An experiment in magic resistance.

I do like your rule though. Just tossing down thoughts. I could never use your rule with my long term group as I would have to change they way they think, but I could see a troupe of newbies picking up your ideas and having it make a lot of sense to them. People not biased by previous editions could think 'yeah, that's what magic resistance is suppose to be like!"

Well ... I'd argue that we're not newbies. I've been playing since the early nineties (AM2) and stuck with AM3 with a campaign that has been running for nearly 15 years.

In all the games I have run we've never made magi who shapeshifted roll penetration to bite a faerie - or required a magus who created a sword to roll penetration to hit a demon.

This 'patch' (though really it's an alternative system using a suppressive rather than blocking parma) is intended to keep our troupe 'logic' when it comes to MR rather than adopt the new rules. In riposte, I might argue that the AM5 canon is perfect for newbies (as they are simple and exploits will not be immediately apparent) :smiley:

Yes I see your point. In particular there is one player who lurks this page who would likely eagerly embrace your rule so he could keep things 'the way it was'.

(You know who you are!)

Isn't it the case with the standard Parma ,
that the "slingstone" just stops and slides harmlessly to the ground.
It would need a Rego effect included to balance it on your shoulder.

From my reading of this, that's not the canon rule, as the slingstone in Badger's case would still hit as a slingstone, not simply bounce off. Most of what I'd like to see is a Parma where there are few exploits, and those that remain would be difficult/tricky rather than simple.



With a 'blocking' parma (as AM5 canon) then any magical object is simply blocked (and slides harmlessly to the ground).

With a suppressive parma there is a potential exploit. As the shrunk object hits the Parma, the Muto effect is suppressed - which might suggest that the object strikes with its original size (e.g. a boulder, shrunk to a stone, strikes with the weight [and damage] of a boulder).

I'm arguing from a 'rule' perspective and with a (hopefully coherent) rationale that it doesn't.


You are correct. If a magus shrinks a boulder into a 'mundane' slingshot - and throws (or otherwise propels it) by mundane means - then it strikes as a slingshot.

Other than having a potentially unlimited supply of ammo - I don't see this as an exploit.

A boulder - turned into a type of stone that the troupe rules was utterly unnatural (e.g. a glowing, multicoloured stone) would have the transformation supressed when it struck the parma. I think it should still cause the same damage as the stone (rather than boulder) for the reasons given above.

I totally agree - I'm not bothered by level 35+ or ritual level exploits - but ones that are easy at level 5-15 are problematic (imo).

With the ArM5 standard 'blocking' Parma this is indeed the case. You might have noticed, though, that in this thread we are discussing how to improve a non-canonic 'suppressive' Parma far enough to make it work. And with that 'suppressive' Parma the effect turning a boulder to a slingstone would be suppressed - making it a boulder again.

Badger101's tricky idea for making this property non-exploitable is:
(1) The spell is only suppressed so far as it comes into contact with the Parma, which again is limited by the body and clothes of the protected being.
(2) What comes into contact with the Parma and is hence suppressed is just the surface of the slingstone, where there is no mass that can be increased back and crush the target.

If a suppressive Parma only affects the surface of magical effects which move into contact with the protected beings, it becomes however hard to explain how magically created fire, which does not need to get into contact with the Parma to ignite a being with (by Badger101's definition mundane) fire, can be resisted at all.

Kind regards,



That's a very interesting point (thanks again!) - but I still think it works by the definitions I have given.

The Parma suppresses magical effects that come into contact with the Maga. Therefore, as a magical flame strikes her skin, the (area affected by) heat and intensity of the fire is suppressed (therefore damage is negated).

If you look again - you will see that I've excluded (non-solid) forms from ever being 'mundane' when they are created. In the muto case (e.g. a fire has a MuIg effect to increase the damage) then the increased damage effect of the spell is supressed when it comes into contact with Parma (unless it penetrates, of course).

In 'philosophical' terms - I've made a separation between solids, liquids, gases and energy (e.g. heat). Solids can be classed as mundane (mainly because I don't want people putting their hands through them) - whereas more 'ephemeral' states of matter (which you can put your hand through) are not.

I think to have provided that already.

In short:

'Suppressive' Parma
(1) which does not resist or analyze already existing magical effects when moved into them,
(2) which tells the magus who created it a defined set of properties of every resistable magical effect which comes into contact with it without penetrating it,
(3) and which leaves the split second decision to resist such an effect or not to the magus.

Further elaboration is needed of:
(A) what is a magical effect that can be resisted - but here you can just take the definition of ArM5,
(B) exactly which properties of a magical effect become known - which is a matter of personal taste.

