Dispelling magic

Rhelian · Post by **Rhelian** » Sun Oct 12, 2003 10:56 pm

After an interesting discussion last night, I thought I'd post the good ideas up here.

Personally, I've always felt that wizards should all get the dispel magic spell - unless you're a conjurer (as it's an abjuration spell). After all, if clerics and paladins get it, surely wizards should too, as they'd learn how to dispel their own magic. Out of the discussion came a point I hadn't noticed - as it is, the dispel magic spell is extremely powerful - with one successful cast, unless it is resisted, a cleric/paladin can COMPLETELY strip a wizard (or other class) of their current spells - even if the wizard (I'll just keep using "wizard") has five or ten layers of protective spells. If every wizard had this spell, then PK situations would simply be a matter of who can cast the spell quickest. So, I agree that, as it is, the dispel magic spell is too powerful to give en masse. It would also make counterspelling very easy - and lead to who had the most mana to determine who'd win a fight.

However, another idea that came along with this would be the inclusion of some other dispelling spells, and also a modification of dispel magic to make it work similar to how it does in 3rd edition D&D. The other spells that could be included would be Khelben's Warding Whip, Breach, Peirce Magic, maybe even Lesser and Greater Dispel - these would each have different affects or styles of dispelling layers of protection, giving more variety, and the ability to give some sort of dispelling ability to most wizards. I think there are a few I forgot as well. As for modifying dispel magic, it would work (as per 3rd edition) either as an area affect (specified against one spell) and if used on a single target it would have to be checked against each spell affect individually, with a modifier applied for spell level and caster level, as well as the target's natural spell resistance, for each method of casting. That way you wouldn't get the current situation where someone can shuck a wizard out of their protection by spamming dispel magic for three or four rounds till it sticks, which is futher amplified by the fact priests currently spontaneously cast spells, rather than praying for them each day.

I'll type up specifics of spells when I can get my hands on my rulebook.

So, any feedback or ideas? I realise that this idea might take a fair ammount of coding and would be a big change, but I think it would be a change for the better. Discussion is more than welcome

Myn · Post by **Myn** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 3:27 am

*nodnod* Makes sense. Can make up for not having any of the spell..breakie... spells....

Andreas · Post by **Andreas** » Wed Nov 05, 2003 11:15 pm

I've never understood why all magic users don't get Dispel Magic.

You learn to drive a car, first thing they teach you is where to find the brakes, right?

Well, if you cast a spell, shouldn't you know how to dispel it?

Penryn · Post by **Penryn** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 7:41 am

really, I think it is in the area of balance that only certain classes in game seem to get dispel magic, In this game it seems to be a seriously powerful spell.. but that is just my two cents
jeffery

Adorah · Post by **Adorah** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:19 pm

Then perhaps a spell for specifically "Dispel magic self" rather then "Dispel magic" would be in order. I do agree stopping others might not work, but stopping yourself and your own magic would be one of the first and foremost things taught

Adorah Rashe

Cret · Post by **Cret** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 11:40 pm

What about a futher argument in the casting code. cast spell self dispell. this way only a spell the character knows could be dispelled.

Rhelian · Post by **Rhelian** » Sun Nov 16, 2003 5:54 am

The thing is, a wizard wouldn't need to know WHAT spells are on other people, or have those spells in their spellbook. As an area affect spell, the caster chooses one spell and all within the area of affect roll a diecheck against it, with modifiers. The only way a wizard would need to know the spell being cast would be in the instance of using dispel as a counterspell, and even then it's borderline.

To cast on oneself, there would be no check needed - things would just be dispelled (as per 3rd edition rules)

To cast on a specific target, all spells on the target would be rolled individually with modifiers against the spell - thereby none or some of the spells would be dispelled, rather than the blanket "all or nothing" that's in place at the moment.

Rhelian · Post by **Rhelian** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 11:10 pm

I'm just wondering how codeable it would be to modify the spell, or if it is even up for consideration

Also, what's the feeling on making the spell accessable to most wizard classes?

Echet · Post by **Echet** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 6:36 am

All wizzies except conjurers getting dispel is a good idea, yes. I agree.

But aside, I think when a wizard casts a spell on himself, he is supposed to be able to 'turn off' that spell at will, unless the spell notes that he can't. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think this is true.

Echet. Not a sword bumbler, just quiet.

Mingus · Post by **Mingus** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 10:06 pm

Rhelian wrote:However, another idea that came along with this would be the inclusion of some other dispelling spells, and also a modification of dispel magic to make it work similar to how it does in 3rd edition D&D. The other spells that could be included would be Khelben's Warding Whip, Breach, Peirce Magic, maybe even Lesser and Greater Dispel

Should dispel break all forms of magic? Take for example mummy rot, a magical disease. I don't think dispel should work here aloud only by “cure disease”. Same for some mind aflictions, “remove curse” could be made their only remedies. And just leave dispel for aura type effects. That way the spell is not made out to be a all-hit wonder that cures all. But rather disperses the load to other curative spells.

