Armor as a ring

[Toronus (RP)]

Hi guys!

My character has a longsword and a chainmail. The sword is unenchanted not to be hindered by MR. The chainmail armor contains several enchantments and it is full.

I want to have an effect to change the sword and armour - and maybe other heavy equipments - to a delicate metal ring on the finger.

I have 2 questions:

1. If the enchantment goes to the longsword it doesn't make it resistable by MR/Parma, only in the periods of being a ring, right? When the effect is dormant the sword is just a “normal” sword.
2. How would you design the exact effect? My basic idea is using MuTe lvl4 +1 Touch, +1 Conc, +2 Group, +2 affect metal, +5 item maintaining concentration, +5 for 24 uses/day Item Lvl 40 - The effect changes the sword, the armour and any bulky equipment of the wearer into a delicate iron ring worn on the index finger. The effect is maintained by the item itself. When the user shutting down the effect the sword and armour gets back onto his body as they were by the time of being changed into a ring.

I hope that could mean a few things for the character:

• He can walk freely while being polite without wearing arms and armour, even though the equipment is with him.
• By changing back the ring into equipment he can get into the armour in one round.
• Group target adds size modifier. Basic Individual for metal is 1 cubic feet, so the maximal volume affected by the enchantment is 10 cubic feet of metal. Which is a lot. By precisely targeting his equipment he can be also a pack mule

What possibilities do you see with an item like that?

How would you design the effect?

Cheers

[Ezechiel3571]

1. Yes, it is an enchanted item, but it is not active. If you want to be 100% sure that your troupe agreed, have a precious stone set in the pommel, and open the stone for enchantment. That way, one cannot argue that your blade is enchanted. I believe there is a example of a similar case in one of the rulebooks: Hugh of Flambeau (in Magi of Hermes, p51) enchanted the haft of his weapon so the blade is “non-magical”. I am usually cautious with Magi of Hermes, but this is a valid example, IMO.

2. One can argue than Base 4 could be too high, and base 3 would be appropriate, +2 for metal, and everything else looks fine. Because it is Touch range, it means the magical item must touch the targeted item, not the magi - just to clarify the range, not that it is a major difficulty.

You might need an Herbam or Animal requisit, often armor have a silk, wool or leather underarmor, and in case he is carrying an axe or a lance, the Herbam requisit will be handy. Obviously, it makes the enchantment significantly higher.

It is unfortunate that the armour is full, because it is the one requiring the An requisit, and a self range effect would have been easier to pull off.

[Toronus (RP)]

Thank you very much for your insight!

As I read your example abour Hugh I just realized that an enchanted item which is dormant at a given time is definitely not resisted by Parma. Because if an inactive enchanted item is resisted by your Parma, you were not able to touch that particular item. Can’t touch, can’t use it.

I was unsure about the base - Base 3 seem to be right. I went with Base 4 to be sure, bc I thought that changing an item into a totaly different item is higher effect then changing only the size of that item or some innate qualities of the material.

What do you think about the range when the item itself is also in the Group target? Based on my understanding Touch is enough to affect itself and therefor the whole “group” of equipment. How do you see this question?

[Ezechiel3571]

@Toronus

I was unsure about the base - Base 3 seem to be right. I went with Base 4 to be sure, bc I thought that changing an item into a totaly different item is higher effect then changing only the size of that item or some innate qualities of the material.

Because the ring will be made of metal, there is no extra magnitude required.

Group is valid, but maybe not for the reason you believe: a full armor is made of several pieces, it is called after all a set of armor: gauntlet, helmet, vambraces, chausses…. So it needs Group to be affected by a single spell.

I would not consider a weapon to fit in the same group category as a set of armor. Yes, it is part of the equipment of the same character, but there is hardly anything identifying the weapon as belonging with the armor.

[OakRover (Joseph L Brown)]

This seems like it would be more than one enchantment – using ReTe to re-shape the armor & weapon is fine, but it is still the same size and weight. I think a MuTe to change the size & weight would also be needed; although a temporary PeTe might work.

