What is a target exactly?

[Furion_Transsanus]

This thread is an attempt to disentangle one interesting subject from another in this thread on wards. I felt that the discussion I'm now trying to move here were being drowned in the other discussion - as well as distracting from it. The question is - what substitutes for a target? The question quite simply is whether the target of such spells as Pillum of Fire is the fire created or the person hit?

I'll try to find all the relevant posts and points and reproduce them here. I've cut all the double representation of mutual quoting and I've let most of the Christmas Carol background slide - I now hope that the syntax is functional and that I havent lost to much in the condensation.

@Erik Dahl

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.

@Furion

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.

@Stella Umbra bani Tytalus

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."

@Erik Dahl

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.

@Stella

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.

@Erik Dahl

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.

Did I miss anything - posts or important passages? Otherwise the floor is now open for more deliberations on this subject!

[Erik_Tyrrell]

I haven't been following the wards discussion so forgive me if I tread again over some subjects that may have already been covered.

@Erik Dahl

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 that the statement "Technically, the target of both of these spells is the Individual who will be damaged by the fire." is false. But we're really talking about nomenclature here rather than a fundamental difference of opinion. Look at the "targets and creo" text box on the top of page 113. It's pretty clear that the fire is the "target" of the spell. I like to refrain from using the same word to refer to multiple concepts. Furion's suggestions of target of intent and indirect target of intent seem to me to be functional for this purpose (but perhaps a label that does not include the word "target" would be even clearer. Spell recipient? Affected entity?).

It lacks grace, but it seems to me that spells will need to have different penetrations for different targets of intent whenever an arcane connection is involved with boosting a penetration total.

[Furion_Transsanus]

@Furion Transsanus

Did I miss anything - posts or important passages?

I DID! More than once... Slams head into desk (after carefully removing the keyboard in advance)

@Marko Markoko

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.

@Cuchulainshound

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.

@Erik Dahl

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.

@The Fixer

In fact, you create a fire (creo ignem ) at voice range.
The fact that it appears as a pilum of flame flying from your hand is just a special effect: You could just as easily have a spell that engulf the victim in a column of fire. Both would be the exact same level.

Anything else missing?

[Furion_Transsanus]

@Erik Tyrrell

I think that the statement "Technically, the target of both of these spells is the Individual who will be damaged by the fire." is false. But we're really talking about nomenclature here. Look at the "targets and creo" text box on the top of page 113. It's pretty clear that the fire is the "target" of the spell. I like to refrain from using the same word to refer to multiple concepts. Furion's suggestions of target of intent and indirect target of intent seem to me to be functional for this purpose (but perhaps a label that does not include the word "target" would be even clearer. Spell recipient? Affected entity?).

Hi Erik, welcome aboard - good to have more people joining in!

I honestly didn't think this would snowball and the post was written in haste without taking much time to reflect on the implications of my attempt at cathegorizing 'targets'. I totally agree that using other words would be very fruitfull to the discussion. I think that affected my be an usable term.

Somehow -in retrospect- I might have sticked to the term targets to show how we often use the same term 'target' in very different contexts having different connotations - and that this practice has lead to a lot of the confusions. I might even boldly state that the use of the word target in many of the spell descriptions has added to the mingling of concepts. I really like the fluff of the spell descriptions, but if the T:Target of a Ball of Abysmal Flame is the fire and not the person, then the spells descriptions use of the term target (what we might now call affected etc) is somewhat misguiding. I actually just noticed that the description of the Pillum is much clearer stating that the fire does 'damage to the individual it hits'.
Now this argument of course rests interely on the assumption being tested here, namely whether the target is the fire or the individual it hits. I personally think that the T:Target can only be the material of the Form and not the individual or affected. At the same time that I think this is an interesting debate, I dont think influences the game-play much nor that ignorance of the debate creates any challenges, and if the assumption is right that the T:Target is the Form and not the affected, then it's no wonder if it hasn't been encountered during the play-testing, that a 'double-use' of the word target can misguide.

@Erik Tyrell

it lacks grace but it seems to me that spells will need to have different penetrations for different targets of intent whenever an arcane connection is involved with boosting a penetration total.

I'm little bit confused here; the starting point of the discussion, in the other thread, was the nation that you cannot use AC/penetration unless the 'affected' of the spell is also the T:Target of the spell. I also believe, Erik correct me if I'm wrong, that this was one of the reason for Erik Dahl to argue that the T:Target of a Pilum of Flame must be the person affected and not the fire, so that the magus was allowed to use boosted penetration.

It came as a surprise to me that AC/penetration can only be used in direct magic, but if it is the intentions of the RAW, then what you are suggestion, as I read it, isn't possible anyhow, but... I would be very interested in discussing how to handled penetration boosted spells that affect more than one person/being with MR as I'm planning to HR to allow AC-boosted penetration in all spells.

[Erik_Tyrrell]

@Furion Transsanus

@Erik Tyrell

it lacks grace but it seems to me that spells will need to have different penetrations for different targets of intent whenever an arcane connection is involved with boosting a penetration total.

I'm little bit confused here; the starting point of the discussion, in the other thread, was the nation that you cannot use AC/penetration unless the 'affected' of the spell is also the T:Target of the spell. I also believe, Erik correct me if I'm wrong, that this was one of the reason for Erik Dahl to argue that the T:Target of a Pilum of Flame must be the person affected and not the fire, so that the magus was allowed to use boosted penetration.

It came as a surprise to me that AC/penetration can only be used in direct magic, but if it is the intentions of the RAW, then what you are suggestion, as I read it, isn't possible anyhow, but... I would be very interested in discussing how to handled penetration boosted spells that affect more than one person/being with MR as I'm planning to HR to allow AC-boosted penetration in all spells.

The arcane connections for penetration rules do talk about target. I believe that this was done in error (the original author did not fully consider all of the differences between of targets of spells as opposed to things that spells are targeted at).

I think that if you use a target room rego mentem spell to affect a room and everything within it, you could still use an AC to boost the penetration against a particular target and your spell would use two separate penetration numbers, one for the person whom is connected to the AC and one for all of the other minds inside of the room. The thought of enchanting your wolfhound with extra large fangs specifically tunned to tear through your foes defenses is far too cool to abandon for some sort of simplicity of theory (especially considering what a pain in the ass it would be to explain it to new players).

[Cuchulainshound]

Without reading all the above (apologies, no time, apologies!) I'll say this- Erik D is correct.

There are two entirely different (and often nearly indistinguishable!) uses of the term "target" in the rules.

The first use that is encountered is one of the three standard variables of a spell, Range, Duration and Target. In that context, the target is the Form that you are going to magically manipulate - whether you Creo a fire around a person or Rego some fire at that person, that "Form" (here, the fire) is the target of the casting, not the person. If you wanted to cast a huge fire spell, the target could be increased for an increase in spell magnitude and the resulting effect would be 10x or 100x bigger, and so on - regardless of its final destination.

The second use is found under the Aiming rules and in some few spells, and is used the way most Players would use it - what you want to hurt/affect with your spell. In at least one instance (but not consistently! ) this is called the "Direct Target" (capitalization mine). If you are aiming a spell at a dragon, then the dragon is the Direct Target of that spell, regardless of what Form the spell makes use of for its specific effect.

So, if a maga casts a PoF at a brigand, first she casts a spell that has a Target of "a spear of fire" (the Form of the spell), and then she aims that spell at the (direct) target of the brigand.

If casting a Perdo Herbem to destroy the wooden bridge under the brigand's feet, the wood is the Target in both cases, even tho' the brigand is the intended victim.

These ~can~ often be the same, such as when using a Rego Corpus to lift the brigand, or a Perdo Terram to rust his sword. But don't have to be, by any means.

Clear as mud?