Hey, if an enchanted weapon is broken in half, does the enchantment still work?
>>43976008
...Depends on the setting.
>>43976008
I'd say yes but you're using a shitty broken weapon. Inless you're going for something like broken giant sword as a great sword cause I think that'd be pretty cool.
>>43976032
Wow gee whiz, thanks for that incredibly unhelpful non-answer!
>>43976008
In most in my experience, the whole item has to be reforged for the magic to start working again.
>>43976082
It's almost like unspecific questions get unspecific, unhelpful answers!
You fucking faggot.
>>43976008
snap a remote in half
snap a phone in half
snap a fishing rod in half
snap a rake in half
snap your keyboard in half
snap your dick in half
please then try to use these objects as originally intended. If you succeed, you can tell your DM to go fuck himself because you have the evidence needed to make a case.but honestly I think a diminished magical effect would be okay. If it's, say, a blade of +1d6 cold damage, perhaps gripping the broken blade is chilly and you have to wear mittens?
>>43976032
Would you happen to know the answer for forgotten realms?
>>43976106
>snap stick in half
>now there's two
>oh sh-
>>43976008
Since you refused to specify a particular game or setting, me must assume you mean generic 3.PF, in which case the answer is no.
For other games and settings, it depends on said game or setting, and the lorenbehind how Magic and enchantments placed upon items and Weaponry works in particular
>>43976008
Half the effect. So if it normally deals +1d6 fire damage, it now deals +1d3 fire damage.
>>43976104
It's almost like you didn't even need to post at all! Oh wait, you're a retard. Of course you couldn't keep your fucking mouth shut.
Depends-fags are the worst.
>>43976008
was the weapon enchanted as a whole? Probably not.
Maybe just the blade was magical? Or perhaps the hilt?
Work up a little sweat and magic so you can repair it at least. You've got the technology, should work. You could also stick the hilt in your butt and become a +1 weapon for hitting ghosts if your DM allows the hilt to retain the enchantment. This has saved me in a campaign before.
>>43976151
Maybe you should provide more info Fuckface.
I'm the OP, these are my only posts.
>>43976134
>>43976008
Please do not fight.
>>43976008
I typically rule that a wild surge/random magic effect occurs when they break, what with all the magic being contained in them coming out. Afterwards they are useless.
Note that disenchanting stuff obviously doesn't have the same effect.
Plus it means that it's still useful to keep shitty magic items, since the characters can snap them in half if they're in dire need of help and willing to take a chance.
>>43976192
Maybe you should provide examples of how different settings do shit instead of going "DURR IT DEPENDS!" cockbreath.
>>43976226
Why should we? We aren't here to bend over backwards to answer all your questions. If you want examples, ask for examples. Someone is sure to give some.
>>43976008
Specify a setting or something at least.
If the sword is made of Valyrian Steel then the enchantment stays. If the enchantment was based on mana channels running through the sword then it fails. If the enchantment was placed on a jewel in the pommel, then the part still touching the jewel will carry the enchantment.
There's a lot of ways this can go.
>>43976226
No. If you want a list of effects in different settings then ask for one.
>>43976258
I'm not even OP you spunk chugging braindead slut. If you weren't gonna contribute beyond a meaningless statement, why the fuck did you even show up?
>>43976074
Derp, I misread the question. I say it depends on the setting but more the likely the magic just falls inert until repaired with the bare minimum
>>43976008
The most interesting result would be that the enchantment continues to work but in a warped, "glitchy" fashion, I think, so I'd say that's what happens.
>>43976226
>How long is a piece of string?
>I really can't answer that because they can be different lengths.
>Provide examples!
Okay, given OP's question:
Example 1: Yes.
Example 2: No.
Example 3: Maybe.
>>43976340
Nigger it ain't the same thing and you goddamn well know it.
>>43976358
No, I don't know it. Please explain how.
>>43976358
Yes as we all know the pot and the kettle are drastically different in coloration.
