I don't understand why you would say this. To be rude? I was the one who pointed out this page to you as an indicator that Hermetic magic does not necessarily conform to Aristotle's theories.
At very least, it seems from your statement that you now agree that we should not be arguing what Hermetic magic does based on Aristotle's elements.
My apologies, I've posed about this a few places. That and the amount of confrontational interactions I get on these forums have me knee jerk reacting.
The page details the Hermetic breakthroughs when more correctly align Magic Theory with the way the world works. Where Magic Theory deviates is in error of Theory, it is not because the world works differently. It is not because the Aristotelian view is incorrect about the world, the world works in an Aristotelian manor.
So... if one progresses Magic Theory, or a character pushes the boundaries because they have better insight into the elements. It follows that using Aristotelian theory is what we as players should use to figure out how Magic can manipulate the game word. Because that is how the world itself works.
Careful. Your statement is illogical:
I'll accept that Magic Theory's deviation is because the world works differently, and this is aligning it better with the world. That is really the whole idea of research, breakthroughs, and integration. Fine. But that doesn't lead to this:
If working to align Hermetic magic with the Aristotelian view always helped, this statement would be correct. But that column is quite explicit that this may not help. It may not help at all, which with your earlier statement means the world may not work in an Aristotelian manner after all. Platonic view might work, meaning the world works in the Platonic manner. Or neither may work, which would then imply the world doesn't work in either manner. Or it could be that both help, which would tend to indicate both have some things that are correct about the world and that are missing from Hermetic theory while neither is entirely correct.
In summary, if you agree with your first two sentences, you must absolutely disagree with your third sentence and beyond according to A&A p.11.
Your third sentence and beyond may be correct about the world, but they may also be incorrect. So, if we assume the world works in an Aristotelian way, we are making an assumption that all troupes will choose exactly one of the four possible different paths outlined in that column, while canon explicitly does not make that assumption. Therefore, working from the standpoint that the ArM5 world is Aristotelian is a house-interpretation (not a house rule, but a house choice on which route to take of the four possibilities given) and not canon.
Getting back to Lava, for use in Elemental Magic based spells - I'm unsure that lava isn't a little too powerful as written in HP. * Base 5 creates 1 cubic foot (HP p.12)
This seems more powerful than fire from CrIg. Am I missing something in the way Hermetic Projects intended lava to be used, or is lava just that great?
I did find one variation - in the spell Dragon's Blood (HP p.15) which also inflicts +15 damage, however it also includes +2 mags in the spell design for "intense heat". Could that mean that the base damage should be +5 instead of +15?
I think you'll find this with a lot of spells posted recently. Let's go back to just the core book and nothing unusual, just CrIg. Let's say I want to do +20 damage. Could I just use Base 4 and do +1 size to make it noticeably bigger than the person I'm targeting, thereby getting Base 5 gives +5x4=+20 damage? That seems to be the argument I'm seeing from some spells being posted on the forum recently. But it doesn't seem to fit things like the second CrIg Base-5 and Base-10 guidelines in the core book.
Page 181 of the main Rule book does say that "spell damage already includes the modifier for the amount of exposure". You can argue about whether that really makes sense in some circumstances (such as cast at things/people of non-standard sizes, or with size magnitudes to the spell) but given it's pretty obviously for balance reasons my inclination would be not to poke it.
Even better. All these increases in size just to get extra damage disagree with that, too. I always just go with +5 per magnitude or +1 per level for increased damage, no increases in damage for increasing size. More size just lets you hit more targets.
Its not the size increase that I'm questioning - its the base damage as written in HP. +15 damage for a base 5 is very good, better than Ignem. It looks like troupes should decide if they are going to use those guidelines newer guidelines or not.
I was asking if I was missing somethjing in the interpretation, especially as one spell includes extra mags for +15 damage but others do not.
Did you just say Aristotle is not the Authority on Physics?
I'm sorry the f game are you playing sir? I'm perplexed at the situation. I am on the wrong forums I guess. Um don't tell Tim Ferg that though, I mean that guy gets butt hurt suggesting anything that may put into question Aristotle in the game.
This forum is like ... what game have I played then?
Magic is a hodge of various things. But the mundane world is clear on how it works.
Are you saying humours aren't a thing? That Sight and Sound don't have species? Like go read any Ars Magica supplement for baby Jesus.
I'm not going to participate directly in your threads/discussions anymore TRiffixRex. Wish you well.
You can argue, from balance perspective, that one cubic feet (base metal) is not enough quantity to do that damage in a consistent way (perhaps lava does not stick as easily, pieces of armor could be dropped to avoid damage or whatever) and that are necessary finesse rolls to drop it precisely. While Ignem can be placed on any flammable surface, lava has to be dropped with precision.
Of course, bigger quantities of lava give bonuses to finesse rolls (+3 per magnitude for example). That way, even if you can do a lot of damage (two more magnitudes) with a base 5, it needs to hit, what reduces the sheer power a lot (grogs can roll defense with shields and dodge rolls, for example, but no with weapons). The equivalent of CrIg 15 that does +15 damage with precision would be a CrTe 15 (100 cubic feet of lava) that does +15 with a +6 finesse attack roll that can only be dodged or block with a shield that is destroyed in the process.
That is what I would do, taking Ignem as a reference and balancing it to be in the same league or slightly under it (to keep the king alive).
Another possibility is to disregard spell guidelines from Hermetic projects and ask for Ignem requisites (+1 magnitude) if you what hot lava that damages.
To be fair, this particular thread was mine and callen's to discuss my questions involving elemental spells (my current game has Aquam and Auram specialists) without getting bogged down by Rex's previous thread about Elemental requisites; it's not actually his thread.
... or translated, the difficulty of creating lava was not well-planned out for game balance. We should fix it, and house rule it, and make it work. An added idea on this note, Lava probably cools pretty quickly once it's out in the air, so creating a small volume of it (say a cubic foot) it would probably cool off pretty fast.
My question for this: If we had a magus who (through mental damage or lack of scholarly upbringing) was a specialist in terram for stone, ignem for fire, and had never heard of or comprehended lava... how hard would it be for him to create it? CrTe base 3 to create rock. +1 Mag and Ig req to heat it, +2 mag for intensity, +1 touch. That's a CrTe(Ig) 15 to create a giant puddle of smoldering molten rock, yes?
I'm still not convinced it's so out of line. CrTe lava seems to work better against a single target, but so do other Terram attacks. The Crystal Dart (Mu(Re)Te) does +10 damage at Base 3 with +1 for the Rego requisite, for instance. And when you try to use bigger sizes, Ignem does a lot better because its base size is bigger. Auram does even better with size.
Yeah, all my friends want to base their spells on that one for damage.
Your first sentence summarizes my assessment. But I am pretty new to 5e, so
Anyway, I don't think that a cubic foot of real lava cools easily. I am no expert in Aristotelian physics but in normal physics, you need to take away a lot of energy to cool molten rock. If lava is applied on a person... buf! You will find more success cooling lava with water than with air.