a) I can easily imagine it. Sort of the way the CrIg list offers multiple fire damage vs spell level options. A magus has a variety of ways to get more penetration, but once the spell is fixed at "gain X wp" it is just that, fixed. (And, from a character perspective, I can imagine the guy who is very pleased to get a "free" WP at the level 30 boundary. "I got 3 magnitudes of strong magical effect for the low, low cost of only 10 more Penetration. Such a bargain!" And then he tries to convince people that this qualifies as a 7th magnitude spell for becoming an archmagus, because the overall effect is 7th magnitude. Sure, he'll probably lose, but if he's a Tytalus he'll have fun doing it.)
b) Not everything in the rules is optimal! The same level MuCo(An) spell that lets you become a wolf could also let you become a more powerful size +1 animal. But, you know, wolf. Why become a raven when you could be an eagle? Etc. Or the oh so practical Tremere, why do they cultivate Certamen to the point where it cripples their magic? Etc. Etc. There are reasons, of course. But "optimal" in the sense that you are talking about isn't one of them. (Indeed, most things in the rules are suboptimal, for obvious reasons. It is not an accident that Aquam is a backwater.)
Anyway,
Ken
Ooh, a Tytalus archmagus' challenge might be to become an archmagus without developing the level 35 spell that is normally required. So far, only one magus succeeded, using his superior debating skills to convince other magi that his level 30 CrVi spell counts as level 35.
Notice that these are two entirely separate sentences. There is nothing in the second sentence stating that the damage comes from heat or flame at all. So we have an Ignem fire spell here that by your reasoning would still cause damage to someone with a Greater Immunity to heat and flame because there is nothing in the damage clause about it coming from heat or flame. Greater Immunity to heat and flame doesn't protect against Arc of Fiery Ribbons? Seriously? Come on.
Now, let's look more carefully at the problems with your claim:
"And" absolutely does not imply that the two statements must be separate at all. One could imply the other, even if not stated directly. For example, my friend's daughter was born recently in the USA and her daughter is an American citizen. There are two statements separated by "and." The second is the result of the first, yet the statement is valid with the "and" in there.
Why could "check whether he enters Twilight in the normal way" not refer to "Whenever a maga gains two or more Warping Points from a single event, rather than from prolonged exposure, she must add them to her current total, possibly increasing her Warping Score, and then roll to avoid Twilight." That is the "normal way," after all. There is no reason at all that this part of the sentence isn't saying that the reason for the Hermetic magus to make this check is due to the Warping that was inflicted.
You are claiming there is an effect/guideline separate from the giving of Warping Points that forces a magus to "check whether he enters Twilight in the normal way." How do you do such a check "in the normal way" if there are no Warping Points?
Would you make a magus hit by this spell roll once or twice for Twilight? If only once, then you would not be using your own interpretation. So I would presume you would have such a magus roll twice. Does anyone else here interpret it that a magus must roll twice for Twilight?
Most definitively, the spell level is not correct for your interpretation. Base 20 is needed for 4 Warping Points. Another +2 magnitudes is needed for R: Voice. There would need to be at least one more magnitude for an additional effect. Yet there is no additional magnitude, so there must not be an additional effect or the spell needs an erratum. Thus this interpretation does not fit the RAW on this spell.
Between the common sense issues, the lack of direct logical separation between the sentences, and this interpretation not matching RAW, I find it extremely difficult to accept this interpretation, especially considering the other interpretation (that the check is due to the Warping inflicted) has no such issues.
The malus of three to the target's Twilight avoidance comes into play only, if the target is Hermetically trained. This is AFAICS indeed the prime use case of such spells. But, unless the target is the caster's apprentice, casting The Enigma's Gift or Archmagus Ovarwa's Enigmatic Gift at an Hermetically trained person implies a life or death situation.
One member of the Order mustn't target another with such spells, unless in Wizard's War. If either caster or target are no longer in the Order, we have a Wizard's March situation. In both situations, no quarter can be expected.
If such a R: Voice spell penetrates in situations without quarter, the target typically does not have the two minutes "bringing her magic under control" (ArM5 p.88). She would be killed or subdued for good during that time. She can either surrender to a most uncertain fate, or "choose not to resist Twilight" (ArM5 p.88 too) and take refuge in it. And there the 3 more Warping Points amount to nearly zilch: their puny influence on Twilight Time (ArM5 p.88 once more) is diluted in the stress dice.
