Re: [dq-rules] More shaping questions

[Bruce Probst <bprobst@netspace.net.au>]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2001 16:27:33 -0000, jcorey30@yahoo.com wrote:

>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.

No it doesn't -- as you state yourself.  The Shaper uses the Preparation and
Binding Rituals to do this, not the Investment ritual.

>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 guess that argument is valid (actually, 3rd edition states specifically
that a Shaper can use an "assistant" to invest spells in an object), if you
accept the 3rd edition's ruling on Shaping and Investing in general -- which
personally I don't.  (I don't disregard 3rd edition entirely, but in
general, I believe *most* of the changes made therein were poor decisions,
and I prefer the 2nd edition rules 95% of the time.)  Note that in 3rd
edition, you can't invest *anything* unless you have a specially-prepared
object created by a Shaper (as you noted) -- a dramatic change to the 2nd
edition rules on investment.

>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)?

R-6 has the *benefit* of not requiring "Preparation" -- and thus there's no
possibility of a Shaping Accident.  It's also a lot quicker (hours rather
than weeks or even longer).  The *restriction* on R-6 is that it only works
on a currently-invested item (and doesn't have a terrific base chance).

If you like, it's a refined form of Preparation/Binding that only works
within strict parameters (normal Preparation/Binding is much more open in
terms of effects).

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

Depends which edition of the rules you're using, doesn't it?  2nd edition,
no.  3rd edition, yes.

>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.

As you say, that's what Namers do.  I think rules like this are necessary to
making Namers the important guys they're supposed to be.  It's not the fact
that it's a *counterspell* that is dispelling the magic, it's the fact that
it's a *Namer* casting the counterspell.  In other words, Namer
counterspells are more potent than other Colleges' counterspells.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst              bprobst@netspace.net.au    ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia      MSTie #72759
"Watch out for snakes!"
ASL FAQ              http://users.senet.com.au/~mantis/ASLFAQ