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.
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.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.
They absolutely do break the law, otherwise it'd be ridiculously easy to avoid the whole issue.
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.
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."
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.
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:
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.
I like the idea of having someone (to take Dresden as the example) with a blasting rod that is a revolver and a staff that is a Shotgun.
Shoots flame from the revolver and blasts them with force from the shotgun :P