ArM5 p.113f Magical Senses has:
Each magical sense grants the recipient information through one of his senses.
As the circle starts with no senses, Hermetic magical senses cannot be bestowed upon it.
1 Like
Thanks for the clarity, the text in the description states that "The grotesque is carved such that it has discernible eyes and this effect gives it a field of vision"
Would carving or drawing and eye or making the ring inside the iris or pupil suffice?
perhaps using a bust placed in the circle?
I think the original spell is miswritten. The original spell grants something with the ability to see (as shown by OneShot) the ability to see. So the spell does nothing. But the basic idea of the spell is valid. The core book says you can grant senses to something using InIm:
independent items need to be able to see (InIm) to use this range.
The effect should not have used Vision. That's where the contradiction is. It should probably use Part, making it so the carved eyes can actually see the images carried to them.
And then the note about penetration is strange. It belongs there because of Vision, but Vision shouldn't be there. Detecting the species already arriving at the carved eyes doesn't require penetration, though.
The issue about part just makes makes the circle target more attractive since you are isolating the eye with a circle, I'm in agreement about the penetration, unless it can "see" though illusions and the like.
This rather says, that you need to grant such senses, without explaining how you can do so. The InIm spells and guidelines in the core book do not help here. There are also no helpful Hermetic guidelines, spells or effects in later books that I know of - so to me it looks like either using house rules or abandoning that project.
Verditius Automata (HoH:MC p.128ff) and Heron's Mechanica (AM p.76ff) help, but are not Hermetic and apparently don't use InIm.
Yup, I had a look at how items are triggered to see how they "feel" being moved in a certain way or "listen" for a command word... I assume it's built into the enchanting process.
Based on what guidelines there are and The Stone Watchman, I'd say it's +1 base for each sense.
The important thing here is HP p.44f Gargoyles and Grotesques:
Hermetic magi have many options when providing enchanted watchmen for their tower. These include finding and bargaining with magical creatures, or simply enslaving spirits and binding them into the forms of grotesques. Either of these overcomes the limitations of simple devices, chiefly their lack of thought and will. Particularly adept Verditius craftsmen may know the secrets of building automata and these, again, do not suffer the limitations of simple anchanted stone. Likewise, those who have rediscovered the ancient secrets of Heronic automata may build sentient devices, which can be put to work as guardians.
One of these approaches is required to provide the kind of basic thought and will to process sensory input supplied by the InIm effect with T: Vision.
Just projecting stuff "seen" by the gargoyle onto a mirror can be done without any thought and will, with no InIm at all, by ReIm: move images from the bronze sliver to the mirror.
fair enough
Well, it gives a parenthetical note about InIm for granting such senses, which indicates InIm can do it. But you're right that InIm guidelines don't say much of anything, so how you use InIm to do so is quite unclear. But using Vision is inherently contradictory.
You can do MuTe(An) with Part to turn carved eyes into functional animal eyes using a MuTe guideline, but that's about it.
I don't think that's a useful ruling for play purposes.
Including both quotes as I'm replying to both in a way. See below.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Lack of of thought and will, and the inability to be the recipient of a sensory magic spell are two entirely different things. Yes, being the recipient of a spell with Sense Vision, Taste, Smell, Hearing may require that sense in the first place, but bear in mind that Ars Magicka is not quite as straightforward when deciding what has a sense. After all, if a stone and a fire don't have senses, why do we have spells to talk to them to learn what they're aware of? From Words of the Flickering Flame, we know that non-magical fires have an acute awareness of things they burn (sense touch), and at least some limited awareness of what goes on arround them (probably something similar to at least one of smell, hearing, vision). From Stone Tell of the Mind that Sits, we know that earth is mostly aware of persistent things. The floor might be aware of someone crossing the room, but is unlikely to have a detailed description of someone who merely crossed. That tells us about the length of time stone requires to perceive and/or memorize things, but it does confirm that stone has a form of sensory perception that is specific to terram. If Terram and Ignem as elements have innate capacities to perceive thing, why should an enchanted item such as a sword, or a circle inscribed on the floor, could not be the recipient of a sensory magic spell?
