equivalent of servant's
>> work.
>
> Hmm. Go to place, cast spell. Go to place, cast spell. Same work.

Something allowing a caster to "bolster" a magic item up to a higher caster
level seems like a useful thing, particularly with signature items that are
added to over the course of many levels. It would be nice to have a spell
or something to accomplish this without resorting to Wish.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 9:33:21 PM

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:QZ_Zd.12365$cN6.976@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > Furthermore, I don't think it's nessisarily unrealistic as a situation.
> > I can eaasily see a high level caster being willing to "shore up
> > defenses" but being unwililng to do the magical equivalent of servant's
> > work.
>
> Hmm. Go to place, cast spell. Go to place, cast spell. Same work.

Maybe it's something the high level wizard only does infrequently. He waits
until the minor wizards cast all the spells required, and then takes an
entire day's worth of this single spell that will boost the power of each
spell in question. And maybe such a spell would cover an area, not just a
single other spell.

A high level wizard may not want to trivialize his power by casting
continual lights like some minor wizard would do to assist a city, who know?

Geez this was just a thought, it's not like the details are all worked out,
or even ever would be. It seems to me that you would think it would be
useless because the high level wizard could cast the spells in question and
be done with it, right? I suppose that's a valid enough position, assuming
high level wizards don't have anything better to do with their time.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 10:41:01 PM

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

Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>There is a unix command that allows you to update datestamps and stuff on
>files in the directory structure. (I'm sure it has other uses, I'm not a
>unix geek).
>
>Is there a spell in D&D that will allow lesser wizards to create something,
>and then have it resist the effects of a dispel magic at a higher level?

I would allow Permanency to do this. Costs XP as usual, though.

Donald
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 11:02:23 PM

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

"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1PWdnfJDlpNwFqXfRVn-uQ@comcast.com...
> > Hmm. Go to place, cast spell. Go to place, cast spell. Same work.
>
> Something allowing a caster to "bolster" a magic item up to a higher
caster
> level seems like a useful thing, particularly with signature items that
are
> added to over the course of many levels. It would be nice to have a spell
> or something to accomplish this without resorting to Wish.

A *magic item* can be re-enchanted at the higher caster level as easy as
you please. It's not immediately clear to me whether this would cost the
same as making it from scratch or not.

-Michael
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 11:10:43 PM

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

Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1PWdnfJDlpNwFqXfRVn-uQ@comcast.com...
>> > Hmm. Go to place, cast spell. Go to place, cast spell. Same work.
>>
>> Something allowing a caster to "bolster" a magic item up to a higher
> caster
>> level seems like a useful thing, particularly with signature items that
> are
>> added to over the course of many levels. It would be nice to have a spell
>> or something to accomplish this without resorting to Wish.
>
> A *magic item* can be re-enchanted at the higher caster level as
> easy as you please. It's not immediately clear to me whether this
> would cost the same as making it from scratch or not.

It wouldn't. Upgrading a item costs based on the delta in market value.

Consider: bumping a sword from +1 to +2 only costs 6k gold, not 8k.
Bumping a wand from caster level 3 to caster level 5 should only cost
750 * 2 * $spelllevel * $chargesleft / 50, if you were to allow it.

Wands might not be a good example, actually. RAW, you can't recharge
them (i.e. add more power to them), I can see this being an argument
against allowing level bumps. Ruling out upgrading charged items may be
quite reasonable.

Actually, probably disallow upgrading of 'single-spell charged items'
(wands, scrolls, potions).

A wizard's staff is a bigger symbol, and upgrading the staff certainly
has precedent. Even if you disallow upgrading other charged items, I'd
strongly consider upgrading the staff (especially since caster level is
based on user level anyway, if it exceeds the level of the staff).