Echet · Post by **Echet** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 10:23 pm

Since there are definately effects like that out there, could be possible at all to flag spells as nodispel? As in, that effect isn't really a spell or is beyond dispel magic's power, and therefore couldn't be dispelled?

Echet, a necromancer

Glim · Post by **Glim** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 11:54 pm

I would think that dispel magic would dispel all non-permanent magical effects. Perhaps it could be something like you have to make a check against their caster level to be able dispell their magic, sorta like 3rd ed does it.

Mingus · Post by **Mingus** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 1:59 am

What about curses? Once the curse is cast the spells magics disapated but its the lingering effects that make up affliction are still present. ie enfeeblement, it makes you stupid and with out a restoration spell you're gonna stay that way. Or when you cast razorbait, you influence the subject at being afraid of certain weapons. Is it the spell that gives them more damadge or is it what the spell did or changed in the subject's head that makes him more subceptible. There for, mind influencing and other like spells can be considered curses and not necessarily dispelled since there is no more spell taking effect but rather the after affects. Yes, if you counter the dispel would work but not after it takes hold. And so a remove curse is what cures them.
Disease like mummy rot are still diseases and you my dispel the aura of sickness but it will not make the rot go away or slow it down. Why is there a need for cure disease or cure poison, if dispel would do the trick all the time?

Glim · Post by **Glim** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 2:47 am

The spell still lasts, just because there is no more casting doesnt mean that the magic is not there anymore. Mind affecting spells do not affect anything physical, they merely affect the mind, and the mind may affect physcial. Though, I dont beleive that swordbait and the like are mind affecting spells, the echoe just says that so that you know that the spell has been cast.

Selveem · Post by **Selveem** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 4:34 pm

I have seen this on many different MUDs. As many of you know, I come from various MUDs and a few of them were my home for quite some time. There were a few, in particular, with a spell called 'cancel.' Cancel was an attempt to rid yourself of all of your current spells that you have cast upon yourself, or a specific spell you have placed on yourself. It could be used to cancel other casters' spells, but it was frowned upon as it was a gift to the general population of mortals who wished for a way to renew their spells or remove them for special RPs and such.

I have a wizard who has certain spells that attract attention when they are on him. I was asked to remove them, but I, of course, was unable to as I did not have any sort of spell for that to happen.

I'm not sure how 'cancel(lation)' spell would work here, as generally it can remove a specific spell or all spells in the other MUDs I have played. I do know that it was only intended to work on oneself, and that the syntax was either: "cast 'cancellation' 'self' 'armor'" or simply "cast 'cancellation' 'self'" with no following arguement. The first, of course, removes the specific spell, the second, attempts to remove all current spells.

Rhelian · Post by **Rhelian** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 1:18 am

Penryn wrote:really, I think it is in the area of balance that only certain classes in game seem to get dispel magic, In this game it seems to be a seriously powerful spell.. but that is just my two cents
jeffery

Just saw this now :-p Yay for my reading skills. As for game balance, if clerics and paladins seem to generally all have the spell, I'd think the game balance gets skewed significantly towards those classes, especially when versing a wizard class. If both classes had it, then either would eb able to remove the protections from the other - and seeing how clerics do get a signifcant number of wizard spells, it would only make the balance more even.

Paxos · Post by **Paxos** » Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:49 pm

In the case of Paladins I can understand why they'd give them dispel for balance. Paladins are supposed to be super tough, and if they're going to apprehend something like a Wizard they can do it... Anyone who makes Paladin deserves something like that, they spend nearly a year (or more) getting the class. It also helps balance their rule on limited magical items.

On the other hand, I believe that there were different spells in Third Edition concerning the dispellation of magic. Dispel Magic being the lesser, and something like Mordenkain's Disjunction being the greater.. or something of the sort. Like Shocking Grasp in comparison to Lightning Bolt.

I think it would simply be a question of opposed skill checks for the various spells applied. If your abilities made your dispel magic skill 90, and a Wizard had three spells on him, two at 75, one at 95, then dispel the two under it.

Is that something that would be do-able?

Paxos

Isolrem · Post by **Isolrem** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:31 am

Literally, the famed Mordenkenian's Disjunction, usable on all spells, summoned entities, or inherent enchantments (yes like Enchant Weapon, though in these cases would have to be targeted), affects the room (and renders the room Spell Dead for a set time?)
This is the magic killer spell.

Hviti · Post by **Hviti** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 3:40 am

I kind of disagree on this one...fighters already can beat up wizards, so can priests...I don't think they need another way to totally rob them of their spells.

Natasha · Post by **Natasha** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:09 am

No no, this would be so Wizards could beat up on Wizards by robbing them of their spells, too

Natasha