Shattered Kingdoms

Why exactly does dispel magic count as an offensive spell and cause your pulse to race and break sanctuary if you are trying to dispel a room? I mean its probably because you have to TARGET yourself, but I mean SHOULD it do that? Kind of a pain to have to dispel a room and break sanctuary.

[HP:100%] [ME: 72%] [PE:100%]
> c dispel self
You start to concentrate.

[HP:100%] [ME: 72%] [PE:100%]
>
Your aggressive move destroys your sanctuary spell!
The white aura around your body fades.
You utter the words, 'eugszr waouq'.
You fail to break any spells.

[HP:100%] [ME: 68%] [PE:100%]
> sl
Your adrenaline is gushing too fast to sleep!
You sit down and rest your tired bones.

[HP:100%] [ME: 68%] [PE:100%]

Because it is an agressive spell. Point in case.

Isn't it 'case in point'?

I don't see why it couldn't be coded to not be an aggressive spell when targeting a room. This would surely help cabals out quite a bit if they didn't have to keep casting sanc after dispeling cabal spells that affect the room.

You might be casting dispel against the room, but in reality you are casting it against the person who made that room spell. As they feel that tingling that someone is trying to dispel them and also you are going against their resists.

Not to mention, its an aggro spell, even if casted at yourself to cast against the room.

I can see where the original poster is coming from with the no-aggressive argument. But, wait til you are in a cabal that's capable of these powerful room spells, then you will wish your enemies will break a sweat dispelling your offense/defense too. At least they can be dispelled now. Some years ago we just stared at them til they dissipated, and yes they seemingly lasted forever.

I'm in a cabal and thats exactly why I want it to be non-agro.

It is by itself a non-aggressive act to dispel an -area-, whether you go against the original caster's save or not.

The poster did not complain about the save, but the act counting [REDACTED] aggro. I see no sense in it working as it does now nor any reasons (beyond coding difficulty) to not change it into non-aggressive.