The true idiot is the player gaming the system instead of roleplaying his character. I am 100% ok with a munchkin troupe rewriting the rule to have fun the way they want it. But a single player using loophole to raise himself above the others breaks everyone's fun.
Well, we're effectively doing the same thing, aren't we? We've decided not to generate ridiculous amount of permanent Vis via CrFo, Summoning/Ablating, and Imbued with the Spirit of (Form). Sometimes it can be like ours, a gentlemen's agreement to prevent the need for additional house rules.
Chris
It was discussed in another thread and Xavi is right, this effect cannot be achieved under the current hermetic paradigm.
The thing is that we are agreeing to not abuse one particular rules flaw. When is using that enterpretation of magic resistance abusive vs just being effective? There is not a clear line, while there is a clear line of getting Vis for little or nothing. So again we are getting into exactly what he is trying to prevent and that is subjective judgement calls only now it is how much can one exploit the potential problems with how MR works.
I'm just saying they don't have to be playing stupid characters to avoid the pink dot issue without ruling on it. They might just all hate the pink dot thing and so avoid it feeling like that's not how it's supposed to work.
Chris
Well yes, I can see characters being very upset by it. "Oh look - our grog cant hit that annoying Tytalus because he's made their swords smell of cheese!","Oh look - now he's carrying off all the goods we were transporting on his head by making them smell of cheese.", "Well I'll console myself by seducing the hot fairy lord - although the sex doesn't work except when he smells of cheese!"
:mrgreen:
Just a thought... Are we even sure the Pink Dot would work? After all, IIRC, species aren't resisted, or something like that.
Of course, it doesn't help with the other analogs, like using MuTe to change your opponent's blade.
PonderingTurtle: Sometimes, people prefer telling a good story in a setting they like (thus conciously avoiding to abuse a rule) to an effective optimisation that will ruin both in their eyes (exploiting the pink dot loophole). I don't think that makes them idiots, but our conceptions may differ.
Agreed.
Then why be bugged that Parma works slightly inconsistently? If you demand consistency why shouldn't you demand it of the characters as well? That is what bugs me about this you demand the most consistent mechanics but the characters are not permitted to realize how their world works to exploit it? That bugs me a lot more than somewhat gamists inconsistencies in the rules.
If you want to be a simulationist fine but why stop at making parma consistent? Why shouldn't the character react and account for that consistency?
Because Mythic Europe is a perfect world and this inconsistency does not exists. We, as players, are imperfect and unable to simulate this without defect. In character, the loophole doesn't exist.
And how does that promote the argument that having a single explanation of how parma works always instead of going with the gamist interpretation of it and then ignoring the implications of your explanation? This is a problem introduced by the demand for consistency, if they could except the someone inconsistent ways in which magic resistance works then they don't need to pretend not to notice the obvious ways to exploit how it works.
You are not making the game world hold together better by focusing on one way that magic resistance works so what is the gain from it?
Well, you've got 2 options:
-
The parma works consistently, and the players avoid consciously pink dots.
Characters and GM use "normal" wards and spells, acting as if pink dot didn't work, although the game can't simulate it. MR works everytime in the same manner, since everyone avoid using the loopholes. Like, a MuTed sword will bounce, just like a MuTed boulder. -
The parma works inconsistently, with the players maybe trying pink dots, but being incapable anyway to use it because of the constant ruling from the GM.
Characters can't use pink dots, and thus use "normal" wards and spells, as above. But MR doesn't work everytime in the same manner, since it depends on the GM. So the MuTed sword will ignore MR while the MuteD boulder will bounce... Until last time, when the GM (or another GM, in troupe play!!!) will have forgotten his previous ruling and the sword will bounce and the boulder will resume his resume his normal size. Player that, by your definition above, aren't playing idiots, may also bicker with the GM about the rules lack of consistence ("If the MuTed spell is canceled, the MuTed boulder should be too!!!")
Although the first situation isn't perfect, I find it far preferable to the second one.
The best solution, of course, would be to find a MR ruling that would be consistent and avoid Pink Dot, which is what I tried to do with my proposition above (although it is probably as flawed as every other proposal 
). Callen, by the way? 
So how about my unresistible attack spell then? It will set you on fire no matter what after all. That is exactly the kind of making the most out of how you effect PM that I would expect mages to do.
I also think it kind of funny people here seem to demand consistency and demand inconsistency at various times, like in the planting vis thread where people, rightly in my opinion, demanded inconsistency.