Keith
--
Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 11:39:29 PM

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

In article <1110985821.031674.133950@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Anivair <anivair@gmail.com> wrote:
>Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>> Use a little logic here, jackass. The wizard apparently has the
>time to
>> cast a bunch of empowering spells on every spell someone else has
>cast -
>> whatever "work" he does, it INCLUDES CASTING A SPELL FOR EVERY SINGLE
>SPELL
>> THEY WANT REINFORCED.
>
>> > The minor caster casts the appropriate spells,
>> > and maybe this spell would be an area effect type of thing,
>affecting
>> dozens
>> > of spells at once or something.
>>
>> Wish. Carry on!
>
>This I agree with. If he's that high a level wish (or the lesser
>version thereof) will do this just fine.
>
>Then again, this seems like a basic enough concept that it shouldn't
>require a wish to get it done. I don't think a spell that accomplishes
>this should be more than first level, personally. Just have it scale
>in size with caster level (ten feet or so plus 5/level) and you make a
>caster level check versus the caster of the spell. if you succeed the
>level based effects take on your own properties.

I still don't see this answering MSB's point above -- why have a high-level
caster go around casting "fixup" spells rather than the original spells
herself? It might work out better as a feat with some large number of uses
per day.
--
"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...)
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 11:39:30 PM

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

"David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote in message
news:D 1a5i1$69h$1@knot.queensu.ca...
> I still don't see this answering MSB's point above -- why have a
high-level
> caster go around casting "fixup" spells rather than the original spells
> herself? It might work out better as a feat with some large number of
uses
> per day.

Maybe such a spell could affect an area rather than a single effect? That
would bump it's level up, for sure, but even with such a level bump, it
would probably be more effective if you were shoring up, say, city defenses.
You've got a city of limited wizards, and only one really high level guy.
Let the guys who are of minimum casting level do the grunt work, and then
have the high level guy come in and cast "Touch/Bump/Shoreup/whatever" on
the end result of many wizard's work to give it a little more permanence.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 11:52:40 PM

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

"Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
news:slrnd3h4m3.qsv.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
> Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > A *magic item* can be re-enchanted at the higher caster level as
> > easy as you please. It's not immediately clear to me whether this
> > would cost the same as making it from scratch or not.
>
> It wouldn't. Upgrading a item costs based on the delta in market value.

Very true. I was just musing about those items that don't have
caster-level based pricing (my recollection is that many wondrous items are
insensitive to manufacturer level). This has long been what I think is a
big oversight in the rules (after all, would not a far more durable set of
Boots of Speed be worth more?) - and without addressing that, we have a
strange situation - how does a wizard who made his Item of Foo back when he
was 10th level crank it up to creator-level 20 without making it again from
scratch?


-Michael
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 12:17:50 AM

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>>> A *magic item* can be re-enchanted at the higher caster level as
>>> easy as you please. It's not immediately clear to me whether this
>>> would cost the same as making it from scratch or not.

Keith Davies wrote:
>> It wouldn't. Upgrading a item costs based on the delta in market value.

> Very true. I was just musing about those items that don't have
> caster-level based pricing (my recollection is that many wondrous
> items are insensitive to manufacturer level).

Indeed, CL only rarely increases the cost of a wondrous item, because
wondrous spell effects always use the lowest possible caster level in
the CL x SL x gp calculation. For example, items that produce lesser
restoration effects have a cost of 1 x 1 x base, because paladins can
cast it as a 1st-level spell.

> This has long been what I think is a big oversight in the rules (after
> all, would not a far more durable set of Boots of Speed be worth
> more?) - and without addressing that, we have a strange situation -
> how does a wizard who made his Item of Foo back when he was 10th level
> crank it up to creator-level 20 without making it again from scratch?

Easy, he uses the upgrade rules. Since there's no difference in cost,
the upgrade is free, except for the creation time (minimum 1 day, as
usual).
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 12:23:04 AM

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

Bradd W. Szonye <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote:
>For example, items that produce lesser restoration effects have a
>cost of 1 x 1 x base, because paladins can cast it as a 1st-level
>spell.

Actually, 1 x 2 x base, since a Paladin gains spells at 4th level
(Caster Level = 2)...

Donald
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 12:25:01 AM

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

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd3h8ju.ouf.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > This has long been what I think is a big oversight in the rules (after
> > all, would not a far more durable set of Boots of Speed be worth
> > more?) - and without addressing that, we have a strange situation -
> > how does a wizard who made his Item of Foo back when he was 10th level
> > crank it up to creator-level 20 without making it again from scratch?
>
> Easy, he uses the upgrade rules. Since there's no difference in cost,
> the upgrade is free, except for the creation time (minimum 1 day, as
> usual).

I'm open to that solution (and, in the absence of other information, it
is _the_ answer). The item isn't any more effective in such cases, it just
resists dispels better. Wa-hoo. I don't see any problem making a wizard
spend a few days to "bolster his items" when he levels. Perhaps that's what
they were doing all that time when we had training rules. :) 

Raises an interesting implication - any spellcaster NPC's wondrous items
ought to be at his creator level, not the default...

-Michael
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 12:25:02 AM

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Nu1_d.12467$cN6.6819@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnd3h8ju.ouf.bradd+news@szonye.com...
>> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>> > This has long been what I think is a big oversight in the rules (after
>> > all, would not a far more durable set of Boots of Speed be worth
>> > more?) - and without addressing that, we have a strange situation -
>> > how does a wizard who made his Item of Foo back when he was 10th level
>> > crank it up to creator-level 20 without making it again from scratch?
>>
>> Easy, he uses the upgrade rules. Since there's no difference in cost,
>> the upgrade is free, except for the creation time (minimum 1 day, as
>> usual).

What page are the upgrade rules on?

> I'm open to that solution (and, in the absence of other information, it
> is _the_ answer). The item isn't any more effective in such cases, it
> just
> resists dispels better. Wa-hoo. I don't see any problem making a wizard
> spend a few days to "bolster his items" when he levels. Perhaps that's
> what
> they were doing all that time when we had training rules. :) 

Sounds good to me.

> Raises an interesting implication - any spellcaster NPC's wondrous
> items
> ought to be at his creator level, not the default...

Sure thing.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 1:08:52 AM

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6bKdnXhGaPOFMKXfRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
> Maybe such a spell could affect an area rather than a single effect?

And what area, pray tell, is littered with low-level caster's spells
that need shoring up against dispels?

-Michael
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 1:08:53 AM

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:U72_d.10304$oO4.7220@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:6bKdnXhGaPOFMKXfRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
> > Maybe such a spell could affect an area rather than a single effect?
>
> 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.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 1:31:17 AM

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

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:16:53 -0500, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:tPSZd.12156$cN6.11038@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> That's complete cheese, Jeffie. You have the 20th level caster
>casting
>> a spell. Imagine what happens if he .. casts the spell himself! Why
>involve
>> the lower level caster at all? Foolish. If the high level caster doesn't
>> know the spell, have the rookie write him a scroll.
>
>Maybe he's got other stuff to do?

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).
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 1:31:18 AM

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

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:erch31dhlsamhagedd0hr4q1qfvi9laepq@4ax.com...
> >Maybe he's got other stuff to do?
>
> 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?

The idea is to have a high level wizard shore up things that are city
defenses, like wall of stone, among other city defenses. If a low level
wizard casts the spell, it's a fairly simple matter to dispel it. If you
then shore up the wall of stone(and anything else in the vicinity) with a
high level wizards "Touch" spell, maybe the continual lights cast upon the
wall at intervals don't go out either, ya know?

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.

To put it into even more context, the capital city of a magocracy in our
campaign has been standing for quite some time, and has not been attacked,
providing them with plenty of time to make their defenses, but like most
places, wizards vary in level from very low to very high, and there are
fewer high level than low level wizards hanging out there. So, why not put
the low level ones to work doing various busy work, and every now and then,
have some high level guy go through, examine what's been done, and firm it
up so it's more difficult to dispel. Seems pretty logical to me.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 2:11:29 AM

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

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...
..
Donald
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 3:06:15 AM

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:o 96dnZQxMJ-TKqXfRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > Maybe such a spell could affect an area rather than a single effect?
> >
> > 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.

-Michael
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 3:48:08 AM

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:XR3_d.10359$oO4.4921@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:o 96dnZQxMJ-TKqXfRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
> > "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > > Maybe such a spell could affect an area rather than a single effect?
> > >
> > > 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? 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?

