The only part of the Aegis that has been stated to require penetration by the devs is the warding effect against beings with Might. When this was done, no mention of requiring the rest of it to penetrate was made. Unless some other clarification comes from them, it requiring to penetrate to give the penalty to spellcasting is a HR.
2 Likes
It could be that the Aegis defends the Aura, cutting off access to it. We already know Auras don't need to penetrate to cause casting/penetration penalties. AotH may act in that type of way, locking away the local area from magic. That would work against Personal effects just fine without needing to penetrate. Or maybe it directly affects the caster like a PeVi effect and needs to penetrate.
2 Likes
Another option for how it works narratively and bypasses the MR of casters and their effects is that it makes the fluid vis in the area less accessible. This may be functionally equivalent to “works like or defends an aura” but it seems more supported by what has been written about how magic works in the world.
This appears to be consistent with how we play it.
I disagree. Magic directly hampering a spellcaster is resisted by his MR. This is a general rule that is always valid unless explicitly contradicted.
Note that an effect identical to the Aegis' "spellcasting bane" is a PeVi guideline (and we read that the Aegis ought to have a Perdo requisite, if not for Notatus' brilliance); and that must penetrate.
Okay, this finally convinced me that the Aegis as written does need to penetrate. I would still disagree if the Aegis didn't interfere with R: Personal spells, but no exception is made for them. So, it's not just ablating spells that an uninvited magus sends out into the world. It's actively interfering with the caster's magic, even when that magic is contained entirely within his or her Parma Magica.
1 Like
Note that it's one thing what the Aegis' text currently says (I am 100% convinced it requires penetration); it's another thing what the Aegis's text should say (I lean towards not requiring penetration, but there are pros and cons).
1 Like
But is it directly or indirectly hampering? For example, I cast a non-Hermetic ritual to create a Divine Aura. If you cast a Hermetic spell inside that Divine Aura your magic will be hampered, and creating a penalizing Aura also creates a hampering effect like an Aegis (penalty to spells or penetration). But if I use the PeVi guideline to reduce your casting totals, your magic will be hampered as well.
That's hard to adjudicate, because the divine runs by its own rules. It's very etimology is about separation!
However, assume some guideline existed that allowed one to create Auras via Hermetic Magic as if they were ... clouds. Creo Auram! Then those sustained by magic, i..e. created without a D:Mom Creo Ritual, would be magically resisted, yes.
Similarly, if you used the Purity+Intervention guideline to create a Divine Aura, I'd say it would be magically resisted ... unless created with the 4 extra magnitudes that make it "a natural and permanent part of the world" - in which case, no, it would not be resisted.
Now consider the following. I cast a Personal, Hermetic spell. A bunch of my buddies cast Wizard's Communion to make casting it easier, boosting my casting. How many of you require those Wizard's Communions to penetrate my Magic Resistance?
Or, similarly, I cast a Personal spell and a buddy boosts my penetration with MuVi. Do you say my buddy must penetrate my Magic Resistance? Or what if I do it myself? Do I need to penetrate my own Magic Resistance to boost my penetration since the MuVi isn't Personal?
None. MuVi targets the spell. Spells do not have magic resistance. Ruling that Personal spells are special because they're "inside" your Parma, as I think you're implying, gets into Parma-As-Forcefield and reopens the whole can of worms regarding swallowing conjured or Muto'd substances.
It's quite simple: Your Parma protects you. The end. (Okay, you and your talisman while you're touching, so almost the end, I guess.)
1 Like
Just like you cannot stand on a CrTe bridge without it penetrating? I'm not sure I buy that a created Aura should need to penetrate even if it isn't Momentary to be real.
Then AotH doesn't need to penetrate to penalize even your Personal effects because it's acting on the effect, right?
I'm not the one specifying Personal effects are the issue. That was other people above. I'm just trying to show things aren't specified very well here, and people are hiding a whole bunch of issues, probably unintentionally, when presenting their reasoning.
1 Like
Almost: just like someone can't bludgeon you with a CrTe-ed boulder without penetrating.
ArM5's "physics" (including magic!) are not symmetric.
If I act on an Aura hypothetically sustained by a spell, my MR does not hamper me.
If that same Aura acts on me, on the other hand, my MR hampers it.
Wrong, it's acting on you - on your spellcasting.
For example, it might lead you to spend more fatigue.
Ultimately, it's acting exactly like the PeVi guideline that explicitly requires penetration.
That PeVi guideline is not the only narrative explanation that works. If the fluid vis in the area becomes more difficult to marshal for your spell you may have to “put more oomph into it” which translates to lower casting total which may translate to fatigue or a failed spell. Just like if one makes a pebble weigh the same as a boulder and then someone with MR goes to pick it up they will still need to use more strength to pick up the magically heavy pebble.
I actually like that idea. Whether as only applicable to AotH, or as a precedent for a few new Vim guidelines for our saga, or both, I'm not sure yet.
1 Like
It's not an issue of "narrative". It's an issue of mechanics.
Note that there is no "narrative" attached to the PeVi guideline.
Simply, inflicting a direct casting penalty by direct application of Vim magics on someone appears to require penetration.
The Aegis could be ruled to act differently. But it should be done explicitly.
And, let me add, there should be a good mechanical reason to make up for the inconsistency.