designing a spell for someone

Games Discussion Ars Magica
1

Hi,
Note: I was sure this was already discussed under the old forums but I'm not even sure how to check those so.

I have several questions about designing a spell for "someone" (and avoid warping them if it's high level) and warping from spells in general.

  1. how many people can a spell be designed for? in the ArM5D book I didn't find anything else than a generic: a spell doesn't warp the caster and the persone whom he was designed for.

Can I include all the (members of my House I personaly know) as "designed for" person in a spell? I'm asking under the context of a group ritual improving characteristic, where all 10 recipents will mostly include current house members and perhaps some future apprentices yet unknown (they will warp, too bad. They are young, they'll survive.)

  1. is a MuVi superficial change spell something you'd allow to change the "designed for" aspect of a spell. That point was, I'm quite certain, discussed on the old forums.
    I think the general answer at the time (before 2020) was why not.

  2. do you need to "know" personaly someone? what if you "know" someone but it is revealed to be "someone else": is the spell designed for the real individual, or for the fake individual.
    EG: Eniko of Tremere knows Balthimor, apprentice. She designs the spell for that.
    Years later, it appears, the Balthimor she knew was in fact a Tytalus using a persona. The Tytalus is Jean-Robert of Chatelineau. Appears the real Balthimor, who was in twilight.
    For who is the spell designed? Balthimor or Jean-Robert?

  3. Can you design a spell "for someone" you have never met, but using an arcane connection to that someone.

  4. Is it possible to design a spell "for all my children" even if you have none at the moment. What if you have already some children; would it change the answer because you already "know" what a child of you is?

Thanks for any answer.
PS: and if you have better use of the search function and manage to find the old posts I refer about, thanks a lot too.

Exar.

2

I would be strict about this, otherwise the rule about warping from high-level spells becomes almost meaningless.

  1. I would say, a spell can only be designed for one specific person. However, a spell that doesn't warp the caster also doesn't warp their familiar, if they have one.
  2. I think this would be a significant change, not a superficial one. Because, again, if it's only a superficial change, such MuVi becomes routine and the rule becomes pointless. In-character, I think it's a greater change than the mostly cosmetic Sigil which is the core example of a superficial change.
  3. I think, like making a longevity ritual for someone else, if a spell is to be designed for someone, that someone must make themselves available for the duration of the spell invention process. If applicable, they may act as a lab assistant. This means that if they do not honestly cooperate with the process, the design might fail. At best this would mean the spell is designed for no one, except the caster. At worst, it might introduce some kind of flaw. In your example, I think if Jean-Robert just lies about his identity and otherwise cooperates, the spell will not warp him. If he uses a persona, the spell will not warp the persona, but will otherwise warp him, because Persona is kind of unique like that. If he used a different type of magical disguise, the design will fail. In no case will the spell be designed for the real Balthimor.
  4. and 5. As above, no and no. Only one person, who must be available to you.
3

  1. I think the consensus was that if you design a spell for a Group, then you design it for a specific Group. That is, if there are any changes to the Group (people drop out, for example) then the spell is no longer 'designed for' the target.

  2. I agree that MuVi ought to treat this as a 'superficial' change, but I am in the minority on this. I think making it a 'Significant' change with current Hermetic usage, with a breakthrough allowing 'superficial' is a reasonable compromise.

  3. Exactly as ArthurWynne stated. As long as the Tytalus is using the Persona then no warping -- but that specific Tytalus without that specific Persona would warp.

  4. No. Designing the spell takes a season, and the specific target must be present for it. If you are designing a MuVi 'tailor another spell for this specific Target' effect, then the specific Target must be available for the whole season while that is designed.

  5. The Faerie Target of 'Bloodline' specifically allows spells to be designed this way. Hermetic magic is otherwise much less flexible about this.

4

Side note: I believe no spell warps any familiar, because familiars have Might.

5

I'll add that no spell ever warps it's caster due to being potent, no matter who it's designed for.

6

True of course, good catch.

7

While it is not an absolute answer, the definitive edition page 389 states

"The spell has its effect on anyone, but only the designated target, and the caster, do not suffer Warping unless the effect is also continuous."

If I was writing the rule book and I thought this should extend to groups, I would have written target/s. I think the intent is 1 target can be exempted from warping. The variety within a group of people means that even some similar characteristics, ie, members of a house , the group is too dissimilar to make multiple people exempt from warping.

Making a longevity person for a person requires the target to be there the entire season. While I appreciate a spell is not a longevity potion, to tailor make a spell not to warp, the magi should know the person. I would not consider it superficial.

Yes. For your example, it would work for neither.

4 & 5 would clearly be no in any saga I run. Your saga may vary, but I consider tailor making a spell a big endeavour. Most magi would not bother. How big a deal is 1 point of warping to the target such that the magi should expend time and effort?

8

Not necessarily:

"The first step in getting a familiar is find-
ing an animal with inherent magic. With inher-
ent magic, the beast is likely to have a Magic
Might score...

(emphasis mine)

9

Interesting. I carefully didn't specify the kind of Might, given Faerie and Infernal familiars. I have never seen a Might-free familiar: are there any examples? It feels sort of wrong to me, but I don't have a good argument against it.

10

For the persona example it was maybe not the one I'd use in my game but the answer is good.

I used this to have the "participant group" spend time in the lab of the inventor magus, but doing other things (reading, studying vis, practicing spell casting) while the main researcher did the big characteristics raiser spell which should not warp them.

For the MuVI, i go Joseph's side because changing a target is under significant possible change and ingame that is clearly bigger = more significant than changing the "who's it designed for" question.
The other example of superficial is related to the sigil, which seems to me a meta information of the spell of the same kind and significance than the "who it's designed for".