What determines whose Global spell sticks?

[ceremony]

Originally posted by SurvivalistMerc:
You guys are right in that casting a global spell can take out another global spell. That's in the rules.

But doesn't that happen only when all global spell slots are occupied?

My assumption...and perhaps I should not have made it...was that there were only one or two other global spells operating at the time.

Does anyone know whether you can "dispel" a prior global spell if there are additional slots left? I thought that you couldn't.

Arryn is correct - you can only have one instance of any global enchantment active at any one time. Any attempt to cast that same enchantment (even if there are fewer than five active enchantments) results in an attempt to dispel the original enchantment.

In the game we were playing, there was one global enchantment active - Mother Oak. Then both of us tried to cast Gift of Health.

One more question: if there are five enchantments active, and a player attempts to cast a sixth, which one does it attempt to dispel? A random one? A random one other than one already cast by him? The active enchantment with the fewest gems?

[Kristoffer O]

Originally posted by ceremony:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
There is an openended six side die added to the gem input of every global and dispelling attempt.

Thanks, Kristoffer! It appears that I got extremely unlucky as I had put ten more gems into my spell than he did. So his open-ended die result beat mine by at least 11.

---

You also add the difference in skill of the caster and the path level of the spell to the gem cost of the spell and the dispel.

Your lvl 10 nature mage casts gift of health (lvl 5?) with 25 extra gems. Sum=30+D6(oe).
Dispelling astrologer has 3 astral. 35 extra gems. Sum=35+D6(oe).

[Arryn]

Originally posted by ceremony:
One more question: if there are five enchantments active, and a player attempts to cast a sixth, which one does it attempt to dispel? A random one? A random one other than one already cast by him? The active enchantment with the fewest gems?

It's either the one with the lowest base cost, or the one with the lowest number of gems used. I think it's the former, but I'm not sure.

[SurvivalistMerc]

I went home and re-read the manual, such as it is, to determine if my earlier comments were just plain stupid. To the contrary, there's nothing in the manual to indicate that anything but the level 5 enchantment spell called Dispel can dispel an enchantment.

I haven't noticed the AI dispelling any of my spells by casting its own because I always put quite an excess of gems into my globals.

Arryn and Ceremony, the manual does answer your question. "If a sixth Global Enchantment is cast, it will have to overcome a randomly chosen global enchantment already in effect." (p. 27)

I'm glad you folks brought this up because it's taught me something new about the game.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by SurvivalistMerc:
Arryn and Ceremony, the manual does answer your question. "If a sixth Global Enchantment is cast, it will have to overcome a randomly chosen global enchantment already in effect." (p. 27)

I know the manual states it's randomly chosen. But I'm not so sure this is actually true. My unscientific observations have hinted otherwise. A definitive answer from JO or KO would be appreciated. (The Dom manual is good, but I don't think it's 100% accurate on all matters ... that it actually covers.)

[Psitticine]

Originally posted by Arryn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SurvivalistMerc:
Arryn and Ceremony, the manual does answer your question. "If a sixth Global Enchantment is cast, it will have to overcome a randomly chosen global enchantment already in effect." (p. 27)

I know the manual states it's randomly chosen. But I'm not so sure this is actually true. My unscientific observations have hinted otherwise. A definitive answer from JO or KO would be appreciated. (The Dom manual is good, but I don't think it's 100% accurate on all matters ... that it actually covers.)

---

I remember adding that particular part. It was based on info requested from Johan K. There's still the possibility it might have been misinterpreted, changed, or simply be buggy though.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Psitticine:
... changed, or simply be buggy ...

It's precisely this that I'm curious about.