D&D Equivalent to Unix "Touch"

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

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/>
\ // - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
// \ X-Windows: The cutting edge of obsolescence.
// \_\ -- Dude from DPAK

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote in message
news1a5i1$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

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).

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

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news96dnZQxMJ-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

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
> news96dnZQxMJ-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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> As i said, this has RL precident.

<falls on the floor laughing>

-Michael

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Nasty" defensive spell <> Low level caster.

Examples, please?

Anyone?


-Michael

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).