Ritual Activation Question

Alavatar

Alavatar

Baron
Here is a scenario that I don't think will happen too often, but it sounds interesting and I thought it warrented being asked. Not that I'm thinking about doing it... but it's good to know for the future.

Wizard A has Apprentice B who follows him around everywhere. Wizard A casts a few rituals on the Body of Apprentice B (stupid in the first place, but bear with me), namely Bane Command, Cloak Chaos, and a couple Expanded Enchantments (Prison, Circle of Power, and Dispel).

If Wizard A is holding Apprentice B, can Wizard A activate those rituals? i.e. Wizard A is holding the shoulder of Apprentice B, and Wizard A is hit with a Cause Mortal Wounds spell, can Wizard A use the Cloak? If Wizard A thinks Apprentice B needs to stay out of a fight, can he grab Apprentice B and activate the Prison?

Short and sweet, can someone activate a ritual cast on another person's body?
 
I'm fairly certain you can only cast the cloak necromancy if you're aspecting the ritual Earth, but I'd have to double-check.

As for activating a ritual on a body, I'd say no, in general.
 
jpariury said:
I'm fairly certain you can only cast the cloak necromancy if you're aspecting the ritual Earth, but I'd have to double-check.
Click to expand...

I didn't see that requirement on the Cloak scroll. I'll double check this afternoon as well.

jpariury said:
As for activating a ritual on a body, I'd say no, in general.
Click to expand...

That would make sense. I just couldn't find a rule on the subject within the book. I was looking over some scrolls last night and I think I just saw something to the effect of "Target can cloak the effect before any other defenses, and cloak acts similar to a Spellshield in that it stops the effect." Since merely having/touching an item that was a 'Physical' or 'Universal' target of a ritual allows you to use the ability I was wondering if the same was true for rituals with 'Body' as the target.

I'll be sure to triple-check my scrolls when I get home.
 
As to the intent of the question, I'd have to say this would fall under the same general category that bodies generally do.

I can't disarm your Kerjal unless you are carrying Kerjal while he is in a state of "not awake". (Dead, unconscious, asleep, waylaid, etc.)

So, unless the Wizard's apprentice is being carted around bodily because he just got hit over the back of the head or some such, Wizard A cannot use Apprentice B's rituals.

As with any magic item, you have to know it's there and what it does. You don't have to have it identified first; you just have to be told. (And who's to say the guy identifying it isn't lying to you either?) If I tell my friend I have a red crystal that activates Life in my pocket and he finds me dead with the crystal on me, there's no reason why he can't try to use it on me. I've told him what it does. If Wizard A cast the rituals, I see no reason why he shouldn't know they're there and be able to use them, so long as the apprentice is out of it.

Of course, if the apprentice rezzes, since they were body cast, they go buh-bye.

Mileage may vary.
 
Sarah said:
As to the intent of the question, I'd have to say this would fall under the same general category that bodies generally do.

I can't disarm your Kerjal unless you are carrying Kerjal while he is in a state of "not awake". (Dead, unconscious, asleep, waylaid, etc.)

So, unless the Wizard's apprentice is being carted around bodily because he just got hit over the back of the head or some such, Wizard A cannot use Apprentice B's rituals.
Click to expand...
I disagree. If you are carrying a Slept Kerjal, and he is hit by an Awaken effect, he takes the Awaken effect, or loses his Spell Shield. Similarly, he is the only one who can activate his own Bane/Cloak Command. If you are carrying a Paralyzed Kerjal (poor Kerjal, gets no love), and you are hit with a Web, he cannot choose to Bane Binding it, nor can you use the Bane Binding on his body (or the one on his pouch, etc.).
 
If there are rits on a body, does the body become an "item" if/when the person becomes incapacitated? (I was also under the impression that rituals could only be cast on a person's "Spirit" or an actual physical item, and the "body" was expressly forbidden for rituals? I don't know why I recall that, or why I am under that impression, but I am.)

Would answering that question not answer the rest?

If it [the body] does become an item, could someone then not activate/use those rituals per the usage of items?

If not an item, the answer (I would think) would be "no". But if yes, would it then not be a "yes" answer?

And if yes, could this not lead to unsafe combat/situations that we would want to avoid anyway?
 
Easy way around this:

Wizard A enchants Apprentice B's shirt.
Combat ensues.
Apprentice B gets liquified.
Wizard A activates Solidify from Apprentice B's shirt.
 
Brad Lewis said:
Easy way around this:

Wizard A enchants Apprentice B's shirt.
Combat ensues.
Apprentice B gets liquified.
Wizard A activates Solidify from Apprentice B's shirt.
Click to expand...

But it (the Solidify) is not cast on the Wizard's body, which is what the question is all about. =)
 
Sure, but who wants to wear an Apprentice?

I mean, really.
 
Have you seen some of Polare's apprentices lately? :wink:

And what do you mean Kerjal gets no love? People are willing to carry him wherever they go! I wish I could get that kind of love.
 
Maxondaerth said:
Have you seen some of Polare's apprentices lately? :wink:

And what do you mean Kerjal gets no love? People are willing to carry him wherever they go! I wish I could get that kind of love.
Click to expand...

He has pants...
 
Of course he has pants. It's the kilt he seems to have misplaced!
 
Ok. First, Cloak Necromancy does not require the ritual to be of the Earth aspect. Neither does Bane Necromancy.

Next up, Expanded Enchantment is the only one of the three that says:

"This Expanded Enchantment spell can be cast once per day at the choice of the possessor of the item into which it was cast or the person on which it was cast."

