Talent/Spell of the Week: Remove Thrown Spell

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by Axly Suregrip

Except it does not say "works on all thrown spells except Spell Shield." Instead it states it works on "any Thrown-type spell" and also gives a list of exceptions that is not inclusive: "Has no effect on spells other than Thrown type, on most magic items (but see p. 166), or on the Spell Shield." The difference is slight but this allows for exception to be mentioned, and in the case of Shapeshift the exception is explicit.

With all respect, you are misunderstanding “any.” The word means a lack of restriction. For example, let’s consider the sentence: ”TFT is better than any other RPG.” In this case, “any” means all other games in the subset of role-playing games. Now consider a qualified use of “any”: “TFT is better than any RPG except GURPS and Call of Cthulhu.” In both cases, “any” is synonymous with “all”. In the matter at hand, “any”is qualified with a single exception, namely Spell Shield. This, unfortunately, is at odds with the description of Shapeshifting.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

I'm partial to treating RTS as spell-specific and not generic. The caster of RTS should have to know (or think they know) the exact spell they are trying to remove -- that just feels like the right flavor.

I'd want to require the caster to point at their target and loudly invoke (in the Sorcerer's Tongue of course) "Remove Blur!" or "Remove Flight!" or "Remove Invisibility!". And if that specific spell isn't present, then RTS fizzles, it costs them 1 ST, and they are aware of it. How would you say "Oops!" in Sorcerer's Tongue?

I'd probably allow RTS to work though if the spell they named was the right sort, just of lesser degree. For example, "Remove Iron Flesh" would be close enough to work even if it turned out the target was only under a Stone Flesh spell. Just maybe, I'd even allow for the opposite and let "Remove Stone Flesh" cast on a target that was actually under Iron Flesh reduce that spell to mere Stone Flesh rather than cancel the enchantment entirely.

What's a shame is that none of these really fun questions ever came up in all my years of play -- no one ever used RTS! Maybe RTS does need a tweak to get it into play, although I'm danged if I can think of what that would be.

If you want to encourage use of Remove Thrown Spell, requiring the extra step of needing to know what spell is there to be removed—rather than being able to just have a hunch—might not be the way to go. If anything, I’d consider removing all qualifiers to the spell’s description so that it works on every Thrown spell, including Spell Shield.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by Axly Suregrip

Shapeshift states, "The spell is permanent unless removed by Dissolve Enchantment, a wish, or another shapeshift." Even through it is a thrown spell, that statement is saying it is immune to RTS.

Has anyone seen RTS used to remove a Weapon or Armor enchantment? See ITL 28 & 166. That is, to reduce a magic sword of +2 DX to a +1 DX, etc. Seems like you are ruining your spoils so I doubt most would do this, but a fun little quirk intentionally in the rules.

In my Classic TFT days, we had a character that was proud of his flaming Great Sword. One time, in the middle of battle against a similarly decked out foe, his sword flame went out and he lost 1d+1 damage. Apparently, there was an invisible wizard lurking around the scene. While it was an "Oh Crap!" moment, He was still able to take out his foe but he took considerably more damage than anticipated because he wasn't dealing out as much damage himself. I guess that this is Remove Enchantment as opposed to RTS.

However, the GM would occasionally remove enchantments from rings and even RTS some thrown spells during the course of battle or even in downtime between battle. Apparently, unbeknownst to us, a wizard was watching and listening to us.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by Shostak

The spell name is singular (contrast with Dispel Illusions), and the spell description states it nullifies "an enemy spell", which suggests you select one. If casting it "blind" on a person or object with more than one active Thrown spell, perhaps Remove Thrown Spell should nullify them in the same order that Reveal works?

I remember it as applying to a singular spell. We had never made allowances for a random RTS but your post would be a reasonable application.

Our GM would use a turn for his NPC wizard to analyze magic before he used RTS. He did make an allowance for the obvious that can be seen without rolling for Analyzing Magic. IN the case of seeing a flaming weapon, that's obvious as is the case where a Freeze or Avert spell was successfully thrown. I do apologize for adding Dissolve Enchantment into the mix but the use and application seem very similar to me.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

I'm partial to treating RTS as spell-specific and not generic. The caster of RTS should have to know (or think they know) the exact spell they are trying to remove -- that just feels like the right flavor.

I'd want to require the caster to point at their target and loudly invoke (in the Sorcerer's Tongue of course) "Remove Blur!" or "Remove Flight!" or "Remove Invisibility!". And if that specific spell isn't present, then RTS fizzles, it costs them 1 ST, and they are aware of it. How would you say "Oops!" in Sorcerer's Tongue?

I'd probably allow RTS to work though if the spell they named was the right sort, just of lesser degree. For example, "Remove Iron Flesh" would be close enough to work even if it turned out the target was only under a Stone Flesh spell. Just maybe, I'd even allow for the opposite and let "Remove Stone Flesh" cast on a target that was actually under Iron Flesh reduce that spell to mere Stone Flesh rather than cancel the enchantment entirely.

What's a shame is that none of these really fun questions ever came up in all my years of play -- no one ever used RTS! Maybe RTS does need a tweak to get it into play, although I'm danged if I can think of what that would be.

As described in another post in this thread, we had a GM that used it against us via NPCs. It was very effective in disrupting our battle strategies. We did have a PC wizard with that spell that occasionally used RTS on affected party members between battles.

[hcobb]

RTS for Lock is Knock, and every control spell is its own counter.
What would it be like if every spell was its own reverse when cast in the reverse sense and hence RTS didn't exist?

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by hcobb

RTS for Lock is Knock, and every control spell is its own counter.
What would it be like if every spell was its own reverse when cast in the reverse sense and hence RTS didn't exist?

That's probably beyond the scope of this thread, but worth one of its own.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by Shostak

If you want to encourage use of Remove Thrown Spell, requiring the extra step of needing to know what spell is there to be removed—rather than being able to just have a hunch—might not be the way to go. If anything, I’d consider removing all qualifiers to the spell’s description so that it works on every Thrown spell, including Spell Shield.

That kind of negates the reason for having Spell Shield.

RTS on a hunch is sort of like disbelieving and illusion when you only suspect that it may be an illusion. You can waste your turn disbelieving it if its not an illusion. You can waste a successful RTS if that particular thrown spell is not present.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by hcobb

RTS for Lock is Knock, and every control spell is its own counter.
What would it be like if every spell was its own reverse when cast in the reverse sense and hence RTS didn't exist?

A beautiful idea I'd advocate for, but we'd have to take that up in the House Rules forum.

[hcobb]

Blur, Invisibility, and Flight make it harder to cast RTS on the subject, and hence protect themselves against removal. (Dazzle is instead countered by Clearheadedness.)