Ranulf from MoH now 150 years post apprentice!!!!

[Arthur]

Spells of Timber
MuIg(Vi) 50
R: Touch, D: Sun, T: Ind. (+1 size)
This spell alters the target fire so that it burns spells and magical effects in addition to naturally flammable objects. Spells consumed by these fires will unravel and be dispelled.
Low level spells burn like twigs and high level spells burn like logs. exposing an eight magnitude spell to a candle flame will no more dispel it than exposing a tree trunk to the same candle. On the other hand first magnitude spells go up in a puff of smoke immediately after being exposed to the fires of Self Immolation.
Specifically
To ignite a spell in a round the fire damage must be 10 greater than the level of the spell
To ignite a spell in a diameter the fire damage must be equal to the level of the spell
To ignite a spell in an hour the fire damage must be equal to one half the level of the spell
Once the spell is burning it takes some time before it becomes dispelled
A spell burns up in a round if the fire damage is more than three times the spell level
A spell burns up in a diameter if the fire damage is more than twice the spell level
A spell burns up in an hour if the fire damage is more than the spell level
A spell burns up in around six hours if the fire damage is more than one third spell level
Even if a spell is not burnt by a fire it can sometimes be detected as the fires interact with it.
Ranulf developed this spell at tenth magnitude not only because he could but because a fire targeted by this spell will eventually un-enchant itself by burning the spell up.
(Base 4, +1 touch, +2 sun, +1 size, +6 target fires of up to +35 damage)

IMHO, this is basically imbuing the fire with a PeVi power, so it should also have a Perdo requisite.

Basically, this is a PeVi spell with a cosmetic MuIg effect. So I feel that instead of a fixed Base, you should use the same general guideline and parameters that Wind of Mundane Silence uses. Perhaps with a bonus of a magnitude or two because the spell need time to destroy the effect. Or maybe not. Because, honestly, to "burn down" a spell, you need to put the target of that spell into the fire. And unless that object is fireproof, it will get destroyed in the process. And if the target is destroyed, IMO a spell that was affecting it will become moot.

And note that it you were planning on making the target fireproof before you tossed him into the fire, then any spell affecting the target would also become immuned to the fire.

So, again, this is definitively a PeVi spell with a cosmetic MuIg effect.

EDIT: Only advantage that Ranulf gets from inventing this spell over a basic WoMS is that he gets to apply his Magical Focus.

[Erik_Tyrrell]

@Arthur

IMHO, this is basically imbuing the fire with a PeVi power, so it should also have a Perdo requisite.

Basically, this is a PeVi spell with a cosmetic MuIg effect.

I'm not convinced of that, Ars Magica is not a HERO style results based mechanic system. How you do something in Ars Magica is not always irrelevant (although we should strive for balance). Imagine a related spell that lets a fire burn rocks. Would that be just a Perdo Terram spell with a cosmetic component? Would you have it require a perdo requisite?

I think that fire's naturally destructive nature doesn't need to be altered by perdo to burn stuff. Fire doesn't need perdo to burn wood, people, or animals.

[Richard_Love]

@Erik Tyrrell

There is a world of difference between "no rules and limits" and the "guidelines presented in the rulebooks are exhaustive and there is no way to make a spell that isn't described by them without original research".

I agree. I see the guidelines as just that. Guidelines. A player can make up "similar" effects for her magus without trouble. It is up to the individual troupe to decide whether something is just an original idea, and therefore doable, or something beyond the existing scope of Hermetic magic (and therefore requires special Virtues or Original Research, if indeed it is possible at all).

@Erik Tyrrell

There are (no books here to back myself up) several spells in the core rules that use guidelines not given in the rules. Do these upset you? (I suppose the question would be easier to answer if I provided examples).

Whispering Winds, for example. Also, the InAn guidelines explicitly tell the reader to use the InCo and InMe guidelines as inspiration for making up new guidelines.

[Arthur]

@Erik Tyrrell

@Arthur

IMHO, this is basically imbuing the fire with a PeVi power, so it should also have a Perdo requisite.

Basically, this is a PeVi spell with a cosmetic MuIg effect.

I'm not convinced of that, Ars Magica is not a HERO style results based mechanic system. How you do something in Ars Magica is not always irrelevant (although we should strive for balance). Imagine a related spell that lets a fire burn rocks. Would that be just a Perdo Terram spell with a cosmetic component? Would you have it require a perdo requisite?

I think that fire's naturally destructive nature doesn't need to be altered by perdo to burn stuff. Fire doesn't need perdo to burn wood, people, or animals.

