Magic sword vs. Faerie Might

[Ponderingturtle]

@callen

@Ponderingturtle

So instead of a pink dot defense, an arrow accelerator defense would work perfectly? Or just make them heavier with muto?

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.

By making it level 5? You don't need much effect after all, just a little bit of muto and bang immunity.

@Ponderingturtle

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.

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

Concentrating the mass at the end increases the rotational inertia and thus energy available. There certainly is some energy being transfered but that only matters more when you are performing work over real distance. So it is important when using a tack hammer to drive tacks but not very important when breaking rocks with a sledge hammer. Of course rocks don't always require a lot of energy to break but a lot of force.

So the smaller the object the more it will matter. With a large object that is end balanced like a large hammer or axe it is much more about velocity of the head than adding energy as it starts to slow down.

As for claiming the wrist is so strong try to see how much force you generate by pushing on something with just the wrist. Why do you think that you keep your wrist straight when you really push on something instead of depending on the strength of the wrist to handle torque?

[callen]

@Ponderingturtle

@callen

@Ponderingturtle

So instead of a pink dot defense, an arrow accelerator defense would work perfectly? Or just make them heavier with muto?

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.

By making it level 5? You don't need much effect after all, just a little bit of muto and bang immunity.

• Now that I have my book on me.. The pink dot is CrIm3 for R: Voice. And it's one pair of Arts for all solid objects.
• The arrow accelerator... Let's be smarter, just push it a little to the side with R: Voice and you don't even need your PM. So at that point having it deal with PM is just an interestingly different approach but not at all fundamentally important. Besides, it's level ReTe(An,He)10, though I would accept ReTe(He)10, for an iron/steel tipped arrow. Not only is this a higher level than the pink dot, but it requires multiple Forms, too.
• The muto'd tip... Well, which guideline to use? Edge of the razor is base 3. You might well get away with base 2, though. (I'm not sure I even know how to hit base 1 given the ArM5 examples.) With base 2 +2 magnitudes for metal and +2 magnitudes for voice, we're up to MuTe10. Even if you manage to argue it down to MuTe5, you still have to be able to do this with many different Forms and it's a higher level than the pink dot.

@Ponderingturtle

Concentrating the mass at the end increases the rotational inertia and thus energy available.

Careful, you're starting to veer very, very far from how the factors are important. If that were actually the case, why not use a much longer haft with a slightly lighter head? That would create more rotational inertia. Why not just use five times as much mass on the head? That would concentrate the mass more at the head and increase the rotational inertia. Here's a modern case: why do you use an axe to fell a tree and not a maul? (There's an additional point to the axe vs. maul that I've included at the end because you should split wood with a maul instead of an axe and there is a reason for that.)

@Ponderingturtle

There certainly is some energy being transfered but that only matters more when you are performing work over real distance... it is much more about velocity of the head than adding energy as it starts to slow down.

You misunderstand me. I'm not talking about adding energy in the last minute bit of travel. The distance is so small and with the speed the object is moving it is so hard to apply force to speed it up. That part is certainly nearly irrelevant. But I haven't been talking about that at all. So the above statement has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument.

@Ponderingturtle

As for claiming the wrist is so strong try to see how much force you generate by pushing on something with just the wrist. Why do you think that you keep your wrist straight when you really push on something instead of depending on the strength of the wrist to handle torque?

Please reread what I wrote about the direction of the applied force. You seem to get it when you talk about keeping your wrist straight. That's exactly the type of situation we're examining. So, let's clarify some things:

1. What we care about is, as I said earlier the force applied in the direction straight down the arm, through the wrist, through the palm of the hand. We're not talking about how well the wrist can rotate or keep itself from rotating. That only becomes an issue if you don't know how to land the strike and are really crooked. This relevant portion of the force is exerted perpendicular to the shaft, in the tangential direction of the swing. In actuality you need to exert two forces along this axis, one in each direction, one set the axis and one to act around it. There are multiple ways these forces are important:

