p140: "A ball of flame shoots from your hand to strike a single target, doing +30 damage".
But, yes, i agree, it's merely a cosmetic effect, since we can imagine to create a spell which make the fireball appears just over its intended target.
You say that exemple i used is element, so it's sort of physical attack. Would be the same with fast casting a defense against a wooden magical attack or the bite of an animal created by magic. Perdo and Rego can help, or Cr Te to summon a wall of dirt to block the incoming attack.
Yet, as far as i know, fast cast defense should also be able to protect against Corpus and Mentem. But for these spells, i cannot imagine any "stuff" coming, nor i can imagine any "other stuff" to counter.
Moreover, it's not counter-intuitive to consider that any "stuff" carried or hurled through the air is moved by magic. So there is not only "stuff" here, but also magic. It's even more true with a Creo Something attack. Common fast cast defense involve blocking or suppressing the "stuff". But isn't it realistic that a Pe Vi could block or suppress the magic? Therefore, either the stuff is nonmagical (such as throw a sword to your opponent) and it just fall on the ground, either the stuff was magically created (ball of fire), and it disappears along the magic.
Of course, to remove the magic in such an attack would be useless on a spell who just give an impulse on a missile weapon (i think such spells are describes in "Societates". Such spell doesn't use magic to carry the attack but to give an impulse. So, no Pe Vi could be used.
Which make me think about another point: Basically, Parma Magica suppress the effect of magic, stopping it few millimeters before the magus. So, everything which can be blocked by Parma could reasonnably fall under a Pe Vi which suppress magic as well. Don't you think so?
HoH:S pg 21 "Perdo Vim defenses can work, but they need to satisfy the normal rules for dispelling magic (ArM5 pg 160). This becomes difficult if the defender fails to identify the form"
ArM5 pg 160 "Dispel any magical effect with casting total less than half the level ( level + 4 magnitudes) of the Vim spell + stress die (no botch)."
I've bolded what I think is a key phrase. It seem to imply that you still must follow the fast-cast defense guidelines (ArM5 pg 83). So you must be able to determine the form. Subtle magic forces the perception+ awareness roll.
IMHO the Perception + awareness vs 15 - effect magnitude is called for any defense to learn the form.
Yeah, if you can identify the form, you can use the "dispel specific magic" guideline. Otherwise you need to use the "dispel general magic" one, which is indeed much harder.
And if everyone will please tahe another look at "Thwarting the Thaumaturgical Threat", that is exactly the guideline I am using. I am fast casting a scaled down version of "Winds of Mundane Silence".
And it has to be Fast Cast to be successful, not just a high Initiative. By definition, a Fast Cast spell is in reaction to something else; a movement, an attack, or another spell. You don't roll to Fast Cast untill you are reacting to something. As a figure of speech, you are "catching" it in mid air between the caster and the target.
And I did not import "counterspell" from anywhere. It is a standard English word, and I didn't even use it (I don't think). Specifically, I said "to counter a spell". Move, counter move, basic English.
["crossed steel" and "clash of steel" it is, then. ]
I recognise now that the rules are sufficiently clear about this subject: we are given two choices of interpretations.
A) "I think the most compelling argument in the RAW is under the Spontaneous Spells section - the fact that nowhere does it say "Oh, btw - PeVi stops anything!" "
I would add: "nor does it discuss the matter in the dimicatio section of Societates."
and
B) " Winds of Mundane Silence or Unraveling the Fabric of (Form) can do the exact same thing if they are Mastered and Fast Cast. " ... meaning "exact same thing" as a spontaneous fast-cast defense tailored to the spell you want to counter.
Some months ago, someone suggested on this forum that MuMe(Vi) spells could be used to transform the idea of a spell into that actual spell. Nothing in the rules forbid it expressly (formally), but the spirit of the rules does. This is the same here.
Since those two spells are already very powerfull and usefull without counter-spell possibilities, and that I think the editor wrote the RAW with game balance in mind, I find interpretation A) more sound than B).
That is a sufficient argument for me when deciding what we should do in our saga. But there is further arguments showing A) is RAW...