I certainly agree that this is not a HERO system. But on the other hand, not everything can be achieved by any TeFo you want. Some things are easier than others, while others simply do not make sense. Otherwise, next thing you know, you'll have a MuIg(Co) spell that heals people, or a MuIg(Au) spell that summons a storm.

A fire does not burn rocks, not does it burn magic. A spell that changes something to give it a power that is not part of its nature cannot simply do so by adding the Form, it should also add the relevant Technique. Much as a CrAn spell that creates a dragon must include Cr and Ig requisites if you want the dragon to have breathe fire, so should a MuIg spell that destroys magic include both Pe and Vi requisites, IMHO.

You have a point that fire is naturally destructive, but as currently described, your spell seems at first glance more efficient (level-wise) at destroying magic than PeVi is. Your Base 4, combined with the +6 magnitudes for the heat of the fire, means that the the equivalent of a Base 30 spell can destroy any spell of up to level 105. Sure, it takes a long time to do it, but it's 6 times more efficient than Wind of Mundane Silence. Are you saying that Ignem should be better at destroying magic than PeVi?

[Tellus]

@Erik Tyrrell

@Tellus

If there are now rules and limits, I know for a fact that I will spin off in wild directions and loose connection with anything sensible in far too short a time.
Existing guidelines please - if I have to make them up myself I'll never touch the ground again.

There is a world of difference between "no rules and limits" and the "guidelines presented in the rulebooks are exhaustive and there is no way to make a spell that isn't described by them without original research".

I know. Interlectually. It doesn't work for me.

There are (no books here to back myself up) several spells in the core rules that use guidelines not given in the rules. Do these upset you?

Very few use actual guidelines not given, I checked.
Most spells have been "back-ported" into guidelines, though there are a few exception, eg. The Invisible Eye Revealed.
Non-standard parameters are much more common.

As a rule, they do not bother me at all. They are usually simple enough and self-defining. Incorrect use of defined parameters bother me more (Last Flight of the Phoenix, I'm looking at you!), which I suppose is part of the reason I enjoy playtesting so. I actually get to go through every spell, calculate levels and complain to the author if he missed a "+1 Touch" somewhere

But again, that's not really the point. The point is that if I permit myself to make up new guidelines "on the fly" so to speak, it will not end. Ever.
If you can do it, and it works for you, more power to you. If you want to publish it, be sure to actually mention it, because with a little luck I'll be there with a red pen. But to me, personally, it is not a satisfying way to solve a problem.

(I suppose the question would be easier to answer if I provided examples).

Please do - I can check your list against mine

[Jabir]

@Arthur

A fire does not burn rocks, not does it burn magic. A spell that changes something to give it a power that is not part of its nature cannot simply do so by adding the Form, it should also add the relevant Technique. Much as a CrAn spell that creates a dragon must include Cr and Ig requisites if you want the dragon to have breathe fire, so should a MuIg spell that destroys magic include both Pe and Vi requisites, IMHO.

I thought about this too. Fire is certainly naturally destructive, but it's not clear to me that adding a Vi requisite really allows a material element (Ig) to "naturally" affect something non-material. I come down in favor of allowing it in this case, mainly because of the general coolness of the spell. I don't think I'd draw precedents from this though.

@Arthur

You have a point that fire is naturally destructive, but as currently described, your spell seems at first glance more efficient (level-wise) at destroying magic than PeVi is. Your Base 4, combined with the +6 magnitudes for the heat of the fire, means that the the equivalent of a Base 30 spell can destroy any spell of up to level 105. Sure, it takes a long time to do it, but it's 6 times more efficient than Wind of Mundane Silence. Are you saying that Ignem should be better at destroying magic than PeVi?

This is an issue. My rule of thumb is that, while other Technique/Form combinations can destroy, the most efficient mechanism level-wise is always based on Perdo. Doing destruction in some other way should always be at least one magnitude harder. This might mean the spell should be tweaked and/or recalculated.

[The_Fixer]

@Erik Tyrrell

There is absolutely no reason to not do this in any game regardless of how you interpret the restrictiveness of the spell guidelines. I do it in my games, it is a completely unrelated issue. (Or am I missing something?)

Actually, if you can do anything under the global arts descriptions so long as it does not contradict the limits of magics, you can't have this.

How come WomS was impossible to the Order until Vasily Bonisagi's research brought its guideline to the Order, if what you can do with Perdo Vim is just limited by the global definition of the Arts?
Either you have (almost) no limits, or you have some.

