General Spells Guide

[callen]

@Ovarwa

My main points of disagreement here revolve around the following:

• Just because something seems like it could be general, doesn't mean that it is. For example, if I have guidelines for level 5/10/15/20/25 spells that produce +5/10/15/20/25 damage, it does not mean that I also have (or deserve to have) guidelines for 30/35....100 to produce corresponding amounts of damage.

That's not a point if disagreement. I have shown that, according to canon, General spells can have limits. So the guidelines of 5/10/15/20/25 (assuming the rest of the spell is the same and these are just power variations) are sufficient to make it a General spell. There is no implication whatsoever that this pattern must continue. You seem to have misread what I wrote.

@Ovarwa

• Just because it seems reasonable for the general rules to have precedence over specific, unstated but consistent trends throughout the rules, doesn't mean that this is reasonable at all. For example, since there isn't a single example of a Hermetic spell having a magnitude above 5 that is not a multiple of 5, and since there are no rules for constructing such a spell beyond GM fiat, I think it is quite reasonable to consider the sentence suggesting that spells of level 17.3 are possible to have been ignored during editing, or otherwise superseded by reality.

Can I not take Demon's Eternal Oblivion (PeVi 17)? And, how are there no rules? For example, let's say I start with a base of 7 and add two magnitudes for Individual/Momentary/Voice to reach 17. No SG fiat there, just following the rules for constructing spells. Also, there are in-game reasons to use multiples of five. Examples: it's more efficient for vis use, if you use integer bases 1-5 that's all you hit, and it gets you the most powerful spell without hitting certain caps (warping above 25 and rituals above 50). And then there are the out-of-game reasons such as it being easier for the writers. Finally, a lack of examples of intermediate levels doesn't mean there is any rule superseding it; that is incorrect logically: a lack of examples contrary to something is very, very different from a counterexample.

Regardless, an SG can rule that way (only by 5's above 5) and this does not stop a spell from being a General spell, as I showed from canon sources. Monotonic increase is fine for General spells.

@Ovarwa

• Just because "General spells" are presented as a coherent, consistent concept in the core rules does not this concept ever really was coherent or consistent, rather than a half-baked "we know it when we see it." No example here, but there is a consequence: Any attempt to codify General spells represents a new (and possibly improved) body of rules rather a restoration of any ancient and fully-formed intention.

However, I was trying to go by canon to see if there is something logically consistent, and there is. Since there is no contradiction, it's hard to say any later writers didn't follow the original, coherent, consistent concept perfectly, whether intentionally or not. Now, when we turn to Adaptive Casting, we start to see where an original concept can get mangled with later writing. And, of course, you can always choose to throw out what canon says, but then that wouldn't be figuring out what canon says. If you want to throw out parts of canon for your own game, fine; but that's not disagreement with me, that's deciding to change the rules.

@Ovarwa

@callen

As long as two spells do the same thing (including Technique/Form, Range/Duration/Target, etc.) at a different level, the level only changing the power of the effect, the two spells are different versions of the same General spell. It does not matter if the guideline says “general,” nor if the power increase happens from one level to the next or requires multiple levels, nor if there is a maximum effective level. This is necessarily true, either explicitly or implicitly, according to canon.

Maybe not. It is not at all clear that a spell that uses one guideline to produce +5 damage is equivalent to a spell that uses another guideline to produce +10 damage, even though the spells are in all other respects identical. Sure, to us it looks like this is just a +5 increase in power. But the effect that produces this power might be a bit different within the game world.

Yet again, you're not arguing against what I said. You're saying if the two spells do something at least a little different (which means not the same), they're not two versions of the same General spell. You can't really say they're identical in all respects except the damage while saying they're actually a bit different, as you're contradicting yourself. Meanwhile, your statement applies just as well to guidelines that are listed as general. In fact, we know this happens when spells cross the level-50 threshold. So are you going to similarly bar all guidelines labeled as "general" as allowing for General spells, or are you going to pick and choose between them using something not stated by canon?

@Ovarwa

Darius learned a specific version of DEO, and this is at level 30. He did not learn all the other versions, and these are not on his character sheet.

You seem to be missing the logical rule. If a spell is listed as a General spell, we know it is a General spell. But we can frequently find spells that are General spells listed at specific levels as well. So when you find a spell listed at a specific level, you cannot discern from that listing whether it is a General spell or not. This is just a logical statement not implying its converse. If a spell is labeled General, then it is a General spell. The converse, if a spell is not labeled General, then it is not a General spell, does not follow from the first statement.

Or we could consider the following. What would you say about these two?

1. A guideline is labeled as general, giving +# of something per magnitude. Can that make a General spell?
2. A spell listed independently, like in the back section of ArM5 (i.e. not for a specific character, nor for a lab text, nor for anything similar), is written as level 20 (, not as a General spell. Can this spell be a General spell?

