I've been working through this a lot, and reading the official answer on the subject from the updated FAQ, I'm still dissatisfied. I agree with what was stated, but I dislike the loophole presented. As it stands Parma keeps out magic, thus a magic sword either by enchanted device, the spell Edge of the razor or the spell Blade of Virulent Flame, Parma protects the Magus entirely from such weapons (barring Penetration of course). This opens the door to the loophole where a Magus casts a trivial spell on his enemies' weapons, such as putting a pink dot on their swords with MuIm at a Diameter Duration, and he's protected from their attacks. I don't like it, but I agree with their reasoning, it's the only way to keep it consistent.

I tried alternatives. For example I tried making a two question rule regarding magic weapons and attacks.

1. What is the target of the effect? If the target of the effect is the sword or attack itself (Edge of the Razor, or Blade of Virulent Flame) then the attack has a chance to go through (if it also passes point 2 below). If the attack has a different target (say whoever it touches) then Parma works normally.

2. Does the effect cause damage to another through a magical medium? If no, then Parma can't effect it. A sword that is an enchanted device, but merely has its stats enhanced, will go through. A blade with Edge of the Razor will go through. Blade of Virulent Flame will not go through. Its target is the sword, but it causes damage through a magically ceated medium, the flames.

I toyed also with the idea that the effect would be stopped, but the blow would not. In the above example the Blade of Virulent Flame would cause no extra damage, but the sword still hits with force to potentially hurt the Magus. This however goes too much against the idea that Parma prevents magic from approaching, ie where is the flame? Does it wait off the blade outside the Parma? So I'd have to say that The Balde of Virulent Flame is stopped altogether, no flame and no strike with potential damage, but Edge of the Razor goes through fine.

However there is a wrinkle with that also. I was rather satisfied with the two question ruling, until I read about the way Parma could kill a magus. Basically make nonmagical poison, put it into a glass, and then cast a MuAq spell to turn it into water. A Magus drinks the water, their Parma keeps out the spell, the Magus then drinks poison and dies. For consistency's sake, the ruling was that the drink entirely would be kept out, and thus protect the Magus. And I agree with that. Yet this example is contrary to my 2 question rule. The target of the spell is the poison, so yes it has a chance to effect the wizard according to my first question. The second question is the snarl. The spell doesn't intend to effect the wizard by causing damage through a magical medium, but again, where does the spell go? Does it wait outside the Parma? I would have to conclude that the Parma effects the drink entirely and thus protects the magus, and thus have an inconsistency in my 2 question rule. I scrapped that, and will follow the rules as the FAQ has indicated.

Having said that, I still dislike that loophole, so I'm proposing a few things to make that loophole less desirable.

1. If Fast Casting a spontaneous "pink dot" spell on an opponent's weapon, one cannot voluntarily lower one's Penetration Ability, nor the over all Penetration of the effect. In other words, one might spend their Fatigue level and roll a very high result and combined with their Penetration and the casting result, might undo themselves and cast a spell that automatically pierces their own Parma! A small risk, but present nonetheless. If one has Arts high enough to cast it Spontaneously without Fatigue they're not likely to be effected by it.

2. A spell that is designed Formulaically to cast the "Pink dot" must have a +1 Magnitude for extra effect in that it suppresses your Penetration Ability. If you add +3 Magnitudes you suppress all Penetration gathered from a high casting roll and your Penetration Ability. Basically this makes the guarenteed use of this spell/defense a touch more difficult. Even at +3 magnitudes it's still not too high.

3. If the extra magnitudes are not put in the spell then am Int + Finesse roll is required of 10 to suppress Penetration Ability, 15 to suppress all Penetration.

By incorporating these rules (and the exact numbers are up to debate) it makes the loophole less exploitable, and encourages Magi to use the more tradtional magical defenses, such as ReTe, or devices that do the same. Or it might encourage them to create a device that makes the Pink Dot, and thus you can determine from the outset how much Penetration it has, at no risk to yourself.

Lastly, I'd like to incorporate new Creo Rituals with Momentary durations that create weapons of enhanced stats, yet are not magical. That way you can get the magically enhanced sword that actually is some use against a dragon or a creature with a Might score. Basically a CrTe Ritual with Rego and Muto requisites. It allows you to create swords that have a higher accuracy, or defense, or damage, or even iniative, because they are made from the perfect realm of ideas and not a forger's hand. Naturally there would be limits on it, but I think that's another decent addition with this little problem. I'll put some thought into such a Ritual.

"Lastly, I'd like to incorporate new Creo Rituals with Momentary durations that create weapons of enhanced stats, yet are not magical. That way you can get the magically enhanced sword that actually is some use against a dragon or a creature with a Might score. Basically a CrTe Ritual with Rego and Muto requisites. It allows you to create swords that have a higher accuracy, or defense, or damage, or even iniative, because they are made from the perfect realm of ideas and not a forger's hand. Naturally there would be limits on it, but I think that's another decent addition with this little problem. I'll put some thought into such a Ritual."

Such weapons could be created by using rego and muto magic on existing iron without the need of ritual. Muto spells could add and remove impurities to the metal until you had the most perfect sword in existance muto magic could make the metal easier for the smith to work. Rego spells could grind a near perfect edge (rather than the perfect edge from EOTR).

Another way for the enchanted sword to work would be for it to cast its magic on the weilder. A sword that made the weilder stronger (Cr Co) or that allowed the wielder to better predict the moves of their opponents (In Co/An) would not suffer from the "purple polearm problem".

OK, here's the base for that weapon creating spell I was talking about. It needs to be done solely with Creo I'd say, because if Rego or Muto are involved then the item is still magical. The guidelines for Creo says that it can be used to make some the best it could naturally be, that then is the theorhetical limit to this Ritual. Here's the basic one:

Sword of Legend CrTe 25 (Ritual)
Range: Touch Duration: Momentary Target: Individual

Creates a sword of extraordinary material, making it superior to other swords made by mundane craftsmen. A finesse roll must be made of 10 or higher to achieve this quality. If succesfully cast and the finesse roll is made, then the caster can choose to add +1 to one of the Sword's stats (this must be decided at the spell's design and creation, so there is a spell for each of the weapons stats). This is a permanent ritual, and the magic is gone after the spell is cast, so Might or Parma offers no protection from this sword. Note that the spell need not create a sword, other weapons could be created, and may need Requisites of Herbam or Animal as appropriate. Larger weapons such as Great weapons require an extra Maginitude.

Breakdown (Base create enhanced metal 20, +1 for Range)

More powerful versions of the spell can add more effect. A sword could be created that adds +1 to two stats (such as attack and defense). Doing such adds an extra magnitude to the effect for each additional stat. More points can be added also, allowing more than +1 on a stat, each additional plus adds a magnitude, and finally additional plusses and additional stats can all be added as long as each plus and extra stat is paid for by a magnitude of effect. The limit that can be achieved is double the weapon's base stats. A long sword can be raised to +8 accuracy (+4, a level 40 spell), but can only get up to a +2 Defense (the base spell can accomplish this). So to create a long sword that was maximized it would have stats of Init +4 Acc +8 Def +2 Dam +12. Such a sword would require a spell of 80th level (Base 25 +11 magnitudes for extra stats and plusses).

This I think can satisfy my desires for having magically enhanced "Dragon Slaying" swords that are in fact effective, they won't just bounce off its Might. It might still bounce off its Soak though of course.

"Such weapons could be created by using rego and muto magic on existing iron without the need of ritual. Muto spells could add and remove impurities to the metal until you had the most perfect sword in existance muto magic could make the metal easier for the smith to work. Rego spells could grind a near perfect edge (rather than the perfect edge from EOTR)."

Unfortunately that doesn't work. Muto magics are not the key, because the Muto effect is only there as long as the spell remains, when the spell ends the object's original form returns. If you use Edge of the Razor (which is essentially what you described) it stays sharp until the spell ends, and while it is in effect the sword is sharp, but also magical, Parma effects it. Rego might work, I'm not sure, it would allow you to effect the sword perhaps, but I'm not sure if it would effect it permanently or lastingly without the spell being still in effect on it, thus making it magic and effected by the Parma. I'll check on that though.

"Another way for the enchanted sword to work would be for it to cast its magic on the weilder. A sword that made the weilder stronger (Cr Co) or that allowed the wielder to better predict the moves of their opponents (In Co/An) would not suffer from the "purple polearm problem".

Except that the weapon is magical, it is an enchanted device, it can't go through. Cast a spell instead on the wielder, and avoid that problem entirely. But you're right, buffing the wielder would work, unless maybe he grappled or something

>>I've been working through this a lot, and reading the official answer on the subject from the updated FAQ,

Just to make it clear to everyone, the FAQ is actually not official. I have made an effort to be correct and to base my answers on correspondence from Atlas Games people when possible, but the FAQ is fan-written and fan-maintained.

I'm glad you take me so seriously though. :-)

-Your friendly FAQ maintainer

"Another thing you could try is to make a magic sword as an enchanted item, and build in a really buff Penetration bonus."