What's more interesting? Ranulf inventing a spell to give animal intelligence to fires, something any magi with enough InVi could have done (nothing exceptionnal here), or Ranulf becoming the guy that brought to the order the way to imbue fires with intelligence?

@Erik Tyrrell

There are (no books here to back myself up) several spells in the core rules that use guidelines not given in the rules. Do these upset you? (I suppose the question would be easier to answer if I provided examples).

Well, IMO, these few spells are the result of magi experimenting on a spell, getting an unusual result, with the lab text being circulated among the order.

This brings closer the actual rules about experimentation and the game world, and is a way of rewarding experimentation: The results you can get are unusual, not something any magus could do simply because it's covered by the forms.
For exemple, your selective WomS spell could very well, for me, be such a result from experimentation. This is what researchers do! Pushing the boundaries of hermetic magic through daring experiments!

[Erik_Tyrrell]

@Tellus

(I suppose the question would be easier to answer if I provided examples).

Please do - I can check your list against mine

I looked at the spell list for a few minutes starting from the back and moving forwards. There were three in vim but you'd have expected them to be exceptions (Aegis of the Hearth, Wizard's Communion and something else that I've already forgotten). In terram I thought that Tracks of the Faerie Glow only matched one of the printed guidelines by an extraordinarily generous reading and that the modifier for Miner's Keen Eye (+1 to see through intervening stuff - not a direct quote) was more or less a new guideline.

The first spell I found that was a very clear example was Exchange of the Two Minds which says base 20 but does not correspond at all to the Rego Mentem guidelines. I stopped there.

[Tellus]

@Erik Tyrrell

@Tellus

(I suppose the question would be easier to answer if I provided examples).

Please do - I can check your list against mine

I looked at the spell list for a few minutes starting from the back and moving forwards. There were three in vim but you'd have expected them to be exceptions (Aegis of the Hearth, Wizard's Communion and something else that I've already forgotten).

Vim has some stuff that's a bit curious, but nothing unexpected.

In terram I thought that Tracks of the Faerie Glow only matched one of the printed guidelines by an extraordinarily generous reading and that the modifier for Miner's Keen Eye (+1 to see through intervening stuff - not a direct quote) was more or less a new guideline.

Miner's Keen Eye fits better under Level 20: Make your senses Unhindered by earth, technically.

The first spell I found that was a very clear example was Exchange of the Two Minds which says base 20 but does not correspond at all to the Rego Mentem guidelines. I stopped there.

There are more. But thanks for playing

[Erik_Tyrrell]

@The Fixer

@Erik Tyrrell

There is absolutely no reason to not do this in any game regardless of how you interpret the restrictiveness of the spell guidelines. I do it in my games, it is a completely unrelated issue. (Or am I missing something?)

Actually, if you can do anything under the global arts descriptions so long as it does not contradict the limits of magics, you can't have this.

How come WomS was impossible to the Order until Vasily Bonisagi's research brought its guideline to the Order, if what you can do with Perdo Vim is just limited by the global definition of the Arts?
Either you have (almost) no limits, or you have some.

It was impossible because previous to Vasily's work the paragraph above the listed guidelines would have read differently

What's more interesting? Ranulf inventing a spell to give animal intelligence to fires, something any magi with enough InVi could have done (nothing exceptionnal here), or Ranulf becoming the guy that brought to the order the way to imbue fires with intelligence?

Ranulf is an NPC. What's more fun for the actual players when they come up with an idea for a fun spell that's pretty clearly within the abilities of the arts but doesn't match one of the printed guidelines.
A I figure out an appropriate guideline and let them go.
B I tell them "No, you have to spend character years in the lab playing with a different rules subsystem and risking your character's health from botches (unless they abuse the lab safety rules in covenants) to do what the descriptions tell you that you should already be able to do."

I started a thread a while back asking if the spell chapter would be improved by a statement along the lines of he guidelines are examples not exhaustive and the responses I got answers from folks mostly said that this was obvious and not needed. suplemental spell guidlines

For exemple, your selective WomS spell could very well, for me, be such a result from experimentation. This is what researchers do! Pushing the boundaries of hermetic magic through daring experiments

But this doesn't have anything to do with taking the guidelines as exhaustive. Unusual results as a result of experimentation or a warping score in the lab is there regardless of how restrictive you think the spell guidelines should be.

[Erik_Tyrrell]

@Tellus

There are more. But thanks for playing

Please, I said I only quickly browsed through the book for a few minutes. Starting at the back I got through vim terram and I stopped at what might be the first rego mentem spell I came to. If I had more time I would happily go through the list in detail but I don't

Could you share you list (perhaps as a new thread)?

