Wizard's Boost Target level

[AericExMiscellanea]

When you enter in the meta-magic world, you cannot stop wondering. For example, what would be necessary to increase (or decrease, which is even more interesting) by 2 steps instead of one? Just adding one magnitude is enough to change range by 2 steps?

[jules]

There's a MuVi guideline to change a spell by 2 magnitudes, and beyond that there's a Creo/Perdo requirement

[Berengar]

@jules

Thanks!

As written, Wizard's Boost has no effect on a spell of the same level even if we apply the guidelines erratum to add "or equal", because of the "not past" restriction.

Which I mentioned and "removed" above, too:

@One Shot

... and with just "The effect of the other spell increases 5 levels in power."

@jules

Here's what I'm going to use:

@Extrapolated Metamagic (MuVi 15)

Base 10 (T lvl:15), Touch+1, Mom, Ind
Allows a Vim General spell to target a spell of 5 extra levels

(Note that this spell can be used on itself 8) )

With the errataed guideline for significant changes and R: Touch, you can affect level 15 spells with a level 15 MuVi Reinvented Wizard's Boost (Form). You can only affect spells you cast yourself (see ArM5 p.159 Muto Vim Guidelines for MuVi R: Touch) and you can only affect spells you have not yet cast. Also

@"ArM5 p.160 [i

Wizard's Boost (Form)[/i]"]The effects of the extra 5 levels of power are for the storyguide to determine. A Wizard’s Boost may never affect a single spell more than once.

So you can anticipate the reaction of your SG, if you try cast several Wizard's Boosts in a row to boost to a single spell.

Cheers

[jules]

@One Shot

With the errataed guideline for significant changes and R: Touch, you can affect level 15 spells with a level 15 MuVi Reinvented Wizard's Boost (Form). You can only affect spells you cast yourself (see ArM5 p.159 Muto Vim Guidelines for MuVi R: Touch) and you can only affect spells you have not yet cast.

That is my understanding. It doesn't seem to be a problem for my spell.

I also have FFM, so I can extend the range to Voice in order to affect someone else's spell.

@One Shot

Also

@"ArM5 p.160 [i

Wizard's Boost (Form)[/i]"]The effects of the extra 5 levels of power are for the storyguide to determine. A Wizard’s Boost may never affect a single spell more than once.

So you can anticipate the reaction of your SG, if you try cast several Wizard's Boosts in a row to boost to a single spell.

The effect of Wizard's Boost is for the SG to determine, but this is not Wizard's Boost.
This is a new MuVi spell based on the guideline, with a specific effect, much like Wizard's Reach: it increase the level of spell that can be targeted by a General Vim spell.

[Berengar]

@jules

@One Shot

Also

@"ArM5 p.160 [i

Wizard's Boost (Form)[/i]"]The effects of the extra 5 levels of power are for the storyguide to determine. A Wizard’s Boost may never affect a single spell more than once.

So you can anticipate the reaction of your SG, if you try cast several Wizard's Boosts in a row to boost to a single spell.

The effect of Wizard's Boost is for the SG to determine, but this is not Wizard's Boost.
This is a new MuVi spell based on the guideline, with a specific effect, much like Wizard's Reach: it increase the level of spell that can be targeted by a General Vim spell.

Bring this 'argument' to your troupe.

Cheers

[jules]

@Muto Vim guidelines

Note that spells invented according to one of the guidelines below will change another spell in a specific way: it is not possible to invent a single spell that changes another spell however the caster wants. See the example spells for ideas on how specific this should be.

The only reason that Wizard's Boost's effect is decided by the SG, is because it's open-ended.

My spell is specific, in exactly the same way that Wizard's Reach is, so its specific effect is decided by whatever was written down when it was invented.
You can roll your eyes as much as you want, but casting this spell, even on itself, complies with the RAW entirely.

A troupe might decide to add extra limits or costs if they're afraid of abuse, of course.
Botch dice are a possibility. Requiring the Meta-metamagic spell to have a duration that encompasses the casting of the final spell is another.

[Berengar]

@jules

@Muto Vim guidelines

Note that spells invented according to one of the guidelines below will change another spell in a specific way: it is not possible to invent a single spell that changes another spell however the caster wants. See the example spells for ideas on how specific this should be.

The only reason that Wizard's Boost's effect is decided by the SG, is because it's open-ended.

Really? You don't get that from your quote.

@jules

My spell is specific, in exactly the same way that Wizard's Reach is.

Not quite, as it does not change ArM5 p.111ff quantitative spell parameters. But let's look at Wizard's Reach in detail:

@"ArM5 p.160 [i

Wizard's Reach (Form)[/i]"]You may not affect a single spell more than once with this spell,

Your MuVi 15 Base 10 Touch spell allows a targeted level 15 spell to target a level 20 spell. And, if it just is analogous to Wizard's Reach (Form), "you may not affect a single spell more than once with this spell".

@jules

A troupe might decide to add extra limits or costs if they're afraid of abuse, of course.

Indeed. Ask them!

Cheers

[jules]

@One Shot

@jules

@Muto Vim guidelines

Note that spells invented according to one of the guidelines below will change another spell in a specific way: it is not possible to invent a single spell that changes another spell however the caster wants. See the example spells for ideas on how specific this should be.

The only reason that Wizard's Boost's effect is decided by the SG, is because it's open-ended.

Really? You don't get that from your quote.

Most spells abide by "it is not possible to invent a single spell that changes another spell however the caster wants" by making the effect specific.
Wizard's Boost abides by it by giving the reins to the SG instead of to the caster.

@One Shot

@jules

My spell is specific, in exactly the same way that Wizard's Reach is.

Not quite, as it does not change ArM5 p.111ff quantitative spell parameters.

The guideline says "significantly change a spell", and the example given are:

• changing the Technique or the Form
• a change of power of plus or minus one magnitude
• a change of target
  Nowhere does it say that it is restricted to "quantitative spell parameters", and Wizard's Boost is there to show that the breadth of possibilities is very large.

I'll reformulate: it isn't "specific in the same way", it's "just as specific", and "specific enough"

@One Shot

if it just is analogous to Wizard's Reach (Form), "you may not affect a single spell more than once with this spell".

Indeed, my spell can't affect another spell twice.
What i can do is affect another copy of itself, which in turn affects another spell.

[Berengar]

@jules

@One Shot

if it just is analogous to Wizard's Reach (Form), "you may not affect a single spell more than once with this spell".

Indeed, my spell can't affect another spell twice.
What i can do is affect another copy of itself, which in turn affects another spell.

So, you create a new spell from analogies with existing ones. Then you phrase your new spell in a way to circumvent the stacking prevention mechanism in the only fully written out example for such spells, calling that RAW. And you don't expect your troupe to put in a new, adequate stacking prevention into your new spell?

Just ask them!

ArM5 p.159f Muto Vim Spells is a verrry concisely written piece of rules affected by several layers of errata. Generalizing it requires judgement - as at least your SG should know.

Cheers

[jason72 (Jason)]

Is the reference to spontaneous magic in Wizard's Boost supposed to be ignored/errata'ed away?

[jules]

I can't find a change in the errata, but the restriction on certain kinds of modifications on Spontaneous spells is redundant with the MuVi guideline that says that you can't target Spontaneous spells at all anyway

[Berengar]

@jason72

Is the reference to spontaneous magic in Wizard's Boost supposed to be ignored/errata'ed away?

You mean the one in the Muto Vim Guidelines:

@ArM5 p.159 Muto Vim Guidelines

These meta-magical spells have certain special restrictions, which apply to all Muto Vim spells invented according to Hermetic theory. First of all, they cannot be cast on spontaneous spells.

or this one:

@ArM5 p.160 Wizard's Boost (Form)

This does not allow spontaneous or formulaic spells to reach Year duration or Boundary Target, unless the Wizard’s Boost is a ritual.

No, TMK both were never errataed. The Guideline clearly overrides the oblique mention of spontaneous spells in the MuVi spell - so the latter could have been removed. Not removing it looks bad, but does not change the rules. And the Muto Vim Spells section is probably patchwork enough already.

