Scope of Magical Focuses in general

If you design a spell with casting requisites, those requisites do not apply when inventing the spell. They do apply when casting the spell on an appropriate target. This parallels, in my view, what happens with a magical focus. If you design a general spell that can exceed the scope of the focus, the focus does not apply when inventing the spell. It does apply when casting the spell on an appropriate target.

I do not think the comparison is apt. Not all Flambeau specialize in creating flames. Even those who do generally have a fairly wider palette of spells. A magus who can only create flames is much, much more limited than one who can "only" create magical items made of wood (if those magical items can create any possible effect themselves).

I think we agree that the key to choosing what a focus can do is, ultimately, narrowness. A minor focus should be narrower than a Form+Tech combination -- less than 1/50th, if you wish, of the entire palette of Hermetic magic. I contend that "magical items" is not nearly narrow enough an area in that regard; if I had to eyeball how narrow it is, I'd say that it encompasses easily more than 1/5th of all Hermetic Magic. The reasoning is that "Formulaic spells" is no broader an area, and probably slightly narrower (since you can't "give" formulaic spells to others, and particularly mundanes, to use); that "Spontaneous spells" is also no broader an area; that "Ritual spells" is definitely a narrower area; and that everything else put together, namely certamen, vis extraction, parma, familiars and longevity potions is also no broader than "magical items". So "magical items" is too broad by over a factor 10 as minor focus, and a restriction to a specific physical form for the items (being made of specific material such as wood, or having a specific colour such as red) is not really much of a restriction.

That's only because swords are a bit unwieldy compared to, say, rings. But if you allow a minor focus in swords to apply to all effects generated by swords, you must allow the same thing with rings; worse, you must allow a minor focus in "the colour black" (canonical according to the ArM5 corebook) to all black items.

When I was saying uninteresting, I wasn't saying that the resulting item is uninteresting. I was saying that there is no challenge involved in finding creative ways to apply the focus. Want to do something? Make a sword that does it.

I agree that swords is a bit narrow even as a minor focus, compared to other canonical minor foci such as wood. And "Wooden wands" is even worse. But I do not think one can argue that, because a focus is narrow compared to the vast majority of other foci, then every focus (including the broader ones) should suddenly be vastly broadened.

Also, I do not think that Razor's Edge spells are all you can do with a focus in swords. You can make effects that create and throw swords a la Crystal Dart (or wield them at a distance), so you have ranged attacks. You can make effects that encircle you with walls of whirling swords, so you have protection. Anyone who thinks of attacking you sword-in-hand, or even sword-in-scabbard, is in for a nasty surprise with the right effect. You want a source of illumination? Make a spell that makes your sword shine brightly. You have the "King Theoden says no swords may be brought into his presence" problem you mentioned above? Presto, make all your grogs' swords invisible with spontaneous magic. Want to create wealth? Make a Ritual to create a large sword made of gold. Want to track a knight? Track his sword. Want to fly? Ride a sword (in its scabbard :slight_smile:) instead of a broom. Etc.
Sure, you'll often need to do stuff in roundabout ways, and there are a number of times when a focus in swords is really of no help - say, to heal a grog. But that's the idea of a minor focus; after all even a major focus, that's supposed to be about five times as broad (slightly narrower than a Form, rather than a Tech+Form combination) is often inapplicable to the situation at hand - think about a focus in necromancy or a focus in causing damage.

Not exactly. I do agree that Blade of Virulent Flame is borderline but, functionally, it's changing the properties of a sword so that it's burning to the touch, just as if you had used MuTe(Ig). In this sense it's quite different from a CrIg spell that allows a sword to shoot fireballs. A precedent for considering Blade of Virulent Flame a spell "affecting the sword" is that an effect enshrouding you or your familiar in flame is considered an effect (only) affecting one of you.

So, you are arguing that any spell invented by a magus with a focus automatically includes the potential to use the focus with it? That's consistent, but I don't see why it's better to do it that way. It seems to me this still encourages general spells over focused spells; instead of inventing a spell that only affects birds of prey, I should design a spell that affects any kind of animal so that I have more versatility. Maybe early on when my Arts scores aren't as high I will incorporate the focus into the lab total so that I can do something I can't, but that's not a very good reason otherwise.

We are trying to compare versatility between two extremely specialized magus archetypes, the item smith and the eternal flame-thrower. Their magic is very narrowly focused. Both practice magic that falls outside of their focus. I don't think you can convince me that the combat Flambeau is less versatile than the sword-oriented Verditius, sorry. :slight_smile:

It is still a restriction, though. The minor focus is not "magic items," it is "swords," and that limits it significantly enough for me. Sorry we don't agree!

I'd allow "rings" as a minor focus. That seems as limited as "swords" to me, with as much scope for interesting items. As far as "the color black," how exactly do you enchant that? If I were the player, I'd probably suggest crafting something out of obsidian or onyx, and as a GM I would probably let that pass, because there's clearly a fun theme going on with that character.

In the case of my character in the Confraternity of Roland, I doubt he would ever just make a sword that does just anything. These are special swords, Verditius-made, and as time goes on, they should become more and more special. Creativity in applying the focus isn't really the point of the character. While I admire and appreciate characters that strive to creatively apply a focus, I think not doing that is okay too. Especially with a character like a Verditius who is much more interested in the items themselves, not so much the effects invested in them.

But ezzelino, now you are just doing the same thing with spells that you bemoan the character doing with items! Making an item shine brightly isn't something a sword does. You are casting a CrIg effect through a sword. Swords have nothing to do with flying, so why should a sword focus apply to a Creo Auram spell just because you are straddling a sword?

Transform the grog into a sword and then repair the sword. Presto! :wink:

I often think of there being a sort of hierarchy of magic in Ars Magica. At the top is spontaneous magic, because you use it all the freaking time. A focus in spontaneous magic is so good that it costs you your soul, basically. :smiling_imp: Then comes specialized formulaic spells and rituals (most of the time, this is where a focus falls), followed by low-level formulaic spells that fill in gaps in your powers (this is where I put certamen; sorry Tremeres). Lastly is seasonal activities. Being good at something seasonal is great for a covenant, but lame for a character, because you basically have to not play in order to get use out of it. I'm willing to grant such a character a wider scope of application, because they give up doing a lot to make it happen.

… Although of course, a focus in spontaneous magic is really not all that good. L L S M is a much better virtue, even if DF me magic does not have a story flaw built in.

But, to the main point, this conversation has come up a few times before, if I remember correctly, and it seems that rules as written allow a focus in swords to include enchanting swords, and the same for rings, or potions… I don't like this.

For what it's worth, here's how I would rule it:

A focus in X applies to any effect where X necessarily is a target. So if I have a focus in bravery, it does not apply when binding a brief familiar, but would applyif I wanted to transform the familiars bravery into some other emotion, or remove that bravery, or assess the amount of bravery present. If I have a focus in men, and I am a man, then every self spell I invent (and learning is inventing) gains the benefit of this focus when I invented or cast it, but not when I teach it. a focus in rings is great if you want to create a ring, destroy a ring, make a ring pervious to damage, and so on, but completely useless if you want to instill in effect into a ring, unless, of course, that affect targets a ring. If I have a focus in birds, it applies when I use a generic animal control spell to control a bird, but not when I used to control a fish; it applies to both inventing and casting a spell that transforms things into birds.

There is a specific exemption for familiars, in that any effect enchanted into the bond benefits from a focus that covers the familiar itself, even if the effect and the focus are completely unrelated.

But that's just me.

Anyway,

Ken

My view completely matches that of Ovarwa, with one exception: what he thinks is a good house rule, I think is the way rules are meant to be read.

EDIT: Actually no, on a second read, my view of the applicability of a magical focus is strictly more extensive. To use his "men" example, I would allow it to be applied both to a spell that transformed men into women (which Ovarwa's interpretation encompasses), and to a spell that transformed women into men (which seems to me is outside of Ovarwa's interpretation). But one point seems very clear to me: a focus applies to enchanting an effect into a magic item, if and only if it would apply to inventing the same effect as a spell.

I would allow that also, since by the end of that spell the target is a man. This is similar to the way a focus in bravery allows me to transform some other emotion into bravery. The bravery is the target, though in the case of Creole that target does not yet exist, in the case of Muto as well.

Unfortunately, the last time this topic came up, I tried to argue that my opinion was indeed strictly rules as written, and failed.

Erik, I fear that our differences are really not resolvable (but thanks for the discussion). Let me recap the major points of dissension.

I view the activity of creating magical items as the exact parallel of that of inventing formulaic spells. Both take seasonal activities, but both then give an extra power to the magus. There are differences (e.g. making items costs vis, but items are effortlessly "transferable") but ultimately they more or less balance out. Apparently you see it differently.

Another difference is this. I assume that requiring a magical item to have a specific physical form is not a serious limitation, particularly for Verditius magi that have less use for Shape and Material bonuses (as long as you can choose the form to be relatively portable). Boats would be a serious hindrance, swords is just a minor annoyance, rings or wooden items is virtually no limitation at all. So allowing a focus to apply to all wooden magical items made is almost as good as allowing it to be applied to all magical items made, which (in my view) is a far, far greater advantage than allowing a focus to apply to all magical effects involving "disguise" or "necromancy" (which are major foci). You don't seem to agree.

Finally, you write:

I'd say making a sword as bright as the sun is MuTe(Ig). It's an effect that targets the sword. Even a CrIg effect that shrouds something with fire is considered "affecting" that something (or you would not be able to instill a "fire shroud" effect in the familiar bond, which can only affect the magus and the familiar). And something that moves your sword around with Rego Terram (while you ride it) has nothing to do with Creo Auram.

Ah, then we are in perfect agreement.

Could you give me a pointer to the thread, and more specifically to the argument that convinced your (our) opinion was not strictly by the RAW?

If magical focus is triggered by the medium of casting (sword focus triggered when enchanting any effect into a sword, for example), then why not just use a purely cosmetic alteration to trigger magical focus for every spell? If you have a magical focus: sword, make your sigil a sword. Pillum of Fire is shaped like a sword. Healing spells make a sword shaped scar. Conjured towers are covered in sword decorations. This would clearly be a ridiculous abuse, but if you permit Magical focus to apply beyond the spells final target or its effect there isnt much besides common sense keeping it from happening.

The thread is somewhere on here, and since I am limited in clicks these days, I'd rather not search for it. If I recall correctly, I failed because the rules as written supported the other position just as well as mine, and quite a few people weighed in against my – now our – position, including, if I recall correctly, some of the Authors.

I'm not saying that I am wrong, I'm just not necessarily right.

Of course, the fifth edition rules have reached the point where a Pirates of the Caribbean attitude (well, at least Barbosa's) is perhaps appropriate.

Anyway,

Ken

Found it! Apparently it's in a thread called "Comments on the Mysteries". callen and ovarwa and callen argue (both very well, and better than I could) respectively in favour and against the reading of the rules allowing a focus to apply when enchanting an item covered by the focus, even if the effect would not be covered by the focus if cast as a spell. I do not see the thread ending with one of the two conceding to the other's position. While in a few things of the discussion I think callen has the right of it, ultimately I think ovarwa's position is the correct one.

me too :slight_smile:

If I recall correctly, Chris and I have had a few disagreements, but we mostly agree. (We also disagree about the value of an affinity with an ability versus puissant ability, though perhaps not all that much, since in many cases, if one of the 2 is good, getting both virtues is better, because specialization is both awesome and realistic.)

Unfortunately I'm on a tight schedule this week, so I can't really weigh in much in the discussion.

But suffice to say I'm with Ovarwa and ezzelino on this one: Applying the bonus of a focus for it merely being the medium of the enchantment is overpowered and ultimately boringly one-sided in the game. The example with the sword-enchanters just sounded pretty cheesy to me - it's something I'd find dreadful if it were to happen in my game. If this is considered canon, I think it shouldn't be.

@Toa and me.

I have a new character with a minor focus of counter spells. This is actually pretty broad in application, in some ways, but the SG and I discussed that it is a minor focus. She receives almost no benefit for the focus when she invents a spell. She does get the benefit if she uses the spell to counter another spell, such as her Mighty Torrent of Water against someone's Ball of Abysmal Flame. It applied to inventing the Unraveling the Fabric of [Form] spells, though.

Erik never addressed where I refuted his contention that spells with casting requisites need to be invested with those requisites in mind. AFAICT, there is nothing in RAW that stipulates it, and I've never known anyone to take Unseen Arm, and learn it with the requisites. Requisites DO apply for enchanting, but that's primarily because the enchanter has no idea what other forms may be necessary whenever the effect is used, and so he must plan for the contingency of casting requisites in advance. A ring of Wizard's Leap better have Terram, Herbam, possibly Aquam (for water in waterskins) and Vim (for vis the user is carrying, although I could see it falling under one of the other forms mentioned, too?)

I would have vis fall under vim AND what ever it is contained in. Either would work, although if you don't have the container's form you'll need to find the vis again, since it probably got stuck in your eye or something.

What if it's both?
It is whatever it is contained within, and it is pure magic.

No problem. I hope your way is fun, the same way I have fun my way. :slight_smile:

Yeah, I think it's more like investing a power in the familiar bond. But, to each our own!

Those are absurdly specific spells; no one is going to waste a season inventing those, and they wouldn't produce anything that looked or felt like a magic sword. If I'm a Verditius who belongs to the Confraternity of Roland, why wouldn't I just create a lesser invested device with a trivial Level 5 CrIg effect instead of inventing that complicated MuTe effect?

I just don't see how forcing the player to design Terram spells in order to make use of his focus translates to more fun. Making magic swords is fun. The Confraternity is about making magic swords. I figure I should just let the player do what he wants to do. :slight_smile:

What I said was that spells need to be designed to incorporate casting requisites. This doesn't mean they have to include the Arts of the requisites, just that you can't up and decide that a formulaic spell can be cast on a person instead of an animal by using Corpus instead. I'm not sure that this is something any spell can include, either, but I think this isn't very well covered by the canon. I would expect that since there isn't anything in the rules that says you can add casting requisites to any spell, you can only incorporate them into spells or variant effects of those spells that say they can use them, barring storyguide approval of course.

If it is counter- Hermetic spells rather than counter-magic, I definitely agree with this one.

She's primarily designed for countering Hermetic effects. Some of her spells could counter other magic, Mighty Torrent of Water could be used against any flame spell, really. Some counters work, such as the unraveling spells. And she would have to rely upon Spontaneous magic.

It's about countering spells, as in, just as they are being cast. Not magic already in place. Or at least, that is how I've structured her. Unraveling spells can be used on existing magic effects with a duration beyond momentary, too. But she's not countering anything there, she's simply ending it. It's, perhaps, a really fine distinction.

Yes, the spells could definitely be so used. But if the focus applied to countering any magic that was not hermetic, I would probably start looking at it as major. Then again, if it works for you, it works!