Life linked boosting

Games Discussion Ars Magica
12

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
13

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?

14

"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.

15

"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
16

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.

17

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.

18

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:

19

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???

20

No. I explained that already.

21

If I have bought the ArM5 core book and try to find out, what those "investigations" on p.158 are, I go to the index and find, that they are described in - lo - the subchapter Investigation. So they better be described there.

This makes "investigations" into a term. It also prevents questions throughout a game, whether this or that or yet another ArM5 core rule define "investigations" and are handled other than with a season in the lab.

Do you really what I've just written??? I certainly don't. I think we all know I just typed some BS. But if what you say is true, this is necessarily true as well. So can you just stop this pushing this completely illegitimate argument? It could be useful to examine Virtues and other things to figure out what could reasonably apply during fast-casting. But spending time pushing something so clearly fallacious does nothing to help anyone.

1 Like
22

First, I find that they are on p.222. Then I find they are a subchapter of Saga Styles - so I know which kind of investigations are described there.

Not so. Check the context.

23

As you wish. Have a nice day.

24

Here are things I immediately disallow for fast-casting. There are more, but these are ones that jumped to mind.

Other generally available options
Forceless casting (explicitly a spellcasting option)
Flourishes (needs concentration, presumably would be in the same spellcasting-option category if placed in the core book)

Mastery options
Quiet Casting (sure, the penalty my drop to 0, but there is no exception granted)
Still Casting (while written differently than Quiet Casting, it's still presented as an option, and I don't find a compelling reason why it should be treated differently than the clearer one)
Boosted Casting (no exception is granted for the required vis)
Multiple Casting (it's an option, it easily takes penalties, and there is a statement about prohibiting it in difficult situations)

Virtues
Performance Magic (you need to go about the craft/activity)
Method Caster (unless fast casting is your method) (you are fast casting rather than using your method)
Imbued with the Spirit of (Form) (you can't use vis, so you can't use Fatigue in its place as it doesn't have a place)

.

As for LB and LLSM, I could be persuaded either way. I see possibilities in both directions.

25

You undermine your argument, which is fine:

Defined technical term: "Investigation" fits your requirements better than "spellcasting option" does. You insist the latter is, while not accepting the former.

Context: You've been arguing that if it's not immediately attached to "spellcasting option," even if it is an option for spellcasting, then it is necessarily not a "spellcasting option," regardless of context. Context is irrelevant. But then suddenly context is completely relevant for "investigation." If context is now relevant, then we must accept that Virtues and other things that add options to spellcasting may well be "spellcasting options" based on context, so automatically ruling them out for not being attached to the term "spellcasting option" is accepted as invalid. Or is context about to become irrelevant again?

1 Like
26

My reasoning was "this is something you have to think about whether to use (and how much to use), you don't have time to make this decision when you're trying to get a spell off very quickly".

27

Yes, that was something I considered pushing in one direction.

In the other direction I see is that you can use fast casting with either fatiguing or non-fatiguing sponts, so it seems like a choice about dumping energy into the spell is permitted. LB and LLSM are essentially that.

These leave me able to go either way.

28

Apparently you didn't understand this.

29

One problem with your argument is that the index is by no means complete.

Just because it points you to one page does not mean all information, or even the most important information, about the subject can be found there.

For example, try looking up "spellcasting rolls" or "spell guidelines" in the index and tell us what conclusions can be drawn from those references.

So the fact that the index entry for "spellcasting options" point to the section named "Spellcasting options" prove absolutely nothing.

30

I would have presumed the section of the book called "Spellcasting Options" should have covered all the spell casting options up to that book (ie the first, main core book). Later books could have introduced options that weren't considered in the first book.
And that is about all of the flame-war thread that I care to understand.

Perhaps to cool things off, are there any Virtues and Flaws that we agree do affect Fast-Casting?
eg Special Circumstances: Fast-Casting

3 Likes
31

Yep.

But if you then note for our specific case, that "spellcasting options" does in ArM5 core only appear in the subchapter title, once in the same subchapter, and in the index, this argument no longer holds.
There is just no way to find out, where else in ArM5 things denoted "spellcasting options" can be found.
Either "spellcasting options" becomes a term, or every SG is free to understand what she wants by that phrase. The latter is just bad writing in a core rule book.