This is a question that I believed I asked myself on the forums quite some time ago (though I can't find the thread right now). I think it's a very common and "natural" question to ask. Unlike most people here, I would not disallow Immunity to Warping based on game balance reasons (with the potential exception of some non-hermetic traditions, e.g. Learned Magicians). Note that in this sense a Death Prophecy is at least as "unbalanced". I would disallow it on for a) "philosophical" reasons and b) for "gamist" reasons.
In terms of philosophical reasons, I'd point out that warping is not a hazard; it's the outcome of a hazard, or, in fact, of a broad spectrum of hazards (powerful supernatural stuff). You can be immune to fire, which automatically prevents you from taking damage from fire, but you can't be immune to damage. You can be immune to a deadly hazard, but you can't be immune to death. Similarly, you could be immune to a specific type of supernatural threat (say, Divine Miracles!) in which case (among other things) you would not take warping from being exposed to it. But I would consider a distortion of the spirit of the Virtue to allow complete avoidance of warping, from any source. Note that this is exactly the problem that makes one wonder if you can be immune to warping and still enter twilight.
In terms of gamist reasons, Immunities are fun because, when possessed by opponents they force PCs to adopt "creative" approaches, and when possessed by PCs they allow said PC to really "shine" when confronting that threat - whether the PC is a dragon-slaying knight or holy hermit that ministers to the victims of a pestilence without ever catching the disease himself. Immunity to warping in this sense is ... meh. It does not make opponents more fun. And for the PCs, it's something that's somewhat useful in the long run, rather than allowing great moments of shining glory.
What if you were to simply do immunity-final twilight, and find a way to expand the times in the table upwards. Of course at some point "twilight of 500 years" could seem a lot like final twilight...
All virtues and flaws need to fit a concept, and that concept needs to fit a saga. What is right and proper and reasonable for one saga will not be for another. The trouble with asking questions of this form, of whether a particular Focus/Immunity or whatever is reasonable is that you're asking for an objective opinion on something that has a very large subjective impact on a given saga.
For games I'm in, both playing and SGing, Immunity to warping is, as ezzelino said, rather meh. Objectively, it doesn't meet the guidelines of what an immunity is, but that can be waved, though I wouldn't, if there's enough buy in from everyone else at the table. All too often, though, I see questions posed here that can end up negating other rules within the system that place checks on characters. Those checks are spots where stories can be generated. I don't see a lot of story potential with this concept, though there are a few instances where I could see this being useful. I don't see how the virtue provides a huge impact on playing the character, but instead provides something of a hedge against going out in Final Twilight, indeed (despite One Shot's insistence to the contrary) experiencing any Twilight. How often does it happen where magi actually go into Final Twilight in a saga? I know I've heard stories here and there, but anecdotal evidence here suggests most sagas end before the magi are advanced enough to worry about that end of the character; or the magi are active enough in adventures that they face actual death long before Final Twilight becomes a concern.
Callen, your Arc of Fiery Ribbons strawman doesn't merit an answer.
Strawman again. "And" just puts two statements side by side. It makes no statement about their connection, and doesn't posit any. Any connection between the two needs to come from elsewhere.
"must check to see whether he enters Twilight in the normal way" is a reference to the formula for Twilight Avoidance on ArM5 p.88, but it does not syntactically relate to the Warping Points. The phrase doesn't give the reason you wish to read into it.
Strawman again about my claims. There is no level 20 CrVi Guideline in ArM5, that The Enigma's Gift could refer to - so we have to read the spell description closely to understand its relation to the existing Guidelines. The formula for Twilight Avoidance on ArM5 p.88 works very well also with Number of Warping Points gained = 0.
There is no indication in the CrVi Guidelines and the description of The Enigma's Gift, that a magus gaining two or more Warping Points from such spells does not have to roll for Twilight Avoidance. We have here a simple, general case, where p.88 is applied as written.
This does not say, that in case of a Greater Immunity: Warping which no author anticipated, the immunity to Warping also confers immunity to side-effects explicitly and separately mentioned by the spell description: in our case, the roll for Twilight Avoidance.
Not every additional effect implies an extra magnitude. See ArM5 p.115, and consider, that affecting only a weird Greater Immunity: Warping differently is at best cosmetic.