2. One of the ways the forces are important is in creating an axis of rotation. When you let go of the shaft the axis of rotation moves to through the center of mass instead of well outside of the base of the shaft. How quickly does this happen? Assuming it's rigid enough, at the speed the phonons travel through it, meaning nearly instantaneously for our purposes. For simplicity, imagine all of the motion beforehand to be rotational about the point near the base of the shaft/hilt, which is a very good approximation until you get to things like modern foils which are far too flexible and light and so are used in different ways. After releasing the shaft/hilt the motion becomes a mix of translation of the center of mass and rotation about the center of mass. In the case of something like an axe, the center of mass will be near or perhaps even a little inside the bottom of the blade (below for modern axes, but I'm not sure for weapons). That very quickly changes the direction the blade of the axe faces, but because most of the momentum will show up in a linear fashion, it won't change the impact speed by much. Since your Parma Magica extends to the edge of your clothes, or skin if there are no clothes on that region, you better hit bare skin. If you hit thick enough clothes or armor and it's moving fast enough to go through, the axe will be well off-course by the time it hits flesh. In the case of something like a sword it will actually increase the impact speed because you balance a sword around a point much closer to the hilt, a point much nearer the wielder than the point which strikes the target (assuming typical use and not holding the blade to swing the hilt, which moves it closer to a mace and so closer to an axe in behavior).

3. So, if the striking part of the blade is moving faster with the sword, why not let go? You might argue because you need it for defense. But we know this isn't the only reason. Why don't executioners let go? (Or baseball players?) Why is it so important to hang on? It's so important because the collision itself needs to be examined. For a simplified understanding, consider why a spear/pike/lance can do so much more damage when braced than when loosed. The idea is roughly the same, but it's more complex due to the rotation. Essentially the idea is that a more massive object continues on its path more easily, in this case into the target. You effectively add that mass by attaching your body (through your hands) to your weapon. Once the sword is spinning without a wielder, the target, being relatively far from the center of mass, doesn't need to exert a very large force to change the rotation and have the sword swing past him on the side the hilt is on. This doesn't mean the sword won't deal damage, but it will transfer much less of its energy than when it is held. As for the axe, this isn't as much of an issue because the weight is concentrated so much where it is striking the target. However, the same is still true, just to a much lesser extent.

If you really don't believe me, try this out. Grab a baseball bat and a baseball. See how far you can hit the baseball normally. Then see how far you can hit the baseball when you release the handle just before striking the ball. Is the bat a bad example? It's weighted more like an axe than a sword compared to the striking location, but even according to one of the top Japanese hitters (who was also an expert with the katana - sorry, can't remember his name) it's use is not that dissimilar from a sword. Regardless, it's going through the motion we want. Anyway, try this. You'll understand right away.

There is an additional issue with when using a maul to split wood, though not to fell a tree. That is that you strike the piece of wood with the maul with gravity helping you. This means you don't need the same type of strength to swing the maul, letting gravity generate a lot of its speed for you. Also, since gravity is acting where the blade is striking, it helps counteract the force the wood exerts back on the head. The same is true of a hammer used on nails going downward.

Chris

[Ponderingturtle]

@callen

@Ponderingturtle

Concentrating the mass at the end increases the rotational inertia and thus energy available.

Careful, you're starting to veer very, very far from how the factors are important. If that were actually the case, why not use a much longer haft with a slightly lighter head? That would create more rotational inertia. Why not just use five times as much mass on the head? That would concentrate the mass more at the head and increase the rotational inertia. Here's a modern case: why do you use an axe to fell a tree and not a maul? (There's an additional point to the axe vs. maul that I've included at the end because you should split wood with a maul instead of an axe and there is a reason for that.)

Those would all make the tool hit harder, the thing is that you do not always want to hit as hard as possible. As for the maul felling a tree, it has the wrong blade geometry for that, and at that weight it would be a real pain in the ass to use. But it would hit far harder. Putting a longer handle on a hammer would also make it hit harder, but again it is a trade off for control. It would be hard to accurately hit a nail with a claw hammer on a 4' handle. Hence why people choke up on hammers sometimes inspite of the way that reduces head velocity and hitting power.

I might have been over stressing rotational innertia but that is a bit of an over statment but the energy of the object is by far what matters.

