Suspend Missile Spell

[Ruien]

With the introduction of Missile Spell Mastery (Magical Styles p. 28), it is now possible to cast a spell while holding a missile spell. How does this interact with Suspend Spell (M121)?

That is, a wizard with Magery 3 casts Fireball and puts in 9 FPs over 3 seconds, holding a 9d fireball. He then casts Suspend Spell on the held Fireball (at -3, per Missile Spell Mastery), which costs 0 FP (for having Suspend Spell at 15).

Can he now rest this FP back, terminate Suspend Spell later (either paying 1FP or using a Kill Switch) and get the Fireball back in his hand instantly, ready to be thrown?

Does a Suspended Fireball count as -1 or -2 for spells "on"? That is, Suspend Spell would count as a spell "on", but does a suspended missile spell count as a spell "on" as well? (My guess is that it's only -1, because a missile spell is not really a Temporary Spell as defined in FAQ 4.1.2)

However, if this counts as -2 for spells "on", could the mage then cast Maintain Spell on the (suspended) Fireball in order to give it its own supply of energy, reducing spells "on" to -1? If so, and he later cancels Suspend Spell, does it come back in his hand still ready to be thrown (as it is no longer owned by him, but otherwise behaves normally)?

Can a mage repeat this process multiple times, building up a stack of suspended Fireballs, resting between each casting?

Before Missile Spell Mastery, this was never an issue; a mage could simply not cast another spell while holding a missile spell.

The crux of the issue is how to interpret "Temporarily nullify any one ongoing spell". It is not at all clear if a missile spell counts as a temporary, lasting, permanent, or instantaneous spell, because duration is explicitly excluded from the description of missile and melee spells. Also unclear is exactly what constitutes an "ongoing spell". Missile Spell Mastery incurs -3 per Concentrating on Another Spell (M10), so the missile spell does require active concentration while casting another spell and might be considered an "ongoing" spell on that basis. Or maybe not -- perhaps "ongoing" means explicitly "one of temporary/lasting/permanent only" and nothing else.

--- On one hand, I want to say that a Missile spell is an instantaneous spell and simply produces a product (like Create Water), which is not a spell and cannot be suspended.
--- On the other hand, I note that a mage cannot simply pick up a rock and throw it as if it were a conjured Stone Missile, suggesting that the spell is still ongoing. Indeed, the original restriction that "a wizard cannot cast another spell while holding a missile spell" suggests that it's still an ongoing spell until it's thrown.

This doesn't seem to be defined anywhere as far as I can tell.

[Zwarrior]

I'm the player currently fueling this headache, and do so shamelessly as the GM welcomes min/maxing and power gaming. Here are a few more bits of information relevant to the situation:

The description for Missile Spell Mastery says that you cast other spells "at -3, as if you were concentrating (p. B238)". This either ignores or implies that there is no spell on penalty derived from the missile spell being held at the moment. But it's still unclear because missile spells in general have no defined Duration, even if they don't fit the description of a Temporary spell (the ones that usually count as spells on).

Independently from that, there's the problem of how missile spells interact with Suspend Spell, even if the Suspend is cast by another mage. If I cast fireball and my friend Suspends it then can I cast another one? What if he cancels his Suspend while I'm holding the second fireball? Do I get to carry 2 missile spells? Do I roll DX to catch it before it hits the ground? Or is it Will to avoid being affected by it? If I have 4 arms, can we repeat the process until I'm holding one fireball in each hand? Can I use DWA (or equivalent) with these fireballs? Should the fact that this leads to arguably overpowered builds be addressed by game mechanics (nerf bat) or game world interactions (it's illegal to do that and if you are caught the mage hunters will come after you to chop your hand off)?

Finally, there are the descriptions of various other meta spell like Spell Wall, Spell Shield, Ward and Steal Spell where it's explicitly noted that they don't affect missile spells, while Counterspell and Suspend Spell make no such mention. This leads me to believe that missile spells can be Suspended or Countered.

If anyone else would care to share their views or bring up more information, it would be very appreciated.

[Anaraxes]

I think it's an interesting question, at least academically. I would have thought the thread would have attracted more attention. (Though the sheer volume of questions is intimidating. TIL that there's a maximum character limit on posts.)

Just to get the caveats out of the way:

Originally Posted by Zwarrior

I'm the player currently fueling this headache, and do so shamelessly as the GM welcomes min/maxing and power gaming.

GURPS rules (and their designers) make no claim as to the rules being bulletproof against exploitation and munchkism. They have Rule Zero and an expectation of cooperative maturity as design principles. So, you can fully expect the rules to break if you poke some of the corners hard enough. That does not mean that such results are logical, proper, expected, and belong in your game. Players and the GM need to work out how such things ought to work in a way that keeps things fun. (And asking the forum for advice is a perfectly good part of that process; I'm not saying you in particular are doing anything wrong.)

Magic in particular has the repute of being the fuzziest and least-well-defined of any of the books. It's likely to give you more trouble in this regard than all the rest.

Originally Posted by Ruien

Can he now rest this FP back, terminate Suspend Spell later (either paying 1FP or using a Kill Switch) and get the Fireball back in his hand instantly, ready to be thrown?

Yes; that's what Suspend does.

Does a Suspended Fireball count as -1 or -2 for spells "on"? That is, Suspend Spell would count as a spell "on", but does a suspended missile spell count as a spell "on" as well?

This is the central point, I think. I suspect a game-balance answer would be to count it. Purely philosophically, though, I'm going to run with the position that Suspend makes spells not count. It's as if they had been dispelled, just not permanently.

(Note that the question still applies even when Missile spells are not involved. If Mage B suspends Mage A's spell, does A still have a spell on? Does A pay maintenance? For consistency, I think the answer to all three would be "no".)

(My guess is that it's only -1, because a missile spell is not really a Temporary Spell as defined in FAQ 4.1.2)

Something of a red herring, as a held Missile spell is its own thing. Normally, there's an infinite penalty for holding a Missile spell -- you can't cast any other spells at all. The Missile Spell Mastery perk reduces that penalty to a mere -3, the "concentration" penalty rather than the "always on" penalty.

Regardless of what the penalty for holding the Missile spell is, the Suspend spell counts separately.

So, -3 to cast the Suspend while holding the Missile spell; then -1 for having the Suspend active.

could the mage then cast Maintain Spell on the (suspended) Fireball in order to give it its own supply of energy, reducing spells "on" to -1?

Irrelevant given this interpretation. But even if not, I'd say no, because a held Fireball is not maintained. It doesn't cost FP to hold it, so having a pool of FP dedicated to that purpose doesn't help anything.

Can a mage repeat this process multiple times, building up a stack of suspended Fireballs, resting between each casting?

That would be the logical conclusion at this point.

Note that Hang Spell already exists and gives you a perfectly good way to stack up a bunch of Fireballs ready to go. It has a -1 penalty per Hung spell. The Suspend method will also have a -1 penalty per spell, from the Suspend. It also costs maintenance on the Suspend, whereas Hang does not. So the Suspend method is actually slightly inferior to just Hanging the Fireballs. (That's good, since it gives a reason for Hang Spell to exist.)

If so, and he later cancels Suspend Spell, does it come back in his hand still ready to be thrown

Yes. Though if cancelling the Suspend wasn't voluntary, I'd probably call for a roll to react in time and catch the Missile. This might be against the Missile spell skill, or the Innate Attack associated with it. But given that Missile spells are usually considered to conjure some physical object before it's magically hurled, it might even be a DX roll.

The "magically hurled" bit is the only reason that I'd consider there's still an ongoing spell. Another valid interpretation would be that the Missile really is a physical object that you throw with an Innate Attack skill (which in this case really ought to be named Thrown Weapon (Fireball), but that's just a name).

Originally Posted by Zwarrior

The description for Missile Spell Mastery says that you cast other spells "at -3, as if you were concentrating (p. B238)". This either ignores or implies that there is no spell on penalty derived from the missile spell being held at the moment.

No, it clarifies that of the two choices for a spell on penalty, you use the -3 (concentrating) rather than the -1 (spells on that don't require concentration).

But it's still unclear because missile spells in general have no defined Duration

You can hold them as long as you can maintain concentration. You can lose concentration through unconciousness, mental stunning, or failing a Will roll when you're injured. (In which case you drop the Missile.)

