To touch your Talisman

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.

Maybe to target a specific cloth or item with "Personal" range, you should use a "Part" target.

I mean... I doesn't seem a range issue to me.

The range its perfect since Personal lets you to include your own weared or carried items (thats why your rings needs to "Touch" you instead of using Personal too, since a ring cannot "wear" a human :stuck_out_tongue: ), but a target issue, since by default the Personal range uses the very own caster (AND clothes) as the target, so you need to make the spell more precise and select just the single item that you need to activate.

1 Like

But that's purely your opinion rather than anything in the rules. That's my point. The rules don't show anything more than the Talisman always gaining the advantage of being treated like a small, worn item if it's in contact with you.

That's using the converse again. If it's a Talisman, then stuff. This does not imply if stuff, then it's a Talisman.

Look at the rest of the paragraph your quote comes from. Would you also say the implication is that your Parma Magica does not protect a ring you are wearing for the same reason?

That seems inconsistent. Consider that you can use Personal to affect only some of yourself or all of yourself, not using Part for either, dependent on a combination with the guideline. In many cases you can optionally include or leave out your clothing without worrying about Part as well. Personal seems not to default caster+clothing as a default, even if that is commonly available.

This discussion is, admittedly a bit confusing to me - when I read out all the steps of Rules To Logic that each side makes, I can see how each side makes their decisions. To me, though, looking at the whole for what the rules are intended, and what seems to make sense with my own logic, the answer has always seemed simple; You have a bit of leeway with personal spells for things such as clothes and jewelry when casting spells on yourself.

The key to me is the 'on yourself'. I never considered that you could exclude yourself as part of the target - you can't cast a Personal range spell on only your shirt - you can cast it on you AND your shirt. To me, this means you have to be a target - casting Perdo Herbam at personal range to destroy your pants doesn't work, because you're not a valid target, just like you can't Creo Herbam at personal range to create pants.

With regards to an item targeting a user; I always interpreted it as a 'part of' or 'within possession'. I definitely could see that your ring is in your possession, but not the reverse. If a magic ring had an empty stone setting, you could use personal range to include any stone that was set into it as part of the effect, but the same personal range wouldn't affect the person wearing it. I can't think of any examples of it, outside of a talisman.

On a coffee break, so can't really dig through my PDFs for any example, and if someone has a good example of me being incorrect in interpretation, I am happy to hear it.


What about the canonical spell that lets you dry it without drying yourself?

Not familiar with that spell, to be honest.

The Laundress's Clothesline
Source: Apprentices, 47, it is a personal range.
This spell immediately dries the caster’s clothing,
which he must be wearing when this spell is cast.

That said, I think that it dries the caster as well as the clothes.