Personal Range

[Ezechiel3571]

@raccoonmask

None of the Terram 'any inanimate object' spells actually have requisites built in, they're casting requisites

My mistake, it is only for enchantment that Casting requisit must be included into Labtot (p99).

[callen]

@raccoonmask

It may be worth saying that a living being cannot be included in another being's Personal spells.

I was considering that same idea, but there are problems. First, you can have a living plant as a Talisman, and that really must be allowed to be affected. Second, the rules explicitly allow small Familiars on your person to come with you when you teleport. Third, you really shouldn't be able to rid yourself of lice, for example, by teleporting.

... like what Ezechiel said, though the Talisman is really huge here.

@raccoonmask

Something like this may work?

Looks good.

@raccoonmask

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

Did you see my necromancer idea that could basically do all the current Personal stuff as now, except with Corpus?

[raccoonmask]

@callen

I was considering that same idea, but there are problems. First, you can have a living plant as a Talisman, and that really must be allowed to be affected. Second, the rules explicitly allow small Familiars on your person to come with you when you teleport. Third, you really shouldn't be able to rid yourself of lice, for example, by teleporting.

I agree that a living plant talisman is a big concern. I didn't realize small familiars were explicitly allowed, since my home saga has been ruling the reverse: Can you provide a reference page?

Also, as a note, I have zero problem with Teleportation getting rid of lice.

[callen]

Instant transportation:

Because essentially the character is flying exceptionally fast, anything he is wearing or carrying travels with him (even other creatures such as familiars, as long as they are small)... (TME p.106)

Living creatures cannot be transported without requisites, except for familiars (if they can be carried), which share a special bond with the magus. (TME p.107)

[raccoonmask]

Thanks for the reference Callen!
I had definitely discounted the first of your references (It was in a sidebar for an optional rule I did not use); the second one is a good point. I took that paragraph as somewhat non-canon, since it started with 'The view taken in this chapter..."

[David_Chart]

@callen

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.

This seems clearly worse than the original phrasing. By saying "optionally including", you leave open all the problematic inclusions, while implying that the caster has control over what is included. That implication is strengthened by the absence of the reference to Part. What am I missing?

@callen

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.

Thank you. This is clearer, I think, but I want to use "target", not "caster". Consider a Personal Range effect in a Talisman. That doesn't need to Penetrate the maga's Magic Resistance, but it is not intuitively clear that she is the caster. In other cases, if the target isn't the caster, that's a sign that you are misusing Personal.

@callen

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.

I think the erratum should make this illegal. That's not how Personal is supposed to work. House rules are good, however.

@raccoonmask

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.

This is an issue with the definition of Individual, not Personal, and so I think it should be kept separate. I'll create a new thread for it.

@raccoonmask

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

It certainly isn't clear what would happen, and I think this may be an area that is best left to troupes. "It doesn't work" is probably the best canon answer, though.

@raccoonmask

Also, as a note, I have zero problem with Teleportation getting rid of lice.

Me neither. I also have no problem with it not getting rid of them, so this won't be a factor for me in looking at Individual.

[Fishy (Lee)]

The original personal range description is literally 1 paragraph. I think it would be best resolved with an errata with a bit more clarity and a side bar with examples. I don't think a new definition without a side bar works, considering all the possible peculiar interpretations.

Well, I actually think it would be best resolved by troupes doing what they've done for 20 years. Understand the logic behind personal range without focusing on one poorly written spell, or trying to manipulate 1 less magnitude, or bypass spell resistance, by having personal range for what most players would clearly see are not personal spells.

The example above, with one troupe having teleportation removing lice, and another not, great. Personal range does not have to be identical for every troupe . If a SG is generous and lets a magi teleport a toddler he picks up from a burning building, while other SGs wouldn't, fine. Some wiggle room in spell design is a feature, not a bug to be eradicated.

I accept as we are closing in on 150 posts with no signs of stopping I'm likely in the minority here.

[ezzelino]

@David_Chart

@callen

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.

I think the erratum should make this illegal. That's not how Personal is supposed to work.

Hmm. Indeed, the Master of Enchantments effect feels a bit wrong to me.
Unless it's cast with T:Part, in which case it feels right.
Or if it activates all magic that the wearer is carrying, in which case it might feel superficially wrong, but ultimately right - for consistency with a R:Per something that e.g. makes the clothing the magus is wearing freshly ironed, which to me feels right.

@David_Chart

@raccoonmask

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

It certainly isn't clear what would happen, and I think this may be an area that is best left to troupes. "It doesn't work" is probably the best canon answer, though.

Hmm. Actually, Personal Sling of Villano - assuming it means a Sling of Villano effect that imparts an impulse of motion to all Terram (other than metal or gems) held or worn by the caster - is an interesting and viable effect, I think. Sure, it shaves a magnitude off a second-magnitude spell ... but the caster has to make sure that he's not wearing or carrying any other Terram object. Or, he can select what he wants to toss with T:Part (keeping R:Per), but then the final level is the same as with T:Ind R:Touch.

[ezzelino]

@raccoonmask

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?

Sort of. There are two issues here.
First, comfort. I would really hate being moved around by someone lifting my trousers, for example.
Second, "carrying capacity". Assuming clothing's strong enough not to get torn apart by the stress, there's the general issue of whether moving a small object with something much bigger attached will also move the bigger object. We've always ruled that, in general, something moved by magic will be able to drag along any attached material as long as that material is "relatively small" compared to the target of the magic (TME, p.107, seems to take a similar view); a person is certainly not "relatively small" compared to worn clothing (barring exceptions like some truly extravagant bride dresses).

