Steal Spell vs Hang Spell

[Plane]

Initial disclaimer: I am aware M128's pre-duration paragraph says:

Hung spells .. cannot be stolen or lent because they have not yet been cast

What I'm talking about is not stealing the hung spell though, but rather stealing Hang Spell ITSELF.

This is an important distinction in regard to how Steal Spell works.

M127 resists with the spell you target (so it is hard to steal spells with high effective skill) and there are penalties if you do not know the spell or it's prereqs.

So a prohibition against stealing a hung spell is distinct from a prohibition against stealing hang spell itself, I think... the latter doesn't appear to be explicitly prevented? You can't steal a non-activated effect, but you can steal the potential to activate it later?

Example: if I know Hang Spell, I might be -0 to Steal Spell against it. If I only know Delay then I am -3. If I don't know Delay either, I am -5 to Steal Spell against it.

This would be all that matters. My skill in the spell that is hung would not matter since it is illegal to steal it directly?

Nor would the strength of the hung spell matter at all? For example it would normally be difficult to steal a "skill 30 Fireproof" but merely the potential to use that skill 30 fireproof via a "skill 15 Hang Spell" could be much easier to steal?

- - - (now to continue)

Steal Spell is not something you could normally use to get access to a lot of "instant" spells. M127 limits it to "maintainable" spells.

Hang Spell (M128) is maintainable, so would that be one way you could do it?

For example: if a wizard had Hang Spell (Great Healing) prepped so they could use GH in 1 concentrate instead of 60 concentrates, if you used "Steal Spell" on "Hung Great Healing" (HS modifies an existing spell so it kinda makes sense to come up with a new name for it) then do you effectively now have HGH where you can use GH at will?

M126 "Lend Spell" also works only on maintainable spells, so this would seem like a way to give access to "instant" spells for allies' use.

Steal Spell (unlike Lend Spell) can also be used against "Spells operating under Maintain Spell" but I'm a little unclear on how Maintain Spell would work for Hang Spell. M128 says it "no longer belongs to the original caster". But would the caster (or at least the MAINTAINER, if it gets lent/stolen) still be the "subject" so it follows them around?

Maintain Spell sounds like a way you could park a "Hung Great Healing" on an ally for long periods of time (if they can't afford the ongoing FP costs of maintaining Hang Spell for you, at least 2 FP per hour, could be very large for very costly hung spells) but since they don't actually "own" it, they couldn't actually USE it?

The traditional solution is probably that a caster "steals from self" to regain control of parked maintain-spells, but you could only do that presumably to transfer the maintained-hung-spell back to yourself from that ally, and then you'd need to re-lend it to him to give it back?

Another option to Steal+Lend would be to give your ally a Hang Spell casting of Steal Spell, so then instead of you needing to cast 2 spells to give them control, they could just use a concentrate.

Range penalties, spells “on,” magic resistance, mana level
changes and the like are applied at the subject spell’s activation time.

Given that "spells on" are determined at activation time, this makes "and the like" quite worrying. If THAT sort of spell penalty matters, then what about if you for some reason forgot how to cast the spell, or couldn't cast it because of limitations on your magery?

If that's the case, then even if you could Lend/Steal spells, maybe all you're really doing is parking the energy investment and ritual elements (ie perhaps a +1 for taking twice as long to cast, or -2 for omitting gestures) but not the inherent skill itself?

If that's the case then your ally actually couldn't activate the lent spell (nor your enemy activate the stolen one) because they have no effective skill to roll against?

- - -

Hang Spell's prereq Delay has a Magery 3 requirement, but in theory you might use Magery 3 (Night Only) to cast Hang Spell, but then you can't activate it during the day because you can't cast spells in the day?

I imagine you could still maintain it in the day though... in the day you are effectively a non-mage and there doesn't seem to be anything preventing non-mages from maintaining spells (e.g. having a spell lend to them) as I imagine Lend Spell's mention of magery not being required would've specified "only in High Mana" if that's what it was intended as. The only place you can't maintain spells is presumably No Mana since NOBODY can?

M6 "only mages can cast spells" for Normal/Low for example shouldn't prevent a non-mage casting a spell in High Mana, and then walking that spell out into Normal/Low and maintaining it's effective indefinitely. It would be a pretty neat trick, but if they ever let the spell lapse or shut it down, then they couldn't initiate it again?

Also interesting thing about Very High Mana: "A mage who spends FP to cast a spell on his turn gets those FP" similarly only uses the verb "cast" ... so while you could get "free initiation" there doesn't appear to be any "free maintenance" here: you couldn't avoid ongoing maintenance fees!

I would imagine that M7's "there is never an energy cost if you get a critical success" similarly only applies to the initial cost, and NOT ongoing maintenance costs (otherwise you could just keep rerolling a spell like Armor 5 (10 energy) until you got a "free forever" version, well worth eating a -1 to skill.

That would normally take level 10+5x10 = skill 60 in the "Armor" Spell to do!

I think that's why M10 goes out of it's way to say "Energy cost reduction for high skill
also applies to the cost to maintain a spell." It would be a tad broken if energy cost reduction for critical successes ALSO applied to cost to maintain a spell.

- - -

The only way you should be able to emulate that is getting critical successes on "Maintain Spell" I guess. If you don't crit-succeed then it's gonna cost a lot, but in Very High Mana you'd recoup those costs. You're limited to FP though as you don't recoup burned FP in VHM. Also you can only layer that on one-time, you can't cast Maintain Spell on a "Maintained Spell" (really not sure the proper term for this) since you no longer own it...

MAYBE you could layer more on it if you "stole it back" ?

[Plane]

That reminds me of something else I'm not sure about gaining control of a maintained spell: do you lose all the energy invested in it's long duration and need to immediately pay maintenance costs? Or is this a way to do a "pay up front trick" so all you'd need is the -1 ongoing penalty but be able to skimp on the ongoing costs for a period of time?

Losing the invested duration would seem like the only way to prevent the maintain>steal>maintain loophole of duration-stockpiling...

It also begs the question of why you'd need to lose control to begin with if it was actually possible to inherit a "stored duration" like this. Instead you might just have people investing energy (paying maintenance fees far in advance) but retaining control in exchange for not losing the -1 penalty?

Another issue with stealing an "unbelonging" spell (Maintain Spell results in "no longer belongs") is that the duration it's set to last for was initially set based not just on the energy it costs, but ALSO on the skill of the caster. This means the duration is based on normal discounts, with the exception of 'free' being 1 per 5 full durations.

So that's a potential very-long duration a spell might normally last while un-belonging, and I'm wondering if when it "re-belongs" (Steal Spell gives the user ownership) if suddenly the amassed duration is just gone, or if it runs the full length and THEN relies on the stealer for ongoing energy investment?

If the stealer happens to know a 1 energy stolen spell at 15 (0 to cast/maintain) then I wonder if they stole a maintained spell, if you could inherit the "pool of energy", if you could avoid it's depletion by relying on your own 0-energy maintenance to keep it intact?

Once compromise that comes to mind: allow stealing the pool, but require it to be targeted, not just come along free for the ride. So it would be easier to steal "just the spell" (no pool). This should probably always be an option, otherwise you could make it super-costly to steal your spells by parking hundreds of energy inside them (too expensive to steal!)

Stealing the pool isn't strictly legal, at least not by itself (Maintain Spell isn't exactly 'maintainabe' ... rather it's a "maintainer") but I think it makes sense maybe if we consider it like potentially one collective spell.

IE similar to how you might wish to "collectively steal" a "Flaming Armor" spell suffering the benefits of an applied "Penetrating Spell" buff giving it's 1d burning an Armor Divisor.

I'm actually not sure if this only makes you the "caster" of the spell (able to cancel it at will or pay maintenance costs) or if it also lets you choose a new target, such as yourself, to be the beneficiary of the armor... perhaps the latter requires something like Displace Spell (M124) ? I know that's only designed for Area spells but it's the closest thing that comes to mind if Steal Spell only changes "caster" but not "subject" of an ongoing buff.

Steal Spell normally costs "equal to the maintenance cost" for example, so you could consider the "pool of energy" to be part of the maintenance cost. It normally costs 3 to use Steal Spell against Flaming Armor, for example, but you could opt to charge 13 energy to steal "Flaming Armor that Ignores DR" intact? Otherwise if you just spend 3, you don't get to steal the Penetrating Spell along for the ride.

Same idea for stealing Maintain: if a mage uses 30 energy on Maintain Spell after casting Flaming Armor on a minion (so that it will last 10 minutes) then stealing "Flaming Armor which will last ten minutes before I need to start paying maintenance costs" could cost you 33 energy.

This seems like a natural deterrant against exploitation because to do the maintain>steal>maintain loop to amass duration would become increasingly expensive to steal it back each time as you amassed a larger "pool of energy".

