dispelled vs. negated

[tetramorph]

Is there a difference between spells that are "dispelled," as opposed to those that are "negated"?

I've noticed the use of both terms in the spell descriptions.

I've always assumed they were just synonymous.

But now I am wondering.

Is one more in the will of the caster and the other more in the power of an enemy?

What have you all discovered or thought?

[Red Baron]

Spells can be negated by several means. Dispelling is one such means.

For example, the spell description for massmorph states: "It will be negated by a command from the caster or by means of a Dispell Magic spell."

[Vile Traveller]

It's worth looking at. I always assumed "dispelled" means the spell ends, while "negated" just stops the effect and the spell keeps running - i.e. once the cause of negation goes away the spell effect returns. But that's not really how the word is used in the rules.

I'm in Oz without books, so I can't check.

[gemini476]

Going exclusively with the LBBs for ease of reference (and personal interest):

"Dispell"s

Hold Portal: "Dispell Magic will immediately negate it"
Charm Magic: creatures are under influence "until such time as the 'charm' is dispelled (Dispell Magic)"
Continual Light: sheds light "until dispelled"
Dispel Magic: dispells enchantments of most kinds.
Polymorph Other: "lasts until it is dispelled"
Growth of Plants: "Duration; until the spell is negated by a Dispell Magic"
Massmorph: "It will be negated by a command from the caster or by means of a Dispell Magic spell"
Conjure Elemental: "will remain until dispelled"
Wall of Stone: "will last until dispelled"
Animated Dead: "lasts until dispelled"
Cloudkill: "is dispelled by unusually strong winds or trees"
Feeblemind: "until the spell is countered with a Dispell Magic"
Invisible Stalker (the spell): "cannot be dispelled [...] except through attack"

Dispel Evil: "dispell any evil sending or spell"

Nixies: "A Dispell Magic spell [can succeed] before the charmed character is immersed"

Invisible Stalkers (the monster): "must be destroyed by attack to be stopped, although a Dispell Magic will also work"

Djinn: "They can create illusions which will remain until dispelled by touch or magic"

Helm of Chaos (Law): "can only be removed with the application of a spell to Remove Magic"

"Negate"s
Hold Portal: as above
Wall of Ice: "negates the effects of creatures employing dire and/or fire spells"
Growth of Plants: as above

Massmorph: as above

Wand of Negation: "By means of this wand the effects of other Wands or Staves, other than actually striking with the latter, are nullified. Of course as Staves are basically 8th level, the Wand will negate only three-quarters (six dice) of a Staff's effects."

Surprise: "Such things as ESP'ing, light, and noise will negate surprise."

Evading in the Wilderness: "Surprise by monsters negates all chance of evasion"

They seem to be mostly synonyms, with "dispell" generally referring to the spell(s). Cloudkill, Invisible Stalkers and Djinn illusions being the big exceptions, although note that the monster description of the Stalker says that it can be dispelled. Yeah, I dunno what happened there.

The meaning is fairly intuitive, in any case: the spell is no longer a thing. It is "nullified", as the wand puts it. The wall of stone is no longer a wall or stone, the animated dead are no longer animated, the invisible stalker may or may not still be stalking (but is probably still invisible, I reckon).

[tetramorph]

Red Baron, you see it as being a kind of nested thing, with negation being the total reality, while dispelling is one means to negate nested with in it.

Vile Traveller, I don't quite see what you are driving at. Can you give an example or examples?

gemini476, good work. This kind of exegesis is so helpful.

Here is, I think what I am wondering and driving at.

1. Can a magic user negate or dispel his own spell at will at any time? Or are there some spells that are simply permanent, regardless of the will of the magic user?
2. If so, what would this be called?
3. It seems that some spells can only be negated by reversing casting the very same spell, e.g., rock to mud and flesh to stone. Although not explicit, I would rule that dispel magic CANNOT negate these. That is why the reverse spell thing is stated. Another magic user MUST KNOW the spell to reverse its effects. Just knowing the generic dispel magic simply won't do the trick in this case.

Are there other spells like the above? I know, delta, that you don't like the idea of (too many) reverse arcane spells. But what if reversal, in this case, just meant the only means to negate the spell, where a dispel magic spell would not do the trick?

