If the weapon is guided to hit then yes it is resisted as per RAW. Trying to take the aimed spell rules is not even relevant. You aim the spell at the sword then you can do that. Using Rego to control the sword makes the attack able to be resisted by MR of the opponent. You can not use the aimed spell rules on a non spell action.
To use magic for a projectile you need to magic the delivering device. The bow or the catapult or the strength of the welder. An arrow that fires from a bow that is enchanted as if it had the strength of 10 men would not be resisted as it follows the normal rules for hitting. The arrow is not guided by magic It just has a more powerful push.
Once again, this is the main point of contention.
The RAW deals with magically controlling a single whole object, which is then magically resisted.
The RAW also deals with a pair of items, joined rigidly so that moving one moves the other: in this case you can control one with magic so as to hit with the other, and canonically this is not magically resisted.
Now, what about two parts of the same item (and in particular two parts that are really "markedly" separate, like blade and hilt)? The RAW doesn't say, but I think it's most natural to treat it as dealing with two items, given that with a little ingenuity one can almost always produce the actual two-items scenario anyways, and that if dealing with parts one is already "paying" an extra magnitude.
My main point: the "move gauntlet to hit with sword" solution is canonically non-resisted. The very similar "move hilt to hit with blade" is less ugly, and costs one magnitude more; it should therefore be non-resisted, too.
Especially, to magically "move gauntlet to hit with (scilicet: mundane) sword", by ArM5 p.86 Aiming a magus clearly uses Finesse, not the Single Weapon skill with its many modifiers.
So you are back to HoH:S p.29ff The School of Vilano with it's high Finesse requirements and low Initiative compared to weapons.
TLatL p.60f Rotgiers de Gerberoy of House Tremere also shows, that enspelling the shaft, but not the tip, to Rego-attack with a lance is an idea rejected by the authors.
One Shot, thanks for chiming into the discussion! So, just to make sure I am understanding your point correctly, you too agree that Warrior's Wield would not be magically resisted, right? With the downside of not hitting automatically, because it's "indirect". The ability to use "to hit" is another issue that was discussed earlier in the thread.
What do you mean by "rejected by the authors"? It's an idea rejected by Rotgier, like, say, learning Pilum of Fire. It does not mean it's impossible, just that Rotgier chose another way to do his stuff. Remember that there are advantages to enspelling the whole lance (as well as disadvantages).
Just like ExarKun, I doubt that it is even possible as described.
Above I gave you the quote which settles this discussion:
So the core book explicitly requires aiming with a specific Finesse-based aiming-roll, unless the spell is resisted.
I mean, that Rotgiers de Gerberoy would be the one magus to exceptionally benefit from such a simple spell for his main tourney joust attack, if it were only possible.
Recall, that he even prepared to conjure up a bone lance to avoid some defenses of other magi. So avoiding their MR by such an exploit would be a no-brainer.
As I said, I fail to see any convincing argument of why a blade swung by an animated corpse should not be magically resisted, while the same blade swung by an animated hilt should be.
The argument that it's because hilt and blade make metaphysically a single object has little support in the RAW (quite the opposite: we know from that enchanting only the hilt/shaft of a weapon so the blade/point is not magically resisted is a "canonical" strategy) and frankly seems extremely weak, among other things because one can easily move to a "two item scenario" both making the result uglier and shaving a magnitude in the process.
I assume you mean: it settles it for you, so you will not discuss it any more. To me, however, it seems you are quoting out of context. When magic is used to indirectly enable/enhance damage, the roll is not always Perception + Finesse. Both by RAW, and by common sense.
A "no brainer" for you, a non sequitur for me. In general, statements like "if magus X does not do it, it means it's impossible" tend to be very weak.
Think about it. What advantage would Warrior's wield provide to Rotgiers (over the baseline of not using any magic at all)? A minor boost to damage in a challenge where the goal is not to damage or kill but just to unhorse the enemy, and possibly, just possibly, a tiny load reduction.
The bone lance attack, on the other hand, provides Rotgiers the option of disabling the wards against wood/metal that could keep his weapons from hitting an opponent (regardless of Rotgiers' Penetration and the opponent's Parma score), at the cost of making the attack magically resisted. It's a great combat option against junior magi that are nonetheless good jousters. Considering that Rotgiers is a senior magus, and thus with good Penetration that we know he is not above boosting with dirty tricks, it seems the advantage of being able to use the bone lance spell is generally much greater than being able to use Warrior's Wield.