>>43976008
It depends on theenchantment I would say. Some would work like fire or whatever. The higher level ones wouldn't, more exact and demanding. I would also depend on the enchanter's skill too. A better enchanter could weave enchantments that least through breaking.
>>43976008
generally no, unless you want to rule that it does.
Works but backfires on you the more broken it is. Backfiring being either a curse, it bursting magic akin to a fireball occasionally, or the weapon literally attacking you with it's powers.
>>43976302
>If you weren't gonna contribute beyond a meaningless statement, why the fuck did you even show up?
Anyone else think this could be a 4chan banner?
>>43976008
If it's a normal magical weapon I've yet to see one that keeps anything beyond faint traces of magic.
If it's an artifact, however, you bet your ass it's going to keep a portion of its original power unless it's properly destroyed or disenchanted. Sometimes said artifact can be repaired or remade following a narrative arch quest.
There are of course two exceptions to this rule:
>A sacred paladin's sword in most D&D incarnations, can be exploded like an AD&D staff for potential epic levels of fuckery and damage.
>When a weapon is MADE to be broken in order for the enchantment to reach full power or enact a transformation, mostly related to the moment the user is about to lose in a fight or finds his resolution. Gods love to do this kind of thing, it's rarer with the pure arcane weapons.
There, that should cover probably every setting.
>>43976138
Not only that, but the new sticks are harder to break than the first.
>>43976630
>I'm not even OP you spunk chugging braindead slut.
Anyone else think this could be a 4chan banner?
>>43976138
I remember reading that story in middle school
>>43976106
>snap a fishing rod in half
then you have a shorter fishing rod. it still works as a fishing rod, but not as well as before
>>43976134
In the forgotten realms setting, a magical weapon loses its enchantment if the weapon is broken.
Source:
In the last Drizzt novel, one of his scimitars is broken. His dwarfbro reforges it physically, but the enchantment is lost.
>>43976008
depends on what type of magic was put on it. if it is science magic, than you can come up with some arcanespeak as to why it works
if it is a generic, undefined but defiantly not natural to the world magic, depends on the setting. you could say that it still works, but not as well until you find the rest of the pieces and re-forge them using magic
>>43978866
You also got a stick on top of that!
>>43976008
no. breaking swords takes their magic.
Do you even germanic tribes
>>43976008
>>43976082
>>43976151
Since you're going to be a salty bitch about this, here's the most accurate possible answer I can give based on the most common setting I know:
Nothing happens, because enchanted weapons don't even exist to begin with.
That definitive enough for you, you whiny little cunt?
I tend to think of magic in terms of electricity. So it would depend on whether the part of the item that contains the "circuit" (whether that be runes, diagrams, magical material inlays, or what have you) is broken.
That said, if it is properly broken I'd probably allow it to continue working, just erratically. So if it's a sword with a basic fire enchantment, it might be quite cool most of the time. But if it hits something else magical in a certain way, it could establish a new "circuit" and trigger an unexpected effect. Like say it pings off an enemy wizard's force field spell. The field might suddenly start trying to be a flame sphere and detonate. Or the sword might suck up all the energy of the spell and then blow it out as a big flamethrower. Or the sword might start acting like part of the force field spell, either getting stuck in the bubble wall or rocketing to the center and stabbing the wizard because it thinks it's the spell's material focus.
What I'm saying is unless you're one of those dangerous gamblers, keep up with your item maintenance in my games.
>>43979014
>creating sticks from non-stick objects
What the fuck have you done?
>>43976008
Yes.
All enchanted weapons are actually broken pieces of legendary/godly weapons, reforged with common metal. It weakened the magic a lot, but they still work.
>>43978866
With enough fishing rods, it won't matter brother techpriest.
>>43976008
>Hey, if an enchanted weapon is broken in half, does the enchantment still work?
No; if you snapped it in half all the magic would "fall out of it" and it would cease to be enchanted as the vessel has changed sufficiently.
