Is there any logic to the whole (D)?

[Melcar]

So I was just looking over some spells when It occurred to me, that the way the dismissible (D) have been placed seems pretty random. I know that you can’t dismiss instantaneous spells, but for spells with duration some can be dismissed, some cant. I fail to the common denominator... can anyone explain?

Personally I feel any mage, should be able to dismiss his/her own ongoing spells, but I see that WotC do not share my feeling on that matter.

Some examples: Blindness/Deafness is dismissible, arcane lock is not. Blur is, but Bull's Strength is not. Daylight is, continual flame is not. I don’t see the pattern...

[dascarletm]

So I was just looking over some spells when It occured to me, that the way the dismissable (D) have been placed seems pretty random. I know that you cant dismis instantaneous spells, but for spells with duration some can be dismissed, some cant. I fail to to the comme denominator... can anyone explain?

Personally I feel any mage, should be able to dismiss his/her own ongoin spells, but I see that WotC do not share my feeling on that matter.

Some exaples: Blindness/Deafness is dismissable, arcane lock is not. Blurr is, but Bull's Strength is not. Daylight is, continual flameis not. I dont see the pattern...

Think of it this way, any spell that is dismissible has some sort of connection to the caster after it has been cast. Continual flame creates the flame and is done, daylight is an ongoing light generation. (why some are versus others, ask the game designers). I suspect it is mostly random as to why some are and some arn't though.

[nedz]

I know of no systematic reasoning behind the (D), so it would seem to have been decided on a case by case basis.

This is what the SRD has to say on the subject :-

(D) Dismissible

If the Duration line ends with "(D)," you can dismiss the spell at will. You must be within range of the spell’s effect and must speak words of dismissal, which are usually a modified form of the spell’s verbal component. If the spell has no verbal component, you can dismiss the effect with a gesture. Dismissing a spell is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

A spell that depends on concentration is dismissible by its very nature, and dismissing it does not take an action, since all you have to do to end the spell is to stop concentrating on your turn.

[Melcar]

I know of no systematic reasoning behind the (D), so it would seem to have been decided on a case by case basis.

This is what the SRD has to say on the subject :-

The reason for me providing examples were to show that two different evocation [light] can be different in that aspect. Which seems weird to me. Even a permanent spell like Blindness/deafness can be dispelled, but not arcane lock which is also permanent. Some transmutations can be, some cant. I even checked if it was personal spells that could, but that did not produce any result either. So.. random... i guess.

Do you guys think its too much, for a mage to be able to dismiss his own ongoing spells?

[dascarletm]

I think it depends on the spell, but otherwise no. Allowing control would give mages a feeling of control which may or may not be appropriate to the setting.

[Melcar]

I think it depends on the spell, but otherwise no. Allowing control would give mages a feeling of control which may or may not be appropriate to the setting.

To me it just seems weird that some can and some cant. I can unerstand if it was either no one or all of them. I simple just see no logic in why bull's strengh cant be dismisses, especially when cast on self. Why darkvision cant but see invisibility can...

[dascarletm]

To me it just seems weird that some can and some cant. I can unerstand if it was either no one or all of them. I simple just see no logic in why bull's strengh cant be dismisses, especially when cast on self. Why darkvision cant but see invisibility can...

Hrmmmm.... If someone had cast an invisible fog spell, then.... bah! I don't know.

[jiriku]

The spells were written by several dozen people over the course of 30 years, edited by others, and many of them have been revised (and then re-edited) five or more times, by a different person each time, in the process of reaching their current incarnations. Some of these spells were originally written for the edition you are playing now, while others have a history reaching as far back as OD&D or even Chainmail. The various editors and authors had different tastes, different personalities, different levels of system mastery, and different visions for how spells ought to work in D&D. Some of them were probably busy people working under tight deadlines who took shortcuts in their work. Most of these authors and editors didn't work together, never spoke to one another, and even worked for different companies entirely or were volunteers contributing to sources like Dungeon Magazine or Dragon Magazine. Some of them wouldn't even recognize the names of the people who later edited and revised their work.

And you ask for logic? :smallbiggrin:

Seriously though, with a work as enormous in scope and as complex as the D&D game, edited and modified endlessly for four decades, it's entirely normal and to be expected if you find some personal idiosyncrasies and random variation in a tiny detail of the game such as "whether spells are dismissable or not".

As for whether making all spells dismissable would be "too much", that has an obvious answer: it depends on the spell.

[nedz]

Chainmail didn't have spells — it was just a skirmish system, but otherwise you are right.

