Whilst to a certian extent I agree with you, that is power creep. As the magi get better, the monsters get better. One of the nice things about Wards being feasible alternatives to blasting and hoping is that you can set a bit more verisimilitude by having some things set up in advance. You have a legend of a Dragon in the north. The magid decide to investigate and get their collective arses returned to them. Wards mean they can run away, having gained an enemy and a fun story without you having to nerf the dragon to avoid a TPK.
As a character who has invested a lot of time in getting more powerful, only having a constant level of challenge is a bit dull. From time to time, being able to steamroller over opposition as a reward for being stronger is a good thing, and being brought up short is likewise.
There's a difference between throwing a might 60 dragon on the covenant as a whim and preventing the characters from doing something stupid and putting the eye-gems back in the curiously magical statue.
Well, fun for me, sure. That was pretty much all my character could do in a big battle against demons, set up wards and hide in them, but I was surprisingly effective. Not so much fun for the Flambeau, though, whose character was designed to blast baddies. There was no way he could even touch a Might 25 demon with his magic, so he basically got to sit there and watch the grogs try to take them down with axes. Actually, I think he even ended up drawing an axe himself, and was badly injured in the fight. I do recall the player was annoyed about it all. Do you think it would have been worse if the ward could only hold back Might 10 creatures instead, and the attackers were Might 15? I'm pretty sure the Flambeau would have had a better-than-average chance to hit a Might 15 creature with his Pilum, which certainly isn't an instant kill. And it's not like that would have made my character's strategy useless.
I also don't get the argument that wards encourage alternative solutions to a supernatural problem. Wards are a solution to a supernatural problem. If you need to get past a bunch of faeries, say, you can try to blast them, negotiate with them, or ward them away from you. It seems to me that making wards easier just encourages that particular solution instead of others. Instead of setting up a ward, why wouldn't you just proceed directly to the part where you come up with a clever method for overcoming the enemy?
Well, firstly, I'd say the sword is not an Arcane Connection to itself, because an Arcane Connection is almost always something that has been separated from the target but retains a close connection to it. But let's say Ebenezer pulls the stone from the hilt of the sword or something like that.
Secondly, part of my proposal was that when you use an Arcane Connection to boost penetration against a target, only penetration against that target is boosted. For any other target, the Penetration Total is 0. This is how it works for Hermetic wards, and I think it would make sense if it works that way for other indirect or secondhand targets, as Furion described them. So yes, the Arcane Connection would certainly give Ebenezer a powerful penetration boost against the sword's Magic Resistance, but not against the Magic Resistance of any person that should come into contact with the point afterward.
I get what you mean with "indirect target" but imo even the fires of Pilum of Flame and Coat of Flame are indirect: Both spells create a flame medium which they use to burn the victim. The target of the spell is the fire, not the victim. The victim's Magic Resistance will protect him when the fire comes in contact with his Magic Resistance. This indirectness causes a conflict with the RAW.
The RAW says: "Any character with the Penetration Ability can use sympathetic magic to increase the penetration of her magic. The Penetration Bonus starts at one times the character's Penetration Ability, and the multiplier can be increased. This requires that the character have an Arcane Connection to the target of the magic."
The RAW has a 'flaw' or maybe just a 'feature' because the target of many spells is not what you first think it is. Most people think that the target of Pilum of Flame is the victim, not the fire. With Pilum of Flame and Coat of Flame you aren't able to use Arcane Connection against the victim if you follow the RAW. Imo RAW should say something like: "... can be increased. This requires that the character has an Arcane Connection of the victim of the magic." The target and the victim are not the same thing for many spells - for some like the Clenching Fist of the Crushed Heart they are.
Darn! It is late. I must get some sleep. I think you will get my point and perhaps proceed to crush them. I shall see it in the morning. Have a nice day.
Sorry, this part of the discussion should be in a thread of it's own.
Meh, I was thinking we were telling stories not running simulations. The "battling a great evil until it becomes weak enough to be bound and controlled" is a common theme in fantasy fiction.
I disagree. The victim is the target of the PoF. Otherwise the rage would be Touch and you'd literally throw the thing. IoL is direct as well. I think Indirect would be such things as Wards, Edge of the Razor, Blade of Virulent Flame, and the like.
