Spell Mastery Magic Resistance

So, magic resistance spell mastery looks pretty sweet.

Similar spells are:

And then goes on to state:

So, if one masters Magic Resistance against Pilum of Fire, their MR is doubled against it and any spell which uses R:Voice, D:Momentary and T:Ind, or variants of Pilum of Fire that use +15 damage base guideline and change any of the parameters.

That someone does not have resistance to a Sight ranged variant of Ball of Abysmal Flames. However, if one were to cover their base and invent spells at different ranges, and targets (ignoring duration) one could, in theory, effectively double MR against all Ignem based direct damage attacks. Does that seem like a fair reading of the rules?

I'm not sure the +15 is specific for this. After all, +15 and +20 are considered "the same spell at a different level," not different spells. Of course, while being "the same spell" they apparently have different "effects" since the rules description is different (+15 vs +20). This is why I say I'm not sure. The rules are a little fuzzy here despite trying to be specific.

Your point is why I included the specific text, as it is defined in Similar spells as being separate.

Yeah, they are. I have a character who was burned badly by someone's magic, and she's looking to shore up that perceived weakness. Approaching this as if I were the SG, I wouldn't want 5xp in BoAF Mastery to double the magic resistance to all possible spells in the ignem line. Nor do I want to have to invent multiple versions of the spells with different base effects, in order to catch 'em all. So, what it's looking like is I need to have a few spells that she knows, call it 3, 1 BoAF, 1 PoF, 1 R:Sight PoF and master them all to cover her bases...

All her bases? Arc of Fiery Ribbons? Cloak of Flame? And what if they're done with different damage?

If they are done with different damage, but have the same R/D/T as another, they qualify as a similar spell.

Arc of Ribbons and is one I've been thinking about because it is T:Group, she'd need to learn a spell that does +10 damage, or a T:Group spell to cover that base. Coat of Flames I considered because of the different duration, but she can withstand that spell for several rounds, with a +6 soak.

So, I misspoke, and let's call it a figurative all of her bases, or at least saying the most important ones.

That's my reading too. It's a very good mastery.

Of course, one needs a good Parma or good Ignem to benefit.

Let me send this back to you with an additional thought. As SG, do you really want a magus hurt by an Intangible Tunnel effect to have to create and master about ten versions to get double the resistance against Intangible Tunnels? This is really the same problem with Ignem that rears it's head when you compare a Minor Magical Focus within Ignem to the same Virtue in most other Forms. Ignem is very limited. Making this decision based on Ignem would be setting a rule based on an outlier. There are still a few variants so one Pilum wouldn't give you Resistance toward all of CrIg.

Oh, also, the +15 vs +20 difference in "effect" is a game of semantics. If this had been written like some other Forms, it would say Level+X in each case, and only the level would be different, the text now showing they are not different effects.

I'd rule that all "Create a fire doing +X damage" guidelines are the same effect. (They're different guidelines, but the net effect is the same.)

Note that this doesn't mean that mastering PoF would make you immune to all of CrIg. There are also guidelines for "Create a fire doing +X damage in an unnatural shape" and "Ignite something" under CrIg which are both damaging and mechanically distinct from "Create a fire doing +X damage", so they would fall under "closely related effects" and only face the extra resistance if they match the mastered spell's R/D/T.

They're only different guidelines because they were written to look that way. They are also the same guideline: For Ignem it's "Create a fire doing Level + 5 damage." In some cases guidelines were written one way, in some cases another way. Again, it's just semantics. If we say these are different guidelines and the Vim, for example, ones are the same guidelines, we very quickly run into a contradiction.

Yes, I agree. That's what I was talking about with Coat of Flame as an example.

So, what I think [strike]fallen[/strike] callen is saying is master any fire damage spell with a certain range your MR is doubled against any fire spell at that range. Repeat for duration and targets.
Fixed autocorrect.

Is "fallen" "callen"? If so, close but not quite. Any fire damage spell at a certain Range, Duration, and Target would be covered. That would still leave you with a large number of Range/Duration/Target combinations to cover. That is clear from the description and its example.

The thing I'm stating that isn't as clear is that Pilum of Fire would protect you from Big Ball of Fire (+25 damage fire at D: Mom, T: Ind, R: Voice, +2 size), for example. The +25 doesn't matter. But the two are only similar because they have different Targets (Individual vs. Large individual).

Yes, I was away for a bit and when I came back I noticed that autocorrect had changed callen to fallen. I edited above, my apologies.

I'm having trouble following you. I don't agree with this and the RAW seems to assert otherwise.
There are two conditions which define whether a spell is similar. It's a similar spell if the guideline is different but somehow related (i.e. a higher level effect) while the R/D/T is the same. It's also similar spell if the guideline is the same but any the three of range, duration and target are different. So, if Ignem damage is truly one distinct guideline with a general parameter, then all Ignem direct damage spells are similar, no? There is even explicit mention that Creo Ignem damage is a closely related effect, not that it is one general effect based on the desired level. Even General guidelines when used to create a spell are, in practice, distinct base level effects. I think you are attempting to make explicit some implicit understanding. Can you reference where it says all Ignem damage is one guideline?

