Breaking wards

Now, the idea for this spell is clear. What is not so clear is what Te & Fo it would need. It is NOT a ward breaker (that is clearly a PeVi spell), but a shell that would imbue an item with penetration. Only penetration, no fancy additional effects.

I am thinking about CrVi, but I am unsure about what base guideline it would use. Looking at the Rego Vim guidelines, achieving penetration is similar to suppressing the effect of the spell cast by another mage. That guideline is "General: suppress a spell cast by another with a level less than half the (level + 5 magnitudes) of the vim spell.

Would that work here?

Take in mind that an ENCHANTED sword would also gain penetration due to this spell, so you can have an edge of the razor gaining a boost to penetration due to this spell. Or that is the idea, at least



I think its a form of magic resistance : you want the ward to penetrate the MR of the item.
One way for a rasmius magus to do it (the best imo), is to make his sword his talisman.

Another way would mean that your item as some MR. Which isn't possible, because this is a hermetic breaktrough (not sure but think i read that in HoH:TL in bonusagus section).

Another way: use many items: my iron sword, bone sword, wood sword... animal bone sword. Use fire (torch)...

there is so much ideas :wink:

While I agree that it would surely require a breakthrough, I don't see why this very narrow effect would require a Hermetic Breakthrough. Surely 15-40 breakthrough points would be sufficient? The original breakthrough from HoH:TL does a lot more than penetrate wards.

If you think that any breakthrough that breaks the limits of magic is a Hermetic Breakthrough I can sort of see your point, but I still think it's better to allow characters to break a limit of magic piecewise as well as all at once.

I think "giving" penetration is not an option, because penetration is bond to a spell, but, here, its the spell who give penetration to an item; in other way, the spell doesnt penetrate, or penetration is used by spells.
So penetration can't be given... because i dont want to see why an item need penetration.

In this case, the "penetration effect" is another way, for me, to say "an item which is unaffected by wards".
And thats, for me, means "magic resistance" and is covered by the fact that the parma is the great hermetic breaktrough from Bonisagus, and the only exception is the talisman... so, yes, i think this kind of penetration is just an use of the magic resistance of items.

But, that's my opinion :slight_smile:

Edit: after some time of reflexion, i would maybe look on the PeVi guidelines and affect a sword with some "destroy magical effects diameter duration" level enough to "destory" the wardn but the whole ward, not just for my sword.
But like that, it seems that's a enchantement, not a spell. Because the target of the spell (target, and not Target who is vim) is the sword. I dont see why the sword would, after, dispell the wards... its just the use for invested items, that! :s

So, in your opinion I should go for the old PeVi spell to simply unravel the ward? I was trying to avoid just that, since I find that rather duller than a sword that is so sharp that can cut THROUGH walls as if they weren't there, but not dispel them. The unravelling sword is more useful, since it can in fact parry a summoned sword and dispel it, but it is not as cool as the other option.

Per the RAW the sword still needs to beat parma, since it has active magic in it, but at least it is not automatically stopped by a spell.



Or maybe, you can do something more specific like a double sword (lance, or any weapon two sided, ...) item (or the old "two weapons style combat" like my swordmaster): one side with unravelling the ward, to destory it, then, use the other side with a pure mundane weapon.

First the special weapon, destroying the ward, with huge penetration and so one; then, the second, for a killing attack. And that's in one round, but i would require a high attack advantage (like 15) to success the two; otherwise, its only the ward who collapse, but you havent attack the enemy, who have a round to fast cast smg (leave, ward again, fireball...)

But, if anybody have an idea to perform your first idea, i would read that carefully, because its the kind of thing my magus, combatmaster, would use!

You make a valid argument, and "protecting" the parma magica does have a lot talking for it. But, in my opinion, there are many things that suggest that this limit is not quite that absolute. One is, as you mentioned, the talisman. If there is one exception, why coudn't there be another one?

Then there is that house merintae flaw. I don't have access to my books, but surely there was as flaw that made your perdo spells temporary? So if you had that flaw and used a momentary perdo vim spell, it should be able to break the ward just long enough for the sword to get through. Naturally, I don't mean to suggest that the mage in question would become a merintae and take that flaw, rather that the existance of that flaw suggests that it would not take a hermetic breakthrough to make a sword slip through a ward.