Imagine if you cut a glass in half (horizontally) down the middle and asked if it was still capable of holding water- same principle.
>>43979644
No no no, a fishing rod is classified as a "near-stick object", in theory it's possible to extract both a stick and non-stick objects from it according to the latest stick-related science but it's never been done under repeatable laboratory conditions.
>Depends
Ultimately it depends on what provides the enchantment.
Runes of Power?
A Mystic Metal patterned into the blade design
Or perhaps mixed with the steel
Or perhaps the hilt contains the power and the blade is just a means of transfer.
Clearly all different methods of enchanting a weapon, each could function differently when that weapon breaks
>>43976302
Because he made a shitty thread. You deserve a shitty answer. If it pisses people off so much maybe they will learn to make threads that ask good questions and make this board slightly better.
>>43976358
Explain how it's not.
>all these depends fags
>who could simply give multiple situations, if situations really mattered here, to the simple question, without being assholes
>instead are difficult and expect anyone to not be irritated
what is with the influx of tha/tg/uys?
>>43976340
your analogy would be more appropriate if OP asked for the tensile strength of string, and then being told hes an ass for not specifying that the string is not made of steel, glass, adamantine, or wizard pubes
>>43979512
this. Vikings and Saxons rather destroyed their enemies blades then taking them for themselves.
Lame answer: it loses its enchantment
Still lame answer: the same enchantment, but weaker
Fun answer: roll on a random table for what the item does now, don't tell the players.
>>43980066
Depends on the setting.
>>43980251
Only now am I realizing how hard I was baited. Good job.
>>43980066
In the example of a string, the number of possible lengths of string are infinite and there's no real way of guessing its length off simply knowing it's a string. When it comes to settings, certain assumptions can be made (The one that it's dnd being most common) with a decent chance of being right, and the potential number of settings is finite. It really is apples and oranges here.
>>43978866
Not to be a depends-fag, but that surely depends on the fishing rod in question, no?
And breaking one of the hallowed fishing rods of the omnissiah would surely be tech-heresy, you dirty heretec you!
>>43976008
Normally I'd say no, or at the least it's severely weakened by losing half the enchanted material.
If it's one of those deals where it's actually just a jewel on the pommel or something that's enchanted, then it still ought to work. Maybe with reduced accuracy if the enchantment can trigger at range.
Like, if a sword with a lightning stone on the hilt can shoot bolts at range, then a broken one could spray a cone of electricity at a short distance.
>>43980359
Having more variables doesn't make something completely different. It still depends on the string.
>>43980896
Yes, but in the case of the string there are a literal infinite different number of lengths it can be, while there are a finite number of settings and an even smaller number of settings /tg/ favours.
Basically what >>43980152 said. In that example you can make an educated guess as to what it's made of, while you can't really guess the length of a piece of string with no information beyond 'it's a piece of string'.
>>43980946
Looks like >>43980152 just has a better analogy.
>>43980946
No, that example is saying exactly the opposite. Even with a more specific question there are still a near infinite number of wildly varying answers you could give, with the assumed baseline of eg. a cotton string being the same as the assumed baseline of D&D - but if that was what OP was specifically asking then they should have asked that instead of being vague and then getting salty when he got a vague answer. All OP had to do was append 'in your setting' to the front or back of their question, but they didn't and you're a fag if you just assume everyone will fill in the blank for you. At least it's not a single line of greentext.
>>43976082
Fuck off, you know it's true.
>>43976106
>snap a rake in half
All that does is make it a shorter rake and a stick. I mean, unless you do it lengthwise, but it'd just make 2 weird-looking rakes.
>>43980129
Hey bro. If my character writes a spell scroll in Pashto, will it still work?
>>43976008
Nope
>>43976008
I don't think so. You probably need to pay half the price in repairs to get it back to working condition.
that's how I will rule it.
>>43976082
You loathsome, ungrateful little piece of sniveling shit.
