Aren't runes overpowered?

Ars Magica is a system where magic is very powerful vs ordinary folk. Viktir are no different in this regard from Hermetic magi.

That's certainly the consensus today. I'm not sure the rules are so clear on it or that opinion always agreed with today's interpretation.

I'm not entirely happy with the 1-way interpretation, because they allow the holder of the AC to make unlimited magical attacks on the target with no possibility of reprisal. Even targets will good magical defenses will eventually succumb to the death by a thousand cuts strategy of using multiple low level high penetration attacks.

Aside from the option of simply making most ACs 2-way, one possibility I've mulled over is to rule that casting a spell over an AC temporarily makes the connection reversible and allows the target to retaliate some limited number of times.

Great idea! Sold! :slight_smile:

Hi,

I have more general issues with ACs; a magus interested in being secure has to be thoroughly paranoid, destroying every stray hair, excrement, ejaculate, whatever. Every letter he writes is an AC to him long enough to matter. And... yuck. The AM5 rules are clever, but magi didn't need to be so paranoid until AC allowed incredible Penetration.

ACs being unidirectional most of the time is fine by me; the guy with the AC gets to cast spells at AC range, and the guy on the other end does not. Without the Penetration bonus an AC brings, such spells are difficult to pull off.

Anyway,

Ken

There are a few explicit two-way connections (familiar, talisman); the fact that these must be spelled out explicitly implies that this is not the norm. This could be merely an implication that these ACs do not fade, but ArsM mentions nowhere that ACs are generally two-way.

Note that PeVi spells can remove ACs pretty quickly; PeVi 35 (Base30, touch range) is sufficient for almost any connection, and paranoid magi will use that on objects like letters and such, or their bedrooms when they wake.

That's a common objection to 2-way ACs and it's a good objection.

I wonder if working with the PeVi guideline could solve several problems at once. What if PeVi was unable to eliminate fixed ACs (as it is already unable to eliminated naturally indefinite ACs)? That would allow magi to routinely get rid of the annoyingly common ACs like letters and dirty shirts without affecting particularly meaningful connections.

No arguments there. Maybe all ACs should be +1 regardless of duration. Sympathetic connections can still add a lot though and taking them out of the game would remove flavour, at least to my mind.

I wouldn't argue if there were some sort of usage limitation. Being able to cast over and over with tiny spells or with spells that repeatedly fail to penetrate is bothersome.

Hi,

I have no objection to good ACs having this power. A magical entity's True Name ought to always be good and be very powerful. A person's Talisman or finger, also. A person's hair, not usually. But a person's beard deliberately shaved off for use as an AC... that's different.

Not all magi have access to PeVi35 spells! IIRC, AM1 (not a typo) had a Parma equivalent that was a Vi effect, but this was ditched because forcing everyone to be Vim specialists detracted from character diversity. Same here.

I also dislike the idea that PeVi can even undo an AC connection. ACs don't work because they are magical! There is nothing magic about an AC! Only about the Arcane things that can be done with a fundamental Connection. PeVi cannot make your finger no longer yours. Worse, RAW, casting a PeVi spell on something is itself a connection to you. Pe(Form of the thing) can destroy a property of the thing, which might work, or the thing itself, which will work. I digress.

I'd rather have magi spread false rumors and then be amused as rubes try to collect their poo than have to worry about it.

Hmm. A very good AC ought to be useful indefinitely. But I could see a poor one having limited uses; perhaps it needs to be consumed? I might also differentiate between people and other targets. For example, I like the idea of a magus being able to use a rock from a boulder near his home as an AC to it, as often as needed... but as I write, maybe it's ok for this to be replenished too. Hmm. I think some ACs should be permanent and reusable, some not. And I think the thing it is an AC to ought to make a difference too.

Anyway,

Ken

Thematically that works even better for me with 2-way connections.

Speak the Demon Prince's True Name and a magus can work great magic on the demon. Unfortunately, the demon can also work magic on your magus. Do you feel lucky today?

The good news is we've got the Archmagus's finger and can work great magic through it. The bad news is...well...

That's a reasonable interpretation and would solve the problem of magi detecting and eliminating any connection to themselves. I think I like the idea of magi - or at least very powerful magi - being able to eliminate the minor connections like beard hairs though. Permanent connections or connections that someone's taken the trouble to start working with in a laboratory would be the exceptions for me.

Hi,

Pretty much, to the point where I would like to just handwave and say that trivial ACs simply don't work. Minor connections like hair clippings are just too minor. Even if another magus grabs the clippings for lab work, because that once again forces magi to clean up every stray anything.

When is a hair clipping not minor? When you beat up the magus and ritually cut a lock of hair. (The magus does not get to say that he is an AC to the cut hair! One way ftw.) Ejaculate? When you have a prepared temple prostitute seduce the magus on a propitious evening, and....

Of course, we are far into the realm of hypothetic rules, not even 'house.'

