Dimensional Envelopes & Pockets - and death

[Myrrhibis]

What happens to the contents of these, if the casting mage dies?

Does there suddenly appear a bunch of crap in the middle of the road as contents are disgorged, or are the contents lost to a random dimension, & may or may not be seen again?

[Glistam]

By their nature, I would say the semi-permanent ones (the ones designed to last months or years) would remain for their duration, while the ones that were "quick-cast" for their regular duration would end. It's simplest to say the items contained within simply fall into the world but I also like the idea that such items would be lost to the Void forever, or set adrift within the Astral Plane. There's no solid rules one way or the other here so it'd be a decision your G.M. needs to make.

[Library Ogre]

IMO, unless a spell specifies that it ends with the caster's death, it continues until its duration is up. So, if you die, and no one else can access your dimensional envelope, then it will stick around until its duration ends, then disgorge its contents.

[Prysus]

Greetings and Salutations. I'd say it can last full duration (unless there's something in the text to say otherwise). At that point, the contents would be expelled back into the normal dimension (at the point of creation, unless fixed to a specific place or object). If the contents were simply lost, the Elves and Dwarves would've had a much easier time disposing of the indestructible rune weapons. Farewell and safe journeys.

[drewkitty ~..~]

What happens to the contents of these, if the casting mage dies?

Does there suddenly appear a bunch of crap in the middle of the road as contents are disgorged, or are the contents lost to a random dimension, & may or may not be seen again?

I would have them ( both short and long durations) last till their durations will end them.

The text does not say, but I would have all the contents just be dumped out of the magic where the item they are attached to is located. Even with this GMs have an option to be mean if they choose to be creative.

As a GM option, the GM might choose to use the table within the Mirror magic spells (NB:TtGD) that determines if/when/how something comes out of the mirror if the mirror is destroyed before the end of the duration.(might be misremembering the details due to headache)

[eliakon]

Greetings and Salutations. I'd say it can last full duration (unless there's something in the text to say otherwise). At that point, the contents would be expelled back into the normal dimension (at the point of creation, unless fixed to a specific place or object). If the contents were simply lost, the Elves and Dwarves would've had a much easier time disposing of the indestructible rune weapons. Farewell and safe journeys.

^this^ For the reasons stated.
There are a tiny handful of spells that state that killing the caster ends them. That sort of suggests that killing the caster is not a normal way of ending a spell.
And anything that has the ability to utterly kill or destroy anything at all with way to protect from it tends to get that ability mentioned and not just sort of 'implied'.

[Axelmania]

If a caster is still alive and the spell expires or they voluntarily end it, are we told what happens?

I figure the stuff can't simply cease to exist or it'd be a real handy way to destroy rune weapons, and we'd see a mention of that.

[Nekira Sudacne]

IMO, unless a spell specifies that it ends with the caster's death, it continues until its duration is up. So, if you die, and no one else can access your dimensional envelope, then it will stick around until its duration ends, then disgorge its contents.

Other way around, Isn't there a rule in RMB that says death of the caster instantly ends the spell unless the spell says otherwise?

[drewkitty ~..~]

If a caster is still alive and the spell expires or they voluntarily end it, are we told what happens?

I figure the stuff can't simply cease to exist or it'd be a real handy way to destroy rune weapons, and we'd see a mention of that.

The D-pocket spell is one of those spells that is an enchantment, not an active spell under control of the mage. As such the casting mage does not have the ability to cancel the spell.

Part one of the question, same answer as if the spell ends if the caster has died. Or a possible outcome from interacting with a Anti-Magic Cloud.

[eliakon]

IMO, unless a spell specifies that it ends with the caster's death, it continues until its duration is up. So, if you die, and no one else can access your dimensional envelope, then it will stick around until its duration ends, then disgorge its contents.

Other way around, Isn't there a rule in RMB that says death of the caster instantly ends the spell unless the spell says otherwise?

Not that I am aware of.
This would be rather significant since it would make things like curses much easier to break for example. It would also run into issues with the idea of spells left to go off after the caster dies.

[Library Ogre]

IMO, unless a spell specifies that it ends with the caster's death, it continues until its duration is up. So, if you die, and no one else can access your dimensional envelope, then it will stick around until its duration ends, then disgorge its contents.

Other way around, Isn't there a rule in RMB that says death of the caster instantly ends the spell unless the spell says otherwise?

Not that I know of, no. It's not mentioned under either Durations nor "Cancelling Magic", though the second specifically notes that a caster can end a spell whenever they want, or purposefully create it for less than the maximum time.

[Mack]

I kinda like the idea of somebody walking down the street and suddenly all of this stuff starts landing around him as a dimensional pocket expires and vomits it's contents.

[Library Ogre]

I kinda like the idea of somebody walking down the street and suddenly all of this stuff starts landing around him as a dimensional pocket expires and vomits it's contents.

"How did your character GET his equipment?"
"Well, I was walking down the street, and a Dimensional Pocket just popped open, landing some temporal wizard's hidden go-bag cache in my lap."

[Whiskeyjack]

That could make for some interesting adventures. Especially if some of those items belonged to other people who now want them back.

[The Beast]

What happens to the contents of these, if the casting mage dies?

Does there suddenly appear a bunch of crap in the middle of the road as contents are disgorged, or are the contents lost to a random dimension, & may or may not be seen again?

I recall reading that everything inside one is destroyed, but I don't remember where I read it, or if it was even for a PB game. That said, if the contents get lost to a random dimension, IMO that dimension would most likely be the trash heap dimension (or whatever the official name is).

[drewkitty ~..~]

What happens to the contents of these, if the casting mage dies?

Does there suddenly appear a bunch of crap in the middle of the road as contents are disgorged, or are the contents lost to a random dimension, & may or may not be seen again?

I recall reading that everything inside one is destroyed, but I don't remember where I read it, or if it was even for a PB game. That said, if the contents get lost to a random dimension, IMO that dimension would most likely be the trash heap dimension (or whatever the official name is).

You might be remembering part of the broken mirror table for the HIdden Reflection spell in the mirror magic spell in the Through the Glass Darkly book.

[Mouser13]

IMO, unless a spell specifies that it ends with the caster's death, it continues until its duration is up. So, if you die, and no one else can access your dimensional envelope, then it will stick around until its duration ends, then disgorge its contents.

Other way around, Isn't there a rule in RMB that says death of the caster instantly ends the spell unless the spell says otherwise?

Not that I know of, no. It's not mentioned under either Durations nor "Cancelling Magic", though the second specifically notes that a caster can end a spell whenever they want, or purposefully create it for less than the maximum time.

I do too, but also like making them and selling them randomly creating d-portal to the bags and checking what people doing with them.

