Ensorcel - Escape Clauses

[dds_ks]

This is about the Ensorcel-Spell (M60). The description starts with the sentence...

An ensorcelment is a durable spell, usually malign but sometimes beneficial, cast on a single being.

In a world with intelligent wizards, I don't think that this is true. Of course: casting spells on enemies from a save distance, that's interesting. But on the other hand, think of the possibilities!

Possible spells to be used with Ensorcel are all the resist-spells - most of them cost 2 FP for regular casting: The Trekkies will excuse: "Seven of Nine", if you only count those to be used on fantasy people. Now imagine the "standard enchanting circle" which the rulebook assumes (compare M20), which can produce enchantments up to 60 FP for a "retail price" of 60 $.

So how much will it cost to have a lasting Resist Fire, Resist Cold, Resist (cheap resist-spell)? Easy to calculate: 200 times casting cost (for most resist-spells 2) = 400, reduced by the discount for the easiest escape clause (-90%) = 40 FP = 40 $.

How long will it last?
It could be removed (Remove Curse) - but this should be avoidable.
Or until the escape clause is fulfilled. Which leads to my main question:

M60 says:

The “discount” can be anything from 10% (for truly difficult or unlikely conditions) to 90% (for something that the subject could easily and automatically do, and easily discover).

Well: there should be something which you could easily and/or automatically do, but you could easily avoid as well. And it's easy to discover, if the enchanter tells you right away. He even could give you a written guarantee saying: "only valid if you don't [escape clause]", exactly stating what to avoid.
For example: "Give (exactly) 3 silver pennies to a merchant."
Well, in case you ever have to: buy something more or pay more than the merchant wanted... ("I only can accept if you allow me to pay 4 silver pennies instead of 3!"). Or give a shilling (12 pennies) and ask for change.

And now the main question:
Can this really be true?

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by dds_ks

And now the main question:
Can this really be true?

Sorry, but your question is not clear. Are you asking if the spell is fair?

[Ts_]

Well, it certainly looks munchkinny to make a beneficial spell permanent (except if ended on purpose) for only 20x the FP. I like this idea. ;) But probably wouldn't allow it ...

Ts

[Tuoni]

The best escape clause for an Ensorcel spell is "The subject must think 'I don't want to be enchanted any more' with the intent to remove the spell". There. About the easiest thing to do. Can't be stopped without knocking the person unconscious. Can't be tricked into doing either. Can't even be detected as being done save for the fact that the enchantment is now gone.

Not that I would allow it in my games :P

Edit: Actually, the easy fix for beneficial spells is one gets a greater discount the harder it is to avoid canceling the spell. If you want that 90% discount on something good, then you'd need an escape clause like "speaks" or "is looked at". Could have a lot of fun with that actually.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by dds_ks

This is about the Ensorcel-Spell (M60). The description starts with the sentence...

An ensorcelment is a durable spell, usually malign but sometimes beneficial, cast on a single being.

In a world with intelligent wizards, I don't think that this is true.

Worlds with intelligent wizards don't have Ensorcel, because it's another of those problematic Grimoire spells. It's intended for fairy tale roleplaying and needs adjustment for any harder fantasy campaign. I would say that the cost should be multipled as per beneficial afflictions, and the escape clause discount should be inverted.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by dds_ks

The Trekkies will excuse: "Seven of Nine", if you only count those to be used on fantasy people.

I don't grasp at all what the sentence means, or what Seven of Nine has to do with Ensorcel.

Originally Posted by Tuoni

Actually, the easy fix for beneficial spells is one gets a greater discount the harder it is to avoid canceling the spell. If you want that 90% discount on something good, then you'd need an escape clause like "speaks" or "is looked at". Could have a lot of fun with that actually.

Inverting the escape clause discount if the effect is beneficial and the subject is willing seems to be an obvious fix.

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

I would say that the cost should be multipled as per beneficial afflictions, and the escape clause discount should be inverted.

Benedictions have their cost multiplied? Bwuh? There's nothing in the box on Powers page 40 that indicates this. Where is this coming from?

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Benedictions have their cost multiplied? Bwuh? There's nothing in the box on Powers page 40 that indicates this. Where is this coming from?

Basic. Beneficial afflictions cost ten times as much as an equivalent sized disadvantage.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Basic. Beneficial afflictions cost ten times as much as an equivalent sized disadvantage.

Do you mean that Afflictions of an advantage are 10x the value of disadvantages? That's true, but a Affliction of an Advantage doesn't necessary count as a Beneficial Affliction. If you afflict Shrinking or Alternate Form as an attack for instance.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Do you mean that Afflictions of an advantage are 10x the value of disadvantages? That's true, but a Affliction of an Advantage doesn't necessary count as a Beneficial Affliction. If you afflict Shrinking or Alternate Form as an attack for instance.

Or use Afflict Warp to teleport someone over a cliff or into a lava pit or just 100 feet into the air.