A new spell: Spell Lock

[Schmoe]

I don't know if anything like this exists in some sourcebook somewhere, but it seems to be a natural extension of the competition between mages. Tell me if you like it, if it needs work, or if it stinks like donkey poo.

Spell Lock
Abjuration
Level: Sor/Wiz 5
Components: V,S,M, XP
Casting Time: 1 minute
Range: Short (25’+5’/2 levels)
Effect: One spell already in effect
Duration: Special
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

Spell Lock is the Wizard’s answer to Dispel Magic. By using Spell Lock, a Wizard can “seal” the magic of an existing spell and protect it from being dispelled. The spell can only be cast on an existing spell that is already in effect. The spell to be locked must have a duration greater than 1 minute, as it must be in effect both at the beginning and end of the casting time of Spell Lock.

Once cast, Spell Lock intercepts any dispelling magic that might otherwise dispel the spell that was locked. Instead, the dispelling magic targets the Spell Lock. Spell Lock has an effective caster level equal to the caster’s level +5, for the purposes of the Dispel check only. Even if Spell Lock is dispelled, the spell that was originally locked remains in effect.

Spell Lock’s duration lasts as long as the spell that it protects. When the locked spell expires, Spell Lock automatically ends.

Material Component: Platinum dust worth 100 gp for every hour, or portion thereof, of the maximum duration of the spell to be locked, or 5000 gp, whichever is less.

XP Cost: If the spell to be locked is permanent, the caster of Spell Lock must expend 100 xp per level of the spell that will be locked.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Hmm. I would drop the +5 bonus to the caster level.
You may reduce the level of the spell in exchange for it, or allow it to "lock" all spells that are active on the character, so that the first dispel magic is always wasted.

The only question is: Do we really want this counter-counter-measures?

 

[Schmoe]

Hmm. I would drop the +5 bonus to the caster level.
You may reduce the level of the spell in exchange for it, or allow it to "lock" all spells that are active on the character, so that the first dispel magic is always wasted.

The only question is: Do we really want this counter-counter-measures?

Well, I have the +5 bonus to caster level to simulate the increased magical "hardness" that the Spell Lock provides. It should be more than just a "wrapper" for whatever spell it locks, it should also provide some additional benefit. In exchange, it is an expensive spell to cast. The protection is not cheap. In order to Spell Lock a permanent spell, for example, it will cost the caster 5000 gp and some XP. Even spells like Bull's Strength will probably cost 500+ gp to Spell Lock.

Hmm, maybe I should change the gp cost so that it is more expensive to lock spells with a low duration (ie, a duration measured in minutes). That should limit its use.

If I kept the +5 effective caster level and raised the spell level to 6, would that be fair?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It has nothing to do with power, I just do not like the bonus. But that is just me. Don`t hear on my words, I have sometimes some ideas, that I cannot actually reason. (Expect: I don`t think there is a example for a bonus to your caster level due to a spell!)

 

[JDRay]

I think the bonus to spell level, effective for this instance of this spell only, isn't unreasonable. That said, I have no good reason for feeling that way. I guess I'm like Mustrum in that; it's just a gut feeling.

At first I wasn't sure why you made the spell so high-powered, but then your examples of spells with a permanent duration made it more clear. Still, I think someone would want a "smaller, faster" version of the spell. How about a Lesser Spell Lock and a Greater Spell Lock, the latter of the two being the spell you've described?

 

[Schmoe]

I think the bonus to spell level, effective for this instance of this spell only, isn't unreasonable. That said, I have no good reason for feeling that way. I guess I'm like Mustrum in that; it's just a gut feeling.

At first I wasn't sure why you made the spell so high-powered, but then your examples of spells with a permanent duration made it more clear. Still, I think someone would want a "smaller, faster" version of the spell. How about a Lesser Spell Lock and a Greater Spell Lock, the latter of the two being the spell you've described?

Hey, I like that! After thinking about it further, I think that I'm going to keep the spell I've already listed as it is, rename it as Greater Spell Lock, and bump it's level up to 6th. I'll then create a Lesser Spell Lock that provides no increase to caster level and whose duration is limited to a maximum of 1 hour/level. That would probably be about 3rd-4th level. What do you think?

 

[JDRay]

So long as you decrease the casting time to one round rather than one minute, I think you might have a winner.

 

[howlingwolf]

Interesting. It would certainly have utility in laying magical traps to delay a pursuit!

It probably isn't really too far out of whack, since you are casting two spells instead of just one to get the effect you want. It starts to touch on meta-magic feats, but I much prefer it as a spell.

The breakdown as two spells of 6th and 4th seems reasonable, but I would have to pour over the other spells to get a good feel for that.

Any thoughts on Greater Dispel???

 

[JDRay]

Sorry, but I've exhausted my ideas on the subject. Maybe you could make a metamagic feat that increases the DC to dispell, just to complete the lineup.

 

[twjensen]

Absolutely

Do we really want this counter-counter-measures?

Certainly! Makes for a much more realistic, gritty, down-in-it type feel for the game. If there were a "real" D&D world, you'd better believe that mages would have counter-measures, counter-counter-measures, counter-counter-counter-measures, counter raised to the 4th measures all the way down the line.

I expect most such measures would take the form of magic items, so as to allow the mages to enter the combat before the fighters finish mopping up.