Taking a "lose the pool" approach is an expected reaction to avoid exploits like this:
A) Maintain Spell 15: I park 1 energy for free
B) Steal Spell 15: I steal spells that cost 1 to maintain for free!
1) "I cast Resist Fire! This costs me 2 energy because I'm not skilled in it, but I'm not worried because..."
3) "I give Resist Fire a pool of 1 energy for free, it will last 1 minute and I don't have a -1"
4) "I steal Resist Fire for free and regain ownership"
5) "I use Maintain Spell a 2nd time for free, and now Resist Fire has a pool of TWO energy, it will last 2 minutes!"
6) rinse and repeat

My proposal of tacking on the pool's value to the Steal Spell cost on the other hand: the first theft would cost 1+1 = 2 base energy to steal, so skill 15 only reduces that to 1. At that point you are ending up paying 1 energy for each maintain spell you're tacking on, going through this loop.

This is basically a 'soft cap' because the inflating pool would create inflating Steal Spell costs, so it's a natural cap against stockpiling power, while still allowing some degree of power-stockpiling (and energy reduction from high skill) to create moderate duration-stockpiles beyond your normal one-casting max for Maintain Spell.

Since "Lend Spell" also derives it's 1-time casting cost from the maintenance cost of a spell, a similar approach would make sense if you were wanting to transfer a "buffed" spell (ie to lend Penetrating Flaming Armor, or to lend Pool-Fueled Flaming Armor) to someone else. This could be possible but prohibitive.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Plane

Initial disclaimer: I am aware M128's pre-duration paragraph says:

Hung spells .. cannot be stolen or lent because they have not yet been cast

What I'm talking about is not stealing the hung spell though, but rather stealing Hang Spell ITSELF.

This is an important distinction in regard to how Steal Spell works.

<snip>

So a prohibition against stealing a hung spell is distinct from a prohibition against stealing hang spell itself, I think... the latter doesn't appear to be explicitly prevented? You can't steal a non-activated effect, but you can steal the potential to activate it later?

<snip>

Hang Spell (M128) is maintainable, so would that be one way you could do it?

For example: if a wizard had Hang Spell (Great Healing) prepped so they could use GH in 1 concentrate instead of 60 concentrates, if you used "Steal Spell" on "Hung Great Healing" (HS modifies an existing spell so it kinda makes sense to come up with a new name for it) then do you effectively now have HGH where you can use GH at will?

Simply put, no. You cannot steal a hung spell. At best, your interpretation would let you steal the Hang spell, but you cannot steal Great Healing or the potential to activate later because that would be stealing the hung spell. (Note that the prohibition on stealing or lending a hung spell is a blanket prohibition, if it was only subject to not being stolen directly then presumably it would have said so.)

I don't think you can use Steal Spell to steal the Hang Spell, either, at least once it has the other spell attached to it. Great Healing (hanged) is unarguably a hung spell. As such it cannot be stolen or lent. Using Steal Spell to disrupt a hung spell by reducing it, for example, from Great Healing (hung) to just Great Healing by stealing just the Hang Spell part seems out of kilter.

<snip>
I imagine you could still maintain it in the day though... in the day you are effectively a non-mage and there doesn't seem to be anything preventing non-mages from maintaining spells (e.g. having a spell lend to them) as I imagine Lend Spell's mention of magery not being required would've specified "only in High Mana" if that's what it was intended as. The only place you can't maintain spells is presumably No Mana since NOBODY can?

A mage can't maintain spells while sleeping even if the maintenance cost is 0, so I would rule that Limited Magery spells cannot be maintained when the condition preventing Limited Magery's use occurs, unless the condition ends before the maintenance needs to be paid. So, for example, someone with Magery (Night Only), a spell that needs to have it's maintenance paid every five minutes would be gone and need to be recast five minutes after sunrise (or sooner depending on when the maintenance was paid).

M6 "only mages can cast spells" for Normal/Low for example shouldn't prevent a non-mage casting a spell in High Mana, and then walking that spell out into Normal/Low and maintaining it's effective indefinitely. It would be a pretty neat trick, but if they ever let the spell lapse or shut it down, then they couldn't initiate it again?

While nothing would prevent them from casting the spell in High Mana and walking it into a Normal/Low Mana area, assuming the spell can actually be moved, the original roll should be recorded and if the penalty for crossing the boundary between areas of different mana would have caused the spell to fail when initially cast, it should fizzle out at the boundary (and the penalties stack, crossing from High Mana directly to Low Mana would take the penalty for High Mana to Normal Mana and Normal Mana to Low Mana at once).