Because one can move and object by targeting a part of it does not mean it is not resisted by Parma. Using Rego to guide any object to hit something makes it resistible by RAW. So the example of making a gauntlet that picks up the sword and strikes. The sword would not be resisted but I would guess that the magus would have to use single weapon skill to hit. If they didn't and the sword is guided for an auto hit then it is resisted.
Oh, absolutely, yes. I agree. If you read the spell description that's what Warrior's Wield does. The magus fights with the weapon as if no magic were used (i.e. he has to get in harm's way, hit with his weapon skill etc.) except that he wields the weapon as if he were a really strong person. This is achieved by having the spell amplify the magus' force on the hilt by adding its own force to that of the magus.
If you agree that this can be done ensorcelling a gauntlet affixed to a blade, why not simply allow it to be done by having the spell act on a hilt affixed to a blade (the magus "pays" for this adding an extra magnitude with T:Part, and it only works for weapons with a clear "hilt" or "shaft")?
Hmmm. You rephrase your suggestions continuously. Quite apart from problems with MR, now it sounds like your magus shall fence with something worse than a chainsaw with a rotating imbalance.
So the magus controls a "blade swung by an animated hilt" now, using magic and Finesse to do so (ArM5 p.86 as quoted above), but at the same time also has to keep hold of the hilt and move the entire kicking sword around. This requires certainly a second skill roll, may be even of a very specific skill, and results in interesting problems with ArM5 p.82 concentration at least. Is it that what you wanted all the time? Then it is probably a lot easier to just control that sword with Finesse from remote instead.
You might be a child of our age, and perhaps know and like the Wiener Kreis and its contempt of metaphysics (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Ci ... .281929.29 ). But ArM5 Hermetic magic is tied to medieval metaphysics from the core book on. In particular Hermetic magic knows the form (ArM5 p.77, defined better in the summary on A&A p.22ff) of its targets or objects. This is a good reason, why T:Part is more difficult that T:Ind. It also explains, why a compound enchanted item, even if vis is used only to prepare a single component of it, can provide a form bonus, and why, if you later disassemble it even without touching the component determining the vis required, it is destroyed.
The talismans of Darius from ArM5 p.35 and Hugh from MoH p.51 are weapon shafts, not weapons. Darius even uses a Wand/Staff form bonus from ArM5 p.110 in it. They have no effects involving them as axe or spear respectively. And if someone uses them to non-magically attack with their axe head or spear point, these attacks are not resisted.
But this has nothing to do with wielding them via Rego magic as axes or spears. A Rego spell wielding a weapon, even a club, needs to "know" of all of the weapon, not just of the grip. Otherwise it can't handle its length and weight, or employ its tip or edge. So the entire weapon would be affected by the spell.
This is different for a corpse wielding a weapon (e. g. controlled by ArM5 p.134 Awaken the Slumbering Corpse that was ordered to attack), which has some rudimentary movement control of its own and the weapon together - and probably a lousy weapon skill.
The "two item scenario", that you mention but do not specify this time, would AFAICS have item 1 attached to item 2, and item 1 would be Rego-controlled and move item 2 through that attachment, right? So that Rego-spell would have to "know" of the combined item to contribute anything to wielding it, right? So item 2 would be part of the spell target.
I wish to avoid, that my single posts to get too long. So I stop here with the first part of my reply.
The reservation "When magic is used to indirectly enable/enhance damage, the roll is not always Perception + Finesse" is correct. Think of enhancing the characteristics of a fencer with MuCo or CrCo, or magically putting mundane fire to a house, which then burns its inhabitants.
But attacking with a Rego-controlled weapon is exactly the kind of indirect effect ArM5 p.86 Aiming addresses.
Rotgier's main spell in the tourney joust is TLatL p.60f The Unerring Lance, which magically makes his lance very hard to parry with shield or spell. If he could cast the effect of The Unerring Lance only on the shaft of his lance, and if this would make the tip and his attack unaffected by MR on top. The extra magnitude for T:Part would not matter at all for him, as he has a ReTe casting total w/o Penetration of 40+.
Cheers
P. S.: It would help further discussion of your ideas greatly, if you would try to rewrite your Warrior' Wield to become as canonical as you believe it to be with the many changes you made in passing during the discussion - like using two items, having the one item swing the other, and such.
So go back to the actual rules discussion in the books. There are three ways to use Rego to attack with a projectile. Take your approach of continuously controlling the shaft of an arrow/spear/etc. Which of the three methods is it? If you cannot make the argument that it is either just falling due to gravity or only given a momentary impulse, then you are left with it being resisted.
I can't believe you twisted Jebrick's statement to say exactly the opposite! Jebrick was explaining that the key is that the gauntlet is NOT affixed to the weapon. It's just grabbing the weapon. The gauntlet is not a part of the whole sword. There is a very, very big difference between these.
