The spell cast on a item (not to be confused with an enchated item) taints the item with magic. It then is blocked by parma.
But the item is not a magical item just tainted by magic. So what about just counting it as a spell effect that has it's penatration figured like any other spell??
Casting total + penatration bonus - spell lvl
If that total is above the resistance of any person hit the sword hits otherwise it bounces. Treat any spell cast on an item not invested into it as having the penatration based on the casting total plus and penatration skills and any mastery..
I kind of figured that's how it always worked, though I'm not sure there are any rules for it... I'd let it work like that, anyway. After all, why should there be a difference between Penetration working with a Crystal Dart that you just Muto:d and a magically sharpened sword?
Oh, by the way - are invested items not currently subject to spell effect resisted by M.R.? If you have a sword that can magically be summoned to your hand, for instance (but only that) - will it be resisted? I think not, what do you people think?
The invested item is resisted based upon the spell lvl it was invested as.
Say a 35th lvl spell was invested into an item it would resis as a 35 lvl effect. But I view a spell that taints an item as not investing it into the object so you should figure the penatration based on casting total.
Are you talking 4th or 5th now? Because in 5th, spell level says nothing about penetration.
"Effects produced by enchanted devices have a Penetration of zero" (though you can pay for more when instilling the effect). But that's the effect - nowhere is anything said about resisting the item, when no spell is affecting it. After all, Lab Totals don't have Penetration, only Casting Totals have.
Casting a spell on the sword of you opponent does not a enchantet item make...
And spell level is subtracted from you casting total to detemine you penatration total.
Seems you are confusing a enchanted device (one that take a minimum of one season in a lab to make) with a tainted one with just a spell cast on it. They are totally diffrent things.
As a spell cast has a penatration calculated on its casting total and in invested item has it's based on the lvl of effect plus any extra penatration you put in it.
Penatration oc casting is on page 82 ans the enchatned items is on 97 are Totaly diffrent regarding the initial post..
To clarify the pink dot question according to David in a post I had on the matter some time ago, it works like this:
If you cast spell that turns a sword pink, that sword is now treated as an entirely magical thing. If the pink dot (which can be cast with zero penetration) fails to penetrate your Parma, the entire attack is repelled.
Yes, precisely. But I also think that if you don't use zero penetration, the sword will get the corresponding penetration, just as a magically created missile would.
Just a clarification on the way Ars Magica 5th ed works with Parma.
Does Parma work automatically.
For example, if you dug a real pit by hand and then "magically" filled it with dirt. Would the mage's parma automatically dispell the dirt causing them to fall even though a mundane would be safe?
No. The magical dirt would be treated like the magical bridge in the examples in the book; The parma would keep the magical dirt away from the magus, and he would be walking on top of it. Likewise, as has been done to tears around here, one cannot use a magus' parma to ill effect against a magus (see the "Mundane Poison transformed into wine" trick).
Personally, I despise the Pink Dot Problem, and much prefer the rules WRT enchanted weapons in the 4th Ed. Parma Fabula. However, to keep consistency in the game mechanics, the Parma works to keep all magic away from it's user... There are now clear examples of what is, and isn't, a magical medium.
I am of the opinion that Parma doesn't protect you when the magic wouldn't actually affect you: the magic doesn't actually come into contact with the parma, in a metaphysical rather than spatial sense.
Edge of the Razor clearly plays a role when being struck by a sword, Pink Dot does not. Muto Mentem on the wielder doesn't either, unless he was attacking you with his mind .
Of course, it leads to situational interpretations which were what the rule was intended to avoid...
Absolutely, though this would defeat the purpose of casting the spell defensively. So here's my thing with the whole pink dot issue...
Curse of Intrinsic Pinkitude
MuIm 4
(Base 1 to change 1 sensation of an object making its colors pink)
R: Voice (+2)
D: Diameter (+1)
T: Individual (+0)
I'm pretty certain my calculations are correct. So now you have a handy spell you can cast with zero penetration to make an enemy completely unable to effect you, as he's now magical... because he's pink)
But wait! It gets better!
You could also Master the spell and choose Fast Casting, allowing you to use it pretty much at will in a defensive manner. Heck, you could also boost the magnitude by 1 to a whopping level 5 spell and change the target to Group.
