Rules : Wards must penetrate
From Ars Magica
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 09:27:36 +0900 From: David Chart <arsmagica@davidchart.com> Subject: Re: [ARS] Magic Resistance & Wards
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 15:08 +0100, Kenton wrote: > Indeed, but isn't that because most of read the rules and *KNEW* that > wards must have to penetrate, or *KNEW* that pen didn't figure in > wards at all. Until this thread I certainly never considered that that > might be the case and would have answered one of my players with > "Of course not".
Yes, I'm sure that's why. Both sides thought that their interpretation was obvious, so neither side saw the need to raise it in their comments. Thus the ambiguity passed unnoticed.
For people who want a binding, official statement of the official interpretation of the rules as they stand: Wards must penetrate.
I'm not sure what good that does anyone, though, because since it wasn't discussed during the development phase, that may not be the best way to handle them.
There *are* good arguments for creatures having to penetrate Wards, not
vice-versa. Thus, you would have wards against the supernatural, which
supernatural powers have to penetrate. For a creature with Might,
crossing the Ward physically is a 0-point power, so Might must exceed
the level of the Ward. Supernatural powers have normal penetration.
Mundane things cross without difficulty. Then there would be Wards
against the Mundane, which would have an effect on the target, and thus
the *Ward* would need to penetrate.
This, however, is definitely not the way the rules stand at present. It's far too complicated to be implicit in a one line mention that a particular Ward is resisted. Penetrating Wards also, apparently, work quite well in practice, so maybe no change is needed.
As I say, I am now aware that there is a problem here, but I'm still not sure how best to solve it, or indeed whether it can be solved before ArM6, at least officially. House Rules can be applied, of course. -- David Chart Ars Magica Line Editor
Another side quirk: Aegis is a lot worse protecting against creatures of Magical Realm, because the Magical Aura modifier does not apply to the effective Penetration. [The magical creatures gets the same Aura bonuses to their MR as caster gets to his Casting Total and thus base Penetration. Thus the aura is ignored by them.]
Yours Antti Kautiainen
A counter-argument for defensive wards.
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 03:17:15 -0500 From: "Ben Mcfarland" <brickk@gmail.com> Subject: [ARS] Aegis, Wards, and Penetration. (Long)
I have to admit, I've been following the discussion over the last week on Aegis and its (newfound?) requisite to Penetrate...
And I'm confused. I can't see how Penetration Totals of Wards or Aegis apply to these spells.
The first line of the spell, Page 161 ArM 5E, says, "This ritual protects a covenant in the way a Parma Magica protects a magus."
It's a Parma Sponsum... So why does the Penetration Total of the spell matter? Is it really being said that if the Penetration Total for a Covenant's Aegis is insufficient to pierce a magus' Parma Magica, then that magus is unaffected by the Aegis? That seems to not only completely trivialize the spell, but be counter to its purpose. Aegis creates an area of effect that is just a flat, universal magic resistance equal to the level-- it's not an effect to be resisted, but one that limits the flow control of magic within its boundary. How could the Penetration Total of its casting affect someone or something else outside the boundary? It doesn't target anyone except those involved in the ritual and the tokens specifically designated. Unless the magi involved want to resist it, (which would beg the question 'why are you participating?') they would lower their Parma for the casting. The rules on Ritual Spells are unclear as to whether or not the magi need to lower their Parma for the whole casting or simply it's completion.
I think the first line of the spell description summarizes the effect and eliminates the need for debate. This seems cemented by the last paragraph, indicating that the spell is more potent than it should be-- and this is even supported by the Experimental Results Chart on pg 109-- you can get random beneficial effects that are far beyond what they should be; it happens. It's a quirk of The Magic (TM). Share and Enjoy.
Aegis of the Hearth == Parma Magica (for area defined by boundary, without a penalty for sharing and without a form bonus but with a vis requisite and longer casting time.) [to be read in a low voice at high velocity.]
I still don't see where Penetration Total of the Aegis comes into play. Reading over the section on Parma and Penetration doesn't clarify the matter. If anything, it would lead me to believe it doesn't.
As far as Ancestor Last had mentioned regarding Wards on Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:25:45 -0800 (PST): "To allow a ward to work without requiring to penetrate MR would lead to a race toward high level wards. This will quickly render wards much more powerfull than other spells since you could actually affect creatures with a level 50 ward that you could never with any other spells."
So one either keeps the Bad Things (TM) in, or one keeps them out. Since a magus has to draw a circle and touch it to complete the spell, I'd anticipate that one is likely keeping the terrible, terrible Bad Thing out. The Bad Thing that, in all probablilty, doesn't really need to sleep or eat. I'm reminded of an old sword and sorcery comic where the main character finds a skeleton inside a warded circle. Chances are that if you're drawing this ward, you already have some serious issues. Is this really all that unbalancing? The ward becomes a limited form of Parma Inimicus, keeping one specific Bad Thing (and Its associated attempts to molest people or things on the other side of said ward) in or out, up to a Might equal to the level of the spell. It only works against what it's designed to Ward, and so has limited utility.
Again, what's the big deal? These are a very limited subset of spells, requiring some time and preparation to cast, and in most cases, being of an impermanent nature. ArM5E made the possibility of a spontaneous, permanent spell impossible, if I recall correctly-- it now always requires a Ritual and vis. Certainly, if one had the proper arts, you could whip up a MuTe or CrTe to create stone circle on of a dirt floor, or any floor for that matter-- though I think I'd require a simple Finesse roll to ensure a proper circle-- and then next round try either a spontaneous Ward or known Formulaic Ward, but the chances of just throwing an effective Ward off the cuff seem slim.
