Actually, unless you want to add one MORE variation, thats not how i use it. The illusion of a flame creates light just as if it was a real flame.
Otherwise you can start get into some very odd situations with nonvisual illusions. Sound that isnt heard beyond the effect radius of the spell for example(if there is supposed to be a cutoff thats fine, but otherwise it gets rather looney after a while).
:mrgreen:
Oh and BTW, a bit more back on topic... A form with an advantage usually overlooked, Herbam can give you permanent creations without the need for vis or rituals. Just make sure you always carry seeds for plants with you, and you can always speedgrow them, and shape them however you want while growing them.
Neat.
This is actually pretty neat. It's not really that good for combat - instantaneous growth has a level 40 baseline - but you just made me realize that magi and covenants can grow entire harvests literally overnight. Hmm, but would the clause "any food created is nutritious only if the creation is a ritual" apply to any harvest created through magically accelerated growth?
Well, it isnt actually "created", its just that the growth is speeded up extremely. So i think its not an issue.
Of course, one might want to apply that clause anyway if game balance gets out of whack due to this use.
And it can be used for combat if you make sure to always "be prepared", using the level 20/25/30 bases instead its accessible for many specialists and if the magi has a relevant focus, no problem.
Ie, you do the growing where you expect combat, then use Re(and maybe Mu) to make use of them.
If you´re conducting a siege, plants can get into each and every little crack and over a bit of time tear or split most things apart. And if you need to cross a troublesome little river, you throw down a seed and grow it into a bridge, which can be made to last, even remain a living plant.
Just make sure you find yourself suitable plant seeds(the seeds for a little bush wont do much good if what you need is a bridge over 50m of water).
And thus, it'll fool no one who knows of elephants. Imperfect illusion. And it'll have no weight, thus the ground will not behave rightly under its weight (like a frail bridge not crumbling). Imperfect illusion. There's no problem with this, at least to me.
The platonic forms argument is good, but I seem to remember that you must have at least some knowledge of the thing.
Yet it is. Look at the other posters comments about this, including spells. Look at the lack of illuminating effects in Imaginem spells or guidelines. The only one have an ignem requisite.
Yet it is again: RAW imaginem deal with species, not light. Species don't produces light. And you clain to use modern physics. Species don't exist as per modern physics.
Btw, a thought: Under your "modern physics" setting, what are illusions constituted of? I can only see them being light manipulation (Unless your illusions are mental effects?) Thus (and this must have been where the hologram analogy came from in the first place) CrIm should glow in the dark, unless detecting and adapting themselves to ambiant levels of light...
It seems you use the rule of stuff: Illusions are stuff, behaving as stuff. The species have their own problems, but at least provide a coherent model most of the times.
Good one!!!
Agreed.
The only problem I could see is the food being warped by a powerful mystical effect, and that is a single point.
Of course, other time, it'd get worse (as you take the seed, grow them, take seed, grow them...) but this is easily avoided.
Oh dear no, its an absolutely perfect illusion. But its not a perfect illusion of specifically an elephant but a perfect illlusion according to how the caster thinks it looks.
And even a person who knows what a real elephant looks like wont automatically be able to say that its a illusion and not real because they cant know that it was meant to look like an elephant(unless the caster was silly enough to actually say so or something of course, but thats besides the point really).
Magic. As i´ve said before its real physics+. Ie, its real physics PLUS whatever is needed to accomodate the setting.
Which is why i normally dont bother. It is after all a construction aimed to create a gameterm explanation.
Most certainly not. Your arguments might force illusions to become mental effects though.
CrIm will only glow in the dark if whatever its made to look like also would.
Coherent? Hardly. Its a good attempt at providing a reasoning but it creates some big fails as well.
One of which is my earlier question, there´s no light combined with a see in the dark spell(no matter how its done), my version of illusions still work, yours dont exist meaning that if its dark any casting of visual illusions fail, except we dont know. Its a Schroedinger box problem, and thats really not something that belongs as part of any game mechanics.
Yup, there are some downsides, but really the big advantage isnt with using it for food anyway, its using just 1 or 2 spells, to speedgrow the plant and to shape it as you wish allowing you to create almost anything with just that/those spells. And even have it last.
Those Creo spells are not creating something, therefore the limitation doesnt apply.
Just as the spells to mature children are not creating anything either.
If you create a plant out of nothing, then when the duration is up, its gone. But if you grow it from a seed, then its a real plant even if its growth is magically speeded up.
Thus, you're not using the RAW, in which illusions are constituted of species instead of "stuff"
Thus, as I said, you're using house rules.
Which is fine, there's no problem with this. It's just that we can't really discuss illusions and Imaginem, since we're not really talking about the same thing.
Your illusions have no flaw at all, not because your system is "better" or more logical, but because they run of handwavium. Ars 5 tries really hard to avoid stuff magic, and thus, RAW ones don't, and thus can be imperfect at times. This is not a criticism of your game. A lot of RPG magic is great fun but just does stuff, too. Likewise, despite being coherent, Ars5 MR gave us Pink Dot, which is despicable. It all comes down to preferences in the end.
I'd be curious to see how or why.
I thing the line editor and authors who decided to use the species as a basis for Imaginem might be, too, if only in order to find a better idea for an eventual future edition.
Please.
This was already answered by other posters.
One of the fundamental problems in this question is that you're putting stuff magic (a generic "see in the dark" spell) vs Ars Magic. That's what people tried to convey to you, apparently without effect.
In stuff vs stuff, you'll see the illusions. You see in the dark, the illusions are there and perfect, thus you see them.
In stuff vs Ars, all bets are of. These are different paradigms: One doesn't use species, the others do. What do you say?
In Ars Magic, you have to know how do you see, and consider if that vision receives or not species. If, say, I manage an InCo(te, he, an) spell with vision Target (Note: I don't know if this is possible at all, this is purely for the exemple) allowing you to see these Forms, you won't perceive the illusions. If you use "eyes of the cat", you should see them. But, for every spell, you'll have to ask yourself about the species. You don't like it? Fine! People do, which is fine, too.
I may be wrong, but (noble's parma) I'd say yes: PeIm destroy species, not light.
Thus, this'd kinda resemble some CrIg light spells: Light appearing from nowhere.
As i already said at least once, i see no reason to consider the relevant part in this case as house rules.
And magic isnt you mean? As i said, that part of the rules can be interpreted my way or your, my way works better so i prefer that. THEN, ASIDE from that, then there are house rules.
If the illusion of sound isnt sound then what is it? And if it IS sound, then by the same logic, the illusion of a torch will emit the light of a torch.
Because it was completely irrelevant to the question.
Lol... Thats not a game, thats the "how things works in my alternate reality that i made up".
And i know plenty enough of history to see the glaring inconsistencies between canon AM and common beliefs.
As i´ve said many times before, this is the very reason i prefer not trying to create an alternate reality with handwavium physics which works according to ONE little minority of people.
We all know that what we see is light. But what if it isn't the case in Mythic Europe?
When you strike a bell, another bell might ring in harmony. You will say that pressure variations carried energy from one bell to another, as per modern physics. But can we uncouple the noise that strikes our ears from the effect that transfers vibrations?
Doesn't it make sense that bells that ring in harmony share a sympathetic connection, in the same aristotelian principle that creates a link between people sharing the same name or the same birthday? Isn't that nature's version of arcane connections? Why couldn't it be the same for light?
Of course, only a true magus will understand this, because he can see it with his own eyes, create it with his own magic. Those poor mundanes have no way of knowing the truth!
{And then they say Criamons are deluded, yeah right! }
It is relevant if you see in the dark by sensing the boundaries of air, by seeing the auditory species, or by simply generating light. In ars magica, it is impossible to see any images (visual species) of any objects shrouded in complete darkness. Kinda like smelling something that has no odor, or hearing something that makes no sound.
Like it or not, any time you diverge from canon in the way things work, you're in the domain of house rules, should even your HR be so awesome that everyone cheers for it and adopts it.
There is nothing wrong with it at all, so why are you so loathe to admit it? We all HR to one degree or another.
