Though I agree with this statement regarding "fixing" PM in general, it is irrelevant here. It only appears relevant because people are either deliberately or unwittingly misreading this thread. There have been a thousand general discussions about how PM should work and I'm not interested in having another one. I've already stated this a few times but to make it clear once again, the purpose of this thread is to identify loopholes or broken strategies arising from a proposed version of PM that avoids the pink dot, boulder, and poison-wine problem. It is intended for people who want to avoid those problems, or people who feel they can help constructively in an effort to avoid those problems.
You don't think one or more of those problems matters for some reason? That's fine, but that perspective is not relevant to this thread. There's not much point is us going over all the old PM ground - please try to stick to the brief of identifying loopholes in the proposed rules. Look at Ahriman's post and Silveroak's first post for excellent examples.
And, to help refocus things, here is the current ruleset for discussion:
Any thing that is actively magically-controlled (Rego) will be physically blocked from reaching you, stopping or being diverted about an inch from your body. (this is standard rules in 5th ed., but thanks to YR7 for clarifying wording)
Any spells or spell effects which target the magus, or something of which the magus is a part (e.g., a group or room) have no effect on the magus (again, standard rules).
Any damage or damage bonus or loss of fatigue levels caused by a magical effect is reduced to zero (Non-standard, but this is the part that seems to solve many problems)
If something with an active magical effect comes within an inch of the magus and fails to penetrate, the magus will become aware that the entity is under an active magical effect (e.g., poison made to look like water, or a deadly snake turned into a scarf. Non-standard).
An alternative point 3 (revised version of YR7's suggested change): You (and your personal gear) are not damaged, fatigued, or disabled by any magically-induced effect of a medium. Air turned to poison will not poison you, a magically created fire will not burn you, a magically sharpened sword will not add a damage bonus due to its sharpness against you, and so on.
My issue with this alternative is I think it may make things more open to interpretation about what's affected, whereas a clean "magical damage, damage bonuses and fatigue loss don't apply" will tend to be fairly unambiguous. Not sure on this.
Also very important is Ahriman's arrow loophole (see post immediately above this one). I don't think there's any simple way around it without re-introducing pink dot, but if anyone can see one please let me know! (EDIT: thinking about it, I'm not sure Ahriman's loophole is as bad as it first appears. I mean, in the current rules, a magus could be shot in the back of the head by a mundane arrow and his PM would do nothing - what difference does it make if he's hit in the front by invisible arrows? So I am now thinking I am happy with this loophole, as it seems like it could be negligible - other opinions (or variants of the loophole that create a more significant problem) welcome!)
I honestly think part of the problem is that PM, and even just magic resistance, tries to do too much. I seems like it has become a game of exceptions played ad absurdum where someone tries to figure out a way around the parma and so they modified it to close the 'loophole' without stopping to think if the "loophole" should be closed.
The other question of course, is whether magi should be fully aware of what parma will and will not block, considering the only way to discover those limits is by putting yourself (or another magus) in danger... and aside from marches most magi will not be willing to share their notes on techniques that bypassed another magi's parma...
For what you are attempting to do, I think you are on to something.
Ahriman's arrow loophole is not just a cool name for a problem. However it seems to me that the invisible arrow problem is the -shrunken-boulder problem in disguise. I would like to know what makes an invisible arrow different from a size-reduced boulder? I am not trying to troll you or to force the discussion to retread old ground, I am genuinely not sure why a boulder that has been reduced in size is considered to be "changed entirely" but an arrow rendered invisible is not. For your system to work there has to be a clear logic that everyone could follow, and in this case I cannot see it.
In the end the whole problem is academic for us - I fail to remember even a single time in any of our sagas over the years where this has ubalanced anything, or even come up.
It just annoys the hell out of me that I can't find a practical, logical solution.
I would like to know what makes an invisible arrow different from a size-reduced boulder? I am not trying to troll you or to force the discussion to retread old ground, I am genuinely not sure why a boulder that has been reduced in size is considered to be "changed entirely" but an arrow rendered invisible is not. For your system to work there has to be a clear logic that everyone could follow, and in this case I cannot see it.
