Hermetic Recovery Ward?

[Jonathan.Link]

@DIREWOLF75

Only if it is a Creo spell that actually creates something.

In the example presented, light is created. One could argue the guidelines for heat an object are creating heat, same with the ones to ignite. It's beyond the scope of this discussion, though.

@DIREWOLF75

A spell that is Ring AND Circle will still end for a target when it moves outside of the circle.
Otherwise you must have a different Duration.

Right, I wasn't saying it must be Ring and Circle. I was saying that these duration and target choices are options to consider. Going to have a difficult birth? Stay in the circle until you give birth. I presented a spell that has a T:Circle and D:Moon

@Jonathan.Link

CrCo 25 The Healing Ward
Base 5: Give a character a +12 Bonus to Recovery rolls, R:Touch D:Moon T:Circle

If the Target can stay in for D:Ring, can others go in and out? Can food be handed over the ring? Fair questions to ask.

[Erik_Tyrrell]

@Vespasian

I agree this is the efficient way to do it, but the OP wanted an enchanted item, so...

@humboldtscott

• Range: ?
• Duration: constant effect device: duration sun, 2 uses per day, environmental trigger adds two magnitudes and 4 levels.
• Target: Would group be sufficient or would you use room?

R: touch (can't be personal, you can just place the device in the room and it will be touch.
S: constant (as described above)
T: Room (since it's the same level as group you might as well!)

I'd enchant the room as a lesser enchanted device (no need to deal with opening the item for enchantment) this would allow you to go to range personal and save five levels.
I'd also just do duration sun with 2 uses per day. Make the users turn it on every sunrise and sunset. That way you reduce unwanted warping of the room due to long tern effects and you save yourself another three levels.

[Vespasian]

@Erik Tyrrell

you to go to range personal and save five levels.

... except you explicitly have to use R: Touch or greater to affect T: Room, even if the room itself is enchanted.
tsktsk

I'd also just do duration sun with 2 uses per day. Make the users turn it on every sunrise and sunset. That way you reduce unwanted warping of the room due to long tern effects and you save yourself another three levels.

true enough

[callen]

The problem with enchanting a room is getting the room into and out of your lab. That's why I prefer devices that can be affixed to the room and use T: Room or similar.

Chris

[ezzelino]

@Xavi

We read it differently:

@DIREWOLF75

The spell affects everything within a ring drawn by the magus at the time of casting

So it depends where you put the punctuation, I guess. For us the magus needs to draw the circle. Then it will affect anything within it, regardless of it being in or out of the circle at the time of casting.

This is our reading as well: the spell affects everything within a ring that was drawn, at the time of casting, by the magus.

An alternative reading would be: the spell affects everything that, at the time of casting, was within a ring drawn by the magus. But while the sentence is ambiguous, there are three reasons why the first interpretation seems the correct one.

1. When some temporal complement ("at the time of casting") may equally apply to multiple portions of the sentence, the portion closest to the complement is the most likely candidate. It's the same reason why, when I say "I sold on ebay the painting I made last week", in the absence of any other information one should assume that "last week" applies to the making of the painting, not to the selling.

2. An identical expression is used in the description of the Ring duration: "within a ring drawn at the time of casting"; and in that case, there is little doubt that "at the time of casting" applies to the action of drawing. It seems likely that two identical expressions in the same page should be read in the same way -- it would be very bad writing if it were not the case.

3. Assuming that "at the time of casting" applies not to the drawing, but to the presence of the target, then a magus could affect anything that, at the time of casting, is within a circle drawn sometimes in his lifetime (even months or years before the casting!) which seems against the way the target Circle is supposed to work.

[gerg]

@callen

The problem with enchanting a room is getting the room into and out of your lab. That's why I prefer devices that can be affixed to the room and use T: Room or similar.

Why does this discussion make me want to have a room as my talisman....

[Xavi]

I have seen a ship talisman (and someone trying to have a whale familiar, though he failed), so that would not be that strange. Main problem would me to move it around. But you can always have a Tardis talisman if you manage the calculations.

Xavi

[Tellus]

@gerg

Why does this discussion make me want to have a room as my talisman....

I've toye a bit with that ide before, and believe it has merit.

@Xavi

But you can always have a Tardis talisman if you manage the calculations.

Not really planning on the 'bigger on the inside' aspect as it's a bit messy n ArM. Instead I was planning a foldable room, inspired by the ship owned by the god Frey.

[Xavi]

I guess not time travel either, heheh. In any case I was thinking more on the "teleporting room talisman" idea A small tower teleporting around is cool after all. It is likely to warp rapidly, so it can easily develop a personality of her own. Maybe she likes to land in high places to have a view regardless of the inconvenience for the occupants

"Jake, did the Lord plan on building a watchtower by the seaside?"
"I don't think so Bob. Why?"
"Then we'd better call the priest. There is some supernatural presence in the cliff-top. A watchtower just appeared there"

Xavi

[humboldtscott]

@Jonathan.Link

I'm not sure why she would care about creating an item for helping others out then, unless I'm misunderstanding Luciferianism.

Well, to be particular, its the blend of beliefs she was given by her Parens, which is a bit of a hodge-podge of Catharism, Dark Gnosticism, and Luciferianism. She wants to create an item because she knows that the world is run by a cruel, wicked, and capricious God, the same one who once turned the world upside down by kicking out his most humble servant Lucifer for no good reason, thus proving himself unfit to rule.

God created everything and is part of everything. Therefore he created the snake in the garden, including its intentions to share knowledge of good and evil with humanity, so they would know how not to offend God During the fall, God was actually part of adam, eve, the serpent, and the apple. They committed no crime, but if they did, God was their partner in crime. Yet he punished all the criminals except himself. Everyone else has "done their time." It is God's turn to be subject to his own judgement.

She doesn't "trust God" (aka dice), so she wants an item.

She wants it to affect multiple people, so it will not only help her during any difficult moments in her pregency and delivery, but also help her twins survive after they are born.

After that, she'll be done with it. By gifting it to the covenant, she got others to help pay for the cost, AND appears altruistic and kind.

Just because she's an infernalist doesn't mean she's out of the closet (yet) and she finds that acts of charity help to quell rumors. The new "Hospital of St. Paul" should do nicely in that regard.

Injured Grogs who recover there might feel a "debt of gratitude" and who doesn't like to have people in their debt.

Just because she's a witch doesn't mean she rides around on a broom cackling "I'll get you, my pretties." That is such a stereotype.

Otherwise, it's a pretty straightforward item creation process....

Straightforward? Have you been following this thread, or any threads for that matter?

One simple question, 2 pages of responses, and we're now debating whether or not you can walk into/out of a circle if its installed on the roof and you've dropped your Parma.

I honestly wonder how anyone ever actually plays this game. After the last session descended into serious arguing over lab creation rules, I introduced a new house rule:

"If you ask for a short explanation of my reasoning in interpreting a rule, I'll give it. If you then further argue against my interpretation, I'll get up out of my chair, put my dog in my place, and go sit outside reading some light fiction until there is no more argument. You can try to convince my dog all you want, but as you all know, she is tough to sway and unlikely to give into your arguments."

The rule seems to have gone over well, but I think my players thought I was joking. I'm not.

[Tellus]

@humboldtscott

I honestly wonder how anyone ever actually plays this game.

Usually easily and smoothely enough, as it happens

After the last session descended into serious arguing over lab creation rules, I introduced a new house rule:

"If you ask for a short explanation of my reasoning in interpreting a rule, I'll give it. If you then further argue against my interpretation, I'll get up out of my chair, put my dog in my place, and go sit outside reading some light fiction until there is no more argument. You can try to convince my dog all you want, but as you all know, she is tough to sway and unlikely to give into your arguments."

... soooooooo tempted to steal that rule, substituting my cat for your dog.
That would only work in one of my sagas though, as he lives with his other [strike]staff[/strike] humans.

[Jonathan.Link]

@humboldtscott

@Jonathan.Link

Otherwise, it's a pretty straightforward item creation process....

Straightforward? Have you been following this thread, or any threads for that matter?

One simple question, 2 pages of responses, and we're now debating whether or not you can walk into/out of a circle if its installed on the roof and you've dropped your Parma.

Sure. Ars Magica is vast and deep and there are many ways to get what you want. You've said you're on Forumrunner on numerous occasions, if you were looking at the forum in the browser, you would see the following Tag Line under the Ars Magica Forum when viewed from the Board Index or Games Discussion pages: "The greatest magic ever discussed at great length." I started off down the road of well, maybe there are other ways of accomplishing what you want. If you want us to design an item for you, you need to provide a better scope of resources available to her, and her LT, including aura and any helpers she might be able to bring into the lab.

