Did you mean ReVi? I agree, manipulating is OK. So if the effect can normally be shut off, that would fit perfectly in the ReVi category and there is already a guideline. But if you're talking more generally, you're talking about using a ReVi spell to just end an effect. That sounds like pure PeVi.
That's a ritual.
Those aren't really so easy. Presumably, if it's a talisman, it's been enchanted and probably with several effects. That makes the item extremely resilient. The type of damage that would have to be done is generally beyond grog capability and starts entering ritual territory, unless you manage an extraordinarily high stress roll.
It's one effect, meaning only one activation ever. It's not a whole bunch of duplicate effects cast repeatedly. Yes, you can have more than one target. But it only happens once and then remains forever (unless disenchanted or similar).
This is actually really advantageous for the rules. Otherwise you start having to worry about multiple sunrises/sunsets in a day and how that would shut down theoretically constant effects for a while. That happens (multiple sunrises/sunsets, not magic item stuff) to me regularly in the summer. Many days I'll see two sunrises, and many days I'll see at least two if not more sunsets. All that is required is movement across the earth, and in my case the distances I'm dealing with are only around a quarter of a mile.
I think I missed this debate, although how anyone could possibly logic automatically casting a spell twice per day into exactly the opposite would seem to require severe mental contortions not usually present on this board.
Have the authors weighed in on this intent? It seems to me that if they wanted it to be done this way they could simply have added "Constant Effect" to the Effect Modifications column in ArM5 pg 99 rather than using the existing rule of casting twice per day with an automatic trigger.
Rather than de-rail the current thread further, can anyone point me to where this was hashed out and I can follow the whole argument?
Would a version of the Sorcerer's Fork allow you to issue different commands to different elementals, if the control effect being modified was strong enough to be split multiple ways/have enough Penetration after the split? For example, if you start with a ReTe effect with T: Individual +5 Magnitudes for Size say and 60 total penetration and then use a 3 way fork, would it then result in 3 separate individual spells of +1 Size ((1+5)x1 = (1+1)x3) with 20 Penetration each?
If nothing else, an enchanted item has additional damage levels and a higher break EF according to City & Guild. However, that information is about items breaking from misuse or botches, so it's about like, cloaks resisting tears from branches and swords not blunting from hitting walls. So I don't know how much harder it would make dedicated efforts to break them.
Yes, though the comments and the similar statement in LoM do say this covers much more than the user misusing or botching. For example, one of the situations listed is essentially the result of a parry instead of a miss (proper use and not a botch). In our current case, for example, putting a crown on a stone and hitting it with a hammer would not be using the crown properly, right?
LoM mentions it, too, near the back. I think there is another place, too, but I can't remember right now. HoH:MC merely mentions that breaking and item leaves the magic recoverable as opposed to when an item is completely disenchanted.
How is turning an effect off until it is reactivated any different than ending an effect but still allowing a new casting? It's just semantics. If reactivating and casting anew were different things, that would make these different. But since they're the same, these are identical. For example:
I use a wand to put Gift of the Bear's Fortitude on a grog. You use ReVi to end that effect. I use the wand another time to put a new Gift of the Bear's Fortitude on the grog.
I use a wand to put Gift of the Bear's Fortitude on a grog. You use PeVi to end that effect. I use the wand another time to put a new Gift of the Bear's Fortitude on the grog.
Yes, I know, that's what I meant by "a Constant enchantment".
Sorry if I was unclear.
Duh. I feel silly.
If the control works at AC range, or through an Intangible Tunnel, one doesn't need to bother.
Don't think she has enough Lab Total yet, but as I see it, that's a perfectly viable solution, the only weakness being that it's way easier to dispell than a Constant effect. Still, one can't have it all.
I shall study this... When I have the time... Thanks!
Ooooh! I had forgotten that. Nice.
Although, IIRC, this poses 2 problems:
It requires a high enough lab total (IIRC, it must penetrate, or something like that)
It takes at least a season. With multiple elementals, that's too much.
Ideally, she doesn't want her successors to have to struggle to control the covenant's defenses.
I think it might work, and benefit of the Constant effect's resistance to PeVi.
Don't think she could do it, though
Actually, there's just a Verditius Mystery that, among other things, lets you rebuild items.
I'll check LoM, since you mentioned it as giving a broader definition to how much resilience items gain, though I think it's a stretch to call putting something on a rock and trying to smash it an improper use of the item. I'd not consider that a use of the item at all. But I suppose it's the closest we've got to a rule to work with.
If the effect is constant, and the convention is that we just use D: Sun, 2 uses per day, and an Enviornmental Trigger for sunrise/sunset, is it possible to destroy the item after it has been used? The effect is constant, there is no flicker, or change, it's cast once and done. What use is the item anymore?
These are identical (-ish). So what?
You're missing the important ones:
3) I use a wand to put Gift of the Bear's Fortitude on a grog. You use ReVi to supress that effect. I use PeVi (Or ReVi for that matter) to remove your supression. Gift of Bear's Fortitude is back on.
4) I use a wand to put Gift of the Bear's Fortitude on a grog. You use ReVi to supress that effect, but only for D: Diameter. 2 mins lafter Gift of Bear's Fortitude is back on.
5) I use a wand to put Gift of the Bear's Fortitude on a grog. You use ReVi to supress that effect. The Guernicus uses InVi and detects active magics.
6) I use a wand to put Gift of the Bear's Fortitude on a grog. You use PeVi to end that effect. The Guernicus uses InVi and detects no active magics.
Huh? Why are those important? Neither Richard nor I disagree on the guideline presented in ArM5 for ReVi suppression. He's saying ReVi should be able to turn off (not suppress, but entirely end) an effect. I'm saying that's exactly what PeVi guidelines do and so shouldn't be ReVi.
What does the item have to do with the effect once it is active and constant? The item isn't sustaining the effect is it? If it is, how does it do that when it is out of range? How does it continue to sustain an effect for an invalid (or unavailable) target? It would be much simpler if constant items were constant only when the device is within range of the individual affected, and if it goes out of range, it can be reactivated on a new target. The invisible ring worked as well for Bilbo as it did for Gollum.
I'm aware I'm going out of canon here. I just think it's such an arbitrary decision to make constant effect items affect one target and one target alone, and then they are locked and tied to the individual forever.
No. It only casts a spell with a Sun duration. No mage, nor item needs to maintain an effect with Sun duration. What does the item is to recast perfectly the spell just when it should fade - a magus with a way to detect the shift of day/night cycle should be able to do the same.
If the target is out of range, the item cannot recast the spell and the spell fade naturally on the target.
In fact, I believe an item cannot target or select a target by themself, thus the permanent effect achieve through Sun duration + env. trigger would only work smoothly for range of self, touch and possibly Arcane connection.
Do you mean like the invisibility? Such effects are D: Concentration with the device maintaining the concentration.
Or do you mean it's pull, which at least mostly ended at its destruction but was able to act over a very large distance? (I say "mostly" because a lot of its pull was lost even though there was some yearning left.) Of course, that is modeled a different way in-game (HoH:MC). But otherwise it still seems to fit fairly well.