Thanks for this. The distinction between "changed entirely" and "changed partly" is something I have now dropped though, as I realised it wasn't really making any meaningful difference. So the invisible arrows and the shrunken boulder are indeed treated the same, and so both of them go straight through the PM in the proposed ruleset - in the case of the boulder, this means the magus is unharmed, but in the case of the arrows, it means the magus is harmed. So the problem with the arrows is that, if we want a PM that protects against as wide a range of magic as possible - well, my ruleset clearly has a gap regarding magically invisible arrows.
And I came to a realisation yesterday which helped me clarify my own thinking on this somewhat, and which relates to David's response too (thanks for chiming in, David). What I realised is that I'd rather have a PM that lets a magus be harmed than a PM which creates odd, non-intuitive situations. The pink dot and boulder problem both, for me, produce strange, quite comical and cartoon-like results that are not in keeping with the realism of the rest of Ars Magica. On the other hand, the invisible arrow problem (and, perhaps the poison-wine problem) are not illogical or strange or comical, they are just weaknesses in PM. I am happier with weaknesses in PM than with non-intuitive comical weirdness in PM. So the reason I am asking for critique of this ruleset is really to ensure it is strong enough so as not to make killing a magi easy, while also avoiding any non-intuitive weirdness such as pink dot or boulder problem. If it meets those criteria, I am more happy with it than any other solution, just because I feel it's a good thematic fit for the Ars Magica world. However, I'm not sure whether it meets those criteria, so I am really hoping people will continue stress-testing it by ripping it apart and identifying any issues.
I think I see where you are going with the boulder problem and the invisible arrow problem. In both cases the PM does not protect against the mundane properties of the objects and also does not dispel the magic affecting the objects. So if I understand correctly what would happen in each situations is :
A magus is hit by what is essentially an enormous boulder transformed into a pebble. The pebble does not trigger PM but also does not penetrate it. This means that when the stone is 1 inch away from the magus, the magus becomes aware that the boulder is affected by magic, and the magus is then hit by a pebble (that will later revert back to being a boulder). The pebble by virtue of being a pebble is quite harmless although being hit by it might annoy the magus or even hurt a little bit, depending on how thin skinned the magus in question is. It does no damage in game terms. If the pebble had penetrated PM then the same thing would have happened save that the magus would not have been made aware that the pebble was affected by magic when it was 1 inch away from him/her.
A magus is hit by an invisible arrow. Assuming the arrow penetrates PM. Once the arrow is 1 inch away from the magus, the magus is aware that their PM has just resisted a magical effect and that it comes from the arrow (although given the speed at which most arrows move the magus will only be able to fully realize this after the arrow has traveled the remaining inch and actually hit the magus). The magus is then hit by the arrow and presumably hurt by it. If the arrows had penetrated (or more precisely the invisibility spell cast upon the arrow), again the magus would then presumably not be made aware of the magical effect that just hit their PM. Does the arrow become visible when it hits the PM and fails to penetrate?
Regarding the poison-wine problem I really feel like your version of PM would offer rather a lot of protection.
If a magus drinks wine that has been magically turned into poison then the wine-gone-poison deals only the same poison damage as the wine would ordinarily deal i.e. none, assuming that the wine-to-poison spell does not penetrate PM.
If a magus drink poison turned into wine then because your version of the PM does not dispel effects the poison remains wine but as soon as it passes within 1 inch of the magus the magus is then made aware that the wine is under a magical effect at which point the magus will presumably not consume the wine. However if the magus does consume the wine and it reverts to being poison while within the body of the magus and they are then in trouble.
Well, there are other ways: you could design less deadly experiments to test parma, using sausages instead of arrows. Or you can also extend your Parma to someone (like that Grog that stole a chicken or, a default for Tytali, your apprentice) and then have fun with Parma testing.
Does the arrow become visible when it hits the PM and fails to penetrate?