Erik, I had an idea inspired by the Colombbae's ability to work AC's into Wards by specifying the subject. Mix that with, say, runic inscription, and you could cast your spell specifically (for Bjorn of Bjornaer to weild against Bob of Bonisagus in the upcoming battle), and then the EotR affects only Bob, but you get a penetration bonus for AC's.
You and I ought to have a talk about rune magic one day
Technically, the target of both of these spells is the Individual who will be damaged by the fire. The spell creates fire, so I can see how it would make sense that the Target must be the fire created by the spell, but it isn't always the case, unfortunately. The rules allow you to target a person or some other sort of Individual with the fire, too. For example, you can cast Blade of the Virulent Flame to create the fire on a sword. According to the rule you cite, you need an Arcane Connection to this target in order to boost your penetration on the former spells, and while you can use an Arcane Connection to the sword to boost your penetration for the latter spell, I was also suggesting that the boosted Penetration Total doesn't carry over to whoever you strike with the magical flames.
I think I understand your point, but I assure you I have no desire to crush it. I hope to broaden our knowledge and understanding of the game world through discussion.
That sounds like an awesome application of the Verditius Runes to me, which are probably based based on many of the same symbols that the Columbae use, since they all come from variations on the Anglo-Saxon runes. In fact, I bet it would make a great Minor House Mystery-- if anyone can do that, I'd guess the Verditius could. Or maybe it's something that got integrated into Magic Theory with Ring and Circle? It's a nice thing for any magus to be able to use advance preparation against a foe, no matter what the spell.
Sure thing. Have you read Ancient Magic? Hermetic Rune Magic gives some interesting benefits to penetration. Perhaps developing spells that boost penetration through an Arcane Connection to an indirect target would lead to an interesting Discovery?
Yes. Yes it does. This is one of the most wide-ranging threads I can remember reading for some time. Fun!
Wards don't solve problems. Warding against faeries means they can't target what is inside a small, immobile circle. It means you can sit there until they get bored. It means you're powerless whilst they raise the slain grogs and send them to burn the town you require for support. It means that one watches you whilst the others assume your form and go forth to rape and pillage.
Personal wards mean you can run away. Circle wards mean you cannot. They allow you to make a glorious stand, or to sit impotent. If you leave the circle, you break it and you're vulnerable again. You can use a ward to trap something, but how will you lure it into the circle and keep it there?
I'd love to know where the idea that wards solve all problems comes from? It seems ludicrous. Even assuming you can afford to set Year duration wards on everything you own, the fae can still set a grassfire or move some foxes in to kill your chickens. Your Vis supply just becomes fuel for a stalemate. If you use circle wards, your cattle can't move and you need to recast it every single time you enter your tower. The fae in this case can't target your tower, but can harrass the locals in your image and send angry mundanes to burn you out. Wards allow you to survive on a defensive footing but they do not mean a defensive stance is ultimately victorious.
Wards are rarely a solution in and of themselves, unless that solution is to trap/bar something for a relatively short duration. But they can offer a delay, time to create a solution, even if that "solution" is to beat a hasty retreat at the first possible moment.
Let's be clear - the adoption of the word "target" for this purpose is, perhaps (and imo), one of the most unfortunate choices in RPG history - but it's what we've got, and what the current authors were stuck with, handed down from generations of editions ago.
By the rules, if you cast a PoF, the "target" of the casting is "a 2' thick, spear-shaped jet of fire" that reaches out to Voice Range. And then that hits anything you want it to - but that "anything" is ~not~ the "target" of the spell, not as the term is used in the rules.
If you wanted to create a "Throwing Spear of Fire", then the "target" would be a spear-shaped flame that could then be thrown at anything you want. But again, the "target" is the fire that's created, not the thing that the fire is then hurled at. Ranges determine where the magic (which is the "target" of the spell) shows up, or reaches out to, not where the intended victim of the spell effect is (tho' often/usually those are one and the same.)
That's the terminology of the rules, even if it's not how normal people speak outside of those constraints, (nor how the vast majority of new players hear those rules first time.)
Whatever the mage is aiming at, whatever s/he wishes to hurt with that spell, be it cast or chucked, is not "the target" of the spell as that term is used by the rules. (Unfortunately for any who speak English.) They are what the spell, the created fire, indirectly affects.
