Magic Bullet

[MZFalconer]

I think I saw a thread about whether giving someone an enchanted gun counted as you breaking the first law of magic.
I was wondering how you would go about enhancing standard ammunition magically.

Would you have to expend an enchanted item slot for every bullet? or could you do it by cartridge?

I think the best idea I came up with would be to create a potion in a large vat and coat/dip the bullets in the potion. I think coating several bullets at the same time could be classed as a single use.

Given magics tendency to disrupt technology I'm thinking about using the ammunition with antique weapons such as the Henry Repeating Rifle which should be fine up to level 5 on the deliberate hexing table.

[Magicpockets]

Using the Warden sword as a baseline, I would assume that enchanted weapons do not break the first law.

[Haru]

They absolutely do break the law, otherwise it'd be ridiculously easy to avoid the whole issue. In the case of a warden sword, they are either killing monsters or using the mundane side of the sword to behead warlocks. However, if a wizard creates the bullets for you, he might have to answer for it, if he creates them in the knowledge, that you will kill people with it. That's the only gray area I see. If it's your own enchanted items, it's your own magicyou kill with.

I'd charge one enchanted item slot per bullet. You could take the "bag of tricks" custom power for those, if you don't want to take a spellcrafting power. Remember that "one bullet" and "one attack" do not necessarily have to be the same thing. The enchanted item or potion has one use per default, and that use can be "I coat one bullet in the potion and shoot it", or it can be "I dip my entire magazine into the potion and empty my clip". Mechanically, those two uses of the item are identical, as weird as it might seem at first.

If you want to create a "magical gunslinger" sort of character, an Item of Power would be your best bet. Maybe something like this:

Magical Gun[-3]:
It is what it is: It is an old cold revolver with a beautifully carved handle. Counts as a weapon:2.
Never Empty[0]: The magical gun recharges by absorbing magical energies and does not need to be reloaded.
Fire at Will [-3]: When you make an attack with the magical gun, you can choose to add 2 to the guns weapon rating or change the type of attack from a lead bullet to any type of attack you want. For example, you could shoot a bullet made of fire or silver, with an effort of will. This does not give the bullet any additional property beyond what the chosen element can do (for example, you could create a silver bullet, but not a bullet made from inherited silver), but it can be enough to satisfy some catches. Those elemental bullets can also be used to create maneuvers.
Bullseye [-1]: The magical gun is not simply a weapon, it is an extension of the bearers will, granting +1 on any attack rolling guns.
One Time Discount [+1]: A gun is reasonably easy to conceal.

You might want to customize this a bit, give it a bit more flavor and backstory than this rather bland version, but this is just to demonstrate the mechanics. It could be something like the Colt from supernatural.

Edit: forgot the discount

[Ulfgeir]

I think you would be able to enchant the bullets, but not the gun itself to be more effective against certain types of supernatural.
However, I also think you might have to resort to real old-fashioned round lead bullets and muzzleloading with black powder. Modern ammunition and guns doubtful. Of course then you would  also sacrifice accuracy alot.

[UmbraLux]

I think I saw a thread about whether giving someone an enchanted gun counted as you breaking the first law of magic.

Whether or not it's Lawbreaking is debatable and should be decided by your group.  However, a wizard may well bring the warden head hunters down on himself even if he didn't break the Law!  That was Harry's worry when researching a certain spell. 

While Harry was under suspicion at the time, you're taking it beyond research to casting and even use - whether by yourself or by another. 

I was wondering how you would go about enhancing standard ammunition magically.

Would you have to expend an enchanted item slot for every bullet? or could you do it by cartridge?

I think the best idea I came up with would be to create a potion in a large vat and coat/dip the bullets in the potion. I think coating several bullets at the same time could be classed as a single use.

(click to show/hide)

FYI - a cartridge is an assembled bullet, powder, case, and primer.  I suspect you meant to say magazine.

  A single use is an attempt at one effect on one target.  You should not be able to turn a single use into multiple effects by dipping several items in a potion.

Given magics tendency to disrupt technology I'm thinking about using the ammunition with antique weapons such as the Henry Repeating Rifle which should be fine up to level 5 on the deliberate hexing table.

The 1911 model has been around over a century also - and is a very nice weapon.  That said, a 5 isn't really that hard for most wizards to hit. 
----
In general, I do think Haru's solution of using an item of power does a better and more reliable job of getting what you want.  You shouldn't have to worry about it breaking. 

[MZFalconer]

That seems fair enough, and yes I did mean magazine XD
I checked the hexing table again and level 5 states that "older automatic weapons may malfunction" since a Henry Repeating rifle isn't even a semi-automatic I think it should probably be a 7 on the hexing table since it's most advanced mechanical part seems to be a lever not much more complicated than a regular trigger.

As an alternative to the item of power could I enchant the gun as an ordinary enchanted item provided that:
A: The Enchantment's strength did not equal or exceed the power level of the items level on the deliberate hexing table. So it could never exceed power 4 for an old automatic weapon but I could add more uses as normal instead of power.
B: If it ran out of charges then I would have to take a point of mental stress to use the enchantment as per normal enchanted item rules.

[Haru]

One thing I would suggest: free yourself from the hexing table. Those are estimated suggestions and not the law of the land. Your character has a gun that he uses to fire magical bullets? Done. Choose a weapon you think fits his style, make it something not too modern and you're good. That's the rule of cool, and it trumphs a lot of the other rules.

For the enchanted item version you'd need ritual(crafting) and some refinement to make the different types of bullets. If you limit yourself to 4 shift effects, you'd be way better off with the IoP. Slap another point of refresh on there, and you can improve the weapon rating by 2 permanently, if the current version is too weak for you. Make it a rifle, and the discount goes up to +2.

[bobjob]

They absolutely do break the law, otherwise it'd be ridiculously easy to avoid the whole issue.

What ever happened to guns don't kill people, people kill people?

I personally wouldn't adjudicate it that way. Harry mentions specifically that the reason they use the warden swords to behead people is to keep from violating the laws of magic. They never mention anything about an unenchanted side or any caveats to that rule as you are not directly using magic to kill someone. If there is something like that in a novel, short story, or RAW I must have completely missed it.

[Haru]

What I meant was, that besides an enchanted item, the warden sword is simply that: a sword. You can kill someone with a sword just fine, you don't need to use any magic to do so. In the game, the sword has not only its counterspell ability, but also a "counts as a weapon:6" enchantment. If you were to kill someone while you activate that enchantment, I'd judge it to be a lawbreaker. Otherwise it'd be not different than using any other pointy stick. And I'd apply the same reasoning to any other magically enhanced weapon, if the enhancing stems from the characters own power.

[Deadmanwalking]

What I meant was, that besides an enchanted item, the warden sword is simply that: a sword. You can kill someone with a sword just fine, you don't need to use any magic to do so. In the game, the sword has not only its counterspell ability, but also a "counts as a weapon:6" enchantment. If you were to kill someone while you activate that enchantment, I'd judge it to be a lawbreaker. Otherwise it'd be not different than using any other pointy stick. And I'd apply the same reasoning to any other magically enhanced weapon, if the enhancing stems from the characters own power.

Yeeeah, I'm with bobjob: There's no support for this point of view anywhere in the books, and I see no thematic reason for it to be true. The only arguments are based on game mechanics, and, well, I find those kind of arguments a little shaky in this instance.

[Mrmdubois]

Even if you did get slap happy with Lawbreaker when you used enchanted bullets you could easily just have the enchanted bullets set up maneuvers and then cap them with a vanilla shot.  The line is fine enough that it might as well not be there.

[Haru]

I'm pretty sure it's well supported, if not explicitly stated. Harry could use his staff to bash someones brain in, and he would not have to fear any repercussions from the magical side. Now if he were to use his magic to imbue his staff with kinetic energy, making it hit harder, then it would most certainly be a violation of the first law.

And I see the same thing applying to the warden swords. If they use a sharp metal stick to chop someones head off, no questions asked. If they use a magical sharp metal stick to chop someones head off, there are going to be problems. Or maybe the warden sword is enchanted to isolate them from this. But I always read it as a completely mundane way to kill, to avoid breaking the laws themselves.

Even if you did get slap happy with Lawbreaker when you used enchanted bullets you could easily just have the enchanted bullets set up maneuvers and then cap them with a vanilla shot.  The line is fine enough that it might as well not be there.

I know it depends on the interpretation (and I know, a lot of people are going to differ here), but I see the first lawbreaker as "If you think it is ok to use your magic in a way that leads to the death of a person or employs the death of a person, you broke the law."
To me, that even includes holding someone with your magic to bring down the final blow with mundane means. That includes a lot of things that would get you by on a technicality with the wardens, but not with your own mind. And the same goes with the bullets. You use them with the intent to kill someone, even if the bullets are not the direct means, you create and employ them to ensure the death of a human being. That will, in my book, taint your magic significantly enough. Maybe not for a full lawbreaker power in some of these cases, but at least a darker aspect, that will push you into that direction at one point.

Otherwise, I feel, that the laws are pretty much meaningless. You can cast someone senseless six days from sunday, but because you said you didn't use magic to do the final blow, that's ok. Yes, technically, it is, I agree there. But just because you didn't kill doesn't mean that it will leave you unchanged. Harry is always extremely careful, when employing magic against humans, at the most he knocks them out but otherwise leaves them be. Except for Justin, I don't think he ever actually used magic with the intent to kill the target human, be it directly or otherwise.

[bobjob]

I'm pretty sure it's well supported, if not explicitly stated. Harry could use his staff to bash someones brain in, and he would not have to fear any repercussions from the magical side. Now if he were to use his magic to imbue his staff with kinetic energy, making it hit harder, then it would most certainly be a violation of the first law.

And I see the same thing applying to the warden swords. If they use a sharp metal stick to chop someones head off, no questions asked. If they use a magical sharp metal stick to chop someones head off, there are going to be problems.

I guess this all really depends on the interpretation of how one activates enchanted items. They are stored magical energy but they don't necessarily have to be your energy. Captain Luccio created the Warden swords which in theory anybody could use as she passes it over to the Warden's under her command (taking up their enchanted item slots). You aren't powering it with your abilities or spending any mental stress to activate it. Also, would Luccio receive the Lawbreaker stunt? It's her stored energy in the sword... she created a weapon capable of killing. What happens if the sword is stolen by someone without magical ability but with a high enough lore to know what it is? Could they activate the Weapon 6 ability of the weapon? If your answer is No, then why not if Luccio spent the complexity to allow the sword to be used by someone else? Another example though that is kind of in Haru's favor would be the "love" potion that Harry created and Susan accidentally drank. By RAW they mentioned that could possibly open you up to a Lawbreaker stunt if you actually subverted their will (or created the potion to subvert their will - which in my mind would be stress and an appropriate consequence). Instead it just created a temporary aspect that could be tagged. But if Harry was all dark side and created the potion to subvert will like a Love potion but Billy stole it and fed it to Georgia, who would get the Lawbreaker stunt?

Another scenario would be if I created a special Warden's sword as an IOP and killed someone with it. Would I get a Lawbreaker stunt?

Sorry, I kind of rambled a bit. Point is, that is getting into territory that's very ambiguous and a little too fiddly for my tastes.

[Sanctaphrax]

Please, let's not have another First Law debate.

PS: Is it possible, narratively, to use a Warden Sword without making use of the magical sharpness? I always figured that the limited number of uses was just a mechanical abstraction. I don't intend this to be part of the Law debate, I'm just curious.

[Haru]

Sanctaphrax is right, First Law debates are a bad idea.

I'll just clarify on one point and leave it at that, unless someone wants to pm that further.

Another example though that is kind of in Haru's favor would be the "love" potion that Harry created and Susan accidentally drank. By RAW they mentioned that could possibly open you up to a Lawbreaker stunt if you actually subverted their will (or created the potion to subvert their will - which in my mind would be stress and an appropriate consequence). Instead it just created a temporary aspect that could be tagged. But if Harry was all dark side and created the potion to subvert will like a Love potion but Billy stole it and fed it to Georgia, who would get the Lawbreaker stunt?

My take on this:
Harry made the love potion in SF in order to make Bob help him with the other potion. He'd probably planned on storing it away or getting rid of it, once everything was done, at least he never planned on using it, the love potion was method, not intent.

On the other hand, if he wants to make an actual subduing love potion, I would say that would be a lawbreaker at the time of brewing the potion, because that is when the intent is formed into the spell. Even though Billy is using the potion, he's clear, since it wasn't his own magic that could twist him. However, it would still be a deep change in character that would at least take with it a change in an aspect.

On the whole, I would tell the player that, BEFORE he went through with the action, so they know the consequences of what they are about to do and can choose to go through with it or take another direction.