Research to create a new guideline?

Games Discussion Ars Magica
17

Yeah, it's a bit iffy. That's why I like the Creo Vim "wrap your spell in a shell that can get through the Perdo Vim ward, like a sabot round" guideline. Which may or may not exist, as it's only implied in the MuVi section.

I could argue its existence in the existing CrVi guidelines, which I don't think are restricted in the same way the MuVi ones are. One could use the "shell" guidelines to argue that such a shell can shield a lower-magnitude spell from the PeVi effect. But that's a pretty out-there interpretation. Hence my desire to explicitly create the guideline as described in the MuVi section.

EDIT - however, that does imply that a Great Talisman can do the MuVi effect...thereby making it an even MORE useful thing to have. :slight_smile:

EDIT II - although in that case, you're paying...a major virtue? for the ability to have anti-magic defense. Which...actually may be worth it, if that's your thing.

18

Seems like a lot of effort. And you're also standing in a circle, which makes you a great target for the other side's archers, or ankle biters...

19

The main implementation I was thinking about was waging Wizard's War: as a way of cancelling out any low-level Intangible Tunnel or similar effects cast on you, while being able to cast out of it.

Which would actually imply that the counter to this would be non-Tunnel effects with arcane range, or else someone doing their OWN version of this spell on their Tunnel spells that they're casting at you. (so a lvl 10 Intangible Tunnel is actually a lvl 20 tunnel, with the same penetration - thus avoiding low-level anti-magic effects.)

Which really just adds a level of complexity to wizard's war - in addition to having a ReVi tunnel, you also need PeVi antimagic and MuVi Enhancement effects. Which starts to suggest that the "Teleport in and stab the wizard" technique is a viable counter to the whole issue. But it does add a level of sophistication for Vim wizards to do their thing.

But the circle version of the AntiMagic effect could probably be collapsed down into a Hermetic Ward (Ind/Sun) - which normally would be an attack, but if you did it on yourself, then you could carry your antimagic ward around with you. (Because your talisman lets you cast out of it.)

I am, of course, assuming that antimagic effects work both ways when they have a non-momentary duration, even when they're not specifically designed as wards. Because if they CAN be cast as only affecting the target (and not affecting anyone casting on the target), then we've already got one-way antimagic.

20

An alternate take on the layered Anti-magic would be the following:

Magi, standing inside a
PeVi "Cancel out Hermetic PeVi magic" circle, which is itself inside a
PeVi "General antimagic" circle.

Which means that the magi is standing inside a clear circle, which is itself bordered by a ring of generalist antimagic. (EDIT - ok, he's actually inside a "no PeVi magic circle, which is inside a generalist antimagic circle.)

However, I'm not quite sure how this works. The magi is technically not covered by the generalist antimagic - but any spell would have to travel THROUGH a ring of antimagic to get to him.

So what happens when a target isn't covered, but the spell must travel through a zone that is? I honestly could see it going either way.

On one hand, PeVi circle/target effects are suppression effects, not permanent destruction. So it could be that the spell travels through the shell (not affecting anything that is covered within the shell itself), and then comes out the other side, and hits the magi. But that implies that a suppressed spell still "exists", and is in motion, even when suppressed - thus allowing it to continue. Or it hits the shell, and is completely cancelled out.

EDIT - alternate: or this works, but only because the targets are different. In contrast, if it were on the same target (such as T: individual for both), then one would cancel out the other. Similarly, you couldn't cast both on the same Structure or Circle or Room, as the "No Hermetic PeVi Magic" effect would cancel out the generalist one. But because they're on different targets, it works. Which means you can set it up defensively, but you can't switch the entire thing over to a personal Hermetic ward.

21

Actually "Xavi's breakthrough" is neither Xavi's nor a breakthrough. IIRC the idea belongs to Jordi, another of my gaming mates and one of local rules shark's. In fact I am one of the less rules-savy members of my troupe, if not the least :slight_smile:

The "breakthrough" is actually a house rule. We have wards (and parma) adding to soak. Wards start as Base 4 providing +5 to soak. Each extra magnitude adds +5 (or +3, depending on the fluid status of our HR, but we tend to go for +3, even if the listed spell uses the +5 version) to this base protection. If it does not use soak (like mentem spells or auto-wounding corpus) the ward acts a +1 to the natural resistance roll per base level of the spell to avoid its effects.

I guess it refers to it as a "breakthrough" because it is basically a universalization of ward against heat and flames to all media. "Wall" wards are only possible for circles IMS.

22

Rego Wards usually do simply stop (or don't stop) something - the "all or nothing" effect mentioned above.

But a Rego effect can just as easily "deflect" something - fully or partially - and that is the sort of effect that SL is talking about.

Sounds doable to me and certainly not a game-breaker, but as a mechanical improvement over a standard Ward vs. the same value, it'd be harder to do by at least +1 Magnitude (altho' possibly not +2).

23

Who is the name of the one who posted the spell mentioning "Xavi's Breakthrough"? That sounds like something i would have done. In my saga, we have an HR that states that substance wards (as opposed to those that act on might to repel a being) provide a Protective Bonus (a Soak Bonus). I remember posting a Terram ward to that wiki many years ago, and tossing in the off hand "Xavi's Breakthrough" comment because the HR idea was inspired by Xavi (many-many years ago).
Either that, or someone else posted it and I copied the wording into the wiki for my saga. I am not sure, and I am on an old computer and lacking the spell wiki bookmark. If someone could toss a link online here, I would be grateful :smiley:

24

I mentioned Xavi's breakthrough in the context of

spellswiki.wikidot.com/rego-terram

Wizard’s Ward versus Steel Weapons

Although you are mentioned in a spellabove that

Wizard’s Ward against Weapons

25

Yeah, I wrote both of those.
:mrgreen:
The comment on Xavi's breakthrough was a reference to the fact that it was Xavi's idea. I wanted to make sure he got credit.
Basically, one was developed in response to the other, and I wanted to make both options available to players back then.

