Extinguish the Light of the Bright Gem PeTe15
The gemstone which is the target of this spell is destroyed, cracking and turning into dust of the course of a moment. If the gemstone was part of a magic item that required it, then of course, the item is rendered useless.
Josias of Tytalus desired wizard’s war against an arrogant Flambeau who famously had a large ruby as part of his Talisman. Aware that to attack the talisman would require some penetration; he developed this spell and turned his attention to mastering it.
[Base: 5, R: Voice +2, D: Momentary, T: Individual]
This spell bring a question in my mind. Would an AC to the magus also be an AC to the Ruby ( Talisman ) since the talisman and Magus are one in some perspectives.
Well, its kind of a nifty idea, but why would anyone develope a spell that destroys a magical device (Disenchant), if all you had to do was bust a piece off?
It kind of cheapens the idea of having magical devices...
Well I would say that some items are protected with a Muto effect to reinforce the material which would renderthe Perdo effect inneffective.
By looking at the books similar spells where perdo effects destroys things, it says that alchemically modified or magical obj may resist the spell. i guess this is how the canon rules resolve the matter.
Simply because the PeVi spell will disenchant any item. The PeTe spell will only damage items that have a terram component. So, it's a bit like the faerie ward spells. Vim magic is simply is more general.
Na, How about "The correct magic to do the job".
The item is bound up with the Vis to open the item. That Vim Vis is holding it all together (even if the gem (in this case) isn't part of the effect, its part of the whole thing)...Your going to break that with a Terram spell???
By extending that logic, you could destroy someones Parma using Perdo Corpus and destroying their hand (Penetrating, of course), hair, etc. Of course you could then argue then that physically removing a mages (body part) with a mundane weapon would destroy the Parma as well.
--The (body part) was being protected by the parma, it was there when the spell was cast, ergo removing part it destroys the magic)
Your way of doing things turns four seasons and twenty pawns of Vis into a useless exorcise...(I repeat).
So - if you enchant a wand with a ruby tip and someone destoys the ruby, then your wand is broken and all its powers are lost.
(Note: generously, if the ruby wasn't invested with any effect - i.e. just there for show, and the rest of the wand was the enchanted device, I would probably allow the item to still work)
However, a silver ring would not be affected by this spell (it'd be a different spell designed to destroy metals).
The Perdo Vim spell will disenchant any device. The alternative would be to develop a spell to destroy a specific part of a device (could be animal, terram, herbam, etc).
I don't think this renders magical items a waste of time and vis - nor do I accept that by extension the Parma would be affected by destroying a limb. However, your own saga may vary ...
Because with Disenchant remain an object tha can be re-enchanted.
Immagine if you find a ruby as a lesser enchantment. You, The Big Verditius, cast disenchant to have a ruby. That you can enchant. Or if you experiment and enchant a gem with the side effect "0" (or similar): Fatal Flaw (for example, an invisibility spell makes you glow...).
Disenchant has one use.
Extinguish the Light of the Bright Gem an other.
Badger,
I wasn't putting forth that I endorsed the idea of Parma destruction...merely pointing out a similar line of thinking.
Vultus,
Okay, so one preserves the item and the other destroys the physical form...I still don't understand why you need the other spell in the first place.
Who cares if its not broken? If you destroy the magic, it won't work. If there isn't any magic, its vulnerable to being destroyed physically. What this spell is, is a cheap way to cheat the system...IMO
