Wards and penetration

It doesn't AFAIK. David did state, in the text quoted above that he suggested that it shouldn't or that penetration should be calculated differently, but according to RAW it should penetrate. Even if probably not a rare HR it is a HR not to demand it to penetrate.

Why is that? Personally I don't define a debate by the potential for winning people over and I do think that some debates can be improved by entering it knowingly that the participants disagree and that 'triumphing' isn't the agenda - but rather participating because of a curiousity in the reasoning of the other participants and and openness toward their opinion. If this or similar debates sometimes gets in danger of imploding it is not because of disagreement itself but the urge to over-enforce one's arguments to be 'right' rather than simply rest at explaining them. Debates across a gap af disagreement can be rewarding as long as the motives for debating aren't to claim superiority.

Interesting point Xavi -at the moment I've been considering a similar solution to distinguish between the two types of wards- and I'd like to hear much more of your thoughts on that subject and how you guys do it specifically.

Jeppe,

Excellent summary. Just one thing caught my eye:

As stated in the paragraph you cite, wards with Target: Circle can use an Arcane Connection if the warded subject is within the circle. One way I imagine a magus could use this to his advantage is to cast a different Rego spell (with boosted penetration because of the AC) to hold a supernatural being in place, and then draw the circle around it to cast the ward spell.

Or use an item that fast-casts a circle on the ground (CrTe, aimed), having a grog or other dude (familiar or apprentice) using it.

Cheers,

Xavi

And this is where I'd probably add my own house rule to bend that a little. I'd allow arcane connections to be used when I want to ward myself against a specific foe.

Granted, I haven't thought through all the game balance implications but it shouldn't be too overwhelming.

Take in mind that apart from the basic characteristics of the game, we are so heavy into house rules that outsiders might feel that they were playing in a different gaming system if it wasn’t for the setting :slight_smile: Having warned you about that, read on:

There are 2 kinds of ward: a) wards vs Animated Spirits and b) other kinds of ward. Wards vs animated spirits keep the animated spirit at bay and unable to affect you. other wards give you a degree of protection, and can offer protection vs both mundane and supernatural effects.

  1. Circle + ring spells against animated spirits do not need to penetrate. You can use specific ACs here to ward something in or that same target out. They keep stuff WITH AN ANIMATING SPIRIT (read: alive or Might beings) at bay and unable to affect you directly if the ward effect is equal or greater than the creature's might. Inanimate beings like generic swords or stones cannot be warded out like that.

  2. Other wards get the Ward vs. Heat and Flames as a benchmark. They act like a regular mystic armour: they add to your soak vs. damage coming from that source.

  3. If the source of the effect does not cause damage (e.g.: turn you insane with a word), the ward gives you a boost of +1 to your Natural Resistance roll per magnitude of the ward.

So a circle can protect you and anything inside vs swords, but will only increase the soak of the people inside the circle, not prevent swords from cutting them to pieces with high attack rolls. It renders the polka dot problem inexistent IMS, since we treat Parma similarly. The ward vs swords can also be cast on a personal basis, increasing the soak of the target as usual.

Curiously now that I think about it, we do not allow wards vs humans, even if we have no problems allowing a circular ward vs animals. Quite an inconsistency there, heh :slight_smile: I guess it could be allowed with no biggie, but we always found it weird that a level 5-10 spell can keep an army at bay….

An other thing that people might consider weird is something we got from the berklist a few months ago and that we liked, so we incorporated it into the way we play in ME: the ability to inscribe your Parma Magica as a circle spell in the ground. Doing so effectively generates a Sun/Circle Ward vs anything supernatural that protects your shield grog(s) as well, even if it seriously impedes the maneuverability of the group. Makes for some interesting protracted battles there, and FEELS mythical to us, with mages on opposing hills waging spells against the enemy group. It has come up twice IMS already, and it made for interesting circle/ring-like situation, with the group crouching inside the Parma circle while the baddies were kept just at bay. We are into a Davnalleus/Carnac story arc, so BIG stuff is quite common right now.

Okay. Does it have to be a spell? If not, Parma sounds like it would qualify as defensive magic under definition A.

I agree that A shouldn't have to penetrate the attacker's Magic Resistance, because it doesn't magically affect the attacker. I do think it needs to penetrate the subject's Magic Resistance, so that if you cast a MuCo spell on a magus, his Parma resists it. I believe this is how the rules as written work. Also, if a magus is under this effect, his body becomes subject to Magic Resistance, as you brought up below. Perhaps the Penetration Total of the effect also applies when the magus brawls?

The second part of your definition is where it seems we disagree. Because the magic affects a warded subject, I think the effect must penetrate its Magic Resistance. For example, say I create a magical ring of fire around me to protect me against a group of bandits. Anyone with Magic Resistance can step through the flames without being harmed, unless the spell penetrates. Wards work the same way; the ward is the flames that keep out the subject, though much more effectively.

The Aegis has some qualities of wards, in that it prevents creatures with a Might Score from entering the area. Otherwise, it behaves very much like the Parma Magica. Personally, I'd categorize it as the first type of defensive magic, and use that reasoning to justify why it doesn't need to penetrate the creature's Magic Resistance. Granted, though, it is a special case.

This is a separate issue, though. Magic Resistance protects a creature against magical things, and with such a ward cast on you, you are indeed a magical thing. A natural consequence of this is that you can't punch the pixie in the face, because the pixie is protected against your magical fist. Likewise a fellow magus, even just an apprentice, is protected against Ignem magic by virtue of his studying that mighty Art. If you really want to beat up your apprentice, perhaps you need to improve your Penetration score before casting another ward on yourself. :slight_smile:

All of the former effects are for a specific creature only. Your ward affects any and all ghosts that happen by-- the ward with Penetration Total 120 not only affects Stretch, but Fuso, Spooky, and Casper, too. The ghosts are not prevented from harming you once you have cast one of the first five spells, but once you get a ward around you, all they can do is wait until you leave it. I'd say that if anything, the ward is still too easy to cast, by comparison. And if that wasn't enough, wards can be cast in any Form. All of the other spells require a specialist to affect creatures with Might 20 or more, but an Herbam specialist can ward against magical plants and an Animal specialist can ward against magical animals.

You haven't quite finished your case, though. You only need a Casting Total of half the numbers you list above for the first five spells, if you can make up the rest with your Penetration bonus (from spell mastery, Arcane Connections, special Mysteries, etc.). You can't do that with most wards. So, I think you could argue that the numbers look more like this (assuming the Penetration bonus is half the subject's Magic Resistance):

Weaken by 5 points: 10/15/25/35
Coerce: 25/30/40/50
Weaken by half might score: 10/20/40/60
Summon: 45/50/60/70
Obliterate: 15/30/60/90
Ward: 20/40/80/120

In consideration of the versatility and universal protection offered by wards, does this seem unfair?

The greatest difficulty that I recall is that you need to keep track of two Penetration Totals for the ward, one for the specific foe and one for others to which the Arcane Connection doesn't apply who might happen along. But I suppose we have to do that anyway whenever magi cast spells that affect a group of targets, right? Or do you mean you would allow magi to make a selective ward that only affects a specific target, like the Columbae? Perhaps that's been integrated into general Hermetic theory, sure.

Xavi,

I'm not sure that would work. The caster has to trace the circle on the ground when casting the ward, even if the circle is magically created, so I don't think it can be fast-cast. Maybe if it were cast on a Room or Structure?

That's cool! I don't remember reading about that before. Hmm, maybe I can introduce it to my saga as a recent breakthrough of House Bonisagus?

Furion/Jeppe, we did indeed pass like ships in the night last night. I was having server problems, so even though I wrote before you, I posted it after you. As far as the Killer DM thing goes, I think we both partially misunderstand each other, but as you said, I was using it as a scarecrow rather than making a direct accusation, so we should just let it go :slight_smile:

As far as everything else goes though, this is some brilliant discussion. I will catch up on it later tonight and come up with a better post. I have to work right now, so for the rest of the day I will merely watch as people much wiser than I carry on the debate :smiley:

Tonight I will have profound revalations though. Be prepared!

Correct. I stand corrected. I always forget about this.

Could easily be a further deverlopment from Stockading parma (HOH:TL) methinks :slight_smile: I think the idea bvelongs to Leiv, originally

Cheers

Xavi

Well given how short a time you'd generally need to keep track of such things (or one could break into the 21st century and record it somewhere on one's character sheet) I don't see too much overhead in keeping track of two penetrations.

But I think I'm more interested in the second approach. That's an occasion where I'm more than happy to pick and choose from the available virtues, Columbae included.

Circle/ring spells can last forever. In 10 year's saga time, having a spreadsheet with a thousand circle/ring penetrations might be quite bothersome....

Cheers,

Xavi

That's true but:

  1. I don't think you'd record different penetrations for each
  2. Recording a thousand circle/ring penetrations would be bothersome anyway
  3. I can't even conceive of a storyguide requiring a player to record such things to such a degree
  4. I can't even conceive of a player wanting or agreeing to cast/record that many warding spells - where's the time to play the game?

Still, it's a scary thought though...

No worries. In fact I werent aggrevated and my main point (the first of those posts) were to point out that the dread of Killer DMs doesn't sway the opinion of someone not roleplaying within a roleplaying paradigm leaving room for that style of story guiding (NO - I did not use the P-word as a scarecrow hehe). Nevertheless I am quite interested in roleplaying meta and theory, so when I get inspired I'll always retain the prerogative to go meta on a discussion even if not called for - nor in anyone elses interest. :laughing:

Speaking of scarecrows though... that use of the phrase of ships passing in the night gave me the shivers - as I just did a paper a few weeks back I titled with that phrase in the first drafts (and I expect it to be returned within the week).

Now, whenever you get your revelation tonight, I hope to also see a response from you to my attempt to cover a consensus of what the RAW at least is or isn't - as a common ground from which to exchange preferences of how we would like the rules to be.

I have my revelation already in head, I just gotta spend some time writing it. As I am at work, I sorta feel obligated to, well, to work :slight_smile:
I don't work very hard mind you;)

If you want to start a new thread to discuss rolplaying theory and such, I would be glad to participate. I don't want to distract from this debate. And just to clarify, the way I meant KDM can be applied to any style of gaming. It's not something you do on purpose or even knowingly. The thing you quoted was an aspect that describes the phenomenon, but it also ascribes knowing will to the activity. It's like saying you can only trip if you walk North, I say you can trip walking in any direction.

That should of prolly been put into a new thread. Wanna start it? I'll cut and paste over to it.

Responses to everyone coming later tonight. But as far as Xavi; cool idea, I remember you talking about it during the Berklist ward discussion, I myself don't recal who originated it. Ars Magica works that way. Stuff you posted ten years ago may show up in another form, and you never know if you inspired the idea or simply think alike :slight_smile:

But this "Grounded Parma" is a cool idea. I would make it a breakthrough as well, akin to one of the many "folds" of Parma. Not everyone knows it right away, and they have to study a manual or under a teacher for a season first.

Cheers Erik. And thank you for the reminder - it was a complete blunder on my part. I'll edit the original post at once to keep the consensus-building together in the same post.

At the same time, fortunate to have the author with us, I would like to politely petition whether I could ask you a question in relation to that rule? If yes, then don't worry - it is not one of the "I'm irate, and I'll be dammed if I cannot hold you accoutable.." sort of subjects. I am however intruiged by some of the theoretical reasons for doing it this way. As I've already stated earlier on in the thread I expect to be HRing this to enable penetration bonuses on wards. I don't think it's a terribly important issue and far from breaking the rules - it's just a matter of what we tend to prefer.

What I'm curious about is whether this was seen as a special case for wards or whether it was seen as being universal (that you shouldn't be able to get penetration bonuses on any 'second hand' penetration totals)?

What the heck is 'second hand' penetration?!? It's when penetration isn't relevant in relation to the original target of the spell, but comes into play when the effect on the spell later on comes to conflict with someones MR. The 'second hand' target might not even be in the vicinity at the time. Looking through the books a lot of the spells will rarely cause 'first hand resistance' if ever, but might very well require 'second hand penetration'. In fact your example with the ring of flames is a very good example and I'm sorry I didn't think of it earlier at the time when I was comparing the penetration of wards with the penetration of other 'second hand' effects - it is a much better example as the effects of the spells are soo much more alike than mine were.