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.

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. Throw all that you can imagine
together in a pile and knock it up a few dozen levels or something. Even
YOU, with your limited imagination, should be able to see the theoretical
usefulness of such a situation.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 3:52:06 AM

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ZT3_d.10363$oO4.1818@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Cast spell + 20th level wizard casts bolstering spell .... or 20th
> level wizard JUST CASTS THE FIRST SPELL.
>
> 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. 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. How many 20th+ level wizards are
be-bopping around YOUR campaign world? 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.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 9:01:49 AM

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

David Alex Lamb wrote:

> >> Wish. Carry on!

> >Then again, this seems like a basic enough concept that it shouldn't
> >require a wish to get it done. I don't think a spell that
accomplishes
> >this should be more than first level, personally. Just have it
scale
> >in size with caster level (ten feet or so plus 5/level) and you make
a
> >caster level check versus the caster of the spell. if you succeed
the
> >level based effects take on your own properties.
>
> I still don't see this answering MSB's point above -- why have a
high-level
> caster go around casting "fixup" spells rather than the original
spells
> herself? It might work out better as a feat with some large number
of uses
> per day.

Why do we need a good reason at all. If it's somehting that a
spellcaster wants to do why does it matter?

And I can see why a spell like this might be useful. If I'm a high
level caster why would I take the time to prepare 12 different low
level spells just to recast them (or cast them in the first place) when
I can have my apprentice go cast them and all I have to cast is one
spell over and over. this one spell shores up any low level spell, so
it seems worthwhile to me. Also, as I said, it seems like just the
sort of spell that a wizard would find really fun to write.

I'm not saying it has great mechanical advantages, but that doesn't
make it a bad choice for a spell to have exist. And no reason not to
come up with a valid mechanic for it.
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 9:11:11 AM

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:6bKdnXhGaPOFMKXfRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
> > Maybe such a spell could affect an area rather than a single
effect?
>
> And what area, pray tell, is littered with low-level caster's
spells
> that need shoring up against dispels?

How about a large city with one or two poerful spellcasters. Maybe one
that fears an invading force with supperior magic. Or heck, there are
a thousand reasons. Why don't you stop criticising the need or desire
and give some thought to the idea. I for one don't want to nessisarily
hear all about the intricate magical uniqueness of Jeff's game (no
matter how neat it might be) or about how city A has a self important
high mage who does X and Y to his students. It doesn't matter. it's
set up for the mechanic.

For that matter, it doesn't have to be justified at all. If it makes
you feel better, assume that the mage is casting an imperfect spell. I
suspect mages do it all the time. Either way it's nobody's scenario
but Jeff's so I don't personally care if it's credible or not. His
game and if he says it happens it happens.

That said, I would maybe call a spell of that nature second level.
That puts it lower than dispell, which seems to fit well, since it's
altering the spell (helping it, really) and not outright removing the
effect.

As an area effect spell I'd say a 10 foot radius plus 5 ft/2 levels is
appropriate. that might get a touch large, eventually, but I'm not
sure that's a balance problem at all, since this isn't really a tough
spell.

I say you make an opposed caster level check and if you win the spell
takes on your level for the purpose of duration, caster level, etc.

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.
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 9:18:02 AM

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> "Anivair" <anivair@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1110985536.240646.167840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > What if he's a specialist? If it's a school he can't cast in the
first
> > place a scroll won't do him any good.
>
> 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? It allows you to augment a
spell that you can't cast (or don't want to cast)? Hell, I'm not going
to throw out all the possible reason foor something. The fact that it
CAN happen means that somewhere in some game there will be a perfectly
viable reason for it to happen. Maybe some wacked out character has a
phobia about castying light. I don't personally care if it's a good
reason. it just has to be possible.

> > Furthermore, I don't think it's nessisarily unrealistic as a
situation.
> > I can eaasily see a high level caster being willing to "shore up
> > defenses" but being unwililng to do the magical equivalent of
servant's
> > work.
>
> Hmm. Go to place, cast spell. Go to place, cast spell. Same
work.

not if, as jeff suggested, the spell is area of effect. Then it's, go
to place, cast five low levels spells versus go to place cast one spell
and pat your apprentices on the back.

