New ReTe spell: Warrior's Wield

[callen]

@ezzelino

@callen

@HoH:S p.35

There are three different ways Rego magic may be used offensively...The first way is to use magic to propel the projectile all the way to the target...The second form of attack is to exploit what philosophers call “natural motion:” the natural tendency of heavy objects to fall downward...The third way is to use a brief jolt of magical force to hurl a projectile, as an arrow is thrown from a bow.

If Ars Magica physics says it must be one of these three, it certainly seems like it's the first of the three.

Not at all, and certainly not "certainly"

Let me fill in the logic, then.

I make a spell to take an arrow / a spear / similar (a projectile) and make it travel along to hit the target. However, I use T: Part to only affect the shaft. Now we have a projectile following your spell design. It's a projectile, so by published ArM5 physics it should follow one of those three as there are specifically three. Which of the three does it follow? The only one that comes close is the first. So, this arrow/spear/similar is resisted. Now the big question. How is it that this is resisted but your spell is not???

As for Ghost Touch, what is the actual wording? There are cases in the rules where an effect is essentially T: Part but was written as T: Individual (cat's eyes, for instance). My books are in the box the bottom of a pile of boxes in a moving truck, so I can't check.

Here is maybe the strongest argument, though it's entirely RAI as opposed to RAW:

I could make basically the same spell for a projectile (as described above). As per the rules, it automatically hits. As per your ruling, it automatically penetrates. So anyone who uses the other methods must be an idiot. Why drop 1 magnitude to use Finesse against a fairly difficult value when you can hit automatically? Why keep a limit to damage because you're worried about penetration? Thus to me it seems like your rule makes no sense in the continuity of spells in canon and also violates the seeming requirement to either penetrate or hit via Finesse.

But I do understand how you're coming at it and strongly disagree with Jonathan on some points. In canon an animated corpse swinging a sword need not penetrate, just hit with an attack. I'm pretty sure a number of Jonathan's statements don't support that. Buffing a grog is fine, just don't buff his sword if you're worried about penetration.

[ezzelino]

@Jonathan.Link

The rules of magic resistance are absolute. Blade of the Virulent Flame being resisted causes all damage to be negated.
By extension all means of adding damage with magic can be resisted. Unless they are aimed. And the RAW makes that clear, too.

I think that's extrapolating a bit too much.
Suppose a magus stumbles and is about to fall on a hard stone floor. If I quickly fast cast a ReTe craft magic effect that carves non-magical spikes on the floor before the magus lands, I am adding damage with magic to the fall, that the magus' Parma won't resist.

However! You yourself point to the possibility of aimed damage not being magically resisted. What's never stated is that said aiming must necessarily use the Finesse skill. Suppose I create a magical crossbow that magically imparts a very strong initial impetus to its bolts, in the "Vilano style". The bolts are then not magically resisted, but It stands to reason that someone can aim the crossbow with the normal weapon skill (crossbow, in this case). This is exactly what happens in Warrior's Wield: if you are really bad at wielding your weapon, you will miss your target and no damage will be inflicted.

[ezzelino]

@callen

@ezzelino

@callen

@HoH:S p.35

There are three different ways Rego magic may be used offensively...The first way is to use magic to propel the projectile all the way to the target...The second form of attack is to exploit what philosophers call “natural motion:” the natural tendency of heavy objects to fall downward...The third way is to use a brief jolt of magical force to hurl a projectile, as an arrow is thrown from a bow.

If Ars Magica physics says it must be one of these three, it certainly seems like it's the first of the three.

Not at all, and certainly not "certainly"

Let me fill in the logic, then.

I make a spell to take an arrow / a spear / similar (a projectile) and make it travel along to hit the target. However, I use T: Part to only affect the shaft. Now we have a projectile following your spell design. It's a projectile, so by published ArM5 physics it should follow one of those three as there are specifically three. Which of the three does it follow? The only one that comes close is the first.

I disagree. You can do two things.

You can magic the shaft onto the target. Then the shaft hits automatically, even if you have the reflexes of a snail, because it's the way magic holistically works. You envision the shaft on the target, speak your Latin, whatever, and BUM, the magic takes care of getting the shaft onto the target. But your shot gets magically resisted, in addition to making a rather poor shot (because it's way better to hit with the pointy end).