Also use the same principle for mail boxing create some give to people I like use d-portal check my mail boxes.

personally I played it lose and had a group hunt down the creator of them to try and find it again. Sense created dimension should be able to open d-portal to it. Or if dead find a scroll for the user and have them read it sense they been their he or she should be able to target that dimension.

[taalismn]

Wow....that aspect of dimensional pockets makes inheritances that much complicated.
And you thought probate court was bad?
"Well, he MIGHT have had some stuff tucked away inside his sleeves, including his copy of his will and his Golden Book, but unless anybody knows for sure and when and where the pockets might expire...welll..."

[Ice Dragon]

IMHO if the spell has a duration, it disgorge it end the end of the duration, all other spells are cancel with the casters death.

[Axelmania]

The D-pocket spell is one of those spells that is an enchantment, not an active spell under control of the mage. As such the casting mage does not have the ability to cancel the spell.

Do you recall which part specifies that? The idea of a mage canceling d-pockets to force allies to drop their E-Clips entertains me.

[drewkitty ~..~]

The D-pocket spell is one of those spells that is an enchantment, not an active spell under control of the mage. As such the casting mage does not have the ability to cancel the spell.

Do you recall which part specifies that? The idea of a mage canceling d-pockets to force allies to drop their E-Clips entertains me.

The parts that indicates that it can be sold & taken far far away. That part that is lasts months/years at a time. It is a part of the whole idea of the spell.

[Axelmania]

Long durations do not inherently mean that the casting mage is unable to cancel them, which appears to be the normal policy for spells. Being able to sell the effects of a spell doesn't necessarily mean it will last forever.

Come to think of it, you should be able to cancel things like Golem/Zombie/Mummy/Scroll/Talisman too, until we can find out otherwise.

[drewkitty ~..~]

And you are not incorporating everything I posted here for the context of what I just said into. Which is a habit you have when responding to posts.

I actually read the text and think over what was said and try to come to an intelligent conclusion about what was actually said. Yes, this means often times this means that I understand the text better then the rules lawyers and the munchkins who just skim over things to pull out what they want to take from the text. or take what appears to be the surface meaning of the text.

And the D-pocket spell (both long and short term) and the D-envelop spell are enchantment spells. Because that is a part of the core concept of the spells. The spells enchant objects to have an extra-d space attached to them.

The slippery slope you propose is that if the GM allows a player to cancel a D-pocket spell he/she cast at any time, any range, would also at the end of a chain, let alchemists & Techno Wizards cancel the enchantments the enchantments of the magic items they make.

So pardon me if I say No to someone who just want to be able to cancel an enchantment for just S&Gs.

[Mack]

Fun thought I had today:

I put a snowball in a Dimensional Pocket, then take it out 12 hours later. Did it melt?

[Killer Cyborg]

Fun thought I had today:

I put a snowball in a Dimensional Pocket, then take it out 12 hours later. Did it melt?

Trick question.
If you can take the snowball out 12 hours later, it obviously didn't melt.

[drewkitty ~..~]

There is no text talking about stuff in the D-Pocket being put into stasis while in the d-pocket.

So while, the Snow would absorb what heat is in the d-pocket, and what migrates in when accessed, the snow would "most likely" still be there. It might be a slushy, or an ice ball or the pocket might of turned into a water-skin, dependent on the GM or the GM's mood.

[Axelmania]

I actually read the text and think over what was said and try to come to an intelligent conclusion about what was actually said.

So in other words, those of us who disagree with you and think a mage is able to cancel any spell he wants before its duration is up, do not read the text, do not think it over, and do not try to come to intelligent conclusions?

Yes, this means often times this means that I understand the text better then the rules lawyers and the munchkins who just skim over things to pull out what they want to take from the text. or take what appears to be the surface meaning of the text.

How is thinking mages can cancel any spell they cast prior to full duration skimming? How is that 'surface' meaning? You seem to be inventing custom rules for these spells which aren't there because you think it ought to be so you can sell dimensional pockets for huge bucks.

Do we have evidence that you can sell them for such bucks?

And the D-pocket spell (both long and short term) and the D-envelop spell are enchantment spells. Because that is a part of the core concept of the spells. The spells enchant objects to have an extra-d space attached to them.

So why is it you think enchantments cannot be cancelled?

The slippery slope you propose is that if the GM allows a player to cancel a D-pocket spell he/she cast at any time, any range, would also at the end of a chain, let alchemists & Techno Wizards cancel the enchantments the enchantments of the magic items they make.

The difference is that Alchemist and Techno-Wizard creations are not magic spells, so they do not have to abide by text which allows mages to cancel their cast spells.

My thinking you can cancel spells because we're told you can do that doesn't mean I think all enchantments can be cancelled. Spells are not the only form of enchantment.

There is no text talking about stuff in the D-Pocket being put into stasis while in the d-pocket.

So while, the Snow would absorb what heat is in the d-pocket, and what migrates in when accessed, the snow would "most likely" still be there. It might be a slushy, or an ice ball or the pocket might of turned into a water-skin, dependent on the GM or the GM's mood.

This makes me wonder how much heat there would be in such a pocket. If you open a pocket, would there be an air-exchange with the door to it? So you could in theory create a dimensional pocket in a freezer (so it fills with cold air) and then move it around and use it as a portable cooler?

Would it be the mage's option as to whether or not he allows air exchange?

Would the default occupancy be an airless void, so that if you created a D-Envelope in a sealed room, you would suffocate faster?

[drewkitty ~..~]

Enchantments cannot be canceled, that is why they are enchantments.
Now if you want to make someone made by asking questions that have already been answer go ask Kevin S. them. Otherwise any opinons based on "alternant facts" or ponderings that are designed to lead into an argument will be ignored by me.
------
D-P
Since you don't want to ask questions that are not covered by the canon text I'm going to ignore you.

[Axelmania]

Where are you getting this "cannot be canceled" thing though? You're saying I'm proposing alternative facts and implying Kevin S. supports your interpretation, but where does he do that?

[drewkitty ~..~]

Only invocation magic can be canceled by the casting mage. Thus once the magic has been enchanting into an object it is no longer invocation magic that can be canceled. *scratches head like does not understand why I am explaining the obvious*


Other spells that are/create enchantments in RUE...
Create Zombie
Sanctum
Amulet
Create Mummy
Protection Circle: Sup (special rules)
⁍Speed Weapon (debatable because of the transient nature, but does say it enchants)
⁍Power Weapon (debatable because of the transient nature & it does not specifically say it enchants)
[Create Golem (outside RUE)]

⁍ Included because someone would of asked why they were left out.
➢ Left out all ""curses"".