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. So
they cast the spells and you finish the job. I'm thinking of it sort
of like a classroom assignment here.
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 9:33:40 AM

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

Lorenz Lang wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 01:33:59 -0500, Rick Pikul wrote:
>
> > While a spell that increases the caster level of a single spell is
not
> > generally going to be of much use[1], one that does it for every
spell in
> > an area is much more useful, (even a 5'/level radius covers a 200'
wide
> > circle at 20th level).
> >
> > With an AE version, you could have the regular mages set up a
whole bunch
> > of spells, say around the walls of a city. Then, after they've
spent a
> > week doing that, the Magus Royal takes a walk around the walls and
casts
> > "touch" every 200' or so.
>
> Which level would such an area spell be in your opinion?
> Should the duration really be permanent?

I said somehting about this earlier in this thread, but I'd call it
second level. And the spell wouldn't be permanant, IMO, but it would
either (I'm leaning both ways on this) simply update the spell, so that
the new durration is based on your caster level (a permamant spell such
as ontinual flame wouldn't be impaced, but any spell with a level based
duration would) or it would reset the spell's durration based on your
level (so that you could, in theory, simply recast this spell
regularly, getting a new durration each time, and if cast on hte right
spell it might never end).

The first option means that if the spell's durration is 1 day/level
then a 20th level wizard who casts this spell on the work of a 5th
level wizard (on day three) would allow the spell to continue for
another 17 days.

the second means that that same wizard could come out to that spot
every 15-20 days and recast the enhancing spell. This actually does
provide a benefit if the origional spell is of a reasonable level. it
means that you are resetting a higher level spell with a second level
spell slot.

I don't know how I feel about the balance and I don't think it matters
since it's not my idea and I'm probably not going to use it, but it's
something to think about.
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 9:36:13 AM

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

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.
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 11:23:49 AM

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

> I said somehting about this earlier in this thread, but I'd call it
> second level. And the spell wouldn't be permanant, IMO, but it would
> either (I'm leaning both ways on this) simply update the spell, so that
> the new durration is based on your caster level (a permamant spell such
> as ontinual flame wouldn't be impaced, but any spell with a level based
> duration would) or it would reset the spell's durration based on your
> level (so that you could, in theory, simply recast this spell
> regularly, getting a new durration each time, and if cast on hte right
> spell it might never end).
>

This leads to a couple of interesting opportunities. First, a defensive
spell could have been cast long ago and maintained using "Touch." Knowledge
of how to cast the spell has since been lost (why learn the spell, you never
need to cast it).

Second, some enterprising clerk (low-level mage), might sneak a spell in the
AoO to get its effect augmented. This is analogous to getting a superior to
rubber-stamp paperwork because he isn't paying close attention. Very
plausible.

Peter
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 1:46:37 PM

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:

> > How about a large city with one or two poerful spellcasters.
>
> 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? Is
there a
> portal somewhere with lots of low level abjurations on it? Which
ones? Is
> this all about "a few lights" that can be stolen, covered, doused, or
> cancelled by Darkness magic INSTEAD OF DISPELLED?

Again, the usefulness does not have to be proven to make it a valid
spell, but off the top of my head how about a series of enchantments
on, say, a person. I can this of many many low level spells that you
can cast on one person at once (bull's strength, cat's grace, etc as
well as mage armor, shield, the list goes on and on). How about alarm
or magic aura. Magic mouth is also a decent option (why one would want
to dispell a magic mouth I don't know, but then again, as I said, we
don't need to know why or even care why).

I don't see why you're so obsessed with proving that this is useful,
though. Can wizards not write and cast useless spells? Did I overlook
that rule somewhere?

> > 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.

not that there's really much room to judge this spell. It's not as if
it's particularly powerful as is. it's basically a spell buff (rather
than a buff for an individual and on that note those are usually second
level as well).
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 1:52:24 PM

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> "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.

Again, you're judging the logic of a theoretical situation and actions
undertaken by fake people. What the hell is that? 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).

> 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"?

