This is not generally accepted, as being true.
There is no formal defnition (that I have been able to find) of "General spells".
I am aware that CrIg to cause damage is often considered general, but there is no reason to assume that it is - a strict reading of the core rulebook (and for the sake of argument ignoring all other books, but I don't recall any contradictions) suggest that Hermetic Magic cannot achieve more than +30 damage from a single CrIg spell.
But guidelines are just guidelines. Not rules.
The fact CrIg has no general guideline in the same way CrAu for example is without any doubt linked to the fact a spell base 0 would do 1 damage. To avoid this, we should have a general guideline written as in Vim, some kind of (this spell does base level +1 damage).
I totally see "variable intensity things" as being example of unwritten general guideline.
Would you count a Sight and a Voice range spell otherwise identical as "the same"?
That is a reading without any support as its specifically stated that guidelines are NOT complete and there is nothing saying that CrIg maxes out at any specific level.
The only specialisation that you actually USE is the one of the Mastery in the spell you´re casting. You only get it once no matter what.
No, probably not, at least not for the purposes of Adaptive Casting. I'd say they are similar, but not the same.
Why other then the horrible smell of cheese it produces.
If spells are General that "means that they may be learned at any level of difficulty - the higher the level, the more powerful the spell." (See page 115.) I can't help that people may not accept what is written, but there is a definition.
Chris
Yes, as Erik says, these are similar. Only a power level change is allowed for general spells to match each other.
Chris
...whch is not the case for eg. CrIg damage spells.
Just because there are multiple valid guideline levels it does not mean that all levels are valid
Direwolf already explained the major logical error you committed earlier. Your first sentence retains the error. In the second you're making the argument better. However, it does say these are just examples, and fire can naturally burn for more, so CrIg should be able to handle more. There are a few limits that are mentioned, and the reason is stated: CrCo boosts can't go past a certain point or it's no longer in the domain of Creo; it should be Muto. MuVi can't add too much without Creo, though it can keep going if you include Creo.
Tell you what. You think my spell doesn't obey the rules? Go look carefully at my CrIgGen spell. Tell me what rule it violates.
Chris
No, he simply stated that the gudelne list is not complete. While this is entrely true and does mean there's wiggleroom either way. However...
But if CrIg is Gen guideline, you can (theoretically) create a fire causing +1000 worth ofdamage, which I hope we both agree is unnatural?
Thus CrIg must be bounded and cannot be General.
Also, while I know it's common to state that the +30 damage is kinda low (complete immersion is molten iron being +48), it should be noted that the CrIg gudeline does promises neither complete immersion nor something as total as molten metal.
I thus find a limit of +30 (or maybe +35) a very reasonable limit for the destructive power of momentary CrIg.
I think (hope?) you're missing my point.
I diagree with you assumption that just because CrIg tends to cause (+base level+5) damage as a guideline and indeed does this for several base guidelines, this must be a general guideline. Your spells (IIRC) is completely legal, except that it uses a general guideline where there is none (or atleast can be argue that there is none, either is equally bad for the following purpose), and thus is a bad example for the purposes of adaptive casting, which was what the thread was about in the first place.
Assuming that the CrIg->damage guideline is general causes problems IMAO and so I was hoping for another example.
But you said some of these other options do not exist in the sentence I quoted, specifically ruling out the "wiggleroom" you now say can exist. This is the error Direwolf pointed out.
Of course, this assumption disagrees with what we've been told about at least one spell. (Don't know if I can find it, but the comparison was explained at one time.) Also, your damage limit for Momentary CrIg is specifically violated by a canon spell (HoH:S), so we know your suggested limit is incorrect that way, too.
Edit: I should perhaps add that all spells change over when you reach ritual level. Sometimes this happens by Storyguide decision. Sometimes this happens because you reach level 51 or higher. At that point the lower level spell and the higher level spell cease to be the same except for power level. Their casting methods are very different, and they are categorized (and labeled) as two different types. (E.g. CrCo45 and CrCo45, ritual are not the same.) This means that all general guidelines for formulaic magic hit an eventual limit. My CrIg spell hits the ritual limit before hitting the canon +damage limit, and thus does not push the guidelines beyond what is listed in canon.
Please go back and find in the definition of General spells where it says they use "General guidelines." It doesn't. They use different power levels for the same effect. If a guideline is general it has different power levels for the same effect. That does not imply the converse is true. That is a common error in logic. Thus your exception is one you are making up, not one that is present.
Chris
I concede defeat in this particular case.
Also, could we have the topic split? We (or perhaps I) derailed it beyond the point of relevance.
No i pointed out that your assumption was logically flawed.
And as Callen added, those guidelines that actually DO have limits, often(always?) points them out very specifically.
Again adding to the unlikelyness of your argument.
Why would we agree on that? I dare you to find a magi who could cast such a spell, but why would it be unnatural?
Flawed conclusion. Based on at least 2 errors. The above claim that Fire damage cant exceed value X without any actual reason to believe such is true... And the assumption that General guidelines must be unlimited. There is nothing saying so to my knowledge. The only limit we know is the practical limit of what you can reach in spell level.
That is just an arbitrary limit grabbed out of the air. Its also specifically wrong.
Where none is actually stated. As the guidelines are not complete, that is another moot point.
:mrgreen:
That´s quite normal. As long as it´s at least connected to the original topic i dont think its a bad idea that it stays unsplit. If we started discussing yesterdays weather or the next season of sports, THAT´s when a split is truly and utterly needed! 