Do wound penalties apply to non-combat soak?

Games Discussion Ars Magica
21

Nope, it explicitly includes the art score twice.

The puissant alters the effective art score. It's explicit.

Because you aimed it, and where you hit them affects the damage.

With magic, your accuracy doesn't affect the damage. It just doesn't in the ars magica system. That's your difference.

I'm not making them make aging rolls DURING an adventure, so that scenario isn't going to happen.

Again: This is one of the situations where it's actually a hard thing to interpret.

Hmmm, assuming only 4 botch die (which is completely implausible in the circumstances, I'm thinking 11 botch dice would be more appropriate) you're probably (more than 93% chance) botching; due to the "roll twice" result being a 90% chance each time. With a more realistic number of botch dice, you're looking at a 96% chance.

Oh, and you're probably getting a lot* of botches. You have a (far) better chance of reaching final twilight (starting from 0 warping points) and/or dying than of actually succeeding at your experiment.

That doesn't seem like a great trade-off to me.

(*by which I mean "More than the number of atoms in the universe". Your average number of botches is infinite.)

Of course, personally I'm of the opinion that at -7 the "no risk of worsening" is irrelevant: you literally can't do the labwork. It's not that it'd strain you too much, it's that it's literally impossible for you to do with that huge a penalty.

Well, divine magic resistance is neither a roll nor a total, so I'd have to say no.

22

This is my understanding of explicit and implicit logical statements:

Minor/Major Magical Focus do not tell you to add Puissant an extra time if it applies. Neither does the Puissant text. However, it is logically implied that you do.

I see what you're saying. But ultimately this just becomes because you say it's one way for one and not for the other. What if I say the magus is responsible for the power that goes into a spell just as much as the crossbowman is responsible for the aim? In one case the crossbowman has guided the bolt well, in the other case the magus has guided energy into the spell well. You can tell this because not all magi can guide the same energy into such spells. Only by your own fiat can you say that statement incorrect. Due to that, I still can't accept the argument.

Neither am I. Let me rephrase it: The first person goes on an adventure shortly after midwinter and gets injured (-3). He comes home and rests for most the year. He doesn't heal until shortly before midwinter. The second person goes on an adventure shortly before midwinter and gets severely injured (-9). He returns home just before midwinter. The healer arrives after midwinter and heals him. Why would perhaps one week at -9 provide a 9-point aging penalty when 50 or so weeks at -3 would provide no aging penalty?

This could be mitigated. There are many ways to reduced botch dice.

Really, what do you call adding at least two if not three things together then? (Well, three within ArM5, more in other books.)

Chris

23

Ah, I was misunderstanding the distinction you were making. To me, that is still an explicit exception, because the exception (that the art is applied twice) is explicit.

Puissant simply modifies a value that's being used in the same way as always, so it's not actually a relevant factor (it doesn't modify totals, or rolls, it modifies the value, which is then used).

That amount of power channeled in is the spell roll. Which affects penetration, but not damage. The Ars Magica system is quite clear on this: If you successfully use a specific spell, it does the same amount of damage whoever's using it.

Your interpretation is, by the rules of Ars Magica, incorrect. It's not my own fiat, it's the rules of the Ars Magica magic system.

Note that a spontaneous spell would carry the effect through to the damage, because your total would decide what effect level you got.

In such amazingly extreme cases I'd rule differently. Cases are not usually so extreme.

Only down to 1. Which still results in a ~88% chance of getting more botches than there are atoms in the universe.

You don't normally add at least two things together to get divine magic resistance. You normally just have one value.

Totals are always produced by adding multiple things together. Divine magic resistance is normally a single value, but can be modified. That's where I'm seeing a difference.

24

Could you stop the random noise, I think 12 inches is enough.

BTW, ArM5 p86 "This may bring the number of dice down to zero."

25

Sure, I suppose it's time to leave the discussion.

If you can find a way to apply spell mastery to experimenting I will be highly impressed.

26

I just would like to point out the example combat clarifies the question for the active combat question properly: Ignatio vs Polandus 2nd round of combat. ARM5 Core p.172.
'note that Polandrus' Wound Penalty does not apply to Soak because Soak is not rolled'

Wound penalties for Laboratory work is clearly defined under 'Activities While Injured' ARM5 p 178. and also you can easily apply the ARM5 p 103 'Distractions from Lab Work' to apply the time missed during recovery.

Regarding the original question: Do wound penalties apply to non-combat soak?
No. I do not think it should apply. It is easy to muchkin it to extremely deadly traps if you say yes.

Example how I would use it: ReCo remove feeling of pain, PeCo cause light wound every turn. Every turn a small wound (without blood spilled) and without feeling it.
Would the subject die? I would think not, but after a while I would rule even crawling on the floor is more than you can do and would call if his wounds are worsening or not.

At the same time I would question a character's sanity who would walk into small flames covered field knowing it could only cause a Light wound every turn... and thinks he is safe.