@Ponderingturtle

As for claiming the wrist is so strong try to see how much force you generate by pushing on something with just the wrist. Why do you think that you keep your wrist straight when you really push on something instead of depending on the strength of the wrist to handle torque?

Please reread what I wrote about the direction of the applied force. You seem to get it when you talk about keeping your wrist straight. That's exactly the type of situation we're examining. So, let's clarify some things:

Then you are talking more about a thrust than a swing.

1. What we care about is, as I said earlier the force applied in the direction straight down the arm, through the wrist, through the palm of the hand. We're not talking about how well the wrist can rotate or keep itself from rotating. That only becomes an issue if you don't know how to land the strike and are really crooked. This relevant portion of the force is exerted perpendicular to the shaft, in the tangential direction of the swing. In actuality you need to exert two forces along this axis, one in each direction, one set the axis and one to act around it. There are multiple ways these forces are important:

[/quote]
The thing is that you are pushing up on one side of the object and down on the other, inducing a large moment into it. You need to resist that moment with your wrist. Take a couple of bars set them on the table and push yourself up on them. You are just pushing down so it should be easy right? Except that you are inducing a moment in the bars and as they are not fixed to the table you have to resist that with your wrist. It goes from easy when you have something to handle the moment to damn near impossible.

[callen]

@Ponderingturtle

@callen

@Ponderingturtle

Concentrating the mass at the end increases the rotational inertia and thus energy available.

Careful, you're starting to veer very, very far from how the factors are important. If that were actually the case, why not use a much longer haft with a slightly lighter head? That would create more rotational inertia. Why not just use five times as much mass on the head? That would concentrate the mass more at the head and increase the rotational inertia. Here's a modern case: why do you use an axe to fell a tree and not a maul? (There's an additional point to the axe vs. maul that I've included at the end because you should split wood with a maul instead of an axe and there is a reason for that.)

Those would all make the tool hit harder,...

No, they wouldn't. That's why they're not done. If the head were moving at the same speed in each case, then yes, they would. But you are entirely neglecting the difficulty in making the object accelerate. There is a "sweet spot" which varies based on what you're striking, how you swing the object, and how you want the object to strike its target. Yes, as you mentioned, there is also a trade-off for control. But do you honestly think I could hit something harder with a 500-lb hammer with no control than with a 1-lb hammer with control? Not a chance. I couldn't even pick up the 500-lb hammer. So how could I possibly hit something harder with it? Clearly there is a flaw in this line of reasoning. For an easy modern case, why do you make a tennis racket so light to be able to hit the ball harder, even when you could easily control it at several times the weight?

@Ponderingturtle

Then you are talking more about a thrust than a swing.

No, not at all. First, I think it's pretty clear I've been talking about rotation. Second, except with modern pistol grips, you generally do not have a straight wrist when striking with a thrusting weapon. For older examples I can only think of the cestus, the katar, and the buckler off-hand. Yes, a thrusting weapon does rely more on the mass attached to it since it has trouble attaining the same speed.

@Ponderingturtle

In actuality you need to exert two forces along this axis, one in each direction, one set the axis and one to act around it.

The thing is that you are pushing up on one side of the object and down on the other, inducing a large moment into it.

Yes. But as you can see and quoted, I already acknowledged that, and it doesn't change the argument. In fact, if we're just talking about holding on requiring force, it only strengthens the argument from a different standpoint.

Let's look at a specific example. I'll make this relatively similar to a sword. Imagine two metal rods, connected end to end, one being the hilt and the other being the blade. We'll give the hilt one a length of 25 cm and the blade one a length of 65 cm. We'll make the total mass 1 kg (about 2.2 lb of weight). We'll put the center of mass 10 cm up the blade. (I've chosen to use a katana of roughly typical sizes since it doesn't have much extra around the hilt. I've chosen nice numbers at those typical sizes.) That puts the center of the blade and the center of the hilt each 22.5 cm from the center of mass, which is nice to work with. That means both pieces have the same mass. Putting all that together gives us a moment of inertia of 85/1200 kgm^2 around the center of mass and 232/1200 kgm^2 around the base of the base of the hilt (pommel's spot).

