[Spell Check] Snap of Immodesty

Snap of Immodesty ReAn(He)5
Unlaces, unwinds, and removes the stitching from garments, with a snap of the fingers. While this spell was created for use in the bedroom, it can also cause an embarrassing public disrobing, as well as effectively removing most armors (leather straps are used to secure all but Chain).
Base 1 (Manipulate items made of animal products) +2 Voice +1 He req. +1 complexity

I put in the Herbam requisite to include linen.

This spell seems a bit overpowered for such a low level - any thoughts?

:slight_smile:, V

I think the spell works 100% correct... and that it might not do what you say.

I am no expert in medieval costiumes at all, but I would be surprised if they are not designed along the same ways as modern clothing. That means that a pair of trousers might fall, but the tunics that are used the most as the main dressing element will remain in place (untied but in place). As such, no massive nakedness around you. The same might be the case fotr armor, even if an untied armor will be a less effective and (specially) will increase Load a tendfold due to the inconvenience.

In Magi of Hermes (page 56), Julia has the spell The Unraveled Clothes that has the effect you describe. It's written as a PeAn(He) level 15 spell, starting from a base 2 guideline. It uses the Group target and has a +1 for the requisite (both of which make sense to me for your spell as well).

While I agree that Rego is a fair alternative to Perdo for these effects (the actual process is different, but the end result is the same), one should note that in the case of Rego there's a substantial difference between the Animal and Herbam Base effects: for Animal it's level 1, and for Herbam it's level 3. In the case of Perdo, both are level 2 (assuming that destroying a garment's seams is like causing the leaves to fall off a tree -- stretched, but reasonable). Since when utilizing multiple guidelines you have to start from the highest one, the Rego version should be ReHe(An) starting from Base 3, rather than ReAn(He) starting from Base 1.

Other than this, the two main differences between the MoH spell and the OP's spell are:

  1. MoH uses Group, rather than Ind, as a Target. This is correct if you want to take off all garments in one go. The OP's spell removes only one garment per casting (which is, however, often enough to cause embarassment, or to hamper the target). Personally, I'd keep the Ind version, and shave two magnitudes off.

  2. MoH does not add magnitudes for complexity. I am inclined to agree in this regard too -- it's a relatively simple effect both in terms of Perdo and in terms of Rego.

Summarizing, for a single-garment spell, I'd make the OP spell into ReHe(An) 10: Base 3, +1 An, +2 Voice. Using Perdo is one magnitude cheaper, because the Base level is 2 rather than 3.

Make that one stitching rather than one garment.
Otherwise I'm happy.

I disagree. You are not targeting a stitching. You are targeting a garment It's quite difficult to target a stitching individually, it's hard to see. Also, metaphysically, targeting a garment's stitching is like targeting the nose of a man, or the leaf of a tree -- it should be Part rather than Individual.

But a more substantial evidence is presented by the guidelines themselves. With Perdo Animal, you are "damaging" the target (Base 2) rather than destroying it (Base 4). It's written in MoH as well -- the reason why it's Base 2 rather than Base 4 is that the garment can be put back together from the unstitched pieces. This would make no sense if you were targeting the stitching. Similarly, with Perdo Herbam, with Base 2 you are not destroying something, you are causing damage equivalent to making a tree lose its leaves. Again, the damage would be far more severe if the target were the stitching.

I would assume Rego would work the same way, by deconstructing the target (a garment) into its constituent parts.

This is actually the only part I disagreed with.

First, there's no place where the nose ends, same for the leaf. You may break it but there is continuity between the part and the whole. This is not the case with crafted items.

Second, you could affect the garment as a whole with Individual, but not affect only the stitches.

Notwithstanding these interpretations, we have canon spells that should serve as guidelines for this. Use them first.

I'm not sure I agree with this, but even if I did ... what's your point?

Sure you can. You can affect the garment as an Individual and make it lose its stitches, just as you can target a wolf as an Individual and break one of its legs or rot its teeth.

Again, I fail to see where you are trying to go. We have guidelines, and canon spells that are examples of how to apply those guidelines. But they certainly do not cover every possible application of those guidelines. What do you mean with "use them first"?

Hmm, I see. Why do you disagree?

Largely because removing a stitching in a shirt destroys it - this is perdo.

undoing a stich with rego can be done, but I'l targetting the stitching, not the shirt.
if I undo the stitching in the shirt, it's not really a short anymore.

