== Statement on Meg Harrelson's Safe spell proposals == by John Eure 1) Magic Wall I like the idea. I'm undecided on whether we actually have too many Safe spells. But I have sentimental attachment to circles, and thus I suspect many other people do too, because I don't often have sentimental attachment to rules. So I figure that something that manages to affect me has also managed to affect a lot of other people. I think the main question regarding the wall's width should be whether we want it to take 1 or 2 walls to block off a normal tunnel. (It should clearly take only 1 wall to block off a door.) If lowering Safe Journey in level is motivated by the removal of Safe Circle, then it should be an amendment to this proposal. 2) Safe Retreat stacking In general, I don't like making Safe Retreat work too differently than Safe Circle and Safe Journey. I think the time limit, the undispellability, and the retreating condition are enough. Too many differences and people will become confused. I don't like the caster-only base effect, for flavor reasons, and because it'a not proposed as a package with similar changes to Safe Circle and Safe Journey. The flavor reason is that Cleric Magic is fundamentally an ability that helps others, and many people complained when we first made these spells caster-only. I don't like the caster-level limit, because it's unnecessarily complex, inconsistent, and unfair. And because it's not proposed as a package with similar changes to Safe Circle and Safe Journey. I do like how adding extra people to a Safe Retreat only costs 1 spell point each. I think this is a good way to address Dawn's concerns about the gap between caster+1 and caster+level. But I don't like how it's not proposed as a package with similar changes to Safe Circle and Safe Journey. 3) You can't get trapped in a Safe Retreat, but you have to retreat I like the distance specification. I think that the "retreat" condition needs to be relative to current danger, not based on the absolute path that the PCs have previously traveled. If the PCs are being chased by enemies, Safe Retreat should not let you go through the enemies; it should let you run away with the rest of the PCs. Similarly, if all the PCs are boxed into a cul-de-sac, Safe Retreat should not let you escape from that by walking through the encircling NPCs. Otherwise it would be an enormous headache for GMs. And it would isolate the PCs in the Safe Retreat spell from the rest of the PCs, which would suck for them. You need to mention the "enemies cannot block you" condition in the spell itself. The rules of gameplay should elaborate on the spell texts for the benefit of other players; they shouldn't be the sole source of this information. 4) Safe Journey to 5th/8th, caster counts as a target. I don't like moving the first Safe Journey spell to a lower level. Above all, I want to reduce the number of instances of Safe Journey that are wandering around, because Safe Journey causes problems for GMs. I care less about how many people are inside each instance of Safe Journey. I don't like making the spell caster-only, for flavor reasons, and because it's not proposed as a package with similar changes to Safe Retreat and Safe Circle. I think the primary motivation behind this proposal is that if Magic Wall replaces the Safe Circles, then there won't be a way to cast a long-lasting Safe spell until 6th level. If so, then this proposal should be an amendment to the Magic Wall proposal, and not a separate proposal. 5) Safe Journey as a Touch range spell I don't like having Safe Journey not include the caster, for balance reasons, for flavor reasons, and because it's not proposed as a package with similar changes to Safe Retreat and Safe Circle. The flavor reason is that I think part of the original inspiration for these spells was the real-world idea of "sanctuary", which is inherently focused on a holy location. Casting spells on other people is more of a mage-style effect. I don't want to blur those lines. I feel that the comparison with Wraith From is flawed. Meg compares her 5th level caster-only Safe Journey with Wraith Form. She concludes that Safe Journey is not as powerful. And this is correct - a 5th level spell should not be as powerful as a 7th level spell. Neither should a 6th level spell, but the current Safe Journey affects twice as many people as Wraith Form! The ability to cast protective spells on other people is an ability that provides little direct benefit to the caster - it's just like healing. I don't think we need another way for clerics to spend spell points and not get any direct benefit. I don't see how casting Safe spells that don't include the caster will address concerns that anyone else has raised. I don't like how this change would require more people to carry around gold flags. I am undecided on whether or not I like having people in Safe Journey be unable to block other people. On one hand, it gives Safe Circle/Magic Wall a unique effect. On the other hand, it makes the spells asymmetrical, and thus in some sense harder to understand. I do not yet have an opinion on whether similar changes would be desirable/necessary for Safe Retreat (assuming proposal 3 doesn't pass), although I suspect they might. As a matter of good proposal structure, I think proposal 5c should be broken apart and worked into 5 and 5b. For 5, if Safe Journey can be cast on others, then Mass Safe Journey should obviously work the same. For 5b, if Safe Journey moves back from 5th to 6th level, then Mass Safe Journey should move back from 8th to 9th. 6) Strengthen In general, I like the idea a lot. I think allowing casters to optionally make spells harder to dispel is good. The version that I like best is a 2nd effect of Fortify, that works on both Combat and Noncombat spells. I don't like making Strengthen only work on Noncombat spells, because there's no inherent reason for the restriction. Fortify is only used on Combat spells, for the logical reason that it is already impossible to counter Noncombat spells. However, it is not only possible to dispel Combat spells, it happens much more often than dispelling Noncombat spells. Therefore, people will want Strengthen to work on Combat spells too. If Strengthen works on both types of spells, then it should be a second effect of Fortify. Otherwise we'll have to deal with writing rules for using both Fortify and Strengthen at the same time. If Strengthen only works on Noncombat spells, then it should be a separate spell. Otherwise people will become confused as to what Fortify does. Regardless of which spells it works on, if Strengthen is a separate spell, I fear that we will confuse newbies who encounter 2 different spells named "Fortify" and "Strengthen", of which one makes Combat spells impossible to counter, and the other makes Noncombat spells harder to dispel. That is confusing, which implies that there should be a single spell, which implies that it should work on both Combat and Noncombat spels. I am undecided on 6b, which makes Strengthened spells unable to be dispelled by Dispel Magic. On one hand, it's simpler because we no longer need rules about "Strengthened Dispel Magic spells". On the other hand, it reduces the power of GMs because it makes the spell effect much more powerful. I *really* don't like the "slips of paper" mechanic, because it is unnecessary and complicated. After all, we don't require slips of paper for the Magic Absorption spell, and that has just about the same effect. I don't like how the fatigue from Strengthen applies after the effect ends (like up-casting) - instead, I would prefer it to apply after the spell is cast (like Fortify). "After casting" is easier to remember, and thus harder to cheese. It encourages planning ahead. It works like the similar spell of Fortify, and not like the weird exception of up-casting. And most importantly, it doesn't leave you helpless when an enemy uses a Strengthened Dispel Magic to lower your defense. Currently, you would collapse from fatigue as soon as your Safe spell or Wraith Form went down. This is BAD. As a matter of good proposal structure, you don't need to say that 6c only applies if 6b fails. That is, it's perfectly possible to have Strengthened Combat spells that cannot be dispelled by Dispel Magic. Remember that Resurrect fixes everything, and thus Restore Health fixes everything except death and a Divine Wrath. Therefore Strengthened Combat spells would be removable via Restore Health. Since that's a 7th level spell available only to clerics and alchemists, whereas Dispel Magic is a 5th level spell available to all casters, this still makes it significantly harder to remove the spell. Also, you should include alterations to the texts of Dispel Magic, Restore Health, and Resurrect to mention their effects on Strengthened spells. The parentheticals "(except Strengthened spells)" and "(even Strengthened spells)" should be enough.