Targets that are no longer the Target

There are, I think, two distinct problems here.

One is what happens when a target splits into multiple things. This is analogous to container Targets, and arguably should be handled the same way. Mythically, either seems fine: the severed paw remaining a paw after the person changes back, and the severed paw becoming a hand when severed both feel appropriate. Similarly for what happens to the clothes if you change clothes while invisible.

The other is what happens when a target changes so that it no longer qualifies as that Target, but it has not split into multiple things, or acquired a new bit. Growth is the simplest version here. This is not analogous to container Targets, and so would need a separate solution. It should not be completely different, but it need not be exactly the same, as long as the difference makes sense within the game.

And then there is the question of whether we need to address this at all. We've managed so far…

For the first problem, I think that addressing the question "what happens when a Target gains or loses small pieces" for general Targets takes no more effort or words than addressing it for Containers alone - in fact, I think it may well avoid the need to introduce the "Container" abstraction in the first place.

For the second problem, it may be easier to initially focus on it without worrying about retro-compatibility. I think this makes it possible to identify the big, fundamental roadblocks and come up with some clean solutions - that can then be hopefully tailored with a little effort to existing spells.

I think there are ultimately only two very, very clean solutions to the second problem.
The first is: if the Target changes so it's no longer an applicable Target, the magic ceases to work. This seems to me the cleaner, "safer", and perhaps more mythically appropriate of the two.
The second is: even if the Target changes so it's no longer an applicable Target, the magic still works to the extent that it makes sense. The last qualification is what makes it slightly weaker: e.g. it's not clear how Rock to Viscid Clay would work if the Target becomes a living animal.
Note that in neither case there is distinction between effect and controllable effect.

But this has long been established the other way. We have known for a long time that if the target becomes in applicable (wrong Form, too big), the magic remains in effect. To change that now would require going back to change things in multiple places across multiple books. It was the question about control that remained.

Because this would require going back to issue lots of errata, and we could easily miss some, this feels the messier and less safe of thosee two to me.

1 Like

As I pointed out in the thread you are citing, I think it's easier to initially look at the problem without worrying about retro-compatibility, to identify fundamental roadblocks and promising approaches.

That's because retro-compatibility makes the problem much messier. This does not mean that retro-compatibility is not important. But I think it's easier to find a clean consistent solution first, and then adapt it to existing spells, rather than to create a quiltwork of patches that address X without breaking Y.

2 Likes

I think this is right. I am seriously considering rewriting that insert to address static and dynamic Targets in general.

Retro-compatibility is absolutely essential to errata and clarifications, which is what we are talking about here. The fact that, as @callen points out, spells do not fail when the Target changes is immediately fatal to that proposal.

The only live question seems to be "do you lose control of the spell?". You do not lose control of dynamic Target spells when the target changes, so the best answer would seem to be "no". Other changes to the target are a closer analogy than targets moving out of range.

About the Growing part, i'd say we have an example of it in the books.
In Magi of Hermes, pg. 44, with the Gwidion's Tree Talisman, we find that he added the enchantment "Controlled Growth", with this function:

This effect keeps the tree from growing beyond its original design and thereby invalidating the enchantments already put upon it.

So, canonically, outgrowing the spell's intended Size it ends the effect (or at least, invalidates it for the duration of the growth).

Arguably, we can extend the same treatment to the Target that stops qualifing as the spell's Target :man_shrugging:

I disagree slightly with your reading of the enchanted items: there are two others enchantments that don't have a continuous effects: Ward against Heat and Flames and the Movements of a Man. If the tree grows beyond what the +3 size modifiers, then those two effects won't be able to affect it when they are triggered.
Evergreen and Plants of Iron are continuous effect, that are recast at sundown and sunset, and although there is no flickering effect (as per comment box p99 - Constant effect), a troupe might argue that because of the need to be cast twice a day, if the target becomes illegal, the effect won't be renewed at dawn and could also stop working, not as soon as the target overgrow the enchantment limit, but once the enchantment is triggered again against a now illegal target.

So deducing that Controlled Growth was put in place to prevent spells being dispel if the tree grows too much is a stretch, and not implied. However, what is sure is that if the tree grows too much, several other enchantments won't be able to affect him.

I don't think this case can be taken as an example of target becoming illegal thus cancelling or suspending the initial effect.

No, this really doesn't follow at all. The problem is that these effects keep being re-cast. Just because it's fine today doesn't mean the casting will work tomorrow. This is drastically different from a single casting and the thing becoming too big while still within that one casting. For those consider that a Bjornaer Size-0 person who turns into a bear Heartbeast keeps active a previously active Corpus/Individual effect. Also consider that an Individual Muto'd fire that grows large retains the Muto effect on its new, bigger form. So we really do have multiple cases showing becoming an invalid target by growing too large or being of a different Form keep effects running.