[callen]

@David_Chart

@callen

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.

This seems clearly worse than the original phrasing. By saying "optionally including", you leave open all the problematic inclusions, while implying that the caster has control over what is included. That implication is strengthened by the absence of the reference to Part. What am I missing?

Honestly, this is nonsensical. The "or"'s used in the original phrasing allow Personal to hit by choice:

• just the caster, leaving out clothing and things carried,
• just some things the caster is wearing,
• just some things the caster is carrying, or
• any combination of those.

How is necessarily providing fewer options from among the same set of options opening up any problematic inclusions at all? By the logic of the statement, all it does is reduce the options originally provided. Why? Because "optionally including" does not allow you to leave the caster out. Not being able to leave the caster out cuts down on pretty much all of what you've now told us is misuse.

Now, you could add some Part statement to it. But, again, you want to be careful as you (not me) are opening up problematic inclusions.

@David_Chart

This is clearer, I think, but I want to use "target", not "caster".

I get that. But that's also where you keep creating problems. Why insist on something that requires you to try to do some crazy word-gymnastics? Remember: KISS.

@David_Chart

Consider a Personal Range effect in a Talisman. That doesn't need to Penetrate the maga's Magic Resistance, but it is not intuitively clear that she is the caster. In other cases, if the target isn't the caster, that's a sign that you are misusing Personal.

There is no problem with the Talisman. If it's held, it's actually part of the caster, not something separate. If it's separate, then it needs to penetrate as normal. And there is a clear, easy-to-find (because it's right there in the rules for Talismans) statement about this:

First, your talisman is considered to be a part of you as long as you are touching it. Personal range spells can affect your talisman, Personal range effects in the talisman can affect you

@David_Chart

@callen

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.

I think the erratum should make this illegal. That's not how Personal is supposed to work. House rules are good, however.

That's why I pointed it out. You keep altering and allowing problematic inclusions instead of trimming them out.

@David_Chart

This is an issue with the definition of Individual, not Personal, and so I think it should be kept separate. I'll create a new thread for it.

Actually, it isn't. You're still allowing things to hit what is not the caster with Personal so long as they're held. That thing that is held will still be covered by Individual. The problem is that you keep allowing problematic inclusions.

@ezzelino

Or if it activates all magic that the wearer is carrying, in which case it might feel superficially wrong, but ultimately right - for consistency with a R:Per something that e.g. makes the clothing the magus is wearing freshly ironed, which to me feels right.

I'm pretty sure David is trying to get rid of ironing the clothing without using Part, as I believe his opinion is that The Laundress's Clothesline shouldn't work as written.

As for activating all the items, I believe that would actually make it more powerful. Since it only replaces a singular trigger, keeping triggers different would still allow selectivity, while giving multiple things the same trigger could let you set off a whole bunch of things that way, without even needing Multiple Casting.

[David_Chart]

So, we're misreading each other, and it's getting heated. There's no reason at all for that to happen. I think I have a better idea of what @callen is getting at now, and I'm going to mull over it a bit.

We aren't on any sort of tight deadline, so I'm going to close the thread for a couple of days. We can all come back to it fresh next week.

[David_Chart]

Right, I'm back. The threads on Target interpretations have convinced me that most of the problems are not with Personal Range, and that this is the wrong place to try to solve them. (And, indeed, that I shouldn't try to solve most of them.)

So, new proposal for errata.

Personal Range: The spell only affects the caster, defined in the same way as an Individual Target. Personal Range spells can never have a container Target (such as Circle, Room, or Structure).

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 own Magic Resistance. Spell cast with any other Range, even if cast by the maga on herself, do have to overcome the caster's own Magic Resistance."

The Functioning of Magic Resistance (p. 86): Add the following example after the invisible character bullet point: "An invisible character cannot touch or exert physical force on the maga, even if the invisibility spell had Personal Range. The maga feels the warning that something has been resisted, but feels nothing else. See the magical bridge examples, earlier, for further discussion."

[temprobe]

Looks good.

[callen]

Looks much better at accomplishing what you want without opening up problems. Here are a couple questions:

Personal Range: You have not explicitly ruled out Group (and a bunch of other non-container Targets), but there is that statement about an Individual Target. So let's say you have an enchanted pair of shoes/boots or a magus who is separated into two. In the past I would have used Personal/Group for an effect to affect only the caster when the caster is in separate parts. Would this still work? (Edit: It could be that you plan for these to fall under Individual with a new definition of Individual.)

Functioning of Magic Resistance: This statement about invisible things seems a little contradictory with other things. Second Sight talks about "naturally invisible things," for example. Something natural this way shouldn't be blocked by Magic Resistance. Perhaps it would be better as "A magically invisible character cannot..." or "A character who casts a spell to become invisible cannot..." or "A character who uses an effect to become invisible cannot..."?

[David_Chart]

@callen

(Edit: It could be that you plan for these to fall under Individual with a new definition of Individual.)

I plan for this to potentially fall under Individual depending on troupe judgement.

@callen

Something natural this way shouldn't be blocked by Magic Resistance.

There's a head note to the list of examples to cover this, so that all these caveats do not need to be added to every single example.

[Tellus]

@callen

I'd have been fine with it initially, and mostly it just takes changing that "or" to something like "including." My worry is that it invalidates far more than just that one spell. It invalidates a whole pile of other effects as well. David's full change invalidates nearly 20 effects. Saying the caster/device must be part of the Target still invalidates on the order of half of those.

By now, it would probably be had to find a fix that doesn't invalidate at least a few spells/effects though.