Countering the effect of Blatant Gift on mundanes

I have been considering the possibilities of creating a Parma like spell that inflicts a short term and negligible MR on mundanes. I understand that Parma makes other magi immune to the Gifts negative influence & that it is possible to extend the Parma around others temporarily to give them a MR. I imagine that grogs with a Magi’s Parma extended round them would share, for the duration, the indifference to the negative influence of the Gift.

I can’t find any information on which arts are used in activating the Parma.

Is it even possible as Parma Magica is a ritual?


I want to say that Parma is a ReVi effect - vaguely remembering that it's mentioned indirectly somewhere about the invention being related to Aegis of the Hearth. Couldn't point to it atm.

And I believe that it's also mentioned somewhere (an equally vague recollection) that an extended Parma has the effect you mention.

Parma is NOT a spell, so no Arts implied in it. It is an ability. It used to be a ReVi spell (1st and 2nd edition) but became an ability in 3rd edition.

Extgending your parma negates the effect of the Gift, but you can only affect a certain number of people, and your parma goes down drastically doing so. It is in the rules how many people and how much your parma drops.


As the rules are, this is not possible - no spell can grant MR.
To do this, you'd need a breakthrough... Probably a hermetic one - or even more likely two - one to get a MR granting spell (the closest in the book is the aegis of the heart, which was a hermetic breakthrough in it self), and another to allow this spell to also screen from the gift... (since not all MR does this).

I never said Parma was a spell - I was responding to the question of MR, and said the effect* was a ReVi effect, and referring to the books it still is (ReVi guidelines, among others). Now with my books, it seems that granting something like MR is a PeVi core General Guideline effect, or a ReVi effect that "not even Bonisagus" could achieve.

(* Many innate abilities are still tied to TeFo, even if not "spells".)

To grant "a spell" that would screen against The Gift would go directly against canon - the philosophy is strongly against any such, regardless. Even a "breakthrough" would be stepping sideways from the direction of the core books. MR alone does not block the effects of The Gift.

The best one can hope for via spells on that front are effects that contradict or interfere with the penalty of The Gift - things like Aura of Rightful Authority, where the (NPC?) mundane feels both the Gift's repulsion and the spell's influence. But no blanket negation.

The rulebook states when a flaw is easy to overcome it is not a flaw anymore because it has no story potential.

In ArM1 and ArM2, Parma was indeed a ReVi spell. And up through ArM4, you could create a "Charm against Magic" as a ReVi lab activity. But all that has been nixed in ArM5. You could allow it as a HR or a Breakthrough if you want. Depends on what you wanna let loose in your saga. In fact, "True Lineages" mentions one item that is an example of such a breakthrough.

Another thing to consider is that Parma’s effect on the gift seems to be more of a side effect then the natural result of MR. I don’t believe any other source of general MR in the game blocks the effect of the gift. So just giving mundanes a blanket MR isn’t going to have the effect you desire.

Look at the spells in the House Guernicas section of HoH:TL. You'll find examples similar to what you want.


Thanks for the input!

It seems the Mentem direction is the most appropriate then.

HoH: TL p. 73 Aura of Inconsequence ReMe lvl 25 ! Handy :smiley: That’ll do, for the most part.


The gift is not there to just "screw you", it is there as a story hook. If magi can move freely through mundane societies, the need to be isolated from society and the role of the companions is heavily degraded. Take that in mind before you start removing a game design feature.


I agree with the shudder. The spell is not designed according to Hermetic guidelines. The spells in HoH:TL fall well below the quality level that I have come to expect of Ars Magica 5th edition products.

That spell is effectively a different sort of invisibility. There is another spell listed that is used to counteract the Gift. I don't think I'd let things go far enough to counteract any more of the Gift so that Blatant Gift still gives you -3 more than a normal magus suffers.



And it is a spell that thoroughly does not conform to normal guidelines. The target of a ReMe spell tends to be the person whose mind is being Regoed. Magi tend to have to see the targets of their spells. (I use 'tend' in a very loose sense here, meaning must.) This spell affects everyone, whether the magus sees the person or not. Just say no.

The other spell that 'counteracts the Gift' actually does no such thing. It is a Rego Mentem spell that forces trust, in the same way that Aura of Rightful Authority forces a target to perceive the magus as a rightful authority and act accordingly. The fluff for this spell says that it counteracts the Gift, but that's not what it's doing. The fluff goes on to say that its use doesn't count as magical scrying.... and is one of the reasons I consider the Guernicus chapter to be a triple botch. (In the same vein, another magus might argue, Aura of Rightful Authority is fine too, because the only thing it does is inspire a target to have the appropriate respect for a magus, so it shouldn't really count.....)





This is a "pseudo-ward", of the type that leads to anarchy, iconoclasm, and Labor and Conservative party members marrying. "Just say no" is right! :stuck_out_tongue:

In all fairness, it doesn't say that at all. If it were cast on another individual it would work fine with regard to that legit Mentem target, imo. The Gift doesn't override a person's mind and emotions, it just acts strongly on them. Other emotions can conflict with that, just as natural Loyalty of grogs does.