Cuchulainshound is very eloquent when he say: "Until a spell is cast, there is no Vim target - and after it is cast is too late, ". There is an underlying difference all over the rules of Ars Magica that make a difference between the effect of a spell, and a mage actually casting a spell. And any dispelling magic would be effective only in the first case (which will require that spell to have some duration longer than momentary to be of any use, see down here). The two of them needs to be understood differently.
Even if you are right and Perdo Vim can be used as a General Purpose Counter Magic (and Dispell it seems!!) then it's perfectly sound to say that you would have to penetrate Parma if you are trying to disrupt the spell as it is being cast. Since you are targeting a spell within the mage in the process of casting a (nasty) spell.
This seems not right to me when doing defensive spells? but if you are dispelling a mage casting, this is so...
I need to correct you Marko about my maths: (cling this would be counteracting your effects )
Me:
Marko Markoko:
Not quite so, as it appear you confused my use of the words casting score with casting totals.
P. 81:
So, you really need a casting score of 30 to partially dispell a level 30 spell. In that case, your casting total will be 15, so half the level.
Notice (p. 83) ... "a fast-cast defense with half the level of the attacking spell is enough to protect the maga herself or opne other individual." Too bad for the grogs when an Arc of Fiery Ribbons is thrown at your group. The idea of using WoMS as a general dispell always dispell 100% of the spell. This is very powerfull.
Notice also that the definitions of the spell WoMS read: "You raise a metaphorical "breeze" that blows the magic away from an area, cancelling the effects of any spell there." This imply that there is actually ongoing spell effect there. But the intent of countering a spell is for it to have no effect on it's target. Hence if the effect is instantaneous, it cannot be dispelled with WoMS.
The quote from Societates p. 21 is indirect comments about those kind of spells. The aim was to describe a form of duel in house Flambeau.
The intent here is clearly not to say "unprepared maga use spontaneous magic to counter, while intelligent one learn forumlaic Perdo Vim that will dispell any spell."
The reference to p.160 was probably misleading here, and could aim at the guideline Cuchulainshound noticed, the one that supress magic. I think the intent where to say spontaneous PeVi could be used using the Unravelling guideline to defend.
How could "Ball of Abysmal Flame be a crowd-pleaser" (p.21 HoH:S) in Dimicatio when it suffice to learn a level 25 PeVi Unravelling Ignem spell and a casting score of 15 (25 for no fatigue) to counter? Wouldn't all Flambeau participating in such contest learn that spell? What do you think? Where's the fun in that?
That's why a SG needs to use it's judgement when applying rules.
Marko:
It is not more difficult: you need to be prepared, that's all.
My conclusion: Thwarting the Thaumaturgical Threat should be renamed GPCaMD (General Purpose Dispell and Counter Magic). Don't tell me that spell is not an outrageously powerfull spell! Even if it were in the RAW, which I still argue it is not, the line editor should be going to errata and change that "RAW-status" right away !
It says that in the Perdo Vim guidelines, though not with speech as eloquent
I say it does, right in the section where it says that Vim counters use normal Vim rules. According to the standard guidelines, Perdo Vim does stop anything.
No, and I don't know why you are stuck on that point. I suppose Unraveling the Fabric of (Form) is custom tailored, but I would say you need to cast it as a spell and not as an enchanted device (because you cant fast cast from a device). Winds of Mundane Silence doesn't need to be customized at all. We are not dealing with the spont rules here, we are talking about fast cast formulaic Vim spells. Totally different animal.
Sorry to say that I disagree. In my view, your trying to discourage this is against the spirit of the rules.
And I think that the MuMe(Vi) spell is an interesting idea. It needs a Creo requisite and requisites of the Arts of the spell it emulates, and would need to be at least twice the level of the emulated spell. And you need to either know the spell or be reading the mind of a magus who knows the spell. Under those conditions, I would allow a player to invent such a spell. Maybe requiring a Mystery just so the other players don't howl.
And that is all well and good for your saga. But I find your arguments unconvincing and I think you are grasping at straws.
Then how does a MuVi spell manage to function? And don't hand me that "Muto is different" argument. There is obviously a point in time bbetween casting and effect, even if only a milisecond. If not, then no fast cast defense spell of any sort could ever work ever.
That makes no sense. Could you restate that in another way?
