But you haven't explained why this footnote of a rule is so potentially damaging to the longer term future of the line. It's just such a straw man. That's regardless of what's actually being discussed or the relative merits of the official rules as opposed to the house rules you prefer.
Why are the official rules on this damaging to the game? Given that its such a small thing.
I reckon I'm out of imagination as I can't really think of any more nuances to be applied to this issue. Wards by their nature are a little bit on the crunchy side but I think the best approach is to simply treat them as spells and let the more general spell rules take over. And I can't see what's bad about it beyond "but I haven't been playing it that way" or "but that makes my ward harder".
As I said up-thread, you could have the same argument around all sorts of aspects of Muto Vim, moreso if you played a Vim specialist...
So once again, why is this small issue potentially so damaging?
But you see this is interesting. By saying that wards don't need to penetrate, under the current "wards are spells and are cast as spells" wards suddenly become very, very strong. Somewhere up thread I've given an example where under today's rules a magus casts and penetrates with a level 10 ward, but the same magus who uses a ward that doesn't need to penetrate can suddenly ward off a level 30 creature. That's 4 magnitudes higher!
Now, granted, you could use a set-level-ward effect (to bend the rules even further) such that to ward a creature off is simply a base effect and your penetration is the level of creature you can ward against. That's better, but it suffers in comparison with DEO-type spells which have to be learned at different levels for different effects. And what level would the base effect be? 10? 20? 30? How does that affect the maths? And what would the justification be? And if warding works that way, shouldn't summoning and all other spells that act against creatures with might? How do you make it consistent?
Whichever way a future new edition goes with this I suspect that there will still be some division over how well it gets implemented. What we have today is the best of all the options.
And right after that you will notice that I debunk your example. He can't cast a level 30 Ward because he couldn't learn level 30 in the first place. He coul learn a level 20 and maybe spont a 15.
This has been so interesting debate that I felt obliged to step out of the shadows I have lurked in for several months already. I guess I should introduce myself even though I feel that I already know some of you a little bit.
I am a long time GM and storyteller and sometimes even a player from multitude of sagas and stories from various systems. My troupe is located in a town in Finland. My first Ars Magica was 3rd edition, I also played the fourth and little over a year ago (I guess) we began using 5th edition. 5th edition has been fun but that is derailing this lively debate, so I guess I should get to the point, but first I'll tell where I stand in about Penetration and Wards. (Oh, and I am not too used in writing to forums, so I hope you can forgive me if I make some error in local protocols - or I mess up with formatting.)
When I began reading this thread, I was a firm follower of the official "Wards have to Penetrate" -camp. Xavi's and especially Marko Markoko's debate swayed me towards "no need to penetrate" -camp, but they haven't won me over yet. The main reason for this is that I believe if the wards don't have to penetrate, they will become too powerful and soon I will have to send in the Lords of Hell against the magi of my campaign even though they are just few years out of their apprenticeship if I want to offer them any kind of challenge.
Now I address just the one point that gave me the shudders when I read it.
Sodalis Dahl, are you sure this is the wise way to handle penetration? Let me continue this example in form of a story:
Ebenezer's apprentice Sheba steps out of the corner and suggests meekly: "Master, if you cannot use Sodalis Cratchit's blood as Arcane Connection for the spell aimed at the sword, why won't you use the sword itself as arcane connection to itself." Ebenezer looks at his apprentice in disbelief, exclaims: "Nonsense, everyone knows...", but quiets down when he realizes that there might actually be reason in the girl's words. A moment later he mutters to himself: "It might actually work, and work very well. If the laws of magic say that the connection must be from the target for the spell to penetrate well, I'll use the sword as arcane connection to itself. The sword must be a damn good connection to itself and thus my spell will be greatly empowered and Cratchit's puny parma won't stand a chance against my invisible swords."
The result: If you say that the target of the spell determines how good penetration you get, Ebenezer's apprentice's suggestion will work and the invisibility spell will get at least the +4 multiplier from Arcane Connection to Penetration. I won't say that horoscope will work on swords (on some Saga's they might work) but representation should work if this line of reasoning is used. The result is an invisible sword with incredibly high penetration, usable against most of the things protected by MR.