[eliakon]

I would put it as a logical question issue instead.
If the caster can simply end the pocket at any time of their choosing at will...
...then why would anyone EVER pay money, let alone hundreds of thousands of credits for one?
You would be lucky to get a couple dozen credits for the pocket since no one would have the slightest reason to believe that it would be kept around. And if the pockets would fail if the mage died? Yeah, back to the "why am I paying you a fortune for something that is only useful to me if YOU don't screw up in the next few months and don't get yourself killed."

And it gets worse if the slope is followed down farther and people can simply cancel things like amulets, or scrolls, or witch jars, or energy spheres, or magic sticks, or arrows, or lighting arrows or TW devices, or Circles or Line Drawings or what have you...
It gets even MORE absurd when you consider that the end result of this is that it makes things like PC T-Men logically impossible since the tattoo's would stop working if the maker is killed... or if the maker simply says "Bob is a renegade, so I am cancelling all his tattoos"

The logical solution is that the ability to cancel spells only applies to actual spells and not to secondary effects of spells. Thus the pocket that the spell creates is a secondary effect just like the fire that fire spell ignites or the damage that a combat spell inflicts. And you can not simply 'cancel' any of them.
Or more simply... if you do not get to save vs spell against what the spell unleashes... then it isn't a spell anymore, but the effect of the spell.

[Axelmania]

Only invocation magic can be canceled by the casting mage.

Source on cancellation being limited to invocations?

Thus once the magic has been enchanting into an object it is no longer invocation magic that can be canceled. *scratches head like does not understand why I am explaining the obvious*

Source on Dimensional Pocket / Dimensional Envelope no longer being invocation magic?

Other spells that are/create enchantments in RUE...
Create Zombie
Sanctum
Amulet
Create Mummy
Protection Circle: Sup (special rules)
⁍Speed Weapon (debatable because of the transient nature, but does say it enchants)
⁍Power Weapon (debatable because of the transient nature & it does not specifically say it enchants)

I see these on the "Invocations by Level" list on 197-198 so I'm not really sure where you're getting the idea that these cease to be invocations once cast.

What is the source that any presence of the verb 'enchant' prohibits cancellation of the enchanting invocation?

If the caster can simply end the pocket at any time of their choosing at will...
...then why would anyone EVER pay money, let alone hundreds of thousands of credits for one?

The same reason people pay a lump sum for MMORPG software which is only usable so long as the creators maintain a server for you to play it upon: good faith established by the seller not doing that sort of thing.

You would be lucky to get a couple dozen credits for the pocket since no one would have the slightest reason to believe that it would be kept around.

They have a pretty good reason: if you bought a pocket and the mage cancelled it to be a jerk or to make you come buy another pocket, he didn't keep up his bargain and you might spread word and nobody will buy that particular mage's pockets anymore. That or you might go and kill the mage for stealing from you.

And if the pockets would fail if the mage died? Yeah, back to the "why am I paying you a fortune for something that is only useful to me if YOU don't screw up in the next few months and don't get yourself killed."

I don't think anyone is arguing that, I don't assume spells to end on their caster's death unless it specifically says that.

And it gets worse if the slope is followed down farther and people can simply cancel things like amulets, or scrolls, or witch jars, or energy spheres, or magic sticks, or arrows, or lighting arrows or TW devices, or Circles or Line Drawings or what have you...

I don't see what is so horrible about this. Same issue: if a mage goes around cancelling objects he has sold, that is not going to be consequence-free. It also restricts the free sale of such things. You must attach a reputation to them for them to be considered reliable and worth a sale. So the reputable Alchemist can make money doing this sort of thing, but Shady McCloak the wandering Ley Line Walker who never reveals his identity who tries selling Amulets will not make much money, or maybe make no sales at all, since people have no reason to trust he isn't planning to cancel them when they're needed most.

It gets even MORE absurd when you consider that the end result of this is that it makes things like PC T-Men logically impossible since the tattoo's would stop working if the maker is killed... or if the maker simply says "Bob is a renegade, so I am cancelling all his tattoos"

You're moving beyond Spells/Invocations to other areas of magic entirely. This is off topic. I am only arguing for how standard magic works, not everything magical. How far do you plan on taking this, Creatures of Magic like Dragons "cancelling" their offspring?

The logical solution is that the ability to cancel spells only applies to actual spells and not to secondary effects of spells. Thus the pocket that the spell creates is a secondary effect just like the fire that fire spell ignites or the damage that a combat spell inflicts. And you can not simply 'cancel' any of them.
Or more simply... if you do not get to save vs spell against what the spell unleashes... then it isn't a spell anymore, but the effect of the spell.

I do not agree that the pocket is a "secondary effect" of Dimensional Pocket. It is the only effect and thus the primary effect.

I'm not talking about canceling instant effects like healed/suffered damage, we're talking about spells with longer-than instant durations.

[drewkitty ~..~]

If you can't understand it with all the explaining that has already gone on, I can't help you.
-----------
The spells listed create magical enchantments in objects as per the spell texts of those spells. This is why they were listed as spells that create enchanting stuff.

[Axelmania]

I'm taking a look at Book of Magic 247 "Dimensional Pockets" right now. I am seeing phrases like "focus of orientation" but not the word "enchant".

Page 249's Dimensional Envelope mentions "creation of a small area of a limbo-like dimension" but doesn't appear to be focused/oriented with any object at all, just a position in space.

It seems like you're just making these "enchantment" rules up, not seeing any mention at all of them under Temporal Magic. Are you sure you're not thinking of rules from some other game?

[eliakon]

Thus once the magic has been enchanting into an object it is no longer invocation magic that can be canceled. *scratches head like does not understand why I am explaining the obvious*

Source on Dimensional Pocket / Dimensional Envelope no longer being invocation magic?

Because it created something.
That thing is not an invocation spell anymore.

Other spells that are/create enchantments in RUE...
Create Zombie
Sanctum
Amulet
Create Mummy
Protection Circle: Sup (special rules)
⁍Speed Weapon (debatable because of the transient nature, but does say it enchants)
⁍Power Weapon (debatable because of the transient nature & it does not specifically say it enchants)

I see these on the "Invocations by Level" list on 197-198 so I'm not really sure where you're getting the idea that these cease to be invocations once cast.

Because once cast they create an object.
That object is the item.
The spell is over and done and the enchantment is now complete.

What is the source that any presence of the verb 'enchant' prohibits cancellation of the enchanting invocation?

It is the definition of the word.
When you create an enchantment it is no longer a active spell, but a static effect.
There does not have to be a text source defining every word, the demand for that is a logical fallacy just as is claiming that anything that is not prohibited is allowed.

If the caster can simply end the pocket at any time of their choosing at will...
...then why would anyone EVER pay money, let alone hundreds of thousands of credits for one?

