I think that those are fine, in general the gamist rather than the simulationist rational should apply in ars magica.
Well, RoP:M specifically has that having to penetrate even if you need to roll to hit.
Chris
A though for the sword spell: Use a Rego effect with Target: Part, affecting the handle. That way, the handle is resisted, sure, but you don't care, as you strike with the (non-magical or magiced) blade 
Problem is that, in some cases, you have Parma stop the Magic, while in others, it supresses it. This is unconsistant, and draws close to "intelligent parma".
Like all such rules, it works way better, sure, but only by the power of GM fiat 
Which is precisely why we have pink dot in the first place: Trying to have a Magical Resistance (emphasis on resistance) that don't rely on it.
And like, what if I muto a boulder into an arrow tip, bind it to an arrow, and fire it?
The arrow tip harmlessly hits the parma and drops to the ground if the spell does not penetrate.
If the spell penetrates , then the arrow could strike the target (if you hit) , doing normal arrow damage.
If the arrow-tip changes back into a boulder , during flight , it moves at the speed you could have fired it from the bow.
It does not move at the speed of the arrow.
That's how it works under the RAW, I agree. No judgment call from the GM: it is magical, thus resisted.
I'm asking that for callen under his house rule, where:
3) A mundane ballista bolt is Muto'd into an arrow and shot from a bow. The arrow stops at the PM because the entire thing present is magical.
4) A mundane arrow shot from a bow has a pink dot placed on it by the almost crafty magus. The arrow passes through the PM without a pink dot.
I could also add:
6) An arrow is enchanted so it cannot break, and that's the only enchantment, is shot from a bow. It passes through the PM, but it could break on the magus's armor because the effect is excluded (AKA dispelled).
7) An arrow is enchanted so that its tip is supernaturally sharp. It passes through the PM, but the tip that strikes the magus is only naturally sharp because the effect is excluded (AKA dispelled).
Is the spell dispelled (like #4, 6 and 7) because the entire arrow ain't magical or that's the only enchantment? Is it resisted (Like #3) because, well, because? Only the GM can decide (based on what? Intelligent Parma?), and different GM would decide in different fashions.
It just seems that there's no "perfect" parma, only HR which are perfect for one group.
So they retconned out that entire group of Flambue and all the spells like leap of fire that don't need to penetrate? I can see the argument if it is a concentration spell so that you are fighting with the sword and not just a single attack, but the single attack momentary spell is just like ranged spells.
Why does it have to be consistent? This is after all the Art of Magic not the Science of Magic.
Really? Could you explain how? I even specifically mentioned that if you don't read it carefully the blocking may seem like suppressing, but it isn't in my interpretation. In all cases I have the Parma Magica stopping the magic. It's just that stopping some color that appears on an object needn't mean stopping the object. This is easy to see in the real world. Throw a colored (using color loosely so as not to go into all those positive and negative color issues) ball quickly at a window at night. Turn off the lights before it hits. Does stopping the color from reaching the window stop the ball from reaching and probably breaking the window?
Works fine with my method. The arrow tip, being entirely magical, gets stopped. The shaft might splinter or swing around and do something negligible, but that's about it.
Chris
The magic cannot reach within the Parma Magica to affect anything. That doesn't mean it is suppressed. It's that Parma Magica blocks the magic. Let me give a similar example that may make the blocking, not suppressing, part clearer.
An arrow is enchanted so that all nearby metal and wood cannot be broken. It is otherwise not enchanted. It is shot from a bow while a whole bunch of totally mundane arrows are shot from bows at nearby unprotected grogs. The arrow could break on the magus's armor. But all the arrows that just struck the unprotected grogs nearby could not break. See, the magic is not being suppressed. It's still there and active. It just can't affect inside the Parma Magica if it can't Penetrate. Thus I'm still using a blocking interpretation. I'm just using blocking differently than the traditional method, as I said I was.
Chris
No. Why would they have to. Those spells launch something and let it go naturally from there. We're comparing this to a case where something is still being supernaturally propelled, where the magic has not let it go.
Chris
If the Rego effect is being used to do the pushing, it's resisted according to RoP:M. This is the problem ghosts have if they use a power to "wield" a weapon. They then need to hit and penetrate with it, even if they're only holding the hilt.
Chris
Maybe so that:
- The world seems credible, without things working one way one time, another way another time? You wouldn't want your PoaF to sprout arrows randomly, after all
- The GM's task is made easier
I utterly disagree.
It seems to me that, without even realizing it, you're doing the kind of GM judgment I was talking about earlier.
This is very much like
7) An arrow is enchanted so that its tip is supernaturally sharp. It passes through the PM, but the tip that strikes the magus is only naturally sharp because the effect is excluded.