Cheers

[jules]

My troupe is barely formed and I'll be the main SG. We don't have much experience with the system: this all started with an aborted campaign by another SG.
I can't expect the group to come up with reasonable limitations to put in place, because I'll be the one with the best grasp of the mechanics by far.
That's why I'm looking for suggestions, for which I would be grateful.

---

The stacking prevention mechanism in place clearly forbids applying a spell twice to another.
It in no way forbids a spell from affecting a spell that affects another.
There's no reason to completely forbid MuVi spells from affecting Vim spells, even the large selection of them that target other spells.

I can cast Wizard's Boost on Maintaining the Demanding Spell (Sun) cast on a D:Conc Arcane Tunnel through which I will cast other spells.
As a SG, I'd probably make this extend the duration of the Tunnel by another Sun duration

That's already a nice stack, and I see no reason to forbid it.
What it probably needs is some additional penalties.

Possible limitations, with exact conditions to be determined:
*Add botch dice as the stack grows
*Require MuVi spells to have enough duration to cover the casting of the last “stable” spell in the stack.
*Other ideas?

By “stable”, I mean that once an Arcane Tunnel is cast, the number of spells involved in its creation shouldn't impact the spells going through it, for example.

I'm not sure how to formalize and quantify this. What do you guys think?

[Berengar]

@jules

My troupe is barely formed and I'll be the main SG, so your confidence in their severity is misplaced.
I'm trying to be fair and not upend the balance of the game, so suggestions on reasonable limitations to put in place would be more helpful.

As the main SG, you obviously should avoid competition between you and the other players. Especially any competition about the best rules exploit. So in this situation, just shelve your 'Extrapolated Metamagic' and be done.

@jules

The stacking prevention mechanism in place clearly forbids applying a spell twice to another.
It in no way forbids a spell from affecting a spell that affects another.

If you design a TRPG, you need to find the instances of potential cumulative effects, and decide whether you intend them or not.
Examples are:
(1) Repeatedly hacking at something with a weapon inflicts repeated damage. => Intended in most RPGs I know.
(2) Repeatedly slowing a being down. => May be intended or not. Can your rules really cover all the cases that can happen by this? Few do.
(3) Repeatedly using a power (spell or other), thereby reinforcing it, and finally having it thus reinforced affect another subject. => Did you intend that? Can you handle all the consequences? Does this still make for a good game, or might it cause a race to effects thus stackable?
In case you do not wish a certain cumulative effect, you need to modify your rules.

In the initial design of ArM5 p.159f MuVi metamagic, the repeated use (stacking) of the same metamagic spell to cause cumulative modifications was prevented. When layered errata brought the Muto Vim Guidelines there closer to the rest of the system, they implicitly allowed inventing spells with other ways of repeated, cumulative use. These newly invented spells need to get adequate prevention from such repeated use as well.

@jules

I'm not sure how to formalize and quantify this. Would you care to help?

So far, it was enough to write the restrictions into the newly invented MuVi spell. This should work here as well. Keep it simple.

Cheers

[jules]

Thank you for this.
I think that magi are supposed to be smart, and experts in their field. Therefore they should be pushing the boundaries of what's possible
(i.e yes, I know, I have minmaxing tendencies ).
But the SG plays the role of the harsh reality that doesn't bend to their will like they would like it to (and prevents balance-breaking tricks), and I want to do this right.

The most important thing is to prevent stacking/loop effects. I think this can be solved in line with the spirit of the guideline with this House Rule:

MuVi spells that add a magnitude to spells have no effect on MuVi spells that add a magnitude to spells.
MuVi spells that add two magnitudes add one magnitude to MuVi spells that add a magnitude, and add 2 botch dice to both spells.

No complicated calculation. The stacking is capped.

The furthest it could be pushed without turning into a Ritual is:

@Extrapolated MetaMetamagic (MuVi 50)

Base 45 (T lvl:[lvl+1]/2=25), Touch+1, Mom, Ind
Allows a Vim General spell to target a spell of 10 extra levels.
You may not affect a single spell more than once with this spell.
This spell has 4 extra botch dice if it targets a spell that targets a spell

Does this seem too dangerous to allow?

