Muto Vim spell for discussion, guideline question

Reading the Muto Vim guidlines, the section talking about casting on spont effects says,

I think that makes good sense when my character is casting.

But what if I don't care if the caster looses control of a spont cast, because you want to use MuVi as a defensive spell to wreck another spell casting attempt?

Could a fast-cast Form spell be used to scramble an opponent's spont casts?

As a version to effect a Formulaic spell I was thinking about this effect below, but it seems to match well to the guideline says we don't want to do for spont targets.

Scramble the Conspicuous Spell
Muto Vim (Gen), R: Voice, D: Mom, T:Ind
Scrambles a spell of less than (Level -1 mag). While this effect does not alter the level of power or the R, D, T of the spell it does muddle and wreck the magic being cast, so that the spell casting attempt is foiled.
(Base (level +1 mag), R: Voice +2, D: Mom, T:Ind)

must also include in the wording the typical MuVi rules for affecting other spells:

  • must pass a Int + Con vs 9 roll, although I'm not sure why a caster would opt to botch their own casting.
  • must exceed the other spells Pen.
  • must fast cast if casting against an opponent

If it is indeed valid, then do I as the caster of the Scramble spell also need to penetrate the opposing caster's parma? Or is the spell outside his parma?

So, outside of the Concentration roll this would essentially pull off PeVi dispelling in general (specific uses full level, general gets halved) without the halving?

If you would allow this, then you could do the same MuVi spell on your own spontaneous magic, right? Then why not others? You just need a high enough Concentration.

Also, according to ArM5 which caster would lose control? Is that he MuVi caster or the caster of the other spell? The only other time "cast" or "casting" shows up in that sentence is with the MuVi spell, which makes me suspect it is the MuVi caster. Trying to manipulate something so fickle is too difficult for MuVi and so in the process of casting the MuVi spell and trying to adjust it to handle the fickle natural of the spontaneous spell makes the MuVi spell spin out of control. That seems like a reasonable interpretation to me. And it avoids dealing with the two aforementioned issues.

Great point Callen. Makes sense when read that way. Thank you.

If you want to use MuVi for countermagic, Sorcerer's Fork is a possible answer - while it doesn't counter the spell, it does reduce the penetration by half (by splitting it into two separate spells). Thus, if combined with a decently-sized Parma, it would functionally work as countermagic....sort of.

As a defense I'm thinking of changing the target of the effect away from the magic rather than splitting it up; but it would depend on which guideline it uses too. SFork might be a lower guideline therefore easier to affect higher level spells. Doing it with Muto isn't ideal.

I personally like the idea but not as a spont spell (as the prefer to ban it for game balance if you belive in that sort of thing). Make it formulaic. I'd make the caster do an Int + finesse roll instead that would be the per + concentration target of the victim to avoid loosing control of his spell.

Butterfly Effect
Muto Vim (Gen), R: Voice, D: Mom, T:Ind
Superficially change a spell 2x(Level -1 mag) so that the caster risks loosing control of it. In order to be effective, this spell need to root itself as early as possible within the targetted effect and will infect the magic that is its target with that of chaos. As such, this spell only works if it can be delivered prior to the release of it's target effect. The caster suffering from this spell has two choices. One, safely stop his spell casting as normal or roll a per + concentration + mastery vs the agressors Int + finesse + initiative advantage. Should he choose the 2nd option and fail the test, he needs to immediately roll for a botch and add the difference of the test roll as extra botch dices.
(Base 2x(level +1 mag), R: Voice +2, D: Mom, T:Ind)

ps. I know the term Butterfly Effect does not fit medieval times but feel free to rename to "Causality" or something alike :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

W

Although I like the concept of that spell, I'm not sure I would be so generous as to allow it as a "superficial change". I might lean more towards it being a "significant change".

Also, a variable ease factor based on the caster's Int + Finesse + initiative advantage becomes almost impossible to succeed if the caster is a specialized magus. I would rather suggest a standard concentration roll (Sta + Concentration + stress die) vs an ease factor of 12.

As for a more period name, what about "Pandora's Touch"?

I wouldn't allow a generic MuVi scrambling spell. Generic neither in its Form (for me such a spell would have to be Form-specific to begin with), nor in its scrambling effect - reducing a spell's range is enough to foil an enemy's spell most of the time.

Scrambling a spell seems like PeVi to me. While this spell would be less effective than the normal PeVi stuff at just stopping a spell, it includes the possibility of the other caster botching.

Personal feelings aside, there is nothing in the Rules preventing a MuVi spell from being used to disrupt a spell defensively.

However, according to the MuVi Guidelines (par iv) , any such spell would have to be (successfully) Fast-Cast to have its desired effect. And it must beat Penetration- so those together may be a practical limiter.

Agreed - by definition, the spell has been significantly changed from "as intended".

Hm....I've been thinking about this one for a the past hour or so, and I've come to the conclusion that you can't actually, directly, consistently, cancel out magic with Muto Vim.

The fallacy I was falling into was thinking of Muto as an actual Mutation - which, in modern science, is BAD for the subject 99% of the time. (The other 1% allows you to shoot laser beams out of your eyes.) But Muto magic is simply a change - if not for the better, then at least not for the worse. And changing a "living" spell to a "dead" spell isn't Muto - that's Perdo. OK - but you can "inconvenience" the spell to the point where it doesn't do what the original caster intended. For example:

Changing a target from Individual to Circle - actually a useful technique, if you're a ward specialist. But if you fast-cast it, then it becomes an effective countermagic. But it only works on T:Ind spells. (and only those within a given form.)
A reverse wizard's Reach might work (EDIT - as Toa seemed to have already mentioned) - one that removes a range magnitude. But it might not consistently work, as you might still be in range.
Changing the Form of the spell to something that doesn't affect you might also work - but you're left with odd consequences. (What is the Creo Vim form of Ball of Abyssal Flame, anyway?)

EDIT - Hound, my reasoning was that causing a spell to fail is analogous to causing a body to fail - which is Perdo Corpus, not Muto Corpus. However, changing a body to the point where it's "effectively" failing can fall into Muto Corpus - such as the current thread on making someone so fat they can't move. However, the 'failure' aspect is a side effect. Can you think of a Muto effect for a spell that would functionally cause it to fail? As Toa mentioned, the best one I can think of is a Range reduction.

Whenever I delve into a metamagic concept magus I always wish i had a spell to send the opponent's magic back in his heir own face. However with Muto Vim this seems almost impossible in practice since it is likely to be a significant change.
Changing the target (lower case 't) of the spell could do it. As could reducing the Range (upper case "R") to Personal.

I could see it as a ReVi spell, using a guideline on par with "Sustain or suppress a spell cast by another with level less than or equal to half the (level + 5 magnitudes) of the Vim spell." (Probably with a "level + 3 magnitudes" instead of +5.)

It would need to be timed much like a MuVi spell (so probably fast-cast) and would need to be R:Voice at least.

Yes
But suppress sounds like temporarily freezing the spell, or rpeventing it from affecting anything. Not really what I had in mind - I want to stab him with his own sword, so to speak.
Also, for D:Mom spells how does momentarily suppressing it work? Most likely preventing the spell doing anything, and having sort of the same effect as an Unravelling spell: The target spells fails to do anything worthwhile.
These things aren't that hard.

But deflecting the BoAF back into the face of the caster - now that's awesome (and hard).

I'm not suggesting using the same guideline, just one similar to it in terms of parameters -- that why I wrote "on par with" (emphasized above).

It would be a new guideline, probably worded something like "Redirect a spell cast by another with level less than or equal to half the (level + 3 magnitudes) of the Vim spell, so that it affects a different (but still valid) target, which may include the original caster."

Considering the need for R:Voice, it means that (if my math is correct) you would need a level 35 (Base 25, +2 Voice) spell to swing back a Pilum of Fire.

This is already a MuVi guideline in the core book. And, despite a comment above, I don't think it's much harder than canceling the spell it's retargeting, and it should probably be a little bit harder anyway since it is effectively more powerful.

If the spell is rebounded, what happens when it hits the resistance of the original caster? Which penetration total is used? The original penetration by the original caster? The penetration of the MuVi spell? A difference of the two, showing that overcoming the caster's penetration took a lot of "english" off the original spell, meaning not much is left to get through the original caster's MR. And is that difference measured against the original Form of the spell or Vim?

To use the BoAF example, I like the idea of someone's MuVi spell redirecting it at the caster, and the remaining penetration of the spell being used against the original caster's Vim resistance. It's like he's finding a chink in the caster's armor. It's what, a 40th level MuVi spell to redirect a BoAF back at the caster? There's not going to be a lot of leftover penetration in most cases, IMO.

Isn't that just this thread again?
Or maybe this one (see especially the poster just below the linked post :p).

You know, it just might be.
I did say "whenever" , meaning it happens again and again :slight_smile:

Good point :wink: