This was, cleared up in the description of wizard's expansion (not co-incidentally, in the Ranulf chapter of Magi of Hermes).
The intent was that if one has multiple muto vim spells acting on a single target spell that the levels of the muto vim spells need to be such so that if they were done sequentially (which they aren't and couldn't be) the spells would need to accommodate the "modified level" from the previous muto vim spells.
Wow, it seemed so intuitive, I've never written it all out before in a general case.
If he uses muto vim spells in combat he does run a higher risk of botching. I agree with you that this is a risk that Ranulf takes with his magic. Perhaps my imagination is biased, but when I think about really flubbing up on concentration roll my imagination doesn't come up with particularly nasty effects when compared to botching a casting roll. Also, if I recall correctly, imperturbable casting mastery gives some benefit to concentration rolls. With a gold cord of three, he's no worse with four botch dice than he is with the standard one botch die. What proportion of situations really call for more than four botch dice.
Also I consciously had in mind and didn't shy from doing stuff that pointed out that Ars Magica NPC's don't experience violence with a fraction of the frequency of D&D PC's or even most Ars Magica PC's.
That was too long, I probably should have just said "yes" and left it.
We're looking back lots of years at this point. Seeing it again I am rather surprised that there wasn't more of a discussion. I remember that at the time I was kind of uneasy regarding the targeting abilities of the pendant rather than the timeing.
Here's justification for it. I'm writing it for the first time right now at the breakfast table and I would love someone to clearly (but kindly) point out its flaws.
When pendant of paitient incantations releases a spell, it is not performing a magical act - it is stopping the magical act It is litterally dropping concentration. A character can drop concentration on any number of effects at once without taking any time at all. It's hard as heck to get off two fast cast spells in a round, yet easy as can be to drop concentration on four. It therefore seems reasonable that releasing spells held by the Pendant of Patient Incantations should be at least as fast as a fast cast spell.
I for one appreciate the thought process being spelled out. As far as concentration botches: Accidentally drop concentration on other concentrated spells; Become very distracted by something during that spell casting and be unable to 'concentrate' more than one spell (or any spells!) for a minute ("Muto Vi-I can't believe he called my mother that- er, Vim!") if you're feeling nasty, you could easily make a concentration botch translate into botching the spell being cast at the same time - just like breaking a circle in the middle of a Ring/Circle ritual cast.
I'm starting off with this spell and I think it's worth evaluating carefully. So I'm not going to even calculate a lab total and decide on activities until I'm comfortable with it.
Firstly, does a disembodied spirit even have a shape to illuminate?
Secondly, I envisiioned this spell just altering the properties of the fire's light, detecting spirits in a manner analogous to how a shower of whipped cream might detect an invisible person. I envision it as Ranaulf specifically finding a way around his intellego deficiency. But is that right? does it need an intellego requisite anyway?
At this point Ranulf's MuIg(Vi) lab total is 101, which means he can invent both Illumination of the immaterial form [magic] and a second twenty-fifth level spell that uses the same lab total. So he'll do this one as well.
Thsi is just a bit less effective than demon's eternal oblivion and it's also so fitting for Ranulf's style, it expands the capabilities of school of the founder specialists and it synergyses with many of his other spells. I like it, but if see an issue with it please tell me. I'd rather be right than happy with something flawed.
Hmm. I'm always super-cautious about using Muto to simulate other techniques (as you may have noticed with the illumination spell). I feel like Demon Expunging Flame needs a Perdo Requisite, just like giving a chicken the ability to breath fire requires Ignem. Though destroying Might requires perdo, you could argue that fire destroys things naturally, you're just giving it the ability to do it to Might. I'm somewhat torn back and forth on this. I really like the idea though.
Would you (anyone here really, but Racoon Mask in particular) require a perdo requisite for a spell that made target fire able to burn marble? If not, I'd feel much better if I could clearly state why alteering a fire to do demon burning requires a perdo requisite while altering it to do marble burning doesn't.
Anyone else who would care to jump in with a thought relevant to perdo requisite or no perdo requisite would be most welcome.
A fire able to burn marble is a straightforward CrIg. Sufficiently hot real fires can burn lots of 'inflammable' things.
A fire able to burn something that does not exist to be burned (a spirit's immaterial form by definition has no material to burn!) is probably a big problem. But if you allow this: How about MuIg(Me) for a fire that can set someone's anger ablaze, or burn to ashes the sentence he is about to say, or his memory of what he did yesterday?
Ranulf set my inhibitions on fire, and I felt so much better once I recovered from the third degree burns.
EDIT: sigh Although I'm sure we are due a MuIm(Ig) spell that can turn music into fire. Target the source of the music, and everyone who would hear it has to Soak the flames....
Even if that were the case (which I don't think it is, CaCO[sub]3[/sub] melts around 825 C and, although it's been several years since I looked at p-chem I can't immediately think how CaCO[sub]3[/sub] + O[sub]2[/sub]-> "anything" comes out in an energetically favorable way. Granted Mythic Europe has an entirely different chemistry) being able to do something with CrIg doesn't mean that it can't also be done with MuIg.
So no necessity for a perdo requisite then. Just that my vision exceeds the limits of what Muto Ignem should be able to do.
Here's a counter argument because I like my spell: Hermetic muto magic can change a mind into a bird, and it can change a metal into a burst of images. These may not have been good ideas, I certainly think that a fire that can burn spirits is a less "out there" application. (Although the level for my spell is probably too low).
