flawed gems for failed infusing

[Hellblazer]

Like when you enchant a gem and fail, you get a flawed gem that you can crush, why not have the same process fo the infusing, if you fail a gem you get a flawed gems, instead of just having the gems disapear on you.

[darkstorme]

This probably falls into the "if it ain't broke" category.  Plus, one could always say that if an enchantment fails to take, you're left with a flawed gem, but if an infusement fails to take, an extremely localized rift to the Astral Plane opens and the gem is sucked through with a little *pop*.

[Faldred]

darkstorme - 11/14/2006  3:36 AM

This probably falls into the "if it ain't broke" category.  Plus, one could always say that if an enchantment fails to take, you're left with a flawed gem, but if an infusement fails to take, an extremely localized rift to the Astral Plane opens and the gem is sucked through with a little *pop*.

In other words, a wizard did it.  

[Hellblazer]

sorry i feel that this is a to easy answer. I can do both enchanting and infusing, basicaly they are the same skills just diferent component needed. Enchanting you need oil, not in infusing. So the fact remains why not give back a flawed gems like enchanting if the basis are the same.

[LynnJuniper]

Because the idea and concept between Infusing and Enchanting (rather than the components needed to do so) are differant (Different, jeez my spelling is getting bad).

Enchant -- to impart a magic quality or effect to.

Infuse -- To fill or cause to be filled with something (in this case a magical spell)

So while enchanting is leaving a trace of the type of magic behind (IE. A Bulls Strength Ring does not (usually) let you cast the spell but rather gifts the 'aftertaste' of the spell in the fact that you're made stronger as a result) Infusing actually gives you the ability to cast the spell weather through a gem or a wand. The way I see it is that if the enchanting fails to take you still have the gem , but flawed, tainted by magic but not in the correct way. With infusing you failed to literally implant the power to cast a spell into the gem, therefore causing it to implode upon itself *nods sagely*

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

Or crumble, or melt, or explode in your face, or fade out of existence, or pale to glass, or whathaveyou. Rhynn's got it.

[Hellblazer]

LynnJuniper - 11/14/2006  12:28 PM  Because the idea and concept between Infusing and Enchanting (rather than the components needed to do so) are differant (Different, jeez my spelling is getting bad).  Enchant -- to impart a magic quality or effect to.  Infuse -- To fill or cause to be filled with something (in this case a magical spell)  So while enchanting is leaving a trace of the type of magic behind (IE. A Bulls Strength Ring does not (usually) let you cast the spell but rather gifts the 'aftertaste' of the spell in the fact that you're made stronger as a result) Infusing actually gives you the ability to cast the spell weather through a gem or a wand. The way I see it is that if the enchanting fails to take you still have the gem , but flawed, tainted by magic but not in the correct way. With infusing you failed to literally implant the power to cast a spell into the gem, therefore causing it to implode upon itself *nods sagely*

 I see your point ecept for one thing, for wands you need both enchanted and infused wands. =D. I have to check if you get a flawed gem back from a spell enchantment on a gem. But as for the plain enchantmtne you do receive one.