This reading to and fro of a spell description is not helping with the purpose of this thread. A Greater Immunity: Warping can be easily exploited - with and without my literal reading of The Enigma's Gift.
A magus with this immunity and a smattering of Enigmatic Wisdom just needs access to Twilight or the Twilight Void (e. g. to the Hypostasis in the Axis Magica, the regio of the Cave of Twisting Shadows). Then he can exploit his immunity to gain multiple Virtues per season without any relevant balance.
The base 20 guideline can easily be seen as an omission from the guideline list. Also, the guidelines weren't ever meant to be exhaustive. There is evidence of interpolation and extrapolation that is expected of troupes throughout the book and on this forum. I believe it has been stated elsewhere (perhaps by callen, too) that the damage guidelines under Creo Ignem can be interpolated for amounts between the different base guidelines. Considering that CrVi base 5 grants a Warping point, Base 10 grants 2 and base 15 grants three, it's not at all unreasonable to extrapolate that base 20 grants 4 warping points, and it seems somewhat obvious that the guideline exists, because the spell exists, and guidelines that do a similar thing, but to a lesser degree also exist.
Similar to your argument that there is no Base 20 guideline for the spell involved, even though it can be extrapolated from the existing guidelines, there is no guideline that forces a Twilight avoidance check, nor is there any evidence that one can extrapolate that the spell does two things: grant 4 warping points AND force a Twilight avoidance check. Spells rarely do two things at once, and when they do, they probably have requisites, but off the top of my head I can't think of a spell that does two different and disparate effects. Avoiding Twilight happens because one receives warping points, period; that's how the Twilight mechanics work. If Enigma's gift doesn't provide warping points due to the recipient of the spell being immune to Warping, then the recipient doesn't check for Twilight.
Simply, the spell description for Enigma's Gift and the existing Creo Vim guidelines for inflicting Warping Points, when combined with how Twilight mechanics work doesn't give the reason you wish to read into it.
(underscore newly added) Weird, that you take seven long and banal lines to paraphrase and expound my - now underscored - statement above, after you quoted it.
Rather, by ArM5 p.157 The Enigma's Gift creates "a burst of magic", and not some Warping Points directly. Through this "burst of magic" the "target of the spell gains four Warping Points and, if a Hermetic magus, must check whether he enters Twilight in the normal way." If the target is immune to the Warping, it is not necessarily also immune to the check for Twilight. That is something you have to house-rule, if you accept a Greater Immunity: Warping into your saga.
If you are not worried about penetration the more warping spell is much better. It has a higher chance to send the target into twilight, it has a better chance of keeping the target there longer or even permanently.
When would you not be worried about penetration? When you have an arcane connection and some sympathetic connections.
When would you do a warping attack with an arcane connection? When you are using intangible tunnel or some other tunnel spell.
If you send a target into permanent twilight with enigma's gift then there is very little chance that there will even be an investigation, that the target will even look like they've been attacked. Magus in laboratory succumbs to final twilight- That doesn't look like an assassination. (especially if you perdo vim the spell traces).
If you aren't going to use the spell on other magi why do you have it rather than spont it for those odd times it might come in handy? If you are going to use it on other magi why are planning on employing it when it looks like it will be resisted? To take the low level high penetration option seems like planning for failure. (Unless you're learning from lab notes just so you can master it for defense in which case who cares how you cast it, only the bonus to your parma matters so don't look a gift horse in the mouth.)
I haven't looked through the other warping paths with this in mind but I'd be surprised if there weren't a few other traditions where throwing warping points at a magician caused some inconvenience.
And again a more focused immunity (warping from spells, or maybe just spells you attempt to resist) could be more acceptable. In fact this would make a lot of sense in my mind- if I am immune to the warping of hostile spells that means that if I barely survive a CrIg attack of level 30 or higher (for example, ball of abysmal flame) I don't also accumulate warping from the attack.
The Enigma's Gift and Archmagus Ovarwa's Enigmatic Gift are R: Voice spells. So clearly not optimized for tunneling. And at R: Voice their Hermetically trained target is out of action if such a spell penetrates. The few Warping Points more or less are nearly irrelevant for the time the target is out of action. Whether it enters Twilight voluntarily and quickly, or struggles for two minutes against it, does not matter: the fight is over for it, and it is at the mercy of the victors.
Yes, a spell made for tunneling - hence R: Touch - is quite another animal. But The Enigma's Gift isn't optimized for that.
For assassination via tunnel and with carefully collected ACs to an old, powerful but Warping-ridden magus there are many other considerations I will not delve into here. Probably you will design a CrVi spell in secret and take into account all you know about that target, with R:Touch and just the right mix between Warping and Penetration. But it's level is limited by the tunnel's, and making that tunnel penetrate first will be tough and critical. Can you PeVi spell traces of the tunnel you used to send the PeVi broom over?
Well, here we can see the Wizard's Twilight is explicitly the reaction of Hermetic magi to Warping. That should help clarify things.
I might tend to agree with some others that Warping may not be appropriate, while a cause of Warping may be. That would probably be up to troupes. Of course, the is already a Major Virtue that makes you immune to Warping (and aging).
Um, no. What you say is true in the domain of formal logic. In that context, "There is a baby in Havover and a cup of tea costs 2 dollars" implies no connection at all between there being a baby in Hanover and the 2 dollar cost of a cup of tea, other than both propositions being true.
In English as a living language, that is absolutely not the case. The syntax works fine for you, but listeners (readers) expect a connection.
And the rest..... oh, hell. Do what you want.
In our post-post-(post?)-modern world, words mean whatever you want them to. So your reading is every bit as valid as peanut butter glibness tree.
Anyway,
Ken
FWIW, I have been enjoying a similar conversation on one of the D&D boards, in which some guy explains why a spell works opposite to the way the book says it does, due to a combination of rigorous formal logic and postmodern literary analysis. What's happening here is not that extreme, but...
My main issue isn't about the power, although it does mess with the primary check on what a character can do: A guy who doesn't Warp can be laden with all the good temporary constant effects. Going Twilight is exceedingly difficult, and some other magical traditions with worse consequences benefit even more. Other goodies, but I'll stop there.
No, my main issue is that it runs against something that I consider to be some of the fundamental thematic underpinnings of the game.
Humans do not live forever. The supernatural realms are dangerous and each exerts a powerful attractive force. Becoming part of a realm makes a person less, not more, severely inhibiting growth and choice. In AM5, Warping is the primary game mechanic through which all of this is expressed, unifying disparate rules from previous editions.
Normally, the only way to be immune to Warping is to already be part of a supernatural realm, and the rules for this already exist (though I recommend not allowing a PC to have this.)
I don't even like the idea of being immune to a source of Warping. For one thing, an enterprising player will choose something like "Hermetic Magic." But at a deeper level, being immune to a source of Warping means that a supernatural realm exerts no influence over that character. It doesn't make sense to me, for a person who has freedom of choice and action. He can be marked by heaven, hell, faerie or magic, and be drawn out of the normal world (again represented by Warping.)
I find this much worse, though probably less powerful, than being immune to damage.
Ah. Now you get my point. You now disagree with your earlier statement about which I made this. You posited that they are two separate things due to the word "and." Now you agree that your earlier statement is invalid.
You misunderstand. I'm not saying it gives any reason. I allowed for both cases. You are the one specifically saying this is not the case. Yet you fail to account for why it cannot be the case. Thus the phrase doesn't give the reason you wish to read into it, not I.
I understand you didn't follow my formal logic on this. Sorry. For example, lying in bed sleeping does not give Warping Points. Is that the same as it being an event that gives Warping Points and those Warping Points happen to be 0? These are logically two different things even if the change is the same in each case.
You entirely sidestepped the question. Would you make a typical magus roll for Twilight Avoidance twice when subject to this spell?
Also, how is it that you know what all the authors anticipated?
You have said that this is an effect in addition to the Warping, separate from it. You're now changing what you're arguing. Of course my points about your prior point won't necessarily apply to your new one.
How exactly would one go about that? As far as I can tell, what you gain from a positive Twilight experience with 0 Warping Points is: a Twilight Scar and one of 1) 0 points in an Art, Magic Theory, or Enigmatic Wisdom; or 2) a 0th-level spell chosen by the storyguide. I'm not saying you're wrong about this abuse, but I can't find it.
Thank you all for your thoughts on the matter. I must admit I felt something off with the virtue and couldn't quite put my finger on it. With your collective contribution, I now have a better grasp of the question.
/w