I would tempted to not rule Second Sight as scrying, since it's main application is spotting the invisible, which itself leads to scrying.
I would not classify Second Sight as scrying. In actuality, it is an anti-scrying defense more than anything. Even its description includes nothing that would make it scrying.
You are able to see through illusionary concealment and disguise, including invisibility, and can also see naturally invisible things such as spirits and the boundaries between regio levels.
Nearly anyone you spot with it is actually already guilty of scrying on you.
If you walk through the market square in (insert major port city here) looking for reagents, and there's another magus there with some ugly twilight scars and a MuIm to hide them? That's a Marching.
Do you honestly and truly belive seeing through someones magic is scrying? Well I am sorry but seeing through someones magical concealment is not scrying. You are seeing through their attempt to magically hide from you, in whole or in part.
In the situation you described one was using concealing magic from the other and one saw through said concealing magic. The difference between using some illusion to change appearance and using some illusion to be invisible is a matter of degrees, but both still involve using magic to be able to observe with some degree of concealment.
During the Tribunal where they accuse each other of scrying, it will be one saying "He saw through my illusion!" and the other saying "He was using an illusion to change his appearance around me!". Only one is getting marched and it is not the one with Second Sight.
How will that other mage even notice that you saw through his illusion? They can't notice it unless you either tell them, or they are unusally paranoid and has a whole bunch of spells on them to detect any usage of magic or supernatural abilities around them - and in the latter case they are far more likely to be the one accused of scrying.
I'd like to request a change. It's not technically an error right now as an erratum has already been issued.
Right now the first printing of the core book has this:
Merinita Template (p. 27): Delete "Faerie Magic (illusions) 1".
The Enigma gives a score of 1 in Enigmatic Wisdom. Heartbeast gives a score of 1 in Heartbeast. Chthonic Magic gives a score of 1 in Chthonic Magic. Etc. Why doesn't Faerie Magic give a score of 1 in Faerie Magic? This seems utterly at odds with the rest, while as a whole the line has tried to be far more consistent from the beginning, solving some issues from prior editions as a result. If it is changed, there are a couple spots that would need adjustment:
The box on p.30.
Undoing the p.27 erratum.
Possibly a note for p.42. (No note would be consistent with The Enigma and Heartbeast, but these have been noted in the hard-to-find rules, as some people miss the note in the box on p.30.)
A note for p.92.
Actually, no it doesn't. "The light has no apparent source, but illuminates an area about ten paces across, centered on a point indicated by the caster."
The illumination extens to the area of 10 pace, it is not a light source 10 pace accross which illuminates an undefined area.
If I put a ball near one edge of the area, it has light shining on it from every direction. If I place another ball 9.5 paces to the other side, it also has light shining on it from every direction.
While there is no apparent source, there is a magical source of the light that is 10 paces across.
Don't bother replying, I am ignoring you since you seem incapable of grasping a simple concept.
Itās a circle 10 paces across (aka diameter=10), not a diameter of 20 so the numbers you use are off, should be 4.5, though I agree that it is diffuse sourceless light which doesnāt mean there arenāt shadows, itās not necessarily every direction. There are shadows on a cloudy day but even in those shadows one see since they are less deep due to the diffuseness.
From near one edge to near the opposite edge, 9.5 paces fits within 10 paces. So no my numbers were not off.
Someone else who can not gasp simple numbers and thus is added to the ignore.
Yes, I read quickly and āto the other sideā is often used when measuring from the center but youāre right, Iām a complete idiot. It must suck to be so much better than everyone that you canāt even have a discussion and politely state how you were misread.
1 Like
You're arguing that there is a source of light 10 paces accross. I'm explaining that there is no source, the light merely covers 10 pace accross. You're looking at Lamp without flame, and you think the "lamp" has to be the source, and a source would cast shadows, and there is no shadows, therefore there must be a multiplicity of sources to make that effect possible and so Group should apply. In making that call, you've taken the assumption that Creo Ignem, in order to create light, must necessarily create a light source. Apparently the spell says otherwise. And since there is no such thing as a defined individual of light, I can't help but think that the spells works exactly as the rules (or lackthereof) allow it to work. The light is magical. It doesn't require a source. And the area covered by the light is an area that seems reasonable for a fire to produce, if a fire was produced. However, as the light itself is magical, it doesn't have the weaknesses inherent to a light source, unless the caster intentionally designs the spell that way. Lamp without flame shows us creating light without a light source is allowable under Creo Ignem guidelines. Perhaps this is an area that the rules could be clarified or expanded on, if for the only reason that it is very hard to apply scaling group and size modifiers to Creo Ignem spells generating light. But it isn't an error in the spell itself.
3 Likes
Lands of the Nile p.100 -- Unnatural VItality.:
"Finally, she is less affected by the ravages of age: when her Decrepitude score exceeds 4 you do not need to make Crisis rolls for stressful activities, and she will not necessarily die of old age at a Decrepitude of 5 ... Other consequences of Aging affect her normally."
Probably should be changed to "...and she will not necessarily become bedridden and die of old age ...". Because otherwise, the undying part is rather useless, particularly for temple priests as described.
Unaging (core book):
" If a crisis is not potentially fatal, you suffer no ill effects. If it is potentially fatal, you die if you fail the Stamina roll, but otherwise nothing happens."
Should probably be changed to:
"" If a crisis is not potentially fatal, you suffer no ill effects. If it is potentially fatal, you die if you fail the Stamina roll (or if it is a terminal crisis) and the crisis is not resolved by supernatural forces, but otherwise nothing happens."
They get 5 to 10 experience for the season, and Independent Study gives them +3. The first sentence of that section is "A character may gain experience by going on adventures.", so it is explicit that this applies to multiple adventures in one season. ArM5 XP are awarded by season, not by adventure. Multiple adventures in one season would be a good reason for setting the Source Quality to 10, though.
That is actually RAW. XP are awarded by season, so if an adventure spans multiple seasons and the players choose to take adventure XP, they get them every season.
This should, perhaps, be expanded on. The rules are perfectly clear, but they are sufficiently different from the convention in most RPGs that it can be difficult to see what they say.
2 Likes
I wouldn't say perfectly clear. That is certainly a very valid reading, and may even be the official stance, but it is not in fact clear from the text, given that the text regarding the amount of experience constantly refers to the value of "an adventure" instead of a season of adventure. Fixing the vocabulary would greatly clarify this.
1 Like
I can see your explanation makes sense from a certain POV, but strongly urge you to reconsider this stance/wording. One "season" in my last big campaign once had a 10 session multi-adventure in it played over 3 months, with sessions of 4 to 6 hours long. If I told them all they got was 10 xp, they'd have been steaming mad. Most other RPGs I have played allow for significantly more advancement in that out of game timeframe. Even oWod recommended 2xp per session.
1 Like
Ars Magica does almost everything per season. Including advancement.
Adventuring isn't supposed to give significantly more XP per season than actual study. On the contrary, sitting in your labratory studying is normally the fastest way of improving a character. This is one of several aspects in which Ars Magica is unlike most other RPGs.
1 Like
That's true, but going against type/expectations too hard results in unhappy players, which results in unhappy Storytellers, and people quit and go player D&D or some other game. From what I've seen online, most Ars Magica ST's give XP far more generously for adventures than official.
1 Like
Also one of the most realistic, in my opinion. The idea that you somehow learn faster by killing things (D&D) than through study or practice is ludicrous to me, especially when it comes to academic topics. It might apply to a few related topics (like weapons use) but beyond that...
1 Like