Hmm, good point. I agree, they are similar, but separate emotions.
Well, the essence of Muto is change, rather than creation or destruction. If you have a weak emotion, you can change its nature - love to hate, fear to enthusiasm etc. - but you cannot make it stronger or weaker. If a magus has the Blatant Gift, the spell has a stronger emotion to work with, and thus can crank out a stronger bonus. It's the same reason why the spell is useless in the presence of the Gentle Gift or of accustomed covenfolk.
Well, there are game balance issues, of course, such as this spell being drastically more powerful than the canon ReMe20 effect (ReMe15 if the duration is changed to Diameter) and that the spell is so easy that just about anyone could spont it to change a major flaw into a what is beyond a major virtue.
But I think my real problem with it is that suspicion is not an emotion. Although dictionaries may use the term "feeling" to describe it, I don't believe they do so in the sense of "feeling" as an emotion but "feeling" more like from the senses. I believe suspicion can be logical, intuitive, or a combination of them. It seems to me to be a complex mental construct based on provided information and stimuli. So I'm not so sure as the guideline being used is the appropriate one.
While what you say sounds reasonable, it does not seem to fit the guidelines for Muto in general. There is a greater change from -6 to +6 than there is from -3 to +3. Generally greater changes require greater magnitudes. If you want to change a weak Ignem spell into a weak Aquam spell, you need a weak MuVi spell; but if you want to change a powerful Ignem spell into a powerful Aquam spell, you need a powerful Mu Vi spell. The MuCo guidelines for shape shifting are not easier the more truly opposite to your original you go; they are easier the less changed from human the final form is.
I'm inclined to say this somehow buts up against the Limit of Essential Nature for purposes of my saga, otherwise the Gift becomes a straw man.
The Gift cannot be used to negate itself using the Gift.
Other means are available to undercut the Gift indirectly (Aura of Ennobled Presence, etc.) and are commonly used in my game.
The Limit of Essential Nature shouldn't be a problem because the spell isn't affecting the Magus's essential nature, even if such is defined to mean "Gifted and Creepy", as opposed to "A Thinking Animal". It's the target's mind that's being controlled, just like any other mind control spell.
I'll concede it's a clever and perhaps overly optimized way to get a low Base but I'm not seeing the general overpowering nature of the spell. The Magus looks one particular target in the eye (R: Eye) and for 2 minutes (D: Diam) that individual finds the Magus charismatic rather than nasty. After the spell wears off the target is going to wonder how on earth he ever felt that way and if he suspects the nasty old wizard of mind controlling him then there will be hell to pay.
Remember, it's not like Aura of Enobled Presence which has a game of effect on everyone who looks at the Magus.
If just about any magus can spont the spell with ease, and many could easily develop a level 15 one with Moon duration or a Room/Sun variant one or something similar (none of these causing warping), then we can basically drop the whole idea that having the Gift is at all problematic. Also, if you have someone playing a Gentle-Gifted magus, they probably won't be too happy that their major virtue can be replaced with spontaneous magic with relative ease.
I don't think you're understanding me, though I admittedly was not very clear. I'm inclined to say the Essential Nature of the Gift itself does not allow it to subvert itself directly. I'm not considering the target. I'm considering the basic underpinnings of what the Gift is. This may indeed not be supported by the rules as written, but as the entire setting and its history is predicated on the Gift's negative effects, I'm happy to look at the setting and assume that the reason I've thrown out must exist. In truth, it's an extension of the Limit of the Essential Nature, but it lets the game work as intended.
It's just mind control, no better and no worse than any of the other mind control spells available under Mentem.
If the argument is that the Base is too low, then I could see that point of view. It might be more appropriate to substitute Base Level 10, as per the ReMe guideline to control an unnatural emotion. But if the argument is that mind control can't make people like Gifted magi, then I don't follow. We know for high level effects at least that Enslave the Mortal Mind "enables you to completely control the loyalty, emotions, desires, interests, and activities of any person". That's the nature of Mentem.
I think you're all overstating the effectiveness of the spell anyway. It has to be precisely targeted and it eventually wears off. When it wears off, expect the target to be pissed. It sounds much more like a good way for a Magus to get into trouble than it does a replacement for the Gentle Gift.
I am not convinced. The guideline is for a spell powerful enough to change an emotion of any intensity. So by default it can change the strong repulsion engendered by a Blatant Gift. Changing a weaker emotion is no easier than changing a strong one, according to the guideline, so you do not get a discount for a spell that only works up to the strength of a "normal" Gift. It's just like lifting a size -3 baby with ReCo is no easier than lifting large, size +1 adult.
I tend to agree. It's certainly not a replacement for the Gentle Gift. Even with longer durations and/or larger targets, animals are still not happy about you, affecting anyone with Magic resistance is by no means guaranteed, and if you keep it up for a long time you'll end up warping other people.
However, it's really handy for quick interactions with mundanes. You can get a warm reception at an inn ("Your finest room will do for me - my servants will sleep in the hay. Send them up with a bottle of your finest red and a leg of that mutton as soon as it's roasted.") make sure that you get directions right ("The baker's? Yes m'lord, that white house over there. Make sure to haggle though, he tends to charge foreigners outrageous prices!") and so on.
I don't think the dispute is over being able to make a change in emotion.
Muto can grant a non-natural bonus , but does not reverse an existing bonus or penalty.
If it reversed , then one would simply cast Mirror Body in combat ,
such that Dazed -05 becomes Vigorous +05 and Incapacitated -05 = Capacitated +05.
