Hmm... well, I think my idea of wards being unable to use Arcane Connections to penetrate develops from the fact that nearly all wards--T: Circle and T: Ind alike-- affect subjects other than the literal Target of the spell. The only exception I can think of is wards designed to hold a target inside a circle. So yes, I do think that's where my imagination was headed when I designed that rule, and your thinking here seems to me like a logical path. I'm certain the text shouldn't be read as a canonical limitation against using ACs in any spells other than wards, though.
Is it a challenge to determine when something is directly targeted by a spell? That seems easy to me. What am I missing?
Okay. I'll analyze each of them in turn with the questions above in mind, assuming that the spell may only use an AC if it is connected to the literal target of the spell.
It would make sense to me that Ebenezer cannot use an Arcane Connection to Cratchit in order to boost the penetration of his CrTe spell, since Cratchit is not the literal Target of the spell. In fact, with these assumptions the only situation I can imagine where Ebenezer could use an Arcane Connection to Cratchit to boost his penetration would be if he was creating a lump of gold directly on top of Cratchit, with a spell designed similar to Pilum of Fire with Cratchit as the targeted Individual.
Also, I don't think Cratchit would automatically know the gold was magical, unless it was somehow used to harm him. His Parma will repel it if Ebenezer's Penetration Total is lower than his Magic Resistance, but surely he can still pick it up and move it like any lump of gold the size of a person's head. He still feels its apparent weight, though if he dropped it on his foot he might get suspicious when it didn't hurt.
Target: Vision? I guess I'd say no. The literal target of the spell is the serf whose vision is affected. To gain the boost to his penetration from the blood, I'd say Ebenezer would need to cast an Intellego spell targeting Cratchit, T: Ind and probably R: Arc.
Good examples, but I think my answer still has to be no. Cratchit is not the target of the PeIm spell, so I'd say that Ebenezer cannot boost his Penetration Total using an Arcane Connection to Cratchit.
What, a summoning spell and then a ward? I'd allow the AC for both, since Cratchit is clearly the target.
So, does that mean you'd allow Ebenezer to use the AC to Cratchit in all the example spells above? Interesting. What do you imagine would happen when the dagger or the Intellego spell is used on a character with Magic Resistance other than Cratchit?
Ah, you are correct. That makes sense to me. Is that another ding against wards with T: Ind, then?
I just wrote a big long pointless thing, but it seems that everything is humming along nicely, so I scrapped all that and I am jumping straight into the crunch.
Then I write this, and return to the forum to find all this! wow! Heavy. Anyway...
Well, I guess I’ll have to try harder Wards and Math
Mark (Lawford) gave the following stats for a young magus:
Stamina: +1
Rego: 5
Vim: 5
Gestures and voice: +2
Die Roll: 5
Total: 18
Penetration Ability: 2
Penetration Total: 10
And further made the following statements…
True. Note however that a magus with a descent starting ReVi total has to spend Confidence to succeed in his effort, even though he was wildly successful in casting his spell. And, as a matter of perspective, Might 10 is a pretty small threat IMHO (see Markoko’s scale below).
what’s with picking on the Ignem specialists? A wise Flambeau magus minds his knowledge of Rego, as it is most useful and important when dealing with the noble Art of Ignem. Do not Evoke that which you cannot control. And esides, my main mainstay character lo these many years has been a Jerbiton magus who is not a necromancer, but he just happens to be really good at dealing with ghosts. His Mentem and mastery is such that it’s not a worry for him. It’s not about my ego either. I honestly believe that this is better for playability, which ergo is better for the health of the line.
Back to the young magus (what’s his name btw? You gotta name them man )
He could cast it, but I don’t think he could learn it in the first place. You said he is a starting magus. Let’s give him an Int +3, Magic Theory 4 (fair enough?); and the standard Aura 3. His ReVi lab total is only 20. He can successful learn a level 20 ward, and cast it if he spends fatigue, confidence, or rolls a 7+. For a starting magus, a level 20 spell in his field sounds about average, and faced against a might 20 creature that falls within the scope of his specialty. That sounds about right. Now granted, this may be a matter of scope and perspective, as you said. My style, the might of Creature X! (the horror!), is usually consistent. I do gague and vary power levels according to the players at hand, but I usually Deus Ex Machina a rescue or an escape route when things get to hairy for players.
I also may or may not have a different point of view on what the power levels of a creature should be. Mind you, I like them to have a certain amount of might in order to resist various kinds of spells (summoning, banishing, weakening, obliteration, etceteras). I also want them to have plenty of might to have good Penetration &/or spend on Powers. So, for future reference, here is… Markoko’s Might Scale
Smurf 5, Goblin 10, Hobgoblin 15, Troll 20, Giant 30, Hag 40, Average Dragon 50, Duke of Hell 60, Pan Caudrax 75, Demon Prince 90, Ghost of Bonisagus 120
Markoko versus Erik Dhal (this guy’s good, watch what he does here)
Parma used to be a spell back in the day But Parma should be excluded, otherwise we fall into the trap of Parma needing to resist Parma in order to Parma !
Which is another problem. I am beginning to see that this whole debate is indeed another sticky widget which draws everything back straight into the polka dot.
Suppose I conjure a circle of stone? Does your magic resistance allow you to walk straight through it? I dunno. I want to say no. However, in neither example are you the target of the spell.
Well, a Ward has qualities of both Parma and the Aegis in that all three provide Magic Resistance themselves. So it belongs in that first category also. I created the categories even! My metaphysics are lousy! Still, we have a situation of resistance needing to penetrate resistance. I have myself MuCo to increase my soak. Does that have to Penetrate your magic resistance in order to be effective? If no, why not? It’s affecting you. It’s affecting your ability to move your claws through my body. What about my Ward versus Heat & Flames? Does it have to penetrate to give me a soak bonus versus an Efreets flaming sword? Against his fiery breath? His fiery grasp?
It was your apprentice, and man, she came on to me man, it wasn’t my fault
I don’t follow you here. The tippy top ward will keep them all out if it Penetrates, but if your casting + Penetration total equals 67, it affects none of them. Also, the low end one will only affect Casper. No matter how high your Penetration, it has utterly no effect on the other ghosts. And, if your penetration fails, you just pink dotted yourself. Let’s say they were solid creatures, they are demons and it’s a ReVi Ward (Casper went to hell!). You not only fail to protect yourself if your total is too low, but now they can slap you all day and you can’t touch them. Quite the opposite of what a ward is supposed to do.
It seems even more unfair! You just said wards are as hard as I claim, and everything else is much much easier in comparison than I imagined! I think your Penetration bonus is much too generous. And at that, I can add ten levels to the various spells to jack the Target to Group and affect them all in one shot. Allowing for the same generous Penetration bonus you used in your example, I give you the following totals.
Weaken multiples of same strength or less by 5 points: 20/25/35/45
Coerce multiples … : 30/35/45/55
Weaken multiples … by half might score: 20/30/50/70
Summon multiples … : 55/60/70/80
Obliterate multiples … : 25/40/70/100
Ward against multiples, or even only one: 20/40/80/120
Honestly, I have always thought of a Ward as a latch ditch desperate effort, something to hide behind because nothing else you have is any good. That top ward, level 60, to ward against grandpa and all his ghostly minions, you toss that up because nothing else will save you. You are trapped in your circle. They are ghosts, they can wait. You will eventually starve to death and join them.
I've always viewed wards in a similar light as to Marko. Sure it can save you, can keep the baddies from bothering you to begin with in a set locale... make things a bit easier if you have a personal scale version. But it doesn't solve the fight for you. The classical circle doesn't render the warded target senseless. If the enemy finds that they can't penetrate your circle... I for one would not expect them to hang around banging on it while you cast at them from safety. ( If you aren't casting at them, maybe. ) ... I'd expect the enemy to run off and leave you there. Wait for you to come out? Bah. Run off and kill grogs/turb/covenfolk until you come out after them. Run off and burn down everything in sight, until you come out.
The circle doesn't do 'that' much for you. It is a very nifty tool, I will certainly grant, but you want to have much more than that in your toolbox.
Erik, thank you for your quick answer! And my questions are more than answered. This is quite interesting because it has made me aware of a distinction I've been utterly oblivious to untill now.
In fact I haven't been thinking of wards in this context at all, and in fact I should maybe have started a new thread on this, but it only came up because the discussion made me aware of a generel rule nuance I'd been blind to.
But you are right - when it comes to wards I do prefer to make the ring wards more attractive to magi than the personal ones.
Actually no, it isn't, it is just such a new concept to me that I was a bit mind-boggled.
Literal Target is fine term for it. I've always been aware of the difference between the target and the literal target of a spell (as when influencing something through an intermediate form), but it is completely new to me that the non-Casting Total parts of penetration is dependent on it. I only realised it because of this ward discussion and that's why these questions came up. I'm a bit flabberghast with having missed it - not that it would change much to our routines (my players haven't used AC for penetration very often).
But what differs a Pillum of Fire from for example CrTe a sword in your hand to stab at your enemy? In some way couldn't it be argued that the enemy is no less the target of the Pilum (the target of the magic being the flames) than of a sword (the target of the magic being the metal) and not being the target the spells penetration can't be boosted? When is it sufficiently direct to allow penetration boosting? Is it a matter of duration - mom vs. longer duration or a matter of it moving toward the enemy by its own volition? This is a new concept to me - hence the questions (got to get to know the RAW before finding out how to run it).
I agree that he could pick it up. But there would be somewhat of a push effect - like some of the descriptions on MR in use in the core book. As for the parma the RAW states that the magus can feel a tingling whenever a magical effect don't penetrate but come into contact with the parma - so even if he should be able to pick up the gold (at least that's my take on MR) I'd think that he should still feel the tingling.
I would have thought it possible untill now. He could of course have used a Corpus spell, but I imagine he isnt too knowledeable when it comes to that form (and it wouldn't have made wiser).
I'm glad that they brought about the concepts I wanted to test and that my confusion has been solved because of it.
Hehe - this was only to make this twisted version of Dickens come full circle, so to speak , and nothing more.
I would have, untill now. In fact I haven't had any players use boosted penetration in any such case yet, but I have allowed them to add their penetration score to all cases of MR, even if the RAW then links it to the use of AC and thus to the literal target solely.
It truely is interesting, and as I've been insensitive to this issue so far I havent given it any thought. But of the top of my head, if I were to allow something like this as a HR, then I could think of at least two models: using the base penetration (Casting Total - Spell Level) )toward any other MR or ruling that it would always be zero against other MR...
My personal preference is that warding should be easier than fighting something. This is because, for the future prospects of drama/storytelling, I think being able to defend yourself from a given threat... but not be able to defeat it, makes it so that you then are set up for stage two of the plot. Namely gathing ACs and knowledge etc etc about your foe ( and boosting the penetration of your offense in addition to refining your knowledge of what offense is best against your foe ).
The other way, with wards being more difficult than the combating of the enemy, to me seems to remove that potential threshold. ( Where you can stay alive, but not win conclusively. ) To me, that is not a good thing. It means you either can already kill the target if you wanted, but are choosing to defend yourself ( or bind it ) instead for some reason... or you are group casting your circle. ( not a bad thing, but why not group cast your offense instead in that case? )
I understand what you are saying, about prefering the drama and whatnot of gathering ACs. I just prefer that to be on the offensive side of things.
Parma isn't a spell and doesn't have to resist as far as I can tell (and I don't think it did in Second Edition either), but that's fine with me. I was just pointing out that "defensive magic" would include it, and I wondered if you were leaving the door open for something else.
I'd say no. Like the magical bridge in the Penetration examples, magical stone is still solid, though you can resist it if it is thrown at you.
What? Wards don't provide Magic Resistance. They can ward away certain kinds of magic, but Magic Resistance is a different mechanic. There are no Hermetic spells that give Magic Resistance (except spells aligned with the Divine or Infernal realms), unless you count the Parma. Aegis protects a covenant like the Parma Magica protects a magus, but it doesn't actually give anyone Magic Resistance.
I have apparently been cast as some sort of clawed creature in this example. I choose to be a magical bear that has not been created with a CrAn spell. Rawr!
After casting your MuCo spell, you have made yourself a magical thing. If your Penetration Total is less than my Might Score, I can resist you if you try to hurt me with your body, like punching or choking me. My body is not augmented with magic, though, so you cannot resist my claws with your Parma. My Magic Resistance does not prevent me from doing anything to you, so I do not have to penetrate your magical skin when I penetrate your magical skin (waggles eyebrows).
The only effect that I imagine the ward would have to penetrate is the efreet's physical body, assuming he is made of fire. Only fire that has some sort of Magic Resistance can overcome the effect. If you have the Parma Magica, the sword and breath would need to penetrate your Magic Resistance, assuming they were created with magic. Not his grasp, assuming the efreet wasn't created with magic.
That's true; wards are very inefficient at high levels. I'd say that above about level 30 there is no point in learning them, because a better strategy is to cast a ward to keep out low-level foes, and then deal with the higher-level foes using individual spells. You can cast a Rego spell to hold an enemy in place instead, presumably with boosted penetration.