[Dalebert]

It's a feature just like any other that is figured into the value of the spell for its level. It makes the spell a tad more versatile. I think at times it's intended to be a limitation that adds some flavor. Just like all other features, I would assume it's figured in on a case-by-case basis depending on a number of factors with balancing the power and versatility with the level being one factor.

[Sith_Happens]

And you ask for logic? :smallbiggrin:

I read this in Nolan!Bane's voice for some reason.


I know of no systematic reasoning behind the (D)

I don't actually have anything to contribute to the thread, I just wanted this in a quote box by itself.:smalltongue:

[ace rooster]

No... That is the short answer. If you want an in universe justification then we need to say a bit more.

In universe it could just be a quirk of magic. Magic is not automatically all powerful, and if you compare epic spellcasting to regular spellcasting you see how much more power it takes to achieve an arbitrary result from just throwing power at a problem compared to using a regular spell. I generally think of this being because the regular spells work using little quirks, tricks and coincidences, that are already taken to their limit (and are often quite obscure). Think 22/7 as an approximation for Pi. There is no reason this works as well as it does, and we cannot generally find simple good approximations for real numbers, but in this case we can. Maybe two unrelated effects use the same verbal utterence or handwave, and so can be combined into a spell much more easily than you would expect.

This sort of magic system has the advantage of being able to be consistent, despite having arbitrary abilities and limitations. OoC players have no understanding of how the magic system actually works at the mechanical level, dealing only with the outward effects, which are already optimised by an int 30 wizard who knows every loophole and trick in the book.

Incidently that (D) makes possible one of my favorite tricks. Binding yourself is an easy core way to get immortality (and keep enemy wizards from getting your nailclippings), and the (D) means that you can release yourself if you ever get properly stuck.

[Cowardly Griffo]

The one that always bugged me was Awaken Undead. It's the only Awaken X spell I'm aware of that has a Permanent(D) rather than Instantaneous duration. Also it has a recently-extracted humanoid brain, dead for less than an hour, as a material component, which implies going to a lot of really interesting trouble to make a smart skeleton in the first place. But instead of allowing for the really awesome possibility of an awakened skeleton or zombie or whatever rebelling against its creator... they made it so the wizard can snap their fingers and make the creature stupid again. As can any young schmuck with a decent Dispel check.

Booo-ring.

And yeah, further evidence that there really isn't any consistency. Understandable considering how many people have worked on it, as has already been mentioned. And I'll agree with the "depends on the spell" ruling also.

As I don't have much substantive to add, here's some bonus info: a brain from a recently-deceased humanoid has no listed GP cost, so you're assumed to have one in your spell component pouch. Have fun knowing that!

[dascarletm]

a brain from a recently-deceased humanoid has no listed GP cost, so you're assumed to have one in your spell component pouch. Have fun knowing that!

the BoVD would like a word with you.

And please don't say "Recently-deceased humanoid is different than humanoid." Unless the item describes that parameter in the BoVD then...


Really I don't want to get into this sort of thing. BUT I WILL IF I HAVE TO! :smalltongue:

[firebrandtoluc]

That D can make a big impact on a persistomancer.

[Dalebert]

I don't actually have anything to contribute to the thread, I just wanted this in a quote box by itself.:smalltongue:

Completely empathize. I think what Melcar is saying is that he always wants the (D). Feel free to quote that out of context. :smallbiggrin:

[nedz]

Like most of 3.5 it's a case of Logic (D)

[Melcar]

Completely empathize. I think what Melcar is saying is that he always wants the (D). Feel free to quote that out of context. :smallbiggrin:

Ha ha... that is very funny. :smallbiggrin:


But yes... if personally feel a mage should be able to turn of hes own spells...

[Vogonjeltz]

Perhaps if we had a list of all is D spells we could work out a commonality?

[Melcar]

Perhaps this (http://dndtools.eu/spells/?name=&range=&spell_resistance=&area=&duration=%28D%29&saving_throw=&casting_time=&school__slug=&sub_school__slug=&descriptors__slug=&verbal_component=1&somatic_component=1&material_component=1&arcane_focus_component=1&divine_focus_component=1&xp_component=1&rulebook__slug=&description=&class_levels__slug=wizard&domain_levels__slug=&_filter=Filter) can be of some use....

As far as I can see... its totally random, and for that reason I personally see no reason for a mage not to be able to end all of his spells.

[Endarire]

Because some authors liked NetHack?

[Sith_Happens]

Completely empathize. I think what Melcar is saying is that he always wants the (D). Feel free to quote that out of context. :smallbiggrin:

[Saved for future sigging purposes.]