ARM5 system does not react well to the 'Death by thousand paper cuts' kind-a effects, and it does not rectifies it during the recovery rolls as wound penalties do not apply, when you outstretch your limits (defined under the 'Activities While Injured' rules).

I have house ruled it to apply wound penalties to the forced wound recovery (worsening) role if somebody does something more than her wounds would allow, the extent of penalty is the difference between the actual wound penalty and the allowed activity.
E.g.: You have 10 wound penalties and want to do more than defined under '-6 or greater', if the permitted activity is listed in '-3 to -5' category -> you roll with -5 on the recovery table.

I do understand these rules would have greatly complicated the original ARM5 recovery system, but taking some RL experience I ruled differently.

27

Well, no. Because the PeCo effect causes a light wound. There's no soak involved here at all; because perdo corpus and perdo animal effects don't go via soak; the cause wounds directly without ever dealing damage.

EDIT:

That would also seem to answer the question of non-combat soak.
If the only reason that it doesn't apply is that the Soak isn't being rolled, then when Soak is rolled, it will apply.

28

I may be wrong, but I believe it was clarified as such, yes.
Anyway, it is sensible.

BTW, agree for PeCo.

29

I also agree on the PeCo. :wink:

30

Here's the big problem I still have that hasn't been addressed (was stated above): Why is the person with a cut on the arm (e.g. -1 Wound Penalty) more susceptible to injury (penalty to Soak) than the person with a whole bunch of gaping wounds but doesn't feel them (e.g. Endurance of the Berserker nullifying -12 in Wound Penalty)? It makes sense for actions, where you have persons on PCP acting more vigorously with broken arms than many persons would with a noticeable cut. But for pure vulnerability to damage? After all, under Endurance of the Berserkers wounds can still worsen, and they will much more readily in this example than the other person's will.

Now, there are multiple valid approaches, depending on how things are read. But my other issue with kingreaper's approach is the inconsistency:

  • Parma Magica + Forms give the same magic resistance to magi who know them to the same level as a spell gives the same damage for magi who know it to the same level. So the argument against applying Wound Penalty to spell damage should also apply here, yet Wound Penalty is applied here.
  • The penalty to aging ends up based on arbitrary timing of damage. (Note my example was extreme to show a point. The situation exists regardless.)
  • Wound Penalty can help in the lab. Even cutting off before 7, using this in original research is really handy. (There are a whole bunch of ways to reduce botch dice, and only a couple of them are limited to leaving one botch die.)
  • Divine magic resistance sometimes says "add," so it appears to sometimes be a total and sometimes not and so only sometimes gets a Wound Penalty.
  • Apparently "modify" from Aura interaction is not the same as including that amount in a total. But that would seem to indicate Aura interaction should show up twice in spell casting since it's explicitly part of the total and it also "modif[ies]" the result. I don't think any of us think it should be applied to spell casting twice, which means "modify" must not imply not being part of a total.
  • My primary issue up top has still not been resolved at all.

I don't believe so. I looked through some of the old threads and did a search and couldn't find anything.

My personal take: "Action" wasn't used accidentally, and the reason for the parenthetical note is so you don't apply the penalty to something like speaking fluently (e.g. applying a Wound Penalty to Living Language: English to determine communication level). Look at any given total or roll to see if it's an action or not, and based on your interpretation of "action" you can decide if the penalty applies. My own interpretation of "action" would leave out Soak rolls.

Chris

31

I would tend to agree with this, adding that soak is not an action, it is a reaction.

32

Thanks.

Lol, I guess not. :laughing:

33

I can only offer my insight only to this point in addition.
In my view wound penalties do not effect Parma + Form = Magic resistance. As a guidance I can offer you ARM5 Core p. 85.
'An unconscious magus may not suppress his Parma, and thus has his full resistance against magic, even helpful magic.'
My second argument would be: Character does not use an ability through anything which clarifies as an action, wound penalties are not applied. <- what I use as a rule of thumb to determine if wound penalties are applied or not, thus language, soak, dmg, arts are not effected, unless somehow involved in an action roll.

I hope this helps.

34

Oh, well, I must be wrong, then :smiley:

Anyway, at worst, this doesn't cause any serious problem.

And sure, Endurance of the Berserkers, but, well, if you poke enough at the rules, you're bound to find similar problems on a number of issues, and can probably support about any point of view. Like, I could say that, theoretically, not applying wound penalties to non-combat soak means that, theoretically, a normal human could stay in the middle of a large campfire for days without dying. Sure, a stress roll will probably kill him before, but the possibility is there nonetheless.
All this does prove is that a rules system has failings and potential illogical results.

35

RAW has flaws.
RAI has fewer, since as a rule of thumb, your SG is entirely welcome to go "ok. You burn to death. Now, let's move on to Sir Chopsemup and his fight with those evil invading monguls.