Alternatively, you can control the shaft pushing it in such a way that the point ideally hits the target. Because you are no longer including the point in the magic, you are no longer assured of hitting with the point. Magic washes its metaphorical hands of the point, so to speak. If you are good at shaft-and-point stuff, you'll hit, but otherwise you'll probably miss.

@callen

Here is maybe the strongest argument, though it's entirely RAI as opposed to RAW:

I could make basically the same spell for a projectile (as described above). As per the rules, it automatically hits. As per your ruling, it automatically penetrates. So anyone who uses the other methods must be an idiot. Why drop 1 magnitude to use Finesse against a fairly difficult value when you can hit automatically? Why keep a limit to damage because you're worried about penetration? Thus to me it seems like your rule makes no sense in the continuity of spells in canon and also violates the seeming requirement to either penetrate or hit via Finesse.

No, see above. If I make a spell that moves the shaft, and the shaft only, I won't hit automatically, because the decision of where the shaft should be so that the point hits is left to me. If I move the whole projectile, I outsource to the magic the whole hitting stuff, and the magic takes care of it perfectly. Incidentally, I think it's the same issue with using Craft Magic to build stuff -- say, cathedrals -- piecewise. If you build a cathedral whole, in one shot, the magic makes it perfect even if you know nothing about building cathedrals. You just need a good Finesse to pull a whole cathedral out of the realm of Forms. But If you try to build a cathedral piece by piece, excavating the foundations, conjuring each wall separately, then the roof etc. then you'd better have a good score at Craft:Architecture (or whatever) because the magic can't help you since it's not seeing the big picture.

As for Finesse, I disagree that all aiming should be via Finesse, though it should certainly include some relevant skill test. See my response to jonathan.link, above, about magical crossbows.

@callen

But I do understand how you're coming at it and strongly disagree with Jonathan on some points. In canon an animated corpse swinging a sword need not penetrate, just hit with an attack.

Can you point to a reference? I was looking for it, and I felt it had to be somewhere, but could not find it.

[jason72 (Jason)]

The reference for animated corpses you want is in the box titled Indirect Magic from ArM5 on page 30 of HoH:S, I believe.

[callen]

@ezzelino

I disagree. You can do two things.

You can magic the shaft onto the target. Then the shaft hits automatically, even if you have the reflexes of a snail, because it's the way magic holistically works. You envision the shaft on the target, speak your Latin, whatever, and BUM, the magic takes care of getting the shaft onto the target. But your shot gets magically resisted, in addition to making a rather poor shot (because it's way better to hit with the pointy end).

Alternatively, you can control the shaft pushing it in such a way that the point ideally hits the target. Because you are no longer including the point in the magic, you are no longer assured of hitting with the point. Magic washes its metaphorical hands of the point, so to speak. If you are good at shaft-and-point stuff, you'll hit, but otherwise you'll probably miss.

This argument has two major problems. First, the crux, you entirely skipped the physics. Saying something needs to be targeted (Finesse, whatever) does not imply it does not get resisted. It's an OR statement, not an Exclusive OR statement. Somehow you must explain how this arrow/spear/whatever being driven all the way to the target is either "natural motion... fall[ing] downward" or "a brief jolt" instead of being "propel[led]... all the way to the target." Second, the whole things about being unwieldy with an extra bit attached is wildly inconsistent with published spells. Examples? A person holding a dagger does not get flung about wildly instead of the normal just with Gift of the Frog's Legs. A person holding a dagger doesn't have to worry about their face getting stuck to the saddle instead of their butt via Stance of the Firm-Buttocked Knight. A person holding a dagger doesn't get a much worse Finesse rolls when using Wings of the Soaring for flailing about randomly. There are tons more. If a spell can make a spear shaft without a head strike a target end-on perfectly, every indicator is that it having a spear head on it does not change the spear shaft striking end-on (meaning the tip strikes properly first) perfectly. Anyway, as I said, the second point is really incidental to the argument. The first point is the crux of the matter. Your argument in no way has alleviated the need to penetrate. You're only making an argument that it must have a roll to hit as well as have to penetrate, which would be consistent with many spells.

[ezzelino]

@callen

This argument has two major problems. First, the crux, you entirely skipped the physics. Saying something needs to be targeted (Finesse, whatever) does not imply it does not get resisted. It's an OR statement, not an Exclusive OR statement.

I agree. Warrior's Wield does not get resisted because the blade is unaffected by the magic -- only the hilt is. My argument above simply shows that Warrior's Wield does not violate the "either it needs to penetrate, or it needs aiming" principle.

@callen

Somehow you must explain how this arrow/spear/whatever being driven all the way to the target is either "natural motion... fall[ing] downward" or "a brief jolt" instead of being "propel[led]... all the way to the target."

You are missing the point. Literally. One thing is the shaft. Another is the point.

The ArM5 discussion refers to what you can do when you directly affect that which is to hit the target with your magic. This is not the case. Magic is affecting the shaft. Which is propelled close to, but not quite right to, the target. Because the shaft does not hit the target, the target cannot resist the magic affecting the shaft. The target gets (probably) hit by the point as an indirect consequence. Only probably, because the magus might miscalculate where to position the shaft so that the point hits the target.

Think of a perfectly mundane crossbow pointed at the target's heart, and magic being used to sloooowly pull the trigger so as to release the bolt. Would you insist that either the bolt must penetrate, or it must move by "natural motion... fall[ing] downward", or be affected by the magic giving it "a brief jolt"? The magic simply sets in motion a chain of mundane events, the last of which affects the target. If you wish, this last event is the result of "natural motion" (the crossbow propelling the bolt forward), except that natural motion is not necessarily downwards. Then, when the hilt is moved by Warrior's Wield, the blade hitting someone is also the result of natural motion.

@callen

Second, the whole things about being unwieldy with an extra bit attached is wildly inconsistent with published spells.

I disagree. I never said that things are "unwieldy". I said they are not automatically perfect; i.e. that the magus must test his skill to get what he wants. Let's go through your examples.

@callen

Examples? A person holding a dagger does not get flung about wildly instead of the normal just with Gift of the Frog's Legs.

Uh? I am not sure how the example is relevant, but the person does have to pass a(n easy) Quickness - Encumbrance check to avoid falling. And if the person planned to hit a giant's eye with the dagger midjump, I'd certainly require an attack roll. On the other hand, magic to fling the target onto the giant with ReCo would work flawlessly, but would be magically resisted.

@callen

A person holding a dagger doesn't have to worry about their face getting stuck to the saddle instead of their butt via Stance of the Firm-Buttocked Knight.
A person holding a dagger doesn't get a much worse Finesse rolls when using Wings of the Soaring for flailing about randomly.

Uh? And what does this have to do with the discussion at hand?

@callen

If a spell can make a spear shaft without a head strike a target end-on perfectly, every indicator is that it having a spear head on it does not change the spear shaft striking end-on (meaning the tip strikes properly first) perfectly.

Here's where I disagree. I fail to see any "indicator" of what you are saying. As I said, if I try to have a spear shaft strike the target directly and "perfectly", the magic gets resisted. I would argue that striking "perfectly" with the shaft means striking with the butt or mdisection, because if you are attempting to strike with the point of the shaft, the spear point will get in the way, and the magic will attempt to avoid this. But this is secondary.

[ezzelino]

@jason72

The reference for animated corpses you want is in the box titled Indirect Magic from ArM5 on page 30 of HoH:S, I believe.

Ahhhh! There! Thanks jason72! That's what I remembered seeing somewhere, and what made me say that I felt jonathan.link's position contradicted the RAW. Note that I'm not saying that jonathan.link's model is a bad model for magic resistance. It could work well, perhaps better than the current system. It's just not what the RAW says.

@HoH:S

Awaken the Slumbering Corpse (ReCo 25, ArM5 page 134): If the corpse attacks in unarmed combat, it would be resisted because the whole corpse is under an active magical effect, but if it wields a non-magical weapon, the weapon would bypass Magic Resistance.

I think this example puts the whole case to rest. Frankly, if I can make a magically animated corpse swing a mundane blade without said blade being magically resisted, I should be able to make a magically animated hilt swing a mundane blade without said blade being magically resisted.

[callen]

@ezzelino

@callen

Somehow you must explain how this arrow/spear/whatever being driven all the way to the target is either "natural motion... fall[ing] downward" or "a brief jolt" instead of being "propel[led]... all the way to the target."

You are missing the point. Literally. One thing is the shaft. Another is the point.

No, really, I'm not. Do remember, I'm also the one that pointed out the animated corpse with the sword. I understand exactly what you're saying in this regard. You seem to be missing that I'm using Rego to attack with a projectile.

The issue is this. I have presented your method as applied to a projectile, and ArM5 is explicit about this situation. Regardless of targeting Ability, Finesse or otherwise, let's look at the physics of it. The spell is maintaining control of the projectile by magically holding its shaft. That allows it to go around walls, etc. Cool. Now, ArM5 is explicit that there are three (not two, not four, not five; exactly three) methods of using Rego to attack. Since this is using Rego to attack with a projectile, it must fall under one of those by ArM5 rules. Since it's maintained control, it's not a momentary impulse, so the last one is out. It's not using gravity to just pull it down, so the second one is out. The only one that fits is the first, maintaining control all the way to the target. The ArM5 rules are explicit that this method is resisted. There may be a roll to aim or not, depending on what exactly you're doing. But regardless of this the rules are quite explicit that this projectile is resisted. If you disagree, you are saying it is either just falling due to gravity or only given a momentary impulse even though control is maintained on the shaft for an extended period of time because those are the only other two possibilities for Rego to make an attack with a projectile and the only two that aren't resisted.

The problem is that you are saying there is a fourth method to attack with a projectile, another method that does not get resisted, that being controlling the shaft but not the tip. ArM5 disagrees with you. Thus it seems to me that you are deciding to throw out explicitly published mechanics to make an argument that your method should not be resisted. I'm still waiting to see an argument that follows the published mechanics for using Rego to attack with a projectile with your style attack that doesn't get resisted.

On a completely related line of thinking: There is a circular ward against humans that penetrates against my magus. So my magus puts on a wool glove. Can my magus now break the circle by pushing his gloved finger into it? After all, the glove is not repelled, just the finger. This would be just like the haft being resisted but not the other part attached to it that it is forcing to move. Hopefully you see this essentially makes a circular ward against humans only work against naked people. It also seems to disagree strongly with the wording for wards.

@ezzelino

I would argue that striking "perfectly" with the shaft means striking with the butt or mdisection, because if you are attempting to strike with the point of the shaft, the spear point will get in the way, and the magic will attempt to avoid this. But this is secondary.

I don't see how you don't follow the firm-buttocked rider example. The corpus body is made to stick to what the rider is sitting on. This is perfect. So by your description the magic will attempt to avoid the pants or shoes or something else getting stuck. With the dagger in the hand, that leaves the face (or other part of the head) as the most likely to get stuck.

Still, I don't see how your idea really makes sense here. I choose a butt of the shaft. I design an effect to specifically thrust (not swing) the shaft through the target, with that butt striking first. Now I attach a spear tip to it. It's very specific effect can still work, dragging the tip along with it. Why does the effect go all wonky?

[Jonathan.Link]

My objection to animated corpses being able to wield weapons penetrating magic resistance is that their force is magical in nature. Yes, it is canon, but they can only swing swords because of magic.

[jebrick]

To callen's point, controlling a part of a weapon is still controlling the weapon and thus resisted. The hilt and the tang and the blade are not controlled by a target group because the Essential Nature of a sword is made from there parts.

And a sword is not a part of a zombie so magic controlling one is not effected by the other.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[Berengar]

@jebrick

To callen's point, controlling a part of a weapon is still controlling the weapon and thus resisted. The hilt and the tang and the blade are not controlled by a target group because the Essential Nature of a sword is made from there parts.

And a sword is not a part of a zombie so magic controlling one is not effected by the other.

This appears to be a very sane way to avoid a rules exploit, that AFAIK has no published precedent spell and IMO should not be allowed: controlling just T:Part of something by magic, to avoid that the implicitly controlled rest of it is resisted by MR.
Like controlling a sword's blade by just its hilt, a man's arm by just his brain (A&A p.39), or a floating ice sheet by just a cubic meter of it.

Cheers

[ezzelino]

@One Shot

@jebrick

To callen's point, controlling a part of a weapon is still controlling the weapon and thus resisted.

Hmm not quite. It would be resisted by the weapon! If the weapon had MR. But it does not make the whole weapon resisted
If you can resist my spells, you can resist a spell that grows a wart on your nose. But if you do not resist, that wart does not make me resistant to your punches and kicks. In my opinion.

@One Shot

This appears to be a very sane way to avoid a rules exploit, that AFAIK has no published precedent spell and IMO should not be allowed: controlling just T:Part of something by magic, to avoid that the implicitly controlled rest of it is resisted by MR.

In terms of "exploit" I think that's unavoidable short of invoking the "disallow what you don't want in your game" rule. I mean, look, a magus can make a spell that does exactly the same thing by enchanting a gauntlet with which to grab the sword. Sure, it's a little more unwieldy in that the magus must have the gauntlet ... at hand. On the other ... hand, it's not a big deal and it does bring the Target down to Individual, shoving a magnitude off. I think that paying 1 magnitude for a solution that is very slightly ... handier, and less "ugly", is a fair trade.

In terms of precedent, I would look at examples of supernatural creatures with powers that create or mutate portions of their bodies with which they attack -- powers that make teeth or claws razor sharp, or that turn hair into snakes. Does use of any of these powers make any other physical attack from the creature resisted? I have not looked in depth at the issue, in part because in my games I tend to make up my own supernatural adversaries, but someone more knowledgeable than me might have.

[jebrick]

@ezzelino

@One Shot

@jebrick

To callen's point, controlling a part of a weapon is still controlling the weapon and thus resisted.

Hmm not quite. It would be resisted by the weapon! If the weapon had MR. But it does not make the whole weapon resisted
If you can resist my spells, you can resist a spell that grows a wart on your nose. But if you do not resist, that wart does not make me resistant to your punches and kicks. In my opinion.

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.

[ezzelino]

@jebrick

@ezzelino

@One Shot

@jebrick

To callen's point, controlling a part of a weapon is still controlling the weapon and thus resisted.

Hmm not quite. It would be resisted by the weapon! If the weapon had MR. But it does not make the whole weapon resisted
If you can resist my spells, you can resist a spell that grows a wart on your nose. But if you do not resist, that wart does not make me resistant to your punches and kicks. In my opinion.

If the weapon is guided to hit then yes it is resisted as per RAW.

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.

[Berengar]

@ezzelino

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.

If that's the remaining argument, we are back to ExarKun's New ReTe spell: Warrior's Wield .

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.

@"ArM5 p.86 [i

Aiming[/i]"]A maga may want to cast a spell that affects something else, and only indirectly affects the target. In this case, the target’s magic resistance is irrelevant, as the spell does not target her. However, while spells always hit their targets, indirect effects may not reach the true target; they must be aimed. If a spell is resisted, as above, it need not be aimed. If it is not resisted, it must be aimed.
AIMING ROLL:
Perception + Finesse + Die
The die is a stress die if the maga is under stress, a simple die otherwise. Treat the total as an attack total (see “Combat” on page 171). If the “attack” hits, the spell effect is in the right place; what effect this has depends on the spell.

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.

Cheers

[ezzelino]

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.

@OneShot

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.

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).

[Berengar]

@ezzelino

So, just to make sure I am understanding your point correctly, you too agree that Warrior's Wield would not be magically resisted, right?

Just like ExarKun, I doubt that it is even possible as described.

@ezzelino

The ability to use "to hit" is another issue that was discussed earlier in the thread.

Above I gave you the quote which settles this discussion:

@"ArM5 p.86 [i

Aiming[/i] (underscore mine)"]However, while spells always hit their targets, indirect effects may not reach the true target; they must be aimed. If a spell is resisted, as above, it need not be aimed. If it is not resisted, it must be aimed.
AIMING ROLL:
Perception + Finesse + Die

So the core book explicitly requires aiming with a specific Finesse-based aiming-roll, unless the spell is resisted.

@ezzelino

@OneShot

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.

What do you mean by "rejected by the authors"?

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.

Cheers

[ezzelino]

@One Shot

@ezzelino

So, just to make sure I am understanding your point correctly, you too agree that Warrior's Wield would not be magically resisted, right?

Just like ExarKun, I doubt that it is even possible

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.

@OneShot

@ezzelino

The ability to use "to hit" is another issue that was discussed earlier in the thread.

Above I gave you the quote which settles this discussion

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.

@OneShot

@ezzelino

@OneShot

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.

What do you mean by "rejected by the authors"?

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.

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.

[jebrick]

@ezzelino

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.

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.

[ezzelino]

@jebrick

@ezzelino

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.

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")?