Lord Help me. I'm using Magi of Hermes to argue canon.
Look at the devices on page 23, under Aurulentus. I identified 3 Bachelor's Door, Bed of Rapid Convalescence and the Crib with a Mother's Touch. I'm just going to stop there, because it is clear that Volker Bürkel and Christoph Safferling had quite a bit different understanding of Constant effects (inline with what we're thinking) than Matt Ryan understood about constant effects with The Living Corpse.
Erik Tyrell has a similar device for Lambert of Merinita, [strike]The Granary Chest, Convenient Warehouse (not a great example, since it is an effect on itself) for Lambert of Merinita (page 69)[/strike]. Also Ranulf's Ribbon of Arcane Preservation, Preserved Connection appears to work on multiple recipients (page 113).
Mark Lawford for Petalichus of Verditius has The Sanctum Door Hanging with Come No Further (page 103).
I'm sure other books that have devices might have devices that are clearly to work on multiple recipients with a constant effect.
At the very least canon is in conflict.
Edit: struck The Granary chest as the effect is R:Personal. Kind of. Sort of. Questionable as to whether they should be Personal for the effects that they have, but that is a different discussion.
You want an implication? If you're going to use this ruling, I strongly recommend vetoing the entire existence of the Hermetic Empowerment Mystery. Technically, permanent Aegis of the Hearth isn't a problem, because it arguably fulfills the pre-Hermetic rites thing and definitely can't have it's RDT changed without a Breakthrough. But there are plenty of other Rituals that would be destructive if permanent, which of course is an easy thing to accomplish with this ruling since the spirit obviously won't have to keep using its Might on the effect over and over.
Sure, some may cringe. I think that book alone gave me the record for submitted errata. But it's a great place to look for other items.
Yes, these are different. Of course, it looks like they're is just totally messed up. That's not a constant effect at all. It's like he was trying to do a Shrouded Glen kind of a thing. The door should be unlimited uses at D: Momentary; passing through the doorway is the triggering action. The bed's and crib's effects, as described, use what ArM5 says maintaining concentration is for.
I don't think they're in line with what anyone was thinking. Were you thinking a Constant effect could be moved from one target to another at will? I guess I'll add these to the list when I get back to the rest of the magi in MoH.
This suffers from the same issue as above. Why do so may people think you can arbitrarily move a Constant effect from one target to another at will? These are the most abusive uses of Constant I have seen.
This looks closer to a by-the-rules shot at a Shrouded Glen effect. Presumably this acts on one room forever, causing not disagreements with us. But I have to look up T: Room. Interestingly, T: Room doesn't say it doesn't work on others who enter later. T: Circle has an "at the time of casting" comment, but T: Room does not. Very clever, Mark - I'll have to remember this one. Looks like this is valid and works fine with either interpretation of Constant.
I'm not sure you were wrong to mark this one. R: Personal is probably acceptable because, for example, R: Personal affects your clothing. But here we have something that goes beyond the above problems. Not only can it transfer its effect, it can do so repeatedly to many different things. That like a whole pile of Aurulentus's effects all piled into one effect. It still has the whole sketchy transferable Constant effect at its core.
So, who here ever thought a Constant effect should be able to be transferred at will an unlimited number of times??? I'm guessing if we ask David Chart that question he will rule those four effects need to be corrected.
Eh, this is already essentially possible without an item or possible with an item without using Hermetic Empowerment. Hermetic Empowerment just makes it harder to dispel. All you really have to do is cast such an abusive ritual at D: Concentration and then either maintain it with your own spell at D: Moon or with one from an item either at D: Moon or Constant. But in these cases the original can be dispelled relatively easily. In the Hermetic Empowerment case the device would need to be disenchanted.
I did believe that you could somehow deactivate an effect on a constant duration item because all you would need to do is transfer the device to a new recipient at sunrise or sunset. My understanding wasn't really well developed, though.
For errata, I'd rather that the constant effect be costed differently. Change it to D: momentary but create a new item effect modification called constant which works as described here. Make it cost 10 or 15 levels or something.
If rather D:Sun, two uses per day, linked to Subrise have the recipient of the effect be changeable somehow.
