Dispel spell Options

[James McMurray]

The thread about the guy summoning a ton of force 1 spirits to sustain spells got me thinking about dispelling. What would be a good drain level for a spell that allowed dispelling in an area? Basically a burst of null magic that rips away at all active spells in it's AoE? I'd still require dispelling tests be made, with all that entails, so it could be an incredibly painful experience for the caster.

[Thanee]

Why not just use Stunball (cast on the astral). :D

Would at least work on the spirits, I guess spells are no astral entities anymore...

Drain... Hmm... highest Drain of the spells being dispelled +1 per additional spell maybe?

Bye
Thanee

[James McMurray]

Like you said, stunball wouldn't help against spells, which is all this is intended to do. Besides, there's nothing that says the sustaining spirit has to be anywhere near the spell it's sustaining, but let's not start that debate. :)

[James McMurray]

I really need to bring a book to this house too. What's the normal drain procedure for dispelling a spell? If it's anywhere near troublesome I wouldn't want the dispel spell itself to also have large amounts of drain. It's supposed to be a tool, not a suicide machine. :)

[Aaron]

[dcpirahna]

The drain of dispelling a sustained spell is equal to as if the person had cast the spell that they are dispelling. (p176) If the force of the spell being dispelled is > magic, then damage is physical.

[James McMurray]

Yeah, then the drain for the dispelling spell itself should probably be really low. Maybe F/2-2 for a targetted version and F/2-1 for an area version? Either way you're still likely to take some drain, especially if you hit a runner team with several sustained spells up.

[dcpirahna]

[James McMurray]

I meant targetted on a person, possibly dispelling all spells currently active on them.

[dcpirahna]

Ahhh okay. You might want to just rule that the same as casting multiple spells at once. (p173) Instead you're just counterspelling multiple spells at once. Split the dice, take the drain. The book doesn't really say if you can counterspell multiple spells at once, but I don't see why not if you split up your dice.

A spell to do it is kinda cool, but it just seems like taking extra unncessary drain. Especially if you only want to dispel their increased reflexes and invis, and not the oxygenate, and physical mask they have too.

[dcpirahna]

On second thought, you can only dispel a spell you can percieve and is on the same plane. Your spell targeting the person doesn't neccesarily require you to be able to percieve it. So yeah, i guess it does make sense.

Of course, it's incredibly dangerous to do :P

[mdynna]

[Shrike30]

Wouldn't having a spell to do this kind of take the need for the Counterspelling skill out of the game?

[James McMurray]

Not if you want to counter spells or dispel spells without having to resist drain twice. also, they would be making normal dispelling tests, it would just let them make multiples at once.

[Kanada Ten]

I'd just make a combat spell that targets spells, have the drain the same as a manabolt/ball with an elemental effect. The spell would resist with force, and counterspelling if its caster so declared. This would still require one to perceive the spell before casting. I'd call it Shatterspell.

[Edward]

Well dispelling is a sepreatskill so I think a spell to do it would be wrong.

A metamagic to allow you to make a single counter spelling check for all spells within an aria would be appropriate I think.

A combat spell that targets spells is just wrong, presumably they would resist with force but how many boxes of damage would it take to destroy one.

Edward

[Aaron]

Here's me without my rulebook again, but maybe someone with a book could answer me this question:

Do spells have an aura? As in, an astral presence? I mean, sure, you can see them in astral space, but you can see mundanes in astral space, too. Can you walk through a spell (aside from a barrier, I mean)? If not, I doubt that they could be targeted by another spell, and so we're back to dispelling only.

In other news ...