The flame is not affected, the effect is pure descriptor, with the point (as I said) regarding the return of the flame.
If a warded person carried another, that 2nd person would take full damge. If 4 persons with Ward of Flame closely surrounded a 5th, tighly pressed to each side, I would probably rule that 5th would take less damage - but not from the description, but from the others forming a "wall" around them. Probably.
I completely disagree with everything you just said. First, a room or boundary must be still be sensed - that is then the target, not the "individuals" (or a "group") within it. Further, no such parallel exists in the ReMe spell in question. The Target of "special" is unsatisfactory not because it's special, but because it breaches the basic requirement, the premise of how Hermetic targeting must work. The caster does not "perceive" any of the targets, nor even does the "recipient" of the effect - it's the final "targets'" perception that triggers it. This is a great DnD effect, and a classic from other sources ("Don't look at that creature!"), but it's not a Hermetic one, or even close.
Also, note that an "area = room/boundary" effect is markedly different from an "area = large amount" spell. Creo spells can work differently, and so are not always the best analogy for other Techniques.
Not if you think the caster doesn't need to perceive a target to effect that target, which is the definition you seem to be avoiding - whether that target is an individual or a boundary, the caster must perceive the target of the effect, not some "recipient" who then wanders off to then in turn be perceived by others who only then suffer the final spell effect.
(The very fact that that spell description introduces a new term, "recipient", in quotes, goes far to show that it's not working like any other Hermetic spell.)
Please note that you are choosing what part of that description is pure descriptor and what part is mechanical yourself, and you are doing so in blatant disagreement to the first sentence which says the fires cannot come within a pace. Everything within a pace of the protected target is being protected. You are welcome to change this for your own game, but the spell is as I've said it is in cannon.
First, you seem to have misread what I wrote. I didn't say the room or boundary didn't have to be sensed. I said the individual within that don't need to be sensed. Do you really disagree with that? You've said you do by saying you completely disagree with everything I said, but I doubt it.
Second, read more about the spell we're talking about. They specifically reference using areas. You may not like this use, but they are claiming it's akin to a Room effect.
Third, look at page 27 of HoH:MC. You'll find a whole page devoted to using Hermetic magic to affect targets in just such a way. Yes, it requires a mystery. Well, this is a single spell incorporating the same type of effect because it has been developed from a special non-Hermetic ritual. This certainly seems to follow such rule-bending as used in ArM5 itself, such as with Enchantment of the Scrying Pool. I find it hard to accept a problem with this one spell with no objection to that mystery.
Look at the part I quoted and was responding to. I said it is hard to define a cut-off. You disagreed and spent many more words saying it is hard to define a cut-off.
Scent of the Predator
Marking the Territory
Clarion Call of the War Horse
The Rooster's Crow
Brilliance of the Eagle's Plumage
Closed Mouth of the Nightwalker (which is actually a fairly similar spell)
Plus there's my point about Ward Against Heat and Flames with its one pace of protection.
Look, I'm fine with people not liking the spell and not allowing it. I was just pointing out that those people should not just be objecting to this spell; they should be objecting to a number of spells.
Totally agree here. Players seem to find it hard that ordinary folk just plain don't like them but it is a cornerstone of the game ethos. If you wanna mess about in towns grab a bunch of redshirts and a few companions. Bring the mages in when the talking is over and its time for the big guns.
What is clear in the cannon is the penalties of the gift can be overcome with time and by building relationships. We have all met some pretty ghoulish & repugnant people IRL and those initial reactions can be overcome with time.
The gift social penalties go a very long way towards explaining why magi don't 'rule the world' - because they are universally disliked and often despised & feared.
Overcome or overlooked. If a magus starts to mistreat the people around him, they probably start 'remembering' his Gift.
I absolutely love the way the AM5 core rules dedicated quite a bit of prose to explaining the social effects of the Gift and of the Blatant Gift, and how a relationship can mitigate things if the magi don't get uppity. It fits quite nicely.
I also think that tacking on the -3/-6 mechanic did a disservice to the description, resulting in various kinds of dodgy dodges.
Alternative Mechanics for the Gift and Blatant Gift
A social roll is any die roll modified by Pre or Com, excluding Supernatural Abilities.
The SG is always within his rights to declare that a player does not get to roll the die for any social roll performed by character with the Gift involving a character who is affected by his Gift, and simply dictate that the roll has failed. The SG does not need to be "reasonable" about this; a character disturbed by a magus might well act against his apparent self-interest. Spells that add to social rolls or that create 'special circumstances' do not create an exception to this rule. Rego Mentem and similar effects that coerce a response are excluded, because such interactions no longer allow social rolls. If the character does get to roll, the die is always stress and he risks three extra botch dice.