Of course, you could just spont the thing, it being so low level, though it might be good to learn just to save on the fatigue.
So with a level 4 or 5 spell, you are now immune to mundanes completely. I find that irksome, despite the game being about magi. It'd just be nice to be able to make a magi feel threatened without having him be able to simply turn his enemies pink to make them ineffective.
My first thought on the whole "pink dot" problem is... folks, aren't you overstating the whole issue just a bit ? As far as I understand it, the whole deal is that by making an advantage of the current workings of the Parma Magica's nature, one can make mundane weapons repelled by the Parma Magica just by casting a trivial enchantement on them ? I mean, what's the matter, really ? Are Hermetic magi really expected to live in fear of any thug that wavers an overgrown knife in their face ?
The way I see it, a mundane warrior succeeding in landing a blow on a mage should take exceptionally good planning, a rare set of circumstances, or gross stupidity on the mage's part. I mean, the existence of spells like wizard's sidestep and shriek of impending arrow, and the fact that with a ReHe/ReTe spell any mage can effectively make oneself immune from mundane weapons anyway... it shows that the typical mage is not really expected to be in danger from mundane attacks. So IMO the "pink dot" issue is not a problem, just a bit of stretching out what would be the expected outcome, anyway.
The problem I have relates precisely to Wizard's Sidestep and Shriek of the Impending Shafts. If you can just pink dot a mundane opponent to make him ineffective, why would you bother with either of the other spells at all? It's not that pink dot is a bad concept. It's that it nullfies the utility of other spells that require something more specific in order to cast them. After all, if you can pink dot an opponent and render him useless, why on earth would you bother to learn any other defensive magic?
I'd say because with the "pink dot" method, you have to enchant each and every weapon of each and every opponent, for the fight's duration, and by casting in combat conditions. With defensive spells like the ones you mention, or Rego Herbam/Terram wards against mundane weapons, you just have to cast the spell twice at dawn/sunset along with the Parma, and ta-dah you are wholly protected for the rest of the day. It's economy of effort, safer, and much more garanteed to work.
Except that you don't have to enchant each and every weapon on each and every opponent individually. If you make it target: group, then it would nullify each and every opponent and their gear in one go, as per the target rules.
I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything, it just seems like a BIG loophole to me. Also, in being able to spont the thing for most magi, you can cast it very quickly, something that's very difficult to do without mastery.
That all being said, I won't use pink dot precisely because I feel it's a rules exploit. That's a slippery slope, and I'm not a powergamer. My Auram-oriented lab rat prefers Charge of the Angry Winds to deal with the rabble. It knocks them around, but does no real harm (unless we're on the top of a cliff).
Pink dot enchantement with group target is not that much different from casting Wizard's Sidestep and Shriek of the Impending Shafts or wards vs. weapons with diameter duration.
Eldragil, you are insufficiently paranoid. I, on the other hand...
To "pink" a group, you have to be able to see them and they have to be in range. (Granted, if you're up to sponting Sight range, the second factor may not be so big a deal.) Your opponents also have to be close enough to each other to count as a group. You also have to be fast enough to cast your spell before the other guy can make his attack. Even if you allow "pink-dot", you're still quite vulnerable to ambush - even more an ambush by a group of archers that is spread out and a good distance from you.
You also have to be willing to announce to all the world that you're a wizard and that you consider certain individuals liable to engage in eminent hostilities, which may be inadvisable under certain circumstances.
Dont forget: the species of an imaginem spells doesnt need to penetrate a parma (and the pinkness of a sword, created by a Muto or Creo spell is a species-emiting-thing, not a pink sword, this would be a MuTe), so ,i think, you have to cast an MuTe/An/Aq/Co/Ig/Au/He Spell to make you immun against all things, because illusons and altered images seems nnot to be blocked by a magical resistance.
You could say that an altered image of an objekt makes the objekt magical, but i think it makes only the species magical, not the objekt itself.
So a spell would be like
MuTe Swords to Pinkness 20
Group Diameter Voice (1 Base, +2 Metal, +2 Group, +1 Diameter, +2 Voice)
.