[Toronus (RP)]

Based on your logic if I change an adult man to a mouse I ended up with a mouse weighting 70 kg… T

hat sounds a little bit… strange. I can imagine a spell from the “other RPG” - called Polymorph - which runs by such illogical “logic” bc of some so-called game balance. But IMO Mythic Europe is a more logical place then most of the settings of that other RPG.

[Ezechiel3571]

No. When a target is transformed, changing size/composition or matter, the weight matches the new appearance. Mythic Europe magic doesn’t care much that creating matter, shrinking it or even completely destroying it would require nuclear level of energy one way or another.

[raccoonmask]

@Toronus

How would you design the exact effect? My basic idea is using MuTe lvl4 +1 Touch, +1 Conc, +2 Group, +2 affect metal, +5 item maintaining concentration, +5 for 24 uses/day Item Lvl 40 - The effect changes the sword, the armour and any bulky equipment of the wearer into a delicate iron ring worn on the index finger. The effect is maintained by the item itself. When the user shutting down the effect the sword and armour gets back onto his body as they were by the time of being changed into a ring.

I would also do Base 4 due to the size-changing aspect of turning a full set of armor into a ring. Since Object of Increased Size (p154) does not require additional magnitudes for metal (note the base says ‘change something’ not ‘change dirt’ like the other bases), i would not for this effect either. A suit of armor transforming itself into a ring is quite doable in my opinion. Whether or not a suit of armor + gauntlets + underarmor + helmet requires Group target is up to your troupe, but I would say if it does require Group target, it would create a group of rings, not merging everything into one. That Group effect is your biggest possible problem, in my opinion. For not only shrinking the armor, but transforming it into a different form, I’d suggest +1 magnitude for complexity, and another +1 magnitude for how MUCH you are shrinking the armor to make it ring sized. This comes out to the same magnitudes as the ‘affect metal’ idea you started with.

Affecting the sword or held items as well would require a Group target, and would in my opinion turn everything into a separate ring. You will near certainly need to include Herbam and Animal requisites. Arguably, you could possibly include additional magnitudes to merge the items into a single ring (or joined rings maybe, like brass knuckles).

What is targeted would need to be probably determined - very easy to say the effect targets the enchanted armor and any held or worn equipment. If you want to include noble metals or gems(see Object of Increased Size), you would likely need an additional magnitude for that as well.

Another potential issue is when you undo the magical effect, and your rings suddenly explode into a bunch of equipment. Especially if you’re wearing clothes already, it will be VERY uncomfortable for your armor to suddenly burst into being ontop of you. When my players conjure armor form nothing, they’d need a finesse roll to have it conjure equipped, and I’d do the same here.

If you’re doing this setup, I’d suggest going all out. Enchant the armor as an invested device. Have an enchantment which transforms the armor into clothing, possibly a second enchantment to change what clothing it is - giving you a variety of outfits - or an illusion to change the appearance for the variety. Then you can enchant the armor to also transform items in your hands to turn into rings for a sword and shield. How much work this takes is very saga dependant.

Or, if your saga is okay with it, you can just have a single group effect for your armor and weapons to be turned into rings, and then have it just reappear on you as needed.

[Hyalus]

@Toronus

As I read your example abour Hugh I just realized that an enchanted item which is dormant at a given time is definitely not resisted by Parma. Because if an inactive enchanted item is resisted by your Parma, you were not able to touch that particular item. Can’t touch, can’t use it.

The Parma is not a force-field: it behaves in a manner that protects you from magical harm. If you need to walk across a magical bridge, you can. If you fall onto a magical bridge you are stopped by the bridge and the impact causes you damage. If a magical bridge falls on you, you are unharmed (and presumably, underneath a fallen bridge).