[Erik_Tyrrell]

@Arthur

You have a point that fire is naturally destructive, but as currently described, your spell seems at first glance more efficient (level-wise) at destroying magic than PeVi is. Your Base 4, combined with the +6 magnitudes for the heat of the fire, means that the the equivalent of a Base 30 spell can destroy any spell of up to level 105. Sure, it takes a long time to do it, but it's 6 times more efficient than Wind of Mundane Silence. Are you saying that Ignem should be better at destroying magic than PeVi?

I want to create a spell that is valuable but is not a better choice than the Perdo vim spells. I'm trying to make a spell different enough that the comparison isn't simple.

Using the guidelines for wind of Mundane silence at range touch target individual Perdo vim can dispel a target spell 1/2 of (the level of the perdo vim spell +15 + a botchless stress die). With repeated castings (if you are going to compare it to spells of Timber this seems reasonable) it can dispel a target of at least (level+25)/2.

The guidelines for dispelling a specific magic can dispel a target spell of at least level of the perdo vim spell +35 (again assuming a multiple castings to get a 10+ on the stress die)

Spells of Timber has some significant drawbacks compared to these:
It takes three arts rather than two
It requires the presence of an appropriate fire (not an easy thing when you are talking about fires hotter than can be done with a forge (+12))
It takes a long time to get rid of the target spells and the big one that dwarfs the others is :
You have to put what ever you are dispelling into a very damaging fire. I don't think that merely warding a person against flame is going to work here. If a ward against fire protects a character's possessions I don't see how it can fail to protect the spells on the person. Ward against heat and flames in the core book specifically tells you that the flames are kept distant from the target (although this is specifically not the case for ward against immolation in MoH).

For my money I think that the drawbacks are severe enough that getting it a bit higher level limit than the perdo vim guidelines is workable without making it more attractive than perdo vim. This still leaves the perdo vim spells as the go to method in all but weird corner cases of magi that are experts in both ignem and vim who are targeting very high level spells that the caster can some how find a way to throw into a fire. I can however see the "perdo should be clearly better at destroying than anything else" view as well so Here's a version that tries to peg the maximum level between the two perdo vim guidelines (possible to dispel a target of spell level +25, or spell level +20 for Spells of Timber with its +1 size modifier ):

Spells of Timber
MuIg(Vi) 50
R: Touch, D: Sun, T: Ind. (+1 size)
This spell alters the target fire so that it burns spells and magical effects in addition to naturally flammable objects. Spells consumed by these fires will unravel and be dispelled.
Low level spells burn like twigs and high level spells burn like logs. exposing an eight magnitude spell to a candle flame will no more dispel it than exposing a tree trunk to the same candle. On the other hand first magnitude spells go up in a puff of smoke immediately after being exposed to the fires of Self Immolation.
Specifically

To ignite a spell in a round the fire damage must be 10 greater than the level of the spell
To ignite a spell in a diameter the fire damage must be equal to the level of the spell
To ignite a spell in an hour the fire damage must be equal to level of the spell -35

Once the spell is burning it takes some time before it becomes dispelled

A spell burns up in a round if the fire damage is more than three times the spell level
A spell burns up in a diameter if the fire damage is more than twice the spell level
A spell burns up in an hour if the fire damage is more than the spell level
A spell burns up in around six hours if the fire damage is more than the spell level -35

Even if a spell is not burnt by a fire it can sometimes be detected as the fires interact with it.
Ranulf developed this spell at tenth magnitude not only because he could but because a fire targeted by this spell will eventually un-enchant itself by burning the spell up.
(Base 4, +1 touch, +2 sun, +1 size, +6 target fires of up to +35 damage)

This means that if Ranulf can get a fire that does +35 damage for the requisite seven hours (He does not have a spell to produce one of these at the moment) he could in theory dispel a target magic of up to level 70.

A level 50 unraveling the fabric of (appropriate target) with range touch would be able to dispel a target spell of level 76 guaranteed and if the caster spent a few dozen rounds casting (casting a formulaic spell uses a simple die in non-stressful situations so this isn't too dangerous) they'd be able to dispel level 90 or higher within a few minutes unless their luck was terrible.

A level 50 range touch target individual wind of mundane silence could dispel a target of level 38 instantly and a level of 45 or more with a few minutes work.

