That would be a troupe decision. Personally, I'd probably agree with you, but this spell was only meant to serve as an example for the approach I was talking about. I'm sure people could come up with much better examples.
It's not a troupe decision. Rego Corpus compels the body, it doesn't trump free will - that's squarely under Rego Mentem. Review what your arts can do.
I would concur with this. It should be able to be dispelled by both Unravelling the Fabric of Corpus as well as Unravelling the Fabric of Animal. In addition to a PeVi designed to dispel shapeshifting magic.
If a Form is being used in a spell/effect, then magic of that type is involved whether it is the primary Form of the spell or not. Even if the dispel only disrupts that component of the effect, the Requisite is necessary for the spell to perform whatever the effect is (that is why it is there, after all). And the magic performed by the Requisite isn't immune to being affected just because it is secondary in the effect.
3 Likes
Continuing the discussion from Requisites and Raw Vis Usage:
This is also how I feel.
Well, the spell guidelines are generally that you use the highest guideline, so it might not work in this particular case (plus: the Code etc). But if there's a combo where requisites can be used to advantage an attack, well, that's just clever spell design.
Consider this: should Unraveling the Fabric of Animal be able to dispel Shape of the Woodland Prowler done through Touched by Magic? There are no requisites there, but the effect is the same.
The design of a PeVi effect is more specific than that. Unravelling the Fabric of Animal is a PeVi spell designed to dispel Hermetic Animal Form Magic. So any magical effect designed using Hermetic Magic that includes Animal as a Form for any reason should be subject to it. Not all magic that includes Animal as a theoretical requisite from any source falls within the scope of its effect.
Something like Touched by Magic would require an entirely different PeVi effect designed to affect effects created by those means. Though likely as it is such a specific thing you wouldn't get too much complaining of rolling up say all of the effects either of one Realm or one Hedge Tradition from the virtue into one PeVi effects design envelope. Though to meet the sufficient knowledge requirement for designing the spell I would require a decent score in a relevant Lore Ability.
Yes, I get that. I'm asking about the gist of it. Should Unraveling the Fabric of Animal work if Unraveling the Fabric of Touched Animal does not work? Better?
I would say (though I would allow a much more broad design for a "Touched" PeVi effect than Touched Animal) that Unravelling the Fabric of Touched Animal should work.
Such effects still need to have a design laying out their functions, and that design is based on Hermetic Magic guidelines, then added to the craft total etc. This also would be necessary for adjusting the final level of the effect due to Requisites for adding the correct amount to the Crafting total. So determining which ones have an Animal component would be as easy as determining which Hermetic effects had such a component. If Animal is involved at all, it should work as a dispel.
This line of questioning/reasoning may be more apt with an effect completely non-Hermetic in structure. If you were say trying to dispel Gruagach Magic, a descriptor of the dispel involving something like Animal would be unapt. Generally I've seen far more leniency with a spell being allowed to cover essentially all of the magic of a given hedge tradition, or significant branches of it if they have a lot of magic. Unravelling the Fabric of Gruagach Magic wouldn't be unreasonable to me... but to design it you would have to have either a decent score in some sort of Gruagach Lore/Cult Lore, or a very good score in Magic Lore (those being personal value judgments). I speculate it would be somewhat easier (as regards Lore requirements) to design a more narrow one say based on one of the Gruagach Forms perhaps. Or if someone actually had a relevant supernatural ability/art or what have you, their understanding is immediately established thereby I would think.
But if you wanted to design an Unravelling the Fabric of Gruagach Animal as an effect, I see no reason why it shouldn't work in theory. I just would consider it inefficient and unthematic since their magic isn't structured that way. But I could see an argument that the Hermetic designer may have seen things that way and imposed their theoretical ideas on things to the extent they made a spell more limited than they needed to. Or perhaps this might be something designed by someone with a less strong grasp of Gruagach Magic, resulting in the mix of concepts/ideas. Might make for an interesting lab text to discover somewhere. Then we'd have to adjudicate on a case by case basis. This seems pointless and annoying but possible.
The more general example from Societates of The Heathen Witch Reborn is generally a better design approach for non-Hermetic magic. Unravelling the Fabric of Hexes & Curses would be perfectly apt to me for example. And that sort of category of dispel appears to be a sort of category that reaches across all magic types within its definitions. Which seems an analogous example to what you are referring to though using different language. It doesn't matter if you shapeshifted using a Hermetic effect, a supernatural ability, or something else. If you are shapeshifted by anything other than Heartbeast The Heathen Witch Reborn can dispel it.
This debate seems more or less about applying the same quality of broad/general applicability in their category to things defined by a Form (and falling under Hermetic Magic). So I'm inclined to lean towards the broad/general applicability of the effect in line with our examples.
1 Like
I don't follow. Note that the Touched by Magic character has Corpus but not Animal. So Animal isn't involved, and since it is involved Unraveling the Fabric of Touched Animal should work? That's starting to feel to me like I'm hearing Unraveling the Fabric of Animal should work to dispel a Hermetic Mentem effect on an intelligent animal because some things will affect animal minds in general, be they intelligent or not. Where do we draw the line?
Yes, I totally agree what The Heathen Witch Reborn is a better approach. But I'm really looking at the requisites, or lack thereof, and Vim here.
Why would the design of a Wondrous Item not include Requisites, or need them? I may be missing something as a skim through them here. But it seems like they have to be designed as Hermetic effects? I don't see a lack of requisites with Wondrous Items as described (and as far as I've quickly read through).
The effect still must have a design and that design must include Requisites if necessary.
I don't see the cause for the confusion or murkiness.
Now the Touched by Magic character is allowed two Forms. I don't see anything allowing them to ignore Requisites with their designs. Barring some exception I haven't noticed I wouldn't allow them to design effects outside of their two Forms, including Requisites.
In general though I think Requisites still tend to exist even when exceptions for casting/using powers allow them to be ignored. Elementalist for example. Or Might Powers. The effect still has to be designed and that design should include Requisites and resulting adjustments to effect level.
No. Take a look at this particular effect: Wolf's Cloak (C&G p.72). You'll see Touched by (Realm), just like Powers, are designed as Hermetic effects but then ignore requisites like this in the end. As far as I'm aware, this has been very consistent across the line.
I don't see an exception, but I do see the design you mention that doesn't have the modifiers. Leaving that aside (whether/how that should work) the underlying idea of your question seems to be whether or not such an effect should be considered to have an Animal component or not, even if it is not an Animal effect or required to have a Requisite. And how would this impacts adjudication regarding the PeVi (or other) Vim guidelines.
I don't really see this as an example/test case relevant to the way the logic of the guideline is supposed to work. My view is it would require an entirely different spell to affect such things entirely, as I already stated. Ignoring that is a "what if" that then doesn't seem to bear upon how all of this would/should function.
If you can find an example that validly falls under the umbrella of Hermetic Animal Magic yet somehow doesn't involve Animal ... then we'll have something interesting to dig into. But so far these don't seem relevant cases. Whereas Requisites, by involving (requiring), the Form in question explicitly then are magic of that type, as well as their primary Form.
How about this? You cast Curse of the Desert on a Bjornaer in Hearbeast form. Can the Bjornaer cast Unraveling the Fabric of Animal on it?
Wait wait. Which character are you talking about?
It's just general. You could have Mythic Cloakmaker (Corpus) and make that Wolf's Cloak. You could have Touched by Magic (Corpus, Mentem) and make that Wolf's Cloak. Etc. You don't need Animal.
1 Like
Uhm. What I do not understand is this. On what basis do you say so?
It could well be that the example items are only listing the main TeFo pair, but that in fact there is a "hidden" requisite, so that only a Touched Cloakmaker with access to both Corpus and Animal would be able to create the Wolf's Cloak.
I am asking because some time ago the question of whether a Touched craftsman needed access to requisite Forms came up in my troupe, and (only) after searching far and wide we concluded that there was no evidence either way in the RAW. In fact, this is something that I'd really like to see clarified!
A PeVi for either Animal or Corpus (depending on the Requisite involved for a given casting) would be applicable. If the Requisite is present, then that Form is present in the Magic and is necessary for it to function properly.
I don't see any exception to them needing the Requisite in their rules. But I did see the example item build that was cited and it doesn't list the Requisite in the build. But ... hey, The Greatest Magic Ever, Discussed At Great Length ... this is Ars. 
Jumping in late here (haven't been on this board too much in the past few years). I don't think I saw this particular take up thread, but I may have missed it.
I'd say yes, it can dispel cloak of black feathers. The spell rules say on page 114 " In this case, the base Arts and level for the spell are those for the highest-level effect it has." Meaning that there are spells which have thematic mismatches between the arts that they really have and the ones that you'd think that they have. I could dig up some examples (or at least one) that have popped up in the past, but I don't have any in my head at the moment.