I am thinking of something like polymorph other here. Or perhaps control weather. Or hallucinatory terrain, or move terrain. It feels to me like that would make for a very interesting game: a kind of "arms race" of knowledge where magic users realize that the generic "dispel magic," is simply often not going to be good enough?

(And, delta, why not reverse growth animal/plant actually causing diminution? Just sayin'.)

So, perhaps what I am driving at is:
A. A magic user can negate (any of?) his own spells at will
B. Other magic users can negate some spells by Dispel Magic (the name of a particular spell)
C. Some require the actual reverse casting of the same spell

Thoughts?

Fight on!

[Red Baron]

Feb 5, 2019 12:35:48 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

Red Baron , you see it as being a kind of nested thing, with negation being the total reality, while dispelling is one means to negate nested with in it.

The dictionary definition is "to cause something to have no effect". Many things in OD&D can be negated, and by a variety means. Spells are one thing that can be negated, and dispel magic is one way to do it. 

1. Can a magic user negate or dispel his own spell at will at any time? Or are there some spells that are simply permanent, regardless of the will of the magic user?
2. If so, what would this be called?
3. It seems that some spells can only be negated by reversing casting the very same spell

1. That is up to you to decide. AD&D may provide guidance on the issue, but I would encourage you to determine for yourself which spells (or if all spells) can be purposefully ended by the magic-user. It may offer an extra challenge that a magic-user may cast spells and not be able to end them. Additionally, it emphasizes that spells are entities of their own and not subject to the magic-user's will in all cases.

2. I would call it "ending the spell" or "terminating the spell".

3. Yes. I agree with your decision to restrict magic-users from terminating these spells.

[delta]

Feb 5, 2019 12:35:48 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

Are there other spells like the above? I know, delta, that you don't like the idea of (too many) reverse arcane spells. But what if reversal, in this case, just meant the only means to negate the spell, where a dispel magic spell would not do the trick?...

(And, delta, why not reverse growth animal/plant actually causing diminution? Just sayin'.)

How did you know I was keenly reading this thread? :-D

I think I try not to be the guy who too often says, "playing it a different way is disgraceful", so I can see a definite charm to all that. For me, I'm trying to stick reasonably close to the OD&D mechanics and iron out some wrinkles that seem to make things profitably smoother. You've named the only two reversible wizard spells in OD&D -- transmute rock to mud and stone to flesh (both late in the book). To make things consistent, I could imagine either snipping those two out, or alternately making a bunch or everything else likewise reversible. For me, it seems more efficient to snip them out and not have to tell new players about the reversibility (at memorization?) options.

(Coincidentally, I'm sitting on an update to the 1996-1998 AD&D Wizard's Spell Compendium index that someone else sent me, and the same thing bothered him -- only 5% of spells are reversible, so is that a mechanic better just snipped out? Alternatively, expanding it a whole lot: definitely cool, but a lot more work and a thus lot more variation from standard D&D.)

[tetramorph]

Red Baron, thanks for continuing to reason this out with me.

delta, I appreciate your mathematical purity and you've super influenced me with target 20. But here I am going to go with Piper. Even if it is only 5% of the spells, it is fun and pulpy so I like it. It is akin to your points about how having a universal mechanic doesn't always make sense. D6 based mechanics for exploration match up to that level of scale better while D20 for the rounds of combat. This feels a bit analogous here. It is okay to have a more unique mechanic for these spells, especially as they are higher level. I think, as I say below, that I may add Control Weather to this. Here I am trying to match the literature: like Gandalf trying to reverse cast Saruman's control weather spell.

Okay, here is what I've worked up so far:

A magic-user may negate his own spell at will except:
Those that require concentration (e.g., phantasmal forces)
Those that have a built-in time-limit (e.g., light)
Those that have a built-in condition (e.g., invisibility)
Those that require reverse casting (e.g., stone to flesh. I am thinking of adding control weather to this small category)

A magic-user may dispel another magic-user's spell except:
Those with immediate effect (e.g., fireball)
Those that end a condition (e.g., remove curse)
Those that require reverse casting

I am thinking of making Geas impossible to dispel, like Invisible Stalker. But, perhaps the caster could release the geased person at will? Thoughts?

Question: locate object: does it require concentration? If so, does that mean no other spells are possible while the MU is locating the object?

Fight on!

[delta]

Feb 7, 2019 17:44:46 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

I think, as I say below, that I may add Control Weather to this. Here I am trying to match the literature: like Gandalf trying to reverse cast Saruman's control weather spell.

Sounds cool. I will say that Control Weather gives me more problems than any other spell, in how it interacts differently for, say, wilderness travel, man-to-man combat, and mass combat. I've been chewing on that one spell daily for maybe half a year now. (Note how radically it got changed between OD&D and AD&D, e.g.) Certainly a key part of my mass-war game is that opposing wizards may cast Control Weather and wind up in a tug-of-war over the effect. Arguably this could be: (a) each turn, you move the weather in one direction and then I move it back one step, or (b) we dice with level over who controls it this turn, or just (c) they both cancel out. But I tend to think of that as more like two wizards both conjuring opposing elementals and having them fight, than reversing/canceling the initial spell itself.

[waysoftheearth]

Feb 5, 2019 19:41:08 GMT -6 delta said:

You've named the only two reversible wizard spells in OD&D -- transmute rock to mud and stone to flesh (both late in the book).

There's also Haste and Slow

[geoffrey]

Feb 5, 2019 19:41:08 GMT -6 delta said:

You've named the only two reversible wizard spells in OD&D -- transmute rock to mud and stone to flesh (both late in the book).

Why do you characterize them as "late in the book"? I can see that for stone to flesh, but not for transmute rock to mud.

link: odd74.proboards.com/thread/7842/btpbd-dalluhn-certainly-pre-1974

[delta]

Feb 13, 2019 21:30:05 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Feb 5, 2019 19:41:08 GMT -6 delta said:

You've named the only two reversible wizard spells in OD&D -- transmute rock to mud and stone to flesh (both late in the book).

There's also Haste and Slow

Maybe that's a joke I didn't quite get? Those are different spells in OD&D, of course, not one reversible spell. Which sort of takes us back to the main thread topic: what exactly it means when haste says it will "counter" slow.

[waysoftheearth]

Well, I guess I was half-joking-half-serious. Haste/Slow does seem to be a curious case where the "reverse" spell is explicitly a separate spell. Or is it?

Haste says: "Note that it will counter its opposite and vis-versa". So Haste is the "opposite" of Slow, and will "counter" it. Maybe "opposite" is not identical to "reverse" but it's not too far off. So, perhaps worthwhile exploring the uses of "counter" in CM and the 3LBBs too...

CM has "The stronger magician can successfully cast a counter-spell with a two dice score of 7 or better, while a weaker magician needs a score of 8, 9, 10 or 11, depending on his relative strength." then goes on to state various spells (light, darkness, polymorph) last until countered. In this context "counter" seems to imply end the magic, but don't undo/reverse anything that occurred previously because of it.

In the 3LBBs we also see a few instances of "counter":
Dispell Magic: "Unless countered, this spell will be effective in dispelling enchantments of most kinds".
Haste Spell: "...will counter its opposite and vice-versa".
Transmute Rock to Mud: "... can only be countered by reversing the incantation (requiring a Transmute Rock to Mud spell) or by normal process of evaporation".

Note the difference between "can be countered by" and "can only be countered by". So... maybe the reversible spells can only be countered by their reverse?

All fun to think about...

[gemini476]

The real reason for this is probably just one of usefulness and game balance: there's plenty of reason to prepare either Slow or Haste even without the counter effect, but Stone to Flesh and Mud to Rock are way less applicable and probably lose out to other spells of the same level. (Like, for instance, Flesh to Stone and Rock to Mud.)

There's also another instance of this to consider, although it's obscured within the text of OD&D itself. The Light spell, as it is in Chainmail, primarily exists to counter the effects of the Darkness spell (in OD&D a reversed Anti-Clerical spell). It has more applicability in D&D on account of the underground setting, but in Chainmail it's pretty much just for night battles or to counter Chaotic Wizards and their goblins.