You could start with a Group target, which equals "a large river" (p.121) and multiply the volume of that river by 8, and you'd still be 2 or 3 mags below the Creo version of Deluge of Rushing & Dashing.
Yes. CrAq 40 vs ReAq 30 Waves of Drowning and Smashing. They don't exactly have the same benefit, but if I merely need to damage a coastline, I don't need a geyser, a single thrown wave will do.
I would rule that you could get the same effect with MuAq, yes.
I haven't tried to figure out how difficult that would be - quite possibly more difficult than doing it with Creo.
A lot easier, based on the calculations above - which do depend on using the Terram guidelines as a model, but I'm curious to know what others would use instead of that.
I'm not understanding this? We're talking about what guidelines would be used for MuAq to make a stream flood, as for the Creo spell Deluge of Rushing & Dashing, which clearly does not require a Boundary target. ReAq has no relevance that I can see?
That works for a river, but what about a lake or sea? Then you have to start dealing with a Target of Part or having several mags of Size.
Target part isn't a problem as you're still 3 mags below the Creo version. I don't get where you're going with the lake or sea thing, because we haven't got a Creo spell on those we're comparing it to?
Just so the calculations are clear based on the Terram guidelines (base 4 to multiply volume of target by 8).
Mutated Deluge of Rushing & Dashing
MuAq 30
(Same effect as Creo version)
Base 4, +2 Voice; +1 Conc; +2 Group to affect a large river; +1 Part
The conversation was on making a lake flood earlier, as opposed to making a stream flood. That you are currently talking about a stream doesn't close the conversation on a lake which was on topic less than 10m ago.
Agreed. Nor does it suddenly make Rego relevant when it wasn't relevant 10m ago.
The focus on a stream is only because it gives us something concrete to work from because there is a Creo spell that affects a stream. I like some of the points you have made, but am really interested to know what guidelines you would use for MuAq to flood a stream/lake/river or whatever.
Very well, since you wish to arbitrate which comments to which of your questions is relevant or not, I shall politely head out of this thread and leave you to control the conversation.
Target Part would only effect one base individual without additional size modifiers. Besides the very nasty effects with water are all Rego.
Your argument for the spell is based on what is, by its very nature, a HR. While some SG might accept it, just as many might say something like "that Base does not exist" and disallow it.
Apologies if it came across like that - I was asking you what the relevance of Rego was, that's all, as I don't see it. I am asking about Muto, and Muto guidelines for adding water to something, and there is a stream Creo spell to use as a basis for discussion. (If Rego is relevant in any way, I genuinely want to know why, I just didn't understand why you had brought it up).
Well yeah - that's my thinking, I probably wouldn't allow it. But others on this thread are arguing that they would allow it (and more than that, they are saying it is not a HR, it is RAW), so I am curious to know what guideline they would use - the Terram one that I have outlined, or something else?
Many can't stay consistent on using base guidelines from one form to another, based on what they are trying to do. Some on this board had a near screaming fit when I suggested using the Herbam "awaken" guideline for another Form, yet in different threads those same people would calmly banter about using a guideline from across forms when it fit their way of thinking.
Because of that, I am strongly in the "Base Guidelines in the Books are the only RAW, anything else is a HR" camp for discussions on the forum. It is also why I try to clearly state anything outside of the given material is a "possible HR".
That is a probably a wise approach. In this particular case the standard spells for increasing Size increases Size by +1 for Animal and Corpus, while it increases Size by +3 for Terram - so obviously the guidelines do not always translate well from one Form to another..
So even if everyone agrees that something is possible to do with a certain TeFo combination, the exact difficulty of doing that will by necessity be a HR if it is not covered by the existing guidelines and examples.
3 Likes
I'll add another angle. I'd prefer creating a flood to be perdo for 2 reasons. One because Perdo is probably the least flexible form, so I like to try to make any spell which could be Perdo, be Perdo. 2. Spells are about intent. An intent of a flood is destruction. I accept that's more a personal gripe and not RAW.
One can work around the intent of the techniques to achieve an outcome, but it is a workaround. Back to the rock doubling and the spike..
I think most agree that Creo could create material around the rock to double it's size, and with a good enough finesse roll the new material is so close it would seem close to 1 rock, but it's not growing from the rock.The spike may lay flush to the stone, but it will slide down.
Allowing creo to grow something attached to something is an interpretation which would make Perdo even more obsolete. A creo terram spell which makes rock grow from the top and bottom of one's mouth and nostrils to stop breathing. A creo corpus to double the size of a bone, which would snap and devestate everything near the bone.
You can do it. It's not Perdo Aquam, however. It's Perdo Terram arround the river / lake.
Indeed. I understand the attractiveness of defining Perdo as "destruction", as you suggest @Lee, but it's less neat and logical than Perdo as defined in RAW, in that, for example, wouldn't creating a fire to engulf someone (or even making a wolf to attack them?) suddenly become Perdo if it was the intent that determined the Arts? Yet creating that exact same fire where no one was standing would be Creo. Odd.
In any case, when I began this thread I was leaning towards Muto being unable to change size/mass without Creo, and after mulling over the responses I'm now leaning the other way (To be clear, this is in terms of what I can accept as most logical in my head, rather than what is the case in RAW, as I'm perfectly happy to house rule RAW extensively if it makes more sense to me and I can arbitrate it more logically - I have, for example, substantially altered the Mentem guidelines for my saga so they make more sense to me).
In other words, I am now seeing the logic in RAW more clearly, and may even be able to accept the discrepancy in RAW between Aquam, where Creo makes a river "grow", and other forms where Muto make an entity grow. I'm thinking I'll let Muto make rocks bigger after all. But in contrast to what some have suggested here, I don't think I'll let Muto make water grow, but the RAW guidelines don't make it clear that's possible anyhow, so as Troy pointed out, it's arguably a HR.
I think that there are situations where either answer has to be a house rule, and whether you can use muto to make water grow is amongst them.
1 Like