Topic: Dispelling permanent effects

[Moostik]

As a spin-off of my previous thread, I had to ask; Does anyone know of any (from any RM source)rules concerning dispelling enchantments out of magical items, constructs, golems, simulacra, etc?
"Active spells" doesn't seem to cover those.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

The fastest way would be to simply destroy the item , but RM2 has four other ways. One is the Disjunction spell (RoCo I, Ethereal Mastery), the other three being whole lists dedicated to such a purpose,  Discharging Ways, Unmaking Ways and Mana-Absorption (all in the "Alchemy Companion").

[arakish]

The fastest way would be to simply destroy the item , but RM2 has four other ways. One is the Disjunction spell (RoCo I, Ethereal Mastery), the other three being whole lists dedicated to such a purpose,  Discharging Ways, Unmaking Ways and Mana-Absorption (all in the "Alchemy Companion").

Thanks OLF.

However, it would also depend upon the item.  Artifacts, Legendary Artifacts, and God-born items may only be destroyed.  And usually with an incredibly arduous method.  Take Tolkien's One Ring as an example.

For other items, to dispel/disenchant an item's power, at least in my rulings, the dispeller/disenchanter MUST be of equal or greater level.  Otherwise, no hope of dispelling/disenchantment.  I do know the RAW allows an RR for lower level persons to have a possibility to dispel/disenchant, but I house ruled that level must be equal or greater.  Additionally, the dispeller/disenchanter must also Attune to the object so s/he can know how it was done and what powers there are.  IMHO, I feel one must know the power to also dispel/disenchant it.

rmfr

[Moostik]

Thanks plenty to you both. All this is really useful. I couldn't find anything in the RMSS Treasure companion, but the Alchemy companion actually had a few great bits in it. And I completely overlooked Etheral Mastery.

I like your house rules, arakish, and I agree completely on your take on artifacts - It would take something mount-doomey.

[tarax]

I have a house rule, depending on what the item is, that the energy stored in it has to go somewhere, and some times will role on disruption or another applicable critical table, unless they take precautions.

Similar to Arakish, if it is an artifact or legendary, there are special steps that need to be taken.

It seems to work well.

[Moostik]

I have a house rule, depending on what the item is, that the energy stored in it has to go somewhere, and some times will role on disruption or another applicable critical table, unless they take precautions.

Similar to Arakish, if it is an artifact or legendary, there are special steps that need to be taken.

It seems to work well.

For any magical item, many spells will have to be cast during the creation process, so the magical energy stored within is indeed great. Thanks for the feedback, I'll consider an effect should the PC's succeed in destroying an object magically. For a real campaign example, an 8th level paladin attempted to Dispel a lesser construct. Didn't work out.

[Marrethiel]

Paladin Spell List Spell Breaker, RoCo I page 27 has a disjunct too.

[Moostik]

Thanks, Marrethiel. I'll look into that one.

Those paladin lists were revised into oblivion in a later companion, but they do have a few spells that I miss for the paladin. I guess they were too powerful. I've been contemplating reworking them into additional spell list for the RMSS paladin, as I award additional base lists for all channeling users if they reach certain grace levels (as per ChaCo). For other realms, spell selection is less restricted to begin with, but as an example, I allow research to "discover" new lists that are otherwise unavailable, some my own, while others from RM2 companions.

On a side note, does anyone have a system for developing lists that are remarkably similar to lists they already know? As an example, one of my campaign's spell users is a gnome magician with a mental disorder that makes him put as much effort as physically possible into learning fire-based spells. In EssCo, there is a closed list that mimics Fire Law (from the top of my head, named Fire Mastery or similar). It contains spells not covered by Fire Law, but is generally less powerful than Fire Law and contains some of the same spells, but at higher levels. I'm leaning towards giving those ranks for free, other suggestions on the topic would be welcome.

[Marrethiel]

Page 52 - 53 of RMC Spell Law (not sure of the page for RM2 but its there) has guidelines for researching new spells. Maybe the time could be reduced based on a research skill roll or maybe by his fanaticism. Seeing as you are putting the spells into a pure Magician list I think it quite reasonable to make them lower level...

Oh, I just had a thought; you could give him the spells much earlier but make him take a -50 spell fumble (maybe based on how many days short of the proper research time) each time he uses them until the proper research time has passed. Then continue to give him more and more fire spells so they are never fully researched

[jdale]

On a side note, does anyone have a system for developing lists that are remarkably similar to lists they already know? As an example, one of my campaign's spell users is a gnome magician with a mental disorder that makes him put as much effort as physically possible into learning fire-based spells. In EssCo, there is a closed list that mimics Fire Law (from the top of my head, named Fire Mastery or similar). It contains spells not covered by Fire Law, but is generally less powerful than Fire Law and contains some of the same spells, but at higher levels. I'm leaning towards giving those ranks for free, other suggestions on the topic would be welcome.

That may deserve its own thread. I was thinking about it as well, there are quite a few overlapping lists in the system. A generous but tedious approach would be to simply grant free ranks for each spell that is exactly the same on both lists, or the same but higher level (but not spells that are the same but lower level on the new list). Still limit the character to developing their normal number of ranks per level (so the free ranks do count here).

A stickier approach would be to make the list either Everyman or Occupational if the GM rules they are sufficiently similar, but limit that secondary list to the same number of ranks as the primary list. That is easy and only requires a judgment call once but I suspect it will often be too generous.