Aren't we simply comparing the base spell levels, though? If you're trying to convince me that a magus should be able to affect all four ghosts (and any other ghosts with less than 60 Magic Might that happen by) with a lower Casting Total, I still disagree.
Well, you can step out of the circle or erase the ring as Furion pointed out, but if it's a D: Sun ward you're definitely in trouble. All the more reason to prepare wards carefully-- they're not so good as fast-cast defenses when supernatural creatures are involved.
I doubt you could get as good a Penetration bonus if you were targeting multiple ghosts at T: Group, because you couldn't include an Arcane Connection. Also, that only works if they all come for you at once, but wards keep them out even if they happen upon you at different times.
It takes at least several combat rounds to draw a circle for a ward. How do you throw that up quickly?
I played a Vim specialist in a saga, before Societates came out, where I saw the power of wards many times. As a starting character, I was able to ward away Might 20 creatures with no problem, something that all of the other characters envied-- the Ignem-specialized Flambeau couldn't hit that with anything stronger than Palm of Flame. I could also cast spontaneous wards that would protect us all against creatures with half that score. Wasn't very useful in combat, though, because wards take so long to draw. We did find ourselves stuck inside rings several times while enemies gathered just outside, but it wasn't too hard to just pick them off with PeVi spells or arrows, since they couldn't get to us. I think the storyguide eventually brought in two cadavers with Might 25, just so that we had a challenge. That was quite a fight, because we realized they were trying to erase the circle, so we had to not only keep them from killing us but also keep them away from the border. I'm pretty sure that starting level magi should not have to fight Might 25 demons, though!
I think it would have been just as much fun (and more fun for the players of the other magi) if the levels were all ratcheted down by about half. Might 5 imps and Might 12 cadavers would have been just fine.
No problem. I've enjoyed reading these discussions each time they came up, but I didn't feel I could contribute to them much without compromising my agreement with Atlas. I think I'm okay now, as long as I don't talk about the playtest comments or any discussions the authors and line editor might have had while we were writing the book.
Well, again, I'm not sure the rules as written support this idea for anything but wards. They could, but then again they might not. So this is speculative on my part.
From this perspective, I'd say that there's no difference between Pilum of Fire and The Steel Fingernail (CrTe10, R: Touch, D: Mom, T: Ind), as far as Penetration goes. You target your victim with the spell, and conjure flame or steel to deal damage to him. The flames flying in a spear shape from your hand is simply a cosmetic effect, because the Target: Individual refers to your victim. If you have a spell to simply create a sword, instead of creating a sword that slashes the skin of a target, the T: Ind would probably refer to the sword, though I suppose it could also be designed to create a sword in the target's hand. The penetration bonus would then need to involve an AC to the sword or the person in whose hand the sword would appear, but it wouldn't boost penetration against a person you want to stab with it unless that person was the literal Target.
I used to prefer that the Target of a spell is associated with the Form of the spell, but spells like Pilum of Fire that target a specific person with the fire make it clear that two types of spells must exist. It's a useful distinction, because if a spell doesn't target the victim directly, you generally have to aim it in some way.
Fair enough.
Well, the former would require keeping track of the base penetration as well as the enhanced penetration, but the latter is more limiting for the players. What to do? For wards, it turns out it's the latter, but the solution is not universally admired.
Set levels: use damage for that form. Substract 5 from the damage bonus of the guideline and turn the damage into a BONUS to soak.
Take in mind that so far we only have a pair of explicitly developed wards, one that grants a soak of +5 vs metal damage and one that grants a soak of +10 vs wood. I will have to check the PCs to see the levels. Most of this stuff remains theoretical
I will have to check to see if they are too low level (the la lab actrivities are controlled by an other troupe member). Might be that they are low. Will check.
One important thing is that we prefer not to waste the lifes of our grogs and custos. As such, circle or group wards are preferred, if possible over personal ones.
This version does not imply a drop in parma strength: it remains at 100% efficiency
Yes, the magus can leave it. And no, he cannot generate a new one without destroying the previous one. That could be easily modified to NOT allow the magus to leave the circle easily, arguing that the magus is effectively “trapping†himself inside his parma for the benefit of his peers. So far we have not seen abuse of the current design (even if we have seen 2 magi teleport out of their parma to strike at an enemy at touch range, being parma-less while doing so) but this change would not be a biggie IMS. It takes a Diameter to rise a parma magica, so the combat might be over by the time you are back into the thick of the action.