A defense based on my personal preference isn't exactly the solid argument that I'd hoped to present.
Hmm. I suppose it's not strictly burning, but if you apply sufficient heat, it will decompose into CO2 and CaO, which is close enough to 'burning' for AM purposes.
But if it isn't, the MuIg is certainly not sufficient: The spell would need to be a straight MuTe and target the marble to make it flammable!
These precedents are why I hedged ("probably a big problem" and "but if you allow this.")
As you point out, these may not have been good ideas.
But as you also point out, your spell is certainly not a worse idea.
And part of why I'm not sure any of these are a good idea is that I'm not sure transforming someone's memories of last Tuesday night into a swarm of hornets is a good idea. But maybe it is, and I just need to get with the program!
[/quote]
[/quote] lol I kind of feel the same way about my own stance.
Of course, since we were at one point trying to circumvent Intellego, we can have a MuMe(An) that transforms every lie uttered into a badger, which to me is more amusing than transforming lies into fire, though perhaps less useful for Ranulf. Of course, he might prefer a Cr(Mu)Ig Conc/Room, which creates a fire that only burns lies spoken in the room.
considers
Maybe I do think this is worse than transforming a memory into a bird. At least that spell targets the memory. A spell that targets a spirit and makes it flammable seems pretty reasonable compared to a spell that transforms a fire so that it can burn things that do not burn.
MuVi(Ig) to turn a spirit into a fire that can be controlled or extinguished? Or even made hotter/bigger? There are lots of example spells that do similar.
The latter seems better to me. I can turn a person into a wolverine, so maybe I can also turn him into a fire, or the fire into a spirit, or a spirit into a fire.
But if spirits cannot burn by their very nature, if they implicitly have the equivalent of all sorts of immunities by virtue of lacking physical substance, then the former spell is in the same catogory as MuIg "transform this fire into a fire that ignores the Virtue of Immunity to Fire."
We're still talking about an analogy to the actual spell I'm interested in here rather than the spell itself, but we disagree so I'll press further. Your statement "the MuIg is certainly not sufficient: The spell would need to be a straight MuTe" doesn't seem sensible to me. It's akin to saying you can't make an object float by increasing the density of the water, you can only do it by making the object lighter.
Why is changing the spirit reasonable and changing the fire not?
Burning things is something a fire already does, telling lies from truth is not something that a fire or a muto spell does. This isn't a fair criticism.
Because spirits have no substance and therefore cannot burn. The lack of physical substance is the essential difference between something that is spiritual and something that is not.
Because it's like using InIm to discern the sound of one hand clapping.
On the other hand, any physical object can float in a liquid of sufficient density, so changing the density of a liquid works just fine.
Why not? A natural fire cannot 'detect wood' yet will burn wood and leave metal unharmed. Or, perhaps another way of looking at it: A fire can detect some lies... after all, it will burn a wooden sword painted to look like metal but not a real, metal sword; so changing it to also burn spoken lies isn't that much of a stretch.
Continuing... in a different game, especially something like Nobilis, I'd see it differently. Impossible mixing of metaphors is an important part of that kind of magic. Of course Ignem can substitute for Mentem! Inquisitors use fire to discover the truth, bend people to their will and eliminate heretical ideas, so why not just use magic to eliminate the middleman?
(As for the sound of one hand clapping, there's a Nobilis campaign or three in the making.)
I looked at posting a few replies and deleted them due to IRL distractions and not having a set and definable answer. Sorry I have been lax in replying when specifically called out and challenged by our post-master Flambeaux.
Regarding MuIg to let a fire burn marble: My answer was originally yes, but I thought about it, and changed it to no, and then changed it to yes.. and back and forth. You're casting a spell on object A(fire) to change how object B reacts. When heated to excessive degrees, marble will decompose or melt. Changing the fire doesn't change the marble, in my opinion. If the fire is HOT enough to damage marble, I believe you should be able to MuIg the fire so that it feeds off of the marble like wood, but I would not let you MuIg a candle or bonfire or raging fire to 'burn' marble... until it gets up to 800 degrees or so. THEN you're in the clear. If you MuTe to allow the marble to burn at a lower temperature and feed the fire on it, then you're golden.
Basically, I don't like casting Muto on object A to change how object B reacts to object A. you can change how object A reacts (feeding fire with stone) but shouldn't change how B reacts (lowering burning/reaction temperature). Casting a spell MuIg(Vi) to make a spirit burn is somewhat acceptable to me (I view that as a saga decision rather than a rules decision), but when a spirit burns, it doesn't shed might, and changing the fire doesn't change that fact in my mind. Just like MuIg(Te) shouldn't make a fire that burns wood into gold instead of charcoal.
Summary: 'Can you burn a spirit' feels like a saga decision. Burning spirits damaging might seems like a house rule rather than an interpretive decision. But in Erik's campaign, I definitely want to design a spell that lets me burn wood into gold.
So with Racoonmask's take a magus could
step 1 cast a duration moon MuIg spell to let a fire feed off of granite
step 2 throw a granite block into a good sized fire
step 3 reap both heat and light from the fire until both the new and full moon have crossed the sky without adding any additional fuel
step 4 hand the undamaged block to a mason and have them incorporate it into a wall
I'll drop the might burning spells in their present form. (I might come back to them later as perdo vim spells incorporating otherwise unnecessary fires in order to leverage Ranulf's focus.)