On these forums, I have often seen it said that any object under an active magical effect is unable to affect beings with magic resistance if the magical effect upon them does not penetrate that being’s magic resistance.
Why is this? This is not how magic resistance is described in the 5e core of Definitive Edition rules, but the interpretation seems ubiquitous. What is this interpretation based on?
Simply reading the definiton as laid out, Magic Resistance is said to block spells, but in the above case the being is not targeted by a spell. It is said to block things “created and maintained by magic”, but being targeted by a spell does not make something be “created or maintained” by magic. It is clear that the second-order effects of a spell need to penetrate in order to affect a being with magic resistance (a magically sharp object needs its magical sharpness to penetrate, this is a spell directly affecting the struck being). It is not at all clear to me why the vaunted “pink dot” should happen based on the definitions laid out in the core rules.
Definitive Edition adds the example of an invisible character needing to penetrate to affect a mage through magic resistance. This does not seem to flow logically from the definitions, except that one can squint and say that the form of the invisible person is one which is being “maintained by magic” in its current state? It is a confusing example.
Certainly it would not have been difficult to add a line in the preamble which stated plainly that “anything currently targeted by a spell counts as a magical thing for the purposes of these rules”, but as this was not done I am left assuming that this is in fact not the general case.
I am left confused, because reading the rulebook does not let me arrive at the conclusions I believe I am “supposed” to arrive at. An annoying state of affairs.
During my own research on this issue i found the redcap wiki entry, which cites David Chart on the berklist:
The principle is dead simple: a magical effect can only cross magic resistance if it penetrates. There is a subsidiary principle: magic resistance does not dissociate magical effects from the things they affect. Between them, I am fairly confident that they have the effects described.
Afaik this is the exact intended meaning of
Magic resistance keeps magic away […]. It does not dispel magic.
as in AM5e p85.
What does this mean? A magically enhanced sword consists of a sword and an attached magical effect. MR keeps out the magical effect, and cannot divorce it from the sword, thus it keeps out the sword. MR cannot identify-friend-or-foe, so an Edge of the Razor is equivalent to Dulling the Bandits Blade (similar spell, -2 instead of +2) or The Pink Dot.
It does not seem at all obvious that any magical effect, whatever it does, would be wholly entangled with its target in a way that would require it to be dispelled for the target to interact through magic resistance.
If a man who has a pink dot on his left hand cannot touch someone through MR with his right because the pink dot would be need to be dispelled… Why wouldn’t cutting off that same right hand with an axe dispel the magic?
If someone is being burnt by fire from Cloak of Flames (ArM5 pg.140), do they have to penetrate magic resistance to punch someone? The target of a Creo spell is the thing it creates, so the fire has to penetrate, but someone being burnt by it?
If the issue is that specific spell also follows the person, what about someone with their hand in the Circle of Encompassing Flames that is burning them? Do they have to penetrate to kick someone?
A natural fire under a MuIg effect to be blue. We know that CrIg light needs to penetrate to illuminate. What about the blue fire? Is someone illuminated by magical light being affected by it and thus needs to penetrate MR to touch a mage?
If a thing can’t be dissociated from the magical effect that is affecting it, why does mundane rock and water get to touch the mage when Rego’d? If the mundane rock/water cannot be dissociated from the Rego effect on it, surely it should be stopped at the same point as a magic rock/water being Rego’d? Ignore the Sling of Vilano stuff for the rock, I’m just going off the ArM5 Core book examples for Magic Resistance (pg 85 and 86)
Its fine if the answer is “yes” because I can change it if I think its silly that a man standing ankle deep in some CrAq water needs to penetrate MR to punch a mage and that the Pink Dot is for fools when you can just make some magical light and neuter a lot of people at once instead of Dotting them all, even with Group!
Sorry if all these examples have popped up in one of the infinite previous discussions litigating magic resistance, but “does not dissociate magical effects from the things they affect” means that understanding what “the thing they affect” is (big T Target? little t target? collateral to use the nomenclature of an errata thread?) becomes very important and I clearly do not understand the nuance.
A magical effect, applied at the Individual Target, is wholly entangled with the entire Individual. Of course a pink dot applied to one hand with a Part Target does not have an effect on the other hand.