True, I never talked about that, mainly because it's clearly written in the rules and all. It's more economical than I thought too. I initially thought for every 2 levels you get 1 Penetration, but actually it's 2 Penetration for every 1 level. Much more economical than I thought, and a decent avenue for this.

"Muto magics are not the key, because the Muto effect is only there as long as the spell remains, when the spell ends the object's original form returns."

WhatI had meant was use muto magic to change the metal into a substance that could be worked more easily or in ways that steel can not, then have a craftsman work the material into a weapon. In this way the original form does not return at the end of the spell.

For instance, you've ritual creo-ed yourself a pile of natural diamonds. Use a MuTe spell to change them into steel, have a craftsman work them into a small knife, then wait for the spell to expire.

"Except that the weapon is magical, it is an enchanted device, it can't go through."

Teh parma stops spells and effects, not enchanted items. Otherwise how could a magus pick up and handle an enchanted device? If the effect targets the weilder then there's nothing on the weapon to trigger the parma.

I think your sword creation ritual is great. I can imagine the sword having aspects of the caster's sigil and in some way reflecting the physical form of the vis that was used to create it.

Edited 3/3/2005 10:46 am ET by erik_tyrrell

"WhatI had meant was use muto magic to change the metal into a substance that could be worked more easily or in ways that steel can not, then have a craftsman work the material into a weapon. In this way the original form does not return at the end of the spell.

For instance, you've ritual creo-ed yourself a pile of natural diamonds. Use a MuTe spell to change them into steel, have a craftsman work them into a small knife, then wait for the spell to expire."

Hmmm...that has possibilities. The main issue I'd say is that I don't know if a diamond sword is in fact a decent weapon or not, or if it wouldn't fly apart into its component diamonds, despite any work done on it manually. It's essential nature is still diamonds after all, when the spell ends, it returns to its diamond state, small gemstones. Such a sword would probably fall to pieces IMO.

"Teh parma stops spells and effects, not enchanted items. Otherwise how could a magus pick up and handle an enchanted device? If the effect targets the weilder then there's nothing on the weapon to trigger the parma."

Actually, a wizard could pick it up, and if the wizard is already in possesion of the item when he raises his Parma, then it too is protected by his Parma. If you look in the book for example, a wizard can walk on an enchanted bridge, and if he fell on it from some height, he'd take falling damage, but if it fell on him, his Parma would protect him. The wizard could pick it up, even use it. But if swung at him, it could only touch him, not with enough force to cause any harm though. Check the sidebar on Parma in the book, that's where I got these examples.

"I think your sword creation ritual is great. I can imagine the sword having aspects of the caster's sigil and in some way reflecting the physical form of the vis that was used to create it."

Thanks, I was thinking the same thing. Kind of like Raising the Wizard's Tower, it would reflect the personality of its creator, you could almost tell at a glance perhaps who made it.

On a related note, what about enchanted items that effect the wearer? How does that come into play, especially jewelry and/or accessories on the Magus?

A ring that turns you Invisible for example. It has to have a Range of Touch, if it's Personal than just the ring disappears. But if it's Touch it needs to effect the wearer. Now here's the problem, the device has to penetrate it's wearer's Parma, making it less useful. Or does it ignore it, due to the way Parma is described; a field extending roughly one inch around the wizard. A ring would be within that inch, so would it ignore the Parma? Or considering that the Wizard could put the ring on first, the raise his Parma, would it then automatically bypass it? Or would the wizard have to either design the ring with Penetration? Or perhaps add extra levels to the effect by saying it not only works only on him, but bypasses his own Parma? Or finally the wizard actually has to drop his Resistance to ensure that it works?

What would be the best way to go about it?

Me:
"The parma stops spells and effects, not enchanted items. Otherwise how could a magus pick up and handle an enchanted device? If the effect targets the weilder then there's nothing on the weapon to trigger the parma."

qcifer:
"Actually, a wizard could pick it up, and if the wizard is already in possesion of the item when he raises his Parma, then it too is protected by his Parma. If you look in the book for example, a wizard can walk on an enchanted bridge, and if he fell on it from some height, he'd take falling damage, but if it fell on him, his Parma would protect him. The wizard could pick it up, even use it. But if swung at him, it could only touch him, not with enough force to cause any harm though. Check the sidebar on Parma in the book, that's where I got these examples."

I suppose you are correct, a wizard could use an enchanted device even if enchanted devices are stopped by parma.

But enchanted devices are not stopped by parma, spells are.

Or did you see something that I didn't?

" suppose you are correct, a wizard could use an enchanted device even if enchanted devices are stopped by parma.

But enchanted devices are not stopped by parma, spells are.

Or did you see something that I didn't?"

Well, the Parma stops magic. It doesn't differentiate between spells, items, good magic, or bad magic, or the powers of different realms. To keep it consistent and so that Parma itself is not 'smart', it has to be that way. But yes, an enchanted item is really no different from a sword with Edge of the Razor, Blade of Virulent Flame, or a magical pink dot on it. If it could differentiate that would make another glaring loophole I think.

"Well, the Parma stops magic. It doesn't differentiate between spells, items, good magic, or bad magic, or the powers of different realms. To keep it consistent and so that Parma itself is not 'smart', it has to be that way. But yes, an enchanted item is really no different from a sword with Edge of the Razor, Blade of Virulent Flame, or a magical pink dot on it. If it could differentiate that would make another glaring loophole I think."

I believe that you are incorrect in this. The rules say that parma stops spells. (I'd better preference this with the caveot that as I don't have a rulebook near me I took the information from an old email where I paraphrased the rulebook for someone who didn't have it yet. It is possible that I paraphrased incorectly.)

"Check the FAQ. That's the closest thing to an authority on this. It stops a sword that has a magic effect on it, it also stops a dragon's breath, a faerie's charms, a demon's curse, etc. It would also stop a magic sword. Check for the explanantion under Edge of the Razor also."

I read the relevant section of the rulebook again last night and my interpretation is unchanged.

All three of the examples that you relate from the FAQ are of spells/effects/powers. Edge of the Razor is a spell that has a duration. In the passage from the rule book on the applicability of magic resistance, there is no justification to treat a magic item that has no magic active upon it in the same manner as an item that has had a spell cast on it.

"In the passage from the rule book on the applicability of magic resistance, there is no justification to treat a magic item that has no magic active upon it in the same manner as an item that has had a spell cast on it."

How would an enchanted item not have active magic on it? It is charged with vis and been enchanted for at least a full season, and whatever it does, it has magic capabilties. A sword that has been enchanted to do more damage, has active magic in it. A sword that is enchanted to be more accurate has active magic. A sword that can be magically hidden easily, has active magic. Whatever it does, it is magical, and thus according to the rules presented and the examples given, it can be stopped by the Parma.

I didn't want to accept it either at first, but for consistency with the Parma, this is the case apparently.

"How would an enchanted item not have active magic on it? It is charged with vis and been enchanted for at least a full season, and whatever it does, it has magic capabilties. A sword that has been enchanted to do more damage, has active magic in it. A sword that is enchanted to be more accurate has active magic. A sword that can be magically hidden easily, has active magic. Whatever it does, it is magical, and thus according to the rules presented and the examples given, it can be stopped by the Parma."

A creature with magical might has vis in it and "has magical capabilities" do you believe that a leopard of virtue needs to penetrate in order to do swipe at a magus with it's claws?

Vis is magic in physical form. If a grog threw a pawn of terram vis at a maga's head would her parma protect her?

You ask "how would an item not have active magic on it?" I think that enchanted items produce magic. They are not themselves magic.

Say you enchant a wand as a lesser magic device that throws a pillum of fire once per day. I would say that if you use the wand to cast pillum of fire the PoF is resisted by the target's parma. If you use the wand to poke the target in the eye, his parma does not protect him.

If you disagree with this interpretation, then answer this question.

If I enchant a little stone pig that can cast "Steed of Vengance" and then hit a sneaky quaesitor over the head with it, how do I calculate penetration?

If you agree with this interpretation, then answer this question.

Why is a sword that casts a rego corpus spell on the weilder to prevent bleeding different from the wand of PoF or the stone pig?

OK, let's go over each of these from the perspective of the book and the FAQ.

"A creature with magical might has vis in it and "has magical capabilities" do you believe that a leopard of virtue needs to penetrate in order to do swipe at a magus with it's claws?"

No, and this is backed up by the FAQ. The claws of a magical beast are not inherently magical, nor is a magus's fist. If an effect is added to the claws, then it does, if it's one ofthe beast's Might related powers, and Parma would resist it.

"Vis is magic in physical form. If a grog threw a pawn of terram vis at a maga's head would her parma protect her?"

Unless the Vis was magically propelled, no, the Parma wouldn't protect the wizard. It is made of magic, but has a physical form and no active magics on it. The Vis itself does and can do nothing. Just like Magus's fist or a Dragon's claws.

"You ask "how would an item not have active magic on it?" I think that enchanted items produce magic. They are not themselves magic."

I think it is both, they produce it, and are magic, or at any rate under the effect of powerful Ritual magic conducted in the lab.

