I think this is the best (effective and with style) I"ve come up with to allow a blind magus to see. It's a combination of two spells:
Cr(Re)Ig 5
R: Touch, D: Concentration, T: Individual
Palm of Flame, but on your eyes. Cooler if you have empty eye sockets and the flame is in them so you can close your eyelids, too. If the troupe doesn't like both eyes, you could cast it twice, once for each eye, or you could have it like a visor or whatever. I tend to use D: Concentration for a spell like this because it is so easily suppressed or maintained with ReVi.
InIg 15
R: Personal, D: Concentration, T: Individual
See a flame and everything it illuminates, cast on the above spell. If the fire is in the eye sockets, it should certainly count as R: Personal. Even if it's a mask or a visor or similar, it will probably count as R: Personal.
Base 10, +1 Concentration
There are some advantages to this. One of them is that you automatically see in the dark. Of course, there are disadvantages, too, like having a bulls-eye of an eye in the dark. But how cool for an Ignem specialist to have eyes of fire, and in this case ones that also allow the magus to see?
You'd get a warping per year for the intellego spell. Despite this, I agree that this is perhaps the classiest and most convenient way to do a blind magus that we've seen.
Well, you could stick it in the familiar bond and have the bond maintain it. It might take some adjustment to make that work, but as a basic idea it should be doable. Of course, you could just turn it off when you sleep, leaving room for other spells running for much of the year in the same warping point. I don't tend to worry too much about a warping point per year, as long as it's not tons (unless it's my super-abusive trick with Divine ascent).
Stylish Indeed! What about a spell Simply emiting light ? And another to see a source of light and whatever it illuminates. Would be the same level and, if a bit less stylish, perhaps a bit more practical (as you don't get burned and you don't burn anything with that).
Well, you wouldn't get burn. Palm of flame states that the fire doesn't do damage (the Base is 3, to create light, not actual fire, so I guess the fire is a cosmetic effect), and Callen included a Rego requisite maybe to prevent eyeballs' roasting.
Though I'm thinking about stealing that idea as well, and use it in a Flambeau with immunity to fire. So fire could be more fierce and self-burns not a problem at all
I was going with the more stylish end. Also, I wasn't sure about sources of light: you can't target the sun, you can't target the moon, fire is already covered and is what I used, lightning is difficult due to being short-lived. The northern lights might be workable. Are there other known sources of light at the time? So I'm not so sure where to even head with your suggestion, not sure if you could really have such a guideline.
Yes, that's why Rego is there, which fits the core rules. I'm not sure why Palm of Flame doesn't have that Rego requisite. It's low enough level the requisite doesn't much matter.
Yes, I'd been considering the same along with things like a staff with a flame on its end, self-immolation, and floating big balls of flame into the sky for different uses of the same seeing through a flame. But using the eye sockets this way just seemed cool and seemed like it could be used well as normal vision since it would be based off of where the eyes normally see from. Anyway, feel free to use the idea. I'm happy the idea has been inspirational for a few people.
In our IRL saga, the storyguide consider that if you are blind (due to a flaw) it is your essentiel nature, and by consequence, you cannot see. So using any guideline saying that you can see doesn't work.
You can use hearing spells to see if you want (like in a spell on the bat sonar thing) but not the missinge sense.
Your essential nature is not touched. It is not a supernatural flaw but a physical one. If you want to argue that a creo corpus spell cannot restore your sight or that a muto corpus spell cannot give you new physical eyes, be my guest. But this is not what is happening. That person is seeing through the perception of the light of the fire.
For that person, at some distance of him, there is only darkness, even in midday. The world is a dark an creepy place only lighted by a fire. That is not human sight.
callen's proposal is a more stylish version of using HP p.84 Fingers for Eyes to make a blind magus see. It does overcome the HP spell's T: Room, but it also causes panic in libraries.
That's definitely a house rule as shown by One Shot:
Also, if your IRL saga doesn't let magic temporarily overcome essential nature in any way, spells like Cloak of Black Feathers don't work, right?
Thanks. I didn't know how much bioluminescence might have been known at the time, partly because I hadn't known fireflies were present in Europe. Based on other guidelines, would it be InAn or InHe in these (fireflies, foxfire) cases, sense the thing and what's in its vicinity as defined by the light it gives off? I'm not sure; I haven't thought about it enough. I should have remembered St. Elmo's Fire. Not sure where to place that, probably in Auram.
Yes, overcoming T: Room was my leading thought. And my hope was even more panic than that.
Thanks. I think it worked well, and I'm really glad so many people like it.
First: Super cool idea. I do like it. Secondly, I don't think this second spell actually works RAW. Even if the fire you're creating (at Range: Touch) is inside of your skull, the fire is still not essentially you. If you used MuCo(ig) to turn your eyeballs into fire, I'd allow it, but as it is, something being inside you doesn't make it part of you. Just like targetting the knife that stabbed your lung isn't Personal, and the key you swallowed isn't personal.
As you can see, R: Personal is not only for the casting magus. It also applies to things worn or carried. I figured fire inside the eye socket is about as worn as a piercing or a glass eye, more intimately worn than undergarments. As a mask or visor, it would still seem to be as worn as any sort of physical mask, visor, hood, etc. There is no need for the fire to be "essentially you" to use R: Personal. If in your games you have house-ruled R: Personal, then you can change the spell to R: Touch if you like.
Oh, no. Just one of those things you 'know' how it works so you never need to check. It's a misconception I've just had for so long that I think I never re-read that line ever again past the initial time I read the book.
Raccon, maybe you do something like me: understand the text, find it quite weird since "wearable" things is something which is not really quantifiable and decide that the universe is better with "R: personal = your body".
I think the point of it is so you don't have to jump through hoops to do things like Cloak of Black Feathers or Leap of Homecoming without leaving your clothes behind. If such things must be considered separate from yourself, then just using a casting requisite, while necessary, wouldn't be sufficient. You'd have to worry about T: Group and about the various Individuals within it (like needing extra magnitudes for wearing lots of rings). But the rules allow for clothing and similar to be part of the individual:
Actually I think what threw me is the rules for the talisman, where personal-range spells affect both magus and talisman if touching. In retrospect, it is needed to say because it lets the talisman ensorcell the magus without extra hoops, but I probably mentally equated it to meaning you can't personal the item if it's not a talisman.
Or if your talisman is a pipe organ.
Does this mean sword- and armor-enhancing spells can be R:Pers, or does that not work because you can't target yourself as a Terram? Maybe required +part? Hmm...