In my opinion it is better if the Storyguide will allow Ebenezer to use Cratchit's blood as Arcane connection for Invisibility spell (and for the other examples as well). If the sword is used against someone/something else, the spell won't have the penetration bonuses the spell has got against Cratchit.
I guess this whole point was little beside the point, but to return to the matter of the thread: sighs I still think that for some (at least for my) sagas Wards should have to penetrate. Otherwise the covenant will be sitting inside it's "impregnable" Wards until the Lords of Hell come knocking and the Saga ends in fire.
Yes, it is. But the power a ward offers is a simple one - it's a defense. Being able to ward off a beastie doesn't solve problems (unless you take a lot of care to lure, seduce or what have you the creature into the circle, in which case you've earned it), it just means that a stale-mate is reached.
The argument about the varied levels of DEO-type spells is flawed. You never need more than a level 5 DEO. After all, you can cast it multiple times and with far greater penetration. The effect scales - one takes a small bite, one takes a larger and so on. The ward just stops action - it doesn't, for instance, stop the dragon flaming the forest the mage is in and laughing as he tries not to cook.
This is predominantly a story argument, and also a setting one. In most myths, evil is bound, not defeated. It is tricked into a trap and held there, that being easier than actually destroying it. By making outright destruction (and, with a multi-cast DEO-type, that's exactly what you get) easier, a lot of tension and planning is lost.
Firstly, welcome to the fun. It depends on what you mean as a challenge - a challenge in a direct fight is a very different kettle of fish to a challenge over time where influences clash. To adapt on old story of mine - a Might 25ish demon starts aiding a blacksmith in his work. The quality of the work increases, it becomes more artistic and deadly, and it increases in demand. A year or two later, one of the weapons is used to murder someone important (to the magi, the blacksmith, the church) and in the investigation, an infernal influence is noted somehow. The magi can't immediately directly attack the demon - they have to hunt him down, gather up tainted weapons, form alliances with priests and eventually, they might be able to destroy it. Or it can escape and start a long-running feud. Being able to ward against the demon but not immediately outright destroy it means both sides can lick their wounds (possibly literally) and plot vengeance. And, if you really want to challenge your players, have them kidnap a Venetian glass-blower and see what sort of trouble that raises.
Holy Carp!! Each time I enter in this thread there is a whole new page on it!
Well.... will need to catch up later. Replying to stuff in page 6....
I wholeheartedly agree with this. That sets me firmly in the camp of “wards shouldn’t penetrate†lot, I guess.
The part where the enemy is not stupid to hang around to be shot by arrows and/or spells is important here!! The circle plus destruction of enemies can work against brainless zombies, but not much else beside that.
Nope, but the ability to AVOID a fight should be easier than blasting said enemy to pieces. At least in my gaming universe view. Makes for interesting hasty retreats and the need to gather the ACs that have been argyued over and over for the pro-penetration defenders, to be able to AFFECT the creature instead of PROTECT you from it.
QUOTED FOR TRUTH
This is the basic difference between playing styles, methinks
IMO this reasoning does not fly at all regarding the diverse fantasy (both high and low) of magi casting circle wards to summon a demon/magical beings and then negotiating with them because they cannot affect them with their magic directly. If you can compel a magical being to do your will (and you do not care much about annoying him a little bit), why negotiate with it at all? Most accounts of circle trappings are supposed to be for HUGE beasties, not the other way around!!
EDIT: Fhtagn said it better than me
Quoted for truth
To me, it sounds much better (and way funnier!!) than blasting said enemies into oblivion on sight and without blinking. Much more dramatic, and rewards creativity when having to deal with them. Maybe you are trapped and you then hjave to negotiate with the baddies to get out. Or you have to come back with some alternative methods of overcoming the enemy, or gather those ACs we all love to have….. Much more inspiring to create stories on a saga arc. It allows you a different alternative than blast it to pieces or die dichotomy.
Reading page 7 today….. Damn you all!! I curse thy and thine descendants for this!!
Not necessarily - I'm firmly in the wards should penetrate but the current guidelines are flawed and should be replaced by a basic guideline camp. Not sure if anyone else is, mind. ::grins:: At the moment, my group run that Wards don't penetrate - we ruled they're a breakthrough-like effect where the guideline is 0 and the level represents penetration incorporated much like an enchanted item. Clumsy, but it works.