However, Bane and Cloak have the following rhetoric:

"When struck with an Effect from the Effect Group of the Bane, the possessor must state Bane <Effect or Effect Group>"

This leads me to believe that, as Adam and Sarah said, if a body is considered an item while incapacited then the person in possession of the body with the effect present on it can use the effect. But, if the person is capable of action then they are in possession of their own body, therefore a person touching them or holding them would not be able to take advantage of rituals cast upon them.

So, as Brad stated, it would be a better idea for Wizard A to enchant Apprentice B's shirt. But, then is the shirt in the possession of Wizard A or Apprentice B ... ?
 
Whether or not a person is incapacitated, they are not an item. They take effects separate from anyone that may be carrying them.

The obvious ones:
Kerjal is Slept and Solomon is carrying him. If an Awaken effect hits Solomon, any Command effects on Solomon are ended. If an Awaken hits Kerjal, any Command effects (like the Sleep) on Kerjal are ended.

Kerjal is Paralyzed and Solomon is carrying him. If a Purify hits Solomon, any detrimental effects on Solomon are ended. If a Purify hits Kerjal, the Paralyze (and any other detrimentals) is ended.

Kerjal is Dead and Solomon is carrying him. If a Create Undead hits Solomon, nothing happens. If a Create Undead hits Kerjal, Kerjal is Created as a Zombie (and Solomon must put him down).

The less obvious:
Kerjal is Paralyzed, and Solomon is carrying him. If Solomon is hit with a Disarm Kerjal, he must drop Kerjal. If Kerjal is hit with a Disarm Kerjal, nothing happens.

Kerjal is Paralyzed, and Solomon is carrying him. If Solomon is hit with a Drain, Solomon may use no skills. If Kerjal is hit with a Drain, Kerjal may use no skills and now is tracking to separate time limits. Alternatively, Kerjal may use his Bane Necromancy.

To make this more clear, consider what the answers would be to the above scenarios if we were talking about a shield or stuffed wombat, rather than Kerjal. In all situations, Solomon would take the effects, since the stuffed wombat is, in fact, an item.

Kerjal's body, otoh, is not an item (though, it may be a hand-held object). Kerjal is always in possession of his own body, even when incapacitated.* Ergo, Solomon may not use the Bane Necromancy on Kerjal's body.

*In theory, if Kerjal were a permanently-dead body, he could then be an item, but then there probably wouldn't be any rituals on it, since they went away when his body dissipated to go attempt to rez.
 
Ok. Fair enough.

jpariury said:
Kerjal is Paralyzed, and Solomon is carrying him. If Solomon is hit with a Drain, Solomon may use no skills. If Kerjal is hit with a Drain, Kerjal may use no skills and now is tracking to separate time limits. Alternatively, Kerjal may use his Bane Necromancy.
Click to expand...

What if Kerjal's Bane Necromancy is on an item that is on his person (ex. pouch). Who is the possessor? The Kerjal or the Solomon carrying the Kerjal? Or both?

If Person A is wearing a shirt with an activatable Life and they die. Person B comes over and grabs hold of the shirt, but does not take the shirt off. Who is in possession of the shirt? Can Person B activate the Life?

A weapon is Spirit Linked/Locked to Person C. Is Person C always the possessor of that item? Or can Person D grab the weapon and activate the item's rituals?
 
Alavatar said:
What if Kerjal's Bane Necromancy is on an item that is on his person (ex. pouch). Who is the possessor? The Kerjal or the Solomon carrying the Kerjal? Or both?
Click to expand...
Things like that came up on the HQ boards a while ago. If Solomon wants to use the item, he must remove it from Kerjal, acquire the magic item tag and unused spell tags, and then he can use the item.

If Person A is wearing a shirt with an activatable Life and they die. Person B comes over and grabs hold of the shirt, but does not take the shirt off. Who is in possession of the shirt? Can Person B activate the Life?
Click to expand...
Person B should remove the shirt and obtain the magic item tag and unused spell tags.

A weapon is Spirit Linked/Locked to Person C. Is Person C always the possessor of that item? Or can Person D grab the weapon and activate the item's rituals?
Click to expand...
I am fairly certain that the former reflects the intent (spirit-linked items are always in the possession of the person to whom they are spirit-linked).

To head off the wisenhiemers who read my prior post and start trying to work the system - No, you may not hold an incapacitated body in front of you with the intention of blocking spells or weapons. That is not the intention of the rulings. Simply don't do it.
 
jpariury said:
Alavatar said:
What if Kerjal's Bane Necromancy is on an item that is on his person (ex. pouch). Who is the possessor? The Kerjal or the Solomon carrying the Kerjal? Or both?
Click to expand...
Things like that came up on the HQ boards a while ago. If Solomon wants to use the item, he must remove it from Kerjal, acquire the magic item tag and unused spell tags, and then he can use the item.
Click to expand...

My ears are burning, so I should post something. I remember this being talked about on the HQ board, but also remember getting quite the thread going. I know that as you said is the 'correct, by the book' way to do things, specifically if the item is probably not coming back immediately to the person who owns it. However, I also recall a distinct "But it really isn't intended to be played that way in combat" answer as well, with the justification that tags are meant to be handled after fights, not during fights. That might be something to write up and post in the ARC section, and get it officially clarified.
 
obcidian said:
My ears are burning
Click to expand...
You know, they make an ointment for that. ;)

I know that as you said is the 'correct, by the book' way to do things, specifically if the item is probably not coming back immediately to the person who owns it. However, I also recall a distinct "But it really isn't intended to be played that way in combat" answer as well, with the justification that tags are meant to be handled after fights, not during fights.
Click to expand...
The tag part is arguable. My post outlines the ideal. If tags get swapped post-combat, it's generally not a big fuss (although potentially pretty problematic... how do you know which per-days/times-evers have been expended if you don't have the tags?). The idea of item transferal (you must remove the item from the person who possesses it), though, should not be speeded through for ease-of-use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top