I think, to be fair and what feels right to me is that someone leaves the circle, they can't re-enter the circle and receive the benefit of the spell. But that isn't explicitly stated in the RAW, so it requires a HR when it is T:Circle. D:Ring is explicit. Going with T:Room for this item/spell solves some issues of irregularity of a room or issues related to leaving a circle.

Ultimately this is a question of logistics that we can't answer without knowing more about your saga. And speaking seriously for a moment, she will need to drop her Parma, unless she designs the spell/enchantment with sufficient penetration to penetrate her Corpus MR.

This is a simple logistics exercise. What are the resources available, what are her capabilities, and does she have a holocaust cloak (just kidding). So, basically, we'll presume she has three months to do this, which means that the spell or item level must be 1/2 of her LT. It means it is either a spell or a Lesser Device. Even if it is a standard enchantment item, she only has 3 months to do it, as it takes 3 months to invest the device and she still is limited by half her lab total if she wants it done in 3 months. I think going with a T:Room is probably the easiest and most straightforward (preventing arguments). Then the duration is D:Sun with someone ostensibly operating it at sunrise and sun down. You could, do D:Concentration and an Environmental Trigger of Sunrise/Sunset, but that may take up too much of her lab total. Don't know, can't answer it, only you and she can answer that issue.

There is one other thing to take into consideration. A spell might be more advantageous now, if she has 6 months. With six months she can produce a more powerful effect. If she later creates an item, she'll get a bonus to the item creation because she knows a similar spell. If she has 6 months, she can create something that is 3/4 of her lab total in strength, accumulating the points necessary over two seasons.

@humboldtscott

I honestly wonder how anyone ever actually plays this game. After the last session descended into serious arguing over lab creation rules, I introduced a new house rule:

"If you ask for a short explanation of my reasoning in interpreting a rule, I'll give it. If you then further argue against my interpretation, I'll get up out of my chair, put my dog in my place, and go sit outside reading some light fiction until there is no more argument. You can try to convince my dog all you want, but as you all know, she is tough to sway and unlikely to give into your arguments."

The rule seems to have gone over well, but I think my players thought I was joking. I'm not.

If you're having arguments with all of your players coming out against you, you need to re-evaluate the rule. If everyone at the table thinks it stinks and it's not clearly RAW, then you need to consider that you're wrong. Further, even if it is RAW it may not be right for your group. In those situations, I'm clear, I stick with RAW or my initial ruling, but we'll open it up for discussion at a later time, and if we make a HR, we can retcon any bad results that are a consequence of the previous ruling. I try and work from consensus. And I let the players know this, so if I make a ruling and someone at the table likes it and someone at the table doesn't, it becomes the responsibility of the player that doesn't like the ruling to 1) fashion a new rule and 2) convince everyone else at the table that it is the correct rule for the group. Note, this means that you have to be willing to accept (but not like) certain things that your players like. And you have to give your players the benefit of the doubt that they aren't going to be munchkins. Oh, and of course, the discussion needs to happen outside the middle of action.

[Peregrine_Bjornaer]

@humboldtscott

After the last session descended into serious arguing over lab creation rules, I introduced a new house rule:

"If you ask for a short explanation of my reasoning in interpreting a rule, I'll give it. If you then further argue against my interpretation, I'll get up out of my chair, put my dog in my place, and go sit outside reading some light fiction until there is no more argument. You can try to convince my dog all you want, but as you all know, she is tough to sway and unlikely to give into your arguments."

The rule seems to have gone over well, but I think my players thought I was joking. I'm not.

Soooo....no more arguing dogma?

[humboldtscott]

Hmm, I seem to have touched a nerve, or otherwise offended some folks. Seriously, Jonathan and everyone else, I very much appreciate the interesting discussions, everyone's advise and ideas, and am a big fan of Ars Magica. The game is as great as its loyal fanbase.

It just seems that nearly every discussion, whether on the forums or at my table, eventually turns to some perceived vagueness or inconsistency within the rules, and then a lengthy and unproductive argument over various reasonable interpretations of the RAW, or proposals to fix flawed RAW, or to put something in to clarify an absence.