Fuck you.
>>43980946
>in the case of the string there are a literal infinite different number of lengths it can be
Alright, have another example.
You ask "Do female dwarves have beards?"
In some settings they do.
In dome settings they don't.
In some settings they can but not all do.
These are the only possible answers. They are not infinite.
None of them are arguable, none of them can be dismissed with a "that setting doesn't count", because it's all fictional.
Yet it is impossible to give a single correct answer based on the information provided.
If we conclude that "maybe" is the answer that describes all settings as a whole, it is only an acceptable answer BECAUSE it depends on the setting, so we might as well just say it depends.
What? Do you have any idea what kind of work goes into forging an enchanted blade? Finding the right iron, knowing the perfect amount of carbon fer the steel? Weaving the songs of strength and flame into the blade with each blow of the hammer? You think the silver runes are just for show, do you? That the shape doesn't change the flow of energy?
Of course it won't fucking work if you break it. You think a magic blade is as simple as your granny's dildo? You can't just snap it in half and toss one bit to yer boyfriend.
>>43976008
Depends on whether or not you are holding the enchanted part.
>>43978866
Well you could use it for ice fishing with no problem at all. They're basically a reel and a handle with maybe a foot of pole
>>43976008
How about the reverse. If you enchant a broken sword, then fix it, does the enchantment stay?
Is the enchantment in the shape? A gem embedded in the hilt? Is it the stabby/cutey/smashey part of the weapon that is enchanted? Again, it depends on the fucking setting, if you take a fork and bend it, it still works, give some context you chucklefuck
>>43980946
>there are a finite number of settings
There's no limit to the number of settings someone could homebrew.
>>43976008
IT
FUCKING
DEPENDS
OKAY
LISTEN HERE NIGGER, ASSUME ENCHANTMENTS IN YOUR SETTING WORK VIA CARVING INTRICATE SYMBOLS ONTO THE METAL AND TAKING ADVANTAGE OF SOME NATURAL LAW OF MAGIC THAT SAYS THAT WHEN SUCH A RUNE IS INSCRIBED ON A SURFACE, A SPELL CAN BE CONJURED
THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE THE ANSWER WOULD BE "NO," CUZ WHEN THE CARVINGS ARE DEFACED, SUDDENLY THEY'RE NOT THE SAME ANYMORE AND THE MAGIC NO LONGER WORKS
SAY ENCHANTMENTS ARE MORE OR LESS JUST "INFUSING" A MATERIAL WITH LATENT MAGICAL ENERGY, AS IN LITERALLY EVERY LAST TINY SHARD OF METAL GETS SOME MAGIC FLOWING THROUGH IT
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE THE ANSWER WOULD BE EITHER "YES" OR "MAYBE," SINCE MAYBE THERE'S SOME THRESHOLD WHERE ONCE THE MATERIAL THAT WAS INFUSED IS HALVED THEN IT FUCKS ALL THE CALCULATIONS REVOLVING AROUND THE SPELL UP AND NOW IT DOESN'T WORK
LIKE, SAY YOU HAD A GREATSWORD, AND A DAGGER. DAGGERS OBVIOUSLY DON'T REQUIRE AS MUCH METAL TO MAKE AS A GREATSWORD WOULD. BUT PRESUMABLY THERE'S SOME SORT OF METAPHYSICAL CALCULATION SHIT THAT ENCHANTERS DO TO ENSURE WHATEVER THEY ENCHANT WORKS FOR THE OBJECT, BUT IF SOME VARIABLES GET THROWN OFF (SUDDENLY IT HAS HALF THE MASS), THEN EVERYTHING GETS THROWN OUT OF WHACK AND THE ENCHANTMENT DOESN'T WORK ANYMORE. OR MAYBE IT DOES, BUT NOT AS WELL, OR MAYBE IT DOES BECAUSE FUCK YOU IT'S MAGIC.
