Holding a spell (Ready Spell -> Free action)

[Dakkareth]

Houserule: Holding spells

Tormak the holy warrior of Pelor is furious: King Moridan's evil advisor has once more foiled the party's attempts to reveal his machinations and has the gall to deride them, when they are alone. His hand on the hilt of his sword he advances on the man: "That was the last time we've been civil about this! Next time you'll *wish*, you had submitted to the justice of the court!", he states menacingly.
With a few words and gestures the advisor calls a ball of flame into his right hand and points at Tormak with the other. "Not one step closer or they'll have to drag your spirit back from the dead for your trial."
"I have seen that trick before. Prestidigitations don't intimidate me!". The holy knight is about to continue his own threats, when a tug at his sleeve hold him back. The eyes of Lokem, the party wizard, are wide with fear as he whispers: "Don't do that, or we all die, right here, right now. That's a friggin' METEOR SWARM he has there, I can feel the flames all over my body!"

Any spellcaster can as a standard action manifest one of his spells into a physical form (for example a glow surrounding his hand, an orb of magical energy or tiny lightnings springing from finger to finger), a state where only the slightest mental nudge is needed to unleash the ernergies of the spell - after being made manifest it can be released as a free action. He cannot use any other spell during that time however.
If the caster hasn't withdrawn the spell (free action) after one round per caster level, he *must* cast the spell. After two rounds per caster level the spell dissipates harmlessly. While the spell is hold in this matter, other characters can use their spellcraft skill to determine its nature as if it was cast normally.
-----------

This is supposed to give spellcasters the possibility to intimidate others properly and be more dangerous when cornered.

How does giving this ability to all spellcasters affect inter-class balance? Opinions?

 

[Sledge]

This opens the door to that whole Slayers "Fireball" bluff.... I think a spellcraft check would still be in order...

 

[Dakkareth]

I've never heard of a 'Slayers "Fireball" bluff', but of course spellcraft is required - see above or below:

While the spell is hold in this matter, other characters can use their spellcraft skill to determine its nature as if it was cast normally.

 

[dvvega]

The Slayers Fireball Bluff refers to the manga series - The Slayers where Lina Inverse would bluff a Fireball spell when all she had was a puff-ball of light or something.

Anyways onto your idea - I like it ... its a good idea, but I'm a visual person when it comes to Intimidation. Instead of "roll and Intimidate" I like my players to describe how they're going about the job. Wizards do have a problem with this and I normally allow prestidigtation to be used as part of the Intimidation.

However the other point you raise in your narrative is also valid. A Prestidigitation is obvious since spells MUST be cast immediately (except for touch spells).

I think it will affect counterspelling though. You've giving the party a chance to dispel the effect that normally would not be available unless the wizard held and action to counterspell.

To avoid this you could probably state that while in this "held" form, a spell is not in existence per-se and thus cannot be targetted dispelled. This, however lead to opponents area-dispelling the wizard or some such. -=shrug=- of course if there is no counterspelling in your games its great.

 

[Dakkareth]

I think it will affect counterspelling though. You've giving the party a chance to dispel the effect that normally would not be available unless the wizard held and action to counterspell.

To avoid this you could probably state that while in this "held" form, a spell is not in existence per-se and thus cannot be targetted dispelled. This, however lead to opponents area-dispelling the wizard or some such. -=shrug=- of course if there is no counterspelling in your games its great.

I don't think counterspells would be a problem balance-wise. True, depending on the interpretation an opponent could try a counterspell, but that's only fair as releasing the spell becomes a free action and thus can't be counterspelled. And of course it would be seen as an hostile act, which may not be in the interest of the counterspeller.

Allowing dispels against the held spell would IMO also be okay (only targeted at the spell, though). Of course most times the wizard holding a spell will also ready it against hostile actions ... All in all it balances out enough to make it a class ability for all spellcasters, I hope.

Thanks for your input

 

[dvvega]

Actually a free action doesn't negate a held action for counterspell.

"I hold until I see him cast to counterspell"

"The wizard casts as a free action"

"COUNTERSPELL!!"

Free actions occur on your turn only (barring a few exceptions) thus I can hold for that moment.

But I guess trying it out will be the key to find out balance.

 

[sfedi]

It seems fine.
Although I thought that "holding a spell" was modelled in the rules by Readying an action.

Let me think about the obvious consequences of this rule:

-Ambushes become a bit more deadly.
You could cast beforehand, and throw the spell AND move (or maybe even cast) the same in the surprise round.
This can be (partially) eliminated by ruling that you can't cast another spell the same round you cast the free action spell

-The Silent Spell Feat becomes less useful
You could cast the spell beforehand and hold ir until released.
You can fix this by ruling that holding a spell makes noise (Listen DC -10)

-The Quicken Spell Feat becomes less useful
You could hold the spell when travelling through dangerous terrain and cast it when ambushed
This could be fixed by ruling that holding the spell requires a Move or Standard action