Now that we know the specifications of our sword, we need to see how it is swinging. To simplify things let's say it is purely spinning around the base of the hilt, even though it's not quite there. Since you are told to "snap" the blade near the end for a proper strike, this is nearly what happens, so the approximation is pretty good. Even if it's not perfect, the basic behavior we see will be the same. We'll have it swinging at an angular speed wi around this axis of rotation.

Now what happens when this is released just before impact? The center of mass is moving along at vi=rwi=(0.35 m)wi. The rotation rate is wi around the center of mass. (Basically, this is the rolling without slipping situation.) This isn't really different motion at that exact moment, just a different expression of the same motion, for all times afterward it is noticeably different. In the first case we have angular momentum L1=I1wi=(232/1200 kgm^2)wi. In the second case we have linear momentum p=mvi=(0.35 kgm)wi and angular momentum L2=I2wi=(85/1200 kgm^2)*wi.

What is different is the interaction as a target is struck. Now we have to deal with the collision. Let's assume the collision happens over the same amount of time, regardless of the method. How much force is required to stop the motion of the part of the sword that strikes the target? This will allow us to compare the impacts most easily. In the first case, the axis of rotation is maintained by keeping hold of the hilt. In the second situation the axis of rotation passes through the center of mass. With the katana you're supposed to hit about 5 cm from the tip, which is 85 cm from the base of the hilt and 55 cm from the center of mass. (This situation is worse for a cutting sword like the katana than for a chopping sword like a greatsword. But I've been working with the katana and just looked up it's striking point, so I'll keep going. Again, the affect will be the same just smaller.) The first case is relatively straightforward: F1=(232/1200 kgm)wi/(0.85t)=232/1020 kgmwi/t, where t is the impact time. It's not so easy for the second case. You need to make sure the change of linear momentum from the force and the change of angular momentum from the same force stop the motion at that one spot. You end up getting F2=(1kg)(0.35 m+0.55 m)wi/((1+(1 kg)(0.55 m)^2/(85/1200 kgm^2))t)=153/896 kgmwi/t. Let's compare these forces. F2/F1=(1531020)/(896232)=0.75. So 25% of the impact is lost by not holding onto the hilt during the strike, and this has nothing to do with adding extra energy into the swing.

Wow, clearly I knew there would be a loss, but even I wasn't expecting a 25% loss. Many European swords, being designed more for chopping, should fare better. And, as I've said, things like axes will fare much better here. But axes have the directional issue to contend with much more so than do long blades. Anyway, there it is.

Chris

Edit: Out of curiosity, I've started looking into just how small this effect is with an axe. I figured it would be best to attach it here.

I'm starting with a modern felling axe, figuring it's got some reach and might be similar to an axe used in combat. I've decided to push things in favor of the axe since I want to see how little effect there would be. So I'm using the best-case weight distribution on a modern felling axe, for which I can find some decent data. Surprisingly, the center of mass only ends up about 75% of the way up the shaft. (I supposed some using plastics in the handle may be further up, but we want wooden handles.) I had thought it would be a lot closer to the axe head, but apparently not. And that was pushing things in favor of the axe. Comparing this axe to a battle axe, I see battle axes were sometimes longer and sometimes shorter than my 36" sample axe. On the long end it becomes questionable about when it's a battle axe and when it's a pole arm. On the short end it's mostly one-handed versus two-handed. From what I'm reading and from what I'm seeing in photos of real weapons, battle axes were generally lighter than felling axes and the shafts tended to be reinforced more while the heads were lighter. I hadn't expected that. So the battle axe's shaft will be a greater fraction of its weight than the head will be in comparison to the felling axe. So my best-case felling axe is even better compared to the battle axe. Now I need to crunch some numbers as I did above...

[maine75man]

Not to ruin a such a great argument but you guys do remember that the newtonian laws of motion don't apply in the Ars Magica world.

[Tugdual]

@maine75man

Not to ruin a such a great argument but you guys do remember that the newtonian laws of motion don't apply in the Ars Magica world.

Which means that once you release it, air is the only thing pushing it forward. And if you use Rego to move it at a good klick, as soon as the Rego effect stops it stops moving too...

[callen]

@maine75man

Not to ruin a such a great argument but you guys do remember that the newtonian laws of motion don't apply in the Ars Magica world.

I wasn't thinking of it as using Newtonian physics. I was thinking of it as experienced swordsmen and the like knowing that it's best to continue pressing through the strike. I figured they would know it experientially. I think of it like the coaching that happens in so many sports today. Most coaches couldn't go through a good Newtonian approximation of why you should swing through hitting whatever ball it is you're hitting (unless you're bunting), but they can tell you you should.

@Tugdual

Which means that once you release it, air is the only thing pushing it forward. And if you use Rego to move it at a good klick, as soon as the Rego effect stops it stops moving too...

I thought they would keep moving and that was why those Flambeau spells work.

Chris

[Tugdual]

@callen

@Tugdual

Which means that once you release it, air is the only thing pushing it forward. And if you use Rego to move it at a good klick, as soon as the Rego effect stops it stops moving too...

I thought they would keep moving and that was why those Flambeau spells work.

Invisible Sling of Vilano? Yeah, you're right.

[maine75man]

@callen

I thought they would keep moving and that was why those Flambeau spells work.

Chris

Most Rego effect's magically carry things along and once the magic stops the object drops no matter how fast it was moving. Even momentary spells that move the object very quickly guide the object the whole way (when your trying to damage something I assume the spell doesn't plan on stopping till its on the other side of the "target") So this type of magic is almost completely useless against magic resistance it doesn't penetrate. Once the magic stops it's as though whatever was moving it placed it on you as gently as possible. Now if you set boiling oil or a giant bolder on someones head there going to have problems but for the most part it's not an issue. A rock, a sword a tornado of broken glass all of them touch you as carefully as possible.

The Flambeau spells work differently though. In my mind the Villano spells work by mimicking the motion of hurling an object with a bow, a sling, a even catapult. Think of them like rego craft magic where the magic is simulating a tool.These tools just happen to throw things for damage. You have to aim it during the throw because there is no magical force guiding it into the "target" of the spell. But because the magic only effects them during the throw there is nothing for magic resistance to stop once the projectile reaches it's target. Since I envision the spell as actually working like an invisible sling I imagine that if someone with magic resistance where to physically block the throw before the magic releases then the projectile would just fall to the ground like any other momentary rego spell.

[The_Fixer]

Callen, I've thought about this some more, and would like your input.

The only solutions I've seen to the (theorical) pink dot problem is people alternating between "parma stops" and "parma cancels" depending on the situation, which puts us with incoherent results.
I've wondered if adopting a "parma cancels" stance wouldn't be better, but I'm not convinced by it.

So why not have something like this: Parma is a bane to magic, like the traditionnal crucifix (or other props, like the sun) to vampires.
So, if the spell doesn't penetrate:

• It cancels the weaker spells (say, lvl < 10), like a crucifix destroying weak vampires.
• It can't cancel, but still stops, the stronger ones, like a crucifix repelling a vampire.
• If the spell penetrates, the magical force behind it was strong enough to protect it from the Parma

It has some drawbacks, sure, namely the fact that dropping your parma against weak spells is useless, since they'll be cancelled once you put it up. This ain't much of a problem since weak usually means more penetration, but it's still here. Ruling that you're an AC to yourself may help.
Similarly (serf's parma, I don't know if these exist), there may be times when you'll drop through the magical bridge (since it doesn't penetrate, and thus is canceled), but I think these'll be minor.

What do you think of it? Have I missed something?

@Ponderingturtle

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.

With all due respect, I think you'rte confusing things.

I'm saying rules should be coherent, so that the same causes should produce the same effects. You're basically answering me "parma is bugged, thus coherence is a bad thing".

I say thee nay! It's like in science: If a model proves to be flawed, you must create a better model, one that explain the flaws but is still coherent. So, if there's a flaw with parma, the answer should not be incoherent rulings but to find a better model for parma, like I'm trying to do above.

Incoherence would mean things like, without any other virtue or anything, your character with Str +1 being barely able to lift a book, while your friend's, with the same strength, would be able to lift a mountain. Why? Because, on a whim, the GM said it so without any reference to anything else.

As for your fears of a supposed rigid ruling encouraging people to exploit it, I've almost always been in games using the RAW parma, and I've never even seen someone try something approaching a pink dot. So maybe you're letting your fears (or bad experiences?) get the best of you.
Note that Pink Dot, although a non-desirable effect, isn't wrong in itself. Making a sword slightly magical so that it is stopped by your parma can be perceived like a perfectly valid magical defense, and may very well be, in some universes.

[maine75man]

@The Fixer

What do you think of it? Have I missed something?

Your solution while pretty elegant and might satisfy a lot of people misses a couple of the big problems with the existence of the "Pink dot Effect"

One Problem is that since the "Pink dot effect" makes a small spell that is as effective as a large spell you can use it to create a medium spell that is as effective as huge spell. Or in other words instead of creating a "I turn your sword pink so you can't hurt me" you can create a "I turn your army pink so they can't hurt me" spell.

The other problem is that while a lot of people use the "Pink Dot Effect" to argue that it makes Mages to powerful, what they really want to change are the effects that limit what their characters can do with magic. Just look at the start of this discussion. Someone wants a magical sword that will work against a creature with magic resistance. I blame DnD for that one. People want their magic swords and they want them to always be better than a mundane sword. Or at the very least not be a liability. So those people won't be happy with your solution.

For me while I don't like the flavor problem one brings to the game I do like the flavor problem two leaves in the game. Thats why I prefer the gentleman's agreement solution. If no one exploits the loophole then it's not really a problem.

[callen]

Fixer, interesting idea. Let me mull it over for a little bit and get back to you on it. I like that, like my approach, yours is using a simple fundamental idea to generate different seeming outcomes. We're both working on possibilities for Parma Magica's Theory of Everything. (Yes, I do like my physics.)

Chris

[noliar]

Hi, I,m the player who designed the sword in question and these are the assumptions I was making when I did so:
-The effect controls the movement of the sword itself and thus personal range is applicable, item effects are sustained by the wielder's concentration and controlled by the wielder's finesse as standard without the effect needing touch range or having to pass the wielder's parma.
-Magic resistance will stop an object being driven by the force of a Rego effect however if the Rego effect is merely providing guidance and the force is provided by the weight and strength of the man holding the sword then it doesn't matter if the effect is stopped at the moment of contact because the sword is where I want it and the blow continues by mundane means - hence I deliberately did not have the effect add to damage ie. force. In effect it's the same principle as the rock lobber spells but with muscle instead of mundane inertia and gravity.
-An enchanted item does not by the mere fact of being enchanted count as a magic object for the purposes of magic resistance. It is a different class of thing from an object summoned by creo or wholly transformed by muto, those being the types of thing explicitly stopped in the definition and examples of magic resistance.
-If something is under an active magical effect then magic resistance will stop the effect affecting the resistor but not necessarily stop the thing.

So far, the way we've been playing it I'm wrong on the fourth point and judgement is suspended on point three.

[callen]

@noliar

controlled by the wielder's finesse...
the Rego effect is merely providing guidance and the force is provided by the weight and strength of the man holding the sword...

To me, having spent years working with swords, axes, mauls, and a variety of hammers, these two statements are utterly contradictory. The weight and strength of the wielder do not themselves provide the force. (For example, you can't just be big and strong a sit on a couch while your axes is chopping wood outside.) It's the application of forces in the appropriate directions on the handle that cause the weapon to swing. If they're not applied in the proper directions, it won't swing in the the proper directions; then you could use Rego to redirect is, applying the force itself, at which point why swing the wrong way instead of just using Rego? If they are applied in the proper directions, then you are providing the guidance.

From a different perspective, as a storyguide of a player making such a spell, this is what I would see. You want to use a Rego effect in a way that is resisted but not have it resisted, so you'll just say yours isn't resisted. That you aren't making a higher level spell to add to damage shouldn't mean your effect gets to bypass magic resistance while someone else's effect doesn't.

From another perspective, I would wonder why magi who specialize in this stuff in the books avoid using Finesse. There must be some problem with replacing the weapon Abilities with Finesse. Otherwise it's just far more efficient for the magi to use Finesse. In the books we see there is: magic resistance.

Now if you were to use Rego to throw the sword and release it like the Flambeau spells do, that would be fine. This way you're really avoiding dealing with magic resistance. But this isn't how a sword is designed to be used, and you wouldn't get to include the caster's weight and strength in the damage being done.

Chris

[noliar]

If you thrust then the forces bringing the sword into line are orthagonal to the force thrusting it home, when you swing then forces orthagonal to the direction will change the plane of that swing, if your sword point is against the right part of your foe then a draw cut will do useful damage and recovering from a move is different from making an attack. In other words it is perfectly possible to use Rego magic to help manoeuver a sword without using it to power your blows. I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong Steve) that my GM has a problem with that aspect of the build but rather that David Chart said in the FAQ that enchanted and/or enspelled items count as Magic Objects for purposes of magic resistance.
Now that is OK from a purely combat POV - it makes my quaesitor's sword useless against wizards which is personally annoying (I've got a grog for mundanes after all) and it allows pink dot exploit defenses which are a bit cheesy but it stops other equally cheesy exploits (some of you might count my sword among them) so overall meh. However when you extend it to non-combat situations it gets silly. For instance, consider a very sturdy backpack enchanted to keep its contents dry, a magus puts it on - it's a bit slippy on his parma but the right straps will take care of that - and has his servants fill it with lead. He will feel no weight at all because it can exert no force upon him but he can still move it because he can exert force on it (gotta love medieval mechanics ) he won't even have trouble stopping although starting moving will be a bit difficult and if he forgets and sits down he'll have to unload it to get it up again. Or how about this, if you have a pawn of vis in the form of a cobblestone can you beat a magus to death with it? Or, does this rule apply to creatures and people too? Does the parma magica itself count as an ongoing magical effect? The longevity ritual certainly does so can magi not have sex with each other with their parma up - suddenly the gentle gift is worth a lot more? Still, at least magi can voluntarily lower their magi resistance but what about creatures with Might and permanent powers - how do they breed?
If it were a properly thought out rule change why was none of this addressed when AM5 came out?

[maine75man]

@noliar

Hi, I,m the player who designed the sword in question and these are the assumptions I was making when I did so:

Your partially right on RAW definitions but there are a few points your off on.

-The effect controls the movement of the sword itself and thus personal range is applicable, item effects are sustained by the wielder's concentration and controlled by the wielder's finesse as standard without the effect needing touch range or having to pass the wielder's parma.

Yup an enchanted item doesn't need to penetrate the user's MR to be effectively controlled. As long as none of the actual magical effects target the user so your good there.

-An enchanted item does not by the mere fact of being enchanted count as a magic object for the purposes of magic resistance. It is a different class of thing from an object summoned by creo or wholly transformed by muto, those being the types of thing explicitly stopped in the definition and examples of magic resistance.

Sure an enchanted item is not by itself effected by magic. A staff that shots fireballs is perfectly useful to bash someone with magic resistance over the head.

-If something is under an active magical effect then magic resistance will stop the effect affecting the resistor but not necessarily stop the thing.

Nope by RAW an item currently being effected by active magic can't hurt someone protected by magic resistance it doesn't matter what the magic is doing. So someone turned invisible by magic couldn't punch stab or bite someone with active magic resistance. If you turned a bolder invisible and threw it with a mundane catapult and it landed on a magi with just 1 point of MR it'd bounce off like it was the lightest down pillow.

-Magic resistance will stop an object being driven by the force of a Rego effect however if the Rego effect is merely providing guidance and the force is provided by the weight and strength of the man holding the sword then it doesn't matter if the effect is stopped at the moment of contact because the sword is where I want it and the blow continues by mundane means - hence I deliberately did not have the effect add to damage ie. force. In effect it's the same principle as the rock lobber spells but with muscle instead of mundane inertia and gravity.

Actually your misunderstanding how Villano spells work here. The "rock lobber" spells your talking about work essentially like Rego craft magic in that they simulate the effect of a tool like a sling to throw a rock in a natural way. They work because the effect has ended by the time they reach the target and the projectile is no longer being effected by magic. Continuous Villano spell just wouldn't wouldn't work that way because the spell is still ongoing.