The magus can return to normal parma. He casts the parma ritual again INSIDE the circle (diameter, rather obvious what he is doing as well), and then the circle parma gets dispelled. If the circle is broken, the parma simply disappears, leaving a “naked†magus and party.
And here you have found the danger of such a circle parma. Our magi have already experienced it: it is only really worthwhile vs SUPERNATURAL enemies, but it is a useless defence (and rather dangerous!!) vs mundane attacks. This is why a combination with soak-providing circle wards for Terram, herbam and other forms tends to be really useful here! You can create a safe haven for a dire situation, but you need some time to do so. Useful, but not foolproof. Invisibility is quite handy when you are preparing such a haven as well.
IMS it has been used to place a haven of safe retreat near the entrance of a place that looked spooky. In one case it was a dark shide court, where trhe magi were heading to negotiate. There were several factions in the shide camp, and some of them wanted to see the party dead. In this case it was not really tested, but huge grey wolves circled the Parma haven repeatedly. In the second case it was useful, since we saw a battle vs followers of Davnalleus and their supernatural (power was not determined by the PCs ) hounds. It proved useful, in such situation after the hasty retreat that the party had to make across Carnac. .
Take inm mind that this is all under playtest It has not seen enough usage IMS to be settled in stone yet.
As a side note, we have discussed if Parma should act like a soak ward, adding its level*5 to the magus’ soak instead of being a yes/no protection. It would add its level to natural resistance rolls if the spell did not cause damage. Solves polka dot issues, falling over magical bridges and other stuff, but we have not reached a consensus here yet. Right now it acts like a yes-no system as per the RAW.
I will return to read all this thread at lunchtime, when my boss is not peering over my shouloder and I can crunch over all this interesting stuff And just FYI, only the 6th page of this thread is 25 pages long if you copy it into a Word document
It's an interesting idea, the one concerning the Parma, and I'll consider indtroducing it to our saga.
As for the personal wards I might consider making them about soaking bonuses -as long as they aren't too powerful compared to the circle wards- but I'm not about to change the regular wards. They are a full stop ward to me - the other thoughts are mainly to make personal wards less attractive.
I've been strongly considering something like this option to raise as a house-rule - rather than having wards against fire require scaling but wards against everything else be absolute, just make them all fixed at a basic level and making the penetration the soak. It rewards specialists, means generalists can still defend themselves a bit and doesn't increase book-keeping (since you need to record your soaks and spells anyway).
Oh, and on the topic of personal vs circle wards - powerful is relative. One means you can run away, one means you can protect many people or trap things (assuming some other way of holding it still until you can get the spell cast successfully). I think refering to one or the other as too powerful relative to each other is largely meaningless.
I agree that the spear shape flying from you toward the one you're striking at is a cosmetic effect, and I did ponder this yesterday while writing one of the earlier posts. It must be cosmetic as it isn't aimed and I agree that it's useful to have clear distinctions on what's aimed and what's not, but... I think that distinction is possible without merging the fire and the person. I can see why it might be beneficial to do so, what with this to me new concept of whether when a spell can have its penetration boosted or not, but I do think (regardless of me considering to let all spells be penetration boost-able) it creates some problems not to have the fire of a creo ignem be the target of the spell - or for that matter with any spell of another Technique/Form that can be used to attack some one directly (next to creo rego is probably the most common). For instance it would make it problematic and artificial if the target is the person, yet having to calculate target-based modifiers such as size or requisites on something else (namely the object created or controlled to cause damage). And the other way around, if the person becomes the target than the spell would logically have to follow guidelines influenced by the person - e.g. size and you couldn't have a generic pilum of fire, but would need one against normal-sized men and yet another if targeting a giant or an elephant...
I know this is small nuance, but it only goes to show that it challenges the logic of the system to have to person be the target rather than the thing used to damage him. I would suggest always keeping the T:Target of a spell the actual thing created, manipulated or controlled, but letting the person it's cast at be the 'second hand target' (which is the idea I was trying to convey testerday), namely someone or something being impacted directly by the spell, though not as its actual T:Target. You might also call the second hand target a 'direct target of intent' - as in the person or object being what the magi wants to do something to, but through the intermediate of a spell that has another T:Target.
Let me attempt to elaborate on the nature of targets and Targets. I'll break the argumetation down to 'T:Targets', 'direct targets of intent', 'indirect targets of intent' and a group with all the remainding spells (which in fact are closest in nature to the first group - but differs in intent).
In a combat between two magi spells such as Arm of the Infant, the Wounds that Weeps, Grip of the Choking Hand, Clenching Grasp of the Crushed Heart, Spasms of the Uncontrolled Hand, Parching Wind (which is a somewhat odd number here), Weight of a Thousand Hells, Mind of the Beast, Blessing of Childlike Bliss, Enslave the Mortal Mind and the Enigma's Gift all have only a T:Target - intentions of the caster and the Form of the spell are identical.
In the same combat spells such as Weaver's Trap of Webs, Mighty Torrent of Water, Broom of the Winds, the Incantation of Lightning, Trap of the Entwining Vines, Coat of Flame, Pilum of Fire, Ball of Abysmal Flame, The Crystal Dart, and Wielding the Invisible Sling all immediately do a focused and direct attack on somene/something and thus they have both a T:Target and a 'direct target of intent'. The T:Target influences the spells' levels and casting totals, while the 'direct target of intent' allows it to be cast un-aimed.
It might be fruitfull to add a third conceptual idea - the 'indirect target of intet' - which might include spells that do not target a person/object directly but strives to have an impact but through the person's surroundings. This might include spells that create something around the person or removes something beneath, which certainly calls for aiming but not for penetration, such as Wall of Living Wood, Circle of Encompassing Flames, Teeth of the Earth Mother, Pit og the Gaping Earth, Stone to Falling Dust, and Creeping Chasm. But the 'indirect targets of intent' might also include area-of-effect spells that permeate a whole area and thus doesn't need to be aimed, but on the other hand needs to penetrate - spells such as Deluge of Rushing and Dashing, Ice of Drowning, Wreaths of Foul Smoke, Charge of the Angry Winds, Rain of Stones and Crest of the Earth Wave.
Finally there are all the spells outside this three-fold definition (actually making it four-fold ) - and probably outside combat. These are the spells that are cast and ony later might, or might not, end up conflicting with someone's MR. This might be spells that create something or spells that animate, change or improve something (that might at some time be used to attack someone with MR or in any other way comes in conflict with a MR, whether in terms of violence or peacefull interactions).
I've never needed to make these cathegories explicit, but the present discussion made me miss it, and I hope they are logical and accessible. Besides touching upon what spells should be aimed - only parts of the third cathegory and not the T:Targets and the 'direct targets of intent' - this model could also be used to discuss what spells can have their penetration boosted.
From our discussion so far, I expect that we have consensus that at least the first cathegory, the T:Targets allow boosting. I also suspect that we might agree that the 'direct targets of intent' might also be boosted. As for the two last I suspect that taking the RAW at face value they cannot be boosted - though of course this is what I will have to ponder in relation to our house rules.
That's true and they'll certainly play a part in forming my preferences on this subject, but at the same time I still think the implementation is less important than the pressing question - do we want to enable penetration boosting of spells falling in the cathegory of 'indirect targets of intent' and in the fourht pick up-group..?
I can see both versions of implementation having its merits but for the time being, if I were to prefer universal boosting, then I'm most swayed toward letting pentration be boosted against a single target and setting it as zero against any other MR. I don't see this as a limitation of the players, but given the fact that a spell might interact with several MRs it does make for an interesting choice to the players characters...
I totally forgot to do that. You guys are running me ragged! Okay, I’ll do this now, the metagame thing later, and I’ll respond to Erik’s crunch contest later tonight. If anything new comes up today, it’ll get shifted to tomorrow.
I feel like I’m neglecting the Berklist
No crunch here, just a discussion of attitude towards Wards and RAW and etceteras.
First off, let me mention that I am impressed by the level of the debate. It is valuable. Hopefully those that doubt me can now see that this is no small thing. You may agree or disagree with me on whether or not the rule is borked, and you may have a different opinion on it’s potential impact. But surely I hope you can all see that this is no small dispute. I feel that it needs to be discussed and debated, regardless on whether or not anyone is going to have their mind changed or not. .
Jeppe, there is no dispute over what the RAW says, nor over what the official ruling you quoted implies. I agree with you that the RAW says what you say it does. However, I am not arguing my preference versus some one else’s. Play according to you’re preference, you have that right, and if it seems that I am saying that one preference is smarter or better than another, then the fault is mine for not choosing my words careful enough.
I am arguing that the rules are broken though. I am not saying that they are broken on purpose, I can trace the cause of the flaw to the source and it is obviously an inadvertent mistake. I’ll get to that in a minute. But mainly, I am unable to refrain from terms such as right, wrong, broken, borked, and so forth. This is because the whole entirety of my argument is that it is in fact broken. It was broken to begin with but no one noticed, and I feel that the “repair†is a further damage rather than a solution.