And I am
That sounds like you are just throwing restrictions at me in desperation. If the spell it affecting that magus only, then yes, I do need to penetrate parma. But if he is targeting me, then there is a micro-milisecond when the spell is "in the air" between us. Like an arrow in flight.
Argghh!! The puns are caustic!!!!!!!!!!
(snip math) Okay, fine. But you will get no sympathy from me trying to compare the power of a spontaneous spell to a Formulaic.
Yes, and it is very difficult to do as well. I am totally fine with this, as a player and as a storyguide.
You miss my point. In this case, the "there" is an imaginary point between the caster and the defending magus, a split second between casting and effect, which is why a countering can only be done with Fast Casting.
There is a difference between theory and practice. You know what? Thwarting the Thaumaturgical Threat is too weak for Dimicatio. My one character invented it for that, and the fist time I used it was a combat situation. I countered a ReMe15 spell, but it took every ounce of effort to succeed. I had to blow confidence on a successful Fast Cast initiative, I had to spend two levels of Fatigue (via Life Boost) just to get the minimum casting total, a third Fatigue level because of a low casting total, and the countering roll I barely made by a hair.
This spell won't work in Dimicatio. It is too weak.
I say it is lots of fun, and I do use judgement. Very wise judgement indeed. Are you suggesting otherwise? I am a storyguide of my own saga as well as a player in several others.
As for Thwarting the Thaumaturgical Threat, the old BoAF is the very reason why it simply won't work in Dimicatio. I need a counter roll of 70 or higher using that spell. The highest level I can go without needing a Ritual is 50th, giving me a roll of 60 plus a die. Which means I need a Casting of at least 50, as I subtract 10 for Fast Casting, and I would loose Fatigue unless I rolled a 60 or higher. Then I need to roll a 1 followed by a 5 or more, as I need a roll of at least 10 (an "0" is a botch)
It is almost impossible for a PeVi specialist to manage this feat, and if he does, that is also quite spectacular. And that is as high as he can go. Level 55 requires a ritual, and thus is no good for Fast Casting.
Marko:
It is not more difficult: you need to be prepared, that's all.
[/quote]
You don't think that speding a season crafting a frmula spell followed by a season spent mastering it resulting in a spell that need three consecutive successful rolls in not some how harder than casting a spontaneous spell you put no thought or effort into?
Sorry, but "It is NOT at all an outrageously powerfull spell. Not by a longshot. It is a weak spell with some minor utility against low level magic.
And you're the guy who wants to ban multi-casting. Sorry, but I am not going to measure what should and should not be RAW by your preferences.
Sorry if I seem harsh. The clash of steel can get like that sometimes. I respect your ability to debate and enjoy having crossed swords with thee
Must be careful comparing this spell with Wind of Mundane Silence. While the effects may appear to be the same,Iudicium is correct in saying that it only effects existing magic. Even if you had it mastered for fast cast it can not effect spells of a Momentary nature ( ArM5 pg 161).
Ahah, you got me on fire on this one. Once in a while, I like to be challenged in an argument contest. You may be interested by this book: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right
But I think it would be too dangerous in your hands: I personnaly only use it defensively.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
I was resuming your position, which is that "Unravelling the Fabric of (form) can be used instead of a spontaneous counter".
I was not saying WoMS needs tailoring or whatever, that comes latter.
Your are basically saying something right, then leaving the implication that this is an argument against our position. It is not.
Again: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi (you are often using this one, with all it's forms)
I say: A is similar to B, and you wouldn't allow B. One could disallow A on the same basis it disallow B. But, in finale, you admit you wouldn't admit B ! You would not allow any idea on the basis that the rules does not clearly forbid it. You would change it, restrict it, etc.
But yet, you begin with "Sorry to say that I disagree"...which again imply you are argumenting for your cause, while you are not really. You either doesn't address my argument at all, or agree with it !
This could be a good argument, but you are conveniently forgetting that our position is that fast-cast defense is opposing some force against the opposite effect, and not "dispelling" it. We say that spontaneous fast-cast defense use different rules than dispelling.
For exemple bring a wall against a Crystal Dart, or a Torrent of Water against a Pilum of Fire, etc. So our position doesn't need to be absolutely right on time for it to function, where yours need to.