@OakRover

using ReTe to re-shape the armor & weapon is fine

Using Rego to “re-shape” an item is Rego craft magic: it uses the item(s) as raw materials to instantaneously craft the desired item, requiring a Finesse roll, and is as permanent as any Craft use would be. Doing that to a mundane sword ends up with a steel ring and a lot of wasted raw materials. Doing that to enchanted armor likewise but would surely destroy the enchantment.

[Red-Shadow-Claws (Itzhak Even)]

For Armor, I’d say you might need an Animal or Herbam prerequisit, unless you want to remain in the padding beneath the armor.
Adding a Sword would need the Group Target, and might need the Herbam or Animal prerequsiite depending on what the wrapping on the hilt is.
As Hyalus mentioned, it’s best to do it with MuTe so the enchantments on the armor remain, and it can return to itself when the enchantment lapses.

[silveroak]

Just had the thought of designing the spell to drop if an incoming weapon is detected. At least for the armor, where an extra detection spell being on won’t hurt.

[Dalt]

As I read your example abour Hugh I just realized that an enchanted item which is dormant at a given time is definitely not resisted by Parma. Because if an inactive enchanted item is resisted by your Parma, you were not able to touch that particular item. Can’t touch, can’t use it.

On a quick little sidenote- I’d be careful of this logic. If one cannot touch things under a mystical effect whilst their MR is up, then a magus cannot do stuff like ride magically conjured non-ritual horses for extended period of times despite the existence of magically conjured horses implying they do. Likewise, a magus would likely be unable to do stuff like touch another magus.

More unto the topic though-

Overall, the actual design of the enchantment looks good to me. It’s a tad high levelled, but depending on the saga level that may not be trouble at all.

[Dalt]

@Hyalus

The Parma is not a force-field: it behaves in a manner that protects you from magical harm. If you need to walk across a magical bridge, you can. If you fall onto a magical bridge you are stopped by the bridge and the impact causes you damage. If a magical bridge falls on you, you are unharmed (and presumably, underneath a fallen bridge).

It depends on how you define force field but the RAW states

Magic Resistance keeps magic away from the
maga, her clothing, and other items that are very
close to her

Which seems close to the functions of a force field to me at least.

At the same time, you can indeed walk on bridges and such- but I will note most depicitons of force fields do allow you to walk on surfaces. Especially “skin-tight” forcefields. I am pretty sure most also have you stopped if you fall i.e Green Lantern’s hardlight barrier usually doesn’t let Green Lantern fall through the earth or such.

[Toronus (RP)]

Probably my previous reply was a little ambigious. I am on that side that an inactive device unaffected by any active magical effect is not resisted by the Parma, even if device is a lesser item or invested device containing Vis. So you - warded by your Parma - can touch enchanted items, but not affected ones.

The questions here are:

• Can you wear that ring - which is in fact the armor and sword MuTe-d into that ring - if it has no Penetration?
• Can you use the sword - enchanted as a device, but without any active effect on it - to kill something w/ MR, or it has to Penetrate the MR eventhough there is no active effect on it, only “dormant” magic AKA the enchantment in it?
• Regarding the effect itself: it is mentioned that An and/or He requisite is needed. I think it is OK to account that as a +0 req. instead of +1 req., right?
• Can the effect make only 1 ring from all the equipment? I think yes, bc MuCo effects can make a bunch of spiders/rats from one human body. So it semms that number is not something what hinders Muto magic: one thing can be changed to many, and many things can be changed into one.

[InfinityzeN (Troy)]

+0 if required for the effect, +1 if it expands the capabilities of the effect.

The effect is to transform metal armor. +0 if you are covering the little bits and bops of that armor not covered by Te. +1 would be if you expanded the effect to also cover leather armor, armor where the primary material was An rather than Te.

[SEE]

@Ezechiel3571

Group is valid, but maybe not for the reason you believe: a full armor is made of several pieces

A suit of armor is an Individual target, at least in the spells published in HoH:Societates and Magi of Hermes.