:thinking:
Uhm... yep, you are both right. I forgot that even "constant" effects aren't really constant. My bad :stuck_out_tongue:

I feel bad committing threadomancy (thread-necromancy?) when this was probably for the new book, but I'm thinking about this in relation to Perdo Ignem spells.

If I'm understanding right then per the rules, I can target my torch with a spell that destroys its ability to produce light, and spread the lightless flame to each building I sneak past in the night? I mean, so long as the spell has a duration of Sun, I don't have to worry about the spell ending until dawn, even though the flames end up working through a whole town, or even a whole forest?

1 Like

Yup.

2 Likes

There are two issues that might, together, rule out this interpretation.

First of all, if you use a lit torch to set fire to some wood, is the wood-fire the same as, or at least a portion of, the torch-fire? I'd say no: you are creating a new fire. Mythically, it feels more like a creature giving birth to offspring, than a barrel of water being split up into a thousand cups.

Second, if the answer to the above is indeed no, does offspring "inherit" any spell that affects its progenitor(s)? I'd say no, barring some Target such as Bloodline, effects that alter Essential Nature, etc.

If the answer to both of the above is no, then I'd say that your lightless torch stays lightless, but everything else you set fire to using it goes up in "normal" flames. That's how I'd rule it in my games. On the other hand, if the same spell were cast with T:Bloodline, I'd rule that the new flames end up lightless too (even though the T:Bloodline text talks about "people" and "descent by blood", it would still feel mythically appropriate).

2 Likes

I feel like you end up having to make a strange delination about timings though - if the torch is held to the wood, does it remain lightless until I take it away? If I chuck the torch into the building, and then come back to pull it out of the burning ruins three hours later, does the fire remain lightless the entire time but stop when I take the torch away?

If instead I laid oil between all the buildings and then dropped the torch into it, then never touched the torch again, does the lightlessness not get transmitted in all the fire?

I agree with Callen that it works, following on from the fact that if your size changes a spell won't stop affecting you, but also, I feel like its in the nature of fire to spread, so it feels 'right' that it should work (to me at least).

2 Likes

Huh? The torch would just stay lightless, even after removing it.
The new fire kindled with it would be "normal", however.

No, the building's fire would be "normal" from the very moment it's kindled.

Not as I see it. The key issue here is that the torch's fire is giving birth to a new, different fire.

3 Likes

This was poor phrasing on my part - I mean that if the torch is held to the wood, does the fire that spreads from torch to wood and then begin spreading on the wood not remain lightless

In this case I feel like it's a single fire that just suddenly has access to a lot more fuel.

I think fundamentally I don't see a difference between adding wood to a fire that's just sitting there and carrying the fire to the fuel - it's spreading regardless. But I also think this is a Ship of Theseus thing, and I don't know that we can reconcile philosophical differences of opinion :sweat_smile:

2 Likes

I agree, it's subjective.

Then again, let me ask you: suppose a magus casts Pilum of Fire on a dry, thatched roof. I guess that the roof will go up in flames. Are those flames the same flames as the Pilum's? I'd say that no, they are non-magical flames that will keep burning long after the Pilum of Fire's Duration has elapsed. So, to me it fees that your magical, lightless torchflame should kindle normal, non-magical flames on other objects.

1 Like

If I'd cast a Cr(Mu)Ig version of Pilum of Fire that didn't produce light, I would agree that the fire it created wouldn't be lightless, but if I MuIg a fire, and that spreads, then I feel like the effect should spread, but if I'm being honest I don't think I can articulate why it's different

You didn't leave Part of your torch-fire behind; you started a new fire. That's how you start a new fire. And, regardless, you can't have an Individual that's separated into more than one location.

Look at it this way: you cast a spell that affected the torch (that is on fire). Why would that now affect the house (which is also on fire now). Your Target was the torch-fire; the house-fire is a separate Target -- and you can tell that they are separate because they are separated.

2 Likes

The particular bit you're responding to is when I suggest leaving the torch in the building, in which case I've left the whole Individual behind, and when I come back and pick it up, its now a Part of a larger fire that I've carried away.

But I can see your point - my argument in the first case, where I simply start the fire and move on, is that I don't think you can put a fine line on how long the torch has to be part of the house fire before it's one fire.

If a spend a single second lighting the fire, it's easy to say they're seperate, but if I hold the torch against the building the entire time it burns, there's no point at which the torch-fire and the house-fire have actually been different objects. The fire has spread to devour the newly available fuel, but until I take two steps back and the torch isn't touching the house, you couldn't target the torch-fire with an Individual spell, because its not distinct from the Individual that is the big fire.

So my issue is a how long is a piece of string, how many grains in a pile of sand type thing. I can accept that some people would say they're different the whole time, but it doesn't work for me :woman_shrugging:

2 Likes

Well, the one canonical spell we have to describe this sort of thing with MuIg shows that this continues as the fire spreads even into different fires, ending when the Duration ends or when the original fire that was the source is gone.

2 Likes