In the case of the wind of mundane silence type spell where the caster uses a simple die for casting and doesn't suffer fatigue, the caster could cast repeatedly until their stress die for the effect level comes up with a monster score and dispel a target of a level greater than that achievable by Spells of Timber.

What I don't like about this version is that it is more or less strictly worse than "touch of mundane silence". It is cool but I find it difficult to imagine a situation where it is a better choice than than the WoMS type spell. I prefer the original but I'm eager to hear arguments one way or the other.

[Erik_Tyrrell]

I suppose a spell like Discriminating Flames (MoH p 112) ramped up to be able to target more intense fires would make Spells of Timber more functional.

[Erik_Tyrrell]

In regards to the last two seasons for this (very possibly final) fifteen year period my favorite idea for a season was this: Ranulf is bad with intellego, he'll probably never be able to cast "Thoughts within Babble". On the other hand he is very good with muto. Would it be possible to create a MuMe spell to change a target's native language to Latin for duration diameter or would this run afoul the proscriptions against duplication of inscribed memories on p. 68 of HoH: Societates. I'm thinking that it does.

But along the lines of doing with other arts what he can't manage with his intellego deficency, here's a spell I imagine he would spont instead of Frosty Breath of the Spoken Lie or Ear of Truth

Touch of Honesty
PeMe 10
R: Touch, D: Diam., T: Ind.
The target's ability to lie is drastically hindered for the duration of this spell. If the target attempts to lie during the duration of this spell the target rolls a simple die + Communication -6 against a target number determined by the listeners perception + simple die.
(Base 4 +1 touch, +1 diameter)

[Arthur]

@Erik Tyrrell

Using the guidelines for wind of Mundane silence at range touch target individual Perdo vim can dispel a target spell 1/2 of (the level of the perdo vim spell +15 + a botchless stress die). With repeated castings (if you are going to compare it to spells of Timber this seems reasonable) it can dispel a target of at least (level+25)/2.

Which means WoMS ramps up more slowly than your spell does. A level 50 WoMS can only dispell a spell of level 33, after repeated casting, whereas your Spell of Timbers can dispel a level 70 spell (using your reworked description below). Each magnitude you add increase its effectiveness by 2 magnitudes, while it is the reverse for WoMS.

@Erik Tyrrell

The guidelines for dispelling a specific magic can dispel a target spell of at least level of the perdo vim spell +35 (again assuming a multiple castings to get a 10+ on the stress die)

However, your Spell of Timbers can dispel any spell, not just those of a specific kind. So you cannot compare the two, IMHO.

@Erik Tyrrell

Spells of Timber has some significant drawbacks compared to these:
It takes three arts rather than two
It requires the presence of an appropriate fire (not an easy thing when you are talking about fires hotter than can be done with a forge (+12))
It takes a long time to get rid of the target spells and the big one that dwarfs the others is :
You have to put what ever you are dispelling into a very damaging fire. I don't think that merely warding a person against flame is going to work here. If a ward against fire protects a character's possessions I don't see how it can fail to protect the spells on the person. Ward against heat and flames in the core book specifically tells you that the flames are kept distant from the target (although this is specifically not the case for ward against immolation in MoH).

Hermetic Magic doesn't seem to work that way in general. You cannot simply add restrictions on a spell to increase its power. As you said yourself, this is not the HERO system.

I would still be tempted to give it some leeway before I think the effect is cool. But the power ramps up too quickly, compared to WoMS.

@Erik Tyrrell

Spells of Timber
Specifically
To ignite a spell in a round the fire damage must be 10 greater than the level of the spell
To ignite a spell in a diameter the fire damage must be equal to the level of the spell
To ignite a spell in an hour the fire damage must be equal to level of the spell -35

Once the spell is burning it takes some time before it becomes dispelled
A spell burns up in a round if the fire damage is more than three times the spell level
A spell burns up in a diameter if the fire damage is more than twice the spell level
A spell burns up in an hour if the fire damage is more than the spell level
A spell burns up in around six hours if the fire damage is more than the spell level -35

I could see this spell as viable without that last line.

But I'd suggest using the same scale for both the ignition and the burning (x3, x2 and x1).

@Erik Tyrrell

This means that if Ranulf can get a fire that does +35 damage for the requisite seven hours (He does not have a spell to produce one of these at the moment) he could in theory dispel a target magic of up to level 70.

As you mention yourself in a later post, it's pretty easy for Ranulf to invent a spell that would do +35 fire damage.