I feel you may be over-focusing on the specific example. As an actual matter of fact, there is a larger issue with the Pink Dot problem as often written: Imaginem spells actually Target images, not objects. Thus, a pink-dotted sword would ignore MR while its image would be stopped.
However, the core issue remains: non-beneficial magical effects can counter-intuitively allow MR to engage. Thus, a conc variant of The Many-Hued Conflagration can be used to defend against flames and so on and so forth.
It seems intuitive to me that ‘the thing they affect’ is meant to read as Target - after all, all things interact and thus all spells affect all things.
Rego’d mundane materials cannot touch a maga. The mythic paradigm doesn’t include Inertia, so rego causes magical movement that is halted on interaction with MR. Look at the aimed examples - the boulder has to be Rego’d over a victims head, the rego effect canceled, and mundane movement (gravity) does the rest.
I am not really concerned with the idea of a spell being counter-intuitively useful as a defense - edge of the razor being a defensive move if cast forcelessly does not concern me. What does concern me is magic resistance having clear effects which follow from how it is described, and this “wholly entangled” malarkey is not stated.
If this was the case, why would a thing moved by Rego need special rules for stopping its movement? The thing is affected by a spell, that alone ought to be sufficient - but it clearly isn’t, as a special description is provided in the examples.
I simply do not believe that the outcome of “anything under a magical effect is wholly resisted” is a logical conclusion from the descriptions of MR in the rulebook, and this is a problem to me.
A normal rock thrown by magic stops at her skin or clothes. The maga feels the warning that something has been resisted, and also feels the rock touching her (before it falls), but she is not struck by the rock. It is as if the rock had been moved up against her as slowly and care
fully as possible.
and
A jet of normal water driven by magic reaches the maga and makes her wet, but has no force of impact, as the magical power cannot pass her resistance.
Are the examples I’m thinking of. Both have mundane things driven by magic touching the maga. “Rego’d mundane materials cannot touch a maga” is incorrect under the examples of the core book, and these examples remain unchanged in Definitive edition. I would suggest that if they are supposed to not be able to touch, then the text saying that they do touch should have been addressed.
You’re right, that’s indeed strange. It’s even written
Things moved by magic can cross the resistance, but their motion cannot, unless the spell penetrates the magic resistance.
Maybe this is a quirk of Aristotlean Physics? Everything that moves is moved by something else, iirc an arrow in flight is actually moved by a force imparted to the air behind it that propagates as it does.
Then, a Rego effect imparts a magical force that causes mundane movement in the Target. On contact with MR, the magical force (here: ’motion’) is halted but the Target isn’t, with the final imparted movement allowing the Target to touch the maga.
However, this causes an inconsistency in the Targeting rules. It seems using an objectively incorrect system of physics causes problems…
I personally would rule that the magic itself is the mover, imparting a magical quality (movement) to the object that causes it to be halted on contact with MR, but I’m just some nobody. Perhaps someone with a better grasp on the topic can enlighten us?
It seems to me that there is no reason, under the criteria laid down in the rules, that a man under Eyes of the Cat should need to penetrate to punch another mage. Same for hitting someone with the pommel of a sword under edge of the razor.
I would also contend that whatever our read, blade of the virulent flame absolutely does not need to penetrate for the sword to strike through MR (though the flames would, so it would not deal extra damage) - otherwise, if the sword needs to penetrate simply because it is being warmed by magical fire, the spell is even deadlier still when cast forcelessly as it warms the air in the room and causes every magus inside to choke as they resist the magically heated air
Because its what the rules seem to go with. One example as you pointed out is invisibility.
An invisible character cannot touch or exert
physical force on the maga, even if the invisibility
spell had Personal Range. The maga feels the
warning that something has been resisted, but
feels nothing else. See the magical bridge
examples, earlier, for further discussion.
Pg 223 of DE. This indicates a being under invisibility- a magical effect- cannot touch those under MR without penetrating. Likewise, shapeshifting is given an explicit pass whereas spell shapeshifting requires one to penetrate.
The use of a spell or invested item
(including the Skinchanger Virtue) to
change shape does not change the under-
lying fact that the target is human. While
he may be affected by Animal spells, he
may also be affected by Corpus and
Mentem spells, and any ongoing magics
using these Forms cast prior to transfor-
mation remain in effect. The transforma-
tion magic is bound by a duration, dur-
ing which time the spell or effect may
be detected with Intellego Vim spells. The Penetration Total of the caster must
exceed the Magic Resistance of anyone
that the shapechanged human wishes to
touch (or attack). Furthermore, remain-
ing in this form may incur Warping.