So far, the way we've been playing it I'm wrong on the fourth point and judgement is suspended on point three.

Well as always your saga your choice but to me you've created an effect that Magic Resistance was specifically meant to stop. Magi get to act like gods around mere mortals but their spells an items are supposed to become unreliable around their magical peers.

[noliar]

@maine75man

-An enchanted item does not by the mere fact of being enchanted count as a magic object for the purposes of magic resistance. It is a different class of thing from an object summoned by creo or wholly transformed by muto, those being the types of thing explicitly stopped in the definition and examples of magic resistance.

Sure an enchanted item is not by itself effected by magic. A staff that shots fireballs is perfectly useful to bash someone with magic resistance over the head.

-If something is under an active magical effect then magic resistance will stop the effect affecting the resistor but not necessarily stop the thing.

Nope by RAW an item currently being effected by active magic can't hurt someone protected by magic resistance it doesn't matter what the magic is doing. So someone turned invisible by magic couldn't punch stab or bite someone with active magic resistance. If you turned a bolder invisible and threw it with a mundane catapult and it landed on a magi with just 1 point of MR it'd bounce off like it was the lightest down pillow.

-Magic resistance will stop an object being driven by the force of a Rego effect however if the Rego effect is merely providing guidance and the force is provided by the weight and strength of the man holding the sword then it doesn't matter if the effect is stopped at the moment of contact because the sword is where I want it and the blow continues by mundane means - hence I deliberately did not have the effect add to damage ie. force. In effect it's the same principle as the rock lobber spells but with muscle instead of mundane inertia and gravity.

Actually your misunderstanding how Villano spells work here. The "rock lobber" spells your talking about work essentially like Rego craft magic in that they simulate the effect of a tool like a sling to throw a rock in a natural way. They work because the effect has ended by the time they reach the target and the projectile is no longer being effected by magic. Continuous Villano spell just wouldn't wouldn't work that way because the spell is still ongoing.

Ah, so there's no problem so long as I stop the effect before I attack someone with resistance (and lose the bonus to attack) which is no problem since it's concentration duration. In fact if I could end the effect just before contact I should get nearly the full benefit. If I gave the effect the ending condition "as soon as the sword blade strikes magic resistance" the sword would work as intended but each blow against a foe with resistance would use up one of the uses per day. :mrgreen:

The no sex between magi problem and the weightless backpack exploit still seem to apply.

[callen]

@noliar

If you thrust then the forces bringing the sword into line are orthagonal to the force thrusting it home

You have a huge, huge assumption here, one that you have specifically said is not to be correct. What you're saying here is that if you aim it nearly right you can fine-tune things. That I would find more acceptable.

But you're talking about beforehand is that no skill whatsoever is just as useful as having skill, which is a very different case. For example, with an opponent in front of me I could thrust to the right (90 degrees off course) and the Rego would put the blade in line. In that case the required force from Rego is not only greater than it would have been to cause the thrust itself, it's also not nearly orthogonal to the original thrust. Similarly, someone with no skill wouldn't understand the proper timing of extending with the arm versus the leg versus where the blade should be. That is required for full impact. But your Rego effect explicitly isn't putting the person in position, so where did the extra thrust come from?

Chris

[noliar]

The character in question does have some (mediocre) sword skill. And practically anyone knows the pointy end goes in the other guy - I agree that if a magus had no concept of sword combat and severe dyspraxia such that he was thrusting at 90+ degrees from where he wanted the sword to go and didn't put any effort into his strikes this sword would not do him any good. The effect is intended as an aid for someone who knows the basics and what he wants to do with the sword but cannot spare hundreds of hours building up muscle memory etc.

[callen]

@noliar

If I gave the effect the ending condition "as soon as the sword blade strikes magic resistance" the sword would work as intended but each blow against a foe with resistance would use up one of the uses per day. :mrgreen:

That would still be an SG call. An SG could easily rule if it has hit magic resistance to trigger, then it has already been resisted. It would cease to be resisted afterward, but the attack would have failed at that point. If you had it scanning for magic resistance you could avoid this potential issue. I could see a ruling the other way, too.

Chris