SEE THIS SHIT YOU TURBONIGGER? THIS SHIT IS WHY DEPENDSFAGS EXIST, BECAUSE IN MAKING US ANSWER THIS YOU HAVE TRIED TO TRICK US INTO THINKING OUT YOUR STUPID SHITTY SETTING FOR YOU, WHERE IF YOU TOOK EVEN THREE MINUTES TO THINK ABOUT HOW YOUR OWN GODDAMN SETTING'S MAGIC WORKS, THEN YOU'D HAVE YOUR OWN ANSWER
BUT NO, YOU LAZY SHITSTAIN, HERE YOU ARE, TRYING TO GET US TO DO YOUR THINKING FOR YOU
FUCK YOU
TLDR: IT DEPENDS, YOU SHIT
>>43976008
It depends on what the GM says.
>>43985039
>ASSUME ENCHANTMENTS IN YOUR SETTING WORK VIA CARVING INTRICATE SYMBOLS ONTO THE METAL AND TAKING ADVANTAGE OF SOME NATURAL LAW OF MAGIC THAT SAYS THAT WHEN SUCH A RUNE IS INSCRIBED ON A SURFACE, A SPELL CAN BE CONJURED
>THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE THE ANSWER WOULD BE "NO,"
It still depends. It could be broken in a way that doesn't damage the carvings.
>>43985102
HE SAID
IN HALF
>>43984966
In the same way there's no limit to the number of houserules one could make. That doesn't mean we say 'depend on your dm' to someone asking 'do attack rolls auto-fail on a nat 1?'
>>43985136
He now has two separate sets of magical carvings that may or may not do something.
>>43976008
If the blade was enchanted with magical sharpness, then you now have two magically sharp metal pieces. But itdepends.
>>43984801
What constitutes breaking? Swords chip constantly. Does that mean enchantments wear off over time unless the blade itself is unbreakable? Or does the sword need to fit into some arbitrary categorization of "broken" being something more like snapped in half?
I'll go with a solution that at least addresses some of the problems (this solution assumes the material is suffused with "magical energy"):
Yes, enchanted weapons retain their properties when broken and their enchantment's effect loses potency with use, corrosion, and other means of damage and disrepair. For simplicity's sake, the full tang of the blade is enchanted, rather than also taking into account the leather in the grip and the tassels hanging off it and whatever else isn't part of the blade.
I will also add an addendum that enchanted weapons can be repaired through mundane means, but if the enchantment isn't also repaired, it will lose potency in the same way as having been worn down, though the blade itself will suffer no penalties.
When "enchanting" is given very strict parameters of "ON/OFF" for the magical bit, it implies a threshold that must be passed for "ON" to change to "OFF." It would be easier to define a sliding scale of how an enchantment scales with blade degradation.
>>43985161
Then you're not asking for a ruling, your's asking for what it says in the game's rulebook. There are many games (even narrowing those down to games which contain both enchantments and swords), and many with their own rulebook. So the question becomes less "what happens?" and more "what do the rules say?" And in that case we have only one answer...WHAT RULES DO YOU MEANBECAUSE IT DEPENDS ON THE SETTING
>>43976151
Dude. Give a setting specific question or specify the purpose behind the question.
If its meant to be a worldbuilding thing, say that. If its a hypothetical based on a setting, state that. Dont be a fuckwit. People dont like fuckwits.
>live in a setting where broken pieces of an enchanted object have the same enchantment as the intact item
>enchant a rock to grow to twice its mass and then break itself in half
>>43985303
Now you have two extra-heavy rocks, each are twice as heavy as they would normally be.
>>43985335
And double the enchantment.
Enchant rock for fire damage. Spell to make it even more massive. Break it into pieces. Use as catapult ammo. Repeat until you win
>>43985335
No, I mean the pieces of the original rock will grow to the mass of the original rock, then break themselves in half, then those pieces double in mass, and so on until the universe collapses.
>>43985375
So a wizards ultimate WMD is... a boulder that acts like an Amoeba?
Theres a plothook in that Im sure...
>>43976008
if you break a flashlight in half, does it still work?
>>43985406
That's not the same anon. A blade does not require a hilt to do the stabby business, but it sure helps if you don't want to cut yourself up
>>43985406
Is the ability to make light weaved through the entire flashlight?
Your comparison fits a wand or staff better man.
>>43985419
>Reading comprehension
He was comparing the magical enchantment to the principles of electricity that cause light you dum-dum
>>43985136
The runes might only be on the bottom half.
>>43981626
Says the man who is either a midget or has never before used a rake.
>>43985467
>Magical runes that *don't* run across the length of the sword
I have literally never seen a case of this even once
Like not even trying to autistically defend what I said, what you said was just so far out of bounds for my expectations on and the conventions surrounding how magic runes on a sword works that all I can do is be flabbergasted that you would suggest such a thing
But whatever you autists, it only assists my overarcing point because like I said it boils down to a lazy shitstain OP trying to get us to think his setting through for him
>>43980129
>being this autistic
>not just specifying what you're asking the question about
Listen, when you start a conversation with next to nothing, you should expect to get next to nothing in return. It's not our job to assume what you're talking about specifically because then you'll just get asspained because "Well I don't care how it works in Warham! I'm playing Pathfinder!" and then we all get to go "Then you should have said so in the first place you cock guzzling bitch."
>>43985525
A two minute Google search.
>>43985360
>>43985375
Who's to say the enchant doesn't simply stop? One line of computer code that is executed, without specifications for its repetition? The function has been performed, but the enchantment remains. Otherwise, sure, you've created what basically amounts to the doubling treasure trap in Harry Potter or a magical WMD, and the adventurers are going to be kicking down your door any minute now. If the enchanter in this case was a player, then I suppose you're playing a shitty system that allows for such game-breaking things to happen or with a DM who thinks he's being clever.
The fire, rock is also fucky, since it would assume the enchantment on a sliver of a whole operates with the same power as that of the whole, rather than with a factor. A rock enchanted with 50 fire damage, broken into 50 pieces, should deal 1 fire damage each, rather than 50 per piece. And, yes, that's an effective way to rain fire down on a flammable target.
>>43985447
So there is no such thing as enchantment? Everything is actually a magical construction with specific parts that must align and function in relation to each other to produce an effect? In that case, you would need to damage the components in order to break the enchantment.
Flashlights, I don't think, operate by suffusion with energy. Of course, there's glowsticks and glow-in-the-dark stuff, but a piece of something glow-in-the-dark doesn't emit the same amount of light as the whole of it.
>>43985569
That dude ain't OP. OP is being surprisingly nice, thats just some cunt getting salty as fuck.
![ca6ca95fb5[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/L9io2fh.jpg "ca6ca95fb5[1].jpg")
>>43985601
An exception to the rule.
Now stop being autistic.
>>43985606
Yeah and it probably saves time over enchanting 50 things to cause fire.
I mean, it ain't gonna win ya a war but it'll make sieges a cinch.
>>43985660
Nah, I know it ain't OP at this point. I just can't stand that lazy bullshit attitude of "It's not my job to ask the right question, it's your job to assume what question I'm asking."
>>43985686
Im counting 6 out of 20. Or at least 2 and 4 unconfirmables.
Even then, who is to say that a sufficiently experienced adventurer wouldn't set it up like that specifically?
>>43985697
Ah right, fair enough. And yeah, I get ya.
Why does that seem to be getting more prevalent on /tg/ lately? Or am I just such a newfag Im only noticing now?
>>43985763
I'm pretty sure it's just this one dude being a whiny autistic cunt.
And just to provide a different sort of general answer to OP: Eh, probably, enchantments are usually bullshit anyway.
>>43985794
So have we found the new Virt?