Whether it has the cunning or intelligence to do anything about what it senses as a result of a sensory spell is a different story, and that's where the options above listed under Gargoyles and Grotesques come into play. Some examples of canonical and core uses of sensory magic in inanimate object include Watching Ward who triggers another spell when an intellego spell detects something; or enchantments such as linked trigger being activated as a result of the positive detection of something. Sure, you couldn't have the enchantment activate in a smart manner - it's still an automatic response that's not going to take into consideration any other environmental factor than the ones you coded in - it's lacking in intelligence and cunning. Without a linked trigger enchantment, or one of the work arrounds you describe, the enchantment can do nothing with the sense it is granted.
The Stone Watchmen is a purely hermetic enchantment. The description starts with "This effect gives an enchanted device the power of sight." How does that work, and which guideline does it refer to? It refers to the following guideline: "Use one sense at a distance." You'll note that the guideline isn't written "Use one of your sense at a distance", even if this is a typical use because the guidelines are used by magi who rarely have a use for giving themselves personal range human-equivalent vision. So it's perfectly legit to use those InIm guidelines to give an object personal range senses that are equivalent to that of a human. The object, without a subsequent enchantment of some kind, will be completely unable to do anything related to that new sense, because it lacks thought and mobility. But you could decide, say, to grant an object sight without any further enchantment, and then interrogate it with a relevant intellego spell which will yield more results than the typical object of its kind because of its enhanced senses.
2 Likes
The OP required 0 house rules. I answered that request.
Fine.
Do these spells require a stone's or fire's capability "to process sensory input"? Rather not!
They also do not imply, that fire or stone have any of the senses able to receive ArM5 p.113f Magical Senses: Taste, Touch, Smell, Hearing or Sight. All they posit is a "limited awareness": enough to extract by magic information of what happened to or very close to them.
EDIT: ArM5 p.113f Magical Senses can only be bestowed upon persons. A dog - even one with very fine smell - would just be confused by a Magical Sense using smell, and could neither understand nor process it.
That is not what it says. It says they can be granted to people. It does not say they cannot be granted to animals, for example. (Basically conditional statement and converse. The statement lets you know if it is a person, then it can be granted a magical sense. This does not imply if it can be granted a magical sense, then it is a person.) And why would something like the Wise Owl of the Wood be more confused by a magical sense than an average person would be?
Now, could a being with Cunning understand what to do with such a sense? That's an entirely different issue. And I would lean in your direction on that.
1 Like
No. It is the rule explaining Magical Senses. So it describes what the rule covers. You are free to extend a rule with a house rule - but this violates the OP request.
You find the answer in A&A p.31f The Human Mind:
The principle difference between the mind of an animal and that of a human is the possession of a soul, which is unique to rational beings such as humans, angels, and demons. The soul provides both reason (ratio) and intellect (intellectus). Reason is exercised when one proceeds step by step to prove a
truth that is not self-evident, and is the highest function of the cognition working in conjunction with the soul. Reason uses the input from all the inner wits — the sensory species composited in the common sense, the unsensed impressions of the estimation, the memory of past events, and the imaginative powers of the cognition — to reach a conclusion that none of the individual parts of the mind is capable of reaching alone.
IOW: The owl does not understand, that its senses have been altered. It does also not understand, why its senses now show weird stuff, and what this weird stuff means.
This is different for an owl familiar with Intelligence instead of Cunning: this is a person with reason, to whom the spell caster can explain the effect of the spell.
First, I did slightly misstate my example: Wise Owl of the Forest, not Wise Owl of the Wood.
First, you're saying an animal with Int +2 can't understand it. Then you say one with Int -3 can because it has Intelligence rather than Cunning. This is nonsensical.
Second, you're now hiding contradicting yourself with "person." You're now allowing an animal to receive the magical sense by saying an intelligent animal is a "person." So you are now saying magical senses can be granted to an animal if it has intelligence. So you now agree that magical senses can be granted to animals?
1 Like
Why do I? An owl has Cunning, not Intelligence.
No.
An ordinary, mundane owl has Cunning.
The Wise Owl of the Forest has Intelligence.
The Wise Owl of the Forest is an animal.