Furion, that's legal with the RAW. I believe the Individual/Group limitation on Creo only applies when you're creating things. When you're using Creo to heal, enhance, maintain, etc., Creo can have any of the standard targets. ("The target of a Creo spell that actually creates something is the thing created. The target is thus always Individual or Group." - Targets and Creo, emphasis added)
As The Morning's Glory, it looks good to me; base 5 creates a corpse, so one less magnitude seems reasonable for this kind of effect. I can't imagine someone actually creating this spell, though. IMS, vis is scarce enough that you wouldn't really be to support yourself for any meaningful length of time this way.
I'm also curious as to whether people would allow such a spells to be cast with Year duration. It seems reasonable to me to cast a Creo Corpus ritual to correct a nutrition deficiency; that's just another type of healing ritual. Infusing a body with a year's worth of nutrition, however, seems unnatural, and thus beyond the limits of Creo. (Though it might make a pretty good Original Research project for an ambitious Bonisagus.)
Thanks for bringing another piece of RAW into the debate. We missed that reference. I do however still think that the RAW is unclear, and an issue of interpretation and house ruling, and in that regard I disagree with your interpretation that it is further evidence to nourishing non-ritual food. You might aswell interpret it otherwise.
You can. And it would be quite wicked and scheming. And probably great fun. But I personally still think the sudden death from food nourishment evaporation is silly
ROFL.
(I wonder if a counter-argument to the Group will be coming?)
I am certain that you could write a petition to Atlas asking them kindly to remove some of your posts or lower the number. You could even butter them with a rook of vis.
My reasoning as well - that it would be fine to set the Base at 4 because of the Base 5 description. I don't think that it would find much use either, but I did it as a trial run. If you look above you will find the "Food For Thought"-spell, which I made because I thought it would be fitting, at times. But I was oblivious to the fact that a ritual needs to be at least lvl 20, and I made this spell to get the most out of the 20 levels now that I had to spend 4 vis anyway.
I do think that it has to stay a Momentary spell to serve the idea of permanency or nourishment. I would say that you need to be nourished daily and agree that you cannot infuse for a year. I suggested above and think I might allow a Ring/Circle ritual, though I do have some second thoughts, because it seems apropriate.
Yes, well that's supposed to be the less controversial version. The temporary version was supposed to be cast daily.
That's a perfectly sound way to treat hunger, I suppose. I don't remember the ArM5 rules for deprivation, but aren't they causing damage and/or fatigue and hence essentially doing this very thing? The only thing lacking are the diseases, and perhaps the inability to remedy the situation with magic.
So the magical food prevents the hunger, but not the debilitating effects of lacking nourishment. In this case, I'd say the food should affect hunger as if it was normal food, no need to complicate things unduly.
I don't really see this as your prior suggestion (of supernatural hunger setting in before the end of the duration), but it is a very interesting suggestion and interpretation. Very nice.
Good catch. Yes, I agree this supports the notion that the RAW says magically created food is nourishing for as long as it lasts. Its still open for interpretation, though.
The problem with such nourishing food is not only the "assasination by feeding" scenario. Its main problem is in divorcing the magi from needing mundanes, possibly doing great harm to the setting, and denying good story potential (such as the above-mentioned need to look for more Herbam vis in a real-saga example).
Sorry , but i do have to disagree with this statement.
The RAW does not explicitly state that the food is nourishing as long as it lasts.
The RAW as per the basic 5th Ed Rules should not be contradicted ,
even by official sourcebooks.
(David Chart may have to give us the official word at some point)
No Vis for Created Food is No Nourishment.
Key words are "appears" and "real long-term nourishment".
This does not mean that "short-term nourishment" is allowed ,
there is no nourishment at all.
So far , we are discussing what the interpretation is.
I don't see allowing people to survive wholly on magically created food for any length of time is supported by the RAW.
To reverse the analogy of the magically created horse eating real food for a year.
At the end of the spell , you are left with a dead mundane horse.
At the end of 12 months feeding only on magically created food ,
there is no mundane body left when the spell ends.
Well, I just only thought in ways of handling this. Regarding the RAW on deprivation you would have to make a Stamina check every third day (with increasing Ease Factor) or lose a Long-Term Fatigue level. After losing consciousness, this turns to getting progresively Wounds instead. It doesn't state whether magic could be used to improve the Stamina for these rolls (as with Recovery or Soak) or how it can influence the onset of Fatigue and Wounds. The wounds, being wounds, could be handled with even temporary healing spells so you could go on for a little while, but there would be no great benefit since the character by then would be unconscious anyway, or the Fatigue might be handled with spells like The Gift of Vigor, but that would only leave the caster Fatigued and I would presume that if there is a lack of food they would miss it more or less equally.
