Reasonable escape clauses for cheap, beneficial ensorcelments?

5too · 01-22-2021, 09:45 PM

I've been playing with elements that might be useful for an "Adventuring Enchanter" template, and one of the things that caught my eye was the Ensorcel enchantment. Ensorcel (GURPS: Magic, page 60) makes permanent many normal spells that can be cast on a person, for a cost of 200 times the usual casting cost. This cost may be discounted by anywhere from 10% to 90% by including an "escape clause", with the difficulty determining the discount amount - the easier it is to break, the cheaper the enchantment. What makes it interesting to me is that it can be used with a beneficial spell just as readily as a debilitating one. This would bring a 1 or 2 FP cost buff down to 20 or 40 points to cast and make semi-permanent; low enough for a dedicated enchanter to be able to cast (or restore) these enchantments in the field.

For beneficial effects, it seems fair to require that the difficulty of a rival fulfilling the dispelling conditions is what affects the price. The description of Magery visuals given under the Mage Sight description (M102) indicates that permanent enchantments are visibly distinct from active spells. Would it then be reasonable to assume that any foe making their Magery 0 sense roll could see that there's a shoddy, easily broken ensorcelment on their target? Perhaps the greater the discount, the smaller Margin of Success needed to see how to break it? If so, then it seems like we just need to be sure that such a rival *can* readily break the enchantment (or at least tell their minions how).

For the escape clauses themselves, I can think of four classes of conditions that they could be based on:

An ensorcelment could be "anchored" to a particular part of the recipient's body, such that a firm, intentional touch would dismiss it. This could be the user pressing on the anchor point, or a spear or arrow piercing it (though probably not something like a rock fall or wading through mud). It could be targeted (perhaps at -5, like the face or neck?) by anyone who can see it; or hit accidentally by anybody taking a swing at the appropriate body part (maybe 1 in 3 chance if the body part is hit?). If there's a number of ensorcelments keyed to varying locations, it might be easier to just roll whenever the recipient takes a critical hit to see which ensorcelment is lost.
An ensorcelment could be keyed to a magic word, such that the word being spoken aloud in the presence of the enchantment will break it. It can be an uncommon word if Magery 0 can spot it, but for a 90% reduction, it should ideally be a word that someone might say inadvertently - the player should need to be careful of these words in planning sessions, and a critical failure on a Carousing or Influence roll (by anybody, not just the recipient!) might result in dispelling the enchantment. This might become tricky to keep track of if several such words are in use at once, but could also offer fun roleplaying opportunities.
Certain environmental conditions, with a rarity based on the discount, might break the enchantment. The sound of rain, the scent of sulphur, a coating of dust or mud, even certain colors of light might dissolve the spell. Generally these should require at least a few seconds of exposure (or some forewarning) to give the character a chance to realize the danger and flee! The idea here is to give the character a choice between inconveniences, not randomly deactivate effects. This could also give some utility to spells like Colors or Sound, to dismiss certain enchantments when they become detrimental (such as when Magic Resistance is preventing healing), or even to target a foe's ensorcelments.
Similarly, a difficult condition might need to be met continuously in order to maintain the enchantment. They might need to take a vow of silence, carry a heavy object at all times, always be holding a small object (in hand or mouth, not worn/in pack), keep one hand closed at all times, etc. The previous escape clauses allow the character to choose between having all ensorcelments tied to a single clause or allowing them to have each deactivated separately; this option almost requires that only one or two escape clauses be used for all ensorcelments on a recipient. On the other hand, it's *much* easier to track when the conditions are met.

What are people's opinions of these as escape clauses? Are they sufficient for a 90% discount? Do they go farther than is needed? Are they too difficult to track during a game? Are there other escape clauses that would make sense for something like this?

5too · 01-25-2021, 07:14 AM

One related question (and a bump for the weekday traffic!) - Has their ever been a ruling on what happens when an ensorcelment is targeted by Suspend Enchantment, the escape clause is temporarily met, and then Suspend Enchantment expires? For instance, if Suspend Enchantment is cast on a Night Vision ensorcelment, and the key word is spoken a few times, and then Suspend Enchantment lapses; does Night Vision come back on? Or has it been dispelled?

It seems like this might be a way to protect higher value ensorcelments; but as far as I can tell, it's entirely up to GM fiat.

Plane · 01-25-2021, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5too

One related question (and a bump for the weekday traffic!) - Has their ever been a ruling on what happens when an ensorcelment is targeted by Suspend Enchantment, the escape clause is temporarily met, and then Suspend Enchantment expires? For instance, if Suspend Enchantment is cast on a Night Vision ensorcelment, and the key word is spoken a few times, and then Suspend Enchantment lapses; does Night Vision come back on? Or has it been dispelled?

It seems like this might be a way to protect higher value ensorcelments; but as far as I can tell, it's entirely up to GM fiat.

this sounds like it would be a similar issue compared to "can I cast Remove Enchantment on a Suspended Enchantment" ?

Or "can I cast Counterspell on a Suspended Spell" ?

5too · 01-25-2021, 03:53 PM

That does sound like exactly the same question - has it been answered in an official capacity, or is it up to the GM? Normally I'd happily pick my own answer; but since I'm working up a template, I'd like to hew as close to the "official" rules as I can!

Also, any opinions on the escape clauses?

Anthony · 01-25-2021, 04:10 PM

As the enchantment is not currently in effect, it is unable to detect the escape clause being fulfilled so it does not fail. For an ongoing status (say, there's a contract and the ensorcelment ends when the contract ends) the moment the suspend enchantment ended, the ensorcelment would respond to the escape clause being no longer valid and end.

To get a really high limitation, though, you'd really need something that is both obvious and easy to carry out. For example, magic tattoos that are ineffective if concealed and break if damaged.

Say, it isn't that bad! · 01-25-2021, 04:53 PM

A thread of example escape clauses for Ensorcelment sounds good to me.

5too · 01-25-2021, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony

As the enchantment is not currently in effect, it is unable to detect the escape clause being fulfilled so it does not fail. For an ongoing status (say, there's a contract and the ensorcelment ends when the contract ends) the moment the suspend enchantment ended, the ensorcelment would respond to the escape clause being no longer valid and end.

To get a really high limitation, though, you'd really need something that is both obvious and easy to carry out. For example, magic tattoos that are ineffective if concealed and break if damaged.

The bit about it not detecting fulfillment tracks with what I was thinking, it just seemed a little too good to be true :p

As for the obviousness requirement, do you think being obvious to anybody with Magery 0 isn't sufficient? I presumed that many groups such an adventurer would come into contact with would have someone who could detect and relay the weakness (certain demons, elves and other races, hostile casters, etc.), which is why I was suggested that mechanism. A lot of the buffs I was looking at wouldn't be immediately obvious (1-2 point buffs), so I wasn't sure people would bother to puzzle it out otherwise.

I like the idea of tattoos that might get damaged - maybe they shimmer or writhe or something to make it easier to tell they're supernatural, make it easier to make the connection?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Say, it isn't that bad!

A thread of example escape clauses for Ensorcelment sounds good to me.

Me too! I was hoping to be able to list a few examples (starting with the ones at the top) alongside the enchanter template I mentioned, but a thread with discussion would be even better! Any flavorful way for them to have to go out of their way to keep the enchantments going would be good.

(Edit - clarification)

Anthony · 01-25-2021, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5too

As for the obviousness requirement, do you think being obvious to anybody with Magery 0 isn't sufficient?

No, it's not sufficient. For the really high values, it should be obvious to absolutely anyone (or at least, obvious that there's something weird, though what exactly it does could be a mystery).

5too · 01-26-2021, 05:06 AM

In the interest of variety, what about other discoverability options? I like the idea of different enchanters having their own signature "styles", different means of finding and disrupting their work.

Maybe a shimmer or faintly glowing pigment around an anchor point, similar to the tattoo idea but outside any armor? Might give a stealth penalty, rather than forbidding armor; but any impact could disrupt it without penetrating DR.

Or what if anyone looking at the ensorcelled hears a faint echo of the chant used, suggesting how to break it? A Might spell anchored in the arm could broadcast something like "Arm of bear, arm of lion, this arm grant strength of iron!" Could be used for keyword based escape clauses as well. It would be annoying, giving a reaction penalty; though the listener might be able to dismiss it with an act of will.

Also, how do you feel about having to maintain a difficult state to maintain an ensorcelment; such as abstaining from speech? I initially suggested that based on one of the provided examples.

Plane · 01-26-2021, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony

As the enchantment is not currently in effect, it is unable to detect the escape clause being fulfilled so it does not fail.

This makes me wonder if the clause is part of the spell's actual programming, or just a limitation built into the overall magic.

Like for example how a fire-college spell will cease to work in Meta-Aspected Mana which is No Mana except for Meta College spells where it functions lke Normal Mana.

I would expect even fire spell under the effect of "Suspend Spell" to cease working in that area since it's part of the inherent limitations of the magic rather than just the spell being programmed to "cease working when there's no Fire Mana"

If "Suspend Enchantment" can be used to prevent people from breaking a curse because the curse can only be broken when the enchantment is active, this actually means Suspend Enchantment has a partial benefit of enhancing an enchantment rather than compromising it, which seems a bit off-concept for it.

01-22-2021, 09:45 PM	#1
5too Join Date: Jan 2021	Reasonable escape clauses for cheap, beneficial ensorcelments? I've been playing with elements that might be useful for an "Adventuring Enchanter" template, and one of the things that caught my eye was the Ensorcel enchantment. Ensorcel (GURPS: Magic, page 60) makes permanent many normal spells that can be cast on a person, for a cost of 200 times the usual casting cost. This cost may be discounted by anywhere from 10% to 90% by including an "escape clause", with the difficulty determining the discount amount - the easier it is to break, the cheaper the enchantment. What makes it interesting to me is that it can be used with a beneficial spell just as readily as a debilitating one. This would bring a 1 or 2 FP cost buff down to 20 or 40 points to cast and make semi-permanent; low enough for a dedicated enchanter to be able to cast (or restore) these enchantments in the field. For beneficial effects, it seems fair to require that the difficulty of a rival fulfilling the dispelling conditions is what affects the price. The description of Magery visuals given under the Mage Sight description (M102) indicates that permanent enchantments are visibly distinct from active spells. Would it then be reasonable to assume that any foe making their Magery 0 sense roll could see that there's a shoddy, easily broken ensorcelment on their target? Perhaps the greater the discount, the smaller Margin of Success needed to see how to break it? If so, then it seems like we just need to be sure that such a rival can readily break the enchantment (or at least tell their minions how). For the escape clauses themselves, I can think of four classes of conditions that they could be based on: An ensorcelment could be "anchored" to a particular part of the recipient's body, such that a firm, intentional touch would dismiss it. This could be the user pressing on the anchor point, or a spear or arrow piercing it (though probably not something like a rock fall or wading through mud). It could be targeted (perhaps at -5, like the face or neck?) by anyone who can see it; or hit accidentally by anybody taking a swing at the appropriate body part (maybe 1 in 3 chance if the body part is hit?). If there's a number of ensorcelments keyed to varying locations, it might be easier to just roll whenever the recipient takes a critical hit to see which ensorcelment is lost. An ensorcelment could be keyed to a magic word, such that the word being spoken aloud in the presence of the enchantment will break it. It can be an uncommon word if Magery 0 can spot it, but for a 90% reduction, it should ideally be a word that someone might say inadvertently - the player should need to be careful of these words in planning sessions, and a critical failure on a Carousing or Influence roll (by anybody, not just the recipient!) might result in dispelling the enchantment. This might become tricky to keep track of if several such words are in use at once, but could also offer fun roleplaying opportunities. Certain environmental conditions, with a rarity based on the discount, might break the enchantment. The sound of rain, the scent of sulphur, a coating of dust or mud, even certain colors of light might dissolve the spell. Generally these should require at least a few seconds of exposure (or some forewarning) to give the character a chance to realize the danger and flee! The idea here is to give the character a choice between inconveniences, not randomly deactivate effects. This could also give some utility to spells like Colors or Sound, to dismiss certain enchantments when they become detrimental (such as when Magic Resistance is preventing healing), or even to target a foe's ensorcelments. Similarly, a difficult condition might need to be met continuously in order to maintain the enchantment. They might need to take a vow of silence, carry a heavy object at all times, always be holding a small object (in hand or mouth, not worn/in pack), keep one hand closed at all times, etc. The previous escape clauses allow the character to choose between having all ensorcelments tied to a single clause or allowing them to have each deactivated separately; this option almost requires that only one or two escape clauses be used for all ensorcelments on a recipient. On the other hand, it's much easier to track when the conditions are met. What are people's opinions of these as escape clauses? Are they sufficient for a 90% discount? Do they go farther than is needed? Are they too difficult to track during a game? Are there other escape clauses that would make sense for something like this?

01-25-2021, 07:14 AM	#2
5too Join Date: Jan 2021	Re: Reasonable escape clauses for cheap, beneficial ensorcelments? One related question (and a bump for the weekday traffic!) - Has their ever been a ruling on what happens when an ensorcelment is targeted by Suspend Enchantment, the escape clause is temporarily met, and then Suspend Enchantment expires? For instance, if Suspend Enchantment is cast on a Night Vision ensorcelment, and the key word is spoken a few times, and then Suspend Enchantment lapses; does Night Vision come back on? Or has it been dispelled? It seems like this might be a way to protect higher value ensorcelments; but as far as I can tell, it's entirely up to GM fiat.

01-25-2021, 03:53 PM	#4
5too Join Date: Jan 2021	Re: Reasonable escape clauses for cheap, beneficial ensorcelments? That does sound like exactly the same question - has it been answered in an official capacity, or is it up to the GM? Normally I'd happily pick my own answer; but since I'm working up a template, I'd like to hew as close to the "official" rules as I can! Also, any opinions on the escape clauses?

01-25-2021, 04:10 PM	#5
Anthony Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Berkeley, CA	Re: Reasonable escape clauses for cheap, beneficial ensorcelments? As the enchantment is not currently in effect, it is unable to detect the escape clause being fulfilled so it does not fail. For an ongoing status (say, there's a contract and the ensorcelment ends when the contract ends) the moment the suspend enchantment ended, the ensorcelment would respond to the escape clause being no longer valid and end. To get a really high limitation, though, you'd really need something that is both obvious and easy to carry out. For example, magic tattoos that are ineffective if concealed and break if damaged. __________________ My GURPS site and Blog.

01-25-2021, 04:53 PM	#6
Say, it isn't that bad! Join Date: Dec 2013	Re: Reasonable escape clauses for cheap, beneficial ensorcelments? A thread of example escape clauses for Ensorcelment sounds good to me. __________________ In which I post about a TL9-10 solar system http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=169674 If you don't know why I said something, please ask. Assumptions are the death of courtesy. Disappointed in the behaviour I have too-often encountered here.

01-26-2021, 05:06 AM	#9
5too Join Date: Jan 2021	Re: Reasonable escape clauses for cheap, beneficial ensorcelments? In the interest of variety, what about other discoverability options? I like the idea of different enchanters having their own signature "styles", different means of finding and disrupting their work. Maybe a shimmer or faintly glowing pigment around an anchor point, similar to the tattoo idea but outside any armor? Might give a stealth penalty, rather than forbidding armor; but any impact could disrupt it without penetrating DR. Or what if anyone looking at the ensorcelled hears a faint echo of the chant used, suggesting how to break it? A Might spell anchored in the arm could broadcast something like "Arm of bear, arm of lion, this arm grant strength of iron!" Could be used for keyword based escape clauses as well. It would be annoying, giving a reaction penalty; though the listener might be able to dismiss it with an act of will. Also, how do you feel about having to maintain a difficult state to maintain an ensorcelment; such as abstaining from speech? I initially suggested that based on one of the provided examples.