A compilation of first magnitude spontaneous spells

Are you really playing a silly game of semantics?!?!?! Fine, you move part of the lock, not the whole thing. Are you happy now, since I wrote the sentence with "part" instead of "parts"?

That's really untrue and quickly seen as untrue in the core book. A person's fingernails are parts of the person. A person's fingers are parts of the person. Same for the hand, the wrist, the lower arm, the elbow, and the upper arm. So you're saying Arm of the Infant should be T: Group, but the core book says it's T: Part. As you can see, a portion of an object can be considered a Part even if that portion could be subdivided into more portions that would each be a Part in their own right.

No, not really as you say. For instance, in canon you can cast a R: Touch spell on a pregnant woman in her third trimester and use T: Part to affect the fetus, and that's with vanilla Hermetic magic, without using Fertility Magic. For more common stuff, you can even look in the core book. Parching Wind and Curse of the Desert, for example, affect the water part of the target. You need to perceive the target of which the Part is a part.

I guess you can see it as silly semantics if you disagree with the "multiple parts as group" view, but otherwise it is not.

I do not agree it's so clear cut as you seem to make it. If I target a finger, of course I can target all its subcomponents. That's because I am targeting the finger with a unitary effect. However, suppose I am targeting the oars of a ship, Regoing those on one side to row forward, and those on the other side to row backward so that the ship turns: would you go for Part, or Group?
Note that this is an example much closer to that of the lock.Now, I would go for Ind, controlling the ship as a single Individual, just as I would do with the lock. But if for some reason I had to choose between Part and Group to affect only the oars, I would go with Group, not with Part.

That's a very tricky example; one could argue that in the third trimester you can perceive the fetus, just like you can perceive a man hiding under a blanket even if you don't "see" him (but not one shut into a coffin).

Again, I find the examples unconvincing. That's because in both cases the water is "part" of the object in the sense that's fully mixed into the object. You can't differentiate the two, but you can certainly perceive the ensemble.

Without an Arcane connection, can you destroy the inner lining of a closed box? Can you heat the unseen fireplace inside a stone cottage? Can you change the seeds of an apple each into a little worm without breaking the skin of the apple? I don't think you can, but should you find that kind of examples, I might be convinced.

Oars are connect to the boat. I can just target a single Part of the boat that includes all the oars. You can't disallow this if you allow things like choosing a finger and affecting its subcomponents.

You can see the keyhole that indicates the lock mechanism just like the bump that indicates the presence of the fetus.

How can you say you can't differentiate the two when the book is specifically allowing you to. You are hitting one part without hitting the other parts with the magic. That would be differentiating. But you can't visually differentiate them. So you can magically differentiate even if you can't perceptually differentiate. You can target that part that you cannot perceptually identify, so long as you can perceive the animal/plant/person/whatever.

Yes, use T: Room to destroy what is inside the box (a small chamber), so long as you can perceive the box. In this case it doesn't even have to be part of the box. But this also shows you you can target totally different things without perceiving them. You can destroy all of the water in a cask while leaving the cask in tact with PeAq and T: Room, for example.

While not the seeds of an apple, this is very nearly explicitly stated as possible in canon with different things. You can make flesh worms spring from the intestines, for example. You can do the same with the stomach.

Almost forgot to post more spells!

The Phantom Toadstool

Perdo Corpus 5 (base 4, R:Touch, D: Momentary, T:Individual)

With a sharp slap on the target's back, the caster makes another human vomit profusely. The spell only causes the initial emesis, with any further purging or lack thereof being the victim's choice. If applied fast enough, this spell will prevent swallowed poison from inflicting further damage.

Needling the Thread

Muto Animal 5 (base 3, R:Touch, D:Concentration, T: Individual)

A handful of any animal product transforms into a bone needle for as long as the caster concentrates. With some non-magical thread or sinew, a magus could perform some quick repairs to a tent or clothing.

1 Like

Actually, I do (our entire troupe does). It's arguably somewhat subtle and occasionally difficult to adjudicate; more importantly, it's rarely an issue because most of the times one just uses T:Ind rather than T:Part. But the difference is there, and the key is whether the "part" you are targeting acts as a single individual (albeit part of something larger) or as a group. Consider Pit of the gaping Earth, or a similar "I dig a hole under a victim's feet" spell, where the target is Part for obvious reasons. Now consider a version where, instead of a single pit, a magus can create a dozen, each affecting (the ground under) a different victim. Would you leave T:Part, or make it T:Group? We'd make it T:Group, without doubt. It seems to me you'd make it T:Part.

