Suppose a magus and his two shield grogs form a valid Target for a Group effect with 0 Penetration. If the magus has MR but the grogs have not, what's the result?
I'd be tempted to go with 3 for a number of reasons, but I was wondering whether there's any official ruling on the matter, or at least some sort of a consensus.
See ArMDE p.221: "If the maga is the Individual target of the spell, a resisted spell simply fails to work. If she is part of a Group or large Target, the spell fails to work on her, but may affect other people within the target."
While I agree that should be the answer, I have a niggling little worry.
I have often wondered about the various ways to define “Group”.
eg everyone carrying an unsheathed sword in the crowded market-place, or everyone wearing a red cap in the courtyard.
However, if the Group is defined as “all the people clustered around that specific magus”, I sometimes wonder if magic might operate sort of like it parses language-wise. ie first target the specific mage then spread out to find the people clustered around. Then I find myself asking what happens if the magic can’t penetrate the starting point of the definition of the “Group”?
If you allow targeting like that, as a player I’d expect “all the people clustered around that menhir” to work for a PeCo spell, despite the menhir being terram. And therefore also targeting the magus and his group, even if he resists.
(It’s of course a matter of taste whether magic operates like that in your saga)
At the table players will use lots of approaches to specify Groups. The only way to keep Group a working Target is, to only apply such specifications at casting time and never retroactively after the spell took effect.
See ArMDE p.305: "The things in the Group when the spell is cast are affected for the entire duration, even if they split up."
I posit hence that, even if one component of the Group is not affected or completely destroyed by the Group spell, this does never affect the working of that spell on other components.
Perhaps I phrased my niggling worry incorrectly. It is closer to a metamagical/philosophical worry rather than a Form based issue.
Cast spell → determine Group → affect valid Targets in Group.
It is the the second stage I have a slight worry about. If the Group is defined in such a way that it is dependent on a something, the magic must first pass this something that may or may not have magic resistance to find the Group.
It is likely that it is a non-issue that I may be overthinking.
That is an interesting idea. I do think that AT LEAST if you were doing a Touch spell with a group target, and you couldn’t get through the Magic Resistance of the mage you touched, that might interrupt the steps you’ve listed. Less so if it’s a Voice or higher target. Depends, I guess, on how you imagine Parma working - does it “eat” the magic and destroy it, or sorta slide it around the mage but still allow it to pass by?
I imagine the magic trying to establish a sympathetic correspondence between the intended target in the mind of the magus and what is there in reality, covering the group in a short latent stage, and then “precipitating” there all at once, except where the magus is.
(RAW is clear though IMO, it doesn’t matter who you touch and it is a valid group target.)
I have always thought it was odd to have a fundamental mis-match between a Group (of 'about 10 individuals') for Hermetic spell purposes and a Group (of 'up to six individuals') for combat purposes. The mismatch is far more profound than simple 'number of members', though.
If the incoming damage is from normal combat, then the defenses of 'the Vanguard' are what matters; if magic worked the same way, a magi's Parma could defend a whole 'Group'.