Wizard's Boost for R / D / T as example MuVi spell

Not really - that one's easy.

A spell is bound by it's parameters - which means if I'm casting a D: Diam spell and you MuVi it into a D: Ring spell, i have to draw a ring to cover the spell. If I don't, the spell will fail (or rather collaps).

Yes, you can use that as a way of 'dispelling' via MuVi - but then you could also get something very similar by using MuVi to reduce the duration to momentary.

Give us another one please :slight_smile:

I can't see the ambiguity you mention in the rules. Of course showing that there is no unicorn is pretty hard, but I'll try nevertheless.

(Underscores mine as usual)
So the author lists and sorts versions of a spell, assigning each of them certain tasks and restrictions. There is one version for each Hermetic Form.
With the second 'each' he assigns the other versions to a list: "each of which affects one of range, duration, and target, for any Form." That second "Form" refers back to "Hermetic Form" before. It takes the adjective "Hermetic" from there, which hence needs not to be repeated. '"for any Form" is there to state, that "Form" is no limiting factor for these other versions.

With what could we replace that 'any' to come out with 30 more versions instead of 3?
The typical 'each' or 'all' instead of 'any' don't change the meaning of the phrase, but both result in very bad style:

Let's try 'one' instead:

That would do, just that 'any' can mean 'anyone' colloquially, but never just 'one' as in 'one specific'.

Should the rule hence have meant 40 Wizard's Boost versions, the formulations could have been either a maldextrous one:

Or perhaps a more elegant one:

But just understanding 'for any Form' differently within the limits of grammar would not get you there.

Cheers

Well, "for any Form" is the unicorn about which I said:

That, along with those 20 lines you've added on "how it could be written to mean something specific" kinda proves the point that it is ambiguous.

Yes, that is a valid interpretation of the spell text by itself.
So, why learn Wizard's Reach (Ignem) if you can learn Wizard's Boost (Range)?

Hmmm. Some twenty lines to address how a phrase is not ambiguous appear to me verrry few - and should rather show that the problem is not very hard. I did not put in the examples to show "how it (scilicet: the rules text) could be written to mean something specific", but to show how it would have to be written to mean something different than it does.

Great - so here we agree. I don't see any other reading.

That's a decision a player takes for her character, of course. She could do so e.g. to get the storyguide(s) out of her hair.

Apparently case-by-case adjudication of spell effects by the storyguide is an issue some on this list feel very strongly about - and I can empathize with them to some degree, in particular if the role of storyguide changes often in a campaign, and some in the troupe are unxperienced.
So if a new storyguide is there, who determines that - say - 'Eyes of the Eagle' (ArM5 p.145) extended by Wizard' Boost (Range) to affect a grog instead of the caster becomes R: Eye instead of R: Touch, and then plays a scared grog to the hilt in the middle of a scouting expedition, the player might curse his character's Wizard's Boost. In particular so, if his character then wants to send the scared grog home with a 'Leap of Homecoming' (ArM5 p.135) extended again by Wizard's Boost (Range), only to see her frantically avoiding the eye contact he needs to apply his boosted R: Eye 'Leap of Homecoming' to her.
Or imagine that a player has his magus cast 'Pull of the Watery Grave' (ArM5 p.124) boosted with Wizard's Boost (Range) to R: Arc, and the mean-spirited storyguide then determines the Arcane Connection used in the spell. Ouch.

Of course this case-by-case adjudication is the price to pay for a more loose definition of spells. In established campaigns (like most ones where characters with Wizard's Boost versions were ported from ArM4) it should not really be a problem: there players and storyguides can negotiate properly, and hence characters will usually stick to Wizard's Boost.

Cheers

This appears to be important for you, but I cannot follow up on it. This is likely because I cannot find out what you mean by "for that meaning" - so could you please elaborate?
To my understanding the use of "for each Form" instead of "for any Form" in the now often enough quoted text snippet from Wizard's Boost (Form) would be confusing and verrry bad style ("each for each") - as I have already noted above.

Cheers

Perhaps a "historical perspective" may help solve the argument? Wizard's Boost is a legacy spell; it's been there since at least 3rd edition, and the 5th edition text is virtually identical to that of 4th edition. Wizard's Reach wasn't there at the time.

Personally, I think that the original intent behind the phrasing in the text of Wizard's Boost was exactly what One Shot mentions: a single spell would increase e.g. Range for all Forms. However, when writing 5th edition the difference just slipped through the cracks, and Wizard's Reach was made Form-specific like Wizard's Boost, instead of Form-universal like Sorcerer's Fork.

In this context, I then think that one should ignore that side comment in Wizard's Boost, and just look at Wizard's Reach as the more "up-to-date" example to guide one's design. I also think this should be brought to David Chart's attention for errata.

I just checked - it's in my 1st edition (2nd printing) as well.
Same phrasing as 2nd edition and I think 3rd.

Excellent, will you do this?

There is no way to prove or disprove these thoughts of yours about ArM5 - but for an unlikely clarification by its authors.

You are of course free to ignore or modify Wizard's Boost or any part of it IYCs, and also to ask for errata. I wouldn't expect such errata to appear for ArM5: but that is just me.

Cheers

Nah, I leave the honour to you :slight_smile:

Fine, blind yourself.

That's finding excuses rather than fixing an inconsistent interpretation. I much prefer the "It's 1st ed. and was never corrected" excuse which at least puts the blame on the editor team. They might even had a purpose to leave it there.

You see, this is a point I hate about this. The player doesn't know, but the magus will. If the magus starts to acts irrationally because of this discrepancy, it's forcing the player to go OOC and stay there. Allowing projections into random states breaks the consistency of the universe. QED and chaos are way too modern for butterflies to affect ME reality.

You asked the question:

and got the answer.

There is no way to quickly enough outline real campaigns and their issues in a thread like this. Hence I described quite radical, dysfunctional situations to show the disruptive potential of case-by-case storyguide adjudication. Good if you hated them. I reckon everybody can scale that down into their own, diverse campaign context.

You also read already:

Cheers