In any case - taken to an extreme you might say that any magic that influences something through a medium, rather than directly, is subject to 'second hand penetration', but the main point is here whether the 'second hand' target is present or not during the casting of the spell and whether absense deny the caster the possibility of penetration bonuses. And I got curious of this subject because I've never thought of it before, but reading that bit on wards it made me wonder if I missed a general aspect of penetration bonuses?

Hehe - I know Xavi. No worries - even if I'm not about to go all overboard with HR I'm pretty sure you take on things can still inspire plenty.

I was considering something like that - with those ReIg guidelines in mind. But I was wondering how you've set the levels?

My initial worry is that it would suddenly become more powerful to make non-circle wards if they can make penetrating soak-bonuses against one type of mythic enemies much easier then being warded within a circle. Recalling that I want the personal wards to be a useful but much less attractive alternative to the circle ones.

An interesting idea and I kind of like it - but a few follow-up questions, some perhaps evident but to be sure about how you use this. How is this different from the normal sharing of the Parma (which allows you to move about but decreases the Parma's strenght)? Can the magus leave it behind so to speak letting it protect someone or something (and if he can leave it is he then able to make another parma)? If the magus can't leave it, is he then able to return it to normal or does he have to stay there untill nightfall/dawn to benefit from it? Finally it seems a precarious situation - the parma only protects against magic and other mythical effects and the circle could be broken by any mundane means at ones disposal leaving the magus utterly exposed...

Well, it's definitely not intended to be universal, because rings of fire and other such spells are not applicable to the subject I was writing about. :slight_smile: Because Hermetic wards are based on Columbine magic in the back-story I came up with, David allowed me to write about how they work generally, to clear up confusion. For how to deal with penetration for other spells that affect subjects secondhand, I can only suggest we analyze the core rules for penetration and Magic Resistance.

I do think it makes sense that a magus can't use an Arcane Connection to boost penetration against a creature that is not part of the spell's Target. Also, I think it makes sense that if a magus casts a spell that uses an Arcane Connection to boost its penetration, the spell does not affect anything other than that target, even if the spell was designed to affect a larger number of targets. This is mostly because I prefer the elegance of one Penetration Total per spell, but also because I picture the magus incorporating the person's hair or whatever into the spell, and I think that should be reflected by the spell's effect.

I'm not sure I've completely understood your question, though. Are you asking about the idea of Penetration Totals holding over from one target to another? For example, Ward Against the Beasts of Legend targets everything in a circle, so it makes everything in the circle a magical thing. When I shoot an arrow from within the circle at a magical beast, suppose I have to penetrate its Magic Resistance with my earlier Penetration Total for the ward spell in order to damage it. That is, what if the arrows inherit the Penetration Total of the ward, because they're part of that spell's target. I don't think that's exactly how the rules as written are supposed to work, but I think it makes for an interesting experiment.

I'm not sure I accomplished making my thoughts very clear to be honest and I think my talk of second hand penetration caused more confusion than clarity :confused:

I'll try again. The text in HoH:S reads "Since in most cases Hermetic wards do not actually target the creatures affected by them, most magi cannot boost their Penetration Total[...]"(my emphasis). This is what made me wonder whether the penetration total couldn't be boosted because it's a ward spell or because the creature isn't the actual target of the spell.

Next step to the (hopefully) logic of my thoughts is that if being 'target' and being merely 'affected' by a spell can be seperated, and if a magus can only boost penetration when something is the target, then that puts signifcantly limits on the situations where AC can be used. Also it makes it a challenge to distinguish between beings 'targeted' and beings 'affected'. On the other hand, if this lack of boosted penetration is specific to wards then this is all a complete non-issue.

Let me try to present some examples. I'll keep away from examples including wards or creatures with Might to distinguish this from the questions of wards and making it about boosting penetration in general. I'll try to describe situations where the target of the spell and the MR about to be tested are not the same and where there's even a measure of time between casting and the effect butting heads with someones MR.