I'm not sure where you want to lead this. I don't understand you. Are you implying that you don't see any difference between:
-the effect of a spell, and; (E.G: "Look at that magical fire!")
-a mage actually casting a spell ? (E.G.: "Look, it's Apromor casting!")
I don't see how this is obscure.
In the first case, you got a spell effect,
In the second case, you got, maybe, some magical waves gradually interwined together by the magus. Or something like that. The rules are not clear about how mages actually use magic. This all in the goal of casting a spell.
This is a case where the more I think about your opinion, the more I find arguments against it. Since this is new to me, it is not surprising that I find arguments along the way.
So now, your are saying there exist a micro-second when the spell is in mid-air. Can you find some argument that support that ? To me this is a case of circular argument: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_c ... onsequence
You are basically saying:
First: PeVi guideline can be used as multi-purpose fast-cast defence, because there exist a micro-second when the spell is in mid-air and that the spell can target.
Second: There exist a micro-second when the spell is in mid-air because otherwise PeVi guideline could not be used as multi-purpose fast-cast defence.
Hum, caustic..." marked by incisive sarcasm".
[/quote]
[I didn't mean any disrespect, if that is the question. =) ]
So, you are saying: game balance doesn't matter when trying to find the meaning of game's rules (!?)
Rules are there for game balance, it's an important role. When there is confusion about a particular case of a rule, thinking about game balance is important.
Yeah, difficult, but still easier than spontaneous fast-case defense, as you agreed just previously regarding my maths. I think we can all agree your way of doing things is superior to spontaneous defense, but it needs preparation, season of learning and mastering.
You see this as balanced, ok, YMMV.
I say it is not because your formulaic spells are either general purpose or very effective (Unravelling), and either case is unbalanced.
It was my understanding that fast-casting where needed so that the defense would come before the opposite spells comes to it's full and final effect. My position doesn't need any point in mid-air, but I see where you need that for yours. This is the same circular argument as before, see up there.
In resume: "Once I used this spell, it was difficult to use at that time, so this spell isn't powerfull or unbalanced."
This is a perfect exemple of the fallacy of "proof by exemple": en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example
Your whole argument stands on confusing Unravelling the Fabric of Ignem and Thwarting the Thaumaturgical Threat. My argument used Unravelling and not your TTT.
Of course, using TTT against BoAF is near-impossible.
What I was saying, is that a single level 40 UtF(Ignem) is all any mage needs to counter any ignem magic, and that is too much powerfull. (Not even counting it can also dispell ongoing ignem spells, on top of that.)
You don't think that speding a season crafting a frmula spell followed by a season spent mastering it resulting in a spell that need three consecutive successful rolls in not some how harder than casting a spontaneous spell you put no thought or effort into?
[/quote]
Your are bringing your "Proof by example" again to try to show my opinion is ridicule. You can't use a single exemple as a proof in this way, the fact that your mage had problem using it prove nothing: I dare you to show some numbers !
I've sniped some content of your post, because they all more or less relate to this fallacy you seem to be very fond of: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
If you didn't checked the earlier fallacies, check only this one.
Ad hominem, of course: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
You are implying that because I use certain house rule you don't like, all my opinions about RAW are bad. This is obviously wrong as an argument.
ANOTHER ARGUMENT:
here is the quote (why didn't I saw it earlier?:shock: ) "WoMS does not affect spells of Momentary duration." This one is crystal clear.
Good point. I should clarify that I would allow players to use a Fast Cast WoMS in order to counter a spell. But I am also putting forth the proposition that this is already an acceptable use of that spell. You are "catching" the opposing spell in "mid air" in the split secon between it being cast and affecting the target. You are affecting an existing spell, before the "moment" is finished and the magic is still "in the air".
Which is why you need to master and fast cast it.
And you saw Roberto expend every ounce of effort using that spell just to counter a level 15 Mentem effect. So much effort in fact that I let the bad guy escape because I though the Quaesitor was on top of it and I could not afford one single ounce of energy more. That spell would have certainly been a failure at dimicatio (I would have need an roll of 15+ just against the standard PoF! It is a weak spell!)
