Talisman MR & OtIT

Games Discussion Ars Magica
1

p.98 "First, your talisman is considered to be a part of you as long as you are touching it. Personal range spells can affect your talisman, Personal range effects in the talisman can affect you, and you count as touching anything that your talisman is touching, so if your talisman is a staff your reach is significantly extended. This also means that your Magic Resistance covers your talisman completely as long as you are touching it."

p.162 OPENING THE INTANGIBLE TUNNEL " If this magus is the target of the spell, he is considered to be touching you."

Providing that the effect is instilled into the talisman and targets the magus to whom it belongs, does this allow the talisman to preserve the full MR even if the two are not physically touching? And if yes, at what cost? If no, would another similar effect allow it?

W

2

Without tearing apart the rules (and/or the English language, ahem), I would suggest that the "touching" in those 2 citations is entirely different.

In one, it refers to the physical distance/contact between Talisman and Mage, while in the other it refers to the end-result "Range" for purposes of casting a spell and only that (see very first sentence under OtIT, p 162).

The important phrase here is "considered to be" - and the question is "considered to be" in what context? Well - in the context of determining the Range for casting the spell in question, which is what this effect is all about. Not for purposes of transmitting a disease, nor sensing body temperature, nor making the target count as "touching" someone unclean (a wizard) and breaking a vow, not anything but the Range for casting a spell.

So, I would say that OtIT does not fall into the "physically touching my talisman" category. They are covered by the same term, "Touch", by coincidence, not by their nature via any intent of the Rules. If you cast OtIT on your Tali', you could cast a spell with Range:Touch on it, but that is not the same as actually being in physical contact with it - which is needed to gain the advantages you cite.

As for another effect? I, personally, would say that, if allowed, it would have to be a very custom effect, to simulate/extend those specific effects of physical contact between mage and talisman.

(Note that you can HouseRule whatever interpretation or re-vision you'd like, regardless of what the Rule may or may not imply or state outright. Want to allow a "connection" to the Tali' within 100 Leagues of the mage? It's your saga, done, play on. But the above is how ~I~ would read the Rules, as written and as intended. ysmv.)

3

This description of Intangible Tunnel is written in the Invisible Assassin section of Hermetic Projects: the tunnel does not create a physical gateway that you actually touch things through.

So if I understand you correctly, you'are asking if you can use an intangible tunnel to maintain a magus' Parma on the staff, even if the staff is not in his possession?

Interesting idea, but I'll agree with Hound - no.

4

To come at it from a slightly different perspective: Parma is an Arcane ability - not a spell. To quote HP again,

Note that Parma is not considered simply a Supernatural ability (AM5th, pg. 66), so it's not completely un-integrated into Hermetic theory. But based on the whole "you're not actually touching through it", and the "it's not in the list of things you can use through a tunnel", I'd say no.

5

On the other hand, taking the tunnel out of it, you can maintain your parma on an apprentice (at some cost) without being constantly in touch with them...

6

Parma Magica only works as long as they are in sight.

7

Sight or countersight.

Either you must be able to see them, or they must be able to see you. This allows you to share your parma in the lab and not be staring at the person assisting you so long as they can still see you.

8

And with regards to a talisman, specifically, of course the following applies.

So the whole sight thing I brought up doesn't apply to the Talisman.
When not touching it's the form scores alone, not the total magic resistance.

Intangible Tunnel to a target allows you to cast a spell on the target as if you were touching it, but it doesn't mean one is actually touching it.

9

I wonder if it's possible to design an arcane connection setup so you only have to have a piece of your talisman. Sounds like a research project to me.

10

You are (or always have) an AC to your talisman and it and a familiar are the only two-way ACs in canon.

11

Yes... the secret may lie in having a part remain with the other. Take p.149 IC, the mind is allowed to wander around with its full parma.

W

12

Another quick question on tunnels, is the target being warped? Or is it kinda of an indirect effect that doesn't warp?

W

13

Why wouldn't it Warp?

14

The logic would be that the spell creates a conduit not magic affecting you. A bit like if you create a water around someone...

Then again, the effect exposes you to pure magic... then again again, if it warps one side, should it warp both sides?

W

15

Effect designed for (use of) the caster...

16

Confirmed.

See p 167, col ii, #2, et al.

17

Ok fine. Lets assume that the effect was designed for and or by, on one or both ends of the tunnel. What happens after a year of tunneling?

W

18

Er... That made no sense? You just quoted Jonathan's statement into something Vespasian wrote, which Jonathan didn't include a link to?
Were they even talking about the same thing?

19

Yes.

Do you not have access to the core rules? I don't feel it's appropriate (or practical) to type out the entire text of the general rules - look at the insert on page 168, re "Constant Effects", and read the sub-section/definition by the same name on that same page. (Hint - there's one paragraph half-way down col ii that addresses it specifically.)

Does that not clear it up?

If not, happy to talk about specifics - but where specifically is the confusion from what you're reading there?

(Edit - Upon reflection, I'm not even sure that CtIT falls under the sort of effect that involves the actual mage - see the "flying" vs. "flying castle" example, same page. ysmv.)

20

...not sure obviously, but I thought that was the entire point of his question...