The Gift social penalty is probably more like a mental attack.
So if you alter emotions , you give a mental soak vs the attack.
For this analogy to work , consider The Gift 'attack' as +03.
MuCo Level 03: Utterly change the appearance or size of a person
Preternatural Growth and Shrinking MuCo level 15 , page 131
Adds +01 to normal size or decreases it by 02 points.
This spell has a +01 magnitude because it allows two kinds of shrinking.
If we exclude that , then natural size is altered by +01 or -01.
So with a Base 03 Guideline for MuMe ,
you could give a +01 positive emotion bonus or
give a negative emotion penalty 0f -01
to the natural emotional state of the target , at that moment.
I was thinking of ways to avoid giving some of my background, but I decided it might be unavoidable.
I first picked up second edition of Ars Magica in the 1990 or 1991. I picked up third, fourth, and eventually fifth editions when they were available, as well.
I had once intended to run a saga in fourth edition around 2001, but it did not come to pass. However, I have tinkered with characters and settings for around twenty years now, on and off, with years passing at a time between creative work. I have gone as often as six years at a time without looking at any of it.
I mention all this to explain why I may seem confused about some of the rules or what I have done in the distant past.
In one of my binders I have found a simple spell design. I recall creating it over ten years ago to the fourth edition. The trouble is, based on the complete description I wrote down, it doesn't make any sense according the fourth edition guidelines I pulled out to try and understand what I did.
The range subtraction makes no sense to me today, since the guidelines seem to suggest R+2 to me when I read them now. As for why I wrote "T:Sm" in the design list, I cannot say. "Hovers" was something I tossed in to account for it just sitting there in the air; maybe I should have had an Auram requisite, I don't know. If I change the range to R+2 for Reach as seems appropriate, then it is CrIg 30 and this seems stupendously high-level for a spell with so absurdly minimal effect. In the end, any mistakes I made are now in the past.
What I really want to do is write it out under fifth edition rules. I looked over the various guidelines for fifth edition, and honestly, I am stumped as to how I would create this spell.
The Base is lower now, at 3, for illuminates by torchlight, but the rest of it, I don't know.
The Reach range is gone now, and none of the other ranges seem appropriate. It isn't "on" the magus so it doesn't seem Personal. There is nothing for "it just coalesces next to the magus" like Reach seemed to imply in fourth edition.
The Target is worse. Small was just an approximation from fourth edition, but it no longer exists. None of the other ranges seem even remotely appropriate.
So, I throw myself upon the mercy of the forum and people who have a better idea of how this works. Any ideas?
Well, I'm not a veteran or anything but... and Ravenscroft's is nice and simple, but here's what I tried to post before the forum crashed for me.
Witchflame
Cr[Re]Ig 15
This spell creates a floating flame akin to a torch that hovers around the magus' shoulder or wherever the magus touches, providing illumination. The fire does not burn.
Base: 3 (light equal to a torchlight), Range Touch +1 (you touch the place you want to manifest the flame, and midair if fine), Duration: Sun +2, Rego +1 (requisite allows the light to move with you rather than be stuck where you touch).
So, final level is 15. Should you wish, the spell could be designed to move the light from where you initially create it with an effort of will/concentration - move it down a dark well, stick it to the end of your staff, over a book, etc etc. Also note that at Base 3, the flame is a cosmetic description for the light. If you wanted flame for some reason, bump the level up to 15 for a flame that does +5 damage. Of course, you can now light torches and roast marshmallows over it, as opposed to just providing light.
Target for a Creo spell is the base unit of whatever form you are creating - in this case a small ball of flame. For Ignem the base unit 's a large campfire but you can scale it down to meet the needs of this spell.
At least, I think that's how it could work. Fancy movement of the light might require some extra magnitudes or somesuch.
was going to post just about identically to Vrylakos
I have something quite like it as one of my standard spells. I think its Base 4 though for a more powerful light and the ability to give off a bit of heat as well if wanted(multiple use spell is never bad).
Do you mean to say "the focus" or literally "target" per the spell design mechanics? I only ask because my players at times get this mixed up and assume because they are shooting ice at someone that the target is the person, when a Creo effect's target is the Form you are creating.
Lost in the Woods
PeMe 25
Range: Eye, Duration: Moon, Target: Individual
This spell destroys a person's ability to navigate and find their way. Familiar places seem foreign, crossroads all start to look the same, and taking even a moment's break from travel on a road causes confusion as the victim becomes unsure as to which way he came from and which way he is going. Moving through wilderness becomes exceedingly difficult, and the victim will find themselves accidentally circling back on their trail. This essentially confers the "No Sense of Direction" Flaw at an exaggerated level; the longer the distance travelled, the more likely it is that the magus takes a wrong turn and fails to reach his destination.
Magus Gerard Villein used this spell to hamper a magus who offended him getting back to his home covenant following a declaration of Wizard War by a third party. The magus in question, a Bjornaer who travelled at night as an owl, was lost somewhere over the Black Forest, and not seen from again.
[Base 4 Reduce a Single Mental Capability In a Person, +1 Eye, +3 Moon]
I was referring to the definition of the target Individual. It seems to me that it requires a specific target, not some empty spot in mid-air. Therefore, I decided that the mage was the target of the spell but the locus of the ball of flame was just offset a bit.
An empty spot in mid-air is not a thing, or at least I wouldn't think it would be in Mythic Europe.