In order to maintain it indefinitely, they need to remain in the High Mana area and awake as High Mana doesn't negate the inability to maintain even 0-maintenance cost spells while asleep.

<snip>

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Simply put, no. You cannot steal a hung spell. At best, your interpretation would let you steal the Hang spell, but you cannot steal Great Healing or the potential to activate later because that would be stealing the hung spell.

What exactly would stealing an "empty" Hang Spell represent though? Merely depriving the enemy of his capacity, or some potenetial benefit?

Would this maybe like carrying around a "blank hang spell with so much energy in it" that you could later cast one of your own spells to fill?

This would of course require re-investing the time/ritual costs of your own spellcasting, but at least inheriting the energy your victim had invested in his hang.

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

(Note that the prohibition on stealing or lending a hung spell is a blanket prohibition, if it was only subject to not being stolen directly then presumably it would have said so.)

I think the critical thing here is that Hang Spell doesn't invest skill, only the energy and the time/ritual elements.

I think this because you still use effective skill at time of activation (ie the IQ penalty for shock or pain during initial casting ONLY penalizes the effective skill of Hang Spell, but NOT the hung spell ... but if you have an IQ penalty at the time of ACTIVATING hung spell, it penalizes our roll them)

So even if it is possible to steal "the energy dedicated towards a Great Healing" the spell-stealer would need to know Great Healing themself to actually activate the hung spell, which is a pretty big drawback (since normally Steal Spell allows you to gain control of spells you're not actually capable of casting yourself!)

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

I don't think you can use Steal Spell to steal the Hang Spell, either, at least once it has the other spell attached to it. Great Healing (hanged) is unarguably a hung spell. As such it cannot be stolen or lent.

"Steal Spell" means "I own this spell and take a -1 penalty to maintain it, and must pay maintenance costs".

This doesn't really pertain to a hung spell though since you don't pay maintenance costs or a -1 for a hung spell. Rather you pay the costs (and -1) for Hang Spell itself. It's Hang Spell which is maintainable, a lot of instant spells are not.

If you hung a maintainable spell that would be an important distinction for ignoring -1 penalties with perks like in Magical Styles: a perk for "no -1" for Hang Spell would be very Versatile.

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Using Steal Spell to disrupt a hung spell by reducing it, for example, from Great Healing (hung) to just Great Healing by stealing just the Hang Spell part seems out of kilter.

Doesn't seem broken, it's only 1/10 casting to suspend or 1/2 casting to counter (B121) which are more accessible than Steal Spell, and 'full maintenance' is probably at worse equal to the cost of 1/2 casting from Counterspell if someone wants to use SS instead of CS for deprivation.

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

A mage can't maintain spells while sleeping even if the maintenance cost is 0, so I would rule that Limited Magery spells cannot be maintained when the condition preventing Limited Magery's use occurs

Why? You're just a non-mage. You could maintain a spell if someone used Lend Spell to give it to you under any circumstance.

Only weird situation would be stuff that has Magery 1+ requirements: not having those prevents receiving the spell, so I'm not sure what happens if you have that when you receive the spell, but then later lose it.

Example: I have Magery 3 (switchable, temporary disadvantage: blind) and I turn on Magery 3 to receive control of some cool spell, but then switch it off so I can see again. Does this make me lose my ownership, or did I only need Magery 3 at point-of-transfer?

Or in other words: what happens to Magery 2 (switchable) guy holding his Explosive Fireball if he turns it off to avoid detection by mage-sensers?

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

While nothing would prevent them from casting the spell in High Mana and walking it into a Normal/Low Mana area, assuming the spell can actually be moved, the original roll should be recorded and if the penalty for crossing the boundary between areas of different mana would have caused the spell to fail when initially cast, it should fizzle out at the boundary (and the penalties stack, crossing from High Mana directly to Low Mana would take the penalty for High Mana to Normal Mana and Normal Mana to Low Mana at once).

I like that idea of recording the MoS and needing a MoS of 5+ for a spell cast in Normal Mana to hold together in Low Mana (or MoS 10+ to hold together in Very Low).

There isn't a skill penalty for High>Normal under usual rules though, so I'm not sure that would do anything. It'd only work if using Continuous Mana ideas in Thaumatology where High Mana regions give +7 to skill. In that case moving to Low Mana would be an effective -12 to skills so you'd need MoS 12 to hold together through such a transition.