Now, sitting around a table, it's easy (easier?) to make a distinction between the Form target of the spell and the mage's target in the combat. But to use the term casually in posting can lead to massive confusion - and here we are.
Hopefully, that can all be past tense. (For this discussion, anyway.)
Worse than "level"? By the way, I think Target was first added to the Fourth Edition...
I can't tell what you're arguing here. Are you saying that according to the rules as written, the Target: Individual of Pilum of Fire refers to the pilum of flame, rather than the person it strikes? I'm sorry, but I'm certain that isn't the case. While Pilum doesn't say target, it does refer to the individual that it hits, and the other similar spells Flash of the Scarlet Flames, Coat of Flame and Ball of Abysmal Flame all explictly refer to the target as seperate from the fire.
What you mean is that wards don't solve some problems. Regardless of whether they penetrate or not , they're no different to any other effect in this regard.
If you can contrive to get the faerie on the inside of the ward, then it might be more effective?
That might depend on your troupe's interpretation of what "breaking a circle" means. But that's a whole other argument.
Depends on context. That's a story, isn't it?
Probably the same way you would trap anything else though. Possibilities including holding it in place with other Rego magic or getting a grog to hold on to it. Alternatively you could dig a pit, contrive to make it fall in somehow, and then ward the lip of the pit.
I don't think anyone is arguing it solves all problems.
For what it's worth, in our troupe we originally played that wards didn't penetrate, in the mistaken belief that we were right. We now play that they do need to penetrate. I don't think it has posed a big problem.
Also, for what it's worth, (despite what I think it says in HoH:S) I think that our troupe would be totally fine with a character using the existing ward guidelines to create a Ward Against Bob spell (where Bob is a named specific faerie), and then using Arcane Connections to Bob to boost Penetration when casting the ward. But such a ward would only ward against the faerie Bob.
Also boosting effective Penetration with Wizard's Communion is a good tactic if you are playing that wards need to penetrate.
Yep. It is an awesome and diverse book. Well worth the read alone. I love how it doesn't give you adventures, it gives you goals and settings for adventures.
But my knowledge of Runes and my intimate connection with Hermetic Rune Magic goes far beyond that
(LOL, inside joke with my troupe)
But that is a topic for another time.
Indeed. I still want to talk about the magical bear (rawr!), but I'll tackle that some other time. I'm exhausted from work.
At some earlier point I've stated that to my preferences the relative ease of penetrating with a ward spell compared to other spells isn't a problem. However, given the fact that several people address this as an issue to them (whether using terms such as killing-power or problem-solving power), I find it fair to meet on that assumption and debate within it, at least for a short while.
The thing is, I would like to question the actual difference in power when about to confront a foe with Might.
It seems that it's easy to present examples of how much easier it is to penetrate with a given spell, compared to a ward, against a given measure of Might. It's been repeated several times that some people find it problematic that you can kill a creature easier than ward against it. But many of these comparisons seems a bit static and theoretical. That it is easier to penetrate with any other spell does not neccesitate that this also signifies that it is easier to kill.
First of all, spells that can kill with a single casting are often of a sufficient high level that I am not convinced that they have an easier time penetrating than with a ward. Alright, but the magus is still deadly to a creature even if it takes more than a single round to finish it off. The problem however is that it almost seems that in this discussion of Might and penetration, the foes in question have been reduced to the size of the Might alone and ignores that things with Might usually have a few tricks of their own - and often the more powerful the higher their Might. So if moving the calculations of penetration to the 'field' then the magus has to be able not only to penetrate, but also to incapacitate the foe before it destroys those making an attempt on its life. Even if the magus can do this in one round (which I think would require rather high level spells + penetration - so not much different from the wards) he still has to act faster than his enemy. And often one round wouldn't be enough. Suddenly the amazing advantage of killing rather than warding isn't as convincing - not if you actually have to do it AND live to tell about it.
On the other hand a ward utterly and completely protects you again a given sort of creature. It can do nothing what so ever against you, as long as you stay within your circle. And the ward could even be set up prior to the confrontation and need not be liable to the creature ending your life before you get to do your stuff. From the safety of the ward the magus can now more or less take all the time in the world to defeat the enemy. At least untill the creature happen to realize it cannot do anything against the warded and the might take flight.
This might not completely level out the concerns over relative power - but when looking at actual use rather than theoretical calculations of penetration/spell levels alone, well then it should be clear that wards are far from as impotent as some make them out to be.