Case A:
A magus, let's call him Ebenezer, who's a genuine scrooge needing finances but not wanting to use his precious vis, casts a D:Month version of Touch of Midas (p.153). Not having been cast as a permanent Creo ritual this gold will be magical for the duration that it exists and thus it is technically resisted by MR. At some point some of this gold might make it into the hands of another magus, let's call him Cratchit, - or rather it would not be able to, unless it penetrates his parma. Cratchit isn't the target of the spell, but it'll affect him (be resisted by his MR) the moment someone tries to put a nugget of this gold in his hands. The distinction between boosted penetration and 'targets' vs 'affected' becomes important if Ebenezer had in mind that this gold might reach Cratchit some day and if he for whatever scheeming reason want it to penetrate (minimizing the odds that Cratchit will realise that the gold is magical and temporary) and thus he goes a lengthy distance to procure an AC to Cratchit, calculate his horoscope etc so that the penetration of the creo spell creating the gold makes it possible to pass his rivals parma without him noticing. This would not be possible if spells can only be boosted if the AC is to something that is the direct target of the spell.

Case B
Let's stay with Ebenezer. Especially since he's been the victim of theft! Now Ebenezer might have been a scrooge but poor he surely wasn't! No less than a tower of terram vis has been stolen from his laboratory. Accidentally this has happened on a Christmas Eve and Ebenezer is know rarely to leave his sanctum in the middle of London - especially at Christmas - but luckily he has several loyal serfs at his disposal (not having let them go home for Christmas). Ebenezer has a spell in his reportoire called Wise One's Vision of Vis (InVi 20: Base 1, +1 Touch, +2 Sun, +4 Vision) that enchancts the target's eyes to be able to see vis for what it is. He promptly casts this spell on each of his serfs and sends them off at once to watch the city gates and to search the city too, hopefully to catch the scoundrel in time. But Ebenezer is troubled... anyone stealing vis (only to ignore the hoards of silver in the same room) is quite definately someone who values it, and if the culprit is a magus he probably has MR from a parma, which also happens to resist the magical properties of an enchanted sense. Ebenezer is afraid that he's not good enough with the spell to penetrate any decent MR. Now what if the theif had lost a single drop of blod during the burglary, on one of Ebenezers many small wicked traps, and Ebenezer thus has an AC to the man he seeks? The thief is not in any fashion the target of Ebenezer's InVi spell on his servants, but at some time he will be affected.

Case C:
"Bah, humbug!" shouts Ebenezer when his serfs return to tell him that the theif was none other than Cratchit (presumably as a revenge for some story about some gold having suddenly disappeared from under Cratchit's bed). Ebenezer spares no time getting on with scheming his revenge... And soon he contracts some rather shady characters to finish his rival off for good. The problem is that Cratchit is as much a paranoid as Ebenezer is a scrooge, but Ebenezer quickly devices a plan to let the killers get close to Cratchit even with their swords on them - He casts a PeIm on each of the swords to make them invisible, which of course creates a different problem, that the swords aren't to much use if they can't penetrate the other magus' parma... Cratchit is not the target of the spell but a bit down the road he'll surely be affected by them - and Ebenezer do have a droplet of Cratchit's blod...

Case D
Cratchit, not being entirely settled with his destiny nor intending to have Ebenezer left in peace, decides to haunt the old scrooge.... Especially around Christmas. And one such Christmas Eve Ebenezer decides to catch the ghost in a circl... Oh wait, that's a completely different story :smiley:

Woops.. got carried away. But I do hope that my point is somewhat deducible from my ramblings... :blush:

I'm trying to show how beings with MR can often be subject to questions of penetration even if they're not target of the spell. And with the phrasing (in HoH:S) somwhat linking the conclusion that wards' penetration can't be boosted to the fact that it's because the given creature isn't the target of the spell, made me wonder, in case this is an universal trait of 'targets' and 'affected', if I'd missed something in the core rules on targets and boosting penetration in generel - hence the curiosity.

This curiosity, however, is merely a mental exercise, and not an agenda, as I am settled on allowing boosted penetration in all spells, including wards, to suit our preferences (but with the important limit that a spell can ever only boost its penetration toward one person/being).

[EDIT: Disclaimer - it has come to my attention that the invisible swords in Case C might have had pink dots all over them... but I can confirm that they were thoroughly checked before making them disappear for such anomalies and neither Ebenezer nor me found any dots! :laughing: ]

PS.: As for your arrow example that shouldn't be an issues, given the fact that the magic of a circle/ring ends the moment the arrow leaves it according to Duration/Target. If however the arrow was conjured with a Creo spell then it of course it would have to penetrate..