I like the new wording.
Regarding the monster hook, if the creature is either sufficiently powerful, or if the threat is not from Powers but natural attacks etc. It can still be a threat
2 Likes
"Replacing" an Aegis might better be reworded, or needs explanation. Just deleting ", or is replaced with a new one in which they did not participate" might be best.
Casting a new Aegis onto a site, where there is an old one already, will cause the two Aegides to interact.
Typically both were cast by the same magi, hence the old one does not hinder the new one being set up. The new one will not "replace" the old one, though, before the old one expires.
As written it will not take over invitations into the old one, and will make eventually other items native "by being present".
If a new Aegis is cast onto a site by persons not native to the previous Aegis, the old Aegis resists as described and must be penetrated. But even if successfully cast, the new Aegis does so far not dispel the old one, and hence does not "replace" it either.
EDIT: A minor tricky issue is, whether a new Aegis cast by several magi using Day of Communion, some of whom are native and some are foreign to the old Aegis, is resisted by the old Aegis and must penetrate it.
But it should depend on the main caster of the new ritual, and whether she is native or foreign to the old Aegis.
In the current rules a being has to participate in the ritual, not simply be somewhere within the Boundary. Being somewhere within the Boundary works for magical items. Being in the Boundary doesn't expel the monster, just reduces its penetration. So this isn't a change.
Unless I misread this, that is to dispel effects already on a being entering the Aegis. The Aegis would have to beat the being's MR to dispel those effects. But if a being fires off an effect from outside the Aegis at someone inside the Aegis, the effect must penetrate the Aegis. This adds clarity of which penetration direction is needed for existing effects on a being entering the Boundary, as that had been unclear.
1 Like
I like it. A lot.
Minor criticisms:
- I dislike the "native but can't invite" phrasing. I'd prefer a third classification: Invitee. Cannot invite but their powers are unaffected by the Aegis. This is essentially similar to how I passionately hate the old "It's Pilum of Fire but with range Sight." It's a different thing, give it a different name.
- @silveroak and @Heru_Kane have already brought this up. I'm only mentioning it for completeness: Entities inside the Boundary when the Aegis is cast brings a lot of plots and even have support in games mechanics, in the Covenant Hooks. @Christian_Andersen points out that it need not be a huge problem, but it's still worth thinking about before closing the door on these plots. On the other hand, I actually fairly strongly favour giving the troupe/PCs/players a "safe place"/home which is hard to attack, since it moves us away from the murder hobos made famous by That Other Game, and makes players more comfortable investing in the covenant.
- Case 1 for enchanted items. Being present here means being within the Boundary during the casting of the Aegis I assume? They by definition cannot be inside the Aegis before it's been cast, obviously
- All items created by an Aegis native are considered native? For all time? Interesting.
From what I can see, this works as the current version, while clarifying a few of the otherwise questionable parts (e.g. direction of penetration if a being enters with effects on itself, how items are resisted, suppression of sustained magic rather than disenchanting). So overall it looks good to me.
2 Likes
In my Saga we use "Active", "Passive", and "Other". While we use a different structure then the one David suggested (Passive were at the ritual casting but did not take part in it -or- have an invite), "Invites" from Active people place the invited into the Passive category.
I agree that adding an "Active" ["Casting", "Participant", etc] category to the "Native" and "Foreign" categories for those who took part in the casting and can issue an invite is easier.
Very smooth version. Reposting what OneShot pointed out earlier - I think Parma Magica being dispelled is a change from previous versions.
[quote="OneShot, post:172, topic:170018"]
I was quite sure, that the Aegis did not affect a Parma Magica. Also because of:
Globally, I like the presentation (it might be a little wordy, but it is mostly very clear, and that is the crucial part). I also think it mostly maintains AotH "as written" in ArM5.
I'll highlight a few points that I think may be somewhat unclear/problematic; these are also the only ones in which this version of AotH differs from the AotH "RAI" you had posted before.
I am not sure about the meaning of "and harmlessly".
My best guess is that it's just a pleonasm, or that it wants to reassure the reader that it does not count as a "failure" in those cases in which trying, but failing to, invoke a supernatural effect produces negative consequences for the invoker (hermetic fatigue, divine tragedies of hubris, maleficia failures etc.). However, as written it might also generate confusion: a witch's broom flying that fails in flight ... probably does not fail "harmlessly". Or maybe it does, and the text means that it fails slowly, with the witch being able to land safely?
