This is the answer.
5 + Touch for ReVi 10. A tunnel of lvl 10 would let you pull this off, and your natural AC connection to your Talisman suffices for the tunnel.
I think Rafael actually had it right there as this can be done in one spell rather than two.
So here's the final spell design:
Trigger the Distant Talisman:
ReVi Level 5 - Activate an enchanted device with a simple trigger
R: Arc (+4), D: Mom (+0), T: Ind (+0)
Lv 25 Spell.
1 Like
Either way works, if you prefer. I meant that he was correct however. (edit to reflect that)
Minor tought: maybe you will also want a spell to see your talisman surroundings before triggering an effect (imagine transforming it into a log at AC range only to have it crush an innocent bystander...). On the other hand, if your intent is just to activate the effect at some distance, you could change it to voice or sight and save one or two magnitudes.
The specific effect I want to activate in this case is a ReTe(He) 25 - Transport a non-living object instantly to a place to which you have an Arcane Connection.
Allowing me to use a relatively simple Lv 25 ReVi spell to call the device back to my hand if stolen, lost or otherwise misplaced.
The alternative would be either Intangible Tunnel ReVi 30 + Touch range item transport ReTe(He) 30 spells
or
A Lv 45 ReTe(He) item transport spell (Base 25 + Range: AC (+4 mag))
2 Likes
Here are two variants I use, both submitted to the Fan Grimoire. The second is exactly what you ended up with. The first is really useful at other times, and can probably be used with a Familiar bond, though I'd have to double-check how far you are from the bond connected to you (not how far from your Familiar). I like to Master these, which can be done by Mastering one of them with Adaptive Casting; that way you can do things when silenced, bound, etc.
1 Like
Wouldn't the first of those require a Touch range? As it's affecting something outside the magi's own body?
I didn't think anything except your own body could be "inside" personal range.
Personal: The spell only affects the cast- ing magus or things that he is wearing or carrying. (ArM5 p.111)
I'm not sure for the Familiar bond, though.
1 Like
I don't read that this means Personal can be used to target things carried or worn in an isolated manner. Just that the spell can be made to be extended upon such items (for example, a R:Personal PeIm spell to make you invisible can also erase the image of your clothes).
2 Likes
You're changing "or" to "and." The quote from core says "or" there, not "and."
The familiar bond is pretty explicit that the bond itself affect both parties at R: Touch, so I'd expect that it would be tricky to affect your familiar at less than R: Touch.
Unless your familiar is a mouse or similarly able to fit in an (anachronistic) pocket.
You're confounding two different things. There is the thing where the enchantment is, and there is the thing to be affected by the enchantment. Let's say you're wearing a ring and it has an effect to make you invisible. The ring needs Touch to affect you, but you can trigger it with Personal; so we know the former Touch does not imply the latter is also Touch. Apply this to the Familiar bond. The bond needs Touch to affect your Familiar. But what do you need to affect the bond?
The Bond needs Touch to affect you - it is "touching" you.
Seems reasonable that I can affect the Bond at R: Touch as well, if I can perceive it.
Or is that just me?
1 Like
"And" would imply all must always be affected (the person and any objects carried or worn). Which is not the case.
You can't simply disregard the next sentence: "The target is thus never larger than Individual." Your interpretation makes this a non sequitur.
It's very clear to me that the intent of Personal is for it to affect the caster (the target is thus never larger than individual), or the caster and a few extra objects.
While I agree that this is very likely the intention, it is unfortunately not what the rules say.
Possibly a candidate for errata.
1 Like
Right. But that is the bond affecting you, just like the ring affecting you.
Well, we already know as I showed with the ring example, that one does not follow from the other. I'm not saying Touch is wrong here, just that rules are unclear or silent about it and that the rules show we cannot automatically conclude Personal won't work just because the bond used Touch.
1 Like
You're right, not just "and"; but mixing "and" in. You're reading "A or B" as "A or (A and B)," right? As written, it's just "or."
And how about canonical spells that use Personal but affect other things like The Laundress's Clothesline (App p.47)? Why does canon include spells that specifically work the other way if the intent is as you say?
Several spells in canon are all over the place. Some because they are legacy spells, some because they were designed by different people. In particular, spells from books published later tend to be more "loose", as I know you are aware.
Either way, the fact that the spell is written in a weird way doesn't invalidate it working. In particular, it works perfectly fine with my interpretation. You just need to correct the descriptive text:
This spell immediately dries the caster and his clothing, which he must be wearing when this spell is cast.
Indeed, it would be a weird (and generally useless) spell one which dried the clothes and left the caster wet.
If you find any other use of R: Personal affecting things carried or worn, let me know.
Let's also not forget the following exert from ArM5 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 (...).
If this was the default for any item worn or carried, this provision for Talismans would be mostly unnecessary. Yes, I'm aware that you can have a talisman that you can't carry or wear. Which does not invalidate the discussion or the argument.
I'll concede that your interpretation is possible (even if it requires one to ever so slightly butcher the meaning of the word "thus" in the last sentence of the Personal range). But I hold that it's not intended.
1 Like
So you're changing how the spell works and saying it's just descriptive text. That's basically saying "I'm right, and the spell doesn't disagree because it actually says something different that what is written." Sorry, I can see right through that. Follow the rules. If you jump in a lake and cast this spell, then your hair will remain wet while your clothes become dry.
But it does invalidate your argument here. You can be touching a tree that is your Talisman, neither wearing it nor carrying it. Without a statement allowing this to still work with Personal, the rules for Personal would not allow it. So the very possibility that Talismans can be this big provides a necessary reason for this statement. On top of that, look a the ring example above. The ring normally needs Touch to affect the person, and this statement is needed to change that for a Talisman. Thus interpreting this statement to invalidate part of the Personal rules is just a logical error.
I'm pointing out that the change in the assumption keeps the spell consistent instead of breaking it. I'm treading errata grounds, as pointed earlier by ErikT. And I am surely questioning if the spell fits the intention in the rules. What I'm not doing is saying "I'm right and the spell meant something else".
Your ring example is you activating the ring with Personal, but the ring targeting you with touch. My point is exactly that targeting the Ring (and the ring only) with a R:Personal spell cast by you is supposed to be the prerrogative of a Talisman.
The provision for Talismans does not invalidate my argument because it clarifies expectations on targeting, regardless of what the thing is. The implication on the provision is that non-Talismans can't be affected by R:Personal spells (again, in a isolated manner).
But, let the thread rest. I'll follow Erik's suggestion and propose it in the next call for errata.