@Erik Tyrrell

A level 50 unraveling the fabric of (appropriate target) with range touch would be able to dispel a target spell of level 76 guaranteed and if the caster spent a few dozen rounds casting (casting a formulaic spell uses a simple die in non-stressful situations so this isn't too dangerous) they'd be able to dispel level 90 or higher within a few minutes unless their luck was terrible.

As I mentioned, IMHO you can't compare Spell of Timbers with an Unraveling the Fabric spell, before your spell affect all kinds of spells, not just a single one.

@Erik Tyrrell

A level 50 range touch target individual wind of mundane silence could dispel a target of level 38 instantly and a level of 45 or more with a few minutes work.

In the case of the wind of mundane silence type spell where the caster uses a simple die for casting and doesn't suffer fatigue, the caster could cast repeatedly until their stress die for the effect level comes up with a monster score and dispel a target of a level greater than that achievable by Spells of Timber.

What I don't like about this version is that it is more or less strictly worse than "touch of mundane silence". It is cool but I find it difficult to imagine a situation where it is a better choice than than the WoMS type spell. I prefer the original but I'm eager to hear arguments one way or the other.

A level 50 WoMS can dispel a level 45 spell.
Spell of Timbers as rewritten can still dispel a level 70 spell.

And Ranulf gets to apply his Magical Focus to Spell of Timbers (to invent it and cast it), which he would not be able to do on WoMS.

If Spell of Timbers was to use the same scale as WoMS (ramping up by 1 magnitude of effectiveness for each 2 magnitudes of the spell/fire damage), I could see it being allowed a flat bonus (say it can dispell a level 55 spell) because of the restrictions of its use. But no more than that.

But that's only my opinion. And I seem to be in an argumentative mood today.

I still think the effect is cool. 8)

[The_Fixer]

About Spells of Timber, what about something like this:

Spells of Timber can burn any spell whose level is equal or lower to half the (Fire’s Damage + 1d10), doing each turn damage equal to (Fire Damage+1d10)/2 – original level of the spell), minimum 01. Once the spell’s level is reduced to 0, it is dispelled.
So a lvl 50 “dispel any single magic” spell at voice range will instantly destroy any spell whose level is under 30 + stress die.
A lvl 50 Spells of Timber (+2 Voice, +1 Diameter) would burn any spell under level (40+1d10)/2.

@Erik Tyrrell

It was impossible because previous to Vasily's work the paragraph above the listed guidelines would have read differently

I’m sorry, I don’t understand you.

As far as I can tell, your position is akin to this: “You can do anything covered by a combination of arts, so long as it isn’t forbidden. The guidelines tell you how difficult it is”.

If I’m correct, going by this, how could Vasily have done anything special? He’d just have been the first to do something any magus could do, not unlike being the first to use Creo Terram to conjure a diamond, just because no one needed to do it before. More specifically, he’d have had no research papers, no lab text, nothing to circulate. Any magus wanting to do the same thing would have had no interest at all in coming to study from him.

@Erik Tyrrell

@The Fixer

What's more interesting? Ranulf inventing a spell to give animal intelligence to fires, something any magi with enough InVi could have done (nothing exceptionnal here), or Ranulf becoming the guy that brought to the order the way to imbue fires with intelligence?

A I figure out an appropriate guideline and let them go.
B I tell them "No, you have to spend character years in the lab playing with a different rules subsystem and risking your character's health from botches (unless they abuse the lab safety rules in covenants) to do what the descriptions tell you that you should already be able to do."

I started a thread a while back asking if the spell chapter would be improved by a statement along the lines of he guidelines are examples not exhaustive and the responses I got answers from folks mostly said that this was obvious and not needed.

That’s 2 different ways of seeing the same thing, as I thought of Ranulf as a PC. What’s great for a troupe will suck for another. This doesn’t invalidate any opinion.
But just like saying always “no” isn’t good for a game, I don’t think saying always “yes” is.

As per the thread, it appears I may have been unclear.
To state again: I am entirely conscious that this is just my own preferences (as far as I can see, the RAW goes both way at times, like with some things being impossible without a specific virtue, despite being clearly under a Te+Fo perview*, or the guidelines in RoP: M being accessible only to those who’ve visited the realm of Magic). I was stating it because, well, it seemed relevant, and some people may share the same concerns.
Also, still to be clear, reading you, I am under the impression that you think I’m hyper conservative and restrictive on this. I don’t think I am. To quote myself, “I'm not a great fan on new, "on the fly" guidelines.”. This is more “I don’t like” than “I hate”

• Sometimes retroactively, like with the Watching Wards and the Augustan Brotherhood. To my great dismay, I’d add.