I'm not so sure "quite the opposite" is true here. Let's say we're enchanting the hilt of a sword with an effect to make it momentarily unable to rotate or move as you parry. You should get +3 to your lab total for the shape and material bonus to "block single attack," right? But how is this possible if the hilt and the sword are not metaphysically a single object?
Also, I expect most would agree that if you remove the hilt from a blade to which it has been affixed for a long time, the hilt would act as an arcane connection to the blade. Would a knight's gauntlet ever act as an arcane connection to his favorite blade? Does this not also indicate such a metaphysical connection?
Yes, but realize this strategy does not always work. I'll take something more obvious. Let's enchant the hilt with the equivalent of Blade of Virulent Flame. Even though it is the hilt that is enchanted, I think we would all agree that the now-flaming sword would be resisted.
Exactly what I meant. The gauntlet has no connection to the hilt. The magus is controlling the gauntlet and could just as easily pick up a rock and throw it.
And there is nothing in the text for rego magic that says the whole weapon or whole object. It is just using rego magic as part of a attack.
We agree that if a magus( Alice) uses rego to pick up a sword and hit something with MR (Bob) then it is resisted.
If Alice throws the sword at Bob ( using targeting rules) it is not resisted.
If Alice turns a cow into a human and the man-cow, excited about having opposable thumbs, picks up the sword and tries to hit Alice it is not resisted.
If the man-cow picks up the sword and is thrown at Bob via rego magic by Alice the sword is not resisted but the man-cow is.
If the man-cow picks up the sword and is thrown towards Bob using rego in such a way to guarantee the sword hits the sword and the man-cow are resisted.
Actually, the design of the spell has remained the same throughout the discussion.
It's not a spell that "attacks" with the sword. No. It's just a spell that adds push to a hilt, when and where the magus is pushing onto it.
You could think of a similar spell that automatically cocks a very, very heavy crossbow is the blink of an eye. The holder then attacks with his crossbow skill, but benefits from a faster reload time and a stronger "push" on the bolt. Since the magus is operating on the crossbow and not on the bolt, the spell provides a bonus in combat, but is not magically resisted, nor need it be aimed through Perception + Finesse.
Great! And the target of this spell is a weapon shaft, not a weapon. I still feel it fair that the magus should pay for T:Part, though you are starting to convince me otherwise.
Believe me or not, I wholeheartedly agree.
The point is that the magus is not attacking with the spell.
The spell is just adding "push" to the magus' push on the hilt. Where his touch exerts pressure, the spell adds pressure.
So the spell does not need to know where the blade should be going. The magus needs to know, of course.
A very modern example (sort of, apparently it's over a century old) would be servo-assisted steering. As you turn the driving wheel of a car or truck, the servo adds push so that the maneuver is almost effortless even if the vehicle is still and very large. That's not automated driving. There's no need to perceive the road, the obstacles, or even the whole body of the truck or car. All the system needs to "know" is that you are trying to turn the wheel, clockwise or counterclockwise, and it adds its own push to yours.
I think you are reading the book too literally (and if you really want to be so literal, note that we are not discussing of a projectile, but of a wielded weapon here!)
Suppose I am cocking a crossbow with Rego magic and I pull the trigger? Which of the three approaches is it? Is it letting the bolt fall? Is it exerting a brief jolt on the bolt? Is it guiding the bolt all the way to the target? Alas, none of the three! Therefore, cocking a crossbow through Rego magic must be impossible by the RAW. By the same token, using Rego Craft magic to sharpen the bolt's tip is obviously impossible. Using Rego Mentem to convince a crossbowman to pull the trigger is also impossible! And animating a corpse into doing the same is equally impossible.
No. The point (and this is really the last time I am stating this) is that those "three ways" refer to direct ways of attacking. It does not cover indirect ways to attack ... or, depending on how you see it, those indirect ways all fall into "natural motion" which is not necessarily downwards (think of magically loading and releasing a trebuchet to mundanely launch a mundane projectile upwards).
Oh. I must have misunderstood then.
I thought that jebrick would fully accept the spell with the slight modification that it must operate on a gauntlet holding a weapon, rather than on the weapon's hilt (bringing the Target down from Part to Individual). If that were the case, I though I had 90% convinced him, because it did not seem a large stretch to operate on a hilt lifting a blade rather than on a gauntlet lifting said blade, given that a) operating on the hilt is 1 magnitude less efficient anyways and b) there is a canonical exmaple of a magus targeting only the shaft of his weapon so that the blade is not magically resisted.
Heh. That's a rather tricky part of the enchanting rules, that says that you can enchant only a part of an item, still get the Shape (but not material) bonus for the rest of the item, with the enchantment breaking if the two get separated. It's a bit too complex and specific for me to be drawing parallels.
What I was referring to is that it's RAW that you can directly affect a portion of a weapon with magic, without the rest of the weapon becoming vulnerable to MR as a consequence.
Uh? I am not sure what you mean. Does the effect shroud only the hilt in Flames? If so, I disagree: an otherwise mundane blade is not resisted. Even if it eventually gets hot from contact with the flaming hilt.
Yes and no.
If a T:Individual ReTe spell is used to grab the entire sword, then I agree.
If Rego magic is used to animated a corpse that picks up the sword and hits something, then it is not resisted.
I believe(d?) that you agree that if Rego magic is used to animate a gauntlet to pick up the sword, then it is not resisted.
Agreed.
I would phrase it slightly differently: it is not possible to guarantee that the sword hits unless the sword is also affected by the magic, and thus resisted. The difference just remarks that it's not the guarantee that makes the attack resisted, but the fact that if the attack is not to be resisted, that some "portion" of it must be unaffected by the magic and thus subject to a chance of failure (however small).
Now let me ask.
If using a T:Part spell Alice turns the hilt of the sword into an antropomorphic cow still grasping the blade in its hoof... can the cow hit Bob with said blade without facing MR? I would say yes (obviously with some chance of failure).
No kidding. Read what I've written for you several times again. I said I'm inventing a spell using the same method as yours but controlling the shaft of the projectile as T: Part. Thus we have the same use of Rego but in a place where the rules have been written quite clearly.
Either your logic is drastically flawed or you greatly misunderstand many things about crossbows. The person sharpening the tip is not attacking (using offensively) with the bolt. Cocking the crossbow is also not attacking with the bolt. (Note: Cocking the crossbow was not necessarily done even by the same person that was firing it.) As these are not using Rego to make an attack with the crossbow, rules about using Rego to attack do not apply. Please go back and reconsider your reasoning and your stance.
First, you're the one stating indirect vs direct. The rules say "There are three different ways Rego magic may be used offensively." That's offensively, whether indirect or direct. You are putting a restriction on the rules that they do not include, seemingly to allow your argument to work because it doesn't if you don't change the rules.
Now, on direct vs. indirect. Controlling the shaft of the projectile all the way until is strikes the target is way, way more direct than moving the projectile well over the top of the target and letting go. That's nearly a great comparison between what direct and indirect mean. If that's your stance, then all I can really say is you're just wrong. Nothing personal, but if you think "indirect fire" (which corresponds to the gravity method) is direct and guided missiles (you don't guide the warhead, just the missile carrying it, so it's like your method) are indirect, you are just flat out wrong and probably should read up on the meanings of "direct" and "indirect." And if you insist on not discussing this again further while maintaining this stance, so be it, but I doubt you'll be able to convince anyone here that your method is valid if you decide to stand firmly behind this mix-up.
Nope! To be wielded through Warrior's Wield, a weapon can't leave the Touch of the magus. Ergo, it's not a projectile
(Please note this is a tangent, and one meant to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek).
I could say that Warrior's Wield does not make an attack either. The magus is attacking with a sword, making all the choices. The spell is just adding push to the hilt.
Also, it seems to me that you conveniently snipped the other two examples I was making: according to your reasoning, using Rego Mentem to convince a crossbowman to pull the trigger is also impossible! And animating a corpse into doing the same is equally impossible.
It's pretty obvious that the rules do not mean "Rego can't be used in any direct or indirect way to harm another except in those three specific ways". How about animating a corpse to attack the target with a weapon? How about pulling the trigger of a crossbow? Loading and releasing a trebuchet?
If I animate a gauntlet to grasp the shaft of an arrow and poke the target with it, does it get magically resisted? Or is it flat out impossible?
Ok. Warrior's Wield seems controversial on a number of different issues, and I feel a bit frustrated because it seems to me that people are jumping from one to the other, making it hard to nail down what's wrong. So I've opened another thread here discussing a similar spell ("Gauntlet of Ogre Power") that does not affect the hilt of a weapon, but a gauntlet wielding it. This should address several of the issues people have (for example, if I understand jebrick's position, he should be fine with it) and will hopefully allow me to take a "divide and conquer" approach to discussing of Warrior's Wield.
Thankful to everyone who has contributed to the discussion of Warrior's Wield, I'd be doubly thankful if they could post on the other thread.
If and when a consensus is reached on that, I'd come back to Warrior's Wield, that I see as a variant, to deal with any remaining issues specific to it.