If I cast fireball and my friend Suspends it then can I cast another one?

Yes.

What if he cancels his Suspend while I'm holding the second fireball?

See above. Since you're not the one cancelling the spell, you don't know to expect it suddenly reappearing, so you'll roll to "catch" it.

Do I get to carry 2 missile spells?

Nope. So far, nothing in any of the rules suggests that there's an exemption to the rule of only holding one Missile spell. If you're holding a Missile when one of your Suspends gets cancelled, then you're going to drop one of them.

Note that this adds a second disadvantage compared to Hang Spell -- if someone hits the Fireball-carrier with Dispel Magic (etc), all those Fireballs reappear at the same time. Since dropping Missile spells involuntarily means they affect you, this is really bad news, and serves as another limit to indefinite stacking.

Do I roll DX to catch it before it hits the ground? Or is it Will to avoid being affected by it?

See above. The Will roll is to maintain concentration when injured. For non-injury situations, I'd pick something slightly different -- probably the spell skill, maybe the IA, maybe straight IQ. Though you could argue for DX. (One argument in favor: most mages don't have a great DX compared to their IQ and spell skills, so using DX adds yet another way to keep this loophole under control.)

If I have 4 arms, can we repeat the process until I'm holding one fireball in each hand?

Nope. Nothing about holding Missile spells suggests that the limit has anything to do with the number of free hands. The Missile Spell Mastery perk doesn't let a normal human hold two spells, so why would the number of arms make any difference?

Can I use DWA (or equivalent) with these fireballs?

DWA is a single attack that happens to use two weapons; it's not multiple attacks in one turn. It doesn't really apply; see Rapid Strike, etc. Out of room, so a real answer here will have to wait.

Should the fact that this leads to arguably overpowered builds be addressed by game mechanics (nerf bat) or game world interactions

This is an entirely different sort of question, in the realm of GMing and gaming philosophy, not the rules. So whatever suits your group will be the right answer.

My own preference would be to try to fix the mechanics so that the builds aren't overpowered. (And with the answers I've given, I'm not sure that Suspending Fireballs would be, especially with some of the negative consequences.)

Finally, there are the descriptions of various other meta spell like Spell Wall, Spell Shield, Ward and Steal Spell where it's explicitly noted that they don't affect missile spells

This is a consequence of the notion that once conjured, the Missile is not a spell, but a physical (if magical) object.

while Counterspell and Suspend Spell make no such mention. This leads me to believe that missile spells can be Suspended or Countered.

This seems like a good place to recall those caveats. Don't take the absence of some reference in Magic as an indication that it's a deliberate and significant absence. Or elsewhere; often in the GURPS rules there are lists of examples ("X such as A, B, or C), but these are not exhaustive.

That said, I'd allow Counterspell to remove a held Missile spell. That's what you get for hanging on to it where the enemy mages can see you.

The GM might also rule that Counterspelling a held Missile means that the Missile is dropped. Like critical hits, this is one of those rules that cuts both ways. If the PCs can do it, the NPCs can do it right back. (The concept here is that you're Countering the ongoing magic that lets the mage hold a flaming sphere or lightning bolt or whatever without damage, not to mention magically hurl it. Remove that, and at the least, the mage can't hold the Missile.)

In fact, I think this is one of the chief rival interpretations for Suspending a Missile spell. Do so, and it just disappears or falls, as if Countered. One virtue of this alternative is that everything else gets a lot simpler. You can't stack Missile spells with Suspend, since you're just Counterspelling them as you go. Since there's no stack, most of the other questions simply don't apply. If you want a stack, use Hang Spell. This is a reasonable way to go, but for the sake of the post I ran with the other notion, just because it was more complicated and I wanted to see where that lead me.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

The GM might also rule that Counterspelling a held Missile means that the Missile is dropped.

That only holds if the interpretation that a Missile Spell once cast is a tangible physical event (which fits most interactions of other affects) and that the ability to hold the Magical Missile were a spell.

It's that second bit that gets tricky and the point I debate. I don't think Suspend Spell should affect Magical Missiles at all (and Counterspell counters the very missile, not the target's ability to hold it).

[Zwarrior]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

Note that Hang Spell already exists and gives you a perfectly good way to stack up a bunch of Fireballs ready to go. It has a -1 penalty per Hung spell. The Suspend method will also have a -1 penalty per spell, from the Suspend. It also costs maintenance on the Suspend, whereas Hang does not. So the Suspend method is actually slightly inferior to just Hanging the Fireballs. (That's good, since it gives a reason for Hang Spell to exist.)

I was actually looking into using Suspend Spell because of Hang's high energy cost. Suspend is 1/10th of the subject spell to cast/maintain, which allows one to keep a 10FP spell suspended for free at skill-15. If Hang was used instead, that 10FP spell would cost an additional 9FP at skill-15, plus hourly maintenance of 9FP.

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

Note that this adds a second disadvantage compared to Hang Spell -- if someone hits the Fireball-carrier with Dispel Magic (etc), all those Fireballs reappear at the same time. Since dropping Missile spells involuntarily means they affect you, this is really bad news, and serves as another limit to indefinite stacking.

Now that is a serious hazard to be considered. Very deadly, or should I say suicidal?

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

Nope. Nothing about holding Missile spells suggests that the limit has anything to do with the number of free hands. The Missile Spell Mastery perk doesn't let a normal human hold two spells, so why would the number of arms make any difference?

It allows a normal human to cast spells while holding a missile spell. Why wouldn't that apply to casting another missile spell? If i'm holding a missile spell and my perk allows me to cast other spells while holding that missile and I decide to cast a second missile spell, i'll be holding 2. But now I'm out of arms to hold any other missiles, should I want to cast and hold even more. That's why I think the number of arms would matter.

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

The GM might also rule that Counterspelling a held Missile means that the Missile is dropped. Like critical hits, this is one of those rules that cuts both ways. If the PCs can do it, the NPCs can do it right back. (The concept here is that you're Countering the ongoing magic that lets the mage hold a flaming sphere or lightning bolt or whatever without damage, not to mention magically hurl it. Remove that, and at the least, the mage can't hold the Missile.)

I like that concept it makes sense and supports various of the interpretations. Too bad the rules don't go into such details, it would be great if they did.

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

In fact, I think this is one of the chief rival interpretations for Suspending a Missile spell. Do so, and it just disappears or falls, as if Countered. One virtue of this alternative is that everything else gets a lot simpler. You can't stack Missile spells with Suspend, since you're just Counterspelling them as you go. Since there's no stack, most of the other questions simply don't apply. If you want a stack, use Hang Spell. This is a reasonable way to go, but for the sake of the post I ran with the other notion, just because it was more complicated and I wanted to see where that lead me.

I had not considered this because I never thought of missile spells as (magically created physical projectile) + (magical effect in caster's hand). I always thought of them as a single 'atomic' individual thing (redundancy intended). It's very interesting and really does simplify things a lot, even if debatable as evileeyore said.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Zwarrior

I had not considered this because I never thought of missile spells as (magically created physical projectile) + (magical effect in caster's hand).

It's that things such as Spell Wall which blocks spells does not block the Magical Missile (as well as

I always thought of them as a single 'atomic' individual thing (redundancy intended). It's very interesting and really does simplify things a lot, even if debatable as evileeyore said.

The only debate is whether it's 'atomic' (as you put it) and the ability to hold is a continuing part of the spell (which also makes sense), or a separate ability ones learns alongside the spell.

My interpretation is separate ability, but I wouldn't quibble if a GM ruled otherwise on me.

[Ruien]

Anaraxes, thanks for the feedback and ideas. It's appreciated.

Here are my thoughts on your comments:

GURPS rules (and their designers) make no claim as to the rules being bulletproof against exploitation and munchkism.

Sure, what I'm trying to understand here is just the behavior as per RAW. In this particular campaign I'm running, I'd choose to follow the RAW. In another, I might choose it's absurd and define it differently.

To be fair, suspending a stack of missile spells isn't any more game-breaking than the Multi-Shot Imbuement. Munchkins will use both together. But is it RAW? That's what's hard to determine, and why I brought this up on the forum.

(Note that the question still applies even when Missile spells are not involved. If Mage B suspends Mage A's spell, does A still have a spell on? Does A pay maintenance? For consistency, I think the answer to all three would be "no".)

