Spells that are Ring, but not Circle?

Since you can't creo things into existence with target circle, individual/ring spells are a good way to create semi permanent things. Compared to ritual creo the spells are actually harder, vulnerable to dispelling (via spell or an eraser), warp over time, and are fixed to one location. That's usually a fair trade for less then 8 pawns of vis to me.

1 Like

The kind of player which bring ring + other target will also bring the fact that creo + circle has been done canonly.

Another thing I refuse, by the way.

So a Creo Ignem circle of eternal flame is not possible in your saga? We use that all the time....


Nop. This is an individual target with a ring duration.

And this makes it unusable?


According to House of Hermes: Societas, its very much a suitable spell. In fact, its one of the sample spells favoured by House Flambeau for building endurance to pain.

However, it does somewhat violate the opiginal ArM5 intentions regarding Circle/Ring, which if I recall (Serf's Parma) were intended to be used only in conjunction with one another and was supposed to effect things within the circle.

For example, CrTe Circles just don't make sense. How much stone fills into the circle? The big problem is determining the "height" limit for the circle.

To be fair, though, this is not a problem that is solved by other Techniques. How far up does a MutoAquam(Auram) circle that turns all water and rain to wine work? If drawn out of doors, will it change clouds above it to rain? What about RegoAnimal spells that put animals coming in it to sleep. Would a bird flying far, far overhead drop from the sky in sudden death-nap of doom?

If I were SG-ing, I'd allow for Creo circles only for undifferentiable matter (Ignem, Aquam, Auram) but not for solids of any kind (terram, Herbam or, gag, Animal)

I'd also introduce Size motifiers for all of the above. For example, to have a circle with flames maybe a foot high would use RAW guidelines. To have the flames human-size, I'd demand +1 or +2 size.

But I do think that Creo circles are just way too fun not to have. They make for great baths, too. Creo(Rego)Aquam to make a spiral or water from ground to cieling indoors, which washes you off, but leaves you dry when you step out. Dirty water disappears when you break the circle. Perfect.

Also great for laundry.

Uhmm, I thought that Creo could only use Individual or Group targets - it's written somewhere in the corebook.
That's pretty much the only time in our saga Ring is combined with a Target other than Circle.

Yes, it's the box "target and creo" page 113.

But then, in supplements, some authors were tempted by the sirens and yield to their luring... and did spell with odd combination (ring without circle, circle without ring)... and here we are, finding players which try to invent "sustained circle", "creo target circle", or even "duration ring without a circle target"

Each of those players is a perfect example of bonisagus labrats and provide good ideas for breakthrough. Common players - that is, those who don't post on this forum, and those who, if you tell them you do post here, call you geek - are Flambeau, Tytalus or Tremere :smiley:

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

I've never got the feeling that the core book meant for the the parameters to always go together, but forgot to spell it out. While no examples of mismatched spells are given they are at least mentioned as possible in at least one place. Specifically the idea that circle wards can be made with a duration other then ring. ArM pg 114

Exar, I think you might be reading more rules than what is in the RAW. AFAIK it never says that I cannot have a touch+ring or a circle+sun spell...


Xavi, i know, but I think it opens a path to damnation for all our little fellow bonisagi labrats here.

However, the rules does prevent creo a thing + circle, and that has been made, even by canon supplements. How do you want players remain reasonable when authors get lured by sirens alluring promises... :smiley:

I don't know what you mean. I am a Criamon exploring the deeper mysteries of the enigma.

I allow them. However, ring/room and ring/structure (or worse, ring/boundaries) are good examples of spells that violate the Limit of Things That Will Get You Eaten by a Dragon (which I am stealing from another poster on the forum). Or at least the Limit of the GM, which states that any overuse of the loopholes in the rules to make the GM life's harder will come back on the user's character one thousand fold.

Remember that as per the Ring guideline, the target must be inside the ring, and stay there. You can't just draw a ring anywhere and then use it as the duration of any spell. So for Ring/Room you would have to trace a ring around the room (usually there will be walls in the way), and for ring/structure you would have to trace the ring around the structure, keeping in mind all the rules for maintaining concentration while tracing very big rings... including the one about an automatic botch if anyone or anything messes with your ring as you are drawing it.

An example would be a Ring/Ind CrIg spell to create a source of light (because Ring/Circle is not properly allowed by the rules), a Ring/Part spell affecting a section of stone inside the ring (for instance a Mu(Re)Te spell to open a temporary door inside the outline you use as a Ring), a Ring/Group spell to ... well, Ring/Circle would normally make more sense, but with Ring/Group you would affect some, but not all, of the things inside the ring, for instance the grain in one pile when the ring encompasses several (I know, you should have made the ring smaller to begin with). Ring/Room, Ring/Structure and Ring/Boundary are much more delicate, since the ring must be around the target, therefore easy to mess with. Maybe a Ring/Structure ReAn spell to keep birds (and their dejections) away from your newly painted mage's tower ? That one might actually pass muster from your GM, if only because it would have worked as a Ring/Circle spell :slight_smile:

1 Like

But you travel in circles or in rings?

Circles when I want to get a lot done for very little work. Rings for when I want to stay rent free. :slight_smile:

There are a couple of reasons why Test of Flames might not be breaking the creation rules.

First the flavor text insinuates that it is a spell that predates the Order of Hermes. There for while it might look and act like a circle/ring spell it predates that magic being introduced into the order. So for that one spell the normal rules don't apply just like other partially non-hermetic spells.

And/or it may be that the spell doesn't actually create real flames. The actual creo ignem effect this spell is using might not be create a fire doing +5 damage but just to burn the targets directly. The waist high flames people see are just a cosmetic effect. This is backed up by the fact that really standing in waist high flames would actually be more like +15 damage every round by the game rules.

A PeIg version of this spell might fill the circle with a freezing mist and do +5 points of cold damage to anyone in the circle. The freezing mist is just set dressing though the spell is creating the damaging cold directly.

The target is ignem. So there is no way to "burn" the target, since you are speaking of nothing but just a consequence of the fact there is fire at the same place where is a person.

I agree that the HOH:S spell could be better designed. Still, it could be ring + individual, and the effect would be the same :slight_smile: No biggie here.

I still see no reason at all why circle and ring cannot be combined with other durations and targets.


Ignem covers heat in general as well as fire and can effect the heat in any target without needing prerequisites. Take a look at the CrIg guidelines again. Several of them don't create fire they just make the target hotter. PeIg can do damage directly by chilling a target so I think CrIg should be able to do damage by directly heating.