What I meant was, that the magical food prevents the feeling of hunger, not the hunger in itself, but the craving for something to eat and the thoughts consumed with getting something to eat. And nothing more - it would only remedy the mentality. THe body would still suffer in full. You might say that eating non-ritual food doesn't influence the mechanics of how the rules deal with hunger (the deprivation checks) but the roleplaying in such circumstances. Gargantua vs. the poised sufferer.
It isn't exactly either - but it is my best bid after having given it some thought. In a sense it is the opposite, namely that the supernatural can be used to remedy the natural hunger (the feeling - not the deprivation). A hunger that would set it at the normal rate, beginning from the first day without real food. The characters body and energy would still erode as per the normal rules for going without food, and it is and important detail, as I scetched out in the other post, that even though the character doens't feel the hunger if eating non-ritual food, he would be able to realise it. That he is wasting away, the Fatigue levels going downward, because the food he is eating doesn't sustain him. All but the most imbecile should be abe regocnize this. In this light a character would not die suddenly at the end of the duration, but slowly and gradually and with the knowledge that the food is only satisfying his feeling of saturation.
"...magical food created only nourishes for as long as the duration lasts, and someone who has eaten it becomes extremely hungry when the duration expires." from the Creo guidelines, and
"Any food created is nutritious only if the creation is a ritual" from the Creo Herbam guidelines, ArM5 p. 136.
p108 of TMRE: "...like consuming food created by magic but without vis - it appears to be nourishing but lacks any real long-term nourishment."
I don't consider that the core 5e RAW is contradicted by the TMRE RAW here.
I am discussing mostly how things should be treated rather than how the RAW treats them, but this post is all RAW.
I believe, and I think I'm not alone in this, that the RAW supports several interpretations - including that people can survive wholly on magically created food for great lengths of time.
The Temporary Nourishment Then Hunger Interpretation
...magical food created nourishes for as long as the duration lasts. Someone who has eaten it extensively becomes extremely hungry when the duration expires ["only" erased clarifying logical structure, "extensively" added vs. The Pea Most Perilous]
Any food created is permanently nutritious only if the creation is a ritual ["permanently" added to avoid contradiction with the first rule]
...like consuming food created by magic but without vis - it appears to be nourishing for a while, but lacks real long-term nourishment ["for a while" added to clarfiy that "appears to be nourishing" means in contrast to long-term nourishment; "any" removed clarifying logical structure]
The Temporary Nourishment Then Death Interpretation
...magical food created nourishes for as long as the duration lasts. Someone who has eaten it for a short while becomes extremely hungry when the duration expires ["for a short while" added to clarify that hunger is a mild result, replaced by death at long times]
Any food created is permanently nutritious only if the creation is a ritual [as above]
...like consuming food created by magic but without vis - it appears to be nourishing for a while, but lacks real long-term nourishment [as above]
the dead horse analogy [deriving what happens at long times by analogy to what happens to a magical horse fed on mundane food when the duration expires]
The No Nourishment Interpretation
...magical food created seemingly nourishes for as long as the duration lasts. Someone who has eaten it for a short while becomes extremely hungry when the duration expires ["only" removed as above. "seemingly" added to imply no nourishment. "for a short time" added as above.]
Any food created is nutritious only if the creation is a ritual [the only interpretation that doesn't change this sentence]
...like consuming food created by magic but without vis - it appears to be nourishing but lacks any real nourishment ["long-term" deleted as it lacks also short-term nourishment]
the limits of energy and creation [justifying not being able to create nourishment or resplendish energy without raw vis]
Of all of these, I find The Temporary Nourishment Then Hunger Interpretation to make the most minor edits/clarifications to the RAW, so support it. I supprt the no-noursihment interpretation as the best way to play it out, though I'm unclear on how to go about implementing it (imposing standard ArM deprivation laws while satiating the feeling of hunger seems right), but I think it takes greater liberties with interpreting the RAW. The "seemingly" and "for a short while" seem more like rewriting than clarification.
That's very far from RAW. It may be what you think the RAW implies, but it's still very far from RAW. It's an argument from principles, not rules.