Gosh, i guess that means you're not a high mage, doesn't it? i'm
shocked and amazed. Guess I'll have to find some else to make those
magic doodads for me.

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.

> > As i said, this has RL precident.
>
> <falls on the floor laughing>

See, Michael, we in hte real world know other people and sometimes we
pay attention to how they act. This is often how we know how to
roleplay. You may want to give it a shot. It helps. I swear. You
don't need real wizards to have a basis for their bahavior. Really.
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 3:18:40 PM

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:

> > 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's part of how we figure out what helevel it is, but you've been
parrading around the point of view that it should not exist in the
first place, which is foolishness. And caps do not make you sound
smarter.

> > 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?

It doesn't provide any immunity than the simple act of casting a spell
does for that same caster. And though i can see IC reason for a spell
like this, mechanically you're right that you're basically casting two
spells to get the effectiveness of one, so I see no reason that it
should be higher level. The higher level facet comes about because it
IS being cast by a higher level caster. And since the actual
effectiveness (versus dispell and other things) is dependant on the
caster level of the spell, I'd say that is self balancing, just as any
other spell is in that way.

I don't think it's more powerful than a standard dispell for that
reason. If this spell is cast by a 6th level caster or a 20th level
caster it's still dispelled the same way. All it's really doing is
transfering ownershipo of the spell (effectively) to another caster.
if you look at it that way I don't think balance is much of an issue
since, as you said, the caster could just have cast the spell himself
(maybe for whatever reason he actually couldn't himself, but a caster
of his class and level is *capable* of casting the spell, more to the
point).
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 3:24:50 PM

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

drow wrote:
> 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.

Yes, the existance of other spells are a perfectly valid reason to
disallow this one. heck, given that invisibility is a spell, I don't
know why we even have blur. And given that improved invisibility
exists, why not just get rid of invisibility? Actually, let's just
replace all spells with wish.

> > 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.

That's true, and if the mayor asks the chief of police to ticket my car
he will, but as a matter of course, he has people that do that for him.


> 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.)

Maybe. I'm not going to make descisions for other people's NPC's. If
the wizard wants to do it this way who am I to say he can't? He can,
after all, just fireball me, too. (well .. . he can't because he
doesn't exist, but at that point we have carried the joke too far . .
..).

And it is entirely possible that he either doesn't have access to the
spell for whatever reason or outright doesn't want to cast it.
Furthermore, it has been suggested that this spell could somehow target
more than one spell (either by making it area of effect of by allowing
it to target a specific number of spells, maybe your caster level in
charges?). Which would make it economical, if only slightly more time
effective.

Either way, I don't really care why anyone would want to cast a spell.
I just think it's a viable enough idea that it's worth looking into if
someone wants it. personally, I don't keep good enough track of my
NPC's spell levels and funds to have this be worth anyhting to me. it
might be a nice touch in a game based on a mage school or a group of
mages.
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 3:30:46 PM

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> "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.

You can't cast spells from your opposition school or use magic items
that simulate their effects. But if evocation is your opposed school
and this spell is (what, transmutation, universal? I don't really know
what I'd call it off the top of my head but assume it's noot evo) then
where's the problem? you're bolstering it, not casting it. You can
dispel spells from your opposed schools just fine. Is there a massive
difference here?

I'm actually not belittling you for once, I just don't see it as that
big a problem (or a problem at all). Do you see a reason this isn't
correct? Bear in mind that, as far as I know, there are no rules about
affecting spells from your opposed school.
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 4:48:02 PM

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

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:44:23 -0500, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:U72_d.10304$oO4.7220@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:6bKdnXhGaPOFMKXfRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
>> > Maybe such a spell could affect an area rather than a single effect?
>>
>> 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.

Walls of Stone, Walls of Steel are NOT dispellable.

The other types all expire, so bolstering them wouldn't even do any good.
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 4:50:06 PM

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

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?
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 4:57:19 PM

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

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:55:13 -0500, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:erch31dhlsamhagedd0hr4q1qfvi9laepq@4ax.com...
>> >Maybe he's got other stuff to do?
>>
>> 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?
>
>The idea is to have a high level wizard shore up things that are city
>defenses, like wall of stone, among other city defenses.

