wards and penetration, how to make it work?

[John_Post]

@Richard Love

[M]any troupes seem to make an exception for Aegis of Hearth, and play that it doesn't need to penetrate. But there doesn't seem any support for this in the RAW.

You said there was no support. I provided support.

@Richard Love

@John Post

I disagree. Page 161, ArM5, Aegis of the Hearth spell description: "This ritual protects a covenant in the way a Parma Magica protects a magus."

Just like a magus's Parma doesn't need to penetrate the magic resistance of a creature affecting the magus, an Aegis of the Hearth does not need to penetrate.

I think that all that sentence is meant to mean is that conceptually Aegis is the Hearth is like Parma Magica; not that it is meant to follow the same rules, because it clearly doesn't. For example, AotH requires vis to cast, whereas Parma Magica doesn't. We all know that the reason AotH requires vis is that it is a ritual spell, whereas Parma Magica isn't. For the same reason AotH needs to penetrate, because it is a spell effect, whereas Parma Magica isn't.

Nice strawman argument. Nobody argued that AotH is supposed to follow all the rules of Parma Magica. The sentence says, "protects . . . in the way a Parma Magica protects . . ." It doesn't say AotH is activated in the same way Parma is or does not require vis like Parma. Your examples are meaningless. If you want to ignore the sentence, then by all means do so, but that's your choice.

On the Berklist, David Chart has already admitted Wards and Aegis have problems, in that during playtesting everyone assumed that they worked they way they did in previous editions or how people thought they should work. There was no real discussion over the pros and cons of penetration versus no penetration during playtest. It wasn't until ArM5 was out a year that the topic was really discussed. There have been a lot of proposals on how to "fix" wards/AotH. Richard's is one way. Many, many people disagree with him. I am one.

If I recall correctly there are three basic proposals:

1. Use current spell guidelines, level of effect is based on level of Might of creature to be blocked and spell must penetrate. (RAW - according to Line Editor)

2. Use current spell guidelines, level of effect is based on level of Might of creature to be blocked and spell does not need to penetrate. (AotH = Parma Magica)

3. Use new lower base, fixed guideline, not tied to Might of creature, and spell must penetrate.

If you use method #1, Might counts twice. You need to cast a level 25 spell to keep out a 25 Might creature and Penetrate by 25. If the Might of the creature sets the level of the spell, you shouldn't have to penetrate too is the argument against it.

The easiest fix is #2, where you treat an Aegis like Parma for the covenant. The problem with this is that it's too easy to make Wards that let a magi hide and stop the story going forward, some say. Wards are very powerful then. As a Storyguide, wards don't scare me. There are lots of ways to force a character out of them, but even I, a proponent of very strong wards, only apply the Parma style rules to Circle/Ritual wards.

The best solution in my opinion is the hardest to implement. It requires making the AotH spell (and Wards) a fixed level, base 1, 5, 10, 15, or whatever, get your casting total, and record the Penetration for the spell. If the AotH penetrates, the Might-y creature and its magic cannot get in. Reduce all foreign spell casting totals by half the penetration total or whatever.

Anyway, as David Chart has stated, the issues with AotH and Wards are too big for simple errata and any fix requires a new edition or ArM5 RE. I think fixed levels and penetration are the way to go in the future, but we'll see after several rounds of playtest.

In any event, as for the RAW, as explained by the Line Editor, AotH and Wards are spells like any other spells and have to penetrate. Even if that seems stupid to many, many people and makes Wards and AotH basically a waste of time and protection against only the weaniest of creatures.