Those who have an innate supernat-
ural power to change shape (represented
by Virtues or Flaws such as Shapeshifter
and Lycanthrope) only invoke a magical
effect at the moment of transformation. Thus, the shapechange is not an active
effect while that character is in animal
form. Consequentially, Penetration is
not required for mundane attacks, nor
does the creature radiate magic or suf-
fer Warping due to the transformation.
However, this type of shapechanger is
still a human in an animal shape, and so
Corpus and Mentem magics are effec-
tive, as are Animal spells. An exception
is the lycanthrope, who do not retain
his human mind when transformed, and
therefore cannot be affected by Mentem
spells, although Corpus spells still work.
Pg 22 of HoH: Mystery cult.
I’d say this is because one’s being is imbued with a magical effect. Certainly, if one is turned into a plant then the magic can’t be distinguished from their substance.
Things like propelled objects do not actually entangle the entity with its magic- it simply applies a force. Hence, the force gets resisted but the object itself doesn’t.
Eyes of the cat would entangle the Individual with a magical effect, even if that effect only manifests in the eyes. Thus their being is imbued with magic. To not need to resist, it would have to have only the eyes be under a magical effect- likely using Part target.
You are partly correct- yes the blade wouldn’t have to penetrate. The Technique+Form indicates the blade isn’t even under a magical effect in itself, but rather is simply lit on fire.
However, you are wrong about the heat. Whilst the fire is magical, the heat isn’t (although the proccess of being heated by the fire is). We can see this from the fact the spell itself has the heat last beyond the duration.
Forms a fire along the length of a metal blade. This
flame doubles the weapon damage score for the blade
(or adds +5, whichever is greater), and can start fires
as well. If the spell is cast repeatedly on the same
blade, the blade gets hot enough to melt after half an
hour, which ends the spell. Letting the blade cool for
half an hour between castings avoids this.
Assuming Individual target is used, it is because the man’s body/image is effected rather than just his hand.
There are three types of target: objects,
containers, and senses. A spell cast on an object Target affects the things in that Target for the
duration of the spell, even if they change so that
they would no longer qualify as a valid target for
the original spell. If the caster is within range, she
retains control of the spell, if the spell allows such
control. Container targets are more complex, as
described on page 309.
Individual: The spell can affect a single discrete
thing, such as one person or one object. A huge
boulder is a discrete object, a mountain is not
(because it is joined to the ground). Clothes on a
person or moss on a boulder are part of the person
or boulder for these purposes. Individual is an object
Target. This adds no magnitudes to the guideline.
Pg 305 of DE
Even if the spell only manifests as “a pink dot on hand”, the entire body/image is under a magical effect (albeit one that cannot be percieved without magic outside the dot and the sigil).
No, as the target is the fire, not the thing being burned.
A person being illuminated by a magical fire is no more under a magical effect then one holding a magical sword.
This is honestly a very good question. The best answer I could come with is “rego applies a force on the rock, but since the force can be disentangled from the rock, the force is resisted whilst the rock is left alone”. Similar examples of effects targetting things that can be disentangled from the object might undergo a similar proccess- an arguable example of this is a ward against water pushing water off of those passing through.
You realize that you’re agreeing with me, here? I was saying that if the blade would need to penetrate to strike, then the air would also need to do so.
I’ll be honest, the rules text for MR expecting a reader to derive this as a logical consequence of the stated criteria (“does not dispel effects”) is completely ridicilous. If so, it is some of the worst rules writing I have come across.
It is clearly not impossible for MR to disentangle a magical effect from the thing it is affecting (see: aformentioned Rego movement examples). Making a striking hand not have cat-like eyes seems similarily trivial - certainly the spell is not broken if that hand is cut off, so making that hand not possess catlike vision also does not necessitate the magic to be dispelled.
Moving the rock would likely use the following guidelines of “Control or move dirt” or “Hurl a hard projectile”- both of which focus on movement and movement alone.
Changing so a man has a pink dot on his hand however would likely use the guideline of “Change one sensation of an object”, which changes the image of the target.
A disentanglement for Imaginem in this case likely wouldn’t disentangle the hand from the image- but rather the visual aspect of an image from its other sensory aspects. That’s just my guess though.
Also yes- Ars is written rather questionably sometimes I think, such that people scrutunize the rules for even basic mechanics like Magic Resistance.
That the effects are different isn't actually helpful. Because the result of the examples does not follow cleanly from the criteria (sometimes only the effect of the magic goes away, sometimes the whole thing is stopped, it is jot clearly explained why) the rules are basically impossible to extrapolate from.
If it actually said that literally anything under an effect is always resisted, full stop? While the outcomes might be displeasing, they would at least be clear. But this is not the case.
Which effects are “fully entangled” and which arent? No way to know. Except that size change and invisibility ARE and movement is not. Mind control? Other sensations, such as smell? Memories?
Based on what might one conclude that any of these are more akin to magical movement or a magical change in size?
Edit: to put my frustration more clearly, i find it absurd that one would be required to derive an entirely non-obvious magical concept (“any effect upon an individual is a change to the entire individual” - but only sometimes, for some effects) to interpret the functioning of magic resistance. This is such a stretch that it makes me doubt that interpretation entirely.
The effects being different is relevant as it helps ascertain whether magic could be kept away by disentangling it from the object
Things under an effect aren’t always resisted, however- the clearest example of this is Rego Terram. To state so would be false.
For which are fully entangled and which aren’t- it comes down to common sense and troupe discretion I am pretty sure. You can disentangle force as the force acting on an object isn’t part of the object. You cannot disentangle people being changed into rocks. Nor can you disentangle one’s image being changed as their image is how they generate species, being a part of themselves.
This is valid, but the writers themselves seem to have gone with this interpretation. The shapeshifting rules I posted above all but confirms it I believe, with the reasoning those with the shapeshifter virtue not needing to penetrate being that “the shapechange is not an active effect while that character is in animal form.” Even if the definitional rules don’t lead to that conclusion, if all the rules around it assumes such it becomes a de facto rule even if it isn’t a de jure rule.
Notably of course, in all the actual examples of MR’s functioning in the core rulebook, the resisted thing impacting MR has a specific active change on the actual surface which impacts the target. The invisible thing, the size-changed rock.
At the very least, DE might have added an example where the change is to some other, incidental part of the thing being blocked by MR. I still think this would make the read a stretch, but it would at least have stated it plainly.
Edit: you would have thought that DE would adress it if the rest of the line has decided to interpret MR in a way which is so divorced from the actual rules laid down?
This, I should add, is a big part of why this rule is such a huge problem. Because the interpretation of “any change whatsoever means the whole thing is changed” is not stated plainly nor discussed, and because none of the examples address it directly, to actually use this read in play is immensely frustrating (to me) - there isn’t any guidance on what should count or not!
There is at least one explicit guidance admittedly.
Things that are created and sustained by
magic (anything not created as a mundane thing
by a Ritual spell) are magical for these purposes. Things moved by magic can cross the resistance,
but their motion cannot, unless the spell
Penetrates the Magic Resistance.
Motion is given an explicit exception- nothing else is as far as I can recall. That said I’d probably extend this to other stuff like being illuminated by the light of a magical fire (where direct magical light needs to penetrate).
That said, you’re not wrong. The Magic Resistance rules has always been wishy washy, and it’s clear the writers either disagreed with some stuff or forgot about specific cases. One example include the wizard’s mount, where riding the conjured horse will require the magus to penetrate themselves. Another example is all the light examples like Moonbeam which RAW should require to penetrate to grant the magus the capacity to see as they’re magically created- which I am pretty sure is not the RAI. On the other hand, RAW using Rego Aquam to splash a magus with a mundane barrel of acid doing +15 damage on contact is kosher even though its practically unavoidable damage unless you got a ward against liquids, immunity to acid or such.
For actual running table stuff, I’d suggest going less “should this require penetration” and more “does it feel narratively sensible this requires penetration, and does this make MR more of a drawback then a benefit”. I’d apply MR against the acid contact stuff even though the acid is mundane and the magic isn’t doing damage- it just feels more sensible story-wise even if it isn’t rules.
The actual rules though… yeah it’s wishy washy at best. The general rule of “a Target under an effect must penetrate to make contact” has a lot of surrounding supporting evidence however even if the actual definitional rules don’t touch on the matter clearly outside the example of the mutoed rock.