Flying Castle

[Ark]

I was reading the sidetreck "Treasure to hunt" (page 214 in Ars magica 5th ed), and i fell on the proposal of the flying Castle.
"A flying castle, crafted by a follower of Verditius over a century ago, but lost after the grogs rebelled against the magi who lived there and threw them over the edge".
I want to use it in my saga.

Now my question: ¿What is the effect and level of an enchantment of an item like this? ¿How many pawns is needed to open the device? In fact i would like if someone can dissect this item

Thank you

[YR7]

I don't think it would be an Item per se, way too big and vis intensive.

If I were to approach it, I would enchant lesser items that would affect the castle at Touch range.
A ReTe 39 effect (B 3, +1 Touch, +2 Sun, +1 stone, +4 size, +4 levels constant effect) for 10000 cubic paces of flying stone, methinks (serf's parma).

[Ark]

I hope the designer's game can help us to know how the exact mechanics.

[Erik_Tyrrell]

@YR7

I don't think it would be an Item per se, way too big and vis intensive.

If I were to approach it, I would enchant lesser items that would affect the castle at Touch range.
A ReTe 39 effect (B 3, +1 Touch, +2 Sun, +1 stone, +4 size, +4 levels constant effect) for 10000 cubic paces of flying stone, methinks (serf's parma).

To enchant an item you only need to use enough vis to fill the highest capacity component of the object, so enchanting an entire castle is very doable.

Also remember that with a lesser enchanted device you do not need to fill the entire capacity of the item.

If you make a lesser enchanted device out of the entire castle you'd save a magnetude on range (personal rather than touch) so your final effect level would be 34 rather than 39 (assuming that everything else up there is correct, I'd have used structure with a +1 size modifier rather than individual with a +4 size modifier but our final levels come out the same).

[qcipher]

A spell of Ring duration could work too, incorporate the Ring into the foundation of the tower.

[William]

@Erik Tyrrell

@YR7

I don't think it would be an Item per se, way too big and vis intensive.

If I were to approach it, I would enchant lesser items that would affect the castle at Touch range.
A ReTe 39 effect (B 3, +1 Touch, +2 Sun, +1 stone, +4 size, +4 levels constant effect) for 10000 cubic paces of flying stone, methinks (serf's parma).

To enchant an item you only need to use enough vis to fill the highest capacity component of the object, so enchanting an entire castle is very doable.

Also remember that with a lesser enchanted device you do not need to fill the entire capacity of the item.

If you make a lesser enchanted device out of the entire castle you'd save a magnetude on range (personal rather than touch) so your final effect level would be 34 rather than 39 (assuming that everything else up there is correct, I'd have used structure with a +1 size modifier rather than individual with a +4 size modifier but our final levels come out the same).

These are good options.

I would tend to thik that this castle was the talisman of the said Verdi. This allows you to forgo of the limitations of vis & size.

W

[Erik_Tyrrell]

@qcipher

A spell of Ring duration could work too, incorporate the Ring into the foundation of the tower.

Excelent thought!

Fragile, but very inexpensive and quick

[Ark]

I not agree with the ring duration, because the ring stays in land, but the castle moves. So when the castle leaves the land and flies, it´s moving out of the ring, so the spell colapses.

[qcipher]

@Ark

I not agree with the ring duration, because the ring stays in land, but the castle moves. So when the castle leaves the land and flies, it´s moving out of the ring, so the spell colapses.

The ring would be attached to the structure, crafted into the tower itself, the target would be Structure. I don't see the problem. The Ring should affect the tower on down to the foundation and stay with it.

[Ark]

Yea, it sounds nice, but the main problem is that Ring is an item of Duration guidelines not Target ones.
Another thing is that how you manage to physically draw the ring around the foundations? it´s imposible.
Perhaps i`m not understanding you at all, but my main discrepance is that when draw a ring, you do it on the land you are. So you need to draw the ring in the land outside the castle. When the castles moves, is going outside the ring you drew, and it collapses.

[Bryan_Register]

@Ark

Another thing is that how you manage to physically draw the ring around the foundations? it´s imposible.

Why? You carve a circle into the bedrock around the castle.

Perhaps i`m not understanding you at all, but my main discrepance is that when draw a ring, you do it on the land you are. So you need to draw the ring in the land outside the castle. When the castles moves, is going outside the ring you drew, and it collapses.

The castle stays stuck to the floating rock. Unless the castle comes off the chunk of ground that constitutes its floor, it stays inside the circle. If you wanted the castle to float free from any kind of ground, then you would have a problem, but why would you want that? Let it take its rocky outcropping with it. This saves you needing to do any magic on the castle itself: just magic up the ground it stands on.

[Rameau]

That opens the door for a lot of abuse.

Make an iron/wood hoop, call it a "ring", and take it whereever you need the effect enchanted upon it- quick and cheap (if physically vulnerable) "permanant" magic items.

Can a ring move? Most magical effects don't. If cast on a wagon, is it mobile? If cast on a moving ship, would it travel with the vessel? Probably, possibly- but that's as part of a larger moving object.