26

So to wander back to the original point of this topic:

If it was to be a breakthrough, most of you would consider it minor to proliferate it across the forms, at a max of 30 breakthrough points.

Would you expect it to be a breakthrough per form or a generalised breakthrough?

27

Well a guideline is even more specific than a Form, it's a TeFo combination...

28

What I mean is is it a breakthrough to make it so that the "Control unnaturally" guideline can give +5 soak individually per form, or is it effectively making it a global meta-guideline, in the same way that the existing version is a global meta-guideline of "Either this blocks the damage or it has no effect"

another meta-guideline I've noted is the "take the level of Ignem needed to achieve this damage, then add +1 magnitude to do this much damage for another form", which in essence isn't written anywhere directly, but is implicit in the rules.

29

I say it does not require a Breakthrough at all, it just is what it is. That is why both of those variants still stand on the spell wiki. It isn't really a breakthrough or a HR even. It was Xavi's brilliant insight. It is just one optional way to make it work.
I suppose if it makes you feel better, call it a Trivial Breakthrough and have it require only 5 points. But I don't think it is even worth that. I think it is just an alternative application some have thought of and others have not.

30

This can vary widely, and, of course, from Sagas to sagas. Some will require you to do research, some won't at all.

I like the idea that some new guidelines require more or less work, but, IMO, this shouldn't require much.
For exemple, since the MuCo guideline to give a minor ability already exists, 5 points could be enough to create a guideline to grants a major ability.
OTOH, if you didn't have that basis, this could require 5 more points.

I like the idea of Bonisagi experimenting on spells randomly, with "discovery" results sometimes granting, among other things, a result that use a "new" guideline (and an insight), which prompts the boni to research and integrate this in hermetic magic.
This means that, in-game, researchers have an incentive to do both random and controlled experimentation.

But that's just me.

I did a (verbose and badly edited) post about this some time ago. Never had the time to go back to it, but here it is:

31

I'm aware. 4th post after yours on that :wink: who's fault do you think it is I'm thinking about this? :stuck_out_tongue:

32

If you're talking about this site, spellswiki.wikidot.com/, I am not immediately seeing a ward that works this way - got a link?

But either way, that is a huge jump of faith, from fan-based wiki to canon-approved.

However, for this effect, I agree completely with The Fixer that the effect is close, if not already extant.

Rego can deflect or bar a Form - whether or not a Ward exists in the libraries of Durenmar that does the former is up to the SG. It may be that it does take a breakthrough, as "deflection" is more complex than simple "barring", but it should not be much of one.

As to TeFo vs. all-Forms, that's up to the SG. It might well be that 2 breakthroughs are in order - the first as a specific example, and the second as a general application. ysmv.

33

Right Here. The 15th and 18th spells on the list are wards I put up there many years ago. Number 18 is the one that mentions Xavi's Breakthrough :smiley:

34

Deflecting attacks without enough damage to overcome the ward and reducing damage for attacks that do more than the ward "blocks" is already canon approved. See Ward Against Heat and Flames.

35

Not every SG/Troupe treats all attacks as the same game mechanic once it translates into gameplay. For some roleplayers, a +10 attack by a sword is qualitatively different than a +10 attack by fire, even if the quantity of "+10" is the same. ysmv.

Thanks X!

Hmmm... yeah, the simple fact that it's there doesn't mean it's kosher - it is a wiki, after all, so only subject to peer review at best (and then only if someone bothered to check, and cares to respond - altho' clearly some have).

But the effect seems solidly based on the ReTe guidelines (Base 4 = Base 2 "slightly unnatural movement", +2 for metal), so that much is fine. That only leaves the question of a breakthrough, and that's up to the SG/Troupe - but it's just a predictable application of a well-known effect, so, myself, I'd probably not require a breakthrough - at least not for most Forms (and possibly all - trying to think of an exception, but not coming up with one at the moment*).

(* Side note - THE most important thing for a SG and Troupe to consider in a situation like this is... where can this ruling eventually lead? Are we opening a Pandora's box that we will later regret?

Take the effect to an extreme, apply different Forms, get absurd, try to think outside the box. Try to follow the (il)logic toward some game-breaking ultimate conclusion - and if you can, then think twice.

My immediate here concern would be an unexpected result from a different Form - but not envisioning anything awkward. Any physical attack (inc. Corpus/Animal, and things like wind/hail) are parallel, no problem there. Imagonem... some sparkly effect and a "dimmer" area inside as visual images are partially deflected... meh. Mentem - minds & spirits are "all-or-nothing", no problem there afaics. Vim - same, at least afaic.

Or that it could be easily improved to a "reflect the attack back at the attacker" effect - but I don't ~think~ that would be too easy, at least not accurately.)

36

I'm tempted, to reduce how broken it is, to reduce it to

Base X (where X is the base equivalent to "Control movement of unnaturally) gives +1 to soak, and +1 magnitude per additional soak
for a primary breakthrough that applies across all forms.

And then a second, harder breakthrough, per form, to make it to the +5 to soak per magnitude, including the original base.

Makes life simpler, easier and still useful if you're trying to be subtle about magic.