What I find objectionalbe is that it aggressively ignores not only Hermetic Target guidelines and restrictions but the very idea of "what a (basic) Hermetic spell can do", being cast on a target which in turn then magically affects other targets that look at it. The first "target" doesn't even have to perceive these final targets, much less the mage who cast the spell.

Mage A casts "a spell" on Person B. Person B walks away and around the block. Persons C, D and E-Z look at Person B, and they all take the ReMe effect as described. So, what, exactly, was that spell effect? Apparently to allow Person B to act as a continually radiating automatic ReMe effect - pretty slick, even with a "special" target. Sets a bad precedent on so many levels. :imp:

I don't have my books to check official names and page numbers. I understand the complaint, and I think it pushes the limits. I can see a ruling either way. However, based on some of the reasons above, some of you should be raising the same objections to spells like these:

  1. Ward Against Heat and Flame - It will dim flames of which the caster was unaware as long as they are near the actual target of the spell.
  2. I believe there is a Flambeau spell in HoH:S that causes fire damage to anything near or touching you.

I think the cut-off between acceptable and unacceptable is pretty difficult to define.


Nice wee can o worms lol

Blatant Gift is a great flaw full of story potential. However, if we smell bad we wash (most of us). If we feel really ugly we get some MuCo or wear an illusion. There is noting wrong with seeking a way to improve ones lot which is what I'm really asking about, not

My magi is still a virgin (at 26) . . . he hasn’t met a nice young maga yet and doesn’t want to Rego grog girls into doing things with him . . he is lonely and unloved :cry:

"Pushes"?! It slips the limits a rufie, bends them over a lab table and has its way with them! :laughing:

The actual wording is..."...Such fires simply dim at the protected person's passing and then flare back up after she is gone." The point is not in the target of the effect, but that the effect is not permanent - there is no Perdo involved.

Last Flight of the Phoenix, CrIg Size +2. If a mage creates a big fire, the target is the fire, and anything nearby is merely collateral damage, not "a target" in that sense. Set a forest on fire, you don't have to "perceive" every last squirrel to endanger them all.

I don't.

A Rego effect as a "Ward" is fine - as defined on page 114. Beyond that, the "target" of a Form is what is affected by the effect, and that must be sensed to be the "target". 99% of the canon spells follow this simple premise.

Let's take the above example to the next logical step...
The Sandman Cometh (a (mostly) non-canon effect!)
ReMe 30
Anyone looking at the "recipient" of this effect falls into a deep sleep for a day.
(Base 4, +1 Touch, +2 Sun, +3 Spec)
So, to defeat an army, a mage casts that on a grog, dresses them in a bright pink tutu and hands them a knife and sends them running and screaming at the army. Problem solved.

The next logical step is other Rego effects - Rego Corpus, Rego Terram. And after that, other Techniques - Perdo, Muto. Cast a PeTe spell on a rat and turn it loose in a castle. A MuCo on a pigeon and send it into town square. Sure.

(The next step is, naturally, non-living targets for the "recipient" of the effect. When you think about it, why isn't the original effect in TL a lesser enchantment rather than a spell? Because it's broken*, that's why. :wink: )

(* And by "broken", I mean "a creative expansion of the rules that is completely outside canon Hermetic effects" combined with "a creative expansion of the rules that sets a dangerous and short-sighted precedent".)

There are canon spells that break canon guidelines - more than one, and some worse offenders than others. A few admit this and/or explain it, but most have "no comment". But that doesn't mean the guidelines are not being broken.

So- wanna reconsider this statement?

It may be difficult to perfectly define, and it certainly can't be defined for everyone - but there are, imo, some lines that cannot be crossed - or can't be without shrugging and just abandoning canon. Which is perfectly fine, so long as no one is kidding themselves about what they're doing. :wink:

Yes, which follows my point exactly. To follow the ward guidelines the flame would not be affected, just the person protected from the flame. The effect is emanating from the target. As described, you could carry another person through safely, meaning the second person is now receiving a measure of protection though not themselves warded. Also, the Mentem spell is also not permanent.

Ah, without my book I had forgotten about the Size +2. I thought it was just an Individual target. I stand corrected. Although, that sounds like the spell where you blow yourself up. Maybe I'm remembering the wrong source. That wasn't what I was thinking of.

This is very untrue of area affects and the need to sense individuals. You don't need to sense all the individuals in a Room or within a Boundary to affect them. The spell in question is using such an area affect.

Though this is one of those spells based strongly on a non-Hermetic effect, so there's no saying you can use the same mechanics elsewhere, as with several spells mentioned in ArM5 itself. So allowing this spell does not imply that you'll allow any of your suggested atrocities.

Basically you just said the same thing I said: the cut-off is difficult to define. I'm fine with my statement.