To use Ring to define a (relatively) smaller, moving object, that moves the ring with it- I believe that's an error. Technically, I'd say the ring effects everything within it- not itself.

Further, the definition of "Ring" states that the ring must be drawn while the spell is cast, using Concentration rolls- I would say that is a "do or die" moment for the enchantment. On a large enchantment, like a castle, to miss one Concentration roll (out of the many needed to create such a large ring) would waste the entire effort. (But I'm admittedly a hard-ass GM)

Lastly, if the ring "is physically broken", the spell ends. That's livin' dangerously in a flying stone castle.

For that matter- Erik T- I always ruled from 4th ed that enchantments were not available for the "self" range, since "they" did not cast the enchantment upon themselves. Unless the enchantment was placed upon the magi himself, "touch" was the limit, same as any spell. I haven't memorized the 5th ed rules- do they specifically address this issue?

[qcipher]

"Make an iron/wood hoop, call it a "ring", and take it whereever you need the effect enchanted upon it- quick and cheap (if physically vulnerable) "permanant" magic items. "

In theory yes, but you did a great job disproving that below. But at any rate, one could easily make a magic item that has a Range of Touch and a Target of Structure. That could be a ring, a plaque, a brick, or whatever.

"Can a ring move? Most magical effects don't. If cast on a wagon, is it mobile? If cast on a moving ship, would it travel with the vessel? Probably, possibly- but that's as part of a larger moving object.

To use Ring to define a (relatively) smaller, moving object, that moves the ring with it- I believe that's an error. Technically, I'd say the ring effects everything within it- not itself."

If it's attached to it, I don't see why it wouldn't move with it. If it was drawn on the ground around it then maybe not.

"Further, the definition of "Ring" states that the ring must be drawn while the spell is cast, using Concentration rolls- I would say that is a "do or die" moment for the enchantment. On a large enchantment, like a castle, to miss one Concentration roll (out of the many needed to create such a large ring) would waste the entire effort. (But I'm admittedly a hard-ass GM)"

I agree here, it's a cheaper way, not necesarily an easy or safer way.

"Unless the enchantment was placed upon the magi himself, "touch" was the limit, same as any spell. I haven't memorized the 5th ed rules- do they specifically address this issue?"

There is no more 'Self' range, it is now a 'Personal' range which affects only the caster and his clothes and Talisman (and vice versa a Talisman can have a 'Personal' range affect its creator). The range would thus have to be Touch. It is the Duration of Ring that would be used, as in whatever the Ring touches is affected, and it will remain in effect until the Ring is compromised.

[Rameau]

(Did I say "Self"- ugh. "Personal". "Self" is, in fact, not even old Ars, it's from.. um... a different game.)

(I disproved it because I don't like it.)

[Erik_Tyrrell]

@Rameau

For that matter- Erik T- I always ruled from 4th ed that enchantments were not available for the "self" range, since "they" did not cast the enchantment upon themselves. Unless the enchantment was placed upon the magi himself, "touch" was the limit, same as any spell. I haven't memorized the 5th ed rules- do they specifically address this issue?

They do specifically address this issue on page 100 left hand column; "The range of effects is measured from the device not the user. Thus, touch range means that the device must touch the target and personal range means that the effect targets the device only."

On the other hand effects that only target the device no longer get the 1/2 level benefit that they did in fourth.

[Rameau]

Yeah, I remember reading that second bit

<breaks down, sobbing>

[Erik_Tyrrell]

@Rameau

Yeah, I remember reading that second bit

<breaks down, sobbing>

Don't worry, for every loophole that is closed a new rules exploit is opened.

[Rameau]

Such as?...

I never saw it as a "loophole", but an exploit, yes.

The difference is enchanting single shield so it's better was easier than creating a wand that would make any shield better for Sun duration, or a shield that would do the same to the bearer (even if he later lost the shield). That makes some sense to me.

It did mean that really large Lesser Enchantments could be pulled off without insurmountable effort, such as huge flying ships (ReTe) or magical traps.

But "magic" is - or should be- an unpredictable thing. There is no way it "should" work, except for game/story balance and enjoyment.

It is a bit of a headache when something just does not translate from one edition to the next, tho', such as large "self only" enchantments that cannot be replicated.

[RARodger]

On a related thought, how do people define breaking a circle? Specifically, imagine the following... craft a metal ring, put it in a shallow pit, cast a spell using the ring. Could you then burry the ring to hide it? A part of me says, of course, the ring itself isn't damaged even though the dirt is laying over it. Another part of me says, "clearly that's cheating," but I'm not sure why.

[YR7]

@RARodger

On a related thought, how do people define breaking a circle? Specifically, imagine the following... craft a metal ring, put it in a shallow pit, cast a spell using the ring. Could you then burry the ring to hide it? A part of me says, of course, the ring itself isn't damaged even though the dirt is laying over it. Another part of me says, "clearly that's cheating," but I'm not sure why.

Well, I tend to agree. I would rule that the ring doesn't affect what's on top of it once it is so covered. That a ring only affects what it visibly contains.