Does this mean that a R: Personal, T: Bloodline is a valid spell?
No. I can add "The target can never be a larger thing of which the caster is a part" if that would make it clearer, but as the Bloodline would not count as an Individual, I think it is already implicit.
1 Like
On the other hand, a range personal target part spell is the same magnitude as a range touch target individual spell, only less flexible because you there's an implicit size limit that can't be overcome by boosting/metamagicing the size param.
Tbh, in this case, using this scheme provides 2 different ways of achieving the same goal with an interesting set of complicating factors, I can easily imagine some types of magus preferring one over the other quite strongly, or choosing to take both
Note that your most recent proposed fix above would not solve this, either. That is why I suggested the adjustment to it to say the caster must be included in the Target. Your new version below still allows it to be Personal, just using Part. As Wingsday points out, it would at least be the same level as Touch/Individual, though you could spont Personal/Part to launch such a thing with MR and avoid its MR.
So your plan is that a shapeshifter has to necessarily take all their stuff with them, casting requisites always being required whether the caster desires or not, unless the spell was designed to use Part? Or, similarly, if you want to heal yourself (Personal healing ritual) you have to make sure you're naked or you need to have all those casting requisites, too. That's because only with Part can you affect yourself and not the stuff you're carrying. This is why I said above that "and" may really not do what you want here. I believe writing it as "When cast by a magus, this means the magus, optionally including items worn..." might do what you want better.
You still haven't solved your earlier problem of things counting within Personal and being protected by MR against the caster. Something that qualifies as "worn," for example, is part of the target and so is not "anything else." As it's written it's good for growing claws with MuCo(An) and hitting someone with them, and things like that.
1 Like
It would. The Touch/Ind version is a perfectly useful and rational piece of design, with potential advantages over the Per/Part version. It's not the only way to do it, but it's not a gratuitous penalty of 5 damage for the level. No errata necessary.
No.
My earlier concern was with people within a Personal range Circle, which is excluded by another bit of the clarification (the part that says you can't have Personal Circles). The choice of "target" rather than "caster" is deliberate here, and the intent is that things that count as part of the caster do not get Magic Resistance. People inside a house are not part of the Individual that is the house. Most of the furniture isn't. The windows and sconces on the walls may well be, but the precise location of that line is something that I want to leave up to troupes.
If that's how this is supposed to read, then we can still do The Invisible Sling of Vilano at Personal/Individual. Not everything needs to be affected, right? You've grouped it all together and allowed renewed separation. While sometimes this may not work, like holding a human bone to have it launched, it can work perfectly well at other times, like with The Invisible Sling of Vilano. No? It looks like you're trying to eliminate the problems from separating the caster from the things worn/held, but your approach leaves the separation in just a modified way.
For a useful example, there was my Master of Enchantments spell I developed. ReVi 5 at R: Personal to activate a magic item you're wearing or carrying. People who dislike that use of Personal are the ones or share an opinion with the ones here strongly backing this erratum. But Master of Enchantments still works, yet it doesn't match "The intent of the Range is that it can only affect the caster."
For a more general case, a necromancer wearing clothing of human hair, bone, etc., can basically just pick up or don any small thing that isn't Corpus and use Personal on it pretty much just like before your proposed erratum, right? Yet this clearly doesn't match "The intent of the Range is that it can only affect the caster."
You spent noticeable time talking about a person holding another person, too. So, for example, let's say a mage lands on a flying dragon's back to cast a Touch spell on the dragon. The dragon can use a Personal PeCo effect on the magus and bypass the magus's MR, right, since the dragon is now carrying the magus just like the other bits of moss and debris on its back and the dragon itself is left out because of the Form? Is this really so different from the example of picking up a person to use Personal on them to bypass their MR that you seemed so against above?
I'm pointing these things out because I'm seeing bypasses you've seemed to argue against above, and it's probably better to fix them before issuing such errata than going back to deal with them by editing the errata.
See, I don't read it that way.
Invisible Sling of Vilano uses this guideline:
Level 5: Hurl a stone projectile with enough force to do +5 damage (range increment of 20 paces)
The caster wouldn't affect himself with such a guideline nor would he affect anything in his inventory that wouldn't be a stone projectile, therefore the part target wouldn't be necessary. In fact, I look up the new reading, and I wonder if you haven't opened the door to an Invisible Sling of Vilano at ReTe 5 that hurls all stone projectiles that the caster may happen to have within his personal individual target, by avoiding using T: Part so that all valid targets on his person are launched. No need for group target anymore.
I had started wondering about exactly that same Individual/Group thing you mention. I just needed a chance to look over the new and old rules to be sure whether it was there and if it would be now.
