More shaping questions

[jcorey30@yahoo.com]

The question we were exploring is whether a Shaper with the aid of 
another
mage could invest items with spells from the assisting mage's college 
using
Shapers Q-4.


The arcane wisdom rules state that Shaper's Q-4 is "identical to rule 
32.3,"
excepting a change in experience multiple and base chance.  Rule 32.3
contains the stipulation, "A character may only invest an object with 
a
spell he knows."  This suggests that a shaper may invest items only 
with
spells from the College of Shaping Magics if he or she uses Q-4.


However, the 2nd edition rules predate Arcane Wisdom, and this 
stipulation
may really be an oversight.  If you look at Arcane Wisdom, Shaping R-6
(Binding Investments), you'll see an example that suggests Shapers can
invest items with spells from other colleges if they have the aid of 
mages
from those colleges (After all, shapers can do this with golems and 
through
the preparation and binding rituals).  The example describes an item
invested with malignant flames and a shaper's causing this investment 
to
become permanent--I think it implies the original spell (malignant 
flames)
may have been invested by a shaper rather than a fire mage.  This, of
course, contradicts the stipulation I mentioned earlier.


I think the 3rd edition rules resolve this issue.  In the 3rd Edition,
Shaping Magics Q-4 is taken as the base spell and rule 32.3 refers to 
it
(rather than the other way around as in 2nd Ed and Arcane Wisdom).  
In the
3rd Ed. you'll see that the investment ritual is the same as Shaping 
Q-4
except that... and one of the stipulations is that "the character 
must be of
the same school of magic as the spell invested."  I believe this 
implies
that this is not true of Shaping Q-4.  And would, thus argue that 
with the
aid of other mages present during the ritual, Shapers could invest 
items
with spells from other colleges.


I noticed another restriction I find interesting and you might 
consider
applying (1): The object invested must first have been created and 
bound by
a Shaper (presumably using a preparation ritual (Q-5 to Q-11).  Why 
do I
like this?  Because it means Sparky will have to come to Portly if he 
wants
to make a ring. ;-)  I'm so mean.


Here's some additional rules lawyering issues...


Why the hell is there a Ritual of Binding Investments (R-6) when 
there's a
perfectly good set of Enchantment Binding Rituals (R-9 to R-22)?


Do Shapers have to apply Preparation Rituals (Q-5 to Q-11) before 
casting
Q-4?


These are my thoughts.  I really think this is confusing, so I 
thought we
might talk (email) it out so I understood how you read the rules...


Q-4 (ritual of investment) is for spells only. R-6 (Binding 
Investments)
applies only to items invested using Q-4, thus only items invested 
with
spells.  R-6 has a rediculously low base chance (5%) and a very high
experience multiple (500).  This puts it out of reach for most PCs.  
Nothing
indicates failure to cast the spell destroys the item or anything, 
but the
chance of backfire with the multiple rolls it would take for success 
make it
pretty risky.  Anyway--it seems to me like Q-4 and R-6 go together.  
(Hey, I
just looked at the 3rd Ed. rules and they're way more lenient!  
Damn.  See
3rd Ed. Shaping R-5.)


So on the other hand, it seems like Q-5 to Q-11 and R-9 to R-22 go 
together.
They have fairly low base chances, they're open to more than 
spells..., but
they take at least two months for simple investments, and they can 
even zap
one's endurance permanently.  What's more, they're subject to shaping
accidents.


Does this seem like a fair read to you?  It's just confusing, because 
on the
face of it, there doesn't really seem to be much difference, and 
really no
reason for the variations, but when I dig deeper...


One other thought/question...


The rules state pretty clearly that only a counterspell known by a 
namer can
dispell an invested spell.  Maybe this makes sense since investments 
come
through rituals rather than spells, but I still wonder if the namer's 
not
just using the counterspell of the college of shaping magics--that's 
what
namers do after all.  It seems to me if a counterspell can destroy a 
golem,
it could also destroy other investments.  But maybe this is just too
powerful.