Help with spell II

Another player, another spell.

He wants to devise a boundary ritual that allows them to automatically know when a non-mundane beast of any kind crosses the boundaries.

I would assume something like..

How does this sound?

I'll let someone else fine tune it, but I think you can drop the Vim requisite. Even with the requisite though, as it one of those "neccesary for function" types rather than an enhancer, I don't think the magnitude needs to be raised. The fact that it is a ritual should suffice.

Since it's specifically discriminating between "non-magical" and magical beasties, I think it does need something "Vim-ish" there, but since it basically does little more than the basic InAn spell achieves, I wouldn't say that the requisite would cost.

InAn(Vi) 25
(Base 1, +4 year, +4 Boundary, free Requisite)

Downside of a spell like this is that to sense the beastie passing the boundary, it has to penetrate. So you'd certainly pick up the might 10 critters but a dragon would likely sail right over with no warning.

I suppose he wants to sense a fixed boundary and not a moving one.
Personal range isn't suitable because he has to cast on the area. So touch is the right range. With personal range he would sense if HE is a magical animal.
Vim req is right.

IF the spell would send the image to anywhere the magus is the Arc range is a must.

I think the arcane connection range is overstepping it a bit. But range touch is definately required, since the boundary is the target, not you personally.

For the rest I agree with the previous comments: you will have to note the penetration when casting the ritual (it needs to be a ritual, don't forget) to see how high the might of detectible creature can be.
Yes Vim requisite, but no raise in magnitude.

This might well be considered scrying if some bjornjaer passes by...

I like the idea. Especially since it's not too powerfull, but it does build in a nice dramatic effect. Remember that only the caster sees the image and he doesn't know where the creature is exactly.

Hum... Since heartbeasts aren't magical creatures, they shouldn't be affected, so, there shouldn't be any scrying, no?

I threw in the Vim requisite because the guidelines for Animal only seem to discriminate Magical beasts, while Divine and Infernal would probably only be detected by Vim - and Infernal only if it wished so, IIRC. Faerie is just random and could fit anywhere.

Upping the Range to Touch and dropping the level for the requisite would give him the same level, so perhaps that is the way, and I wish him good luck with the penetration :slight_smile:


Sorry serfs parma, do you know if an In spell is resisted in this edition? If so it would seem that you would always know if a beast with a might passes the wards, regardless. On the other hand if penetration is going to be required, in this is already a ritual, maybe putting the pawns of vis into a stronger (or lab depending on your intent) Aegis would be a better option.


It is indeed a bit of a paradox, but to detect something with magic resistance only requires a spell that can easily be resisted.

But while "a mage" can pull this off, it's harder to have a waiting spell, ring or item discriminate the diff.

How about an Int Aur spell to detect boundaries, throw in an An, He, Te, Co req and the spell notifies you of anything that pushes the air aside, but it cannot identify.

Not entirely sure if 'air' moves in 13th century science. Sounds althogether a bit 'tech' for me that one. Wind moves for sure, but moving objects displacing air... I dunno; maybe I need to read more medieval science books.

It also starts to feel a bit like the kind of practices we had in earlier editions of the game where parma was much more limited in its effects and thus magi spent enormous amouns of time trying to 'sneak' past the rules.

Well, objects displace water, that's clear, as had been handed down since Archimedes. But when that was formally acknowledged to be true of gases (or when "gases" were recognized as such, for that matter!) is another question. (As opposed to "the element of air", that is.)

In fact, "mass" was generally attributed only to things that were tangible, and "air" was so taken for granted that it was not recognized as having "mass" until... when?

Cylinder pumps for water were used in Egypt since before the Current Era, but whether that particular paradigm was understood as such is unclear from my material at hand.

Even researching this is tough - having a hard time googling this - not even sure what key words to type in! Everything points to later concepts:

The fact that vacuum exists and air has weight: these are the revolutionary concepts proved by the famous experiment of Evangelista Torricelli, performed in Florence in 1644.


But I'll agree with RK that it does sound a bit like an "end run" around the intention of the rules. Clever, creative, but perhaps not fully in the spirit of the Medieval Paradigm. Or, maybe not.

(And who was it who, as a child, asked their parent(s) "If God is everywhere, and I walk into a room, is there a little less of him there then?" A prodigy, but the idea of "displacement" was clear in the mind of a child at that period. Can't remember who that was, or when, if he was modern of medieval. A composer? Philosopher? Damn. frustrating.)