Projecting the Flame (ReIg 10)
R:Sight, D:Mom, T:Ind
This spell allows a flame to be “thrown” away from the caster. The force of the throw determining how far the flame goes. The flame stays at the spot it hits if it can burn there (see rules for fire damage on ArM5 p.181). If the flame is of supernatural origin with an ongoing duration (such as that from the spell Palm of Flame), it will keep burning even without fuel.
(Base 3, +3 Sight)
This is basically a longer version of Tremulous Vault of the Torch's Flame (ArM5 p.142), except for that last sentence. Would you allow this without a Vim requisite?
Would of version of this spell, with a longer duration (Diameter or Sun), allow a magical flame to simply hang in the air?
If the flame is from a spell like Palm of Flame, which has an ongoing duration (D:Conc for that spell), then it is magic that sustains the flame, not mundane fuel.
So the question is, would a magical flame need a Vim requisite to be moved away yet still be sustained by the flame's original caster?
Vim has absolutely nothing to do with this spell, so I am still not understanding. If you want to create a spell that relocates a spell, if that is possible, it would be straight Rego Vim and has nothing to do with Ignem. But you are moving a fire, regardless if it is of magic origin or not.
If you are moving a piece of the flame, that part should go out right away regardless if the original is magical and keeps burning. To move the whole of the flame, I think that may disrupt Concentration. But say it is D: Diameter or some such. To move the whole (or bulk) of the flame, yes it would keep going. A part of the flame moved or left behind, IMO it should burn out quickly.
Sure! You can speak to magical animals with InAn, transform a magical diamond into a piece of clod with MuTe, and destroy a magical tree with PeHe, all without a Vim requisite.
If the magical flame could subsist there without fuel in the first place, sure!
In fact, I'm not even sure that a longer Duration would be always necessary. It would be necessary only if the magical flame had a "natural" tendency to move about ("normal" fire, in Aristotelian physics, is "lighter" than all other elements in the sense that it tends to move upwards more strongly; however, a "slightly unnatural" magical fire could be just as "heavy" as air and so basically stay wherever you put it).
One issue I have with the phrasing of the last sentence: I'm not really sure it captures what appears to be your basic idea, i.e. that if a (supernatural) flame did not need any fuel before the relocation, it still needs no fuel after the relocation.
I was just asking whether people thought it might be necessary. Personally, I don't think it does.
And indeed, the spell would move the whole of the flame, not just a part of it.
As for the spell breaking concentration, that's a possibility, which would certainly be up to the troupe and storyguide.
What if the flame is created by an enchanted item, which maintains concentration? Do you think that would cause the item to drop concentration?
Perhaps a better phrasing would be: "A flame that does not need a fuel source (such as one sustained by magic) will keep burning for as long as normal for it."
Not sure if I agree with the flame hanging in the air without an ongoing duration. Otherwise, wouldn't it kind of drift away if there is wind? Another possibility might be to anchor the flame to a different object.
Much clearer. Maybe "...for as long as it normally would"?
Sure, sure. It could if there's wind. What I'm saying is that while you always need magic to keep a normal rock suspended in mid-air, there are some cases when a magical flame could just stand there on its own without requiring "support" (or rather tethering, since fire in Aristotelian physics is a bit like a lighter-than-air baloon).
He wants the spell to do double duty, move mundane OR magical fires, so I believe that either it is needed as a requisite or the spell would have to penetrate the targeted magical fire (or both?). Coffee hasn't kicked in, so... serf's parma and all that.
I don't believe(???) there is anything prohibiting moving a spell once it's up and running - this is not moving the Target (capital T) of a flame spell (which is the amount of actual flame - Individual, Part, Group, etc.), only the current location of that amount of flame, which is nothing new with the "light" effect of Ignem, or with some other Forms (Imagonem jumps to mind).
For mundane fires, I'm sure you could create some explanation that the fire is consuming the original fuel but burning in the new location, via Rego.
I don't see this as conceptually different than a spell to move a pig (either a mundane one or the result of a creo animal spell). I'm with Marko in that I don't really see what could have prompted the Vim question.
One could argue that there should be a maximum range which a fire can be tossed. This takes the model that it is not only time spent without fuel that might extinguish a flame as it moves the 600 paces from a torch in one's hand the top of that distant church spire but also the rushing wind as the fire gets pushed through the air with such alarming speed. If you go too far some function of either the wind blowing your fire out or the fire going too long without fuel should extinguish any mundane blaze.
You could avoid this sort of speculation with a teleportation style description but I'd prefer to have the discussion.
Yes. The guideline says "move quickly...while leaving it burning naturally" (ArM5, page 143). I'd be pretty happy with something like "up to whatever distance a galloping horse can traverse in a round", perhaps with a Finesse roll required to perform a delicate manoeuvre.
As the ReIg guideline specifically says it continues to burn, I don't think the flame should extinguish during transit, but a natural flame might not continue to burn in subsequent rounds, depending on where you put it. I think that if it moves a magical flame, then the magical flame should continue to burn (regardless of fuel source) for its original Duration. It's "natural" for a magical flame to burn without source; assuming that the original magical flame did not require a fuel source, of course.
Note, that it needs to be Part target if the intent is only to move parts of larger conflagrations; alternatively needs a Size modifier to affect an entire large conflagration.
That's mostly cosmetic -- if the caster just flick his hand, the fire goes only a little distance, while an exagerated gesture will make the flame go quite far. But it's the mind of the caster that determines where the flame will end up; the gesture is just there to support the intent.
Now, I agree that for a momentary effect this could mean the range is limited to less than the ultimate distance of Sight. How far can a thrown object reach in 6 seconds, if weight was not an issue?
A galloping horse goes about 25 to 30 mph (40 to 48 kph), according to Wikipedia. That would be up to 85 paces in 6 seconds, by my calculation.
But other spells send objects flying much faster than a galloping horse. A sling stone (such as from Wielding the Invisible Sling) travels about 30 meters per second. That would be a range a about 200 paces in 6 seconds. That's about the same for an arrow using a period bow (think about Piercing Shaft of Wood).
200 paces sounds fine to me. My thought was that if the flame goes too fast, the wind blows it out like a candle and if the flame goes to slow, the fire is extinguished for lack of fuel.
A magically sustained fire that doesn't require fuel (palm of flame, fasting hearth, coat of flames, etc.) shouldn't have this restriction.
Yes, Sight is the range between the caster and the targeted fire. It's not the distance that the fire moves. For that you look at the specific spell guideline (which in this case says, "move quickly").
Yes, "move quickly", from the spell guideline, is ambigious, but any of those sound fine to me. It is entirely reasonable (I think) for the maximum distance to be something between around 100 paces (horse gallop) to around 300 paces (arrow shot). 200 paces would be fine. My point was more that you (and troupe) should decide on a maximum value during spell design, rather than needing to argue about it in-play when your magus tries to cast it.
For a momentary Duration effect it seems too complicated to bother with this, especially as the specific spell guideline in question says that it remains burning.
I realise that physically throwing flame around may have such problems in reality, but this is magic. I would be unsurprised to see somebody like David Copperfield apparently throwing fire around at speed, and if somebody like that can manage it so can Darius.