If you want to make up such a restrictive houserule for your game, that´s your choice, but dont expect anyone else to go by your personal rules.
You´re even contradicting yourself here. The only "hard part" about using Rego to dislocate an arm is that you have to use Part as target. The magic doesnt care about the result, its based on what it DOES.
Snapping a dislocated shoulder back in place can be done with ReCo/Part, but if any damage is caused in the process, that is still there because Rego doesnt affect it.
Dislocating an arm can be done with either Rego OR Perdo. One does it by causing indirect damage through force, the other by directly damaging the target.
Who cares if its not a "worse version"... You can use Perdo to slice away wood or by outright destroying part of the wood, end of story.
Use a Muto spell to make the wood soft instead, much nicer than to play around with icky rotten stuff.
Of course, since your Perdo spell does something that is actually normal, the wood would NOT revert to its original state at the end of the spell, it would stay rotten. Ooops.
No it would need to overcome a higher than common number with a Finesse roll.
Well duh, that´s what is NORMAL for humans.
Incorrect. Otherwise you actually make some of the canon example spells in the books impossible. GOOD JOB!
You know what? I dont care much about what you would rule, i prefer to actually use the game rules as written as my base mark.
Actually, more musclemass of the same type DOES equal stronger.
That is sort of the point with having magic around yes.
Creo is create, Muto is change. An improvement through change is still Muto.
Right... You discourage creative thinking more than probably anyone i´ve seen on this forum ever before.
Its downright depressing.
DW75, this is the kind of nitpicking that makes me dislike you from time to time. I think that your point of view could be expressed equally clearly without breaking down the original poster's message in single sentences AND without being as rude as this post is.
I get annoyed when someone is trying to dictate rules he apparently doesnt understand.
I stayed nice and neutral in my preceding post, and the reply was another round of dictating based on mostly personal "creative interpretations".
He wants to run by houserules, fine, i do that a LOT and i always try to mark out when i talk about house rules or RAW when there can be a misunderstanding about it.
Lecturing about the RAW when he´s really talking about personal preferences "how the game really should be according to him", not so nice.
If you think any of my points were incorrect or something, please do say it.
Anyway, revelant point being that my neutral post was followed by an arrogant reply, then i dont really feel like there´s much need to avoid replying in kind, as i did. If you cant see that i replied "tit for tat" so to speak, well thats a pity...
Disagreeing with, arguing against and lecturing about is rather different. But im not totally surprised if you cant see the difference.
Interpreting the rules/setting and disagreeing about it is the norm here, saying that obviously everything i said must be right and perfect because i think so, that´s not happening normally. If you cant understand that, cut the chatter and post something relevant instead of a personal attack.
Using a ReCo (probably Part) effect to dislocate a target's shoulder seems perfectly fine. Yes, you might be able to do something equivalent with a PeCo effect. You can also do something equivalent with a ReTe effect (by using it to throw things at the target and aiming carefully). And there are lots of other ways too.
Likewise using PeHe to 'carve' wood seems fine too. Sure, if you are comparing it to ReHe, then it might be a bit more difficult to get exactly the carving that you want --- rather than a lot of ragged and splintered wood. But that's just a matter for the troupe to assign an appropriate Finesse requirement, or merely not Botching, or whatever seems appropriate to the troupe. So, if the magus happens to be really good at Perdo and really bad at Rego, then Perdo may well be the best method for wood 'carving' for that magus.
This is the beauty of the system. There are multiple ways to do most things. Exactly what is the 'best' way will depend on the context and the capabilities of the magus in question.
Direwolf, I agree with Xavi here. "He did it so I did it too" is just a way of saying that you chose to phrase your post in a nasty way; you're in control of your own actions. You can write however you want, but don't fool yourself into thinking that the byproducts of your writing are somehow someone else's doing.
Unfortunately, there are huge problems in interpreting what that means in other contexts.
It seems difficult to say that this rule therefore means that a magus cannot use PeHe to carve his sigil into a tree. The tree is a 'worse' tree after being disfigured in this way, even if it might be considered 'better' from the point of view of the magus.
I always interpreted it to mean that you cannot do any precision work with perdo. Rough chunks of wood could be removed easily enough from the tree, but carving something is too complicated for something bound on destruction. If yhe desturction improves something else (for example, destroy the salt in water to turn it into drinkable water) that is perfectly fine, but carving your sigil would require Rego magic.
For PeHe "carve", I'm not sure.
It was legit under 4th ed (Creation through destruction, with magi specialized in Perdo selectively destroying a block of stone to create a statue), but I believe this was taken out in 5th in order to make techniques more specific and clear (thus the "perdo can only make something worse" bit). I can't recall where I read it, though, although it may be on these forums.
It wasn't my intention to make you personally upset Direwolf, but I disagree with the general view in this thread and that included yours. I know I am in minority here.
The frequent use of "I would rule" and "I think" etc is there to show just how subjective the things I wrote are, I never wrote that any of those things were RAW (apart from the thing where it says that Muto can't change existing properties, its on page 78, first line in the second paragraph under Muto, which has to make it RAW). I felt it was important to point out that what I wrote were my own personal views and also try to explain why I think the way I do, so others can say where I go wrong in their opinion. You don't have to agree with me and it didn't seem to me like I forced anyone to take my views, in fact I am happier if someone disagrees, because then I can learn things and see what others think.
I thought this was interesting. I am new to Ars Magica and have only read the 5th edition rules, I don't have any previous knowledge to draw from. To me each Technique appear pretty clear cut in what it can and can't do. Direct damage to a target (make it worse) is always Perdo, the other Techniques need to rely on indirect damage through a medium like fire or the surroundings. This is the impression I got from reading the Art descriptions several times. I don't know if that is RAW though (the intended interpretation), and I have not claimed it to be RAW either, just my view, hence my liberal use of "I would rule" and "I think".
Muto would be nicer, yes.
After reading carefully about each duration, it looks like Perdo effects endure after the spell ends. I was under the impression that longer durations on those particular effects could put a timer on them so that the previous state returned when the spell ended, which is wrong then.
The description of Finesse and its use to aim spells has made me think that its a pretty blunt instrument, more about direction than detail (the exception would be Imaginem spells that copies what something looks like). There are a few Creo Imaginem spells that require Intricacy magnitudes, the Terram spell to conjure a tower needs magnitudes for elaborate effect. If a spell gains additional attention to its details it seems like more magnitudes are called for. Just a Finesse roll doesn't seem to be enough in those spells.
My subjective interpretation, not yours, and maybe not anyone elses. I put it like that to make that perfectly clear that is the case. If you feel that it makes me sound arrogant then I can't help it, to me it's more important to show it's my personal standpoint, which means it can be wrong and might not be RAW. But RAW isn't always easy to determine, many things require interpretation.
The RAW of Size change magic is that Size go up or down and nothing else changes. Anything extra would be houserules.
The Size change magic has always been unclear to me. It should definately be in the game, but I can't make it fit into the rest. Size is a pre-existing property and Muto increases or decreases it, nothing is really gained or lost, which seem like a contradiction to what Muto does (as I have interpreted it). At the same time Creo feels wrong for Size change too, even though Creo can create things, when used on a pre-existing target its more about improving that target to perfection. So I have trouble with this magic effect, it sort of falls between the Techniques I feel. On the other hand, there are giants I suppose. I have not considered this idea before I wrote this down, so it's a bit sketchy:
Assuming that Muto can turn a target into a giant (which is then considered a seprate type creature sharing the form but being a larger version of it). Then Muto can transform something into a giant, it doesn't just increase the Size, it actually transform the target into a new creature. When put like that it feels more sensible. And as a result of that Size change, Strength should change too since a big creatures tend to be stronger.
Creo can both create and make something into a better version of its kind, if the latter wasn't true, Creo magic couldn't be used to heal many kinds of damage (from things like poison).
I don't think that using a Technique for something that seem to be outside its limit is creative. To tackle a problem sideways instead of straight on is.
The problem is actually applying this in a particular context.
For example, consider a magus who has a PeHe spell with an Individual target that destroys a single tree. I think that we would all be happy for him to wander around a forest selectively destroying trees such that when viewed from the air the empty spaces (made by removing trees) showed the image of his sigil.
Now, consider the same effect, but with a Group target. Would we all be happy with him casting the spell once at a forest of trees and thus destroying a group of trees in a pattern that made his sigil image? This is exactly the same thing that he could have achieved by casting the earlier Individual target spell multiple times.
Finally consider a Part target version that just destroys Part of a tree. Why can't the Part of tree destroyed be in the image of his Sigil? The part that he targets is destroyed and gone. The target of the spell (the Part of tree targeted) has been made 'worse'. It just so happens that in these circumstances making the target of the spell (the Part of tree) worse makes the character consider things that are not the target of the spell (the rest of the tree) better. Which just means that the caster character is being clever.
It seems to me that if you disallow the Part version above that you also need to disallow a PeCo spell that kills a saracen, when cast by a crusader-magus. Because, if you are a crusader-magus, a dead saracen is better than a live one.
Finesse is also used in Creo/Rego craft magic (HoH:S p 60). I think it would only make the characters better drawn. If you take your time to write it out, no need for intricacy.
But if you stamp it, it is definitely more complex and I would require intricacy. Note that this is because letters and words are abstract: you can create a perfect apple because there's an idealized apple to instantiate.
I actually don't think this Group version could be used in that way:
Of course this is sort of a different point than the one you were wanting to illustrate. (PS: For some reason the sigil shape that your description caused me to think about was a giant smiley face.... )
I'm not sure this is a valid exemple: You're destroying entire trees, making them worse, as well as making the forest worse. The fact that, seen from the sky, you've got a smiley face or a hole is incidental.
Selectively destroying part of an uncut gem to create, say, a perfect diamond, is different and as far as I understand, what was allowed but that you shoudln't do anymore. In fact, this is exactly like a lot of Rego craft magic (Perdo Craft?). I liked the idea when it first appeared, sure. But I'm just not sure you're supposed to do that anymore.
This seems strange, but, in 5th, I could see it done under Rego craft magic, yes. Even without. It certainly seems to be the kind of thing that could be done naturally. Or not: A scar would be Rego; a glowing mark would be more Muto.
Would it be permanent? A muto spell would fade. A scar could heal, but this would take time, depending on the scar.
)