Looking over the Deprivation rules (page 180 , ArM 05) ,
i am inclined to impose the penalties as listed.
You start with a Stamina Check at an Ease Factor of 03.
A check is made every three days.
For each failed check , the ease factor increases by one.
Eventually you fall unconscious.
After this you take increasing wound levels until you are incapacitated.
Work out the deprivation checks as normal.
The paragraph at the top left of page 181 says :
If we take the "temporary nourishment" option ,
you do not lose these fatigue levels until the spell ends.
At which point you suffer the penalties indicated by the Stamina Check.
After 12 months this means you would be Incapacitated and probably dead.
(depending on the result of the two Recovery rolls at sunrise and sunset)
The Limit of Energy (page 80) says that you cannot restore Fatigue levels.
In the "temporary nourishment" case they are not lost ,
but held in abeyance , as per Creo Wound healing guidelines.
As no actual Fatigue levels are considered lost ,
then no actual wounds appear either.
So Creo spells to suspend wounds have no effect until the duration of the non-vis food spell expires.
You could use the Bonus to Recovery Rolls from the Creo Corpus guidelines (page 130) ,
to aid Stamina rolls after the magical food duration expires ,
provided that the spell has been in effect for the same duration as the non-vis food.
Doesn't this imply that you could feed a magically created horse on magically created food to no detriment? One could infer that you could do the same for a non-magical horse from this rule.
I agree that the TMRE doesn't contradict the RAW as is, but I do think that the RAW contradict themselves and that as such the TMRE doesn't give a conclusion to the possible variation on how to interpret the contradiction in the RAW.
The Ease Factor actually increases whether you fail or not. No rest for the wic... famished. Which I think is very appropriate.
This has been an interesting discussion. Many interesting points - and it has certainly helped my to decide in more detail how I will interpret this in our saga. I hope, in spite of disagreements pn interpretations and preferences, that this in the same way has helped all to formulate how they prefer to run this.
Now I am really looking forward to Ancient Magic, because it seemes to introduce magical traditions that might have other possibilities concerning creating thing with magic without vis. Concerning the timing it looks as if it will be perfectly in sync for becoming a great 30th birthday present to my self.
But most of all this discussion has shown that there is no apparent consensus on non-ritual food, beside that we seem to agree that the RAW are not clear nor conclusive on the subject.
Could it not be more intresting to use Muto spells to allow a person to digest stuff not normally considered food? Like stone? Or possibly to do away with the need for food alltogether..?
The Flameeating Flambau, MuCo(Ig) 35
(Base: 25(*), Range: Personal, Dur: Sun (+2), Target: Ind)
Allows the caster dine on fire for a day. Note that the spell does not provide any protection from the fire until it is consumed, so unless the caster has some other protection, he is likely to burn his throat.
Might be too high, depending on the SG, the base for this could be anywhere from 5+, see the animal guidelines. 25 being the high end of the range.
We have actually been discussing both. Even in this thread.
Using Muto to change something to something else and then eating it is a question of house ruling, since this not adressed in the RAW. Some would allow it, some would the person have some sideffects from it. Personally I would not allow it. My reason is that, in line with my arguments against non-ritual nourishing food, I think that it such was possible it would either a) change the setting, or b) make the setting loose integrity or logic. Being able to, whether by Muto stones into bread and water into wine ( ) or using non-ritual Creo food would seriously influence the food supply and thus the economics of ME. Secondly I think that if the Limit of Essential Nature holds true it could be reasonably argued that something needs to have an Eseential nourishing Nature to be able to nourish.
Doing away the need for food is perfectly possible within RAW by changing yourself to something not needing food. Say a rock or a tree or such. In this thread we have further discussed using CrCo to make someone do without food while remaining human. In this regard the debate who be whether this would have to be a ritual or not. Finally it might also be and option, in line with your suggestion, to change the intestines of the person to make it possible to eat and gain nourishment from something humans would not normally eat or survive on. Personally I would limit this within reason. A cow stomach(s) for eating grass or leaves would be fine, but I as long as no creature exists that live of fire I wouldn't allow your spell.
Another interesting piece of RAW. Thanks. I think it do not answer the contradiction in the RAW - in each "food camp" we will each interpret this to enforce our own interpretation/preferences.