I already rule this as "yes". I think of this as Suspend Spell is just another spell which works to actively counteract the effects of the other spell (completely, including even stopping its internal timer/mana consumption). This explains why you can only Suspend a spell you know.

Mage A would therefore still have his spell "on" (it just doesn't do anything because Mage B's Suspend is counteracting its effects). Mage A does not pay maintenance, however, because his spell's timer is stopped so it never comes up for maintenance while suspended. If Mage A's spell ends for any reason, the Suspend ends as well for having an invalid target. (and Mage A can terminate his spell early if he wants to)

So, -3 to cast the Suspend while holding the Missile spell; then -1 for having the Suspend active.

Makes sense, and is the same interpretation I was leaning towards as well.

Note that Hang Spell already exists and gives you a perfectly good way to stack up a bunch of Fireballs ready to go. It has a -1 penalty per Hung spell. The Suspend method will also have a -1 penalty per spell, from the Suspend. It also costs maintenance on the Suspend, whereas Hang does not. So the Suspend method is actually slightly inferior to just Hanging the Fireballs. (That's good, since it gives a reason for Hang Spell to exist.)

Woah -- are you sure about that?

Hang has the same cost as the spell you cast, lasts 1 hour and has the same cost to maintain. So let's do the 9d Fireball with Hang Spell to compare, assuming Fireball-15 and Hang Spell-15:

(1) Mage casts Hang Spell, paying 8 FP
(2) Mage casts a 9d Fireball, paying 8 FP

He's now spent 16 FPs and needs to rest 32 minutes to get this back. He then has to rest another 16 minutes every hour thereafter to keep it up until he's ready to use it.

A second Fireball would cost another 16 FPs and increase his required rest to 32 minutes every hour.

He also needs to spend a 1-second Concentrate maneuver to get his Fireball back. He can't get it back instantly.


Now, compared to Suspend Spell:
(1) Mage casts 9d Fireball, paying 8FP
(2) Mage casts Suspend (at -3), paying 1/10 of 8 FP (round up to 1 FP), minus 1 for cost reduced by skill: that is, 0 to cast, 0 to maintain.

He's now spent 8 FP and needs to rest 16 minutes to get it back. He can keep Suspend going indefinitely at no cost.

A second Fireball would just take another 16 minutes of rest, but no additional ongoing maintenance. He could make a stack of 5 with reasonable skill. Note that a normal failure casting Suspend Spell would not have any ill effects, so this is not particularly dangerous.

Finally, terminating a Suspend is instant rather than requiring a 1-second Concentrate.


This does not imply that Hang Spell is useless. Hang Spell makes a lot of sense for an offensive spell that takes awhile to cast, such as Charm-15. But for a Missile spell I don't think I can say that Hang is superior if Suspend is an option.

So far, nothing in any of the rules suggests that there's an exemption to the rule of only holding one Missile spell. If you're holding a Missile when one of your Suspends gets canceled, then you're going to drop one of them.

Note that this adds a second disadvantage compared to Hang Spell -- if someone hits the Fireball-carrier with Dispel Magic (etc), all those Fireballs reappear at the same time. Since dropping Missile spells involuntarily means they affect you, this is really bad news, and serves as another limit to indefinite stacking.

The Will roll is to maintain concentration when injured. For non-injury situations, I'd pick something slightly different -- probably the spell skill, maybe the IA, maybe straight IQ. Though you could argue for DX. (One argument in favor: most mages don't have a great DX compared to their IQ and spell skills, so using DX adds yet another way to keep this loophole under control.)

I love these ideas; thanks for sharing them!

However, I'm not sure about the idea of "get hit with dispel means that a bunch of missiles appear". I consider both spells to be running and Dispel might kill both. But if you're holding a bunch of them, there's likely to be some for which the Missile resisted the Dispel but the Suspend did not.

I definitely would do:
(1) You can only hold one missile spell. If another appears (someone canceled the Suspend, due to Dispel Magic as described above, etc) then you automatically drop the spell and suffer its effects.

(2) I would use DX for the roll. The missile is just appearing *out of nowhere* when you weren't expecting it and you have to react to it before it lands on your chest.