No. The keyhole suggests the presence of the mechanism, just like a coffin suggests the presence of a corpse, but you can't actually perceive it the way you can perceive a fetus in a belly, or a man under a blanket. For example, you can't quite tell how deep or large the mechanism is. I realize the boundary is fuzzy, but there must be a boundary, or otherwise you'd be able to light a specific, unseen fireplace in a faraway castle (which we do not allow barring Arcane Connections or other workarounds; would you?)

I may not have been clear, but I meant:

  1. In an ingot of electrum (an alloy of gold and silver), you can target the gold with T:Part.
  2. If there's a small ingot of gold, encased in a larger ingot of silver, you can't target the gold with T:Part (and/or at R:Touch).
    "Remove water from a watery body" is akin to 1. "Act upon a hidden mechanism inside a box" is akin to 2.

Obviously, we are talking about T:Part, not T:Room etc.
Can you destroy the inner lining of a closed boxed with T:Part? And at R:Touch?
Our troupe disallows it, and we do not think it's a house rule. Find me a similar example (but one that's really similar, not those you've brought to the table so far), and I'll be happy to change my view.

That seems rather different, but I am not quite familiar with the spell you are referencing, so I cannot comment further.
That said, it seems to me that:
a) we might be in agreement that to open the lock, you can target the Individual lock (using the guideline about "controlling it in a natural way") and you do not need to target a Part of the lock;
b) we disagree on how "hidden" a targetable part might be, which is rather off-topic for this thread;
c) we disagree on how a "group of Parts from the same Ind" should be treated, always as Part (your view) or sometimes as Group (mine) - again, rather off-topic;
d) while there may be some examples that hint one way or another, there's no clear-cut ruling in RAW about b) or c), so we are unlikely to resolve the issues further by discussing them; but if we want to discuss them further, perhaps with input from others, I'd suggest opening a new thread.

1 Like
1 Like
1 Like

That sounds like a fun spell to use in a game.

1 Like

That wouldn't make it in our saga: no spell of base level less than 1 is allowed, so the minimum "size" of an Intangible Tunnel is allowing through 10 level spells. Unless you fork later the tunnel.

Not that I'm saying that you should take only Natural base levels just because we do, but letting things with base 0 (or negative, to that matter) can get you into a conceptual hell. The higher the base level, the more it does, so it seems reasonable that they do nothing below certain levels, like, well, 1.

Wanting to contribute to this I sat down and worked out one spell each for the mentem and imaginem art combinations. That was easy, but getting to a keyboard with sufficient time to type them has been a much larger challenge.

A pair of complementary spells suggested themselves from the level 1 intellego Imaginem guideline "Memorize or perfect your memory about an image you have encountered."

The Diet of Worms

Intellego Aquam 4 (Base 3, R: Touch, D: Momentary, T: Individual)

By dipping a fingertip into a body of water then rubbing between finger and thumb, magi may discern wether the water is safe to drink. A common spell among spring covenants and young peregrine magi who do not have a stable source of clean water. In the Rhine, there is a coin-flips' chance that any magi will make the same terrible pun about Worms.

The Worms' Armageddon

Rego Animal 5 (Base 2, R: Touch, T: Momentary, R: Group)

A small spell which orders a cluster of vermin to travel as far away from the caster as possible. This does little to rescue spoiled food or water which is already worm-eaten, but does wonders to repel biting flies or inquisitive ants. The Worms' Armageddon is usually cast still and silent when bees make themselves known.

You have to touch one of the vermin and it only works for duration momentary, that doesn't sound efficient. You could change the target to circle. Then you'd have two magnitudes free to raise the duration to sun and you'd still do it at range touch. The caster draws a circle around the targeted piece of whatever, casts the spell, then all of the critters within the circle take off and keep moving until the next sunrise/sunset.

1 Like

There are not many possible first magnitude spells for Perdo Aquam. But this one is useful in many situations!

1 Like

Forcing someone to make eye contact with ReCo didn't have a low enough base.
The closest is CrMe 10: base 4 "put a though in someone's mind", +2 Voice
(Based on "Catch the Eye" in MoH p92, as discussed in this thread)

But Fafnir had an excellent adjustment proposal which I'm going to build upon :mrgreen:

1 Like

Sight or Voice?

Which base 2 ReCo guideline are you using? "Make a target lose control of a body part." in the core book would not necessarily force someone to make eye contact.

I have to agree. It could be used to snap a target out of eye contact, but it's not precise enough to turn the eyes of the target and focus them to a precise point in space. The examples in the corebook for the same guideline include a) making someone stutter and b) making someone's hand spasm, so that in both cases the target has trouble using the respective body part. The proposed "Look me in the eye" spell would be more like making someone utter a specific word or a hand perform a specific gesture.

1 Like
1 Like