I agree - if you want more powerful wards, then the way to go is not to dump the rules on penetration but give the guidelines a fixed number. In that case you keep the universal essence of magic theory and penetration.
So, you propose creating special rules for wards in order not to have special rules for wards? Each level 20 ward that I cast then has a different score..... and the number-lkeeping is maintained. Number-keeping can be a BIG issue here, when you have circle wards/spells spread all over your covernant, let alone in your sites of adventure....
Simply droping penetration for circular/ring wards seem to work to me....
Given the amazingly big ammount of rules that break the "basic mechanics" of the hermetic theory I fail to see why spells including the word "ward" cannot be somewhat special and not need theory, being passive mystic walls in practical terms.
Nope. I suggest that instead of house ruling that wards don't penetrate, that you house rule the base level to be different. Both are house rules, and thus both special rules, to begin with.
If I were to make wards easier that would be how I would prefer to do it, as to me it seems more in keeping with the Laws of Magic.
But then how do you prevent the low level magus (recently guantleted for instance) from warding against creatures with 30 might or more? That should be in the gift of more experienced magi, surely.
As a storyguide I want to populate my stories with appropriate challenges. I don't want to populate them with creatures with really high Might just because I can guess someone will attempt a ward. If you have high Might creatures in order to challenge wards, they become too strong for other potential magical intervention.
The other aspect of course is that they start to become a little too deterministic. Ignore Penetration and a level 30 ward just works. No mess, no fuss, the ward works. No drama, no challenge, no uncertainty.
I do accept that with the current rules as designed high level wards can be extremely hard to cast effectively. But to me, as both a storyguide and a player, that just changes the nature of the challenge. As a storyguide I wouldn't throw a Might 30 creature at the party and simply direct them to the warding rules and let them get on with it. Anything beyond 15 or 20 Might needs special handling, not just by characters but by storyguides and players alike.
What does penetration in a Ward actually do? What's the spell's level (its power) actually do?
Best I can see both are required to keep an entity from crossing the ward and from using their supernatural abilities across it. What if we separate those two effects and assign one to level and another to penetration. I'm not bothered which but it strikes me that by doing this we can have wards that can keep a beastie out but not its power or keep the beastie's power contained but not prevent it from walking in and just thumping you.
Lets presume for a moment that it's the spell level that keeps out the beasties supernatural power and the penetration that keeps out the beastie itself. Taking a might 20 demon for a moment, with a fascination power that usually requires 1 might point to activate. It's bound within a level 10, penetration 20 circle ward. It would not be able to reach out and attack you but if it were to spend 11 of its might on activating its fascination power you could be drawn into the circle with it. Oh dear.
Alternatively think of casting a weak ward and then fighting within it a foe too powerful to actually be contained by it. At least until it expends so much of its might that it is unable to escape.
A ward with equal level and penetration would still be the consummate defense but wards become more useful and variable. You could even allow casters to decide which effect is tied to which when the spell is designed, allowing for spells designed especially to ward against supernatural powers or entities but not both.
Actually, though I currently favor the no-penetrate way because of ease of play, I do agree that using a base level is the best overall fix. ReMe Base 10, ward against a ghost so long as the spell penetrates the ghost's might". This would have to be applied accross the board for various types of wards. So, to specify, my camp is: The Rule is Flawed and needs Attention.
Simple: I do not prevent a magus from surviving a level 30 creature.
If he has 2 minutes to cast a ward against it, that is. Quite a few times he will be in quite a rush to do it appropiately.
The creature can be a challenge without being a drooling mad rampaging killer beast. Indirect action, cunning and plot instead of raw force makes for interesting challenges.