This is very interesting. And in spite of all my conservatism on allowing nourishment from non-ritual food or water, I am actually in favor of alloving people to survive on duration created air with no qualm at all. How come? First of all the ability to magically create air has no influence on the integrity of the setting. It would not change the ME economy. In a world with no greenhouse gasses, ozone and PPM-measurements creating air isn't a factor on a larger scale. Secondly this is very easy justifiable within the settng. In a modern perspective respiration is due to the organisms ever present need for oxygen. In that regard creating air is to create something that is needed/used/spend by the body. You might thus think of applying the Limit of Creation. But it rests on a modern notion. What a person living in the middle ages might have thought we cannot know for sure, but we can look to the classical philosophers. To cite Aristotle, when he in Parva Naturalia (Little Physical Treatises ) treats this subject under the heading De Respiratione (On Breathing). He argues that the breathing is needed for the body to get rid of excess heat. Interestingly enough he argues against another philosopher who likened breathing with letting in air to a fire in a stove, which isn't far from the modern insight that both are fueled by ozygen. Nevertheless Aristotle being Aristotle his views may reasonable be argued to hold a greater truth to the medieval scholastics. In short you might say that in a ME setting we might focus that air is needed for the expiration to exhale somthing, rather than to inhale something. (as a funny sidenote: even if we primarily breathe to get oxygen, our bodies are actually tuned to measure not the amount of oxygen in the blood, the need for inhalation, but rather the amount of CO2 - the thing we need to exhale...) In that light The limit of Creation has no impact on the usefulness of the created air.
De Respiratione
[i]
[/i]
In retrospect Aristotle is dead wrong, but his thoughts were very influental and it is a great approach to how to interpret the CrAu guidelines. Even moreso it adds to the feel of the setting to use funny details that are contrary to modern eyes.
Well, in the parts text I cited above Aristotle actually demonstrates knowledge on vacuum when he discribes the anatomy of breathing and how air enters and leaves the chest.
I am not sure about it's authencity but I have heard that they notion that the body actually needs something from the air, when respirating, was only first more firmly estalished when doctors at Oxford university in the 17th century, by the aide of vacuum btw, created an airtight glass dome and observed how birds died when put there, regardless of it being large enough that heat could not be the issue, but rather that something in the air was "spent" and that then the birds died.
After some reflection, it seems to me that Temporary Nourishment then Hunger is the most sensible and reasonable interpretation of the rules. Both for the reasons that YR7 gives, and it terms of the general spirit of the Creo rules. Think, about it, what is the general effect of non-permanent Cr spells ? They are as good as the natural thing while they exist (well, with the exception of MR), but they disappear, and thigs revert to the state they were before, with the exception of naturally-permanent effects of the object while it existed. Therefore, I would interpret that magical food and water nourish perfectly while they exist, after they disappear, the body reverts to the state of lack of nourishment it was before consuming the food or water. Therefore, the hunger or thirst will be proportional to the time the subject has been consuming magical food instead of natural food. One day, not so bad. One month, extreme. This will keep a perfect analogy with non-permanent healing, where wounds reopen after the spell expires.
In terms of game balance, this would also respect the general philosophy of non-permanent creation of resources and healing, where magic allows to put "stopgap" measures that work just as fine as the real thing while the duration lasts, and are fine to cover emergencies, but aren't a real long-term solution unless the mage is willing to dedicate more and more of his time to recast the spell periodically to renew the resource, and accumulating too much of a "bill" in the missing resource will eventually become deadly. This way, magical food and water may still be a fine way to cover lack of food and water during an adventure (a day, a week, or a month) but can't really become a permanent substitute (just like non-permanent healing). And Furion, this would cover your setting integrity concerns, without nerfing magical food and water spells too much in comparison with other Cr and Mu magic.
Yes, it definitely does. In three ways: two possible Hyperborean breakthroughs that either allow to cast ritual spells without vis requirement, or to enchant ritual effects in magical items, and the rune magic breakthrough that allows magic to last as long as the rune inscription lasts, and the magic change to be natural while it exists (so that e.g. natural healing will take place while magical healing is present on top of it).
on a larger scale. Secondly this is very easy justifiable within the settng. In a modern perspective respiration is due to the organisms ever present need for oxygen. In that regard creating air is to create something that is needed/used/spend by the body. You might thus think of applying the Limit of Creation. But it rests on a modern notion. What a person living in the middle ages might have thought we cannot know for sure, but we can look to the classical philosophers. To cite Aristotle, when he in