Life linked boosting

I have gotten myself confused again.

When a Formulaic spell is Mastered for Fast Casting, and the spell is cast, which Life-Linked virtue applies?

Fast Casting a Formulaic spell mastered for such does not make it into a spontaneous spell.
So Life Boost does apply to it, and Life-Linked Spontaneous Casting doesn't.

That said, you probably can't use Life Boost with Fast Casting, as it's likely to count as an option under "A fast-cast spell is always cast with firm voice and bold gestures, and the maga may not exploit any other spellcasting options, as there is not enough time".

Which would suggest that Fast Cast sponts can't benefit from Life Linked Spontaneous Casting

Oh how much I hate you when you start these "oh so you can't do that and that and that" streaks.

But Life Boost isn't a spellcasting option. These are using vis, words and gestures and fast casting itself. I think I somehow understand the confusion because the character with that virtue might activate (or not) that virtue, which is actually an option he makes. But still, come on, the fact that the very same Fast casting option is listed next to only raw vis use and words and gestures in the spellcasting options section on pages 82-83 of the corebook suggest that virtues affecting magic aren't what that text refers to as "spellcasting options". It's written in the middle of that section named just that!

I'd say of course people can Life Boost a fast cast formulaic and Life link a fast cast spontaneous spell. Give players some joy people!



The p.82f subchapter Spellcasting Options - also referred to in the index - defines the term spellcasting options, which isn't described anywhere else in ArM5. That chapter limits Fast Casting to spontaneous spells.

P.87 Mastered Spell Special Abilities Fast Casting then overrides that limitation to only spontaneous spells, but doesn't introduce further spellcasting options limiting it.

Your reasoning is backward. We are given a list of some options. If it is on the list, then it is an option. That does not imply that if it is not on the list, then it is not an option. That's the logical equivalent of looking at a list of colors and claiming anything not on the list cannot be a color. If A, then B never ever logically implies if not A, then not B. Purely ArM5 on this, consider forceless casting. It is explicitly an "option" for spell casting. So we are 100% sure that that (p.82-83) is not a complete list of options for spell casting.

Which is ok because Spellcasting Options is something (as detailed in the corebook) and, exactly as you phrase it, options for spell casting, some other wider thing, which includes the effect of virtues, forceless casting, and whatever other option you take when casting the spell which isn't modifying your gestures and using vis.

Not so.

For ArM5, the index (on p.235) refers you for the term "spellcasting options" to p.82 with the subchapter Spellcasting Options. And in that very subchapter that term should be used consistently, shouldn't it? So "the maga may not exploit any other spellcasting option" on p.82 refers to this term.
And neither in this chapter nor on p.87 Mastered Spell Special Abilities - Fast Casting, Life Boost is referred to directly or indirectly as a "spellcasting option".
Actually, it is never referred to anywhere in the book as such.

So, you are saying that using Life Boost is not an option when casting spells?

"Spellcasting option" is a term (1 a) in ArM5 (as it has an own subchapter, a reference in the index and exclusive use in the book), "an option when casting spells" is a phrase.

It is interesting that the word "option" doesn't appear anyway in the Virtue description.

Consider all these other hermetic virtues that don't work all the time, but when the character dedides so: if you have Flexible Formulaic Magic then what, you can't change the parameters of an spell that you are fast casting? If you have Diedne Magic, you can't fast cast a spontaneous spell while getting the Diedne Magic benefit, because you have to choose to divide between either 2 or 5?

Spell casting is full with options and as OneShot is insisting on rather more effectively than me not all of these are named Spellcasting Options. Just choosing a target is an option, or casting a spell standing on one leg or with an eye closed for that matter, but that doesn't make them spellcasting options.

I guess it all goes back again at what you are looking for at the table and how your players like the game to be. I kind of think that saying "no" to something should be the last resort, unless something gets definetively broken in the way. Mine are of the kind that like coming up with stuff and doing things, and tend to get frustrated when they try to do something and you hammer then down saying they can't do that nor that nor that nor that.

1 Like

I think you two really need to reconsider structure and how such a book is written. That section on spell casting options is what any magus may do. Things like Life Boost are extremely restricted modifications not all magi can do. Unless you want to waste space in a limited-space book, you don't want to write repeatedly.

And now, look further at how you're applying what you say. You're creating this special term "spellcasting options," that does not appear to exist as a special term at all. It appears as a section title. Generally in that section all the things are referred to as "options," with the sole exception being that one statement in fast-casting. Indices commonly point to section titles, not just special terms. Claiming it's any sort of special term because it shows up in the index due to it being a section title is either a misunderstanding of indices or just trying to skew things to try to create some sort of false validity. This is actually essentially the same logical error as is being made with the list, confounding conditional statements with their converses.

Are you both really saying the "forceless spellcasting option" is not a "spellcasting option" known as "forceless spellcasting"? Or do you recognize there is a problem in your logic?