While I understand many people like it better this way, I think this is a departure from what was written. Far more importantly, it makes things unclear and very hard to adjudicate outside these three, specific cases.
What does it mean to "automatically sustained by the underlying magic", and to which other effects does this apply to? I think a lot of troupes would wonder whether this would it apply to a folk witch's familiar bond too. Or to an effect such as Immortality of the Forest (GotF: p.38), or the immunity-to-aging power granted by many Criamon paths. Or to the Etin-mod (RM p.83). Or to Virtues granted by e.g. Magic or Faerie creatures via the Grant Virtue powers (RoP:M p.38). Or to the power of Skinchanger skins (ArM5 p.48).
Intuitively, many of these things are "similar" to hermetic familiars, talismans, and longevity rituals, so there's a vague expectation that they should be included too. At the same time, they are somewhat different, so it's not clear.
Unfortunately any clarification might be problematic. Including them, makes the inclusion fuzzy and hard to adjudicate. Excluding them (i.e. saying that only hermetic familiars, talismans, and longevity rituals are "sustained" and resurge) not only runs against the current wording, but more importantly changes the current balance of power. It's a very tough choice to make.
What does it mean "not to have a Penetration"? Could you bring another example outside the Parma Magica? For example, does a Purifying Touch (ArM5 p.44) "have a Penetration"? In general, it seems to me that this sentence creates more trouble than it solves. AotH internally reduces casting totals and penetration. If these are not applicable/relevant, there's no need to say that AotH produces no hindrance.
It's slightly unclear what "this" represents here. Does it mean that none of those powers are hindered by the AotH, or none of those without casting totals or "a penetration"?
How about animals? Non-sentient things?
I think that the sentence "or is replaced with a new one in which they did not participate." creates more doubts that it clears up. It seems to suggest that a way to dispel an Aegis is to cast another Aegis on the same boundary. Is this intended? It should not be the case, from everything else written about the AotH and hermetic magic in general. It also creates questions about what happens when the old Aegis and the new Aegis are over different, but overlapping Boundaries.
What about sentient ones? Also, note that "unlike Creatures with Might" it's technically correct, but confusing because the class of creatures that can be native to an Aegis is wider. I think "creatures" would be clearer.
Someone native at the time the item is created, or native at the time the item's "nativity" comes into play?
Note that this means that a ... Gorgon shield, that turns to stone anyone striking it, if carried by someone foreign to the Aegis and struck by a native of the Aegis, petrifies said native. Is this intended?
Also, this seems to contradict the statement above, that only magi are customarily natives to the Aegis. Though I guess it could be read as saying that only magi are "uninvited natives", and covenfolk are invited on a need-to-operate basis?
Finally, note that this is a change from the AotH as written. If that is acceptable, treating items as creatures - saying that they can be explicitly included in the casting, or they can be invited in later, solves all these issues, as well as those stemming from a demonic item that suddenly has so much more power than a demon to bypass an Aegis.
1 Like
I suspect that part of the problem is that you can't fix something that is broken simply by clarifying it- at some point it has to be changed in some way.
This is definitely the problem. We should have revised Aegis when we revised Magic Resistance. However, we didn't, and now is not the point at which we should make changes.
I think I was playing with house rules. I can't see anything in the printed version of Aegis that excludes Parma.
2 Likes
Thanks for replying.
This seems to imply that re-casting an Aegis on the same Boundary on e.g. the Summer Solstice (after an initial casting on the Winter as is customary) would fully replace the original Aegis, rather than having two overlapping Aegises (with potentially different sets of natives and invitations) for the next two seasons.
This would admittedly make bookkeeping much easier in such a case, but the idea that a spell can be dispelled by recasting it is an exceedingly uncomfortable precedent. Particularly since it allows any magus who receives an invitation to an Aegis (and is capable of casting Aegis of the Hearth themself) to outright flip it on its native residents by simply casting their own Aegis on the same Boundary. The inevitable consequence is that magi are never, ever Invited to the aegises of covenants not their own, with the ensuing social consequences for the Order.
Edit: I see others have already raised this point.
I suspect the idea with the "when it was replaced", was that it would be replaced on the next year, but yes, that part is a bit unclear.
No. I've added this to the first paragraph:
Each casting of Aegis of the Hearth determines who and what is native and foreign without reference to any other Aegis, even if it is a new Aegis being cast, by the same group of magi on the same boundary, to replace their covenant's old Aegis.
I've revised that paragraph, mainly for wording:
Participants who have The Gift and have been opened to the Hermetic Arts are referred to here as "participating magi", although they may, for example, be apprentices. Participating magi, and only participating magi, can invite other individuals into the Aegis. This involves giving the individual a token that was designated as part of the ritual. Individuals that are invited in this way become natives of the Aegis. Any participating magus can also revoke an invitation, whether issued by themselves or by someone else. They do not need to retrieve the token in order to do this. Invitations and revocations can only be issued to specific individuals — it is not possible to revoke "all invitations", for example — but the individual does not need to be present. Invitations and revocations are effective even if the participating magus is mistaken about the identity of the individual. A participating magus can attempt to revoke an invitation even is they do not know for sure that a particular individual has been invited into the Aegis. If they were, then the invitation is revoked, but if they were not, this obviously has no effect. A creature with Might whose invitation is withdrawn is affected in the same way as a creature with Might who was within the Aegis when it was created. Individuals who participated in the ritual, including participants who are not participating magi, cannot be cast out of the ritual; they are native until the Aegis expires, or is dispelled.
But they can be things that are inside the Aegis at the moment that it comes into effect, such as an enchanted broom being flown through on a dare to catch the moment when the old Aegis fails. If you time it just right… I have revised the wording, though.
The first is items that were within the boundary at the time the Aegis was raised.
Replaced with "or dispelled".
PRAW, it does. She lands outside the Aegis, though.
This is up to troupe discretion. I think it might well apply to a lot of the cases you raise, but I don't want to try to be exhaustive in the core rules.
Given that the question of what happens in those cases has been raised in this discussion, I think it is necessary to say it. And I think "not having a Penetration" is pretty clear. If there are cases where it isn't, those are the cases that need the errata, not Aegis.
Rephrased to:
The supernatural powers of creatures with Might that have been able to enter the Aegis are affected in the same way as any other foreign supernatural effect.
No. It's a ritual. A spoon cannot participate in a ritual.
Sentient items are creatures with Might, per RoP:M.
It is, but I suspect that most people thought that, if you invited a maga in, her Talisman would also work within the Aegis, and that you didn't need to give her multiple tokens, one for her, one for her Talisman, one for her flying ring, and so on. Most covenants would run out of tokens if two Verditius arrived at once. Changed to "deliberately and directly" to block the shield, although I personally would not say that the shield is activated by the native — it activates in response to the native's action, but that is not the same at all.
1 Like
There is a certain issue regarding anything made by a native which is still unclear, which of these items would be considered native and which ones foreign?
- A founder made an enchanted item for the covenant which has stayed at the covenant but they entered twilight 2 years ago and haven't been heard from since.
- A verditius joined the covenant a year ago and was part of the aegis ritual this year. A rival of the covenant collects magical weapons made by this verditious in the past.
It is also apparent this would put a real cramp on magic item sales for covenants since an item purchased from outside the covenant will only become native if the enchanter joins. I believe all of these outcomes are at variance with the original aegis.
Yes. This item was within the aegis when it was cast.
I think you're remembering a previous version. The last one is quite clear that the item made by the native needs to also have been made within the aegis. So this is not native.
No, because the item bought from a verditius will become native the moment a new aegis is cast, or if it is used by someone who participated in the ritual, so there is no reason not to buy a foreign magical item, or not to sell a magical item to an outsider. Bear in mind that an Aegis has a duration of a year, so any item exported after being made by a crafter within an aegis loses nativeness within a few seasons.
What effect does the Aegis have on Certamen?
1 Like
No, it was made within a previous aegis.
No, I am going according to the text which was written above. The items whic a verditius made prior to joining are items which were made by a native (now) to the current aegis.
How? Using the text above, not your memory of how things have een or should be, when a new Aegis is cast the maker of those items is not in the aegis, and thus they are not native.
Upon review I see that
Supernatural effects created within the Aegis by non-natives are also limited. Sources that generate a casting total or similar must subtract half the level of the Aegis from this total. Sources that do not create a casting total, such as most supernatural creatures and enchanted items, must subtract half the level of the Aegis from their Penetration. Supernatural effects that have neither casting totals nor Penetration are completely unaffected.
Is contradicted in these specifics by the last guideline. Which does bring up the obvious flaw with this clarification, which is to say that it is long, cumbersome, and likely to generate confusion rather that clarification when it is not being gone over with a fine tooth comb.
See below:
Items created by a native of the aegis outside of the aegis (prior to joining) are not native, see below:
Also see below: