A mage creating a formulaic spell can "Design it for the Subject" such that the Subject is not warped. If BoAF is cast formulaically, perhaps the Subject is the created flame, and the target is the Object of the spell. (This is apply grammar rules, the Subject is the primary noun, where the Object is a secondary noun that informs the first. Eg, "Created Fame ignites Mark" would have "Created Flame" as the Subject and "Mark" as the Object.) This in the same way that a teleportation spell warps the one moving, not the place they arrive. If the spell was "Mark becomes on fire" (which might be a MuCo(Ig) effect, because you are changing the nature of Mark to "being on fire") that might certainly apply Warping as well, because Mark is the Subject of the spell.
While this seems pedantic, much of Hermetic Magic is based on Latin grammar "I create, I change" etc so I think it bears some weight.
Why would it need an attack or aiming roll to hit its target?
Just like most magical attacks, BoAF is guided by magic all the way to its target.
Magic Resistance will of course apply since the created fireball is magical.
The only times you may need an aiming roll is when there is nothing magical directly affecting the target.
Because the fire which is created is the Target; not the person who takes damage. You can successfully create a bonfire-sized fire which lasts but a moment without it automatically being around a persons head -- to make certain that it is around a (particular) persons head, the mage needs to be more exacting than just creating the fire anywhere.
If this was a Voice Range Perdo Corpus effect, the Target would be the person taking damage; no need for a finesse or attack roll -- the magic affects only an individual specific human body, so there is no chance the spell might 'accidentally' affect the nearby barn. But then there would be both warping, and magic resistance to contend with.
You can create it on a specific target, automatically hitting that target.
You can create an area effect and use an Aiming roll, hoping to hit your desired target(s).
The former is more common. The latter has the advantage that you can attack multiple people with an Individual, which can work quite well. But the latter also has a disadvantage that you generally need to both penetrate and hit with an Aiming roll.
Incidentally, does something created by a powerful mystical effect incur warping from said effect?
E.g. does every Conjured Wizard's Tower start with a warping point?
I understand it would be just one warping point (the first!), and that in many cases it would be irrelevant (who cares if the Ball of Abysmal Fire has a point of warping or not for the brief instant it's in existence), but I'm still curious if anyone has asked and answered this question before.
Irrelevant. In general, spells always hit their target.
So the created fire is the Target. That fire will than travel to the intended target, and automatically hit - because that's how hermetic spells work.
You could have just aimed it at at the target and sent it off flying on its own, needing an Aiming roll, but there would have been no point. Since the fire is magical, it would still be resisted by Magical Resistance.
Well, both Pilum of Fire and Ball of Abysmal Flame are very explicit that they create the fire near the caster (not on the target), and that it then flies off and hits the target.
They don't need an aiming roll since "spells always hit their targets".
I would think not. A magically created thing is magical in the same way as a being with Magic Might, and therefore is not subject to warping.
I certainly can't point to an explicit rule to this effect, it's just my inference from the general presentation of warping rules (which are very brief on the subject of inanimate objects).
If I'm right, then that means the Wizard's Tower won't be warped by later spells cast on it, or anything short of a full-tilt magical catastrophe: and even that wouldn't be warping in the technical sense.
Cosmetic effect does not mean it is an illusion or anything like that. It does not change what the spell says it does. It just means it does not significantly change how the spell works, thus not necessitating any requisite or extra magnitudes.
The spell says the ball shoots from your hand, and that's what it does.
Nothing says or implies the fire is created at the location of the target, cosmetic effect or not.
No, a cosmetic effect means that a Magus can create a similar spell, of the same level, and have it appear around the target, and it would still auto-hit.
First, try reading that phrase again. It doesn't just say "cosmetic," it also says "appearing to shoot from your hand." That most certainly does imply that the "appear[ance]" of it coming from your hand is something extra thrown in for no change. No change from what? From it being magically placed on the target.
Second, look at how you contradicted yourself: "It just means it does not significantly change how the spell works" and "Nothing says or implies the fire is created at the location of the target." So it doesn't change the spell at all from appearing at the target and isn't the same as appearing at the target? If you have to contradict yourself so quickly, you should see there is a flaw in your reasoning.
I'll take this opportunity to mention that, if one wishes, one can re-write the CrIg guidelines to make "shooting" CrIg spells somewhat more powerful, but also require a Finesse roll.
It complicates things, but not necessarily too much, and leads, IMO, to even more interesting blasting.
... You know, I really should make a CrIg specialist sometime. Tytalus, probably, to demonstrate that subtlety, while often desirable, is optional.
No, a political Bonisagius who maintains that diplomacy is the failure of war. He'll be popular.
I think spells like Pilum of Flame should be examples of spells that were originally designed to take advantage of a Hermetic Virtue, for example a minor magical focus in spears, and then became widespread either because the inventor wrote a good Mastery Summa for it, taught it to many apprentices, or even just other magi finding it appropriately impressive.
The spell (Ball of Abysmal Flame) says
"A ball of flame shoots from your hand to
strike a single target, doing +30 damage."
Really, it can't be much clearer or more explicit what it does.
It appears to shoot from your hand, because that is exactly what it does. In this case appearances do not decieve.
That the ball shoots from your hand to strike the target is a cosmetic effect since it makes no practical difference if the ball of flame is created around the target, shoots from your hand, or drops from the sky.
Is there anything in the description that says the fire is created at the target? No.
There is no contradiction at all in my reasoning.
You, on the other hand, contradict the very clear language of the spell description, seemingly based on the very tenous reasoning that if the ball of flame appears to shoot from your hands, that must mean it doesn't actually shoot from your hands. Which is of course not correct - it can appear to do so because it actually does.
And even should the ball not shoot from your hands (which the spell says it does), it would not necessarily follow that the fire is created at the target.
Have you considered the lack of Rego present in the spell? If you CrIg a ball of flame at your hand and want it to move in some way, that would be Cr(Re)Ig. Why aren't these spells this way? Why don't we see piles of errata for them? Why isn't your hand burned? Because fundamentally you are doing a single thing: creating fire at the location of your target.
Even the book notes that such a "cosmetic" effect is an extra thing you're not being charged for. Without that extra thing, what do you have? Creating fire at the location of the target. There is just an extra thing thrown on top of that. But the extra thing is extra, not in place of, the baseline effect.
Yes. Because fire is a dynamic element. While we don't, we do see conversations like this one crop up over and over, which to me implies there's something not-ideal about the rules. Because that's the way the spell is designed - Fumble a roll and maybe you will get burned.
OTOH, your (cut) answer works, and there is no need for any other.
So I'm not contradicting you, I just don't like leaving interesting questions unanswered. (And I've long said there aren't as many rhetorical questions as most people think.)
In the spirit of the above:
Nothing, because it's necessary for the spell to function. Haven't you read Osgrebi of Acre's texts on the use of sympathetic conjurations in Flambeau's magic?
Agreeing with Callen on this last point. The lack of Rego is, I think, a nonfactor. The difference between having a ball of fire just explode on someone's chest, or having it shoot from your fingertips and explode on someone's chest is, in my opinion, a cosmetic difference.
When we look at rules on requisites,
ADDED EFFECT IS PURELY COSMETIC:
No requisite
I'm surprised by how heavy this discussion has become. My own opinion is BoAF and Wizard's Mount don't actually warp things they damage, partly because it feels odd to me, and mostly because I am confident I would always find myself back-logging extra warping points whenever I remember that someone got fireballed in combat or walked through a rainstorm created by magic.
Also, it makes traveling through Regios much more dangerous when its likely that the weather might warp you.
The reason that giving everyone in a Hermetic rainstorm Warping points is silly is that there is a Creo Vim guideline specifically for inflicting Warping points. If you can hand out scads of Warping points from magical thunderstorms and pilums of fire it makes that CrVi 5 guideline silly. Why would anyone ever have needed a CrVi sight, mom, group×100 spell if anyone can do the same and get the crops watered at the same time?
Also, that's not how we see the game world described. Warping is frequently called out where it might otherwise be unexpected, and I don't recall any "this illusion will Warp anyone who smells it" or "this spell will Warp the entire countryside that gets rained on" warnings. It's a silly conclusion. If you want to hand out Warping points with your spells, add Creo + Vim requisites just like you'd have to do to add in the effect any other separate Hermetic guideline.
But that would disagree with core. It is an "added effect" onto the baseline effect. Otherwise it is not what it claims to be. So if the traveling from your hand to the person being hit is an effect added onto something that is the baseline effect, then it is not the baseline effect and it is not really necessary. What is left when you subtract the added effect is the baseline effect.