In addition to this, I'll add to the description of Extrapolated Metamagic:

• You may not affect a single spell more than once with this spell (as per Wizard's Reach; I had this rule implicitly in mind, but it might as well be explicit)
• This spell has 2 extra botch dice if it targets a spell that targets a spell (you don't want to do it in stressful situations, but it's still possible in a bind)

The actual effect in game is that I can use my Maintain (T:lvl 10) on T:lvl 15, but it's particularly dangerous if I'm not in a calm situation.
The advantages over inventing the spells one mag above is:

• Less spells to research (Maintain (T:lvl 15), Arcane Tunnel (T:lvl 20) since I have the versions that target one less mag)
• Mastery for a target level applies one mag above (Maintain si at Mastery 1, it might get to Mastery 3 eventually)
  This is in line with the benefits of Wizard's Reach, Maintaining the Demanding Spell or Flexible Formulaic Magic.
  I don't think it's unbalanced, do you?

[Berengar]

@jules

Thank you for this.
I think that magi are supposed to be smart, and experts in their field. Therefore they should be pushing the boundaries of what's possible
(i.e yes, I know, I have minmaxing tendencies ).
But the SG plays the role of the harsh reality that doesn't bend to their will like they would like it to (and prevents balance-breaking tricks), and I want to do this right.

The most important thing is to prevent stacking/loop effects.

I would in this case just write out your

@Extrapolated Metamagic (MuVi 15)

Base 10 (T lvl:15), Touch+1, Mom, Ind
Allows a Vim General spell to target a spell of 5 extra levels

in the following way:

@Extrapolated Metamagic (MuVi 15)

Base 10 (T lvl:15), Touch+1, Mom, Ind
This spell allows a targeted Vim General spell A of maximum level 15 to target a spell of 5 extra levels. To prevent uncontrollable magical resonances, A itself cannot allow yet another spell to target higher level spells.

This means, that the writeout of the general spell (like in ArM5 p.160 Wizard's Reach (Form)) would be something like:

@Wizard's Scope

R: Touch, D: Mom, T: Ind
This spell allows a targeted Vim General spell to target a spell of 5 extra levels. You may not affect a single spell more than once with this spell, and the targeted spell's level can be at most that of this spell.
To prevent uncontrollable magical resonances, the targeted spell itself cannot allow yet another spell to target higher level spells.
(Base effect - significant change, +1 Touch)

A more precise writeout might explicitly distinguish spells (spell formulas) from spell instances (cast spells). But ArM5 does not do so.

This is not a house rule, but the introduction according to the - errataed - ArM5 p.160 box Muto Vim Guidelines of a new general spell with the necessary limitations derivable from existing core book MuVi spells.

What do you think?

Cheers

[jules]

Much more elegant than the House Rule, thank you so much
No need for extra botch dice, then?

[Berengar]

@jules

Much more elegant than the House Rule, thank you so much
No need for extra botch dice, then?

I don't see any need for extra botch dice here. Prevention of "uncontrollable magical resonances" went into the design of Wizard's Scope after all.

Cheers

[jules]

I'm going to specify "Hermetic" General spell, because Wizard's Communion seems like an edge case that I think should be excluded.
Aegis of the Hearth even more so, and the distinguishing factor is that those haven't been fully integrated.

[Berengar]

@jules

I'm going to specify "Hermetic" General spell, because Wizard's Communion seems like an edge case that I think should be excluded.
Aegis of the Hearth even more so, and the distinguishing factor is that those haven't been fully integrated.

For clarity you can explicitly exclude Wizard's Communion and Aegis of the Hearth from the spells that can be affected by a newly introduced Wizard's Scope. It just might avoid discussions and thereby be helpful for your troupe.

But without relevant Breakthroughs MuVi spells can anyway target Hermetic spells only. While I would classify Wizard's Communion or Aegis of the Hearth as Hermetic in this sense.

I would also not see, that Wizard's Communion and Aegis of the Hearth target spells, though.
AFAICS they affect them only indirectly:

• Aegis of the Hearth resisting spells roughly like a ward or hindering their casting like an Aura,
• and Wizard's Communion allowing a group of casters to collectively cast a spell.
  Both would hence not be affected by a Wizard's Scope anyway.

Cheers