@Ovarwa

BoAF is not general because no guideline used in its construction allows for varying power in the manner described. BoTF is not general for the same reason. Once I slot in the guideline and RTD, exactly one possible spell level exists. Not very general.

Let's look at your logic. You are stating a necessary condition for a General spell is that it use a single guideline listed with variation. If that were true, your logic would hold. Now let's test your hypothesis that this necessary condition is valid. Look at the definition of a General spell: your condition isn't there. Look at the examples: there are many that are not based on any guideline listed with variation. So your hypothesis is not only not listed, but it is contradicted by canon. Thus your necessary condition of a single guideline listed with variation is false.

This is essentially the same incorrect reasoning as the very first thing I showed we have known to be false since the first printing of the core book. The only difference is that you're not restricting your statement to guidelines being listed as "general," leaving open guidelines such as this one:

@RoP:tD p.52

Level 50: Create a terrestrial regio at level 1. Adding five levels increases the level by one, or adds an extra layer. A character who creates a regio is able to enter and leave it as though he were a native inhabitant of the region.

So, while yours is a bit broader, like what I directly addressed your argument is based on General spells following a rule you're making up and that disagrees with canon.

@Ovarwa

Two ways to go: Either CrIg should have been given a General guideline of "base level = base damage" but the core rules were written and edited before we had enough experience with the game and therefore got it wrong, or guidelines for level 50 ==> +50 damage do not exist and the core rules mean what they say.

Why only those two ways?

We've already seen multiple cases of confusion when dealing with guidelines listed as "general" that I don't believe we've seen at all when variations are written in other ways, such as the RoP:tD one I quoted above. We've also seen a lot of errata issued over mathematical mistakes when trying to write formulas for guidelines labeled "general." So maybe it would have been better to never write guidelines as "general" at all, but to write them all like the RoP:tD quote. Sometimes it is easier to write one way, or sometimes even another way might be easier. For example, let's say you have exactly the same variation for every guideline in a list; then it's far easier to make a single statement like +5/magnitude for all of them than it is to write that into every single guideline, plus it saves space, which is always an issue with publishing these books.

As for the CrIg guidelines going to +50, the core rules do not say they don't to go +50. Please don't try to imply they say that as it is simply untrue. We already know the core rules show that you are not limited to the listed guidelines; anyone who claims otherwise has multiple points of disagreement with the core rules and thus is introducing a house rule. We also already know CrIg damage goes well above what is listed in the core rules, that no new guideline was written, that this is consistent with the core rules, and that no errata have been issued about this.

There are plenty more than those two ways to go. Needlessly forcing such personal restrictions based only your preferences means all logic that follows from it is based only on what your preferences, not on what is actually written.

@callen

It doesn’t matter that the Creo Ignem table ends at +30 and the Perdo Ignem table ends at +10 (besides which, we know Creo Ignem actually goes up to at least +45 (HoH:S p.37) and Perdo Ignem actually goes up to at least +20 (ArM5 p.142)).

Unless it does matter. Did the guy who used the +45 have to invent a new guideline? Were new guidelines sneaked in (whether or not they were printed?) Did he use a general guideline of the sort you describe? Or, as happens so often in AM supplements, is it best just to consider this as homebrew that got published?
[/quote]
First, all your points here are irrelevant to the argument. You seem to have misread. I showed that a limit does not prevent a spell from being a General spell. Whether those +45 and +20 exist or not is completely irrelevant to the spell being a General spell. Maybe I shouldn't have included that parenthetical note, but I gave people the benefit of the doubt on following the logic while pointing out those related, somewhat hidden examples.

As for your comments on that parenthetical note, consider the following:

1. It was done exactly the same way with PeIg in the core book. This is something that has been the case since the first printing of the core book, not something snuck in later.
2. Not only does the core book demonstrate that a damage may be increased this way without guidelines explicitly listing it, but also multiple other times the core book demonstrates that the lists of guidelines are incomplete.
3. Whether you like it or not, it's in published canon. Deciding to ignore it even though it follows precedent from the core rules is not following canon. I am presenting canon. As I said before, you're welcome to make your own house rules.

@Ovarwa

I'm not saying that your rules are better or worse, only that they are your rules.

Says the person who just disagreed with me based on a number of misreadings of what I wrote and based on a number of things with no listed bases in the books. Please, based on what is actually written in the books, show me what part of the logic is incorrect. And why would you assume these are my rules? I'm revealing what canon says. I don't always follow what is written in canon. But I like to know what canon says so I can make an informed decision on house rules, and I know it is good form to state a house rule that differs from canon instead of assuming others automatically know my house rules.

@Ovarwa

The great thing about starting with an inconsistent system, of course, is that we are valid wherever we end up!

Of course, the great thing here is the rules are actually 100% consistent for General spells (not Adaptive Casting). So we don't need to worry on that front. Again, please, based on what is actually written in the books, show me what part of the logic is incorrect. So far the only objections to what I wrote about General spells (from multiple people) have themselves been based upon rules that are contradictory to canon instead of based upon canon.