"Say you enchant a wand as a lesser magic device that throws a pillum of fire once per day. I would say that if you use the wand to cast pillum of fire the PoF is resisted by the target's parma. If you use the wand to poke the target in the eye, his parma does not protect him."

I want to agree with this, because it does make some sense and prevents the Parma loophole, but it then goes contrary to the consistency of the Parma. It has active magics on it, they are not used at the time of the poking, but it is magical. The sword with the pink dot on it also had active magics, with nothing to do with the poking, but it would be resisted too. Like I said, I want to accept your interpretation, yet what you're saying changes the Parma, makes it, in a sense 'smart', as in it can somehow discern intent on things that try to pass it.

"If I enchant a little stone pig that can cast "Steed of Vengance" and then hit a sneaky quaesitor over the head with it, how do I calculate penetration?"

It has a Penetration of 0, unless effort was put into it to raise Penetration. Which would mean that the pig wouldn't hit the magus at all, any more than a magically created rock thrown by a Grog would.

"Why is a sword that casts a rego corpus spell on the weilder to prevent bleeding different from the wand of PoF or the stone pig?"

It's not different, it too would be stopped.

It has to be consistent. If the pig example isn't stopped, then the wand isn't stopped, then the sword with ReCo isn't stopped, then the sword with the pink dot isn't stopped, then the sword with Edge of the Razor isn't stopped, then the sword enchanted in the lab to be super sharp isn't stopped. So either you have it where all enchanted weapons and objects get through, and the only time the Parma effects such a thing is if the item actually casts an effect of some kind, like Blade of the Virulent Flame or the Pilum of Fire from a wand.

Which is fine by me, but seems to be contrary to the ArM5 and the FAQ. I'm sticking with the more official ruling which seems to indicate that a weapon or item that has a spell or magical effect on it will be resisted, even if the effect is not dangerous or has nothing to do with Penetrating a wizard's Parma, such as your pig example, the wand, or the sword with the pink dot. That is consistent, except perhaps a bit powerful. Either way can lead to a fine game, but I think your interpretation is different from the more official ruling and leads to the Parma being more powerful by the fact it seemingly knows when to effect something and when not to.

OK, it looks like we have a controversy here. It looks like something needs to be added to the FAQ. The question is, would Parma Magica keep out an enchanted item that is currently inactive?

I need to think about it further, and my opinion is by no means definitive anyway. The approach I'm going to take is to look for loopholes - if Parma lets in a currently-inactive item then could that somehow be twisted into turning a magus's Parma against him? That to me is the essential question and will heavily influence the answer in my Saga.

First of all thank you qcifer for having a civil and on topic discussion with me on a topic where we clearly hold differing opinions.

Me
"A creature with magical might has vis in it and "has magical capabilities" do you believe that a leopard of virtue needs to penetrate in order to do swipe at a magus with it's claws?"

Qcifer
"No, and this is backed up by the FAQ. The claws of a magical beast are not inherently magical, nor is a magus's fist. If an effect is added to the claws, then it does, if it's one ofthe beast's Might related powers, and Parma would resist it."

Me
"You ask "how would an item not have active magic on it?" I think that enchanted items produce magic. They are not themselves magic."

qcifer
"I think it is both, they produce it, and are magic, or at any rate under the effect of powerful Ritual magic conducted in the lab."

So, how can you now classify a familiar? Are they treated as other magical creatures? if so why did their time in the lab not infuse them in the same way that it infused the stone pig?

Qcifer:
"I want to agree with this, because it does make some sense and prevents the Parma loophole, but it then goes contrary to the consistency of the Parma. It has active magics on it, they are not used at the time of the poking, but it is magical. The sword with the pink dot on it also had active magics, with nothing to do with the poking, but it would be resisted too. Like I said, I want to accept your interpretation, yet what you're saying changes the Parma, makes it, in a sense 'smart', as in it can somehow discern intent on things that try to pass it."

I would say that my interpretation of parma has nothing to do with intent. It has to do with whether or not there is a spell/effect/power trying to penetrate the parma. This doesn't require a smart parma (and it also doesn't resolve the purple polearm problem).

Me
"If I enchant a little stone pig that can cast "Steed of Vengance" and then hit a sneaky quaesitor over the head with it, how do I calculate penetration?"

"qcifer"
"It has a Penetration of 0, unless effort was put into it to raise Penetration. Which would mean that the pig wouldn't hit the magus at all, any more than a magically created rock thrown by a Grog would."

What if the pig has two effects in it "Steed of Vengance" at penetration 0 and "Beast of Outlandish Size" at penetration 60? I see no reason for the penetration of MuAn effects to apply to quaesitor bonking. If you wanted to add a magus bashing penetration to the pig what effect would you modify? There really is no provision for penetration sans efffect.

"It has to be consistent. If the pig example isn't stopped, then the wand isn't stopped, then the sword with ReCo isn't stopped, then the sword with the pink dot isn't stopped, then the sword with Edge of the Razor isn't stopped, then the sword enchanted in the lab to be super sharp isn't stopped. So either you have it where all enchanted weapons and objects get through, and the only time the Parma effects such a thing is if the item actually casts an effect of some kind, like Blade of the Virulent Flame or the Pilum of Fire from a wand."

I see no inconsistancy. The pig, the wand and the ReCo sword are items that can do magic. The pink dot, the edge of the razor, and
the supernatually sharp sword are all magical effects. The parma keeps magic away from the magus. Enchanted items create magic but are not magic.

Qcifer
"Which is fine by me, but seems to be contrary to the ArM5 and the FAQ."

I believe that my interpretation is in agreement with the rules while your's is not. (The FAQ does say that enchanted swords are resisted which agrees with your interpretation.)

I think that we understand each other at this point and I shall cease trying to explain my view (because I susspect that I've succeeded).

Edited 3/4/2005 2:28 pm ET by erik_tyrrell

Here's an interesting question along the same lines:

2 Flambeau Magi decided to settle a contentious matter with a round of fisticuffs instead of certamen. Does thier parma stop each other's blows? Common sense dictates that they knock themselves silly, right?

Magi are much like magic items, correct? They contain magic, but are not actively magical. So what happens?

Personally, this is what I think would happen in the examples provided, IMHO. YMMV, however.

Q1)Vis is magic in physical form. If a grog threw a pawn of terram vis at a maga's head would her parma protect her?

A1)Maga gets bonked in the head with a rock. The magic, as vis, is potential, and not active. Since the form of the vis is not created by, changed by, or controlled by magic, it will hit her in the head, thus insuring the grog's doom.

Q2)Say you enchant a wand as a lesser magic device that throws a pilum of fire once per day. I would say that if you use the wand to cast pilum of fire the PoF is resisted by the target's parma. If you use the wand to poke the target in the eye, his parma does not protect him.

A2)I agree. The wand is a completely mundane object, one that stores magic, much like the vis in the above question. Since it is not created by, changed by, or controlled by magic, said magus will get a stick in thier eye.

And for the final questions:

Q3)If I enchant a little stone pig that can cast "Steed of Vengance" and then hit a sneaky quaesitor over the head with it, how do I calculate penetration?

A3)You don't. The Pig's Magic is potential, not active. Since the stone pig is a completely mundane object, and meets the above conditions, said sneaky quaesitor is going to need some willow bark tea for his headache.

Q4)Why is a sword that casts a rego corpus spell on the weilder to prevent bleeding different from the wand of PoF or the stone pig?

A4)I would say that, for the purposes of this argument, that they are the same. Realize though, that the sword will have to penetrate the wielder's Parma in order for the power to function, unless the wielder supresses thier parma when they draw the sword (assuming the effect is constant, while drawn).

I guess it comes down to a series of questions:

1) Is the item/effect created by, changed by, or controlled by magic that is not a momentary ritual?
2) Does the item/effect have a penetration total associated with it?
3) What is the actual Target of the effect?

An answer of "Yes" to #1 means that the item is resistable by the parma. You could get nit-picky with the Controlled By part of it, though.

An answer of "Yes" to #2 means that you have to answer #3. For example, a shortsword that can cast Wound that Weeps on a sucessful hit; This is resistable, it has to cross the target's parma to function. A shortsword that used a Rego Corpus effect to keep the wielder from bleeding would not be resistable by the target; The magic does not cross the target's parma (It crosses the wielder's parma (if they have one), instead).

So, to use an earlier example, the Poison changed into a mundane liquid that a magus then drinks. Well, that falls under Question #1; It's changed by magic. The Parma keeps magic away from a magus, so when Unfortunatus goes to drink this, it winds up spilling down his robe, to pool on the floor, provided it doesn't penetrate. If it does, he has a nice, refreshing glass of water, and when the spell wears off...

And, the infamous "Edge of the Razor" dilemma: Since the item is changed by magic, and is not a momentary ritual, then a magus (or magical creature) has a chance to resist it. So, if a grog takes a swipe at a magus with said sword, the sword will slide off the parma, much like it would off of a good suit of plate armor...if it doesn't penetrate.

Feel free to tear this to shreds... :)

Steve

"First of all thank you qcifer for having a civil and on topic discussion with me on a topic where we clearly hold differing opinions."

