Page 1 of 2

Proposal - Spell Disruption

Posted: 2013-03-13
by Inox
I propose changing: "If a weapon strikes the spell caster while he is holding a spell, the spell effects are visited fully upon the caster. For example, if a Mage is struck be an arrow while holding a cast Fireball spell, the spell detonates in the Mage’s hands."

To "If the spell caster is struck while he is holding a spell, the spell fails to work as intended. Spellballs detonate on the caster, and other spells simply fizzle."

Cosigners?

Re: Proposal - Spell Disruption

Posted: 2013-03-13
by Lord Valfryn
Cosign

Re: Proposal - Spell Disruption

Posted: 2013-03-13
by shroom2021
Cosign

Re: Proposal - Spell Disruption

Posted: 2013-03-13
by PadreCaedes
Why not just have everything fizzle?

Re: Proposal - Spell Disruption

Posted: 2013-03-13
by fingers630
Yep Im fine either way.

Re: Proposal - Spell Disruption

Posted: 2013-03-13
by Lord Cailen Sendor
PadreCaedes wrote:Why not just have everything fizzle?


I think then we would lose the damage cause by a spell caster casting a fireball and being hit before being able to throw it

Spellballs detonate on the caster

Re: Proposal - Spell Disruption

Posted: 2013-03-14
by mardux zulammar
Would you be willing to alter the wording to "all other spells" and add "having no effect" after it says they fizzle? Seems a little more definitive and takes care of the guy 3 years from now who doesn't know what fizzle means.

Re: Proposal - Spell Disruption

Posted: 2013-03-14
by Amazing_Iltztafein
Lord Cailen Sendor wrote:
PadreCaedes wrote:Why not just have everything fizzle?


I think then we would lose the damage cause by a spell caster casting a fireball and being hit before being able to throw it

Spellballs detonate on the caster

I think that is his point, though - just have all magic work the same way. It's easier to know the rules that way. New people will have a harder time memorizing rules when we have certain rules for certain spells.

Also, this drastically changes feign death, which currently goes off when you get hit - one of the only real useful ways to use the spell during anything other than a massive melee where nobody is watching you.

Re: Proposal - Spell Disruption

Posted: 2013-03-14
by LordTyrantCort
So... Curse would limb the caster, creating a holy torso
Fireball, a pile of ash... Unless ya got the terrorist Mage with profire.
Lightning, take a black to the limb/arm
Hold person, a pillar of salt or a holy cleric sickle.
Icestorm, a block of magical Mage-sickle
Feeblemind, an idiot nal-brain Mage.
And so on and so forth....

Re: Proposal - Spell Disruption

Posted: 2013-03-14
by Lord Dubh
Warlordcort wrote:So... Curse would limb the caster, creating a holy torso
Fireball, a pile of ash... Unless ya got the terrorist Mage with profire.
Lightning, take a black to the limb/arm
Hold person, a pillar of salt or a holy cleric sickle.
Icestorm, a block of magical Mage-sickle
Feeblemind, an idiot nal-brain Mage.
And so on and so forth....


What about heal spells??

I think they should just fizzle. The Invocation Line is suppose to be the point at which the spell in manifested, prior to that the spell energy is just gathered but not manifested.

Re: Proposal - Spell Disruption

Posted: 2013-03-14
by fingers630
Yes I believe Cort was proposing the "only spell balls have an affect" and everything else fizzles out and has no effect.

Would it be easier to say the spell ball effect centers on the caster? So Warp Wood and Fireball would retain their AOE just centered on the Mage/Druid disrupted? Again Im fine with them all just fizzling and doing nothing, but would support AOE off the disrupted caster too.

Re: Proposal - Spell Disruption

Posted: 2013-03-14
by Lord Valfryn
As long as the effect doesn't use AOE, i'm cool with it. I don't like the idea of a mage starting to cast fireball infront of a door that he sees fighters charging at, he doesn't have to finish the spell, but he gets to be a human landmine and kill 2-5 fighters without finishing a spell.

I find it hard to believe (even in a make believe sense) that the fireball is fully potent after reading 3 words. Maybe a "held spell" can blast like that.. but not an interrupted one.

Re: Proposal - Spell Disruption

Posted: 2013-03-14
by fingers630
Yeah I say just say everything is disrupted, and no effect. Easier that way, and you dont have to worry about what is held, what is almost cast, etc.

Re: Proposal - Spell Disruption

Posted: 2013-03-14
by Amazing_Iltztafein
Lord Valfryn wrote:As long as the effect doesn't use AOE, i'm cool with it. I don't like the idea of a mage starting to cast fireball infront of a door that he sees fighters charging at, he doesn't have to finish the spell, but he gets to be a human landmine and kill 2-5 fighters without finishing a spell.

I find it hard to believe (even in a make believe sense) that the fireball is fully potent after reading 3 words. Maybe a "held spell" can blast like that.. but not an interrupted one.

I believe we are only talking about held spells here. We're talking about the act of disruption AFTER it is cast... Not while reading.

Re: Proposal - Spell Disruption

Posted: 2013-03-14
by Inox
Alright, agreed.

Let's try changing this:

"If the caster speaks, fights, moves, or is hit by a weapon (including shafts) during spell casting, the spell is negated and the spell points are forfeited. If the caster wishes,he may then begin the spell again from the beginning.The spell is considered "cast" when the full spell has been read, up to, but not including the invocation line. Once the spell is cast, the caster may then hold the spell indefinitely before invoking it. While holding a spell, the caster may not speak, and is permitted to move no more than five steps from his original position. Also, while holding a spell, the caster may not be moved by another participant. If a weapon strikes the spell caster while he is holding a spell, the spell effects are visited fully upon the caster. For example, if a Mage is struck be an arrow while holding a cast Fireball spell, the spell detonates in the Mage’s hands."

To this:

"The spell is considered 'cast' when the full spell has been read, up to, but not including the invocation line. Once the spell is cast, the caster may then hold the spell indefinitely before invoking it. While holding a spell, the caster may not speak, and is permitted to move no more than five steps from his original position.

If the caster speaks, fights, moves before the spell is 'held', is moved by another participant, or is hit by a weapon (including shafts) or spellball before completing the invocation line, the spell is negated and the spell points are forfeited. If the caster wishes,he may then begin the spell again from the beginning."

Cosign?

Re: Proposal - Spell Disruption

Posted: 2013-03-14
by fingers630
Cosign.

Re: Proposal - Spell Disruption

Posted: 2013-03-14
by exoduscleric
I know this being picky, but I don't like the word "move" in the sentence "If the caster speaks, fights, moves, or is hit by a weapon (including shafts) during spell casting, the spell is negated and the spell points are forfeited." Technically the way this is written if I turn the page in my spellbook, I am moving and the spell is disrupted. It's ridiculous, but I've been told my spells were disrupted because my eyes supposedly looked up. If the intent is to write a clear description that can't be confused , then can we say something other than moves? I can completely see someone taking any movement (brushing hair out of eyes etc) as a disruption when I don't think that's your intent. I would assume you mean move the position of yourself as in walking or moving from one place to another. If we're taking the time to write a clear definition of something to replace one that some consider unclear, then let's make sure it's clear.

Re: Proposal - Spell Disruption

Posted: 2013-03-14
by mardux zulammar
Did you change it to say that regardless of the type of spell, it gets negated? If so, I'll cosign.

And I agree with Exodus, the word "moves" can be taken in a very wide range depending on the player that sees you move as well as the elders around.

Re: Proposal - Spell Disruption

Posted: 2013-03-14
by Inox
Moves was the current lingo, but I am wide open to suggestions for changing it.

...and yes, negated regardless of type.

Re: Proposal - Spell Disruption

Posted: 2013-03-14
by Zodiac89
I've been told by a few vets that you're allowed to read out your spell, sans Invocation, move up to 5 paces, and then you're required to read the Invocation, and if your spell requires a ball to be thrown, you do so immediately after finishing your Invocation. Would this proposal force you to remain still during the entire process, ie, no more 5 paces movement and then invoke -> throw?

Re: Proposal - Spell Disruption

Posted: 2013-03-15
by fingers630
Zodiac89 wrote:I've been told by a few vets that you're allowed to read out your spell, sans Invocation, move up to 5 paces, and then you're required to read the Invocation, and if your spell requires a ball to be thrown, you do so immediately after finishing your Invocation. Would this proposal force you to remain still during the entire process, ie, no more 5 paces movement and then invoke -> throw?



Um...

Once the spell is cast, the caster may then hold the spell indefinitely before invoking it. While holding a spell, the caster may not speak, and is permitted to move no more than five steps from his original position.


No?

Re: Proposal - Spell Disruption

Posted: 2013-03-15
by Zodiac89
Thanks, Fingers. Missed that part. So, read spell, move 5 steps, hide there for an indefinite amount of time, suprise someone with a fireball. Cool beans!

Re: Proposal - Spell Disruption

Posted: 2013-03-15
by fingers630
np. my goal is to work on my ventriliquism so i can yell my invocation line out from behind them!

Re: Proposal - Spell Disruption

Posted: 2013-03-24
by exoduscleric
How about..." If the caster speaks, fights, takes a step before the spell is 'held', is moved by another participant, or is hit by a weapon (including shafts) or spellball before completing the invocation line, the spell is negated and the spell points are forfeited. If the caster wishes,he may then begin the spell again from the beginning."

I think the "moves before the spell is 'held'" could be misinterpreted to mean things it isn't meant to.

Re: Proposal - Spell Disruption

Posted: 2013-03-24
by Lord Valfryn
Implying that taking a step alone is movement, maybe:

" If the caster speaks, fights, changes his footing in any way (including taking a step) before the spell is 'held', is moved by another participant, or is hit by a weapon (including shafts) or spellball before completing the invocation line, the spell is negated and the spell points are forfeited. If the caster wishes,he may then begin the spell again from the beginning."