Look, I'm not arguing that no Virtues can apply under this scenario. I'm just pointing out that the logic you're providing to make your case is completely flawed.

What are some other possibilities? Flourishes? They seem to fall into the same category of universally available options when casting spells. If flourishes had been written in the core book, where would you have placed them? Now let's go a little further: should a mage with Silent Magic, Quiet Magic, Still Magic, or Subtle Magic be a able to alter voice/gestures when fast-casting?

"Spellcasting option" is created and used as a term throughout ArM5 core. That's what you do if you have limited space in technical writing: create terms in your text without writing out complete definitions.

The phrase "forceless spellcasting option" doesn't even appear in the ArM5 core book.

"Throughout"? "Spellcasting options" is a phrase used only three times in all of ArM5. And that includes the section name, and the index reference to it.
The singular "spellcasting option" is used nowhere at all.

If the options in the section "Spellcasting options" are all the spellcasting options there are, then "may not exploit any other spellcasting options" is an odd way of writing "may not use raw vis", since that would be the only spellcasting option left.

It is also odd that only use of raw vis and use of different words and gestures would be ruled out, while things like forceless casting, flourishes, multiple casting, and many other options when casting spells would not be disallowed.

It is worth keeping in mind that the rules are written in English, and not in some formal well-defined language. "Spellcasting options" may just be normal English and not some technical term - because nowhere is it clearly defined as a technical term. Or defined at all.

1 Like

Look at Crisis in the aging section. There is this phrase there: "Virtues that affect aging rolls do not affect crisis recovery rolls." I don't think it would take more than that, nor that that like would make the book long enough to exceed its space limit.

I think the credit should go to the game creators, who wrote that non-existing special term in a big font size on page 82 of the corebook.

I can't speak for OneShot but I would, why not? But the fact that that's a new option doesn't make anything you can do with a spell one limiting option.

I think common sense should apply. It's not law we are discussing there, after all, but a game that should make sense. Fast casting don't disallow other "options" just because. It says that it disalow them because "there is not enough time" to use them. I get that using vis probably does so, and accept that modifying your voice and gestures from the standard one you use too. So I would allow any option, wherever book's section it's in, if I think it doesn't require an extra amount of time, and disallow it if it does. So yeah, I would let magi with Silent Magic, Quiet Magic, Still Magic, or Subtle Magic use their virtues, because that's a natural style of casting for these characters. But I woudln't let them use forceless casting nor flourishes, considering that the extra care magi need to put to work there woud require some extra time. I got another one: Method Caster, another virtue that I would disallow to be used with Fast Casting, because I guess that following the method requires that bit of care that consumes just too much time to fast cast.

Letting a character get some virtues to wrap the concept their have of their characters around to then disallow them using these virtues seems no fun to me, and I insist that I can see a player getting frustrated by rulings like that. Which makes me re-read the conclusion at the end of the Basic Ideas section:

In the last analysis, Ars Magica is a game. If you have fun with it, you are doing it right.

I'm more a default-to-yes kind of SG. If you and your players enjoy a more restrictive approach, good for you, have fun!

Quite a long way to say YSMV I guess.

If I have bought the ArM5 core book and try to find out, what those "spellcasting options" on p.82 are, I go to the index and find, that they are described in - lo - the subchapter Spellcasting Options. So they better be described there.

This makes "spellcasting options" into a term. It also prevents questions throughout a game, whether this or that or yet another ArM5 core rule define "spellcasting options" and are disallowed with Fast Casting.

It does not imply, that SGs can't add features from other, later books among the "spellcasting options" to exclude from Fast Casting.

A section title does not qualify something as a technical term. If you know this, then stop arguing BS. If you don't know this, then hopefully you'll recognize it soon.

It's used as a section title once and once as a reference to a section title once. The only other time it is used, and there it is to reference other things, none of which have used that term, only "option" on its own. It looks distinctly like "spellcasting" is an adjective and "options" is a plural noun, doesn't it?

Consider things like this: Is "Investigation" a technical term in ArM5? It's a section title, in the index, and shows up far more than does "spellcasting option." So if you claim this qualifies "spellcasting option," then "investigation" must also qualify. Are you really claiming that to "unravel mysteries, discover murderers, and trace the resting place of lost treasures" on must "spend at least one season in the laboratory to discover what magic an enchanted item contains"? Or maybe do you want to change what you think qualifies something as a technical term.

You're right. It's in another book. But if your reasoning is at all valid, it still applies. If you can't apply it in the case of forceless casting, then you now see that your reasoning is not logically valid.

Correct, as I already said. But it does show that your reasoning above is logically invalid. Thus that argument should not be used. As for what I said, read it again:

You do realize you're just contradicting yourself and the book back and forth here, right? Look at Silent Casting. It just reduces the penalty from -5 to 0. It says nothing about it allowing an exception to fast-casting. Why are you allowing it when this is a fairly clearly disallowed? Forceless casting and flourishes take no extra time so you would allow them so you would disallow them. What???

No. I explained that already.