I think it's more complicate than that (first most would see orange) , and those with blue-green color blindness would see both as the same color. Now throw in the idea that some people could see infra red or ultra violet...
As I see it every magus would be able to perceive and identify vis within their tradition. So a hermetic magus sees perdo, a learned magician sees Vulnero. However Fortunam vis may be either not perceived by hermetics (at least as vis, the lucky rabbit's foot that contains it would still be seen) or simply perceived as vim (generic) vis.
However this would clearly be outside of RAW and is either something the SG or troop should decide.
Brown is actually a shade of orange. People from cultures that do not use "brown" will easily identify even dark brown as orange, while people from cultures that do use "brown" generally will not perceive any shade called "brown" as orange.
Thought this little tidbit fit the discussion, since Magi might have some Arts of Vis they have a brown for and some that they only have an orange. They would have a more refined view of some types and less of others compared to other magical traditions.
Seems like the question has devolved to whether Hermetic Magi can percive the full "spectrum" of magic, which they split into 15 "colours" of Vis.
Or is there the equivalent of infrared and/or ultraviolet "colours" that other Traditions can see.
Are all wizards "human" who see the same spectrum of visible light but interpret the "colours" differently according to culture/Tradition, or are some insects or mantis shrimp that see different ranges of EM spectrum?
What does Magic Sensitivity say?
And interestingly: Does it say different things for a hermetic magus with Magic sensitivity than for another person with magic sensitivity?
core book "you are able to identify a place or item as magical" nothing in the core description about locating or identifying vis- I believe some of the tribunal books assert such an effect from the ability.
If a magi wanted to know whether there were Vis that's no so easily qualified, I would day to them - Ask a Pralician.
Vis being “solidified magic” in some sense I have a hard time interpreting “you are able to identify a place or item as magical” in a way that can’t detect vis.
4 Likes
I could see it being unable to distinguish such fine details as whether an item has might, is enchanted, or is simply a container for vis- or even potentially not being able to recognize vis because it is "dormant" as opposed to being imbued with an effect.
One could, but why? If it's not game breaking, I think a SG should generally go with the beneficial interpretation when there is one, which would let magic sensitivity identify vis.
It depends on the story and situation. If you want to have forms of vis that can only be detected by certain traditions then it would make sense to have Magic sensitivity unable to detect raw Vis, unless perhaps it has been trained under a certain tradition itself, the way second sight is trained by folk witches.
It would make the other traditions a bit more exotic. It would also give an incentive for magi to study other traditions further to find out how they can extract magic from things Hermetics can't.
As I am starting a saga that is set around 830, this discussion is indeed very interesting for me, because it was at a time the hermetic theory was not as stable as it is in 1220.
It seems that the nature of reality is not well-defined in the rulebooks, and it will be a house rule to decide if the reality is made of a combination of components aligned with the Arts, or if reality is of a different nature that can be manipulated with Arts.
In the first case, Bonisagus research is similar to the identification of the main chemical elements in our mundane world, and the other magi that have been looking for new Arts were looking for less frequent elements.
In the second case, Bonisagus research is more engineering-oriented, and Arts are designed because they can allow magic to be effective with a large chunk of reality.
If I take the example of "Calling the Odious Drought" in the core rulebook, its only effect are to remove water, but there is an Auram requisite (causing no level increase) likely because (quoting the core rulebook) "Auram includes (...) rain".
With the first interpretation, it would mean that rain is made of Auram, and when it touches the ground, it becomes Aquam.
With the second interpretation, it would mean that each droplet of rain can be the target of an Aquam spell, but a Perdo Aquam spell that targets the rain would need to target water mixed in air, which would increase the level of the spell (and probably a new type of "Target" to be added in the hermetic theory).
And Vis extraction will also mean two different things.
In the first case, one can only extract the vis of the Art that is there, while in the second case the process of extracting the vis makes it aligned with the Art.
The core rulebook does not help to choose between both approaches, because the first one would be an activity of type Rego Vim and the second one of type Muto Vim, while the rulebook uses the Creo Vim lab total...
Non-Hermetic practitioners would perceive and categorize vis in accordance to their own understanding of magic and what they can use said Vis for. Vis will have its objective properties, but its the reader's lenses that interpret it as so or so form/technique, or as the closest equivalent.
Vis with the "healing / empowering / creation" would be identified as Succuro vis. Form vis will likely remain for the most part as is, since all traditions know what sort of targets they can affect, or can use different types of vis depending on the target (Gruagachan Blessing spells can be fueled by different types of vis, depending on the form of the target, Solomonic Physic can invent spells for healing animals as well as humans).
Important Case to consider: Learned Magicians would identify some vis as belonging to Fortunam, where as Hermetics would only be able to see Vim. Just because Hermetics would be unable to perceive certain properties does not mean they are not there. Case in point: Aether.
If you happen to have both Aether Magic and Magic Realm Magic researched, you will suddenly find that Magic Realm does indeed have boundaries associated with this form. Being the realm of the objective, I highly doubt these sprouted into existence just because Magi added it to their repertoire.
The Magic Realm is objective but the lens through which it is observed does seem to have an impact on what you will find in it?
1 Like
Wait -- I thought 'Transform the Nature of Vis' was out of bounds in 5e; that the 'type' of Vis was part of its' Essential Nature. My reading was that magi might learn to use one sort of Vis 'in place of' another type of Vis, but that changing Vis was utterly impossible. Am I mistaken?
You're correct. But like everything that's impossible in Ars Magicka, there's usually a breakthrough to make it possible. Case in point: See the chapter about Grigoris in Ancient Magic.
I am aware of the Grigori as written, but it does not say anything about changing Vis; it specifies that a caster may 'substitute' vis of a specific type for vis of another specific type. Ancient Magic p 67:
Araquiel’s Secret allows anyone who possesses it and who can use the Arts of Creo, Corpus, and Terram to use vis for any of these Arts interchangeably.
That is not the same thing. The use may not take a pawn of Terram vis & turn it into a pawn of Creo vis -- and that is a distinction which is important when trading with redcaps.
You are mistaken.
See Philosophical Refining of Elementalists (HM:RE p27)
An elemental philosopher may also
move vis from one object to another. To do
this, his Refining Total for the season must
equal or exceed (the total number of pawns
of vis moved x 5). If the moved vis is not as-
sociated with the Form used in the Refining
Total, it is transformed into the appropriate
Form by this process, but half of it (rounded
down) is lost. For example, with a Refining
Total of 25 using Elementalist Air, 5 pawns of
Vim vis could be moved from one container
into another, leaving 2 pawns of Auram vis at
the end of the season.
That is interesting, and the only mention I can remember in 5e about 'transforming' vis. Thanks for the reference! Too bad about sloppy math in the example; 'Half (rounded down) is lost' should be two pawns lost out of five, leaving three.
I think it is the example which is correct, and that it should be "rounded up" instead of "rounded down", but either way you are quite correct that the rule and the example don't match.
1 Like