Oh geeze, what did I start here? I was just trying to offer my spell for another player to use, and I had already presented this same spell to the Forum a few months ago to see if it was kosher in the community. They liked it bback then. Should have left well enough alone
WARNING! MEGA LONG POST!!!*
Can you think of anything that isn’t dangerous in my hands?
You lost me here. All these links are distracting and a clever trick of rhetoric.
What I was saying is that the Perdo Vim guidelines, as written, essentially say “PeVi stops everythingâ€, but not in so many words.
You lost me here and I am unsure what you mean. Too many links, too many quotes. What I was saying was that, the thing you fear my idea would allow is something I think the rules already allow.
I lost track of what A and B are.
What I was saying is that I am not automatically opposed to the non-sequiter example of the MuMeVi spell. It would need to be thought over, and it is my players that might howl, so I may need some meta-game way to placate them. But, in essence, I am saying that I do not find your non-sequiter example to be a violation of the spirit of the rules at all. Heck, I can MuMe your thoughts into a bird, kill the bird and thus kill you thereby. Changing the “idea†of a spell into an “actual†spell actually seems like a pretty cool idea, and I may have an NPC villain do exactly that some day
And I insist NPC’s use the exact same rules as PC’s. I do not like DM fiat.
Where are we again? This thing is freaking huge!
I don’t address your argument because I think your MuMeVi example is non-sequiter. It is a trick of rhetoric.
I think no one is reading us this far... poor original poster, I hope your question were answered long ago.
This was interesting to me, because I find it more efficient to discover the meaning of a text when debating with someone. Alone with a book, it goes differently, I like the imput of the other, it demands to react to it accordingly, etc.
Anyway, if you want to continue this, I think you should pick your best argument, and then we debate only about this one. Then we could pick another if I win, etc, etc. I would be satisfied to leave the conclusion at the hypothetical other reader at this point.
(Because with that one spell, you need no others for such defense.)
Some very, VERY long posts - but I think this is what it comes down to:
Different readings of those "normal Vim rules"; that is, whether
any PeVi effect does indeed stop anything, even a spell being cast, even as or before it's cast,
or
whether most PeVi guidelines only affect spells after they have taken effect (as the rules state), and only that one general PeVi guideline (the last) is capable of stopping spellcasting.
Most all the arguments for both sides seem to have been presented above, and repeatedly. Any interested can weigh them and ask any further questions that seem unaddressed.
The basic model of a FCSD as people seem to be generally interpreting it to place some kind of barrier or interposing force between yourself and a physical attack is really a limited interpretation. Eventually this model breaks down when you move away from physical attacks and into more abstract kinds of spells. Like say anything mentem.
The physical form of the FCSD, to me, is pure fluff. Whatever makes sense, using the arts you used to cast it, that can provide a reasonable defense vs. the incoming spell and I am happy. Whether that takes the form of a barrier, a nullification of some kind, or yes a straight dispelling.
But this is fluff, the pure mechanic is simply that your 'appropriatte' defense must meet the casting efficacy requirements. Appropriatte in this sense I interpret to mean not that it must be specifically tailored to the effect at hand but that it must be somehow applicable to the effect at hand. No Creo Mentem defenses vs. an incoming PoF for example. Now a Creo Mentem defense vs. an incoming Rego Mentem attack, to bolster your own mental defenses in some way... perfectly legitimate IMO.
My point thereby is this. The FCSD model in the RAW already supports, through the nebulousness of exact 'means' by which a FCSD can work/be applied, a 'dispelling' or 'nullification' style of defense. What people really seem to be balking at is the prospect of improved self defense through formulaic versions of this.
For example, summoning the spout of water to nullify a water attack is something that only takes effect once the fire is already there to the same degree that a dispelling targeting that same fire would have to do so. The timing etc. is the same.
Now this would lead me to posit that not only are formulaic perdo vim spells perfectly legitimate... but so are formulaic fastcast defenses from other technique and form combinations, only those would logically be rather limited as they are not 'dispelling' techniques.
If I made a formulaic creo aquam spell to put out and or nullify fires, mastered it with fast casting, I think it would be the formulaic version of the proverbial spout of water shot at the PoF. Just now it is a formuliac spell instead of a spont. A formulaic counterspell vs. creo ignem spells from the aquam form. A very specific spell that most people are unlikely to invest in... unless they think they are going to square off with my good friend Marko.
