This is in regards to the lab action - fix an arcane connection. Let's say I'm looking to fix an arcane connection that is valid for several targets. A clear exemple that I have in mind would be a shard from a gemstone gets fixed in a lab, and the gemstone is subsequently cut into smaller gems which are inserted into different pieces of jewelry. Do you feel that this is valid?
I think the concept is valid, the questions are can you fix the AC for multiple targets at the same time and if not does fixing it for one target disassociate it from the others. YSMV
If I understand you right, you're saying that one fixed connection would be an arcane connection to each of those later pieces? Sounds like shaky ground. Even if we ignore the singular rather than plural statements in the core book, you're saying that shard remains mystically a part of each of those smaller pieces that were cut from the original. I could see saying a finger was part of a hand which was part of a person. That sounds closer. But breaking a gem into a bunch of pieces and saying one piece was part of each of the others sounds more like saying one hand is part of the other hand and part of each foot as well.
If you make two mirrors from the same molten glass it is not unreasonable to expect them to be arcane connections to each other- an arcane connection does not have to be a part of a larger thing, and it even mentions in at least one place that arcane connections need to be stored carefully lest they be diluted as they form connections with other things. As such to create several items which are interconnected arcane connections seems a least conceivable, though potentially requiring a breakthrough to utilize.
Yes. I think that, by the book, prior to fixing an arcane connection, the gems cut from the same raw stone would be arcane connections to the other gems from that same raw stone, just as they would be an arcane connection to the mine they were dug from for a number of years (and probably an arcane connection to the gemcutter for weeks). The question is in a way two-fold:
*Whether, when fixed, they lose connections to everything else; and
*Whether when the original target is altered (e.g. the rest of the stone to which the arcane connection was fixed being cut), what that fixed connection leads to now when there is no obvious main target for the arcane connection.
also depends in the case of a gem whether it can be cut into several pieces with a single strike- gems are not cut with a saw, but with precisely placed blows of a chisel type device.
for something more fluid (molten metal or glass) all objects could be cast together. This at least avoids the second issue.
Yes, the gem here is an example. Although I guess your counterpoint with molten metal could rapidly become absurd if, say, a gold ingot was subsequently molten and cast into rings. Perhaps putting it being a breakthrough is needed for balance reasons, or this technique would be used in a widespread way.
Unless you manage to do so in a very special way, that would seem to disagree with the written rules, wouldn't it? We're not even talking about storing the glass here; we're talking about crafting it. Shouldn't these mirrors become arcane connections to their maker?
Why would these mirrors not cease to be arcane connections to their original sources of materials and become arcane connections to their maker if they are not being stored carefully (being crafted rather than stored carefully at all) and if they are designed and made by the crafter (in the weeks category for an arcane connection to the crafter)?
They must be metaphysically a part rather than actually a part, allowing for things like Familiars, Talismans, etc. The specific statement is
The wiggle room is
while not removing the prior statement. I said "mystically" rather than "metaphysically." Sorry.
Such as when you put a gem in a ring it becomes metaphysically a part of that ring and ceases to be part of the original, uncut gemstone, right? Or that one arcane connection has a tendency to override other arcane connections so it's hard for there to be multiple (from, not to), right?
That's why I said it's on shaky ground, not that it necessarily violates the rules.
You're describing a whole bunch of arcane connections, including new ones, never overriding prior ones. How does this approach mesh with
Doesn't this quote imply forming the new connection erases the old one?
That goes back to the singular v. plural statements I mentioned but decided not to argue. Technically, you fix a single arcane connection rather than many or all.
by canon, if a brewmeister brews a tun of beer (125 gallons) and I take a flask from that tun the beer is an arcane connection to the brewmeister (as craftsman) and the tun(since it is a part). So is one of these incorrect, or is it an arcane connection to both?
The rules I have always used, which to me feel most consistent and easily adjudicated are:
An object can be an AC to multiple things. It may be a stronger AC to some than to others.
When you fix an AC in a lab, you must specify what you are fixing it to, and it then becomes an AC to only that target thing. If that target thing is broken/dies/changes substantially, the connection will be broken and your AC will no longer work.
So in your example, if it was a fixed AC I would rule that it was no longer an AC to anything once the gem was broken up. If you hadn't fixed it as an AC and the gem was broken up, it would probably be an AC to every other piece (depending on time that has passed, etc.). You could then fix it in the lab and specify one of those pieces as the connection you are fixing it to.
Which fits the "needs a breakthrough" answer. of course you can use it as an unfixed AC to any of those things then, for as long as the arcane connection lasts...