Forums of the Megaverse®

I have a couple of questions about the spell anti magic cloud. The cloud is 100' radius per level of the caster. So what would happen if an eighth level mage casts this spell in a 100' radius cavern? The mage wants it to effect only one character but there are 9 others all over the cavern. My other questions were answered when I reread the spell. Thanks in advance!!

wakiza wrote:I have a couple of questions about the spell anti magic cloud. The cloud is 100' radius per level of the caster. So what would happen if an eighth level mage casts this spell in a 100' radius cavern? The mage wants it to effect only one character but there are 9 others all over the cavern. My other questions were answered when I reread the spell. Thanks in advance!!

Everyone in the area is affected, friend or foe.

wakiza wrote:I have a couple of questions about the spell anti magic cloud. The cloud is 100' radius per level of the caster. So what would happen if an eighth level mage casts this spell in a 100' radius cavern? The mage wants it to effect only one character but there are 9 others all over the cavern. My other questions were answered when I reread the spell. Thanks in advance!!

It covers the entire 900 foot radius. which means everyone in range is effected weather you want to or not. The spell is very much "Only use it when your really sure you being the only one using magic is best" situations.

it would also effect the full 900' radius extending beyond the 100 foot caverns. the cloud is immaterial and passes through all solid matter. it's why it can shut down magic in an entire town and not be blocked just by someone closing their windows.

You should be able to control the radius of effect to between first level effect and your maximum level of effect. Otherwise you're punishing a character for being higher level if they have to make the spell full radius all the time.

Glistam wrote:You should be able to control the radius of effect to between first level effect and your maximum level of effect. Otherwise you're punishing a character for being higher level if they have to make the spell full radius all the time.

There are plenty of spells that come with the ability of the caster to control the size of the radius within their maximum.

There are a few spells that notably do not. This isn't "punishment", it's a built-in weakness of the spell.

Anti-magic cloud isn't a spell you should use unless your really sure it's better for friend and foe alike to be denied spells. I don't see a problem with this weakness personally.

Thanks for the replies, I agree it effects the whole area. I initially had a lot more questions after I read the spell in the palladium fantasy book, but reading the RUE description cleared it all up.

Little Snuzzles wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Anti-magic cloud isn't a spell you should use unless your really sure it's better for friend and foe alike to be denied spells. I don't see a problem with this weakness personally.

I completely agree, and you make a good point: one must be ready for everyone (including other PCs) to be denied the use of magic inside the radius. However, if planned right, PCs could cast a number of spells before casting A-MC (eg. Armor of Ithan, Fleet Feet, etc). Then they would have the benefit of the spell protection whereas their opponents would be caught unprepared.

Err, the spell says it negates all magic in the area. Casting those spells before the cloud goes up dosn't help, the AMC will remove them all except the ones the caster himself set up.

Granted, an easy way around /that/ is to just have the various PC's let the AMC caster borrow their PPE to cast the various armor/buff spells then the AMC. sinse he set up everyone's defences they won't be negated.

Here is puzzler for you...
3 mages pool their PPE and cast a ritual version of the spell...
Who is and is not affected by the spell?

Damian Magecraft wrote:Here is puzzler for you...
3 mages pool their PPE and cast a ritual version of the spell...
Who is and is not affected by the spell?

The way the current rules are set up, only one person in a ritual actually casts the spell, the others merely donate PPE to the effort. This means that only one caster need know a ritual spell to use it.

in the case of 3 mages in a ritual all knowing the anti-magic cloud, they would have to pick which one of them "leads" the ritual and actually casts it. the others are regulated to PPE doners.

For ease of reference, this is also how any ritual spell works for duration/radius/damage. only one caster in the group's level is actually applied. in the case of a 12 level mage a 6th level mage and 2nd level mage, whoever leads the ritual is the one who's statistics are used.

What about casting it via TTGD's "Group Casting" Nekira? Every person in the group must know the spell and pay the PPE cost for the spell before the spells get combined into 1 giant spell.

That part is a bit tricky I've found. It's easy enough when things have fixed damage/range or whatever (straight multiply that) but not when it's 'per level'.