My pleasure, and the same to you. Actually our opinions on this aren't so different, I'd rather use your interpretation except that for now it seems to be contrary to a semi-official ruling on it.

"So, how can you now classify a familiar? Are they treated as other magical creatures? if so why did their time in the lab not infuse them in the same way that it infused the stone pig?"

They're still magical creatures, in fact most Familiars have Might scores. The lab time attuned their inherent magic with their master's Gift. But I'd say they were not different from another magic beast, except that they are now bound and modified by Hermetic magic.

"I would say that my interpretation of parma has nothing to do with intent. It has to do with whether or not there is a spell/effect/power trying to penetrate the parma. This doesn't require a smart parma (and it also doesn't resolve the purple polearm problem)."

But basiclly it's allowing some things to get through and stop others, the difference primarily being intent, but also a bit the target.

"What if the pig has two effects in it "Steed of Vengance" at penetration 0 and "Beast of Outlandish Size" at penetration 60? I see no reason for the penetration of MuAn effects to apply to quaesitor bonking. If you wanted to add a magus bashing penetration to the pig what effect would you modify? There really is no provision for penetration sans efffect."

This doesn't answer the Penetration question so much, but does provide (I think) a meaningful analogy. If you look on p85 in magic resistance it uses an example similar to your pig sculpture. It says "A magical rock thrown at the maga bounces off her resistance, and the maga feels nothing beyond the warning that something has been succesfully resisted." That's the exact quote. A magical rock; not a rock that has been conjured with a non ritual Creo spell necessarily, but a rock that has been worked with magic in some way. It doesn;t differentiate between temporary or permanent effects. It doesn't differentiate if it was conjured or enchanted, whether it's a spell or from a lab (an enchanted device). This is about the closest example to your pig example. If you agree with it, then the pig being thrown would bounce off harmlessly. The reason this example is important is that in other examples, spells and spell effects are specifically mentioned, wheras in this one it just says a 'magic rock'. It also uses this format with such examples as the 'magical bridge' or the pit with 'magical spikes'. It doesn't differentiate whether the bridge/spikes are a spell or an enchanted object. This I think is the key to my conclusions on it. Either that or they poorly worded it ;)

"I see no inconsistancy. The pig, the wand and the ReCo sword are items that can do magic. The pink dot, the edge of the razor, and
the supernatually sharp sword are all magical effects. The parma keeps magic away from the magus. Enchanted items create magic but are not magic."

OK, to clarify what you're saying. A sword with a pink dot on it is stopped, and a sword with Edge of the Razor is stopped. But a sword permanently enchanted in the lab to be magically sharp wouldn't be stopped? A sword that was enchanted to have a Pink dot wouldn't be stopped? See the problem here? Also, just to further clarify, how does a sword with Edge of the razor or a pink dot look to someone using InVi spells, compared with enchanted devices which do basically the same thing?

"I believe that my interpretation is in agreement with the rules while your's is not. (The FAQ does say that enchanted swords are resisted which agrees with your interpretation.) "

Ummm...this doesn't make sense. I'm not trying to be argumentative here or anything, but how is mine not in agreement with the rules when you admit the FAQ which is at least semi-official backs it up?

"I think that we understand each other at this point and I shall cease trying to explain my view (because I susspect that I've succeeded)."

I wish you wouldn't actually, you make excellent points that if more thoroughly clarified or debated might finally bring this to a satisfactory conclusion. If you've said everything you want to say, that's fine, but if you might consider these points and help refine your theory I'd appreciate it.

Well, I thought of the loophole I was looking for.

Imagine my evil magus makes an enchanted arrow with a lethal effect and a triggering action that lets me activate it from a distance. Then he gives it to a grog to shoot at a dragon. Say the grog hits with his attack roll.

If magic resistance doesn't keep out enchanted items, then we have a currently-inactive magic arrow sticking out of the dragon. Then I try to activate the lethal effect on the arrow - what happens? We've already discussed how magic resistance doesn't dispel or suppress magic, and there is no way to keep the effect outside the dragon's resistance because the arrow is already sticking into its body.

From this thought experiment, I conclude that magic resistance needs to keep out currently-inactive enchanted items, the for the same reason it needs to keep out the poison-transformed-to-water. Failing to block all enchanted devices would leave a loophole.

Hand-waving in-game rationale: p. 96 says "[m]agical enchantments are created through a type of ritual magic..." So the fact that an item has enchantments at all means it's the subject of a ritual effect and is therefore magical. Note that this is an a posteriori justification - I chose the explanation to fit the answer I wanted, so it doesn't logically count as evidence supporting my decision.

Once again, this is not an official ruling. Indeed I would like to hear counter-arguments. If opinions continue to be divided on this I can put both answers into the FAQ and tell people to pick whichever they like.

In regards to you assertion about a sword enchanted to be magically sharp would not pass through Parma Magica, I agree. However, I do not believe this applies to the case of a sword with the power to cast a spell on it's wielder.

Again, effort must be made to differentiate between an enchanted item capable of generating effects and an item currently under an effect. If the sword was under a temporary or permanent magical effect (whether generated by itself or not) it would be resisted by Parma Magica. If the sword was capable of generating an effect, but the effect was not active on the sword itself, I would state that it would pass through with being resisted by Parma Magica. This appears to be a difference of opinion, and an understandable one.

In regards to your arrow example, consider the case of a magus casting a touch spell on themselves (p 85). They still have to lower their Parma Magica (or beat it in Penetration) to affect themselves.

I would say that in the same fashion, the effect that the arrow would produce (more than likely with a Touch range) would still have to beat the Penetration of the dragon. The arrow, imbedded in the dragon and trying to affect it, is no more or less connected with the dragon than a magus' hand casting a spell on himself.

Despite the metaphor of Parma Magica being an invisible shield approximately 1 inch from the magus' body, the actual functioning of is, I believe, somewhat more subtle. However, this is of course only my opinion.

Me
"I think that we understand each other at this point and I shall cease trying to explain my view."

Qcifer
"I wish you wouldn't actually, you make excellent points that if more thoroughly clarified or debated might finally bring this to a satisfactory conclusion. If you've said everything you want to say, that's fine, but if you might consider these points and help refine your theory I'd appreciate it."

I thought that you understood me and just held a different opinion. I didn't want to beat a dead horse. I see from your post that I've failed to communicate the distinction that I'm making between spells/effects/powers and magic items.

Qcifer
"OK, to clarify what you're saying. A sword with a pink dot on it is stopped, and a sword with Edge of the Razor is stopped. But a sword permanently enchanted in the lab to be magically sharp wouldn't be stopped? A sword that was enchanted to have a Pink dot wouldn't be stopped? See the problem here? Also, just to further clarify, how does a sword with Edge of the razor or a pink dot look to someone using InVi spells, compared with enchanted devices which do basically the same thing?"

A sword permanently enchanted to be supernaturally sharp and a sword enchanted to have a pink dot on it would both be stopped. They would not be stopped because they are enchanted devices, they would be stopped because their blades are the targets of magical effects. (The magical sharpness effect and the pink dot effect respectively.) If the enchanted sword made a pink dot on the floor rather than on the blade it would not be resisted.

The distinction that I'm making is that magic items are not magic in the same way that aircraft manufacturing facilities are not aircraft. This doesn't demand a parma that thinks about whether or not an item is harmful.

The pig is not a magical rock. It is a mundane rock that can create magic.

Using this distinction a flambeau could punch a magus who possesses a criamon imprint without being stopped by his own parma.

I also believe that nearly any magic in the enchanted arrow that struck the dragon would be resisted.

If the arrow created or turned into some vile poison the poison would be magical and therefore resisted. If the arrow grew spikes or changed into a porcupine the spikes would be resisted because they are magical.

If you enchanted a porcupine to turn into an arrow the porcupine would be the target of the effect and bounce off of the dragon's MR.

If the arrow exchanged places with mundane poison that was contained inside of a jar that was an arcane connection to the arrow then the poison would be resisted like any other attempt to teleport an item into the dragon's magic resistance.

Okay, you could enchant the fletching of the arrow to transport mundane poison to the end of the arrow that is outside the parma and hope that it runs down the arrow into the dragon. That would work, but it would work with a parma bounces magic items model as well.

Question about the rules, is that one inch envelope discussed in the fifth edition book, or is it a relic from fourth edition?

Me
"I believe that my interpretation is in agreement with the rules while your's is not. (The FAQ does say that enchanted swords are resisted which agrees with your interpretation.) "

Qcifer
"Ummm...this doesn't make sense. I'm not trying to be argumentative here or anything, but how is mine not in agreement with the rules when you admit the FAQ which is at least semi-official backs it up?"

Well there are two possible ways that I can think of.

When the FAQ uses the term enchanted sword they are refering to a sword enchanted with some effect that targets the blade to make it burn with fire or be supernaturally sharp. They author of the FAQ simply failed to specify this.

The FAQ was written by fans. It is entirley possible that they did not interpret the passage on magic resistance "correctly". (In this case "correctly" means the way it was intended. "Intended by whom?" is of course a necessary follow up question and I think the answer is David Chart.)