Darn, this thread is running fast, but I'll try to catch up along the way.
Motivation
Powerful is relative - well now I'm really in trouble.. because I've consistenly been arguing that I dont mind the current relative differences between wards and other spells, exactly because power IS relative. And of course the same holds true for the relation between regular wards and the personal ones. The thing is that just as some people prefer wards to be less difficult to use than is the case, in the same way I wan't regular wards to be easier to use than the personal kind. You might say that even if power is relative I wan't to tip the scales so that there no longer is a doubt that personal wards ARE less powerfull. In other words I want to make this kind of power less relative.
You present the two kind of wards as if it's either ability to 'run away' or 'protect many people'. But what if I presented you with a calculation that would show that you can actually do both with wards on people rather than wards as circle/ring?!? In that case the circle/ring wards are only usefull in case you are not warding but actually wanting to catch the creature in a circle - and that with the exception of really big circles these wards would be inferior to the wards directly cast on people...
Examples of calculation
Okay, regular wards are Touch/Ring/Circle, but the rules state, on p. 114 in the paragraph on wards, that when making other types of wards you do not start your level calculations at zero as usual, but that you can subtract magnitudes from the base of Touch/Ring/Circle.
This would then enable a warding spell with Touch/Sun/Individual which in any other respect has the exact same effect as the circle ward - except now you can cast it in peace and calm on yourself and your men during breakfast and during the entire day they'll be as protected as if in a circle but with complete freedom of movement - the beast cannot attack them or use mythic powers on them in any way (I assume the spell matches the level of the beast and penetrates - as it is the exact same level as the ward - the ward would also be as useless if neither could penetrate, so we much assume that they penetrate under the same circumstances).
Another variation is the Personal/Moon/Individual spell - the magus can protect himself for a month as great as in a circle. Finally, with a slight moderation of no more than 1 magnitude, it could be cast as Touch/Diameter or Concentration/Group. I suppose that you can't make Group spells with R:Personal even if you are part of the group - but if you can you could make the Per/Sun/Group version...
Now tell me, if you so easily can make wards of the exact same level (or a maximum one additional magnitude) but not being bound within a circle, when would the magi then ever prefer the circle over the direct ward on people? The only exception is when using a ward to 'cage' the creature. I recall how this dawned on my troupe and I, how you calculate personal wards, during yet another session of wonderful Calebais - and how a magus straight out of Gauntlet could personal-ward the entire company of people (against hrools and satyrs etc) and still be mobile to move into the ruin without anyone but the mighty ghosts able to interact with the characters (hint: Marko don't fear impotent warding so much ).
Preferences
I think circles are cool. I think they add an awesome measure theme; And I think they can act as a vehicle for interesting scenes. But I also think that it is very implausible, given the current relation of wards, for a magus to logically prefer the circle wards except in very very few select situations (huge circles with a lot of things/persons protected or when trapping rather than warding). I prefer that circle wards are at least as usefull as the personal ones - in fact I want them to be the first choice.
In the light of the ongoing discussion you might add that I think the circle wards are much more endangered by wards on people than by the relative level of other spells (which I have no problem with)...
This is why it's my preferences to find a way to make personal wards less useful than circle ones - because the very relative power you spoke of do not exist at the moment (personal wards doing the same as circle ones at the same level approx.). I want personal wards to have an edge, but not in almost all things, and I want the circle to be the logical choice when it comes to wards.
Toward a possible solution (based on my preferences)
Might be an idea to do it that way. The easiest thing is of course if I could avoid having to change guidelines etc. Ironically, when it comes to the discussion of re-adjusting wards in general, I've been an outspoken advocate of keeping penetration but using fixed base-level to balance it - for those wanting wards in general to be more powerfull (while I'm 'only' gunning at the personal wards).
I'n fact, I've been thinking of just simply HRing that non-circle wards start their calculations at zero, rather than enjoying the benefit of the 3 'free' magnitudes granted from having the Touch/Circle/Ring as the base. That woul make them less powerfull than the circle wards....
(YES... I do know it - but I simply can't speak my mind in less than novels)
I'm really tired so this won't be a really long post. Just some comments before I go to bed. I'll engage more tomorrow.
My first encounter with the ward dillema came when I read about it in Societates. I never knew nor imagined their ever was a problem with wards. I honestly wonder how many people thought Wards were overpowered before the ruling came about. I don't mind circle or personal wards, I have no preference either way. Make an enchanted amulet. So I suppose a major part of this debate is about relative power. For example, Erik, I do think that a starting magus should be able to ward against a might 20 creature, and I also think that a starting Flambeau magus should be able to muster up enough penetration to get him with something.
Within that debate is the question of how one wishes power to relate to itself, in that do you think this or that effect should be easier or more difficult in relation to this or that other effect. Some people want the relative difficulty of a ward to equal that of killing the creature in one shot (the pro-pen party), and some people want the instant kill effect to be more difficult than wardng (the followers of the voice of reason ).
Smarmy stuff like that is why people yell at me But there I just added another dimension to the argument. You think wards should be harder? Okay, but I feel that everything else should be even harder still in proportion. It isn't so much I think wards should be easier, it that I think everything else should be harder than a ward.
I wanted this to be short. Damn. Anyway, people on both sides have mentioned using a flat base level for the ward. I am all for that. It is utterly fair and consistant. The debate is then what this magic number should be? A no-pen purist would say base 0, lol! I myself think 10 is fair, but the number isn't all that important. What is important is that the player isn't being "double charged", and that there is some hope of warding against high end creatures. Another key though is that keeping something out (warding) should be a separate effect from keeping something in (binding). If you draw a ward around a demon, he can slap you and walk away. He gets a glass of water, and discovers he can't get back in the circle. I have no sympathy for Binding Penetration, only for Wards.
And I'm done. I wanted to fight the magical bear, but that will have to wait.
Wards don't tend to solve the sort of plot-level problems presented in storylines. They tend to be more appropriate to short-term threats than long-term complications or challenges. I think we're on the same page, tho' I was not specific in my comments.
Heh, when I read your comment, that exact comic jumped to mind, even before I clicked the link. Classic. Yes, it's not ~the~ worst, merely among them.
But you're right - it seems it's worse than even I thought, both are included non-distinctively in different parts of the rules. Somewhere under "Aiming" it refers to a "direct target" - maybe a DT can be distinguished from a Target Form?
At the moment, if you can cast a ward against a creature, you can also cast a might-stripper with sufficient penetration to kill it instantly. The other abilities of the creatures no more enter into that balance than the other abilities of the magus.
I am not arguing that wards are impotent. They're deeply useful. However, under the current rules, you cannot claim that once you're warded, you can sit there forever until you defeat the creature because you can't go anywhere else and if you can ward, you can kill so the warding is unecessary. This is why I argue for warding to be easier relative to killing - otherwise there's no need for it.
As for actual use, well, Wards are used to keep some ghosts stuck inside circles in our Saga to keep them quiet. Until we settled on the Wards not penetrating house rule, however, other wards pittered out because we didn't need them. They either did nothing or were redundant. And that, frankly, isn't fun or interesting. As it stands, wards are now only really useful for an Archmage to protect his apprentice from something more powerful than Might 5. The Archmage will (if he's sensible) have other means of defense as well, and the apprentice has neither the power to kill, control nor ward since these all require excess penetration.
Yes. Exactly. Precisely. That's my point. Wards offer time to think and regroup against an apparently superior foe but solve nothing in and of themselves without lots of planning, thought and guile.
Hmmm. I disagree with you there - there's a real difference between warding something in place and binding it in my opinion. The latter offers you control over the beastie. And, with directional wards, you end up with a proliferation of spells differing only in which side of the circle you stand when you draw them. An interesting philosophical point, but not really one of much use in a game.
I'd suggest 5 for a base myself. It makes a circle ward level 15, making it castable by the young and potent in the hands of the wise.
Regarding the Personal vs Circle question, Furion, whilst I don't think it's actually that much of a problem, I'd have no serious objections to having the guideline for a personal ward being slightly higher. Wards were incorporated from Columbae magic, after all, and that need not have been done perfectly. That leaves a nice Major breakthrough for a Bonisagus to seek should he wish.
I hope to broaden our knowledge and understanding of the game world through discussion.
But there I just added another dimension to the argument. You think wards should be harder? Okay, but I feel that everything else should be even harder still in proportion. It isn't so much I think wards should be 