@David_Chart Would something like these solve issues better for you? What would these allow that you don't want allowed? What would these disallow that you want allowed?
The Functioning of Magic Resistance (p. 85): Replace the second paragraph with the following: "Spells cast with Personal Range do not have to overcome the caster's Magic Resistance, but the spell must Penetrate in order to affect anything else with Magic Resistance, as normal. Spells cast with Ranges other than Personal, even if cast by the the maga on herself, must overcome the resistance of anything with Magic Resistance as normal."
Edit: Spell cast with Touch Range, even if cast by the maga on herself, do have to overcome the target's Magic Resistance, as well as needing to Penetrate in order to affect anything with Magic Resistance while enchanted." (Changed the last sentence from this based on ErikT's comment and noticing by specifying Touch it said nothing about things like Voice on the caster.)
Personal (p. 111): Replace the description with the following: "The spell only affects the caster. When cast by a magus, this means the magus, optionally including items worn or carried that would be covered by an Individual Target based on the magus. If the effect is in an enchanted item, it affects the item, optionally including things attached to it that would be covered by an Individual Target based on the item. Requisites may be required for everything within Personal range that is to be affected, as normal. Personal Range spells can never have a container Target (such as Circle, Room, or Structure)."
In find part of the wording here confusing. In particular the very last words "while enchanted" in the paragraph on the Functioning of Magic Resistance. We are talking about a spell, right? So how can it be enchanted? Or does "while enchanted" refer to something else?
I believe the idea was to handle something like MuCo(An) to change a person to give them claws; the claws must still penetrate. Or a Personal ward still needs to penetrate the thing warded against. But, as you point out, the language isn't clear; it's left over as I didn't change that sentence of David's. I got rid of the first instance of it. I'll go back and see what I can do with that one.
How's that now?
Far less confusing to me, but I think it might not be the greatest idea to talk about "must overcome the resistance of anything with Magic Resistance as normal" in that particular part of the text, since it is the text trying to explain how MR works, and so anyone reading it won't yet know how "as normal" would work.
Ya, that “normal” bit is also a remnant. I’m not sure it’s bad. It’s just making sure we know Personal on yourself is the only exception. Pay attention to the rest of the rules otherwise.
I'm hoping, at least, that by now we all agree on what David's intent is for Personal, but we do need to look for edge cases.
I think the biggest thing to quickly clarify is a person carrying another (the carried baby or the dragon carrying examples). It may be worth saying that a living being cannot be included in another being's Personal spells.
With the Invisible Sling of Villano at Personal+Ind, casting it without Part would theoretically throw every single inanimate object in the caster's possession at the target.
Using my sample Josephine as an example, I think this spell would allow her to cast a Personal spell to make her clothing fly and carry her along, without using Group or Touch, because her entire worn outfit is part of Personal. This is intended and acceptable?
Something like this may work?
"Spells cast with Personal Range do not have to overcome the caster's Magic Resistance, but the spell must Penetrate in order to affect anything else with Magic Resistance. A transformed magus must penetrate another's Magic Resistance to claw them, and sword enchanted with Personal range sharpness must penetrate Magic Resistance to cut. Spells cast with Ranges other than Personal, even if cast by the the maga on herself, must overpcome the resistance of anything with Magic Resistance"
There is the issue of the magus' familiar - assuming a "smallish" familiar, like a cat, a dog or a raven.
On the other hand, if the magus wants to have a safe, retreat spell, he can design a higher level spell to include him and his familiar.
In fact, I would rather go with a generic guideline without exception like proposed by raccoonmask and see magus reinventing a spell for them and their familiar than creating an exception for familiar (because there will be the discussion, how big does it work with a familiar ? what if it is a horse carrying the magus and another person...).
No. Unless the spell is reinvented to include any item touch by the magus, with all the appropriate requisit, and probably a +1 flexibility modifier.
As p38 HoH:S, "Hurl a stone" is pretty specific, so even if the mage touch somebody's cloth, a wooden shaft, or a cat, this won't fly. Also, it won't throw all stones touching the mage "Hurl A stone" is singular, so even if he has two dozen pebbles in his hand, only one will fly.
-A spell needs to be invented with all the casting requisits it intend to affect, to be able to be cast as such.- Please, disregard this last sentence, only applies for enchantment.
Yeah, the Personal Sling of Villano does kind of look like it'll just fail, unless we try to abuse unclear areas of the rules
1 Like
This is definitely not entirely true, especially for Terram. None of the Terram 'any inanimate object' spells actually have requisites built in, they're casting requisites. Unseen Porter, Object of Increased Size, and so on.