Your description of what happens regarding the arrows and boulder, and poison-wine, is correct. The arrow does not become visible if it fails to penetrate, as this version of PM does not generally dispel effects. It just makes the magus aware there is an effect, and "dispels" (i.e., cancels) any magical damage or fatigue loss.
And yes, the magus seems to have pretty good protection against the poison-wine attack, which is making me think this version of PM may offer good enough protection to be viable, while avoiding both the pink dot and boulder problem.
I've always though the Parma arguments are an overthink. We are in a world of magic and story. The story is more important than the mechanics. A Parma that works in the best interests of the story, a smart Parma, is the best option.
If the mechanics make the story stupid, tweak the mechanics. It seems stupid that a normal sword will hit, but a magic one will not. Make it, if the penetrations not high enough, the magic effect stops, but the sword still hits.
From a purely mechanical, Parma should be consistent perspective, I accept this means a zero penetration "Spam the sword" spell, that turns a sword in to spam can dodge around the Parma. When I whack the wizard with the spam sword, it would change back to a normal sword, cutting the wizard, as the parma cancels the magic effect. That's stupid, so the sword stays spam.
Doing a zero penetration spell so the Parma undoes it, such as shruken boulders, etc, is cheesy. The Parma which is all about defence doesn't un-shrink the boulder which is now a pebble, as that's not really defending the wizard, is it?
Parma is the signature thing that has made the Order the strongest magical organisation in Europe. It should be challenging to work around the Parma. I think a smart Parma is the best option.
In regards to "best for the story", this is my perspective on it. There are others who love the idea of tricks to get around the Parma. "Best for the story" for them would allow Pink dot.
The key point to Parma is the SG speaks to the players and everyone knows how Parma works.
So in your game a magus, whose Parma resists the ReMe spell, is aware that he gets mind-controlled now, but still sits down and watches his companions getting killed, or even helps with killing them - and finally jumps off the tower? I don't think so.
You need to make a long, long list now of all those spell effects a Parma resists in your game: not just magical damage and fatigue loss.
So in your game a magus, whose Parma resists the ReMe spell, is aware that he gets mind-controlled now, but still sits down and watches his companions getting killed, or even helps with killing them - and finally jumps off the tower?
No. How did you get that impression? I thought it was very clearly stated that any spell targeted at the magus has no effect unless it penetrates, and unless I've misunderstood you the magus would have been targeted by the ReMe spell so it would have no effect at all. Did you not read the proposed rules this whole thread is about?
Proposed Ruleset
Any thing that is actively magically-controlled (Rego) will be physically blocked from reaching you, stopping or being diverted about an inch from your body. (this is standard rules in 5th ed., but thanks to YR7 for clarifying wording)
Any spells or spell effects which target the magus, or something of which the magus is a part (e.g., a group or room) have no effect on the magus (again, standard rules).
Any damage or damage bonus or loss of fatigue levels caused by a magical effect is reduced to zero ( Non-standard , but this is the part that seems to solve many problems)
If something with an active magical effect comes within an inch of the magus and fails to penetrate, the magus will become aware that the entity is under an active magical effect (e.g., poison made to look like water, or a deadly snake turned into a scarf. Non-standard ).
So in your game a magus, whose Parma resists the ReMe spell, is aware that he gets mind-controlled now, but still sits down and watches his companions getting killed, or even helps with killing them - and finally jumps off the tower?
No. How did you get that impression? I thought it was very clearly stated that any spell targeted at the magus has no effect unless it penetrates, and unless I've misunderstood you the magus would have been targeted by the ReMe spell so it would have no effect at all. Did you not read the proposed rules this thread is about? If you did, can you please clarify how your example circumvents them?
Proposed Ruleset
Any thing that is actively magically-controlled (Rego) will be physically blocked from reaching you, stopping or being diverted about an inch from your body. (this is standard rules in 5th ed., but thanks to YR7 for clarifying wording)
Any spells or spell effects which target the magus, or something of which the magus is a part (e.g., a group or room) have no effect on the magus (again, standard rules).