Again, this is silly, because if the high level wizard can "shore up" these
spells, then he can just cast them himself and cut out the gimp caster
altogether.

Also, walls of stone cannot be dispelled.


>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.

> So, why not put
>the low level ones to work doing various busy work, and every now and then,
>have some high level guy go through, examine what's been done, and firm it
>up so it's more difficult to dispel. Seems pretty logical to me.

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.

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.
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 5:00:54 PM

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

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:52:06 -0500, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:ZT3_d.10363$oO4.1818@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Cast spell + 20th level wizard casts bolstering spell .... or 20th
>> level wizard JUST CASTS THE FIRST SPELL.
>>
>> 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. 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 he also cannot hope to bolster the spells in a city of 50k
inhabitants.

So the spell is still worthless.
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 5:25:01 PM

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

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 01:33:59 -0500, Rick Pikul wrote:

> While a spell that increases the caster level of a single spell is not
> generally going to be of much use[1], one that does it for every spell in
> an area is much more useful, (even a 5'/level radius covers a 200' wide
> circle at 20th level).
>
> With an AE version, you could have the regular mages set up a whole bunch
> of spells, say around the walls of a city. Then, after they've spent a
> week doing that, the Magus Royal takes a walk around the walls and casts
> "touch" every 200' or so.

Which level would such an area spell be in your opinion?
Should the duration really be permanent?

LL
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 5:53:01 PM

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

"Lorenz Lang" <lang@netlife.invalid> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.03.17.13.25.01.528124@netlife.invalid...
> Which level would such an area spell be in your opinion?

It's hard to say. Regardless of caster level, such a spell would scale
nicely. It's effect is limited to dispelling magic. If I were DM, I'd put
it PROBABLY at the same level as Dispel Magic, maybe one higher.

> Should the duration really be permanent?

Maybe the duration of the "touch" spell is something short(combat useful),
or even "special"(duration matches the spell under effect? it would last as
long as the original spell?), or maybe the high level guy could cast
permanence on it or something. ?? Dunno?

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 6:08:49 PM

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

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:vd2j31po1bknquiadgvckdvvftp3u7jvsm@4ax.com...
> >The various "wall of X" type spells, for example.
>
> Walls of Stone, Walls of Steel are NOT dispellable.
>
> The other types all expire, so bolstering them wouldn't even do any good.

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?

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).

I can see how you could not dispel "StoneShape" on the Cleric side of
things, because all that does is reform and reshape existing rock. Once the
spell is done doing it's shaping it's over with. But the Wall of Stone
spell doesn't require any starting Stone to work with. It just springs into
being(it's created by the spell).

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 6:11:08 PM

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

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:km2j31t5grg1r02u1mmrbq3jprfgc9qd26@4ax.com...
> Or he could just CAST CONTINUAL FLAME HIMSELF...why purpose is served in
> having the lower level caster existing at all?


Look, let's get past this point. It has already been granted that a spell
of this nature would be next to useless if it were cast on single spell
effects(except maybe for cleric/wizard crossover). But if it were area
effect, he could have X mini-wizards casting various spells, and then
bolster them all at once.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 6:21:35 PM

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

In article <nt6dndKLTdSE6qrfRVn-tg@comcast.com>,
"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:

> There is a unix command that allows you to update datestamps and stuff on
> files in the directory structure. (I'm sure it has other uses, I'm not a
> unix geek).
>
> Is there a spell in D&D that will allow lesser wizards to create something,
> and then have it resist the effects of a dispel magic at a higher level?
>
> 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.
>
> It's really roughly laid out, I know, but thoughts are appreciated.
>
> BTW, I don't know if the rules for dispelling are different in 3E, but in
> 2E, you have a base 50% chance, +- 5% per level of difference between the
> casters.

You could always pull the energy for skill idea from GURPS Magic and have
energy = time. 20% longer gets you +1, 40% gets you +2 and so on. It is not
an exact match but it allows low level mages to do some really powerful
stuff if they have enough 'energy'
!