Reading the text of the Ward Against Faeries of the Waters implies that the ward targets those within the ward-- not those outside the ward, giving the occupants a MR of the Ward's level against Water Fae....where is Penetration involved? Reading the Ward guidelines on ArM5E pg 114, last third of the first column, say specifically that the target of a ward "is the thing protected, rather than the things warded against." Why would a creature's Might have anything to do with this? It shouldn't. A magus isn't affecting the creature, he's affecting the protected target, giving them a resistance against the thing warded.
Saxum Caribetum states on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:52:25, Message :1 of Ars Magica Digest, Vol 10 Issue 42 that such an interpretation is "wrong." However, I cannot see any supporting text for this statement. I don't understand how the text from page 114 can be so easily dismissed.
It's not clear, but one could assume that the 'physical' Penetration of a creature was its Might. We know that its powers are much weaker when it comes to Penetrating Wards. Indeed, ArM5E pg 191 shows that a creature's powers always have a Penetration Total less than its Might unless it has the Penetration Ability:
Might Score - (5 x Might Point cost of Power) + Penetration Bonus.
So that Might 20 Wolf, Tarlan, on ArM5E pg 195, decides that he wants to try make a grog flee with his *Marked Quarry* ability. The SG rolls a 2 for initiative, plus 3 for quickness, and +5 for the ability, giving him a total of 10.
Our Magus, Leonis, decides that now is the time to activate his WAFotW (ArM5E pg 138), ReHe20 which he has handily drawn around the camp ahead of time with a stick in the soft earth and knows Formulaicly. [We will assume for the purposes of this exercise that Leonis knows that Tarlan is a Faerie of the Woods.] He rolls a 7 for his initiative die, plus his quickness of 1, plus his Finesse ability of 3. This gives him an initiative of 11, and thus he acts before Tarlan. [If you do not use Finesse to modify spellcasting initiative, then assume that Leonis' initiative die exploded with a 1 followed by a 6.] With a loud voice and expansive gestures, He rolls an 8 plus 2, and adds this to his Re 12 and his He 7. His stamina is +0 and there is no Aura. He has successfully cast WAFotW. His ward is active before Tarlan's power, providing it's protection to Leonis' grog.
Tarlan's attempt to affect Grog Bjorn now resolves. Its Penetration Total is:
19 - (5 x 1) + 0 = 14.
14 is less than the level of the WAFotW ReHe20, so it does not Penetrate.
Bjarn is unaffected by the ability, and will remain so, as long as he's within the WAFotW.
Where's the errata-spanning-concept-breaking here?
Nowhere in that example did I need to worry about Penetrating the Might of Tarlan, because Leonis' WAFotW affects Bjorn, Leonis, and all others inside the circle. Certainly, the example becomes more complex if Tarlan wins initiative over Leonis, but Leonis wins over Bjorn-- I would consider that a matter of SG's discretion. For my saga, I would have Bjorn safe until he left the circle, when he would start running unless Tarlan was slain and then he would do nothing caused by the ability.
Tarlan couldn't try kicking up dirt to break the Ward. He couldn't try knocking an old log down the hill to break the Ward. I'm not even certain he could ask another Fae, his friend the Nort, the Water Nixie, to wash away the Ward. However, if it starts raining hard and that washes away the circle, well, then Leonis had better be ready. Also, nothing prevent's Nort from washing away the Ward of his own volition.
The only time I can see a Ward needing to Penetrate a creature's Might is when that Ward is being used to trap the creature within the circle-- then we are affecting the creature and the normal resolution would apply since you're targeting the creature. Again, if you've somehow managed to get said creature inside the circle without it noticing then you've still got half the battle to win, and the difficult portion in my mind. It's easier to keep the creature away than it is to pin the creature to a circle of ground, powerless to leave or affect those outside. Makes sense to me.
Wards and Aegis create (Realm Aligned or Universal) Magic Resistance. Magic Resistance doesn't Penetrate. It just is. It is what gets Penetrated.
If anything, the matter regarding what Spell Mastery: Magic Resistance for Aegis does seems open to some debate. One might say that knowing how magic is so limited within an Aegis would permit the magus more freedom to act within a hostile Aegis, but given the magnitude of the spell and its Breakthrough status I think such a Mastery benefit is probably unfitting. In reality, I think the only benefit of Mastery with Aegis is probably the reduction in botch dice during casting. Nothing else seems to fit.
To summarize, I believe the Penetration Total for Wards and Aegis don't matter when used defensively and that the current ruleset supports this conclusion. If used to trap a creature within a ward, or [for whatever strange reason] if magi attempted to erect another Aegis around an existing Aegis, then the Penetration Totals of the spells become important for overcoming either the entrapped creature's Might or the preexisting Aegis level. I think the rules regarding Wards on ArM5E page 114 and the explicit equivalence of Aegis to Parma Magica on ArM5E page 161 establish the idea that both provide a Magic Resistance to the target equal to the level of the spell, albeit one possibly aligned against a specific source.
Now if I'm reading those references incorrectly, I welcome the clarification, preferably with supporting quotation. Specifically, I would respectfully ask Dave Chart to explain how the rules on 114 and the equivalence of Aegis to Parma on 161are obviated to require a Penetration Total. It's one thing to state it as Fiat Editor, another entirely to show support within the provided rules framework. To me, there doesn't seem to be an issue here, the rules spell the matter out pretty well. ;) In my humble opinion I don't think it came up in playtesting because it's quite functional as written.
thanks, and I look forward to the response.
-Ben McFarland