Those examples in MoH don't even use sunrise/sunset, though. At least that would be a reasonable interpretation. They use a triggering action (lying on the bed, etc.) to start or end it for an individual. That's why I said "at will an unlimited number of times." You can do it whenever and as often as you want if we use those items as examples.
Compare the Bachelor's Door to Doorway of the Wary Steward from Lambert's section. Of course, the latter has me wondering how CrMe magic makes a wooden door frame shake, but the mechanics of the detection effect look more suitable.
This is an Intellego effect, not Creo.
And I regard the effect of shaking into the realm of 'cosmetic side effect needed for Intellego devices to work at all'.
Had it been a spell, the caster would know what the spell detects or learns. As a device? The mechanics are unclear as how the Intellego device conveys the information to the user. IMHO devices worn or held can just let the user/wearer know what it learns. For devices such as the Doorway of... it needs some external way of telling what it learns. I'm ok with shaking, and that this can cause a bell hanging to chime.
Otherwise no Intellego devices could ever be made as Lesser Devices, since that'd all need a linked effect to shake, make a sound, change colour or something. Or the use of them would always need at appropriate Intellego [Form] spell to be cast on the device to learn what it had sensed. Which would make them useless to non-magi.
Several fixes exist for this. The easiest is to just accept what is unsaid, and allow Intellego devices a free, cosmetic effect to convey information to the user. Another method is to simply require a level modification for this, but this would render all devices in published material invalid. This is perhaps a solution best left for a revised or new edition, if this is deemed important.
I'm a bit confused on the interpretations that you've been using for constant enchantments, and since this is my first time in this sort of discussion, I hope I'm not adressing stuff that's supposed to be well-known. I'm the one playing a Verditius on our saga. We're doing 4th ed for now, and as you all surely know there we got the "constant use", which got us all a bit puzzled, unless we're missing a book, as to what duration are we supposed to use for that. Planning the switch for 5th ed just made the puzzle harder.
Most examples I've read in the books seem to completely ignore this issue, having constant enchantments with random durations, but that didn't really make sense. If you can do that, why not lower 10 levels to most "sun" duration stuff and leave it "momentary"? I've been doing this with the permission of the storyguide to get my constant enchantments cheaper, but it still seems odd. We've always assumed that "constant use" means that it's constantly recasting its effect as soon as it expires. So if you make an invisibility belt with "momentary" duration, range touch and constant use, it's working as long as it's worn, but if the duration is "sun", it means that you'll be invisible until the next sunrise/sundown after you take it off. Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense for you to be able to choose both a duration and constant use.
In the other hand, 5th Ed's new way to create constant effects seems weird, and after reading this thread I'm even more confused. Our initial interpretation of the "2-uses sun duration w/ environmental trigger" was simply literal: the item has an effect that recasts every sunrise/sundown if there's a valid target. We never though of if as a "special no-flicker rule" that only applies to that particular combination of parameters. Just that environmental triggers are timed perfectly by default. I think that this interpretation makes more sense than implying that it's a special parameter combination for "a truly constant effect". Considering how nicely synthesized have the rules become since 4th Ed, I feel that they'd have gone with a "constant" enchant-only duration if all they wanted was to do that.
To further that point, the argument that I've seen here about it firing once then lasting forever regardless of the enchanted item's existence or location seems extremely overpowered to me, while the idea of rendering it useless forever if you move it away of its effective range (since it fires actually once) gives the opposite vibe just as strongly. It seems to me that it's much simpler to assume that the line "a truly constant effect" meant just that you can have a seamless effect recast if you use the proper parameters.
Well, it seems powerful, but it is actually extremely fragile when you measure it in the scope of a simple formulaic spell can invalidate a season (or more) of work in creating a device that has a constant effect. The simple formulaic spell I'm thinking one is a PeVi spell that Unravels the effect.
Also, when a caster (whether an item or person) moves out of range, the effect continues, although if it might be able to be altered, then one can't make an alteration until within range of the caster.
But yeah, talking with a couple of different troupes I'm in, no one understands constant to work the way that is described as being RAW.
Well, you can also use a simple formulaic spell to end a human life, regardless of its age. Destroying a season-old enchantment seems to me pretty well within the scope of a formulaic spell, constant or not...
Yeah, but using that argument to say that since its duration is "constant" the effect is cast just once and lasts forever to me seems like a loophole in the Limit of Essential Nature. You can't vis-boost a non-Creo spell to momentary ritual to change something forever, but then you can do it by enchanting, and with a spell of less magnitude than Moon? If that was the intended meaning I'd think that'd be significant enough to mention in the description of the Limits.
The only thing that saddens me a bit is that I liked a lot my momentary-constant use toys from 4th Ed. Having to raise them like 20 levels, or sacrifice unlimited uses, it's gonna hurt. At least now Verditius are reeally buffed, from what I've seen.
In any case, what would take to create a "constant effect" that worked exactly like in 4th Ed? I was thinking about momentary duration, unlimited uses, and a linked trigger set to some spell that would constantly recast it (for example an InVi one that checks if the target is under the intended effect).
No, you misunderstand me. You are effectively destroying an item, if you can indeed use a PeVi effect to destroy the effect it keeps and sustains constantly. Normally one needs a ritual (and the attendant vis) to cast a spell that destroys an item.
Eh? My argument is that effects persist for their duration even when outside of the range of the caster. This is RAW.
The constant duration has nothing to do with Essential Nature, IMO.
I think Verditius is one of the weaker Houses, to be honest.
But that would only work if the effect is indeed fired only once and lasts forever. If it's simply recast every sunrise/sunset, then the device is still functional. I think that would strenghten the point even further.
Yes, I'm not arguing against that, precisely my point is that "constant" is not a duration, simply a way to simplify the particular combination of durations and effect modifications to cause an effect to work constantly. The item doesn't stop having "sun" duration, nor recasting the effect twice per day. If the device is destroyed/taken out of range the effect would simply last until next sunrise/sunset.
Otherwise, why not just have a "constant" enchantment-only duration?
If it's to be considered an actual "duration", then it does contradict said limit. Otherwise, why say that no effect can last forever, then tell you how to make one that does?
Well, regardless of how weak they might be, I love the concept behind them the most. I was simply saying that even though it's harder to enchant some particular effects, there are more ways to boost their ability to do so.
Right, which was one of the arguments I used earlier, IIRC. The implications of the line editor's understanding of RAW create a number of odd scenarios in relatively common situations.
Well, there is a constant only for enchantments. As said previously in the thread, it's not how it works, but how it is paid for. It's permanent, and it uses vis, so I think it's fine. Rituals that improve the Characteristics are momentary in duration, use vis, and have permanent effects, but they aren't considered constant.
It''s also sustained by vis, in the creation of the item, so I don't see it. Also, the effect can be cancelled.
All that being said, I see your arguments, I even agree with some of them. I would handle constant effects in the reasonable method that their effects can be transferred at sunrise/sunset to the new recipient/owner of the item. Having constant effects be one and done creates more problems, but let's be clear, that this is more of a house rule, at least as far as it has been clarified in this thread.
Momentary Creo rituals aren't supposed to be a "constant" effect. You're not sustaining a spell forever, but basically transforming raw vis into mundane matter. You're not magically enhancing the muscles of that dude so that they can now lift a horse as they are, you're really growing him bigger ones, and you're not using the vis to extend the effect duration, but to give them real substance. Otherwise it'd be a Muto effect and even if it was a momentary ritual using vis, you'd be simply wasting it because he'd revert back a moment later (and, can you even make such a ritual according to the rules?).
At least that's how I understand RAW for the Limit of Essential Nature and the lesser Limit of Creation.
I don't think that the vis used to enchant a device sustains the effect itself. Otherwise, devices would always have limited charges (and you don't even need vis to enchant charged items). The fact that Verditius mysteries allow for recovering most of that vis would mean that the vis isn't being "used" on a ritual, but "transferred" into the device in a special way that turns it into a conduit for spells.
I don't think that being able to cancel the effect is relevant. You're not supposed to be able to sustain effects indefinitely. That's a Limit. Things that cause permanent changes aren't being "sustained". They're given real existence.
What exactly is the house rule, treating it as a "constant duration", or taking the enchantment parameters literally?
The line editor, though not authoritatively so, has said that constant effect enchantments cast their effect once and are done. That's as close to an official position as you are going to see until it is made an erratum.
The House rule is the taking the enchantment parameters literally and allowing the effect to be recast on someone else at the next sunrise/sunset.