Why wouldn't the arrow tip, being, exactly like mine, "entirely magical", stop? After all, it was crafted apart from the arrow, just like the one in my exemple, and had a MuTe spell cast on it, exactly like mine.
But there, you just suppress the MuTe "sharp" spell to let pass the de-mutoed arrowtip.
So why wouldn't it supress the MuTe "Turn into arrohead" to let pass the de-mutoed boulder? Why wouldn't the effect be likewise "excluded", leaving you with a boulder striking the magus?
Why would parma de-muto your arrowtip and stop dead mine? In both case, you have a mundane item on which is cast a MuTe spell, and which is then bound to an arrowshaft. But:
- In your case, you don't want the arrow to be stopped dead, so, you cancel the magic (the arrowtip is exactly as it was before MuTe was cast on it)
- In my case, you don't want the magic to be canceled (the boulder being exactly as it was before MuTe was cast on it) so the arrow is stopped dead.
This could also be used with knives. You'd tell me a MuTe-ed "sharp" knife would still strike, entering the parma, without the spell's efffects, while a MuTe-ed boulder thrown by a sling would just be stopped dead? What of a Mace with its top being a mutoed boulder?
Because that is exactly how I am proposing the spell works that you say needs to penetrate. Hell with leap of fire you can make a good argument that the spell is still active as it is hitting the target with the fire and not he burning wood after all.
And it will make the GM's task harder as you will get weird effects that make the most of the ruling. For example why not put the pink dot on a ball of abyssal flame? Then you don't need to worry about the penetration of the BOAF.
A rigid ruling will encourage people to work around the ruling for maximum effect, instead of focusing on applying the gamist effect. If you focus on the gamist interpretation it will be fine.
No, you were talking about the magic still holding on to it, not letting it go:
Now, the change you proposed afterward instead of your two versions would work because now you would be throwing it away, letting it go:
Chris
Yes a separate spell that meant you did not have it go flying across the room. It is between the handle and your hand.
So your are back to the idea that a pink dot on a sword will stop the sword? Here there is a spell on the sword that does not provide it with energy or force just helps you keep a grip on it better. That spell is there because if you move the sword too fast with rego you will need to provide a centripetal acceleration to the sword and at high enough speeds you can not hold on. A lanyard would do fine for spells up to say +10.
The spell that has a durration does not effect the target, it just means you do not lose your sword.
Uh... I know you know more physics than that. First, how do you hold onto a sword without exerting a force on it? More importantly, however, is that a big part of holding onto a sword (or a bat if you want to deal with baseball) is changing how you deal with momentum and angular momentum when it hits, even separate from causing it to swing in the first place. It's easy to try this out with a hammer, and I did so as a child. If you let go just before impact, when something like a baseball bat, a hammer, or a sword strikes, you will drastically reduce how it affects what it strikes. Thus holding onto it has a drastic affect, and in a way that was well understood at the time.
Chris
I have to agree with both of these points. Suspension of disbelief is so important. I can accept a lot of stuff in books, movies, etc. But if you change the level of suspension of disbelief partway through it just starts to seem capricious. And making the GM's job easier is almost always a good thing.
Yes, I see what you are saying. For some reason I was picturing a Creo type effect while talking about a Muto effect on that one. The arrow tip should not make it through when sharpened by Muto, with the tail also potentially breaking or swinging around.
Chris
So instead of a pink dot defense, an arrow accelerator defense would work perfectly? Or just make them heavier with muto?
And as for force, the human wrist is just not that strong and able to put that much torque on a held object. This is why hammers and axes are swung and not placed on top of the object and forced in. When using an axe or maul I really don't apply any force to it after it hits, just let momentum take care of it.
Sure. That still solves the pink dot problem. The problem with the pink dot is not that magic can protect you, it's that you could use a level 4 or so spell to protect yourself from any physical object.
I don't recommend you try this with an axe or maul, but try it with a hammer. The wrist really is that strong. Do remember that when striking your wrist/arm are aligned as needed. The force is mostly compressional, aimed through your hand and wrist toward your lower arm. As a result it requires very little muscle strength while requiring a noticeable amount of force. Concentrating the mass at the point of impact (such as with an axe or a hammer) reduces this force well beyond the case of it not being concentrated (a bat or a sword). However, this force still exists, and if the mass is of the shaft is not negligible (as is the case with axes and hammers), there is a noticeable force from the hand. This force is very different from the force used to swing the thing in the first place. As for the torque, you need to remember that the distance involved is as important a factor as the force, so the torque caused by the hand can be surprisingly large in this case, too.
Chris