OK, like you I don't want to beat a dead horse. Again you come up with some excellent points and make for a great and civil debate.

The one thing I need to ask though is from this point here:

"The pig is not a magical rock. It is a mundane rock that can create magic."

How is this possible? How is that a mundane rock, yet it produces magic? If what you're saying is correct, then it wouldn't show up with InVi spells right? And a magus wouldn't be able to investigate it in the lab. Basically mundane rocks do not do anything but sit there. This is obviously not a mundane rock, because it has been worked with magic and can perform magic. It is magical, I don't see how it can be compared with a mundane rock. Whether or not Parma effects it is what we're debating, but to me there isn't a debate on this point, I wouldn't rest my case with this point.

"How is this possible? How is that a mundane rock, yet it produces magic? If what you're saying is correct, then it wouldn't show up with InVi spells right? And a magus wouldn't be able to investigate it in the lab. Basically mundane rocks do not do anything but sit there. This is obviously not a mundane rock, because it has been worked with magic and can perform magic."

Good point, the rock is not mundane. I was incorrect.

The way I see it, the rock has magical qualities without being magic. I see it in the same way that a magus can have magical qualities without being magic and a creature with magic might has magical qualities without being magic.

If vis, which is pure magic, doesn't qualify as magic why should an enchanted device qualify?

The first sentence of the Parma description says that magic resistance keeps magic away from the protected person. All of the rest of the description just elaborates on this first sentence.

I think David meant active spells/powers/effects rather than anything that has magical properties.

// When the FAQ uses the term enchanted sword they are refering to a sword enchanted with some effect that targets the blade to make it burn with fire or be supernaturally sharp. The author of the FAQ simply failed to specify this.

That's correct on both counts.

-Your friendly FAQ maintainer

The FAQ was updated on March 11, 2005 to clarify this.

// Question about the rules, is that one inch envelope discussed in the fifth edition book, or is it a relic from fourth edition?

It's not directly discussed in the rules. The rules say something to the effect that Parma keeps magic away from the magus, his clothes, and anything else "very close to his body" or similar. I invoked the idea of the one-inch envelope with the intent that it would help newbies who were grappling with the question of what is inside or outside someone's Parma. Basically, I made that up as a paraphrase of what the rules say. I do believe it's consistent with what David Chart and others have said in discussing magic resistance, but it's not official.

Anyway, Fourth Edition Parma was totally different and nothing in the FAQ is a relic from Fourth - except the "older editions" section, of course.

-Your friendly FAQ maintainer

// The pig is not a magical rock. It is a mundane rock that can create magic.

// Using this distinction a flambeau could punch a magus who possesses a criamon imprint without being stopped by his own parma.

There is logical support for this position. According to David Chart - and this does come from a post the Line Editor made to the BerkList - the claws of a supernatural creature are not automatically blocked by Parma. So there is at least one thing that can have magical powers (the magical wolf from the Bestiary) but is not resisted by Parma simply because it has the ability to create magical effects.

Excellent discussion. My three cents.

1) The wand and the pig are not "active" magically. Therefore, parma has no effect. I have a rock which I give two powers. One turns the rock into a pig. The other casts "Steed of Vengance". When the rock is just a rock, it hits the quaesitor. When it is a pig, it checks parma and when you try to run him over with the steed, it checks parma also.

2) Parma magica is not detect magic. You can pick up a magic ring. You can pick up a ring that has the 'explode when I am picked up' trigger. If the explosion effect would penetrate, you would get hurt. If not, and it was an AOE explosion, those around you that did not have parma would get damaged and those with parma would make a resistance check.

3) How would you ever pick up vis?

4) I can make a wand of pillum of fire. I make it with a penetration of 1 but big damage and AOE. I walk into the king's great hall and cast from the wand. Anyone standing is a mage or demon, etc. anyone on fire is not. Anyone alive can try to wrestle the wand from me.

5) I can hit a mage with my staff (talisman, invested device, no ACTIVE effects). Why would I want to? God forbid it breaks.

Actually, my five cents.

"5) I can hit a mage with my staff (talisman, invested device, no ACTIVE effects). Why would I want to? God forbid it breaks."

Well if your talisman happens to be a weapon you might want to hit someone with it.

My older edition mage has a morning star he is obsessed with (last relic of when he was a young merc, long story) and I have considered making it into a talisman.

I thought of a possible unfortunate consiquence of having inactive magic items be resisted by parma. It's a problem with "resistance keeps magic away" in general.

Imagine that a character has a criamon imprint or two on his skin. that character's skin is a magic item. Now imagine that he is attacked by a serpent that posesses might.

When the serpent tries to bite the magus doesn't the serpent's magic resistance keep it from doing any harm?

Worse yet if any magus made their skin paisley (Mu Co 0 penetration) they'd be immune to magic beasts. This isn't just an issue with our preceeding magic item descussion.

This discussion is likely one that will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, but it does make for interesting debate. There are a couple points that I consider to be key points when determining how the Parma Magica works that don't seem to have been considered in the ongoing discussion.

First, I am of the opinion that a mundane object enchanted with magical effects would not be resisted by the Parma Magica simply by virtue of it having magical effects. I come to this interpretation based on two correlating examples provided in the ArM5 book (I don't have the book with me to quote exactly, or to provide page reference):

1) Magically created water (CrAq) cast against the magus would be resisted by the Parma and would flow around the magus, leaving him completely dry.

2) Mundane water moved against the caster (ReAq) would come to a stop as soon as it reaches the magus, as the magical Rego effect is resisted, but the magus would still get wet.

The fact that the magus gets wet from the natural action of the water seems to imply that any mundane affect will still occur. It is only the force of impact - the Rego effect - that is resisted, as that is the magical part. This seems to contradict the assumption that the Parma keeps magical effects away from the magus (i.e. the 1-inch rule), as the water is explicitly stated to make contact and make him wet. The magical momentum is not resisted 1 inch out.

From this, I conclude that a sword that is not itself an ongoing CrTe effect (i.e. a magical effect), but a mundane thing, being swung by mundane means, would receive no inherent resistance from the Parma. The blade, at the very least, would still come into contact with the magus, and since the force of motion is not magical, the momentum cannot be resisted. I would then rule that any enchantments on the sword that try to affect the magus would be resisted on a per instance basis, against the specific penetrations of each effect.

My second argument stems around the magical bridge scenarios. Arguments have been made to support the Parma is not "smart" and thus cannot decide which effect to resist and which not. Yet this seems contradicted by the fact a magus can step onto a magically created bridge without falling through it or being repelled off it. Obviously, there is some metaphysical means involved whereby the Parma "knows" whether the magus is stepping on the magical bridge, or the magical bridge is stepping (i.e. falling) on the magus. I believe this can be extrapolated to mean the difference between a magical effect trying to act upon the magus, or simply existing in his presence. From that, I would not allow the "pink dot" tactic to work, as the "pink dot" is not trying to affect the magus.

Now time for some heresy... the rationale provided in the FAQ indicates the "loophole" is allowed because it if weren't, the Parma could be circumvented, such as by allowing a wizard to drink poison disguised as water. I view this as a legitimate means of circumventing the Parma. If the magus could walk up to the poison, pick it up and drink it under normal circumstances, then simply altering the taste of the poison should not infer protection from the mundane affects poison. I view this in the same light as an illusionary bridge across a chasm. Parma Magica would not prevent the magus from stepping onto the false bridge and falling to his death, which he could naturally do if the bridge wasn't there to begin with. One may argue that the taste of the poison would be resisted, and the wizard would taste the true nasty poison, but I believe this violates the rule on Imaginem that states the species created by Imaginem magic is mundane at the time it reaches the recipient, so the taste itself would be mundane, not magical.

There are other situational issues I have not firmly come to a conclusion regarding, but I will save those for a later date. Hopefully, my comments can inject new life into this rivetting discussion.

[NOTE: In my example regarding the poison tasting like water, I am specificially talking about MuIm making the poison *taste* like water, not MuAq, making the poison *into* water. The MuAq method poses more concerns that I have not yet fully considered.]

The point you made regarding the wizard getting wet, and the mundane swinging of an enchanted sword may be exactly what I've been looking for!

Other good points too to consider, but that one there might take care of the issues I've been having.

I'm relatively new here, so sorry if I retread old ground, but I agree on the sword. Indeed, I agree with most of what gcifer was saying at the start of the original post.

My interpretation (before reading up on the recent discussions) is that Parma Magica is an effect which suppresses magic within the mage: "mage" being defined as his body plus things intimately connected to him. The inch thing is a guideline which allows clothes etc to be protected, but not stuff he's holding or carrying (I note that talismans are a specific exception). Magical effects cannot exist within the parma unless specifically permitted by the mage (eg personal range spells), and so tend to go outside if they can.

So with the water examples in the book, the magical water cannot exist in the area of the parma so has to go elsewhere: it splashes off and the mage doesn't get wet. The non-magical water stops being propelled as soon as it gets to the parma: it can go into the region of the parma, but it has no reason to, and just drops to the ground around the mage (probably wetting him on the way).