I think I now see your point, but I have to disagree. You can use Rego on the corpse of a goose to produce a meal and some pillow filling, and what you have is no longer the body of a goose. You can use Rego on some salt water, and get salt and sweet water -- and you no longer have salt water. Similarly, I'd say you could use Rego on a garment and recover the "building material" it is made from; a (not even very skilled) craftsman could do it, and so should Rego.

A goose is a single living individual. Feathers and eyes are T:Part because you cannot remove them without damaging the goose.

A garment is a composite crafted object. The stitching threads (and some others) are T:Individual because you could pull them out without damaging neither the thread, nor the other elements.

You can prefer another interpretation, but that doesn't stop this one from being valid.

Tugdual, I keep failing to see what's your point :frowning:
Are you saying that you can't target a garment as an Individual?
Are you saying that you can't target a garment's thread as Part?
Both these statements would contradict spells in MoH (unless I've missed some errata, which is quite possible), from the Julia ex Miscellanea chapter.

I'm simply saying that you can take a garment and turn it into its constituent parts with Rego, because that's what a craftsman could do -- just as he could turn it into rags. I really fail to see on what grounds you are objecting to this.

The effect I was going for was the ties untying, the belts unbuckling, and the seams un-stitching. I have a (small) bit of knowledge of medieval clothing - for all but the most expensive clothes, they were made in pieces, sewn together at the sides and shoulders. Thus, if the stitching came out, the pieces would fall away.

With armor, it would depend on the type, and how it's worn. A chainmail coif would be unaffected, but anything strapped on would either fall off, or cause a great deal of confusion. Perhaps a -1 to -3 to actions due to the difficulty of maneuvering with unstrapped armor hanging off your back.

As for the Target, I was assuming that all garments worn by a person could be considered an "Individual." It could be argued that a shirt is Part of a person's clothing ensemble, as well as an Individual on it's own.

Alas, this appears to be something best left to the troupe's interpretation. But, thank you for the lively discussion!

:slight_smile:, V

I think that the point is that an individual can be composed of individuals

I am saying the opposite: that interpretation is not the only one valid. If you grab with your hand a t-shirt by the front, the whole follows. This in an Individual. If you want to pull a thread to unravel a single stitch, you are not affecting the whole garment. That is a Part. If you want to unravel all the stiches, it becomes Group. Sure, you could say that MuCo5 Eyes of the Cat targets both eyes with Part, but all all stitches as equal as both eyes are?

PeAn(He)5 The Unraveled Seam: Part for single thread.
PeAn(He)15 The Unraveled Clothes: Group for more than one piece.
ReAn15 Dressing the Human Form in Wool: might be stitchless.

When we had this conversation about CrTe35 Conjuring the Mystic Tower, the conclusion was that it was a seamless block but would have been Group had the result been blocks of stones.

I only object to Individual being valid for all canon saga. I believe it could be Group for some.

I may be starting to understand.


Agreed, if the garment has many threads and many stitches, so you can't argue that you are affecting one entire aspect (the stitching) of the whole garment.

Ah, no, here's where we disagree. This is how I see it. A collection of Parts of the same Individual is still Part. However, if you are in some sense affecting a whole aspect of the Individual, the target is Individual. For example, if you are crippling an Individual by making it lame (see Cripple the Howling Wolf) although you are in some sense affecting a leg, your Target is still Individual -- you are crippling the Individual rather than breaking the leg. Similarly, if you make a man lose his hair or a tree lose its leaves (PeHe 2 guideline), you are targeting the Individual by altering one whole aspect of it (making the entire man bald or the entire tree bare). Thus, a spell that "disassembles" (without ruining it) a garment or a tent or a small boat making it suitable for transportation or storage, even though it really operates mostly on some portions of the target, has Target Individual because it's affecting one aspect of the entire Target (assembled or disassembled) and uses Rego rather than Perdo because it's not really ruining the target (to restore it to the original condition, you'd need Rego and not Creo).

I missed the conversation, but I am inclined to disagree. A spell in A&A seems to contradict this:

Conjuring the House of GoD
CrTe Level 45
R: Touch, D: Mom, T: Ind, Ritual
This spell creates a church that towers overhead with either barrel or groin vault ceilings, impressive tower facades, and stained glass windows.