Level 30 wards work. And they should, given that the starting magus is investing a quarter of his spell levels in this only spell, that works against a single realm creatures. it is like saying that you despise BOAF because it can blast most enemies to pieces and that you are forced to make them immune to dfire in order to pose a challenge to the players. That woud rise many eyebrows arouind here (my group) I guess.... Wards are longer lasting, and are safer to cast (1 casting only, not 1 per round, so less fatigue) but as stated over and over again are not foolproof against anything but brainless zombies. A challenge is not necessatrily a COMBAT challenge. Hermetics are quite good at defeating plain brutes if they put some effort into it. Anchangel Michael or the Virgin Mary (iif NOT on a divine mission) are a joke of a challenge, for a prepared hermetic team. Well, might be a little bit over the top as a statement, but you get the idea
Wards simply offer a respite and the option to regroup, not sure victory at all.
Besides, the fact that supernatural powers do NOT include a dice roll is stupid given how the core ArM system works for other abilities, so if you include a roll there you sudddenly might get powers with an increased penetration, not a fixed feature I have used it several times with good effect to surprise cocksure PCs The power does not necessarily penetrate, but sometimes an Imp might roll 3 1 in a row....
He can't learn the spell in the first place. Doesn't matter what his casting score is. You don't get a die roll to your lab total. The example magus you gave could manage a level 20 formulaic or a level 15 spontaneous ward.
My main issue with wards, the reason I say there is a Flaw, is a matter of scale and proportion. Not only do I think Wards should be easier than other more aggressive effects, I am also worried that if you drive down the might scores of creatures to make them Wardable, then they have no resistance against any other spell nor to they have a sufficient penetration score themselves to be an interesting challenge.
While I'm sure there are mathematical ways around that (probably using experimentation, lab specialization, and work schedules) and we need to factor Magic Theory and Aura and virtues and flaws into the equation, I think you have a valid point. The use of any spell is generally restricted by the need for a character to learn it in the first place.
I take your point with regard to the Penetration levels of powers used by creatures. That can be offset by use of the Penetration ability (which seems to be the default way of dealing with this in 5th). And given that magi will generally increase in power in quite a brisk nature so will the quality of his opponents (provided by an obliging storyguide). Those level 10 creatures will stick around long enough for the magi to outgrow them, then you're onto the level 15 beasts and the magi need to raise their game again.
Resistance on the other hand is a different problem altogether. The all or nothing, black or white nature of it means that a spell either fizzles or frazzles. But that's a "problem" beyond the confines of wards...
IMS I try to avoid power creep unless the characters search for it. I have the main antagonists set, so they can run into a power 60 dragon if they search (read: go where they should not) in the right spot. The real dangers are not the ones you can kill, but the ones that will come back to haunt the covenant if you deal with them in a DnD way /(AKA Hack & slash)
But it's not "power creep" for the sake of it. I mean, in time I'll want to confront "the dragon up north". That'll be a hefty villain. And that's my choice. But as a storyguide I wouldn't throw a Might 60 dragon against the covenant on a whim, at least certainly not in any encounter that I expected them to fight their way out of.
If I set up a combat/conflict encounter I'd gauge the enemy to the capability of the magi. And that, naturally, will increase over time.
I have set a series of major characters around the covenant. All of them can be either allies or enemies and all of them are different power levels. My players have antagonized a pair of dudes that they have no option of beating at all in a fair fight. If you search for a beating, sometimes you find it.
In any case, we are moving out of the discussion per se.
If the characters can ward themselves vs the big baddie but cannot defeat it, don't you think that they will want to gather ACs or find other ways to defeat it in other ways than by sheer "my Pilum iof Fire is bigger than yours"? That is what allowing wards to be effective tends to achieve
Demons et al can also enter wards using "mules" that transport them across a spell like that, hiding in a host. Idem for Aegises. other syupernatural creatures can do the same, or there might be a glitch (that conveniently is known by the SG but not the players ATM) that can be used to overcome the defence if it is appropiate to the story.
As said, circular non-pentrating wards are not foolproof. They set down for an effective defence in some circumstances that cannot always be achieved easily. They allow you to retreat, most of the time, not to smithen the opposition and instead: youi are deciding to play condescendingly and prefer to trap instead of beat up. You use wards because you are desperate, not because you are condescending.
I curse thy and thine descendants for this!!
Each level 20 ward that I cast then has a different score..... and the number-lkeeping is maintained. Number-keeping can be a BIG issue here, when you have circle wards/spells spread all over your covernant, let alone in your sites of adventure.... 
