No warping!

Ok, I'm stating the obvious here, but, well, this might interest one or 2 people, so...

The Familiar Bond doesn't cause warping.

And I noticed yesterday that, conceivably, it should, for a "constant mystical effect"

Sure, we can always say that it ain't a mystical effect, and thus does not cause warping.

But this can be contested, and, IMO, is much less interesting than saying that it is a constant effect that doesn't cause warping. This makes it an interesting exception, and thus a possible source of insight for those magi who would try to expand the bounds of hermetic magic theory.
Hell, we can even say that, in ages past, it did cause warping, but that the research of managed to solve that, although no one as yet been able to expand his findings to other effects.

Just a random thought.

Cool idea.

Or as an alternative, it might not cause warping because it breaks a hermetic limit: it changes your Essential Nature and since it is part of your being, it does not cause warping. As such it is even MORE awesome (even if less useful) since it is a discovery that pushed the boundary of hermetic magic quite a few steps.

In any case it is a cool concept to use it as insight. Thx for the suggestion :slight_smile:


Not only that - the powers instilled in it do not cause Warping, either. They could run non-stop as well. This is why I consider familiars the most valuable tool for a magus. You can put as many effects in the bond as you like, and none of them Warp you. There are certainly limits you have to deal with: control and limited Target. But when you can work with that, the familiar bond is a great way to go.


All the magi that use power buffs before entering combat (read: Ramius) do great with familiars sinc ethery can basically have those powers IN the bond and available at all times. Never played that kind of magus, but have used that trick for some "I need that even if I get surprised in my sleep" kind of protection spells.


There is external consistency with this as well. Goetic magic allows you to bind spirits to you and while bound you get their Might as resistance, and depending on the bond can be immune to both Warping and aging rolls. Check RoP Infernal for the specifics.

One of the things I always thought Familiars did was essentially 'eat' Warping points. They're native to Magic and lend you that immunity.

Hmmmm.... eating warping....

remember the debate of why familiars did not need vis to avoid aclimation? Maybe it is because they are basically on a warping life-link on a permanent basis! Retroactive explanation, but it might even be consistent! WOW! :mrgreen:

Except they're not necessarily any more so than the magus.


To me the important control issue is, that magical effects invested into the Bond and affecting the magus are controlled by the familiar, and vice versa. This should rule out environmental and linked triggers, and as a result also constant effects.


I'm looking through the rules and I don't see anyplace where it says powers in the familiar bond can't cause long term warping on the magus.

That's true, you can bind ordinary, non-magical creatures. But if that's so, perhaps the act of binding attunes them to the Magic realm? There are Mysteries that change a magus into a magical or faerie creature -- perhaps binding a Familiar was a similar Mystery at one time, using similar techniques, and has since been incorporated into standard Hermetic theory.

Pre-binding they're definitely moreso than the magus just by the fact that they have a Might score.

P. 168, middle column.

Yes, what is perhaps THE most powerful aspect of having a familiar is hidden away in the section on Warping. :open_mouth:


The rules say that the creature has to have inherent magic. Whether or not this means that the creature has to have a might score has been debated inconclusively on this board previously.

How about that. :blush: You can have stuff up all of the time without any warping.

I don't see how that follows.

The precise argument goes like this:
We read ArM5 p. 105: "Fourth, powers are limited to effects, which target the maga, the familiar, or both." and "If the enchantment affects only the maga, it is under the control of the familiar. If it affects only the familiar, it is under the control of the maga." (Underscores all mine.)
OK, the latter statement does not address those enchantments affecting both familiar and maga - but such are rare, as they would have to target T: Group made of an animal and a man. (Some may think of Mentem effects like 'Intelligence of the Heroes' from HoH:TL p. 103 for T: Group as a useful enchantment affecting both - but setting such up for enchanted devices, hence not inherently rituals, makes them even more difficult.)
But for the typical enchantments it clearly attributes the control of the effects to either the maga or the familiar - thereby implicitly excluding control by the enchanted Bond proper, as needed for ArM5 p. 99 'Environmental Trigger' and 'Linked Trigger', and effects relying on either of these.

Note that I wrote 'should' above: campaign-specific discussions and rulings are in order here.


Edit: This is just entirely agreement with One Shot's next post above.

The statements within that section would generally agree with One Shot's interpretation. They talk about the need to maintain concentration to allow for continuous effects on the familiar. However, there is an exception. That rule is for effects only on the magus or familiar. But a T: Group effect can still work and be outside that. So you could have a T: Group version of Ward Against Heat and Flames with an environmental trigger to run constantly.


This is why RAW is a guideline not a chokehold. The intent of the rules is clear. Using RAW to circumvent it through the T:Group version is plain cheating.

Clear? Really? I would not agree with your interpretation of the intent, and I don't think I'm misreading them. The reason I say this is that it seems to me you are saying the rules are nearly explicitly telling you to cheat. The rules say the power must affect the magus, the familiar, or both. If it affects only the magus, it is under the familiar's control. If it affects only the familiar, it is under the magus's control. So, who controls it if it affects both of them??? The rules allow "both" as an option, so choosing T: Group is nearly explicitly an option. In this case it does not affect only the magus nor does it affect only the familiar, so those statements don't apply. Where would you go from there? Who do you thing the rules clearly intend to control this effect? One interpretation would be that the one not affected must control it and so it cannot be under either of their control. Another interpretation would be that it must be under both of their control. Or you could just ignore the control statements since they don't apply and allow either or neither to control it. Why is one of these what is clearly intended and not one of the others?

There are weaknesses in using T: Group. One is that the choice of Arts is more limited. For example, let's say you want to MuCo effect to give you both a Soak bonus. Whoops, that only works on one of you. MuAn works on the other one. Using both would probably add a magnitude, meaning the spell is that much more difficult (+2 for Individual -> Group, +1 for the extra requisite). This brings up another disadvantage: +2 to magnitudes for any such effect. It looks to me that these are trade-offs.


The overall intend, to me, seems to be that permanent "buffs" cause warping, which is sensible from a game balance point of view. Circumventing that with a mere +1 or +2 magnitudes seems a bit cheap. But eh, if your troupe agrees with it, I am not going to lie awake over it at night.