@Erik Tyrrell

But this doesn't have anything to do with taking the guidelines as exhaustive. Unusual results as a result of experimentation or a warping score in the lab is there regardless of how restrictive you think the spell guidelines should be.

How to say it?
If you can do anything within a TeFo combo without needing any research or experimentation (or virtue, then), unusual results are not exceptional or precious, in that any magus could duplicate them without experimenting or doing anything special. This means that experimentation becomes more a way to boost your lab total, and less a way to push the boundaries of what can be done and to create something new.

To come back to my example, if a selective WomS is directly possible with normal hermetic magic, you’ve just managed to create an ordinary spell through your experimentation. If it isn’t, you’ve got something precious to trade for, and have showed a new avenue of research for bonisagi.

[Richard_Love]

@The Fixer

How to say it?
If you can do anything within a TeFo combo without needing any research or experimentation (or virtue, then), unusual results are not exceptional or precious, in that any magus could duplicate them without experimenting or doing anything special. This means that experimentation becomes more a way to boost your lab total, and less a way to push the boundaries of what can be done and to create something new.

The point is however not that you can do anything without reasearch or experimentation. For example, you definitely cannot break a Hermetic limit without research or experiment or a special virtue (if at all). The point is that you can possibly do some things without research. There is a continuum of effects from those that are clearly following a RAW guideline, to those that are innovative but doable, to those that require research, to those that are impossible.

It is entirely valid and possible to take a very conservative view that anything that does not closely follow a guideline is either impossible or requires research. And much of the RAW does follow this. It is certainly the safe option.

However, it is equally valid to allow some things that do not closely follow a guideline to be possible, using the existing guidelines as a model to get the magnitude right. There is some support for this from the RAW too, as there are example spells that do not appear to follow specific guidelines. The trick, of course, with this option is the judgement call over whether particular effects are possible as is (or require research). Which is fundamentally a troupe decision.

Personally, I find that in-play, something which "will require research" is nearly equivalent to "you cannot do this", because research takes so long. In play, if what my magus character wants to do "requires research", he'll instead find another (magical or non-magical) solution to the problem he is trying to solve.

[Erik_Tyrrell]

@The Fixer

@Erik Tyrrell

It was impossible because previous to Vasily's work the paragraph above the listed guidelines would have read differently

I’m sorry, I don’t understand you.

As far as I can tell, your position is akin to this: “You can do anything covered by a combination of arts, so long as it isn’t forbidden. The guidelines tell you how difficult it is”.

the guidelines tell you more than this. The muto vim guidelines for instance tell you that you can not cast muto vim spells on a target spell that has already been cast, that muto vim spells in devices can not target spells being cast by other devices or magi, and that muto vim spells have to target hermetic magic. The perdo vim guidelines prior to Vassily's work might have said that hermetic magic couldn't create a wind of mundane silence type spell, or that it would have to have requisites in all of the arts, or some other proscription.

the guidelines in RoP: M being accessible only to those who’ve visited the realm of Magic).

Serf's parma (yes I know I've had a week since you posted, but I'm writing without my books anyway because now is the time I have available to respond respond) but don't those guidelines also take a minor breakthrough to use.

@Erik Tyrrell

But this doesn't have anything to do with taking the guidelines as exhaustive. Unusual results as a result of experimentation or a warping score in the lab is there regardless of how restrictive you think the spell guidelines should be.

How to say it?
If you can do anything within a TeFo combo without needing any research or experimentation (or virtue, then), unusual results are not exceptional or precious, in that any magus could duplicate them without experimenting or doing anything special. This means that experimentation becomes more a way to boost your lab total, and less a way to push the boundaries of what can be done and to create something new.
To come back to my example, if a selective WomS is directly possible with normal hermetic magic, you’ve just managed to create an ordinary spell through your experimentation. If it isn’t, you’ve got something precious to trade for, and have showed a new avenue of research for bonisagi.

But that isn't what I meant to propose. I'm proposing that the printed guidelines not be complete, that there are things that should be doable without making a breakthrough but we don't have guidelines for. Just in the last page of this thread I was pushing for selective dispelling to be impossible without an intellego requisite perhaps not possible at all in a single spell. Incomplete guidelines are more easily compatible with what we have in the books; there are a number of spells that don't fit printed guidelines, these to me makes a bit more sense if the guidelines aren't complete than if they were all made by magi using experimentation and having peculiar luck. It also makes the game less frustrating for my players.

