Yes, but his point is that doing +15 and doing +17 damage via CrIg are closely related, which is what the statement you referred to said. The statement doesn't show he is wrong at all. He's not disagreeing with the closely related part. He's disagreeing with the sameness, arguing they're only closely related. Essentially, he's saying "+15" and "+17" make the spells closely related but not the same description, while I claim they are both specifications on "level-5" (or whatever), meaning they really are the same description. As that statement you highlighted only shows "closely related" without showing the cut-off to sameness, it doesn't help.
You and I are in pretty strong agreement with each other and pretty strong disagreement with him. I'm just saying this disagreement is in a slightly different place than you're arguing the disagreement is in. He's not disagreeing with us at all on "closely related" versus not even "closely related." He's disagreeing on the cut-off between "closely related" and "the same description." Your "green flames and pink dots" argument is absolutely along the right lines, though, and really hits the nail on the head.
I would summarize our side of the issue as: If two descriptions' differences are only flavor and/or semantics, they're not really a different descriptions. Semantics includes labeling damage as "+15" or "+17" instead of just "level-5." Flavor includes "green flames" vs. "red flames."
We have always interpreted that same effect would work here. So a +17 spell and a +1 million damage spell would both get the "related effect bonus" if you know POF. A POF with longer range or bigger target would also work.
This was discussed on one of our saga conversations, actually. One of the players suggested creating a dude with A LOT of level 1-3 spells to get the "similar spell" bonus to most of his spontaneous spellcasting. it was never done, but in any case the effective bonus of 1.5 points to the casting total was not seen as really game breaking in any case. A talisman gets you bigger bonuses with lower time and resources investment easily.
I think there is a Major Virtue in HoH:S (Merinita section) that may allow it. I know the virtue lets you learn spells you cast spontaneously by spending experience on them. I'm not sure about the former. Other than that, no, it doesn't work that way in 5th. It did work that way in 4th, though.
What I was refering was to have a MASSIVE AMMOUNT (say, 50-100) of low level (level 1-3) FORMULAIC spells. Those should provide a "similar spell bonus" to other spells you cast. isn't that how it works in 5th? We have been playing wrong for 10 years then. heh
I think the important thing to notice here to judge the same effect would be an identical combination of form/technique and spell level.
So for example, a CrIg20 that does +15 vs a CrIg20 spell that did +14? Sorry - same thing, that's just a blatant attempt at trying circumvent the rules.
However, would I consider a CrIg20 vs a CrIg25 the same/identical effect? Definitely not. Just like doing alight wound is not the same as doing a major wound. But, are they closely related effects? Of course they are.
So a mastered pilum of fire with the magic resistance mastery, double your MR vs a Ball of Abysmal flame? Sure it would. However, would it double your MR against some Far Reaching Ball of Abysmal Flame (so a sight range variant)? No, definitely not. Just like a Wound that Weeps with Magic Resistance mastery would double your MR vs The Fatal Wound variant but not against the kiss of death (touch and Fatal Wound).
Otherwise, youd end up with quite a few mages running around with a few PeCo5/PeMe5/PeIg5/CrIg5/CrAu5/CrAq5/etc with 1 level of mastery (magic resistance) and 40+ magic resistance with minimal investment. Maybe throw in a ReTe and you're set - you're now immune to most harmful spells and all earth/metal/stone (aka mundane weaponry). It would be so straightforward that for the low cost of a few seasons, you'd be nearly invulnerable - without even the need for standing/ongoing spells. Except maybe for the odd guy using ReAn to throw bears and livestock at you - literally.
Well, no biggie really Considering we have done such things are removing the "free" +10 bonus to hermetic spells, reduced the realms to 2 Realms only (Divine & Legend) and play using D6 instead of D10, and we still use magic foci, another house rule will not kill us
So you would argue that when I look up a spell description in for Aegis of the Hearth [ReVi20] and Aegis of the Hearth [ReVi25] I will discover "the rules description of the spell is" not "the same," right?
OK. Let's see here. Let's estimate a Parma Magica of 3 for a younger but established mage, and typical resistances of 20 against any Art (most Forms around 5) (This gives your mark of 40 magic resistance). If we estimate 4 spells per TeFo combination will cover the variety and there are 50 TeFo combinations, that's 200 level 5 spells. Those would take a minimum of 50 seasons to develop. If you don't have Flawless Magic you'll also need to invest 1000 experience in Spell Mastery. Let's say you hedge your bets and decide you only need to watch out for one out of five of those Art combinations. Now you're down to 10 seasons and 200 experience. Alternatively, you could have raised your Parma Magica from 3 to 9, adding 30 instead of 20 to your magic resistance. Plus you saved yourself 10 seasons. I'm just not seeing why this is so problematic.
Similar but not identical yes. I would definitely argue, that the ReVi20 is not an "same effect" to ReVi25, but closely related.
The opposite would be to argue that an effect is identical/the same regardless of it's "strength" - which, in my opinion, does not fit with the meaning of the same/identical/whatever.
A) The vast majority of spells that do damage will fall under PeCo or CrIg, with a smattering of some other minor ones. Lets not get sensational and say we need every combination of every art/form. But I can safely double my MR against the vast vast majority of incoming magical attacks since, by some people's interpretation, as long as the spell does "fire damage" or "direct bodily damage" - then the effect s the same.