Also, for my answer for OP: If its a fae weapon then its probably buggered because they're cunts and like to add loads of bullshit rules and that probably broke one such rule. If its magicked on or forged in, yer cool. If its divine, all bets are off.
>>43979014
>>43979644
>>43979888
>lowleveltransmuters.jpeg
>>43985851
Bah, meant to quote>>43979913
not>>43979888
>>43985694
Though you've also just created a whole lot of fire rocks laying around. I suppose that damage over time would weaken and eventually disperse the enchantment, which would assume that an enchantment may need to be enchanted on a material that is little affected by its own enchantment. However, for the short term, you've created fire hazard, so it's less effective as a siege weapon and more effective as a "scorched earth" policy weapon, which might be why people don't go around doing it to everyone.
>>43985606
A boulder that grows to twice its size and breaks, having broken in half, with half the power, would it break into a lesser factor and then break? Such an enchantment might provide diminishing returns on each subsequent break until it ceases to be a factor, an enchantment no stronger than magical background radiation, an effect that might as well not be on there at all.
You've perhaps created a large field of boulders, but you haven't exactly destroyed the universe.
>>43985850
Virt only took a vacation rather than a retirement as he said, he never really left. It's the reason why he puts velcro on his shotgun.
>>43985909
Well, a siege doesn't necessarily need to be about taking the location afterwards. Burning it to the ground and moving on is also valid. What matters is the method of doing such.
Could also use it as a tool to entice surrender. ''Surrender or we use these 1,000 fire enchanted rocks to burn your city down''
Also, that kinda assumes that a fire enchanted rock is a rock on fire. It may just be a normal rock with immense ambient heat such that it ignites things...
>>43976082
Maybe try specifying a setting and you'll get a specific answer. Or would you rather get a "reply hazy, try again later"?
>>43985909
>Such an enchantment might provide diminishing returns on each subsequent break until it ceases to be a factor
That's why I said >>43985303
>live in a setting where broken pieces of an enchanted object have the same enchantment as the intact item
The enchantment would work the same way and never get any weaker. Such is the consequence of answering "yes" to OP's question.
>>43986012
I suppose you'd end up with a bunch of lukewarm rocks after a while. Though through re-enchanting I suppose they'd make an excellent substitute for coal in a blacksmith's forge.
>>43986050
But if it functions through a suffusion of energy rather than an effect that depends on intact form, then each of these half-boulders would only have half the magic of their original. By this logic, something would have to give somewhere. We could assume potency of original enchantment might give in a couple of ways, though perhaps not exactly as proposed here:
>the enchantment does not produce its full effect, and subsequent boulder iterations produce much less boulder than the original.
>the factor of time to produce the effects grows longer, until at some point, the amount of time it takes for the boulder to grow is longer than the effective lifetime of the universe, the same could be said if the boulders were rendered into sand
Though there could be other ways of expressing a loss of enchantment power, or perhaps all of the above.
A boulder that produces the exact same result would have to have a factor of self-perpetuation in there in order to produce consistent results, rather than be worn down through repetition. An assumption that it would always operate the same because of the statement of its clause without any other factor of an enchantment-as-suffused-magic is essentially a setting where enchantment is a combination of the worst parts of different enchantment philosophies. How could such a setting still exist without having been completely destroyed s a universe through the accidental creation of enchantments or natural circumstance of magic? The fact that a setting exists as a setting assumes some general kind of stability involved on all factors of the setting to create a setting where putting one foot wrong doesn't result in "Troll Science" destruction of the universe.
>>43976008
If a thing does some stuff, does it still have the same thingy?
>>43986326
Shut up
>>43986291
>each of these half-boulders would only have half the magic of their original
>>43976032
As well as the enchantment. In most if not all D&D settings, at least, there are some enchantments that break when the weapon is broken, and some that endure, or allow the weapon to repair itself or reform as long as the enchantment still exists.
>>43986638
Wow, you've deftly defeated my argument with an "unhelpful non-answer"! Bravo, anon. You deserve an award for your ingenious turn of phrase!