Are you being obtuse on purpose?
Then AGAIN
You talk about these mostly as per the modern understanding.
We talk about these as per Ars canon, which doesn't use it.
So we're not talking about the same thing, these are different views and physics, and you can't force your way and HR on us anymore than we can force you to use species. These are different physics!!! This is not a problem so long as you accept this, which you seem to have difficulties with. You're just wasting everyone's time.
That's not a game? That's what, to some degree or another, we're all playing.
A made up alternate reality? Well, you know, faeries and dragons don't exist either, do they? So why do you use them in your game?
Inconsistencies between canon and common beliefs? Sure, I trust you on this, no problem. And you're perfectly free to HR these away. But I'm not sure that saying "it's magic" works better, nor does it make a more coherent system. But again, it all comes down to personnal preferences, no problem here.
Handwavium physics? You mean saying "it's magic" whenever real physics don't work the way you'd like them? Don't confuse alternate physics (Ars Canon) with handwavium. Alternate physics is "Illusions are species". Handwavium is "illusions are light when it suits me. When it doesn't, these suddenly become... "magic". Wooooot!"
And, without knowing the market, I wouldn't make any assumption about a minority, save that, even if only 10% of Ars Games use the Canon and species as intended by the authors and line director, that's probably a lot more than you and your table's precise set of House Rules. On this thread at least, YOU certainly are the one minority of people using handwavium "it's magic" illusions
Why do you have to be so insistant on putting words in my mouth and using strawman arguments?
The above has zero connection with what i have said and you should damn well know it.
Except it is. Its just codified.
Thats your loss.
Let me repeat myself, again... I go with "reality+", meaning reality AND the additions added upon that. Magic, or faeries or whatever doesnt replace physics in any way, they only make possible additional ways to interact.
Oh it works better alright. For one thing, it doesnt matter if i recall every little bit about something form the rules, i just assume reality as a startingpoint and go from there.
Its extremely coherent, because it works as reality with magic(and other stuff) adding on to work just as you want it to, no limitation.
Because i want to. I ADD them to the ingame reality.
Im not forcing anyone to do anything. I do use the concept of species. I simply dont accept the limited interpretation of the concept.
You´re saying that i cant be right, im saying that i think you´re wrong. Who´s being categorical and trying to force anything?
Yes? You just refuse to listen dont you, im not diverging from canon in this thing. Im interpreting it differently because otherwise it causes a bunch of unintended consequences and problems.
I do this because players found ways to completely break the game otherwise. As i assume that the makers of the game doesnt intend it to be broken, i must assume that they didnt mean for your limited interpretation to be the default one.
No. I ask a very relevant question. Modern or ancient physics doesnt matter, as i have already shown that enough was known in that area to effectively merge the two in this case. At least a thousand years before gamesetting time.
Personally i would be VERY unhappy about making Imagonem a subset of Mentem, but that is the path you´re on if you say that illusions does nothing but give off species.
Ok, another little question for your amusement then, if there is vacuum between you and an audible illusion, can you hear it? Based on you strict species argument, then yes.
Otherwise, you come back to the point where the illusion of sound IS sound. And when that is true, visual illusions that only exists if they´re lit by external sources becomes silly because it is counter to the logic of sound illusions.
If you put an olfactory illusion in the middle of the air, does it smell or not? Based on the logic you use for visual illusions the answer becomes "probably not". And then we´re back to "handwavium" to make up for the holes in your interpretation.
Medieval "phsyics" will say the same however. As i posted earlier, the understanding of sound and soundwaves etc was pretty decent long before gamesetting time.
Sure.
But its not the sound that have a sympathetic connection but the bells.
And after a short thought about it, i dont think i want to try to apply it to light or sound...
Well, I was more or less quoting you in most of my phrases above, even using a direct link. You chose to ignore the fact that these are your own words, instead presenting them as my invention, unable as you are to admit you may have failings at times. Fine. I could do it more heavily, but it'd be useless. I have no desire to waste my time having an endless no-discussion with you.
Good one!!!
}