(3) I would say that Mage Sight makes it possible to "see" these suspended spell-pairs floating around. This makes him a prime target for a 1-hex Dispel. And if those are Explosive Fireballs then he may be taking a few of his friends with him.

I think this serves to make Hang Spell a lot safer (if that gets dispelled, nothing happens besides the prepared spell disappearing) and makes for some interesting mechanics.

It would also be interesting if there were a way to selectively Dispel only the Suspends and not the Missiles themselves.

Zwarrior: Finally, there are the descriptions of various other meta spell like Spell Wall, Spell Shield, Ward and Steal Spell where it's explicitly noted that they don't affect missile spells, while Counterspell and Suspend Spell make no such mention. This leads me to believe that missile spells can be Suspended or Countered.

Well, Suspend Spell was written before Missile Spell Mastery existed. It's quite reasonable to think that this implies that a Missile Spell could be Suspended or Countered but is written from the assumption that you'd be using this on an someone else, which lowers its level of abusability.

That RAW might read differently if Magic was written with the assumption that one could cast another spell while holding a Missile spell.

Granted, that is speculating on the authors' intent, not the RAW.

This seems like a good place to recall those caveats. Don't take the absence of some reference in Magic as an indication that it's a deliberate and significant absence. Or elsewhere; often in the GURPS rules there are lists of examples ("X such as A, B, or C), but these are not exhaustive.

That said, I'd allow Counterspell to remove a held Missile spell. That's what you get for hanging on to it where the enemy mages can see you.

Generally speaking if something can be Counterspelled, then it can be Suspended.

The idea that the "ongoing spell" is really just the magic that holds the physical (if magical) object that's a result of the Missile spell is a really interesting idea. It actually would solve a lot of overpowered/balance problems and be a consistent explanation for why stacking Suspended Missiles doesn't work. And I do agree that this would imply Suspend and Counterspell both mean the missile is dropped.

That also fits with the concept of why missile spells can be thrown through a No-Mana Zone. But it would imply that a mage holding a Missile would drop it on himself if he walked into a No-Mana Zone. Is that really what happens per RAW currently? I don't think I've heard of people dropping missile spells on themselves when walking into an NMZ before.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Hellboy

Prior to mastery, it wasn't possible using Compartmentalized Minds or something to cast a spell holding a missile?

Yes, because your 'second' mind cast the spell while the 'first' one maintained concentration on the Magical Missile.

Keep in mind with Compartmentalized mind you can also cast two spells in one turn.

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

That only holds if the interpretation that a Missile Spell once cast is a tangible physical event (which fits most interactions of other affects) and that the ability to hold the Magical Missile were a spell.

Quite true. But then, it's hard for me to imagine how the mage could indefinitely hold on to a flaming bolt, shaft of electricty, beam of light, etc. Stone Missile, maybe. But most of the missiles don't seem the sort of thing you could safely hold, even if they were physically solid.

So something has to protect the mage while he's holding the spell. There's not another spell to be cast. So, I assume that's part of the initial conjuration. Your hand becomes immune, or the missile gets a sort of "magical sabot" that lets you hold it but which disappears when it's actually thrown.

The throwing itself also seems to be magically empowered. Damage isn't based on the mage's ST, as with completely mundane thrown weapons. But again the mage doesn't spend FP on a separate "Propel Missile" spell. It seems to be built into the original spell (if it exists at all).

Also, the physicality of the missiles ties into the reason Spell Walls don't stop them. There's also some 3e tradition in that notion (and Magic didn't really change for 4e, as is often lamented).

But those are indeed all just assumptions. RAW doesn't go into that kind of detail.

I don't think Suspend Spell should affect Magical Missiles at all (and Counterspell counters the very missile, not the target's ability to hold it).

Certainly a possible interpretation. Though the ability of Counterspell to stop a missile because it's magic doesn't match well with the inability of Spell Wall to do so. I suppose you could argue that the notional "Propel Missile" part of the spell can be disrupted, but that's all gone by the time the missile leaves the mage's hand, and thus Spell Wall has no magic to affect. But then it seems inconsistent that Suspend couldn't also affect the Propel Missile bit. Something is going to misalign, whichever bits we push around.