Where is the problem with this? I don't see one. With the Creo Aquam model or the Perdo Vim.
I didn't wanted to push this one further on this forum, but I discussed a bit with Mark by pm and thought I could post this here.
I think Cuchulainshound made a very good resume of the arguments here. Each respective opinion is founded on the assumption of choosing 1) over 2) or 2) over 1).
Most of your post, Vortigern, assume we accept 1) is exact. But to show this is the case should be the conclusion of our thinking, not a postulate.
I've takent he liberty of rewritting Cuchulainshound's to make it more neutral:
There is different readings of those "normal Vim rules"; (we don't decide if only spontaneous OR spontaneous and formulaic can "counter" spells, just at this point);
that is;
1) any PeVi effect can stop any magic , even a spell being cast, as it's cast or the effect latter;
or
2) PeVi guidelines that "dispell" magic may only affect spells [i]after [/i]they have taken effect, so of duration longer than momentaneous.
I think there is also another question:
Is it possible to use a formulaic spell to stop/counter/nullify a spell ?
!) Yes, but at one condition. For it to be able to do so, the effect of that formulaic spell needs to stop/counter/nullify the effect of the opposite spell; (this means amongst other things that Spontaneous spells using the Vim dispell guidelines cannot be used to "counter" spells, only dispell non-momentaneous magic)
or
Yes, like 1) above, and there is another option available. A formulaic spell using the form of Vim needs not to be linked to the effect of the opposite spell, as Vim can "counter" any magic.
For those who would like to answer 1) to the first question, it seems p.21 of HoH:S could be used as a support. But you would have to explain why there is this restriction in ArM5 description of the spell WoMS : "WoMS does not affect spells of Momentary duration."
For those who would like to answer 2) at the second question: does this mean I can use Rego Vim also?
That sentence is a direct carry-over from 4th edition, where it said "Wind of Mundane Silence does not affect spells of Instant duration." (page 158), which refers to spells with permanent, non-magical effects, rather than spells whose effects only last a moment ("Momentary") or which have permanent, magical effects ("Permanent"). It is a reminder rather than an additional ruling: the effects of Instant spells could not be dispelled because the magic was gone.
From that, my understanding is that the "Momentary spells" in the 5th edition description of Wind of Mundane Silence refers to Creo Rituals, which have the same permanent, non-magical effects as "Instant"-duration spells of 4th edition.
So, in my opinion, Wind of Mundane Silence (or any other PeVi spell) can be fast-cast to dispel a spell as it is being cast -- in the case of a Creo Ritual, you would have in fact a pretty large window to disrupt the ritual casting -- but for a Momentary effect, there is nothing for you to dispel after the fact - the magic is gone, whether it left a permanent effect behind or not.
And for those who are up in arms that PeVi (or even ReVi or MuVi, if you get creative) allows you to counterspell anything, I reply: that's the whole point of Vim. It's very versatile when trying to affect magic and the supernatural in general, but when it comes to affecting the mundane world in general, you're SOL. It won't help you ward off a sword blow, for instance.
You might just as well complain that ReVi wards allow you to ward off entire Realms while ReTe wards further limit you to beings associated with Terram. Again, that's the point - there are many, many other things you can do with Terram. Vim will only affect spells and supernatural beings...
Casting spells at a good PeVi specialist is dumb. Swing a sword at him. Or (e.g. during Dimicatio) try to make it so that he cannot identify the form of the spell you're casting so he has to fall back on the much harder "general magic dispelling" guidelines.
(and now I feel bad because bolding text feels so much like screaming... )
Cuchulainshound is very eloquent when he say: "Until a spell is cast, there is no Vim target - and after it is cast is too late, ". There is an underlying difference all over the rules of Ars Magica that make a difference between the effect of a spell, and a mage actually casting a spell. And any dispelling magic would be effective only in the first case (which will require that spell to have some duration longer than momentary to be of any use, see down here). The two of them needs to be understood differently.
Sorry, but "It is NOT at all an outrageously powerfull spell. Not by a longshot. It is a weak spell with some minor utility against low level magic.
I personnaly only use it defensively.
poor original poster, I hope your question were answered long ago.
)