The big argument in favour of a clarifying erratum: People are playing this differently.
The big argument against a clarifying erratum: People are playing this differently.
7 Likes
I'm in favor of a clear rulebook.
1 Like
If there is to be no clarifying erratum, the offensive line in the spell that started this thread should be deleted. No matter what it has to be fixed in some way, and leaving it but altered would essentially be a hard-to-find clarifying erratum.
I also prefer a clear rulebook. I'm of the opinion these are questions which should have been answered fifty years ago but better late than never.
Fortunately, there was no spell that started this thread. It arose in a discussion of something that did arise from a spell.
Personally, I think it was better for the game to be written before addressing these questions. Not even D&D is fifty years old yet. (Next year!)
1 Like
I'm happy with a degree of vagueness, within reason.
The way magic damage and wound penalties interact is still a sore point that's not fully resolved.... Anyway, back on topic.
There is no way a rule book containing the spell creation versatility of Ars majica, can work out every way target, range, etc will work, at least under 30 pages.
1 Like
This is a real issue, and another thread has led someone to post that they do not want any clarification.
My concern on this particular issue is that I am not sure there is a way to clarify the issue without making major changes. People have different opinions about what Penetration can be boosted against, and the only clear options ("everything" and "only the Target") both seem to be minority opinions, and conflict with published text. If we were doing ArM6, I would go for one or the other, but we aren't.
I do think it is worth clarifying that you can boost Penetration against more than one thing, but I can't see a good way to clarify this question right now.
Just a quick question: where does "only the Target" conflict with published text?
I cannot find any such conflict (though given the scope of the Ars Magica line ...).
I am asking because I'm trying to see if adopting this at my gaming table would break anything.
If I cast Pilum of fire at someone the Target is the fire I am creating. The target (small t- person I am casting at) still gets MR against it and I can use an AC to improve penetration.
But is that really written anywhere, or implied by anything written anywhere?
That's what I am asking, regardless of how people have been playing it.
Does it? Columbae do that only in regards to Warding, which is like, but not quite the same, as traditional hermetic wards (and the differences go beyond AC boosting). And wards already work under their own rules anyway.
Is there anything in published text that conflicts with "everything can be AC boosted" besides things outside wards (which are they own corner case)?
If the distinction is so implicit that no clear definition can be given about what is target and what is collateral, then I don't think writting a clarification about AC boosting is possible anyway?
I'm not staunchly on the side of "everything can be AC boosted", but I can't stand behind a rules-endorsed "sometimes yes, sometimes not, it might change if you change R/D/T, it's a bit fuzzy, pray that you know when you see it". Without a clear, functional (and preferably concise, since I seem to be asking for the moon already) definition of the difference between target and collateral it gets hard to discuss.
1 Like
Quite likely, but it is unlikely to be anywhere central. If no-one in your troupe objects to losing the ability to boost the Penetration of Pilum of Fire, then I can't see any problem with adopting that for your game.
We've managed without one for nearly twenty years. I think this may be something that only matters to the dedicated fans, and need not be in errata. It isn't, after all, an error, as such.
2 Likes
On a related note that may or may not be deemed important to this point, how do people play the following? I want to cast Pilum of Fire on a person on whom I've already cast Opening the Intangible Tunnel? Does it work? The person is the target, but not the Target, so the AC is only to the target, not the Target.
Do you mean that you're casting the PoF via the Tunnel?
Either way, it should work, according to Projects.
1 Like
Yes, casting through the tunnel. Which specific part in HP are you thinking of? The fifth bullet point (targets, DEO example) could be used to argue both ways. Searing Touch isn't clear if it's heating the person or if it's making a fire. Something else?
@callen, I know you're very good at offering precise observation and pages referenced.
Right now, I'm a little confused about what exactly is bothering you. Could you please elaborate?
Essentially, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work, but I have a sneaking suspicion that I'm looking at the wrong problem/question.
If an AC to tunnel to a person is enough to put a PoF on that person, would it be most consistent if that AC could also provide penetration against that person, even though that person is not the Target? If the AC to tunnel to a person is not enough to put a PoF on that person, would it be most consistent if that AC could not provide penetration against that person?
Essentially, if an AC allows you to reach a person more easily with magic where they are not the Target, then it should allow you to reach that person more easily, right? And if not, then not, right?
If we're being consistent along those lines, are there comments in the books about things like this with the Intangible Tunnel (or similar)?
I must have missed something in this thread. That's very probable mind you.
You need an AC to a person to open an Intangible Tunnel on them.
That AC must also be enough to provide protection against said person.
Otherwise it makes no sense. Obviously, the Target of the Opening the Intangible Tunnel is the Tunnel after all.
I'm confused. According to Project, you explicitly can toss a PoF at somebody via an Intangible Tunnel.
I think I'd misunderstood your question. And as far as I can can tell, I agree with you, in this matter.
I think the fundamental problem is that people who have been playing for years iitially muddled through, figured out how they were going to handle it, and it only comes up when two groups have different solutions and get into a debate about which one was right. The bigger problem is the unknown number of people who decided not to muddle through with it, set the system aside and decided to play something else. I expect that umber, between all the rules like this that are uclear, excedes the total number of people currently playing.
1 Like
That's why I asked you: "Which specific part in HP are you thinking of?" Could you provide a citation? As I noted, that fifth bullet point could be argued either way, and Searing Touch doesn't describe its effect well enough to know if it's heating something or if it's making fire.
1 Like