If I am ever abusive, I apologize. Call me out on it and correct me. I am prone to strong speech, which is fantastic when one is involved in politics or dumping your girlfriend, but my ability to charm with words is limited to the range of Eye
As I said, I agree that all of these are in the RAW. My opinion is that RAW is wrong on a level beyond the level of personal preference. Not wrong as in morally wrong, I don’t want non-native speakers to read the incorrect meaning in my words. I mean wrong as in “incorrect†or more apt, a “miscalculationâ€. Nobody’s preferences are wrong either. I am not arguing or saying that. I am saying that I honestly feel that it would be better for the game as a whole if the RAW was different on this point.
I agree whole heartedly. Know that my motive isn’t rooted by ego. It comes from a sincere honest belief, an opinion, that it is better for the overall playability of the game, which in turn is better for the overall health of the line; for the standard rule to be revised so that Wards and the Aegis do not have to penetrate. I don’t want to change the way you play. I may suggest that one way or another may be better, but that is just opinion. I also honestly believe that the debate is also enlightening even if no opinions are changed. I myself didn’t know that the official ruling applied to the Aegis as well, and I was ignorant that the Penetration rule also included a no Arcane connection rule. I also have learned other ways of going at it, and though I have my stand, I am well rounded and more familiar with different styles of play.
But some people don’t like debate.
All apologies, but I think that is a negative attitude. I am not calling for armed rebellion or for everyone to flock to a new game. I think that, whether or not it was debated by whomever, and though I may respect their opinion, I feel that the decision is wrong and that the matter should be revisited. Invoking the name of “The Authors†is an argumentum ad verecundiam, the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority. They are just people like the rest of us, they are here on the list or the forums like the rest of us, and the original authors are long since gone from the line. Also, and this is my personal experience, it is a harmful mindset to think of these guys in anonymous terms such as “theyâ€, “the authorsâ€, “These guysâ€, and etceteras. I did that when I went off on my rampage about the changes to House Flambeau. I still feel like a dill for it. But anyway, they are regular Joes with feelings and flaws. If they did debate it beforehand, they are wrong. Now, you also say that I am†lacking a sense of perspective†and I am a “little bit obsessiveâ€. That’s fair criticism, I can take it. I don’t agree, but I am willing to debate my perspective and the conclusions you think are obsessive.
However, it is my opinion that the problem is so large, that some people are overwhelmed by it.
Which is not to say David himself is overwhelmed by it. He may or may not be, but I quoted him merely to indicate that the “powers that be†seem to think it is kind of a huge problem, so I am certain that some people are overwhelmed by it.
I then ask the following questions:
Laying aside your personal preference, what do you think is best for the game overall?
Do you feel that this or that way is a detriment to playability? A major or minor detriment? Or do you think it is an improvement?
Is the consistency of the fictional magic system more important than playability or visa versa? Is there a middle ground?
One aspect I find interesting is that the pro penetration party seems to be motivated by keeping the RAW sacrosanct, yet now that they discover that the ruling also applies to the Aegis and Arcane Connections are no use, they are more than willing to hand wave that. Hand wave all you want, that’s not my point. My point is that even the ones who were satisfied with the ruling are now dissatisfied with it.
I’m staying away from this thing all day. Hopefully I’ll get some work done, lol! I will be back for more tonight
It's like when politicians offer a referendum. Then don't get the answer they wanted. They they have another referendum, and another, and another, until they get the answer they want. And then they stop.
Feel free to apply that to either side of the debate.
Can I advise you to be careful with the word "broken"? I realize you're not trying to be insulting, but I have found that in the context of game design it is a very powerful word that means either the mechanic doesn't actually work, or that it works but is so easily abused that it ruins the game (e.g. "that pink dot spell is BROKEN!"). When you say wards are broken, you mean that they do not function the way you imagine that they should, right? Not that they don't actually work, or that they are abusive? I think versimilitude is a valid argument for changing a mechanic, especially in a game that attempts to simulate a system with real-world parallels, but I would suggest that when making that argument, a word like "inappropriate" (or even "wrong") would come across better than "broken".
I agree with Mr. Dahl. The mechanic works just fine... it just increases the difficulty of warding to a point where ( IMO ) it is disproportionate to the difficulties of other activities in the same line. ( Which Mr. Dahl may not agree with. ) Things like PeVi effects or Summonings etc. It is that scaling of difficulty vs. these other activities that I dislike, for the story reasons I've stated previously in this thread. ( The conclusive ending of a story being more quickly/easily acheived than the drawing out of it. This via the change from warding being relatively more simple to acheive to much more difficult to acheive than simply fighting the enemy. )
One thing I think would aid greatly in settling ( if it could ever happen ) the issue of how difficult wards should be to cast would be some greater clarity on what level of protection they actually provide vs. the warded category of 'stuff'.
Example being a discussion on just that some time ago where it was commented by Gribble that he wasn't certain if he would allow a circle ward to protect the inhabitants from a dragon's fiery breath... as he didn't see it as protecting them from what he viewed as that manner of indirect attack.
Whereas to me that is counterintuitive and is something I would have assumed fell into a 'direct action' of the warded creature category... and thus be protected.
The point being that the more broad or narrow of a protection one thinks wards should have influences what one considers a fair expense for acheiving it.
If I was playing in Gribble's game for example, I probably would never use wards because I wouldn't consider them worth my time... and would be concerned that I might assume in a similar manner as to the above, find myself unprotected... and get squished. Especially if might matching and penetration are required for such finicky protection. Whereas if I was playing in a game that gave wards a lot more protection, say all indirect action being warded as well, then the perceived value goes up a great deal. Maybe enough to buy off on the penetration idea... maybe not.
Well, at least I know for fact that you know my intent is not to be abusive or insulting. I am also more than happy to listen to wise council whispered in my ear. I honestly have troble with non-advisarial vocabulary. I come from a Greek family that rewarded beligerence and where one could use reason and argument to talk one's self out of punishment (if you could argue forcefully enough that is). I know that it is a personal flaw of mine to easilly come off as advisarial, so I am grateful for the advice.
I'm also glad that you brought up versimilitude, because that is an intrinsic part of my personal gaming philosophy. So yeah, that is an issue for me. Wards are not an issue for my saga's because we ignore the rule out of preference. It's not an issue for my personal favorite long enduring character, because he can get plenty of penetration.
Yes, wards don't work as I imagine they should. Further, though, I am imagining further problems down the line. Ignore my theories of newbies meeting veterans. What I see as a future problem is a trend towards diminishing the might scores of creatures. But aside from personal preference, I think that it should be easier for them to resist spells other than wards. To me, this seems more realistic, more playable, and in turn I feel that this is better for the prosperity of the line to be more realistic and playable.
How about Flaw? Is Flaw a better word? I think that the system is Flawed for requiring Wards and the Aegis to penetrate. Though I would not place this flaw on the same magnitude as the pink polka-dot, I do think it is a pretty serious flaw that hampers play. I will get more specifically into that when I reply to your reply of my Crunch reply. Which will be tonight!
I strongly disagree with your view on politics. Know that I hold the democratic-republic proccess and free speech as sacrosanct core values. You have the right to not vote. You also have the right to skip this thread. Unlike the Berklist, you can skip over forum topics and only read what you like. I don't want you to do that. I'd rather you participate in the discussion. If interest group X wants to adress their grievences in public forum, intrest group Y does not have the right to silence them because they are tired of hearing argument X, nor does their fatigue in the issue in any way invalidate argument X.
and lo, the horse seemed possessed of an infinite soak, and the most sorrowful look one could ever expect painted upon such a poor creature.
...
But I would agree, "broken" is the wrong term. Perhaps "inconsistent," or "anomalous," even a "special case." Certainly not broken. Broken would imply that nothing short of a major reworking could resolve the issue, when in truth, I think it's a minor adjustment.
I will agree to use the word Flawed. I think that is fair. Further, I shall stipulate that this is only an Opinion, one that I am not alone in, but nevertheless, it is only an Opinion. Does that satisfy all parties? Having said that, my argument isn't about preference, but what I think is good for the game's health and growth.
what’s with picking on the Ignem specialists? A wise Flambeau magus minds his knowledge of Rego, as it is most useful and important when dealing with the noble Art of Ignem. Do not Evoke that which you cannot control. And esides, my main mainstay character lo these many years has been a Jerbiton magus who is not a necromancer, but he just happens to be really good at dealing with ghosts. His Mentem and mastery is such that it’s not a worry for him. It’s not about my ego either. I honestly believe that this is better for playability, which ergo is better for the health of the line.
It seems even 
, and nothing more.