I think that people cares about the overall game world, and how it makes sense or not, not specific rules 
At least to me rules are a medum, not an end. If they work, they are used, if not, off the window they go Story first.
Your naphta attack is a very good way to overcome MR. As long as the target can burn, it works. It has the problem that you have to carry quite some naphta around, and not being a common back pocket item to carry around, that can raise quite a few eyebrows. And there you go with a story
Cheers,
Xavi
Well, your spell is a fine spell by the reality of the game world, explicitely stated to be so, not a tentative to exploit a loophole in the rules. As xavi said, it is not always practical, but I put it alonside the Invisible Sling of Vilano, like something that Flambeau magi might use from time to time.
For the rest, I do'nt see your point at all: Faced with an exploit they really don't want (like pink dot) in their game, it seems to me that most people will choose inconsistancy, or just say "no, it doesn't work". Not because it's better than consistency, but because the alternative (pink dot) is worse in their eyes. But avoiding what you don't want (people not trying the pink dot) has the same result, without the additionnal problems I described above. So what's your point?
Or do you really think that, if someone managed to create a consistent and clear rule avoiding pink dot, people would instead choose to have it be a perpetual judgment call from the GM, with MR's effects varying with time and person?
The thing is the pink dot is a class of issues not a single issue. If it was the only one then "no pink dots" would be fine, but you can approach that situation from many sides. For example I think that an anvil enchanted to make iron malleable at room temperature so you can work it with out a forge should hurt someone when dropped on their head or foot. But the ruling on MR says it does not.
Hell it becomes trivial to move around the lab as it can not exert force on your hands.
This is not exploiting the pink dot, but a totally reasonable magic item and determining what logistical effects it has, say if you want to bring it back to your covenant, is it weightless or does it weight say 500 lbs?
The pink dot problem crops up even if players are not trying to exploit it.
I've never seen magic resistance interpreted quit that way before. The way I understandit A magic item isn't resisted by magic resistance unless the item itself is under a magical effect. Just like my Magus can still punch a faerie in the nose even though the Magus is able to cast spells. (I don't even think a Magus under parma is considered magically effected in that way but I could be wrong.)
So no a magic anvil that can cast an effect on iron will still break your foot if it's dropped on it. An anvil that maintains a spell on itself to be magically harder than normal would bounce right as though your toe was made of iron. It still has weight though so if it was on the floor and a Parmed up magus went to lift it he'd want to lift with his knees not his back else he might give himself a hernia.
The canonical magic bridge that falls on your head wouldn't damage you but you'd still be pinned underneath it potentially suffocating.
Now here's a question if you fall on a magical bridge you take damage from falling. So if my Grog grabbed someone protected by MR by the hair and repeated bashed their face into the magical bridge would the take damage?
So what spells could be enhancing the magus and still let them punch the faerie with out being resisted by magic resistance? MuCo spells to increase speed and damage? CrCo effects to boost attributes? When do the magus's hands get resisted?
So cats eyes means you can not punch anyone? Seems like this would be a good reason then to not put spells like wizards sidestep on grogs and other things to enhance them.
Nope.
An anvil with an invested power that it casts on something isn't magical, anymore than a magus is magical because it can cast spells.
So your anvil shouldn't be resisted: It is neither magical, nor magicked.
OTOH, the Iron that it makes malléable will be resisted if dropped on your foot.
But MR doesn't cancel the iron's weight, so if you try to pick it up, it'll be just as heavy.
Think of the MR that resists magic as a suite of invisible indestructible plate armor. If someone dropped a hammer on your foot while you were wearing such an armor, would you be hurt? Of course not. It won't help you lift that hammer either, but it sure will protect from it.
Exactly.
Any spell affecting him would make him be resisted for that spell's duration. That's the RAW.
A possible way to avoid this would be to use T: Part. For exemple, a spell giving him the legs of a stallion would mean his legs are magical, but not his hands.
Eyes of the Cat: I can't fathom why it isn't T: Part (Other than Legacy, that is). As written, you can punch anyone. But, for Targets with MR, your punches, it resisted, will encounter that invisible plate armor and thus fail to hurt them (With my "bane MR", your eyes of the cat would be canceled and you'd hit your opponent)
Wizard's sidestep: This targets the grog's species, displacing them but not the grog, so he isn't magical and thus isn't resisted