[Erik_Tyrrell]

@Arthur

@Erik Tyrrell

Using the guidelines for wind of Mundane silence at range touch target individual Perdo vim can dispel a target spell 1/2 of (the level of the perdo vim spell +15 + a botchless stress die). With repeated castings (if you are going to compare it to spells of Timber this seems reasonable) it can dispel a target of at least (level+25)/2.

Which means WoMS ramps up more slowly than your spell does. A level 50 WoMS can only dispell a spell of level 33, after repeated casting, whereas your Spell of Timbers can dispel a level 70 spell (using your reworked description below). Each magnitude you add increase its effectiveness by 2 magnitudes, while it is the reverse for WoMS.

Each additional magnitude of the reworked spell increases the the highest possible level to be dispelled by only one level (fire damage works out to have a 1:1 correlation with change in level and max spell level dispelable does as well). But spells of timber does ramp up twice as fast.

Timber taken to its lowest possible parameters would be a level 15 spell that can dispel a level 40 spell meanwhile a wind of mundane silence type spell at level 15 with the minimum parameters can dispel a level a level 20.

That strikes you as unbalanced.

@Erik Tyrrell

The guidelines for dispelling a specific magic can dispel a target spell of at least level of the perdo vim spell +35 (again assuming a multiple castings to get a 10+ on the stress die)

However, your Spell of Timbers can dispel any spell, not just those of a specific kind. So you cannot compare the two, IMHO.

I'm using the unraveling guideline as a limit that I don't want my spell to be more effective than. I can certainly do that.

@Erik Tyrrell

Spells of Timber has some significant drawbacks compared to these:
It takes three arts rather than two
It requires the presence of an appropriate fire (not an easy thing when you are talking about fires hotter than can be done with a forge (+12))
It takes a long time to get rid of the target spells and the big one that dwarfs the others is :
You have to put what ever you are dispelling into a very damaging fire. I don't think that merely warding a person against flame is going to work here. If a ward against fire protects a character's possessions I don't see how it can fail to protect the spells on the person. Ward against heat and flames in the core book specifically tells you that the flames are kept distant from the target (although this is specifically not the case for ward against immolation in MoH).

Hermetic Magic doesn't seem to work that way in general. You cannot simply add restrictions on a spell to increase its power. As you said yourself, this is not the HERO system.

I'm trying to design a spell that has use but does not overshadow the perdo vim spells. Thinking about the drawbacks to the utility of the new spell has got to come into this process someplace.

@Erik Tyrrell

Spells of Timber
Specifically
To ignite a spell in a round the fire damage must be 10 greater than the level of the spell
To ignite a spell in a diameter the fire damage must be equal to the level of the spell
To ignite a spell in an hour the fire damage must be equal to level of the spell -35

Once the spell is burning it takes some time before it becomes dispelled
A spell burns up in a round if the fire damage is more than three times the spell level
A spell burns up in a diameter if the fire damage is more than twice the spell level
A spell burns up in an hour if the fire damage is more than the spell level
A spell burns up in around six hours if the fire damage is more than the spell level -35

I could see this spell as viable without that last line.

But I'd suggest using the same scale for both the ignition and the burning (x3, x2 and x1).

In what situation would that spell be a better choice than a range touch target individual wind of mundane silence? Perhaps for someone someone with a deficiency in perdo?

@Erik Tyrrell

This means that if Ranulf can get a fire that does +35 damage for the requisite seven hours (He does not have a spell to produce one of these at the moment) he could in theory dispel a target magic of up to level 70.

As you mention yourself in a later post, it's pretty easy for Ranulf to invent a spell that would do +35 fire damage.

My later post is about ramping up a spell that controls a fire to selectively not burn a target which could make spells of timber significantly more useful. But you are right in that it wouldn't be difficult for Ranulf to create a spell that does +35 fire damage.

[Erik_Tyrrell]

If the final version of spells of timber after discussion is anything like the present version I'm thinking that it s a spell that is useful primarily when the caster has a lot of time on his or her hands.

Looking at Ranulf's arts and such at this point of his life he'd probably be able to pull it off with ceremonial magic if he were in his covenant and had full sized casting props:

Muto 20
Vim 25
focus (+ muto again) 20
stamina 5
aura 3
talisman attunement 6
artes liberales (with specialization) 4
philosophae 4
casting props 5

for a total of 92. With a good roll, some confidence points, or some vis he could cast a level 50 spell, or without he could make due with a "mere" level 47 or 48 version.

It makes more sense for him even if he wants to use this spell to spend his season making an improved version of Discriminating Flames instead.