For example, if a lvl 2 sorcerer with group casting leads a circle with a lvl 1 sorcerer with group casting whom he taught how to cast call lightning (let's say 1d6 per level for simlpicity, even though we know it's more in Nightbane). The damage of the combined spell is multipled by 2...

Would that be the dice of the leader (2d6x2)?

Tor wrote:What about casting it via TTGD's "Group Casting" Nekira? Every person in the group must know the spell and pay the PPE cost for the spell before the spells get combined into 1 giant spell.

That part is a bit tricky I've found. It's easy enough when things have fixed damage/range or whatever (straight multiply that) but not when it's 'per level'.

For example, if a lvl 2 sorcerer with group casting leads a circle with a lvl 1 sorcerer with group casting whom he taught how to cast call lightning (let's say 1d6 per level for simlpicity, even though we know it's more in Nightbane). The damage of the combined spell is multipled by 2...

Would that be the dice of the leader (2d6x2)?

correct. So if you have one sixth level sorcerer and 5 first level apprentices casting call lightning, it would be the leaders (8d6+6)*5, presuming the highest level mage is leading the ritual. if he's letting one of the first level apprentices lead it, then it'd be (3d6+6)*5.

Remember that call lightning does more damage in Nightbane than any other setting, starting at 3d6+6 then +1d6 per level.

Considering that all people involved in group-casting must have the group-casting trait, I don't know why anyone would ever want to let anyone but the highest-level person lead it... unless maybe the higher level guy is keeping his power level secret and wants to pretend he is high level. Or he wants to sabotage their efforts by not making it as effective as possible. Roleplaying-based reasons I suppose.

I did remember that Nightbane does more damage (I said 'we know it's more in Nightbane) I was just using d6/lvl for simplicity to avoid confusion.

Group casting is honestly terrifying. Imagine if one of those level 30 gods out there had such a talent. They could cast a level 30 call lightning (30D6 MD, or basically boom gun) and then by having a bunch of level 1 worshippers they taught the spell to co-cast it, could boost that 30x.

UGH.

It also makes me wonder... what happens if you try to use duration-extending spells (like the generic one in FoM, or the other one that extends only illusions) on group-casted things... would you pay the full PPE cost for a single version of the spell, or the cumulative cost of all the people in the group casting it?

Or for that matter, what would happen (if anything) by group-casting a duration-extender.

A bunch of high level casters using this in the FoM = disaster for them.

Not exactly, you can just hide out until the cloud goes away. The main concern is if it's co-ordinated with the CS, but that would require co-operation with the Vanguard, something I'm not sure all of the CS would be into.

Another quick question about this spell, do you think that a sword's psionic abilities that were magically imbued should work in an anti-magic cloud? Like a rune sword with psionic abilities. My first inclination is no the psionics wouldn't work as these psionic abilities are a magical trait of the sword. Any differeing opinion?

I agree with your interpretation of it, magic may create the weapon but I think it's the being inside who has the psionics.

wakiza wrote:Another quick question about this spell, do you think that a sword's psionic abilities that were magically imbued should work in an anti-magic cloud? Like a rune sword with psionic abilities. My first inclination is no the psionics wouldn't work as these psionic abilities are a magical trait of the sword. Any differeing opinion?

No.

Glistam wrote:You should be able to control the radius of effect to between first level effect and your maximum level of effect. Otherwise you're punishing a character for being higher level if they have to make the spell full radius all the time.

According to the Book of Magic that is exactly it. You can make the cloud one inch and in the shape of a dancing star or 900 foot cloud AT max. The practitioner of magic decides the appearance and shape/size of his spells. Anything goes so long as you do not exceed the spells limits.

Damian Magecraft wrote:Here is puzzler for you...
3 mages pool their PPE and cast a ritual version of the spell...
Who is and is not affected by the spell?

None of them. They're all "the caster" because they all "cast the spell" and contribute P.P.E. to fueling it.

The cloud is an immaterial effect.(Which is why things that normally effect clouds do not effect it.) Thus it effect the area is everything within the 100'/L. Even if most of the area/volume contains nothing but rock.

As the text of the spell is written (RBoM 1st printing) there is no text about being able to modify the area of effect. So it is not like the other magic clouds found within canon common magic spells.
(AS if you could point out where the text you are talking about is so others can corroborate what you stated.)

A version where the area of effect can be modified so long as it is under the maximum area effective, would be one level higher and cost 1.2 times (or +20%) as much PPE.

According to the spell text magic stuff, all but Rune stuff, have their powers negated.

Damian Magecraft wrote:Here is puzzler for you...
3 mages pool their PPE and cast a ritual version of the spell...
Who is and is not affected by the spell?

At very least the central mage will not be effected. The other two, "should" not be effected ether.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:(AS if you could point out where the text you are talking about is so others can corroborate what you stated.)

Its at the front of the BoM in the Q&A and may even be (if I am not mistaken) mentioned again in the magic section of the R:UE. A practitioner of magic can choose the appearance and shape of their spells so long as they do not exceed the area/range of the spell. Its one of the first things I thought was "cool" about magic when I first started learning the Palladium system. Your fire ball might be a screaming fiery eagle or a swam of explosive butterflies that swarm an area, you might create a a one inch globe of daylight in your hand that glows gently like a candle or a one foot sphere that illuminates an entire room. So long as you are not changing the mechanic or exceeding the spells perimeters, you're good.

Akashic Soldier wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:(AS if you could point out where the text you are talking about is so others can corroborate what you stated.)

Its at the front of the BoM in the Q&A and may even be (if I am not mistaken) mentioned again in the magic section of the R:UE. A practitioner of magic can choose the appearance and shape of their spells so long as they do not exceed the area/range of the spell. Its one of the first things I thought was "cool" about magic when I first started learning the Palladium system. Your fire ball might be a screaming fiery eagle or a swam of explosive butterflies that swarm an area, you might create a a one inch globe of daylight in your hand that glows gently like a candle or a one foot sphere that illuminates an entire room. So long as you are not changing the mechanic or exceeding the spells perimeters, you're good.

gonna need Book, page, and printing cite for that claim please.
All my materials only state that range and duration are variable within the limits of the casters maximum ability.

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Akashic Soldier wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:(AS if you could point out where the text you are talking about is so others can corroborate what you stated.)

Its at the front of the BoM in the Q&A and may even be (if I am not mistaken) mentioned again in the magic section of the R:UE. A practitioner of magic can choose the appearance and shape of their spells so long as they do not exceed the area/range of the spell. Its one of the first things I thought was "cool" about magic when I first started learning the Palladium system. Your fire ball might be a screaming fiery eagle or a swam of explosive butterflies that swarm an area, you might create a a one inch globe of daylight in your hand that glows gently like a candle or a one foot sphere that illuminates an entire room. So long as you are not changing the mechanic or exceeding the spells perimeters, you're good.

gonna need Book, page, and printing cite for that claim please.
All my materials only state that range and duration are variable within the limits of the casters maximum ability.

I know there are spells that allow you to change the AoE, but AMC isn't one of them.

The Beast wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Akashic Soldier wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:(AS if you could point out where the text you are talking about is so others can corroborate what you stated.)

Its at the front of the BoM in the Q&A and may even be (if I am not mistaken) mentioned again in the magic section of the R:UE. A practitioner of magic can choose the appearance and shape of their spells so long as they do not exceed the area/range of the spell. Its one of the first things I thought was "cool" about magic when I first started learning the Palladium system. Your fire ball might be a screaming fiery eagle or a swam of explosive butterflies that swarm an area, you might create a a one inch globe of daylight in your hand that glows gently like a candle or a one foot sphere that illuminates an entire room. So long as you are not changing the mechanic or exceeding the spells perimeters, you're good.

gonna need Book, page, and printing cite for that claim please.
All my materials only state that range and duration are variable within the limits of the casters maximum ability.

I know there are spells that allow you to change the AoE, but AMC isn't one of them.

Well yes individual spells state that....
The claim is it applies to all spells...
I need confirmation of said claim.

Damian Magecraft wrote:gonna need Book, page, and printing cite for that claim please.
All my materials only state that range and duration are variable within the limits of the casters maximum ability.

"All my material states that your previous statement is correct. Please provide a book page and printing number."

Nah, I'm good. Forget this for a game of chocolate soldiers. Assume I am wrong if you want to play this B.S. but I won't waste my time chasing up **** for you to argue semantics. However, you need only check the warlock spells (among many others) to see that area is commonly listed under "range."

This is tried.

Akashic Soldier wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:gonna need Book, page, and printing cite for that claim please.
All my materials only state that range and duration are variable within the limits of the casters maximum ability.

"All my material states that your previous statement is correct. Please provide a book page and printing number."

Nah, I'm good. Forget this for a game of chocolate soldiers. Assume I am wrong if you want to play this B.S. but I won't waste my time chasing up **** for you to argue semantics. However, you need only check the warlock spells (among many others) to see that area is commonly listed under "range."

This is tried.

That you assume a request is an attempt to prove you wrong on a semantics issue is a bit presumptuous of you.
I wanted to know if I needed to update my collection with a new printing.
If you can't find data beyond a single selection of spells then just say so.
No need to get defensive.

Damian Magecraft wrote:That you assume a request is an attempt to prove you wrong on a semantics issue is a bit presumptuous of you.
I wanted to know if I needed to update my collection with a new printing.
If you can't find data beyond a single selection of spells then just say so.
No need to get defensive.

Sorry man, old habits. Okay, I will look it up. That said, I have a game tonight in an hour and my little brother is down from Central Australia so I have to hang with him, then Sunday I have a bunch of stuff to do so I am going to say I will have time to sit down and do a big write up...? Monday? So in two days. Seriously, sorry. I thought you were just trying to fight with me when I was just trying to help.

Akashic Soldier wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:That you assume a request is an attempt to prove you wrong on a semantics issue is a bit presumptuous of you.
I wanted to know if I needed to update my collection with a new printing.
If you can't find data beyond a single selection of spells then just say so.
No need to get defensive.

Sorry man, old habits. Okay, I will look it up. That said, I have a game tonight in an hour and my little brother is down from Central Australia so I have to hang with him, then Sunday I have a bunch of stuff to do so I am going to say I will have time to sit down and do a big write up...? Monday? So in two days. Seriously, sorry. I thought you were just trying to fight with me when I was just trying to help.

not a big deal.
I can't keep my claim of a master of magics if I have outdated references.
When I ask for a source cite its to see where a position is coming from.
Plus I have found I have been laboring under erroneous pretenses before by having someone cite their source.

Are you guys arguing about how much powers with per-level radiuses can be adjusted to or something? =/ This seems like an issue potentially broader than AMC or even magic in general.

Tor wrote:Are you guys arguing about how much powers with per-level radiuses can be adjusted to or something? =/ This seems like an issue potentially broader than AMC or even magic in general.

Nah, its cool. I misunderstood Damian's post and got my hackles up because I was trying to help and thought I was getting sassed again. Its all cool now, all smoothed out. I was reading stuff into the post that wasn't there, that's all. All sorted now.

I'll be digging out my stuff tomorrow afternoon so I'll be posting stuff up then. I myself know all too well what its like to be lied to by someone about the rules and then find out youre doing it wrong and afterwards you feel like a total dunce so I get where he's coming from.

Wish I had more free time so I could do this earlier. Sorry guys but work has to come first!

Tor wrote:Are you guys arguing about how much powers with per-level radiuses can be adjusted to or something? =/ This seems like an issue potentially broader than AMC or even magic in general.

nah no argument...
Rifts has a lot of information to digest.
Its easy to over look something.
Requests for source cites help to resolve that.
They can also (if its a source you have looked at repeatedly) help you to look at a rule from a different perspective (just because I have interpreted rule A as X does not mean that it cannot also be Y or in some cases Z).

Sorry, I ended up wasting my lunch break today writing up a play by play explanation for why its not fair to penalize players for their characters having low attacks/actions per melee and so this is going to have to wait until tomorrow or Wednesday. Just know that I have it on my little yellow post-it (over there --->) and I have not forgotten!