Characters with the Blatant Gift have it worse. The SG can also declare that no social roll is necessary, because the magus botched. Characters disturbed by the magus' Gift sometimes act quite irrationally. If the character does get to roll, the die is always stress and a zero is always a botch, though three extra botch dice are rolled because more severe botches remain possible.
Players may seek to circumvent these rules through roleplay. This can help but can also hinder. When an obvious villain acts all charming and reasonable, it makes sense to trust him less.
A magus who manages to sustain a relationship with someone affected by his (Blatant) Gift will find himself increasingly accepted, or at least less reviled, represented by the SG choosing not to automatically fail or botch his interactions very often. The character nor the player should take this state of affairs for granted, because the Gift and its effects remain.
Sucks to be him. I suggest he simply hires someone. His Gft may cause the professional sex worker in question to charge double, but cash goes a long way
This is indeed the very game feature you are seeking to circumvent, most magi are socially stunted because of the effects their Gift had upon their socilization while growing up. I played a Gentle Gift magus wh, although not affected by the Gift(s) of the other magi, thought they were all wierd and social misfits, simply because of they way they act. Why do they act like such jerks? Because they grew up lonely and unloved. They are bitter and twisted. A friend of mine once played a Bonisagus Animal expert. His back story was that the family dog he loved so much hated him because of the Gift, traumatizing him as a child. He wound up using his blossoming magic power to force the dog to sit still so he could pet it as he cried and the dog whimpered. He had no Arts as a child, but he had a magic affinity (which was an Ability in 4th edition). We allowed it because it was a really cool backstory, and explained his drive to control animals.
ÍMS the normal gift is -6 to social rolls. The blatant gift is -12. A -3 is too easy to overcome with a few minor magics. Explains the descriptions better than the normal game mechanics
Ars requires at least a 6 for fairly straight forward things. That means a magus with a minus 3 is almost always gonna fail without magic. No problem there for me. Of course on account of the book rules there are a stupidly disproportionate number of magi with huge COM scores, but well thats a whole other story.
If you need to use magic to get what you want, and I agree it is fairly easy to bespell the tiny minds of mundanes, your relationship never ever improves. In fact, I would argue bewitching mundanes is only going to worsen the situation. Maybe they don't notice at first, but they will eventually. If you force/coerce people into actions they know afterwards they didn't want to do it isnt a huge leap of imagination to conclude it is sorcery. They already don't like magi precisely because they are witches. IMS many mundanes often assume they are being bewitched even when they are not... The odd person is gonna notice a sigil for example... no orange tress here and yet it distinctly smells of orange blossom every time this guy asks me a question. IMO sigils are often grossly underplayed as an obvious sign of magic.
I certainly take the rules on the gift as written before any dice are rolled. They don't like magi - they don't like them quite a lot, and that makes any dice rolls a lot harder to start with. I do not assume magi asking a farmer for info are looking to score 6+, more like 12 or 15 because they don't like sorcerors. Until they decide they do like this particular sorceror you aint getting any easy social interaction targets. It is more than just the penalty - I work with the starting point for the relationship and improve ease factor from there.
Of course, for those mundanes who don't have superstitious fear of magi by default, nobs & some priests etc... those starting rolls are much easier, although the -3 still applies the target number is a lot lower.
I also add some penalties for twilight scars too - the weirder you get, the weirder you are.
I should also add using magic as a matter of routine when talking to mundanes, who tend to live in a dominion aura, is a great way to crank out twilight points. Unless you creep around in the dark asking quesitons late at night when the aura fades and the more 'unpleasant' folk are active - but that isn't going to do much for your reputation either.
Oh yeah. I like to think that a magus with the Gift is like a Negro in 1943 Georgia (USA), and a magus with the Blatant Gift is like a Jew in 1943 Germany. Many people have a favored "this guy is one of the few good ones," but it's still a socially precarious position. Best tread lightly.
Yeah. -4/-8 and -5/-10 is what we use(as of last game, still no firm decision on which is best but leaning towards the lower to still allow a +5 presence to cause a small positive effect).
And for the debated spell, it could "easily" be made to work under our house rules, using Target "Radial", Range Actus(~35m without restrictions)... Of course, that translates to +9 and +3, ie 60 levels even before effect or duration is added... :mrgreen:
They should be.