B) The problem presents itself (and I'm sorry if this is not your stance) if you do assume that all "fire damage" or "direct body damage" are the same effect. Because at that point, you need only 5 or so spells to cover 99% of threats. The elements (fire/air/earth/water), direct body damage, maybe add poison? You've now covered every possible effect that can cause wounds; since you've reduced same-effect differentiation to just the source-type of the damage.
Well, your magus doing that would be in big trouble in my regular games. Most of our attacks show up as PeIg, ReMe, CrTe or MuTe or ReTe, and PeVi. I think this is very saga dependent. Also, why are you only concerned about "damage"? What about dispelling your Parma Magica? Or putting you to sleep and slitting your throat?
This is why I suggested dividing the number of Arts combinations by 5. That leaves you with only 10 to worry about, which is not such an unreasonable number.
No, it's not our stance. But your use of "otherwise" in your statement certainly is attempting to place us in that situation even though we explicitly said that's not what we're saying. Go read our comments above where we specifically stated this is not the case. Your use of "otherwise" and selectively only making your argument against one of the parts of "otherwise" is where the problem lies. Also, as I pointed out above, you only get to your 99% with a very myopic view of threats.
I was only concerned about damage because that was the topic discussed early in this thread - with specific attention to people stating that a +15 was the "same" (not similar, but the "same") as a +20 or a +25. That is the core of my argument - my argument against that reasoning that is.
PeIg does damage, less efficiently but it is rarer - smart move.
Mentum isn't going to do damage really - you may confuse/hesitate/maybe even cripple an enemy - but not in a final manner as a damaging spell may. Neither will PeVi - although you may be able to hinder someone's casting considerably.
Terram is one of those great smart moves because it offers ways to avoid parma and magic resist completely. Although, aimed spells are completely negated by a ReTe25 ward designed to keep away all dirt/metal/gems from your person.
All in all - your Magi do not use straight forward attacks which is the reason they should not be stopped by mastered spells not tailored to those attacks.
Good - I'd grouped your understanding with that of Direwolf's. Or rather, your point of view with his - which is apparently wrong. However, rather than adhoc analysis (and therefore bias) regarding whether something is the same or related or not (which would seem to be the direction your leaning - since it is not based on mechanical system effects), I prefer a more measurable approach which is the game-system effect (damage levels, TeFo, and so on).
The alternative opens one too many doors to abuse by allowing a 10, 15xp expenditure to have such a garuanteed significant effect (since the defence granted by doubling magic resistance is passive) against someone else's expenditure of a LOT more xp.
The question is whether being the same spell includes the same power level or not, right? There are official rules that say "the same spell at a different level." What do those rules mean if changing the level means the spell is not the same? If those rules mean nothing via an interpretation being used, that interpretation is likely incorrect. I'm pretty sure, according to the rules, Aegis of the Hearth [ReVi20] and Aegis of the Hearth [ReVi25] are "the same spell at a different level." That would mean any interpretation that makes Aegis of the Hearth [ReVi20] and Aegis of the Hearth [ReVi25] not "the same spell" is necessarily incorrect and should be altered.
Less efficient? I think that depends on how much armor the opponent has. Check the ArM5 spells.
A level 10 spell putting you to sleep is probably a lot more final a manner than is any level 10 CrIg or PeCo spell. At level 10 it's fairly easy to penetrate.
I think you've forgotten the PeVi can take down Parma Magica. Who cares how good your CrIg defenses are when you lose them?
(Note, I'm pretty sure you want a higher level ward. Most sagas I've seen wouldn't let you cover all of Terram with a single ward without adding magnitudes. Essentially, why is a ward against all dirt/metal/gems no more difficult than a ward against all metal?) You can pull off the same against CrIg, too. The wards are higher level against Ignem, but there's less variety to them than there are against many other Forms.
I don't see why PeIg isn't a straight-forward attack. It's a whole Flambeau school even. Why isn't Crystal Dart a straight-forward attack? Rather, I would say most of our magi are focused more on other Arts and so have chosen straight-forward attacks that take advantage of their preferences. None of them are great at Corpus. The one who is good at Ignem deals with PeVi a lot, too, and so has focused on PeIg instead of CrIg. One magus loves Terram. Another loves Rego. They chose the attacks that fit their specialties. I wouldn't expect it would be uncommon for magi to choose attacks based upon their specialties.
Playing the Devil's Advocate here, but Aegis uses the same General Guideline no matter the magnitude. Level 10 CrIg and Level 15 CrIg use different Guidelines.
The Major Virtue is mainly about spending exp on i provised spells to learn them as formulaic - the bonus of similar spells known added to other improvised spells is in fact a side effect of this.
It is also a Minor virtue in it's own right, also found in the HoH:MC, Merinita section.
And I also remembered this mechanic from 4th ed and also for a while thought it was still true in 5th. But it is not.
But on the topic of which spells count as similar:
I believe that mastering PoF for Resistance does not give automatic double resistance for all CrIg spells. Sure, all CrIg missile spells are sort of similar, so PoF and BoAF should count. But those covering a greater area? Perhaps not! Those with a Re req? Nope.
I was just complaining to the wife that this game makes me feel like I'm in 1st year law school being handed the keys to a seven-floor library of books and being told with a smile... "The answer is in there."
First notice here...