I'm avoiding "spontaneous" magic like the plague right now, because there's really nothing spontaneous about it at my table.

The actual rules lawyering and munchkinism at my table are problems that the troupe as a whole is now acknowledging and working on. The vagueness and rules clarifications are problems I just don't know what to do about.

Over the past year I have grown to absolutely LOVE both the ArM5 rules and the ME setting. I wouldn't have rapidly acquired most of the line and devoted much of my free time to developing a campaign if I didn't. But all the same, I occasionally want to throw up my hands and scream.

[Jonathan.Link]

I hope you don't think I'm offended. I'm not.

I do think that Ars requires a certain kind of player and a troupe discussion about the contract. These are characters who have great power. With that comes great responsibility. For example, I've had potential players ask me about joining Bibracte as an infernal it's. In my first saga in 5th edition, I decided against it. Those players never came on board.

Certain players might want to play a certain concept. In Bibracte House Guernicus is corrupt and has created all of the problems of the Order. The PCs are now aware of this and we have a prospective new player interested in joining. That player wants to play a Bjornaer gauntleted from the Bjornaer Quaesitor. She is keenly interested in becoming a Quaesitor. She has a dark secret from the rest of the PCs. The players know about this, but their characters don't. The Bjornaer will eventually be found out and the consequences of that discovery are going to be shaped by the choices made. Not too many games encourage this kind of deep,character development.

Coming back to your infernal it's, have you had that discussion with your players? Because, eventually she will be discovered. And when she is it shouldn't be a good thing. Depending how things roll, she might be bringing down the entire covenant. Or the covenant discovers her and takes her out. Troupes really need to have a discussion about the kinds of stories they want to tell or be involved in.

Ars Magica is vast. There are many ways of accomplishing desires.

[Jonathan.Link]

Oh, and this kind of discussion and wrangling over rules and interpretations isn't anything new. I was involved in a deep and heated discussion a while back about whether mastering a Ritual spell to 1 level negates all the botch dice if the caster is relaxed. The rules are contradictory, and we didn't arrive at any consensus. Some believe yes and some believe no.

[humboldtscott]

I guess the trouble is, how to have that contract-conversation when your players are new to the system and setting?

After reading some forum discussions about them, I did my best spending the entire first two sessions describing the rules/setting and asking the troupe 20 questions about their interests. But I think we were all making assumptions based on past experiences with other systems, setting, and troupes, and misunderstood one another.

After fleshing out a covenant based on their interests (jumping right into covenant design seemed overwhelming) I had them create Grogs who as yet had no relationship to the order, and then played through a meet-and-join story (using "RotR" from ToME) as well as a "how the grogs met" backstory (using tHD from ToME). At the end of those two stories, they reached the covenant. I then had them create magi-at-apprenticeship, and played through the first few levels of Calebais. Then I allowed them 2 years of downtime, followed by tCP from ToME.

The player of the Infernalist/Hermetic Mage has now decided that it would be more workable if he was only working with magic, and has made a new character. After another rocky start (you want a character with +5 Parma at gaunlet!?!) we are hopefuly on more solid ground.

I started with 4 players and am now down to 2. One player, recruited via a semi-open call, left because he has very little RP experience and was looking for more of a beer-and-pretzles approach then the detailed nerdiness of ArM. The second left because, while she had more experience and interest in the system/setting, she had schedule complications and lack of time to commit to learning a new system, although I suspect that the constant rules debates factored into decision.

After last session's fight over lab-building rules, I pulled a move I've never done before: threatened to kill the game and take an extended hiatus from Roleplaying. I told them, both my good friends, that I simply like them too much to allow the game to go on, as the frequent arguments were reducing the fun-factor to negative digits for everyone. The player I informed of my decision begged me to reconsider, and offered to make a new, less contentious character as well as try to lay off the lawyering and munchkining in general.

I now have a game plan for dealing with the other player. Next week will see if it works.

Ultimately, you have to game with the players you have, not the players you wish you had. I live in a US County that is bigger than some US States, yet has a population under 100,000. Gamers are few and far between.

[Jonathan.Link]

Are your player more interested in game or story?
If you have a problem with a ruling, let me make a rule and move on ruling and we will revisit it at a less contentious time, if necessary we will retcon anything that needs to be retconned.
I'm curious to hear some of the discussions you have had, because they probably mirror discussions here.