Kind regards,


The flames, however, would not need to strike the maga's skin to set her afire.

Maybe you were not completely precise when you wrote:

and thereby allowed effects from magical fire to be 'mundane' in your definition.

To work as you need it, AFAICS either your Parma would have to prevent flames not in contact with it to generate heat and secondary fires, or you would need to define matter (e. g. air) heated by a magical fire and secondary fires caused by that heated matter as magical and hence resisted by Parma, too.

Kind regards,




Perhaps I was not clear enough in what I meant. I was referring to indirect effects that have to be targetted.

The 'note' refers to indirect effects (e.g. setting fire to some straw or other fuel not in contact with the maga) which would require a targetting roll. If you wanted to ignite a maga's clothes or hair - directly - with a creo ignem spell - then the heat and flames would have to penetrate Parma to affect her.

Igniting the air around a magus would have to be ruled on by the troupe when someone wanted to develop that spell. I would suggest that, because air doesn't typically sustain a fire without a fuel source, that it remains magical (thus must resist parma).

Actually, the way I've set out this aspect of the rules isn't much different to AM5 canon.

Ah, the wonders of Parma...

No, have no fear, I am not going to bring up any of my notions again -- opinions have already been voiced on that topic. But still, as I have seen in 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and now 5th editions, this topic will always be open to frustration, interpretation, and confusion.

Part of the problem is determining where Real World (r) physics is accepted, as opposed to Medieval Paradigm (r) physics. That and a few basic "givens".

Badger 101, you are doing a fine job of narrowing the problem here. I gleefully salute your efforts! :slight_smile:

I certainly didn't get that ... ok, I mentioned earlier that we all have to be elliptical at times in these discussions.

I don't know of any ignited air, but I guess that also air heated up by a magical fire - that's the stuff that makes bushfires jump streams if the wind is right - would then have to be considered 'magical'.

Yes, indeed. Drawing the consequences from 'suppressive' Parma working at the very limits of body and clothes only, you are getting closer and closer back to 'blocking' Parma ...

Kind regards,



I see what you mean - yes, the heat from a magical fire (therefore the hot air) would be magical, thus resistable.

hmm ... that's got me thinking!

I'm not sure I agree. I think it's still a suppressive parma (though indirect magics are certainly handled more or less like AM5 canon). By reducing the parma to a point boundary that follows the surface - it merely avoids some of the possibly bizarre behaviour (and exploits) that are often attributed to suppressive models of parma.



Cheers, Angus. This model is only offered here as one alternative (out of probably infinite possible conceptions). It allows my troupe to maintain the 'logic' of our previous games, though fans of blocking parma will undoubtably cope or find solutions for the inevitable issues that arise with that model.

If other players find the model useful - or at least interesting - then I'm glad to have contributed to the 'eternal' debate :slight_smile:

(follow up to what I posted there)

Yeah, I pretty much agree with your approach. As you pointed out, I treat Muto differently.

In my eyes, Parma doesn't suppress the magic itself, it suppresses the effects the magic would have on you, and only those. But that doesn't mean it restores those properties the object had in its original form.

It is a ReVi breakthrough (q.v. Aegis of the Hearth -- no Perdo requisite) that effectively acts as a Pe Whatever on those properties that have been magically affected.

But since it doesn't actually suppress the spell itself, the properties of the target that have been overriden by the magic are not restored (though you may wish to make a distinction between enhanced and overriden): the not-pebble doesn't act as a boulder, the not-milk isn't poisonous.

Edit -- I also don't agree with Creo producing mundane objects, unless they are made permanent. Hitting a magus with a Sun-duration sword will have no effect unless the Creo effect penetrates.



I think a lot of people might agree with you - though I wanted to avoid a suppressive Parma being able to allow people to walk through magical walls, or put their hands through magical animals, etc.

Also - if you read my design brief at the start - it's one of the features (of our troupe's AM3 games) that such basic Creo'd objects aren't expected to penetrate parma.

How does your conceptulisation handle created objects then - does it block them? Or act as a Pe (Whatever) to simply negate any damage caused?

I think, if I understand right, the sword would go thru the magus, beeing dissipated when passing thru him & reforming afterwards.


The sword will be blocked: it may not be affecting the magus, but the magus is still affecting it. The fact that the magus has magic resistance doesn't suddenly enable the sword to go through it. :confused:

Yeah, I know, it sounds a bit far-fetched, but that's how you can keep things consistent without having magi walk through walls.