My understanding is that if each guideline is distinct, then Any fire damage of a certain level is also considered similar if any of the R/D/T or other parameters are the same (I've added this bit, otherwise +size modifications would never be considered similar). PoF MR mastery would protect against BoAF, or any spell that flings fire at R:Voice, D:Momentary, T:Individual. It would also be resistant to PoF variants with any of the parameters changed, your example of the large fire. It would be ineffective against a BoAF variant that is T:Group, because the base guideline is different AND a parameter is different.

First, that's e.g., not i.e., which may seem like semantics but is really where the disagreement is.

But who's saying all Ignem damage is one distinct guideline? I haven't. There are different guidelines for natural versus unnatural shapes, for example. The rest of the argument is based on this. I disagree not with your path of logic but with your original assertion.

No, I cannot. Rather, my argument was that it doesn't say this, not that it does. You are confounding two things I've stated:

  1. Level+5 for a limited set of Levels is the same as listing all of those levels and listing that level plus 5, unless you want to try to make the argument to a mathematician that a piecewise defined function is not a function. I'm not a mathematician, but I wouldn't want to try, just noting that the word "function" shows up. What I would note it it's just a game of semantics. For instance, when I write my Wind of Mundane Silence spell on my sheet, I write its level and what level it affects instead of leaving the calculation in there. Does that mean my Wind of Mundane Silence doesn't work with Adaptive Casting because I wrote those numbers?

  2. Just because there are general CrIg guidelines doesn't mean all CrIg damage spells use the same general guideline. There are others. Thus you don't run into all CrIg spells being thwarted by a single Resistance.

That result could never occur. Let's go back to the definition of similarity in your initial post starting this thread:

If the effect (note: not "guideline") is the same, then RDT are irrelevant - it's similar even if all three are different.

If it's a different, but closely related, effect, then all three of RDT must match.

There is no situation in which one of RDT can be different but the other two must match. Either all must match or all may differ.

But that's a side detail. The meat of the discussion here is the question of just what "effect" means in this context. You're taking a very restrictive definition, considering an "effect" to be a specific spell guideline and, in the case of general guidelines, also requiring it to be at the same level. callen and I are using a broader definition. I don't know exactly how broad callen's definition is, but I'm even considering guidelines which do the same thing with only a qualitative distinction to be the same "effect", such as "CrIg 2: Ignite something extremely flammable" and "CrIg 10: Ignite something barely flammable" - they're distinct guidelines, but both have the same effect of igniting the target.

Yes, I was thinking this before and didn't write it. For example, you might use the same CrTe guideline to make a stone wall or to make a diamond, but I would rule the effects different.

I must confess, I don't understand how you two are using the term effect, and it seems inconsistent with RAW.

My understanding is base effect, that doesn't make sense in the context of your understanding. Specifically, on page 101 "Closely related effects include such things as doing damage with Creo Ignem." If it isn't referring to base effect, then I don't know what it's saying, I could argue, based on your use of the word effect, that it applies to all ignem damage resulting in delivering a fire to the target that starts a fire. Further, I could master a spell that ignites something and thereby also improve my magic resistance to all spells that ignite something. All this would be regardless of any changes in the R/D/T parameters.

I see your point here, but it's just as easy to say that Creating Sand, Creating Stone, etc are not closely related (base) effects, so I would rule the same way.

But, I don't know what's been said, is the effect delivering X damage, and magic resistance mastery makes one resistant to all spells that deliver X damage, regardless of R/D/T?

By my reading, you would want:

  1. Something like Pilum of Fire to cover all R/D/T of created fire in a natural shape.
  2. Something like Coat of Flame to cover all R/D/T of created fire in unnatural shapes.
  3. Something like Heat of the Searing Forge to cover all R/D/T of things made hot.
  4. Something to cover ignition (such as "Ignite something barely flammable (like a human body).")
  5. Maybe something with light. I believe it was understood well before this time that intense enough light could burn. I don't know what that Base would be, though.

It would take more spells than this to hit all the possible R/D/T for Pilum of Fire variants to accomplish this using similarity in the other fashion.

Do I think this is too easy? Only learning and mastering five spells to get Resistance against all of CrIg. No, I don't. Ignem is the narrowest of the Forms. If it takes this many spells to get Resistance against something so narrow, then getting the equivalent against the other Forms would be pretty hard. If we don't interpret +X's as being the same (as-in just like a General guideline), then Resistance becomes nearly worthless against most Forms and just OK for the narrowest Forms like Ignem.

I would submit that it's referring to "effects" as defined in the preceding sentence: "Two spells have the same effect if the rules description of the spell is the same". While you definitely could make the case that "cause +10 damage" and "cause +15 damage" are different "rules descriptions", I look at those two effects and see that the exact same rules are used in the exact same way, so I consider them the same "rules description", even though they add different numbers to the damage die.

Also consider the remainder of that paragraph: "This is, ultimately, a judgment call on the part of the troupe. The similar spell bonus is not, generally, very large, so there is no problem with erring on the side of generosity." (emphasis mine)

You don't even need to argue that. That's my understanding of how it "should" work.

That matches my reading as well