Originally Posted by Zwarrior

It allows a normal human to cast spells while holding a missile spell. Why wouldn't that apply to casting another missile spell?

Specific overrides general. The line in the Perk that allows casting of other spells is a general reference to hundreds of them. Only having one Missile spell at a time is a specific limit to the number of Missile spells you can have on -- even though normally you can have any number of spells on. If the Perk also wanted to change this exemption, it could have said so.

... holding 2. But now I'm out of arms to hold any other missiles, should I want to cast and hold even more. That's why I think the number of arms would matter.

What if the two-armed mage has Juggling skill? :)

I always thought of them as a single 'atomic' individual thing (redundancy intended).

Most games seem to treat them that way. That physicality is something of a quirk for Magic. I think it's fun to run with that notion simply because it is different.

Originally Posted by Ruien

I already rule {Suspended spells counting as on} as "yes"...

Mage A would therefore still have his spell "on" (it just doesn't do anything because Mage B's Suspend is counteracting its effects). Mage A does not pay maintenance, however...

To my way of thinking, the reason a "spell on" carries a casting penalty is that it does serve as a distraction. It takes just a little bit of attention to feed the spell its maintenance energy and correcting little wanderings from what it's supposed to do. Not enough to count as a Concentrate maneuver, or even as much as the little-c concentration requirement that gives you a -3. But something.

If Suspend just stops the spell, saving its state to be restored later, I think of that as taking it off the active list for the caster. It no longer needs that little bit of "scheduler overhead" to update the process, until the process is back in the ready queue. (Yes, I'm a programmer.)

Hang has the same cost as the spell you cast, lasts 1 hour and has the same cost to maintain.

You're correct. I mis-remembered the maintenance cost for Hang, thinking it was the maintenance for the Hung spell (apparently 0 for a held Missile spell; there's no cost to keep holding it).

However, I'm not sure about the idea of "get hit with dispel means that a bunch of missiles appear". I consider both spells to be running and Dispel might kill both.

Seems reasonable, especially given your view that Suspend means two spells actively running but exactly cancelling each other out. There's lots of magic there to stop.

But if you're holding a bunch of them, there's likely to be some for which the Missile resisted the Dispel but the Suspend did not.

Yes. You do need some convention to handle the reappearing Missiles. (Which you outline below.)

(3) I would say that Mage Sight makes it possible to "see" these suspended spell-pairs floating around.

I'd agree. Even if the Suspended spell were considered gone for all magical purposes, the Suspend itself would still be detectable. With the active-but-dynamically-countered interpretation, they're both there to be Sighted, Detected, Sensed, etc.

It would also be interesting if there were a way to selectively Dispel only the Suspends and not the Missiles themselves.

Counterspell lets you selectively target one of a mass of spells (as the description to Dispel notes).

If it seems useful, you could also invent a "Mass Counterspell" that can dispel more than one spell at a time. There might be a version or versions that can dispel any number of spells that (a) are all instances the same spell; (b) same college; (c) same type; (d) any spells at all.

That also fits with the concept of why missile spells can be thrown through a No-Mana Zone. But it would imply that a mage holding a Missile would drop it on himself if he walked into a No-Mana Zone. Is that really what happens per RAW currently?

An interesting question. I haven't really thought about it. But if you wanted to have the held missile just dissipate, you might fall back on that notion of the implicit "Propel Missile". Dropping them might not be dangerous with no magical propulsion or additional effects like burning.

Missiles also disappear after they hit. So while they may be physical in some sense, a battlefield doesn't get littered with used Stone Missiles or scorched Fireball cores. Perhaps that part of the magic takes out the missile as it fails, like a "dying gasp" from an electronic device that loses power.

(Or you could have the edge of the NMZ marked with a neat line of ex-Fireballs as a warning to the next party -- just in case all the skeletons on the ground on the other side next to staves and pointy hats weren't enough of a hint.)

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

Missiles also disappear after they hit. So while they may be physical in some sense, a battlefield doesn't get littered with used Stone Missiles or scorched Fireball cores.

... I rather like that idea, and might want to roll with it. 1) It's kinda cute 2) it removes quirks around the Missile Spell Projectiles Aren't Magic conceit.