Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Never noticed before that the 4th level MU spell Enchanted Weapon is noted as being reversible! Surely I'm not the first to notice this... and the spell desciption gives absolutely no indication of what the reversed form of the spell does! Anyone come up with an interesting reversed form? Off the top of my head, a spell that supresses the magic powers of a weapon for 5 rounds/caster level? (of course you'd have to touch the weapon first... interesting problem...)

Strictly reversing the "Enchanted weapon", the weapon in question would retain all its powers but would no longer be able to affect creatures hit only by silver or magic weapons.

What a very nasty spell for a vampire/mage or a lich to have...

Hmmn. But, it only turns a normal weapon into a +1 weapon, so I think possibly it would only reduce the effectiveness by one level, so a +4 weapon would become the equivalent of +3 for affecting creatures. I think silver weapons would not be affected. Alternatively, it might only work against +1 weapons.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:What a very nasty spell for a vampire/mage or a lich to have...

I generated it as a spell known by an ancient Red Dragon. I am very much inclined to rule to touch range liberally (i.e. when the dragon slaying sword 'touches the dragon)

A dirty trick for a lich, maybe?

Holy! Man, there is always something! Hah, I never noticed this either... I will now have to adjudicate how it works at my table...

Are there any other reversible spells that don't give any indication what the reversed version does? If not, I'd be most likely to consider the "reversible" as an error and disregard it. No fun, I know...

I did a little research after discovering this, and I think it's not a typo. There's a TSR product (that I do not own - REF2 Player Character Record Sheets) which contains a list of all spell names and the reversed forms are included, This list contains "Cursed Weapon" as the reversed form - but, of course, this is just a listing of spell names - no implementation details at all... or if it was a typo, they tried to retrofit something for it in 1980...

Ragnorakk wrote:I did a little research after discovering this, and I think it's not a typo. There's a TSR product (that I do not own - REF2 Player Character Record Sheets) which contains a list of all spell names and the reversed forms are included, This list contains "Cursed Weapon" as the reversed form - but, of course, this is just a listing of spell names - no implementation details at all... or if it was a typo, they tried to retrofit something for it in 1980...

Ah, so. The reverse wouldn't affect an already enchanted weapon, but turn a normal weapon into a -1 version. In other words, "Have you hugged your magic-user today?"

Ragnorakk wrote:I did a little research after discovering this, and I think it's not a typo. There's a TSR product (that I do not own - REF2 Player Character Record Sheets) which contains a list of all spell names and the reversed forms are included, This list contains "Cursed Weapon" as the reversed form - but, of course, this is just a listing of spell names - no implementation details at all... or if it was a typo, they tried to retrofit something for it in 1980...

The REF2 character sheets with the spell planners were released in 1986 or 87, which is after what most here consider to be the "canonical" era (note also that those sheets include at least one other confirmed rules error -- a space for "surprised AC," which isn't a concept that exists in the 1E RAW (though it did show up in 2E, IIRC)). That said, if you like the idea of the spell being reversible, don't let me rain on your parade

Aw hell! I thought I was being a smart with my 'research' - oh well! Back to the drawing board....
but I do like togatny's interpretation very much!

T. Foster wrote: A space for "surprised AC," which isn't a concept that exists in the 1E RAW (though it did show up in 2E, IIRC)).

Indeed. A surprised character in second edition loses all dexterity bonuses to armour class and opponents have an additional +1 bonus to hit. I think it may be unique amongst TSR rule sets in that regard. Never really thought about it before.

T. Foster wrote:Are there any other reversible spells that don't give any indication what the reversed version does? If not, I'd be most likely to consider the "reversible" as an error and disregard it. No fun, I know...

There are a number of spells that are reversible with functions that are simply sketched ---freedom as the reverse of imprisonment, for example. In general, it seems that reversed spell often only gets a quick comment/statement of effect vs. a full-blown spell description (like haste vs. slow, for example).

Off Topic, but there are far, far too many reversed spells that simply don't work as presented. Despite lacking any description, DIS-Enchanted Weapon or "Curse weapon" is nigh useless for any but the most subtle of item nerfs, It has a casting time of 1 TURN. I suppose that makes it marginally more useful than clerical Cause Disease & Destruction, also with CT: 1 Turn, and on perhaps on par with things like Energy Drain & Wither (3 rounds CT), or even Obscure Alignment or Undetectable Charm, the latter 2 being nigh useless due to duration rather than CT.

I think you have to take this spell at its word and not think of it as a typo. When in doubt its also a good idea to allow more then less typically. How does it work...its up to the DM right? Well logically it would seem you'd have to touch (or hit) the weapon (good luck MU), then the weapon would probably get a chance to save (I don't have my PH handy but I assume this would be consistent with reversals), then the effect would probably be a -1. This would shut down a +1 sword (making it "normal" play wise), but I'd rule that a +2 sword would be converted to a +1 so it could still hit the vampire etc. Also, a simple dispel magic would remove the curse quickly enough so not a big deal. Bottom line, a lich wouldn't waste his time with this spell. He doesn't know the power of the sword, and chances are its better then +1 if you have enough balls to mess with him.