The same reason people pay a lump sum for MMORPG software which is only usable so long as the creators maintain a server for you to play it upon: good faith established by the seller not doing that sort of thing.

That doesn't hold up in canon though.
We KNOW that scams are common in palladium, and there are a number of them listed in Splynn Dimensional Market... buying an amulet, or talisman, or dimensional pocket, or scroll that the caster then turns off on you is not one of the ones that is listed, and if it was this easy to do it should be.
Even so it demonstrates that "good faith" is not sufficient cause to demonstrate that an unstated ability exists but is never used.

You would be lucky to get a couple dozen credits for the pocket since no one would have the slightest reason to believe that it would be kept around.

They have a pretty good reason: if you bought a pocket and the mage cancelled it to be a jerk or to make you come buy another pocket, he didn't keep up his bargain and you might spread word and nobody will buy that particular mage's pockets anymore. That or you might go and kill the mage for stealing from you.

Again, see above.

And if the pockets would fail if the mage died? Yeah, back to the "why am I paying you a fortune for something that is only useful to me if YOU don't screw up in the next few months and don't get yourself killed."

I don't think anyone is arguing that, I don't assume spells to end on their caster's death unless it specifically says that.

That is half of the conversation, and I am debating against both parts. You are not the only person here.

And it gets worse if the slope is followed down farther and people can simply cancel things like amulets, or scrolls, or witch jars, or energy spheres, or magic sticks, or arrows, or lighting arrows or TW devices, or Circles or Line Drawings or what have you...

I don't see what is so horrible about this. Same issue: if a mage goes around cancelling objects he has sold, that is not going to be consequence-free. It also restricts the free sale of such things. You must attach a reputation to them for them to be considered reliable and worth a sale. So the reputable Alchemist can make money doing this sort of thing, but Shady McCloak the wandering Ley Line Walker who never reveals his identity who tries selling Amulets will not make much money, or maybe make no sales at all, since people have no reason to trust he isn't planning to cancel them when they're needed most.

Because as I demonstrated there is no such thing as a 'good will' protection. It simply doesn't exist. Especially if you are buying second or third hand. It also requires creating a brand new form of canon that only established reputable mages sell items, and that they only sell items that they themselves have made.
Which then begs the question of why anyone would buy items from the PCs in the first place...

It gets even MORE absurd when you consider that the end result of this is that it makes things like PC T-Men logically impossible since the tattoo's would stop working if the maker is killed... or if the maker simply says "Bob is a renegade, so I am cancelling all his tattoos"

You're moving beyond Spells/Invocations to other areas of magic entirely. This is off topic. I am only arguing for how standard magic works, not everything magical. How far do you plan on taking this, Creatures of Magic like Dragons "cancelling" their offspring?

No, it is on topic.
The ability to cancel spells is the ability to cancel spells.
Period.
And as for your strawman/red herring.... Creatures of Magic are not spells.

The reason that Tattoos are brought up is that it points out the absurdity of the stance that being able to cancel the creation of a magic item.
Once the item is created it is created and no longer under the casters control.
You can't simply cancel a familiar link for example.

The logical solution is that the ability to cancel spells only applies to actual spells and not to secondary effects of spells. Thus the pocket that the spell creates is a secondary effect just like the fire that fire spell ignites or the damage that a combat spell inflicts. And you can not simply 'cancel' any of them.
Or more simply... if you do not get to save vs spell against what the spell unleashes... then it isn't a spell anymore, but the effect of the spell.

I do not agree that the pocket is a "secondary effect" of Dimensional Pocket. It is the only effect and thus the primary effect.

Incorrect. The creation of the pocket is the effect. That is why it is called Create Dimensional Pocket. It is not called Create and Maintain Dimensional Pocket because it simply creates an unstable pocket dimension. Once it does that the spell is over. You know have the results of casting that spell... a dimensional pocket.
There is nothing there to maintain, or to cancel, because the spell itself has run its course.

I'm not talking about canceling instant effects like healed/suffered damage, we're talking about spells with longer-than instant durations.

The principles are the same though.
The ability to negate the effect that a spell created is the same.
If I can negate the pocket that my spell created when I cast it, then I can in-enchant the sword I made, or un-raise the dead I raised, or un-heal your wound, or un-summon the creature I summoned.
Why would a shifter ever have a problem? They can simply un-summon things and they will go back no problem.
Why would an enchanter ever worry about a rebellion, they can simply un-enchant all the gear they made.
Its the exact same principle
Once you use a spell to do something, what you have done, is done and no longer under your control.
You can end a force wall early, because that is a constant effect, and will go away when the spell ends. But when you perform a spell that lasts beyond the casting of the spell... no you can't simply cancel it.

[Axelmania]

A lot of magic spells 'create' something, "magic net" and "carpet of adhesion" create a carpet/net for example. This doesn't mean the mage cannot cancel what he created and make it vanish. This is magic 101 here.

Shifter OCC abilities do not follow the rules for magic spells. As for how they used to work (Summon Lesser Being) you COULD send the being back before the duration expired, far as I recall.

The reason you need to worry about rebellion is canceling spells are a conscious effort, so if you are killed before you can cancel the enchanted weapons you made for your rebellious minions, the ability to cancel isn't all that useful.

Your arguments regarding the effects of instant spells (which are already over) do not prevent mages from canceling their spells as normal. Unless a spell is said to operate like an instant spell (where you cannot cancel the effects) there's no reason to judge that.

[drewkitty ~..~]

A lot of magic spells 'create' something, "magic net" and "carpet of adhesion" create a carpet/net for example. This doesn't mean the mage cannot cancel what he created and make it vanish. This is magic 101 here.

The spells you used as example do not create enchantments, they create magical effect constructs. And thus you are still stating irrelevant examples to the discussion, because those examples do not create enchantments in objects.

Shifter OCC abilities do not follow the rules for magic spells. As for how they used to work (Summon Lesser Being) you COULD send the being back before the duration expired, far as I recall.

Sending the summoned being back is a part of the spell not canceling the spell. And thus you again stated irrelevant example for something that is not being discussed.

Would you please use examples that are relevant to the topic?

[eliakon]

A lot of magic spells 'create' something, "magic net" and "carpet of adhesion" create a carpet/net for example. This doesn't mean the mage cannot cancel what he created and make it vanish. This is magic 101 here.

And this is a red herring thank you.
The item created is a construct of magic that can be dispelled or cancelled. Thus it is not an enchantment.
You can not use Negate Magic on an enchanted object... such as a dimensional pocket. The spell describes what the spell does in detail
It creates a pocket dimension with a specified opening. That pocket dimension will last a certain amount of time then collapses.

Shifter OCC abilities do not follow the rules for magic spells. As for how they used to work (Summon Lesser Being) you COULD send the being back before the duration expired, far as I recall.

Correct OCC abilities do not follow the rules for magic spells. That is because they are not spells.
And you are correct, the being can be sent back as part of the spell. That is a feature of the spell itself though. If the spell ends before the being is sent back it will have to be sent back through a different route.

The reason you need to worry about rebellion is canceling spells are a conscious effort, so if you are killed before you can cancel the enchanted weapons you made for your rebellious minions, the ability to cancel isn't all that useful.

It doesn't matter because you can't cancel enchantments.
They are not spells anymore.
This is why Negate Magic does nothing to them... there is no spell to negate just as there is no spell to cancel.

Your arguments regarding the effects of instant spells (which are already over) do not prevent mages from canceling their spells as normal. Unless a spell is said to operate like an instant spell (where you cannot cancel the effects) there's no reason to judge that.

They can only cancel spells that exist. Once the spell is over you can not negate its effect. Thus a spell that makes a magic item, or causes an object to come into being, or creates a dimension has already ended. The effect has been cast, there is no continuous spell to detect, track, Negate, nor cancel. The spell is basically an instant spell.

For clarities sake looking at Negate Magic we quite clearly see what is not a spell anymore and thus has nothing that can be neither negated nor canceled.

Thus a Psi-Hound will not detect a scroll or a magic dagger or a D-Pocket as "as Magic Powers In Use" but as just "Magic Items"
Because they are not active and continuous spells.

[dreicunan]

This is a pretty muddy area, actually. In the case of examples like amulet or create zombie, the duration is "exists until destroyed." Sanctum is an interesting example to bring up to support the idea that "enchantments" can't be cancelled, since its duration is "The lifetime of the mage or until cancelled." Thus, it would actually support the idea that enchantments CAN be cancelled. Especially if the spell has a clear duration anyways as opposed to "exists until destroyed."

Dimensional pocket is a spell with a duration (even if it can be quite long). I don't know that it actually creates an enchanted object, as opposed to opening up a dimensional anomaly with a physical reference point. It does mention practitioners of magic or psychics being able to try and find things if they know that the pocket/bag is magical, and that is part of the issue that makes it muddy. If the pocket/bag is magical, shouldn't there be a whole bunch more ways to be aware of the existence of the pocket (at least that it is magical)? And yet we know that "sense magic" won't reveal the existence of a dimensional envelope, and dimensional pocket directs you to dimensional envelope regarding the ability to detect it. So we have a pocket/bag that is both referred to as being magical yet that doesn't pop for sense magic.

I don't think that being able to cancel the spell would stop others from trying to buy bags enchanted with it. It would be a pointless scam to do so! You don't lose anything other than the PPE required to make it, which you can quickly get back, so you gain nothing by cancelling, but do risk ticking off someone. The only scam to run would be selling short term rather than long term ones.

Incorrect. The creation of the pocket is the effect. That is why it is called Create Dimensional Pocket. It is not called Create and Maintain Dimensional Pocket because it simply creates an unstable pocket dimension. Once it does that the spell is over. You know have the results of casting that spell... a dimensional pocket.
There is nothing there to maintain, or to cancel, because the spell itself has run its course.

The duration of the spell disagrees with your interpretation (as does the name in the Book of Magic, at least, it is just called "Dimensional Pockets). The Dimensional Pockets spell mentions that the bags that are sold rarely have more than 3 years of life in them...which implies that the caster can control the duration of the spell per normal duration rules. That, to me would imply that the spell is indeed in effect until the duration runs out.

To me, this smacks of "GM interpretation required," because there are some good reasons to come down on either side of the "can it or can't it be cancelled" question.

[drewkitty ~..~]

This is a pretty muddy area,....

No it is not muddy. It is just people who can't accept that they are wrong that keep bringing up irrelevant or off subject items to try to muddy the waters.

Sorry, but when have read the whole texts about magic across the PB system and integrate all of it into one's thinking (instead of trying to base your arguments on snippets of text) makes it clear that enchantments can not be canceled like active magics.

It is like a someone saying that the puzzle is of a kitten based off three pieces of fur without putting the puzzle together. And others who have put the puzzle together, keep telling that someone that they have put it together and it is a team of husky sled dogs pulling a sled.

[dreicunan]

This is a pretty muddy area,....

No it is not muddy. It is just people who can't accept that they are wrong that keep bringing up irrelevant or off subject items to try to muddy the waters.

Sorry, but when have read the whole texts about magic across the PB system and integrate all of it into one's thinking (instead of trying to base your arguments on snippets of text) makes it clear that enchantments can not be canceled like active magics.

It is like a someone saying that the puzzle is of a kitten based off three pieces of fur without putting the puzzle together. And others who have put the puzzle together, keep telling that someone that they have put it together and it is a team of husky sled dogs pulling a sled.

So, according to you, Sanctum is an example of an enchantment. Page 149 of the Book of Magic, page 224 of RUE, and page 215 of Fantasy 2nd edition all give it a duration of the lifetime of the caster or until cancelled. This clearly means that a spell you define as an enchantment can be cancelled. Nothing in the spell description indicates that there is a special procedure, so the logical conclusion is that it is cancelled the same as any other spell that can be cancelled.

In fact, I find your definition of "enchantment" as a category to be problematic. Page 186 of Fantasy 2nd edition "Possession should not be confused with magic enchantments, like charm, domination, trance, compulsion, hypnotic suggestions or psychic mind control." Spell invocations that are described as enchantments or describe the target of the spell as enchanted in their descriptions in 2nd edition include: Fleet feet (186), Befuddle (190), Climb (190), Concealment (190-191), Fear (191), Impervious to Poison (192), Blind (194), Repel Animals (195), Trance (195-196), Domination (196), Fly (197), Sleep (197), Compulsion (198), Swim as a Fish (199), Words of Truth (200), Constrain Being (200-201), Life Drain (202), Luck Curse (204), Fairies' Dance (206), Summon and Control Canines (208), Control/Enslave Entity (209), and Transformation (217). There are others in the Warlock spells, but I think that serves as a good enough set of examples.

The use of the term is clearly not conforming to the what you claim is the definition of the word. A cursory survey of those spells will show a whole bunch of them would appear to be ones that the caster can cancel, and some of the (Transformation, for example) make it explicit that the caster can cancel them. You claimed that "when you create an enchantment it is no longer a (sic) active spell, but a static effect." Well, Fantasy 2nd edition states on page 184 "The creator of the magic can cancel/stop its effect or influence instantly at any time." RUE page 188 has the exact same quote. So let's grant you that the spell is no longer active and it is a static effect. The rules as written still state that the caster can cancel the effect!

So in light of that, I admit that I was wrong and you were indeed correct: It isn't muddy. The dimensional pocket was created by the one who cast the spell. As the creator of the magic, he can cancel its effect instantly at any time. Therefore, rules as written, the caster of dimensional pocket can cancel the effect of the spell instantly at any time.

[eliakon]

This is a pretty muddy area,....

No it is not muddy. It is just people who can't accept that they are wrong that keep bringing up irrelevant or off subject items to try to muddy the waters.

Sorry, but when have read the whole texts about magic across the PB system and integrate all of it into one's thinking (instead of trying to base your arguments on snippets of text) makes it clear that enchantments can not be canceled like active magics.

It is like a someone saying that the puzzle is of a kitten based off three pieces of fur without putting the puzzle together. And others who have put the puzzle together, keep telling that someone that they have put it together and it is a team of husky sled dogs pulling a sled.

So, according to you, Sanctum is an example of an enchantment. Page 149 of the Book of Magic, page 224 of RUE, and page 215 of Fantasy 2nd edition all give it a duration of the lifetime of the caster or until cancelled. This clearly means that a spell you define as an enchantment can be cancelled. Nothing in the spell description indicates that there is a special procedure, so the logical conclusion is that it is cancelled the same as any other spell that can be cancelled.

No, it means that this enchantment has a unique feature that it can be cancelled.
That is why they have to add the text giving it that ability in the spell. Because that is not a normal feature of enchantments.
You don't call out "btw this fire spell is hot" or "ice spells are cold" or the like.
You DO call out when they do something odd like "this fire spell damages things that are normally protected from fire" though.

It is in fact demonstrating my case.
Sanctum has to be specifically noted that it CAN be canceled. Thus, if an enchantment does NOT say it can be cancelled... it can't.

[drewkitty ~..~]

So, according to you,

A messenger does not speak with their own message.

Sanctum is an example of an enchantment. Page 149 of the Book of Magic, page 224 of RUE, and page 215 of Fantasy 2nd edition all give it a duration of the lifetime of the caster or until cancelled. This clearly means that a spell you define as an enchantment can be cancelled. Nothing in the spell description indicates that there is a special procedure, so the logical conclusion is that it is cancelled the same as any other spell that can be cancelled.

This, the above, is what I mean when I said people using snippets of text to support something the whole text does not.

My advice to you and Axe is to go read the whole of all the magic texts and think about them for a year or three. Or to take to heart the well reasoned and insightful comments of people who have read all the magic texts and thought about them for years, and in some cases decades.

[dreicunan]

So, according to you,

A messenger does not speak with their own message.

Well, then on whose behalf are you speaking, because it certainly isn't on Palladium's behalf. Sanctum doesn't define itself as an enchantment in the spell description (For that matter, contrary to what you claimed, the RUE versions of Create Mummy, Amulet, Create Zombie, Protection Circle: Simple do not even contain "enchant," "enchanted," or "enchantment" in the spell text, let alone claim that they create magical enchantments in objects). On the contrary, it defines itself as the "sanctum invocation" in Fantasy 2nd edition, Nightbane, HU 2nd edition, the Rifts Book of Magic, and RUE! It does not state that it creates an enchantment, and Palladium's definition of enchantment isn't precise enough to be used the way that you want to use it anyway:

"Recognize enchantment: i.e. magic items, people under charms and curses, etc.; 10%+5% per level of experience." (Fantasy 2nd edition p. 59)

"Recognize enchantment on animals: The druid can recognize the influence of magic that charms, enslaves, hypnotizes, harms or transforms ordinary animals, or which poisons or fouls food or drink. This ability includes identifying magic sicknesses, curses, the effects of faerie food and faerie magic, and supernatural or magical possession. Illusions, metamorphosis, and psionic powers do not count as enchantment." (Fantasy 2nd edition p. 75)

"Recognize enchantment: Just as a doctor can recognize flu symptoms and disease, the wizard can recognize the influence of magic that charms, hypnotizes, or otherwise causes mind control (including trances, domination, compulsion, quest, etc.). This ability also includes identifying magic sickness, curses, the effects of faerie food and faerie magic, and supernatural or magic possession. Illusions, metamorphosis, and psionic powers do not count as enchantment." (Fantasy 2nd edition p. 107, and the same text replacing "Wizard" with "Diabolist" on p. 119)

"Recognize Enchantment: The Summoner is astute at recognizing the influence of magic, psionics and drugs that charm, hypnotizes, mesmerizes, daze or otherwise causes mind control, including trances, domination, and compulsion. This ability also includes identifying
magic sickness, curses, the effects of faerie food and faerie magic, and supernatural or magic possession. Illusions, metamorphosis, and other types of shape-changing do not count as enchantment." (Fantasy 2nd edition p. 136)

Sometimes "enchantment" includes items (like all the many times that there are references to an "enchanted" item, which I'll risk assuming I won't need to cite), sometimes it doesn't (the Druid, Wizard, Diabolist, and Summoner all use "recognize magic" to for magic items). However, the definition of "enchantment" in the "Recognize enchantment" skill doesn't jive with all the spells that refer to themselves as enchantments that don't involve charming, hypnotizing, mesmerizing, dazing, or otherwise causing mind control (e.g. Impervious to Ocean Depths or Swim as a Fish). In other words "enchantment" as a category in Palladium isn't a static enough thing for you to be able to claim that "enchantments can't be cancelled".

Sanctum is an example of an enchantment. Page 149 of the Book of Magic, page 224 of RUE, and page 215 of Fantasy 2nd edition all give it a duration of the lifetime of the caster or until cancelled. This clearly means that a spell you define as an enchantment can be cancelled. Nothing in the spell description indicates that there is a special procedure, so the logical conclusion is that it is cancelled the same as any other spell that can be cancelled.

This, the above, is what I mean when I said people using snippets of text to support something the whole text does not.

Might I kindly invite you to read the rest of the post from which you took the quoted text, which will make it clear that I was not using snippets of text to support something that the whole text does not, but was instead examining the overall context in which words like "enchantment" are used.

My advice to you and Axe is to go read the whole of all the magic texts and think about them for a year or three. Or to take to heart the well reasoned and insightful comments of people who have read all the magic texts and thought about them for years, and in some cases decades.

Shame no one fitting that description has commented on this thread. Well, it would be a shame if we didn't have canon texts that we can all examine ourselves. Thankfully, we do, and they don't require years, let alone decades, of contemplation to decipher.

As I've already pointed out in my previous post and again above, your definition of "enchantment" doesn't fit the way that the term is used by Palladium.

As I also pointed out, even if it did, that line of argument doesn't prove that an enchantment can't be canceled, because the text about canceling magic states: "The creator of the magic can cancel/stop it effect or influence instantly at any time." It doesn't state anything about only cancelling active spells and not the effects that they create. That same line is found in Fantasy 2nd edition, RUE, and HU 2nd edition (as well as in BTS 1st edition). What I have not found anywhere is a statement that exempts "enchantments" from that rule. If you know of any text that does state that, kindly share it with us.

[Axelmania]

Edit: dat horror realizing that you went through the list of spells searching for the word "enchant" needlessly, because after posting you notice dreicunan already did it* Oh well, I'll leave in my work, maybe it will help hammer the point home?

A lot of magic spells 'create' something, "magic net" and "carpet of adhesion" create a carpet/net for example. This doesn't mean the mage cannot cancel what he created and make it vanish. This is magic 101 here.

The spells you used as example do not create enchantments, they create magical effect constructs. And thus you are still stating irrelevant examples to the discussion, because those examples do not create enchantments in objects.

You are creating an arbitrary distinction here.

I can classify a dimensional pocket or dimensional envelope as a "magical effect construct" as well.

I think you should stop throwing around words like "enchantment" outside their actual in-book use and stick to RAW terms if you want to make a specific argument here.

You can not use Negate Magic on an enchanted object... such as a dimensional pocket. The spell describes what the spell does in detail

Dimensional Pocket does not say anywhere that it "enchants" an object. It creates a pocket dimension which is anchored to the object. That is different.

PF209 for example says:

This spell creates a portable dimensional pocket inside a sack, purse, satchel, backpack, etc.
The dimensional pocket spell requires a psychological orientation, so without a physical sack, bag, or pocket the power cannot work!
The character will typically select one favorite pocket or bag as his focus of orientation.

Not seeing "enchant" there. A pocket is made "inside" the thing, but the thing itself is not described as being enchanted.

You need to be able to "see dimensional anomalies". I don't even see a mention of something like "Sense Magic" working. It may well not work since the 'magic' is actually in another dimension.

Page 205's "Sense Dimensional Anomaly" spell highlights it, and only allows a 10ft range.

For Sense Magic, neither 171's psi or 190's spell highlight, range is 120ft either way. It tells "whether a person or object is enchanted", but there is no basis for extending that to the pocket/envelope spell (nor carpet/net) because these 4 spells do not mention enchanting any objects.

Spells which do in PF2:

186 left's "magic enchantments, like charm, domination, trance, compulsion, hypnotic suggestions or psychic mind control"
186 right's Fleet Feet ("the enchanted person")
190's Befuddle ("enchantment that temporarily causes its victim")
190's Climb ("spell that enables the enchanted person")
191's Concealment ("the enchanted object")
191's Fear ("the enchantment on an area")
192's Impervious to Poison ("This enchantment makes the person")
194's Blind ("An enchantment that can blind one person")
195 Repel Animals "an enchantment that will make even a hostile, predatory animal stop"
195 Trance "This enchantment places a person"
196 "Domination is another trance-like enchantment"
196 Energy Disruption "Nor can it affect Spells of Legend or magic weapons, potions, circles, scrolls or enchanted items."
197 Fly "The maximum length and width of the enchanted item"
197 Sleep "enchanted food or drink"
198 Compulsion "The enchanted person"
199 Swim as a Fish (Superior) "The enchanted characters"
200 Words of Truth "the enchanted person"
201 Constrain Being "The enchantment forces the being" .. "If it is attacked, the enchantment is broken"
202 Life Drain "the area of enchantment"
204 Luck Curse "Only a "remove curse" invocation can negate the effects of this enchantment."
206 Faeries Dance "Anyone entering the enchanted area"
208 Summon & Control Canines "the duration of the enchantment
209 Control/Enslave Entity "All varieties of entities are susceptible to this enchantment."
217 Transformation "2. Convince the mage who made the transformation to cancel the enchantment"

It creates a pocket dimension with a specified opening. That pocket dimension will last a certain amount of time then collapses.

Magic "creating" something does not prevent Negate Magic from dispelling it. Read "Globe of Silence" on PF2p201 for example. "A negate magic spell can dispel/cancel the globe." .. "This spell immediately creates an invisible globe"

This proves that Negate Magic is able to dispel/cancel things created by magic.

So you can most definitely use Negate Magic to dispel/cancel a pocket/envelope.

I understand NM mentions "Negation will not work against possession, exorcism, constrain being, banishment, talisman, amulet, enchanted objects, symbols, wards, circles, summoning magic, zombies, golems, restoration, resurrection,
healing, or faerie food."

This does not necessarily mean that you cannot cancel anything on this list as normal though. Nowhere does it say a caster cannot opt to cancel anything which Negate Magic cannot target.

Nor does it say anywhere that Dimensional Pocket "enchants" an object. Anchoring to an object (like Carpet of Adhesion anchors to a floor, for example) is not the same as enchanting an object. The term does not appear at all, unlike the 23 examples I've given in the list above.

Among those, the only ones which appear to explicitly enchant objects are Fly and Sleep. So it appears that witches' broomsticks and heavy gravy are indeed immune to Negate Magic, but everything else is game.

Another glaring example of the lack of the verb 'enchant' is PF2p206's Time Capsule. It "creates an energy field that takes the container and everything inside it out of the normal time continuum". This is not actually enchanting an object! Much like Dpocket/Denvelope it simply creates dimensional effects tethered to objects.

I would say any instance of the term "magic charm" would apply, such as Witch Bottle (PF2p203) due to the text from PF2p253:

All these items incorporate spell magic-type powers and function exactly as described in the spell magic section except for duration.
The maximum duration time of each enchantment and the number of times it can be activated per day is noted.

This is under the section "Magic Rings, Bracelets, Charms, & Medallions" which I believe supports the idea that all "magic charms" are "enchanted".

This is elaborated further

The item remains enchanted indefinitely

This can be understood by realizing there are 2 tiers of enchantment: the item's ability to cast a spell is an enchantment does not expier, and then the actual effects of the spell are an added tier of enchantment which does expire.

256 "presence of enchantment" refers to effects of a crystal ball, while "desirable enchanted object" refers to a divination ball itself. 258 "enchantment built into the fabric" for Environmental Tent...

I think maybe "Enchanted Bags" also on 258 might be what you're thinking about when it comes to an uncancellable un-negateable "bag of holding" type thing. This is distinctively not Dimensional Pocket, and is much cheaper because of its limited weight allowance / storage space.

E-Bags also have 2 tiers, thus "be free of its enchantment" referring to the actual effects of not being able to see into them, which work entirely discretely from the ability to see dimensional anomalies.

you can't cancel enchantments.
They are not spells anymore.

Source? As above, this is present in MANY spells.

I believe the phrase "cancel the enchantment" in Transformation proves you 100% wrong here.

Enchantment is the effect resulting whether you use a spell invocation or a ritual to get there, and mages can cancel enchantments until we are told otherwise.

This is why Negate Magic does nothing to them... there is no spell to negate just as there is no spell to cancel.

NM does not explain WHY it doesn't work on certain things, just that it doesn't. You are engaging in speculation here, it doesn't say anywhere that these are no longer spells.

They can only cancel spells that exist.
Once the spell is over you can not negate its effect.
Thus a spell that makes a magic item, or causes an object to come into being, or creates a dimension has already ended.
The effect has been cast, there is no continuous spell to detect, track, Negate, nor cancel.
The spell is basically an instant spell.

Your speculative house rule contradicts the canon here.

Magic Net (PF 195) causes an object to come into being. It "creates a net composed of magic fibers". This is not instant, it has a duration of 2 melee rounds per level.

"Fly" (PF 197) explicitly enchants an object. It is not permanent. The enchantment lasts 6 minutes per level

In cases where we aren't told explicitly it's enchantments, it is up to debate. I would support this interpretation of "Animate Object" for example (this isn't just TK moving a table, it's actually making the table legs ambulate to walk), but that doesn't mean I must support your unbacked view on Dimensional Pocket.

For clarities sake looking at Negate Magic we quite clearly see what is not a spell anymore and thus has nothing that can be neither negated nor canceled.

Unbacked fancruft.

NM says what it doesn't work against, not what is no longer magic or no longer a spell.

Thus a Psi-Hound will not detect a scroll or a magic dagger or a D-Pocket as "as Magic Powers In Use" but as just "Magic Items"

Because they are not active and continuous spells.

For comparison, note that "Circle of Concealment" (PF 200) can last even longer than a D-Pocket, 1 year per level, if you spend a PE and much more PPE. Yet PF200's policy is not modified:

Magic and psionic powers like detect P.P.E., detect magic, and negate magic may pierce the circle of concealment and reveal what's hidden within, but the circle gets to save vs magic or psionics with the bonuses of its creator.

Long-term and indefinite durations do not prevent detection/negation. You need a better argument than this.

The Dog-Boy's "active and continuous" limit you refer to is foreign to me. If you mean their primary ability "Sense Psychic and Magic Energy" I'm seeing this there:

If the energy is being continually expended, like a series of magic or psionic attacks, or a long duration effect, he can track it to the source with ease.

Scrolls and Dimensional Pockets are long duration effects.

If you are referring to the 2 ranges:

Sensitivity to a fellow psychic or magic practitioner not using his powers
Sensitivity to psionic and magic powers being used

If the spell is still active, the magic power is still being used. This is why "long duration effect" was mentioned earlier.

This is the problem when you grasp at memory straws and invent phrases instead of double-checking the RAW, you misinterpret it.

Sanctum has to be specifically noted that it CAN be canceled.
Thus, if an enchantment does NOT say it can be cancelled... it can't.

Individual notation is done for convenience, not necessity. PF 184 "Canceling Magic" which dreicunan pointed out applies to everything.

If you think all 23 examples from the list I wrote of spells which specify "enchant" cannot be cancelled unless specified, you come up with a lot of unusual situations.

Apparently we can't cancel the "Fly" spell on a broom, for example?

How could I possibly disprove your assumption when explicit proof you are wrong is taken as proof you are right?

The problem is your argument is proofless to begin with. There is no text out there saying spells cannot be cancelled unless they explicitly say they can be cancelled.

ALL spells can be cancelled, unless they explicitly say they CANNOT. This is how the rules work, read the rules.

My advice to you and Axe is to go read the whole of all the magic texts and think about them for a year or three.

Through showing our work, dreicunan and myself have demonstrated more evidence of reading/thinking about these texts than you or eliakon with your unbacked speculation.

You both think you understand everything so well, you're going largely off your vulnerable memories which are prone to deviating from the RAW.

We argue from the RAW which keeps us closer to it.

Or to take to heart the well reasoned and insightful comments of people who have read all the magic texts and thought about them for years, and in some cases decades.

I do not view your arguments as well-reasoned (you don't reason from the text, you reason from personal paraphrasing) or insightful.

Regardless of how many decades you have "thought about" what you read, if the last time you went back and actually read them was years ago, you're bound to be misled by how you think things ought to be, compared to what they actually ARE.

Please avoid your effective argument-from-authority and actually present the facts.

[Jack Burton]

What happens to the contents of these, if the casting mage dies?

Does there suddenly appear a bunch of crap in the middle of the road as contents are disgorged, or are the contents lost to a random dimension, & may or may not be seen again?

When I go to the Open House in April, I promise I'll ask Kevin this question for you.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Axe, I did not create an arbitrary distinction. I stated that YOU were not giving examples of Enchantment spells. Which was what you were doing.
If You do not want to be called out on YOUR misrepresentations and mistakes, don't make those misrepresentations and mistakes.

The D-pocket spell enchants an object. It does not create a magic effect that is not tied to an object which the magic net and CoA do.

Hello, I will call an enchantment an enchantment because that is what it is.

If the Rules lawyer who can't/won't see that is what it is because they want to, for S&Giggles, be able to do something that can't be done if the RL recognizes that the D-P spell create an enchantment, it is not my job to correct that RL from being wrong because of the RL's refusal to set aside being a RL and THINK and rationally assess the texts.

You are Wrong about this and there are no debating arguments to make your opinions correct.

Leave me out of the rest of this debate. You have lost. And until you actually set aside the RL mentality and go back and think critically about the text and come to rational conclusions I have nothing to say to you.

[dreicunan]

Hello, I will call an enchantment an enchantment because that is what it is. .

And what, exactly, do you claim that an enchantment is as defined by Palladium? It would be nice if you'd respond to it, because the apparent definition that you are using doesn't mesh with all the ways that the word enchantment is used in Palladium (please see my previous posts for the specifics).

But even if your definition is accurate, you still need to account for the fact that this statement: "Only invocation magic can be canceled by the casting mage. Thus once the magic has been enchanting into an object it is no longer invocation magic that can be canceled. *scratches head like does not understand why I am explaining the obvious*" is not supported by the text on cancelling magic: "The creator of the magic can cancel/stop its effect or influence instantly at any time." (Fantasy 2e p. 184, RUE p. 188, HU2e p. 319). It doesn't talk about cancelling a spell. It talks about cancelling the effect or influence of magic. No exception for spells that are called "enchantments" is stated anywhere in the entire corpus of Palladium's works that I have found. If you know of a place that states one, please enlighten us.

[Library Ogre]

Ever notice how many arguements devolve into pissing contests about vocabulary?

[drewkitty ~..~]

Ever notice how many arguements devolve into pissing contests about vocabulary?

Who's root cause is the poor wording/phrasing choices in the canon text. Yes.
This has come up before.