I kinda suspected you were avoiding that. Considering that the sword that permanently breaks wards would be a lot better, perhaps it would be enough to use the merintae flaw as a source of insight and invent a single effect that breaks hermetic theory? If the first spell designed in the research is the one you want, there is no need to complete the research and break the limit completely. This is sort of a very complicated excuse way to just let a player have what he wants, but well, I think that is a good thing.
Note that you can't normally choose what your research spell will do when you integrate hedge magic, so it does require a cooperative game master.
Alternatevly you could just set the required breakthrough points to 1, but that would also require a very cooperative game master.

By the way, is there anyone else that thinks that "game manager" would sound a lot better than game master?

In the case of Ars Magica it is "Story Guide" not "Game Master" :wink: That is DnD gibberish :wink: :stuck_out_tongue:



Seems that all your smileys dissapeared in the quote, sorry about that.

Yeah, you are right! I recalled that it was story something, but I couldn't remember if it was Story Teller or something else. In Swedish it's, if transated literally, "game leader/manager", which I like a lot better than the English terms I have come across so far. Game Master is just so nerdy and Story Guide is, well, a tad prentious. I don't know, perhaps you get used to it.

Sorry about being a bit off-topic, as well.

I think your original point about the ReVi guideline for suppressing a spell is what you want. You want, as I understand it, a sword which cuts through Wards not by destroying them but by basicly bypassing them. This is, of course, punishingly difficult.

You might also consider MuVi to change the ward so it doesn't affect your specific sword. This would seem to me to be arguably a superficial change to the ward and thus fairly easy.

Finally, there's always the fact that wards against metal are just that - wards against metal. MuTe should let you turn your sword into something suitably rarified and special that it bypasses the ward. The size limitations are a little odd (the individual to individual doesn't apply for any other form, for instance) but this should allow you to have a fairly low level effect, especially if enchanted into the sword. Then it could be Range:Personal and have a lot of built in penetration.

I agree with the ReVi. You´re trying to "control" how magic reacts...

It would be a ReVi.

In fact, I would make it a charge put into a sword in lab rather than spell. Upon hitting the ward, a charge is expended for a Momentary ReVi surpress the magic of the ward effect. There is then the parma of your target to pierce but a season's work to prepare the enchantment of the sword to have arcane connection or other connections for the target to penetrate is worthwhile.

I agree with Lady Pheonix. It's just a generic supressing the wizards handiwork (hey specifically to Terram or other appropriate form) with a good penetration where neccessary. It may only need a momentary duration as it strikes the ward, suppressing it and the attack flys through hitting the target.

Hmm... sounds good here. A sword enchanted with suppressing the Wizard's handiwork (for spells cast by a third party) to bypass Metal wards would be enough here. Thanks for the suggestion :slight_smile:

Still, if I want a spell to achieve the same result how would that work? Would that be a Diameter duration Touch range version of the spell? I want my grogs to be able to strike the target, not giving them magic weapons just in case they turn on me (those pesky MuMe and ReCo spells are dangerous...)

Additionally (FLAME WAR ALERT!!) as per the RAW do you need to penetrate the ward to suppress it?


The Ward itself, no. It's a static spell and has no magic resistance, though you do need a ReVi spell high enough to affect it. It it's a Personal Ward though, then you do need to penetrate the subject's MR in order to affect the spell upon his person.

If the ward is a personal ward, then you will need to penetrate the recipients magic resistance I would say


Are magic items warded off with the appropriate ward against XXX?
Serf's parma! I do not recall whether this is in the RAW or a house rule that magic items are not affected by wards...
If it is in the RAW, one could enchant the sword with a low level spell (edge of razor) and use all that extra penetration to penetrate the parma.

Wards protect against form, magical or not.

(And, i'm still wondering why such debate about the big "ward haven't to penetrate", when in HoH, on the Wards page, it's explicitly stated that they HAVE to penetrate...)

Not all wards protect against the form absolutely. For example, Ward vs Wood (ReHe 25) does not protect against enchanted wood/wood weapons.

  1. Because that wasn't made clear in the main rule book
  2. Because it is just wrong. It is a flawed rule.
  3. In earlier editions, Ward Penetration was not an issue.