Assuming a magically suffused boulder would work under the same principles as a heat-suffused boulder would, yes, half a magical boulder would only have half the magic of the original. And two glasses of water, each filled with half the water of an original glass of water, would have half the water of the original glass of water. I would be interested in seeing a setting where two halves of a whole, when separated, become two wholes equal to their original-
WAIT, I GET IT NOW! I KNOW WHAT SETTING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT! I KNOW WHAT SETTING "DEPENDS ON THE SETTING" REFERENCES!
A setting where turns of phrase and logical twists work on troll logic through an obscure and ill-defined mathematical inconsistencies and metaphorical analogy... THE SETTING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS TIME WIZARDS!
In which case, the answer to a vague and undefined prompt that has so many possibilities and mitigating factors as to be a pointless argument starter shouldn't be "It depends on the setting," the answer should be:
>"It's simple. It turn off the radio."
>>43976082
Ask nonspecific question, get nonspecific answer.
You fucking cunt.
>>43986935
>Assuming a magically suffused boulder would work under the same principles as a heat-suffused boulder would
>Assuming
Well there's your problem. Why are you making assumptions about how magic works when OP did not specify?
It possible to build a setting where your reasoning is correct, and it's possible to build a setting where something different happens because fuck you it's magic.
>>43987409
I suppose then the problem still lies with OP's unspecified and vague question. It's not specified so we can't make assumptions even if we specify a setting because a setting isn't specified.
This sets us up for a Catch-22 because the OP doesn't specify but if we specify we assume because we can't say with certainty because the OP doesn't specify but if we specify we assume because we can't say with certainty because the OP doesn't specify but if we specify we assume because we can't say with certainty because the OP doesn't specify but if we specify we assume because we can't say with certainty because the OP doesn't specify but if we specify we assume because we can't say with certainty because the OP doesn't specify but if we specify we assume because we can't say with certainty because the OP doesn't specify but if we specify we assume because we can't say with certainty because the OP doesn't specify but if we specify we assume because we can't say with certainty because the OP doesn't specify but if we specify we assume because we can't say with certainty because the OP doesn't specify but if we specify we assume because we can't say with certainty because the OP doesn't specify but if we specify we assume because we can't say with certainty because the OP doesn't specify but if we specify we assume because we can't say with certainty because the OP doesn't specify but if we specify we assume because we can't say with certainty because the OP doesn't specify but if we specify we assume because we can't say with certainty because the OP doesn't specify but if we specify we assume because we can't say with certainty because the OP doesn't specify but if we specify we assume because we can't say with certainty because the OP doesn't specify but if we specify we assume because we can't say with certainty because the OP doesn't specify but if we specify we assume because we can't say with certainty because the OP doesn't specify but if we specify we a
>>43987643
That's right.
Now do you see the problem with what OP did?
>>43987681
Indeed, though I feel I always knew, deep down.
>>43980171
They also frequently tossed them into rivers and bogs.
>>43976008
Well, when the orb broke off my wand it lost all its power, even after it was recharged. I would have to re-empower it, which I haven't gotten around to out of a mix of worry I'd fail, and laziness. So, I'm gonna go with yes.
There may however be exceptions, of course.
>>43985742
and some of that faggot's pictures are from the same person. Real variety with that one.
>>43976032
Depends more on system than setting?
>>43976106
I find it funny none of you pointed out the obvious.
>snap the item in question, a weapon in half
Which can result in. . .
>any blade: a pointier blade and scrap metal just perfect for a shiv
>any polearm: a pole and a shorter version of what you had armed
>anything doublesided: two mini weapons perfect for dual wielding
>any bow: nunchaku
>a staff: holy shit, TWO (2) staffs!
The possibilities are truly endless, someone should harness this power of "breaking things in half" and turn that into a weapon as well.
>>43985525
One of the first few results for "sword rune art."
>>43995058
GURPS-fag get out.