Any damage or damage bonus or loss of fatigue levels caused by a magical effect is reduced to zero ( Non-standard , but this is the part that seems to solve many problems)
If something with an active magical effect comes within an inch of the magus and fails to penetrate, the magus will become aware that the entity is under an active magical effect (e.g., poison made to look like water, or a deadly snake turned into a scarf. Non-standard ).
Let's look at this then: "If something with an active magical effect comes within an inch of the magus and fails to penetrate, the magus will become aware that the entity is under an active magical effect". But the Parma does not prevent that 'something' from coming close to the magus, if it does neither cause immediate damage nor fatigue loss. Right?
So, if a murderous apprentice casts a MuTe(Aq) base level 3 spell lasting only a moment (maybe even less than the customary 2 seconds), which causes the ground underneath the feet of the magus to turn to water some three meters deep. Your Parma would now no longer protect the air one inch around the magus from the magical water - because that water does neither cause fatigue nor damage, right? But when the magus has sunk into the water, the spell would expire, the water turn back to earth, sand or stone, and encase the magus without air to breath or space to move, right - killing him unless he can quickly cast under duress and without voice or gestures an escape spell.
Is that really intended? Or do you still get a long list of other things than immediately caused fatigue or damage, which the Parma shall protect against, if "an active magical effect comes within an inch of the magus"?
That's exactly what I was about to type, Euphemism. I have read many debates online about how the standard PM would deal with changes like this. I have seen little consensus, and many are of the opinion the magus would die just as OneShot has described. Others think that the water can be classified as a "magical effect" on the magus, and when it turns back to dirt it pushes him out, safe and sound (if the water doesn't penetrate PM) - I'm not sure what the full implications of that idea are, but if it works as a special case in standard rules it can work as a special case in mine.
So as the problem you highlight is an issue in the current PM, OneShot, I don't think it makes any difference that it's also an issue in my proposed rules (EDIT: but please continue to identify problems if you can see any - that's the point of this thread!)
Well, we know canonically that a magus can be trapped, encased in something magical, even when it is resisted by PM. It may be just off the magus's skin/clothing, so the magus can wiggle. I don't see why this would be so different. The magus would fall into the pool, and the water would remain just off the magus, right? Then it would cease to be magical water, becoming again normal earth/sand/stone. Given the existing gap prior to ceasing to be water, the magus should still be able to wiggle, but that's about it. So the magus has a couple minutes to cast with subtle gestures, but the air in the lungs plus in the little gap should allow for voice. I think this is consistent with what is written about it in HoH:S, where the book goes into more detail about harm v. entanglement and the like.
Testing MR can be done on creatures, too. That's why God put faeries on this Earth.
That's absolutely the case, and not just about Parma. But Whitescar is looking for a rule here, not a gaming-agreement like that.
I still think you need to clarify the degree causal-separation here. As in Strength enhancement, dropping a boulder / tree on you, or so on.
I am personally quite happy thinking about Parma as quite literally a magic shield, or force field, protecting the magus. This creates counter-Mythic effects like magic weapons sometimes being the poorer choice to attack that dragon. I don't really care. The game is about wizards throwing spells at the dragon, not knights fighting him at swordpoint. The core system is fairly simple and easy to adjudicate, as David Chart noted, and provides good defense, so I like it.
Parma prevents magic from affecting you (or your personal gear), in that Aristotelian meaning of altering your properties.
Directly-controlled objects (Rego) don't impact you, stopping or diverting as they do. As actually having an impact would meaning changing your properties.
Spells that target you fail to affect you you. So do spells that affect the Room and so on.
Fire's heat fails to affect you. So does a poison's bite, an acid's burn, and so on.
Hands of grasping earth find no purchase on you. They cannot affect your properties.
Yet,
A sword with a pink dot will pierce you. The pink dot does not affect you, it's the sword that does.
An invisible arrow will pierce you. For the same reason.
A miniaturized boulder will hit you as a pebble. The MR doesn't suppress damage, it just prevents it from affecting you.
An indirect spell, such as raising a boulder over your head and dropping it, will work as normal. The spell doesn't affect you, it's the boulder that does.