On the interesting wording of Wizard's Communion

[size=75]Since I didn't get any reaction from the Berklist, I'll repost it here.[/size]

If you turn to page 160, the text for Wizard's Communion states that
it is the level at which participants know WC that matters, not
the level at which they did cast it. In fact, no mention is made that
WC would even needs to be cast at all, aside from the fact that it is
supposed to be a spell, though one that is "a remnant of Mercurian

Some time ago, someone mentioned that the automatically-invented WC
that comes with every ritual for magi with Mercurian Magic wasn't very
useful if you weren't a MuVi expert on top of whatever your specialty
was. But if it simply is the level at which you know WC that matters,
it suddenly becomes very valuable.

Does Wizard's Communion need to be cast, or should it be considered to
simply measure your knowledge of the principles of Mercurian ritual
magic (closer to The Divine's Ceremony ability than to Fenicil's

Is it the level at which you cast WC that counts in the total, or is
it the level at which you know it, regardless of which one you
actually cast? Is it one for the errata?

I'd say it's the level you know it.

You're kidding!!


So you believe that hthe author and the playtesters thought ,"What matters in this spell is what level the magus knows it at, the level that he casts the spell at and even whether or nor he casts the spell at all are totally irrelevant. Furthermore the best way to communicate this drastic change from every other spell in the entire book (and the entire history of the rules sytem for that matter) is to use a spell description that barely acknowleges the crazily unusual nature of the spell."

I am of the opinion that the spell description assumes that the casting magi cast the spell at the level they know it at because they have to cast the spell at a level that they know it at.

While this wording is indeed sloppy and ignores the case where a character knows more than one version of the spell, to assume a different interpretation makes the spell inconsistant game logic, inconsistant all of the other rules, and agrees even less well with the wording of the spell.

Is it your opinion that writing that is completly unambiguous and not open to discussion has been a halmark of the rest of the text?

I don't see what could lead you to this conclusion. How did you get there?

Well, after reading it a few times, that is how I would interpret it too, although I can see the argument against it. It is unclear though, but when I read "All the magi in the gathering who know Wizard's Communion add the level at which they know it to get the effective level of the Wizard's Communion," and I think, ah... this is an exception. Since they use the word "know" which I haven't seen used in spell descriptions elsewhere, they probably mean "know" and not "cast."

If the author had said, "add the level at which they cast Wizard's Communion..." it would have been clear. Using the word "know" and not "cast" suggests to me that this is meant to be an exception.

If this is not the intention then it is not a well worded instruction and I would wonder if anyone read it with an eye to actually using it in playtesting.

So, Eric, why do you think that the phrase "add the level at which they know it" is included?

Yes, really.

I don't believe this is what the writers intended to say. ArM5 is often not well phrased, as you hinted. In this case, I think this is what the rules SAY, even if it is not what the authors meant. While I could make a house rule, I actually think this works better than the version where each magus casts the spell, so I'm glad to stick with this interpretation.


As I read this you never actually cast "Wizard's communion", it is less of a spell and more of an ability...

Thus, 'know' is the operative word.

Ah, now it makes sense.

thank you