But were it up to me:

ACs: Trivial ACs can be used to cast a spell at Range AC. This ruins the AC, since it now has a greater connection to the magic cast through it. Magi usually destroy such ACs as part of the casting, and this can be assumed as a normal part of any casting. If the AC is too durable to reasonably be destroyed, it probably isn't trivial!

Most ACs are 1-way. A twig is an AC to the tree, but the tree is not an AC to the twig. But a stick broken in two leaves each half an AC to the other.

A living creature is never an AC to anything else, unless magic is used to create a connection. For example, a familiar is an AC to the magus and vice versa because a magical bond is deliberately established and maintained. A seed is an AC to the tree it came from, until it starts to grow on its own; you need a Bloodline or similar Target, not AC.

Most ACs are trivial. An AC deliberately and specifically detached from the original is not trivial. An irreplaceable part of a living being is not trivial.

In general, things that beings with Might leave behind as a result of their normal activities are not even trivial: The connection is gone because the being has finished with it! So if a dragon eats a virgin, finishes his meal and flies off, the remains are not an AC to the dragon. But if you chase him away, it is. A gold coin stolen from the dragon hoard is an AC to the dragon. If he gives it to you (ha!) it probably is not.

Non-trivial ACs provide Penetration bonuses, as described in the core rules. Trivial ACs do not.

An AC must be in full possession of its user. Thus, I cannot use your Talisman as an AC to you unless I hold it uncontested, nor can I grab your arm and use it as an AC to you unless someone cuts it off (and I hold it uncontested).

A magus has a non-trivial AC to any apprentice whose Gift he has opened (which is why a master is supposed to slay an apprentice found guilty of High Crime). This AC is normally permanent, although House Bjornaer and others can sunder this through various means; losing the Gift will do so as well. This is not a 2-way connection; opening someone to the Arts (any tradition) provides special insight, similar to knowing a True Name. Initiation does not normally provide this advantage, except as a specific Flaw taken as part of a script; this is extremely rare, which is way cults use other means to ensure loyalty. Of course, extracting an AC during a ceremony is straightforward enough, and is not a flaw.

There are no trivial ACs to Hermetic Magi by accident.

Something like this.

Anyway,

Ken

TMRE on p.128 Electus has the initiate fix an AC to himself and give it to the Mystery Cult as an Ordeal: it becomes a Minor Flaw there.

Cheers

Fair enough!

Ok, I have re-read the vitkir, and even if the AC is not two-way, there's a two-way intangible tunnel always on between the rune and its caster. And they are considered at touch range. Thus a vitki can destroy any of his runes with the appropriate PeFo low-level spell.

And what about a piece of my tunic? I'm not an AC to the piece, but the tunic is. Isn't it?

Unrelated question: if I have an AC to a target, and cast The Eye of the Sage on him, can I target him at range "sight"?

No. The most straightforward and complete text about this is MoH p.101 To See as Though a Plethron Distant.

Cheers

Again, no. For the same reason, really.

Thus, even in the Middle Ages, size matters.

(sorry :wink: )

I'd argue that something can only be an AC to one thing - generally the most important thing it could be attached to.

For example, your tunic is an AC to you. A piece torn from the tunic is STILL an AC to you. The connection to you on both the tunic and the piece will expire at the same time, and the piece will not be an AC to the tunic, because it was an AC to something more important. A fresh piece torn from the tunic would be an AC to the tunic.

Of course you have to establish the hierarchy of ACs for this. Probably things with spirits sit at the top of the heap - people and supernatural entities, followed by ordinary animals and plants, then inanimate objects (the bigger and older the better). Spirits of place and flora/fauna spirits probably make this process exceedingly murky, but that's what Philosphae, Magic Lore and Magic Theory are for.

Hi,

I can see the attraction, but I think something can be an AC to more than one thing. A piece torn from your favorite tunic is very clearly an AC to the tunic, in the most fundamental way! It literally is a part of the whole. It's being an AC to you requires layers of indirection and reasoning. And what if the tunic was woven from the magus' wife hair? Is it no longer an AC to her? And if it is also the masterwork of some weaver?

Anyway,

Ken

In your example, the tunic, woven from his wife's hair, is an AC to her until that connection expires. The master weaver will not form an AC to it until that AC has expired - if the hair has sat on a shelf for months/years before weaving, then he forms an AC to it in the process of weaving. If so, then once the magus dons the tunic, he cannot form an AC to it until the weaver's AC expires normally.

Magically speaking, if the tunic is an AC to the magus, it is part of the magus, so a piece torn from it is also a part of the magus, not part of the tunic. There is only one 'whole' in any situation, IMO.

This keeps things clear. Otherwise you get objects with MANY ACs, and things get messy in a hurry. If you're targeting a spell with something that has multiple ACs, can you target the wrong connection? Will PeVi spells to sever those connections require T: Group? Will fixing the connection(s) require multiple pawns of vis (one per connection)?