WEAK MAGIC RESISTANCE
Major, Hermetic
Any form of magic resistance you generate is much weaker under relatively common circumstances which are fairly easy for an opponent to utilize, such as when you are wet or facing away from the caster of the spell. If the conditions are met, do not subtract the level of the effect from the casting total before calculating Penetration. You would be well advised to keep your weakness from being discovered by too many potential enemies.
"do not subtract the level of the effect from the casting total before calculating Penetration."
If I really understand the RAW of this maj. flaw correctly, I think it's kind strange, because it enourmously hampers the MR vs mages but versus supernatural creatures it is just a little annoyance. I think RAW it's kind of unplayable and should rather be named "no magic resistence against hermetic magic".
e.g.:
If a mage casts a pilum of fire with a casting total of 32, I'd have to resist a Penetration of 32, instead of 12- correct?
If a creature with 20 might uses a 1 power point ability, it would be still 20 Penetration not 15, correct? That doesn't matter so much,..
Also I don't like the all-or-nothing aspect of the conditions. I feels more llike a maj. dark secret flaw. And if a mage knows it, he could easily kill you, but else it doesn't really matter.
So I'm thinking of a HR for that major flaw, which is kind of the major version of "limited magic resistence"
Flawed parma magica:
You are much less able to resist magic than other magi. You gain only a bonus from your ability score in parma magica*2 (instead of *5) to magic resistance, but you still gain the magic resistence from your form scores."
This is a structural problem with hermetic magic. creatures with might have a hard time against other creatures with MR (including hermetics) while the reverse is not true because hermetics can skyrocket penetration, making Might scores quite irrelevant. this is the case with and without this major flaw.
So yes, it could be renamed. You can also boost penetration (and magic resistance) from creatures as a house rule, but it will be that, a house rule.
So (ArM5 p.61) Weak Magic Resistance is a Major Hermetic Flaw all right. A player picking this one knows what she gets. And if an NPC is assigned it, you can get a lot of intrigue and skullduggery around that flaw.
Introducing well-considered new Major Hermetic Flaws by house rule is OK. I would not mix names about them, though. Best give your new flaw a new name to avoid confusion.
You can also take the (ArM5 p.54) Minor Hermetic Flaw Flawed Parma Magica for three different Forms for your character and be done.
What do you guys think my version of the "flawed parma magica maj. herm. flaw"? Is it balanced enough im comparison to other maj. herm flaws?
Are there any good house rules for boosting penetration/magic resistence for supernatural creatures?
Personally I'd like to add a randomiser like a StD or simple die to supernatural effects, since both MR of mages and Penetration of creatures are fixed values, which tends to feel to "predictable" ingame to me.
Any suggestions? I have to say that we play with linear stress die HR..
The issue with your version of the flaw is than it basically mean: character has so weak return on pama magica score than it will never increase it.
compared to another character with a parma magica score of 1, the difference is then very minimal.
This wouldn't be a major flaw, the other one keep parma magica increase useful (for any situation where the specific situation is not encountered) but still is a big drawback when you have only 1 in parma magica.
The issue with your version of the flaw is than it basically mean: character has so weak return on pama magica score than it will never increase it.
compared to another character with a parma magica score of 1, the difference is then very minimal.
Well, I don't agree on that, because there is just no other hermetic way AFAIK to increase MR, effectively. And playing all day long with a very low MR is just too risky, so that PCs would not ignore it. (well, they could try to purchase a relic, though)
And the problem with the RAW version I have, is that it's not very different to the restriction flaw or necessary condition, just targeting on MR/parma magica instead of spell casting. If it would be really in line with the restriction or necessary condition flaw, it should give you 0 MR under a certain condition. I would just delete the "unnecessary" calculation part, which doesn't make sense anyway.
> WEAK MAGIC RESISTANCE > Major, Hermetic > Any form of magic resistance you generate is much weaker under relatively common circumstances which are fairly easy for an opponent to utilize, such as when you are wet or facing away from the caster of the spell. If the conditions are met, you have a magic resistance of 0. You would be well advised to keep your weakness from being discovered by too many potential enemies.
i still think (and it's only my mind) than a flaw which is impairing one single specific ability should be only minor, unless the specific ability is absolutely mandatory, impairing Magic theory could be a major hermetic flaw. take Deficient Technique/form as example, Impairing a form is only a minor flaw, impairing a technique is a major flaw.
Considering parma magica as such would depends on campaign setting, and if it's dependent on campaign setting... it should be kept as minor.
Your new version is basically more a drawback than the basic, but for one specific point, which is hermetic caster casting formal spell with negative penetration (if you fail a formal spell casting by less than 10, it's still launched with one fatigue level but penetration is negative), it seems fair to me as a major flaw.
Thanky for your reply. I have to correct your statement:
RAW, if you fail a formulaic spell by more than 10, the spell fizzles and you still lose the fatigue level. So, even with that flaw and under the special condition, you're not affected by the spell, because it fizzled before.
If the casting total falls short of the spell level by more than ten the spell fails to take effect, but the maga still loses a Fatigue level. ArM p. 81
Actually, there is an important difference beetween 0 magic resistence and no magic resistence.
If you have 0 MR, all spells without penetration can't get through, like with forceless casting.
If you have no MR, even a spell without penetration (= negative penetration - to say it with your words) can affect you. (typical mundane guys)
If the penetration is zero or negative, the spell cannot affect any target with magic resistance, even if the score of the magic resistance is 0. However, it can still affect targets with no magic resistance. ArM p. 82
I actually wanted my new version of the flaw, to give 0 MR in those special circumstances. BTW, the MR would be still modulated by the aura level, therefore in a Magic Aura level 3, the target of the effect would have MR 3 instead of 0. Also I wanted that the flaw is changing the way how you're resisting magic and not the way how somebody else is calculating penetration, when trying to penetrate your MR.
IMO my version is more logic and still hard enough to be eligible for being a maj herm. flaw, since MR is a serious thing. Big thanks, for your feedback, though!
I think you missed my argument
negative penetration is RAW.
The penetration total may be zero or negative. For example, if a magus with a penetration bonus of 0, because he has no score in penetration, cast a Formulaic spell with a Casting Total 5 less than the spell's level, his penetration total is -5
p82
This is the only advantage of your new flaw compared to the basic weak magic resistance, the RAW one would have made you vulnerable (with appropriate circonstances) even to such a spell, as the penetration would not substract the spell level, possibly turning it to a high positive value.
Still, it's not that big a point, as your flaw is worse than RAW for all other positive penetration situation, but i consider it was worth noticing.