A Necromancer's prosthesis.

Rewarding the Handless Companion.

I was just going over the mental exercise of making a item to reward/bind a companion in the TT game I play in. This is what I came up with:

Lesser enchanted item: A ring, when placed on a hand casts Charm Against Putrefaction, preserving the hand for further use.

Spell Lvl 5 Cr/Co Charm Against Putrfaction.
base 2, R: Touch +1, D: Sun +2, T: Ind

Spell Lvl +5
Two uses +1
Environmental Trigger +3
total: 9
requires 1 pawn of Creo or Corpus.

(This should preserve the hand forever as long as the ring stays on the finger. Where you acquire the hand is between you and your conscience)

Lesser enchantment item: Leather glove completely enveloping the preserved hand, stitched closed and made with straps to fasten onto arm of handless companion.

Spell Lvl 25 Re/Co Control the Severed Limb.
base 10, R: Touch +1, D: Sun +2, T: Ind

Spell Lvl +25
Two uses +1
Environmental Trigger +3
total: 29
requires 3 pawns of Rego or Corpus.

(This should allow the wearer of the prosthesis to control the hand. At first I can imagine it will be little more than simple control such as open and close. Since there is no species of touch, the user will need to learn how to control the hand for finer detailed movement. There is little expectation that the hand will provide anything more than very very basic ability... but a one handed expert bowman does not ask for much.)

Excellent, also avoid the common pit falls of using ring/circle - which wouldn't work in this case.

Less excellent.
Basically the hand would respond only to external stimuli, ie. verbal commands.
If you want something that works in any way like a normal hand, you'll have to use the InMe effect given p. 99 (linked trigger) - and that makes it an invested device.

Ofcourse, if preset verbal commands are fine, this version should be OK I think.

For the ring to preserve the hand, it needs to be T:Part, adding a further magnitude for a total lvl 10 effect. I like that idea! :slight_smile:

Since the hand is separated from a body, isn't it an individual itself? I have always interpreted it that way.


Nope. I almost made the same mistake but Xavi is right.

And then,the ring should work on any corpse up to +1 size. Ideal like gift to one important deceased.

There is nothing in this thread I don't like.

Will somebody be writing up the Invested device including the InMe effect and the linked trigger? You never know when you're going to need a replacement limb! :wink:

Hmm, got me wondering...

How about making an invested device where the user can control a(or even more than one) spell something like The unseen porter with their thoughts?
While it has to be an invested device, it seems to stay fairly low level.

Hmm, gives me also the funny little parody-idea of making a similar device for someone one-legged, working like an invisible and intangible leg. :mrgreen:

This is where I depart ways from so many others, and of course I am about 75% sure that I am in the wrong, but bare with me.

When a mage casts the spell "Strings of Marionette", it is Voice range, but does not stipulate that you instruct the person verbally on what actions to take. This is where I become curious as to just how "Strings" is used. When you perform "Rise of Feather Body" do you verbally instruct the person at what height they are to rise? Do you say start, stop? It is a Concentration spell so perhaps that is this difference.

If a mage makes a glove touch range that casts "Strings of Marionette" would she have to instruct the target over every movement to make?

I really am looking to pin this down and to clarify for my own sake. I am aware that one could make items respond to mental commands, but it would seem the spell already contains that aspect.

It all hinges on how you see this type of spell working.

But THANKS everyone for such grand feed back... would it tinge the sentiment if I said my Necromancer would probably trade the item to the companion on the condition he be buried without sacraments? BBwwhahahahaha.....cough, sorry.

But thanks all.

You are casting the spell, you control it.

The glove casts the spell, the glove controls it. You need a way to instruct the glove.

You said it yourself actually, its the MAGE that casts the spell then. Not an item. How is the item supposed to know how you want the spell effect to work specifically?

They do indeed, as long as its a mage casting the spell and not an item.


When someone uses an item to cast a Duration:Concentration spell, the user is still the one concentrating. (At least as the default - you can make the item maintain concentration, but that's an add-on.) How is the item supposed to know when you stop concentrating? That's just the way enchanted items work.
I'm with Portianitor on this one - I think that the user controlling the still-active effect is just part of the spell.

If that was true, there would be no need for the AM5 main book to specifically mention the need for an additional spell to "read surface thoughts"...

I have to agree with DW, the glove is concentrating.

See blast it! I was almost convinced until "gerg" posted :smiley: Now I am sliding back towards my fallen thinking. (I secretly agree gerg, it makes sense right?)

Two things. First, if I made the item with duration concentration, then could he simply concentrate to make the glove perform actions? Ie. Levitation belt example where you simply have to concentrate to change how the item works. Would this by-pass the mind reading requirement?

Second, the mind reading requirement seems to hint at it being part of the linked-trigger, to mentally control the item, with the item recognizing and reading your thoughts and then enacting to effect. Sorta like a ring that cast Pe/Vi spells or other instant magics you may need to become active simply at a thought.

If you need the mind reading to make the item work, then how do you get any item to work that is touch range? Do they all require the mental command?

I still wonder if the wearer could simply talk to the item? ((awesome Reputation opportunity Odd +2 "Talks to his hand".))

I am sorry to keep kicking this horse, thanks for patience with my skeptical brain.

Yeah. Upon rereading ArM5 pp. 98-99, the part I mention and the part you mention seem to basically contradict each other.

Cart it off to Chart?

Was there ever any resolution to this question?


Not that I know, and I am also quite interested in the answer. I would be tempted to take the position that every "instruction" to the magic item needs to be accompanied by some physical trigger -- after I picture magi pointing their wands towards the target of their lightning bolt, waving them up when levitating something, and so on.

Yup, that's a good one, for "logical" as well as mythical reasons: Sorcerers say magic words or make gestures, after all, even with their wands and rings (Ok, not really a sorcerer, but does someone here remember Jayce here?)

Love it! :smiley: