New Virtue for critique

While in the process of helping one of my players design her first maga, an idea for a virtue appropriate to her character concept popped into my head:

While I think it's ok as a minor virtue, I feel this needs some kind of flaw to go with it, I just can't think of too many ideas that are appropriate. Reduced Penetration, perhaps?

So, you want a flaw to balance it out? Short ranged magic somehow seems appropriate.
Alternatively, you could turn it on its head a bit and make it like Potent magic, and require that spells be designed/invented to be Gentle. She would have to reinvent spells for them to be Gentle specifically. Any spell that she designs to be Gentle has the flaw Short-Ranged associated with it. She needs to be in intimate contact with it, or it isn't Gentle.

Yeah, I should have been more clear. I think the virtue needs some kind of built-in flaw.

Aha! An excellent, idea, thank you.

I don't want to limit it too much, but that sounds pretty good.

Yeah, I think it makes sense, but I like the idea of treating it like Potent Magic, which requires the spell to be developed as Gentle. It's possible and reasonable for her parens to have already done some of the spells she invents.

I would rather make it a Major and let any Flaw be a choice.

Any Penetration halved seems like a decent enough modifier.

That is a massive Flaw. Vastly more damaging than the advantage of the Virtue suggested.

And that pretty much makes the Flaw redundant anyway. You wont care if attackspells and such are Gentle, and those you do care of are the kind that wont be a problem casting at touch range.
It´s no longer a crippling Flaw, but it´s also no longer a "real" Flaw.

Like this, it´s probably quite fine, but there´s not really a point to having the flaw.

I didn't get the sense that he wanted a flaw per se, but something that balanced the virtue out a bit. Like Mercurian Magic has the spontaneous spell casting as ceremonial spell casting.

Note, Gentle casting requires she invent most spells from scratch, or find texts that are Gentle. Chances are, she'll be inventing a bunch of spells from scratch. This is, in itself another flaw that is hidden, because the spell either has to be invented wholly from scratch or invented from text once, and then reinvented as Gentle. The short-range thing was more flavor relating to how the spell is cast. I wouldn't inflict this on a character in exchange for taking the virtue, or at least ameliorate the worst effects. Chances are this will rarely be an issue, but it does have a penalty in the spell invention area.

I liked both options so much, I couldn't decide, so I ran them both by the player, to see which she preferred.

1: Requires you to touch the target.
2: Requires you to invent the spell as Gentle. Up to half your starting spell levels can go toward Gentle spells.

She chose option 2. Which seems to be the better option for a Creo/Muto, Corpus/Animal specialist Mercere with Harnessed and Boosted Magic.


Note, I'm saying that Gentle spells act as if under short range magic. IF she doesn't want to touch it, have the total OR make it regular. IT's a choice.

I would like to note that Mercurian magic's merits hardly (if at all) outweigh the flaws. For me it would make more sense to make that a minor mystery virtue with the same stats.

If you must invent the spells to be gentle, only friendly spells will be gentle, and you won't induce twilight rolls in, for instance, an unfriendly twilight prone criamon.

Does a person with this kind of Gift want offensive spells? If the goal is to minimize harm, or collateral damage, I have a hard time following that they want to avoid warping, but cause some damage.

And I'm in some agreement with regards to Mercurian magic.

I'm assuming your considering Longevity Rituals(Potions) to be along the lines of enchantments for the purposes of this virtue.

Also, will characters without the Gentle Magic virtue be able to learn Gentle spells from a text or a teacher in the way characters without Potent Magic can still learn Potent spells. If so, that sounds less like a disadvantage and more like an advantage.