In my view, the pink dot doesn't have an effect. It cannot exist within the parma, but the sword itself can. The sword is mundane and being swung mundanely, and so I think it goes into the parma as it normally would. The effect of the parma would be that the pink dot would blink out when it got close, and then reappear when the sword was withdrawn (albeit perhaps under a layer of blood). The mage is not affected by the pinkness, though he he is affected by the sword.

Edge of the razor would have a similar effect: the mundane sword can go in. The magical effect doesn't want to, but has no-where else to go and is forced to. It therefore goes dormant whilst within the parma: the sword is no longer magically sharp when affecting the mage.

This leaves open the potential loopholes of poison turned to wine and the oak tree of dragon slaying. However, I don't think they are flaws in parma. In the poison/wine example, the mage has genuinely drunk poison and should suffer for it - I note that a mundane in the same situation would have the same problem as soon as the spell wore off. What's the mage doing drinking wine which has been offered to him by someone he doesn't trust implicitly? Idiot deserves all he gets: that's what divine nature spells are for (the essential nature will still be poison). Even if he does naively accept and drink wine from someone (hasn't he read Thomas the Rhymer, the Odyssey, the story of Ceres?) he will of course find it is poison as soon as it hits his mouth, and so he does have a chance of spitting it out which the mundane wouldn't get.

The oak-tree-turned-arrow example can be explained, or at the least countered, by saying that when the arrow turns back into an oak tree on hitting the dragon's resistance it becomes an oak tree shot from a bow. How fast do they go? As near stationary as makes no difference. It's a good way to get presents to a dragon without going near him (apart from the whole shooting at him aspect of it), and you might be able to get him to bump into it if he's charging at you, but I don't think it'll kill him.

All IMO, of course.

Cheers,

Pell.R.

I believe there may be other loopholes in the magic resistance that Pellinor and Qcifer propose, that they have overlooked. They're made reasonable arguments about the specific examples in the FAQ about Parma problems but those examples were meant to illustrate the problem, not to cover all aspects of it.

For example, let's say a magus takes a raging bonfire and uses Muto Ignem to transform it into a pebble. Then when he throws the pebble and it hits magic resistance, it turns back into a fire and the target gets toasted. Or a 10-ton megalith turned into a pebble, or a rabid bear turned into an arrow.

This is not to say Pellinor and Qcifer are "wrong." What they propose seems playable, it stops the "pink dot loophole," and unless PC's go to great lengths to find loopholes, it will probably work great in their games. The official rules (Parma does not dispel magic) carries a different set of problems, so really it's a question of what flaws do you want to deal with.

My own experience in playing Ars Magica is that questions of what Parma should resist never actually came up in my own Saga until Fourth Edition went and made it all complicated.

Since this discussion is warming up again I'd like to give you the solution I chose to use for the "green grog defense" that I posted earlier.

The examples show that a magus who falls from a height onto a magically created bridge is damaged while a magically created bridge that falls on top of a magus does no damage.

In the first case the magus impinged on the bridge. In the second the bridge impinged on the magus. Magic resistance will stop magic from impinging on the protected creature but not stop the protected creature from impinging on magic.

This means that you have to give up the idea that all motion is relative but it also means that a magical serpent can bite a green grog without being stopped by its own might based resistance.

//For example, let's say a magus takes a raging bonfire and uses Muto Ignem to transform it into a pebble. Then when he throws the pebble and it hits magic resistance, it turns back into a fire and the target gets toasted. Or a 10-ton megalith turned into a pebble, or a rabid bear turned into an arrow.//

I do not believe these examples can be considered loopholes, as they are pretty much explicitly covered in the rules [pg 85]:

"A normal rock turned into a large boulder by a Muto spell bounces off her resistance"

"A large boulder turned into a pebble by a Muto spell bounces off her resistance"

The Muto'd items are clearly resisted and bounce off the Parma, retaining their current magical shape/form. None of the examples provided for Magic Resistance even hint at it having such an an effect as to cause something to revert back to its original nature.

Such an effect would be considered dispelling, which the opening paragraph for 'The Functioning of Magic Resistance' on page 85 explicitly states magic resistance does not do.

//"The pig is not a magical rock. It is a mundane rock that can create magic."

How is this possible? How is that a mundane rock, yet it produces magic? If what you're saying is correct, then it wouldn't show up with InVi spells right? And a magus wouldn't be able to investigate it in the lab. Basically mundane rocks do not do anything but sit there. This is obviously not a mundane rock, because it has been worked with magic and can perform magic. It is magical, I don't see how it can be compared with a mundane rock. Whether or not Parma effects it is what we're debating, but to me there isn't a debate on this point, I wouldn't rest my case with this point.//

The above issue seemed to be one of the sticking points in the earlier discussions. I think that partly this is just an issue of symantecs (magical vs. mundane) that adds to confusion, but as far as magic resistance is concerned, I think the clarification that is needed is already presented on page 85:

"If the target of the spell is a magical thing, which then attempts to damage the maga, the spell works, but the created thing is unable to affect the maga unless it penetrates her magic resistance."

Here is where we argue, what is or is not magical? But the very next sentence answers that question:

"Things that are created and sustained by magic (anything not created as a mundane thing by a Ritual spell) are magical for these purposes."

The key here is "for these purposes"... i.e. magic resistance. Here is where the symantecs come into play. Although the enchanted pig-rock is a magical device by virtue of its enchantments, and can be considered magical as opposed to mundane in common discussion, it is not a "magical thing" for the purposes of magic resistance.

This obviously applies to Creo, but from the example scenarios provided, it is apparent that it applies to Muto, as well. If a rock is Muto'd into a porcupine, the porcupine is magical because its form is being "created" and sustained by magic. Less specific is Rego affects... such as Rego'ing a steel bar into a sharp-edged sword, but unless the effect was Momentary, I interpret is would be resisted as well, as the shape is being "sustained" by magic.

This would also counter Qcifer's previous argument:

//This doesn't answer the Penetration question so much, but does provide (I think) a meaningful analogy. If you look on p85 in magic resistance it uses an example similar to your pig sculpture. It says "A magical rock thrown at the maga bounces off her resistance, and the maga feels nothing beyond the warning that something has been succesfully resisted." That's the exact quote. A magical rock; not a rock that has been conjured with a non ritual Creo spell necessarily, but a rock that has been worked with magic in some way. It doesn;t differentiate between temporary or permanent effects. It doesn't differentiate if it was conjured or enchanted, whether it's a spell or from a lab (an enchanted device). This is about the closest example to your pig example. If you agree with it, then the pig being thrown would bounce off harmlessly. The reason this example is important is that in other examples, spells and spell effects are specifically mentioned, wheras in this one it just says a 'magic rock'. It also uses this format with such examples as the 'magical bridge' or the pit with 'magical spikes'. It doesn't differentiate whether the bridge/spikes are a spell or an enchanted object. This I think is the key to my conclusions on it. Either that or they poorly worded it ;)//

Here, the argument is that the meaning of "magical" is not differentiated or specified, but I believe that just such a distinction is clearly made outside of the examples themselves.

// I do not believe these examples can be considered loopholes, as they are pretty much explicitly covered in the rules [pg 85]:

I think you misunderstood the loopholes I was trying to point out. They are not loopholes in the standard rules, they're loopholes in the variant rules proposed by Qcifer and Pellinor.

To be clear, I think the official rules are the only really workable option precisely because it doesn't dispel magical effects.

//In the first case the magus impinged on the bridge. In the second the bridge impinged on the magus. Magic resistance will stop magic from impinging on the protected creature but not stop the protected creature from impinging on magic.

This means that you have to give up the idea that all motion is relative but it also means that a magical serpent can bite a green grog without being stopped by its own might based resistance.//

I concur with the final analysis: the magical serpent can bite the green grog without being stopped by its own magic resistance. But the "impingement" analogy isn't so clear and absolute.

In the examples provided in the book, it clearly indicates a magus can step on a magical bridge and be supported, and that a magus can fall onto a magical bridge and take damage from the fall. However, a later example states that a magus may fall upon magical spikes and will take damage from the fall, but will not take damage from the spikes themselves. In this instance, the fact that the wizard impinged upon the spikes did not offset his protection. Ultimately, the damage stems from the sudden stop, regardless of the object, because the Parma does not "dispel" the item to let the magus fall through, and infers no innate protection from gravity.

This is supported by the fact that if someone creates a room full of magical flames, and a magus chooses to enter that room, he is still protected from the flame. Or, if a wizard uses Creo Terram to conjure a magical sword, he is still protected if he tries to "fall on his sword" (et tu Brute?), even though he is "impinging" upon it.

//To be clear, I think the official rules are the only really workable option precisely because it doesn't dispel magical effects.//

I seem to have been unclear. I'm not suggesting that the Parma should dispel an effect, but more that it prevents the effect from existing or acting in the area of the parma (defined as "the clothed mage"). I'm also suggesting an interpretation of the legislation, rather than proposing an amendment.

I have now changed my stance slightly from my earlier post, particularly on why certain examples have the effect (or lack thereof) that they do, but the effect is the same, I think.

In my interpretation, the enchanted item really does not want to have anything to do with the parma, so if it is told to go and interact with it it takes the line of least resistance. A magical item bounces off, an intangible effect slides round the outside, a magical effect forced mundanely to go into the parma simply does nothing.

//For example, let's say a magus takes a raging bonfire and uses Muto Ignem to transform it into a pebble. Then when he throws the pebble and it hits magic resistance, it turns back into a fire and the target gets toasted. Or a 10-ton megalith turned into a pebble, or a rabid bear turned into an arrow.//

In my view, the parma is *in* the mage, not around him, so the pebble only *enters* the magic resistance if it enters the mage. Normally a pebble would bounce off a person, even if it leaves a bruise. In my interpretation the inch rule is only a potential extent of the parma: it means that items intimately associated with the mage which are within that distance are infused with parma, but there is no intangible fuzzy parma field extending around the mage.

So the pebble *hits* magic resistance, but remains outside it and is not therefore affected by it.

If the enchanted item (perhaps the arrow) penetrates the mage then the position is less clear. I think though that one could argue that tangible items do not (except in a broad sense) enter the mage, they just push bits of him around. An arrow is not part of the mage's flesh, and though it is arguably intimately associated with him this is not in the same sense as his robes are - when raising the parma he would have included his clothes, but not the arrow. So the arrow in your example remains an arrow until the spell expires.

I think that the sort of spell effect which would normally be regarded as entering the space of a parma would be an effect directed at the mage himself - rego corpus, or muto mentem, for example.

This would suggest that Edge of the Razor should be unaffected by parma, if the edge of the sword is dividing rather than entering the mage. I would argue however that the sword may divide him, but the *sharpness* of the sword is quality inherent in the sword which has an effect on the flesh to be divided. The magical sharpness cannot affect the mage's flesh, and so only the mundane qualities of the sword do.

In the poisoned wine example the wine is actually forced into the body and mingles with it, and therefore should be affected by the parma and the magic ceases to have effect. I would say that the magic could potentially resume if the wine were to be ejected, though I can't see that actually happening in practice. I note also that in this case it is the idiot mage who has deliberately introduced the liquid into his body, and this has got to have an effect. Would the parma signal to him that the wine is magical, though? I think it may.

Cheers,

Pell.R.

// I seem to have been unclear. I'm not suggesting that the Parma should dispel an effect, but more that it prevents the effect from existing or acting in the area of the parma (defined as "the clothed mage"). I'm also suggesting an interpretation of the legislation, rather than proposing an amendment.//

Probably my fault for not taking the time to re-read the whole 40-post thread before replying.

Forgive me for seeming dense, but I don't understand the distinction between a magic pebble and a sword with Edge of the Razor on it. Since the sword is magical why would it not be kept out and unable to "divide" the magus?

Also, would your idea work well with enchanted items? Say I have a wand that casts "Eyes of the Cat" or something but has zero Penetration. So I lower my Parma for one round and cast the spell on myself. Under your vision of Parma dispelling magical effects, it would seem that my own Parma would cancel the effect of the wand when I raised my defenses the following round. Is that right?

//Forgive me for seeming dense, but I don't understand the distinction between a magic pebble and a sword with Edge of the Razor on it. Since the sword is magical why would it not be kept out and unable to "divide" the magus?//

In my opinion, the sword is fundamentally mundane but has a magical property. The pebble, on the other hand, is fundamentally a bonfire, and there is nothing in its pebbulosity which is mundane.

My interpretation of the "magical item" definition is that magical means "created and sustained by magic", not simply "affected by magic". Is this a sword? Yes, albeit one with a magic edge. Is this a pebble? No, it's a bonfire which looks like a pebble.

Your point about amgic items is a good one, and I'm not sure how to answer: though I would reiterte that I don't see parma as dispelling magical effects so much as simply being unsympathetic to them. My feeling is that such an effect should persist, but I'm not sure why. Perhaps if an effect is explicitly authorised by the raiser of the parma then it may exist in parallel with it? Or perhaps that is just one of the issues to take into account in using parma magica: on the plus side you are protected against malevolent magic, but on the minus side you are protected against benevolent magic. If you don't like it, don't perform the ritual. It is clear that parma and form resistance protect a mage from nasty healing spells and so forth.

On the whole, I think that the mage should have a certain amount of contro over how his parma works: if he can raise and lower it at will then he should also be able to open holes in it for specific spells. Is this one of the great advantages of parma magica over routine magic resistance, perhaps? It generally excludes spell effects, but can be actively manipulated, to an extent.

Cheers,

Pell.R.

"In my opinion, the sword is fundamentally mundane but has a magical property. The pebble, on the other hand, is fundamentally a bonfire, and there is nothing in its pebbulosity which is mundane.

My interpretation of the "magical item" definition is that magical means "created and sustained by magic", not simply "affected by magic". Is this a sword? Yes, albeit one with a magic edge. Is this a pebble? No, it's a bonfire which looks like a pebble."

You're getting hung up on minutia here.....the examples also talked about pebbles which were turned into boulders and boulders which were turned into pebbles also bouncing off of the parma. Both of these would inherently be mundane (rocks), but with magically changed sizes.

In your case of the sword with Edge of the Razon, the Parma prevents the sword from getting close enough to be able to "divide" the mage - if the parma extends out enough to cover clothing and close items (e.g. rings, etc), then it's not a micron-thick layer which would adjust to the sword being pushed in. Just like the example of the boulder or pebble whose size has been changed, the sword with the Edge of the Razor is stopped at the edge of the Parma. Another point; the spell description of Edge of the Razor states that the sword is made more sharp than would naturally be possible, so you could not really treat the sword as a mundane item. (Though this does raise a question...does the spell affect the entire sword, or merely the edge of the sword in it's effect? This would make a difference if the person with the sword was striking with the flat of the sword in an effort to knock the mage out....the edge wouldn't contact the mage, only the flat of the weapon. Would Parma stop the sword in this case?)

In the case of the magical bridges cited earlier, there's really no inconsistency with things - the Parma prevents the Mage from contacting the bridge. It's not dispelling the bridge; more likely contact between the mage and the bridge stops out at the point to where his Parma extends. The mage, in effect, would be standing on a slight amount of air between his feet and the bridge when walking across (or, if you prefer, the Parma extends only to the outside of his clothing, and the outside of his clothing is in touch). If the bridge was falling on him, it still stops at the edge of his Parma.

//In your case of the sword with Edge of the Razon, the Parma prevents the sword from getting close enough to be able to "divide" the mage...//

Aren't you rather begging the question, here? Does the parma stop the sword getting close, or does it stop/mitigate/alter the effect the sword has?

On the question of how far the parma extends, my interpretation is neither that it is a one-micron-thick layer, nor that it is a field extending out from the mage: I think it is a quality of the mage, and is therefore completely coincident with him - "mage" being defined as the mage's body, clothing, and talisman if he is touching it.

In my view, this quality of the mage prevents magical effects, whether pure magical effects (like a rego corpus spell) or magical qualities of objects (such as sharpness), from affecting the mage directly. There can be an indirect effect, like with the bridge example: the mage cannot easily pass through the bridge, as this would bring the magical stuff of the bridge into the same space as the parma - his parma cannot destroy or alter the magical stuff, just stop it affecting the mage. If he walks over it therefore, it effectively "bounces off" his feet each time. If it falls on him it bounces off, but the magical weight cannot squash him. If he falls on to it he stops moving, but as his feet stop first and his head stops when it hits his feet he still takes damage - but damage from imploding into himself, not from the bridge directly.

The pebbles have magical qualities. If you throw a pebble at someone, what quality of the pebble hurts him? The hardness, the weight, and the speed spring to mind. If the pebble is actually a bonfire or a boulder changed into a pebble then the hardness and weight are qualities of the magical form, not its natural qualities, and so I would think that their impact cannot hurt the mage. He would feel that there was an impact, but of a weightless formless mass - sensation, but no pain or injury.

With a mundane sword on which Edge of the Razor has been cast, what qualities might hurt the mage? Weight, force of the blow, sharpness, hardness. Of these, only the sharpness is magical. At the very least, I would think that the mundane qualities of weight, force and hardness should affect the mage; however, the magical sharpness would not. I'm not sure whether the sword retains its normal sharpness, in which case the mage would be affected by the sword as if the spell had never been cast, or whether the magical sharpness temporarily replaces the mundane sharpness, so the latter no longer exists - in which case I would think the mage is affected by what is effectively a rebated steel sword, which can still do a lot of damage.

With a Purple Polearm (OMT), I consider that the mage is not affected by the magical purple colour. However, the colour of a weapon does not normally affect anyone anyway (other than indirectly, through the emission of species), and so the Polearm is effectively mundane.

Cheers,

Andrew

"With a mundane sword on which Edge of the Razor has been cast, what qualities might hurt the mage? Weight, force of the blow, sharpness, hardness. Of these, only the sharpness is magical."

Yes, the sharpness is magical, the edge is sharper than can be made magical by any normal means. This makes the sword magical as it has the sharp edge. The Parma stops the sharp edge from hitting, just as it stops any magical rocks from hitting in any of the pebble examples. In any of those, size and weight are magical, but not force of the throwing or the hardness of the rock. The rock bounces without it affecting the mage at all. In a similar manner, the magical sword.....it's not a normal sword now because of the Edge of the Razor....bounces off the parma without affecting the mage. It won't matter how much force is behind the blow, just as it doesn't matter how much force is behind throwing the pebble that bounces.

Of course, all this arguing about force of blow, sharpness, etc. is looking at it from a 20th century standpoint, not from the paradigm of mythic medieval times. There, it would boil down to "He made my sword magical, but he's got protection against magical stuff, and the sword won't cut through the protection." It would be better to look at the Edge of the Razor example that way.

// In my opinion, the sword is fundamentally mundane but has a magical property. The pebble, on the other hand, is fundamentally a bonfire, and there is nothing in its pebbulosity which is mundane. //

OK, this seems to be the key to your approach. There is something about the extent of the change that magic causes in the object, that dictates whether Magic Resistance can keep the object out or not. Correct?

On the plus side I think this gives you the flexibility to make judgement calls saying what is and isn't resisted by Parma, in a way that seems fair, playable, and sensible in your Saga.

On the minus side, I think this gives you the flexibility to make judgement calls saying what is and isn't resisted by Parma. ;-) So you will have to make lots of rulings. This is not a big deal if you have players who don't argue with your rulings a lot.

I just think the game needed to be clear about how Parma was supposed to work, so newbies could understand it. I do not think changing the rules for your saga is a bad thing. In fact you seem to have given the matter a good deal of thought.

Yes, I think that is broadly what I am saying - though I'm not talking about keeping the item out of the parma, but rather about altering the effects the item can have on an object which has magic resistance.

My thinking has evolved somewhat over the course of writing the previous posts. I think that I now think that (sic) parma simply counters magical effects, in much the same sort of way that solid objects resist being deformed by pressure.

I also dislike the idea that "magical" and "mundane" are black-and-white absolutes: casting a pink spot on a sword leaves many mundane aspects of the sword unchanged, and I think most people would agree that it is less magical than a sword conjured from nothing.

Trying to look at it from what I think is the mediaeval viewpoint, every "thing" - whether object, effect, intangible abstract idea, and so forth - has a number of qualities: weight, size, hardness, heat, sharpness, colour, resistance to magic, saltiness, etc. Note that the parma is a quality of the mage, not a thing in its own right.

When looking at the question "will the mage's parma stop X happening to him?", you need to look at how X arises: what qualities of the effect or the object makes X happen. In my interpretation, if a quality is magical then it is disregarded (not destroyed, dispelled or negated, however) if it encounters a sufficiently strong parma. You then look at what qualities are left, and modify the result accordingly. "Magical" for these purposes refers to being the direct effect of a spell, and relates to individual qualities rather than the thing itself.

A sword affects its target through its qualities of hardness, sharpness, and motion. If you eliminate any one of those, the sword will do a lot less damage. Mundanely, if you make a sword of cheese, it may be sharp (mature cheddar, say :-)) and move fast, but being soft it will do no damage: indeed, it will be damaged itself. If it is rebated steel, it will do some damage due to being hard and fast, but it will not cut. If it is a normal sword which is not moving, it will be hard and sharp but will not impinge on the target.

Translating that to magic: if a sword made of cheese is magically hardened to a steely temper then it would cut an unprotected person like a normal sword. However, the effect of parma is to make the magical hardness fall to be disregarded: we now go back to a sword of cheese-like hardness.

A rebated sword magically sharpened is still a rebated sword to a parma'd mage, and might bruise him very badly but will not cut him. A sword flung about by magic effectively has no motion, and so cannot cut the mage - though it might trip him if thrown to his feet. A sword conjured out of nothing has no mundane qualities at all and can do nothing to him.

A BoAF affects its target through its quality of being immensely hot. If you disregard the magical heat, there is nothing left to affect the mage.

A Purple Polearm has mundane sharpness, hardness and motion, plus magical colour. Disregard the colour, and the weapon can still injure as if the purple spot were not there.

I agree that this will require judgement calls, but I think that is going to be the case no matter what scheme you use, and this at least provides a framework for deciding what the effect would be. I don't think I'm changing the rules: I think that the above is entirely consistent with the description of magic resistance given in 5th edition, and with all the examples there. The rulebook says "This is what magic resistance does"; I am trying to add the "…and this is why", to allow people to generalise a bit more.

Cheers,

Pell.R.

Just to put my two cents in, which are worth about .075 cents since I've only read 5th ed 2-3 times so far, but I've had many arguments about Parma.

In regards to the phrase that's been mentioned several times, about a Sword "bouncing" off the Parma.

In my opinion, if the Sword were fully created by magic, "The Handy Hacker" (CrTe15 or so), then it would actually bounce off... that sword would not exist without Magic, and so it is resisted.

If the Sword were enchanted to burn with flame, "Blade of Virulent Flame" style, then the Sword would not bounce. The blade, if a hit was scored, would do its normal damage... but the extra damage done by the flames would be stopped by the Parma unless the Penetration beat the Parma. I think there were even words to that effect in the rulebook, but damned if I can quote where.

If the Sword were enchanted with a pink dot, and the Dot did not penetrate the Parma, then for the time that the sword was swishing through the Parma (and the Magus) the Dot would cease to be, but the sword would be unimpeded. The blood covered Dot would return after exiting the Parma.

If the Sword were wielded by Rego Terram as a "Dancing Blade" effect, the Parma would stop it, much as it would stop a stone hurled by Magic... the Blade would gently bump up against the Magus, causing no damage. Neither the stone nor the sword would have moved without Magic, so they are resisted.

If the Sword were enchanted with a spell to make it more accurate or to make it hit harder, then the Parma would negate whatever bonuses the enchantment gives, unless the Penetration beats the Parma.

If the Sword were enchanted with a spell to keep the Wielder in a Berserk Rage, then the Magus could be struck by the Sword just as if a Berserker had been Wielding it.

If a Ballista Bolt were transformed into an Arrow, and fired from a short bow, the Bolt/Arrow would bounce... because the Bow could never have fired the Bolt without Magic. If a normal arrow were fired from a Magic Bow that transformed the Arrow into a Ballista Bolt, the Parma would revert the arrow back into an Arrow if it did not Penetrate... but the arrow would still penetrate the Magi for normal arrow damage. The question is "Could the actual item have been moved by whatever force moved the transformed item?"

So far as the Poison-transformed-to-water goes, I think that is a legitimate way to subvert the Parma Magica. A Mundane drinking the "water" would just get water, and at Duration's end he would suffer the effects of the Poison. A Magus would be handed a glass of "water" that turned to Poison when his Parma Touched it... and get the full benefit of his senses to realize the danger. If the Danger goes unrealized... it would be the same as drinking poison that was never magicked.

The Parma is meant to be a significant protection from magic, but I don't think it should be a security blanket for the Magi... protecting them from all ills perceived or unperceived. The Parma Magica is like the Aegis of the Hearth, in that it can detect and affect Magic originating outside or inside it, so long as that Magic is not from the same person who raised the Parma.

Pre-Parma, the quickest Magi with the best spell won the gun-fight. Post-Parma, it takes subtlety and preparation to slay another Magi using Magic... or a whole lot of power. Parma levels the Playing Field, it should not completely remove the threat of violent Magic.

Damn... what a blowhard I am.
J.

I tend to agree with most of your interpretations regarding the sword scenarios, but my own opinions diverge with your other interpretations. I personally try to maintain the idea that the Parma Magica cannot dispel magic, so I would not allow magically altered arrows or poisons-to-water to revert back to their true form upon coming into contact with the Parma Magica.

Ultimately, I feel that allowing the Parma Magica to resist "pink dot" weapons opens more problematic doors than it closes. I don't feel that was the originally intended spirit of the Parma Magica.

I agree... the most coherent argument I have ever had about Parma Magica ended with the phrase "It's a game mechanic, not physics. Can we move on now?" Not to say that this argument needs to end... the more ideas you folks give me, the more surprises I can spring on my Players (if the *&%&^%&^$ Saga ever gets started again).

However, I must say that I have enjoyed and tend to agree with Sir Pellinor's theme about "Qualities" of an item. If the significant Quality is produced by magic, then it is ignored. Not suppressed, not destroyed, but ignored. If the remaining qualities have no detrimental effects, then nothing detrimental occurs. If the remaining qualities can be detrimental, they still occur.

I'm sure there are dozens of ways that can be subverted to the Evils of the Players, and I'm sure my Evil Players will do their damnedest to subvert it. That's half of our fun.

J.

Yes, physics definitely has to take a backseat to the Parma Magica. That causes problems even with the circumstances that aren't disputed. For example:

I think everyone agrees (as it is explicity illustrated) that a magically created rock dropped on top of a magus will bounce off his Parma Magica. But what if the rock were, say, a massive boulder 100 feet in diameter. What would "physically" happen? Would it land on top of the magus (with no apparent impact) and then continue to bounce along until it fell free of him? Or would it land on him and then, through the force of gravity, tilt on him like he was a pivot point, until one edge of it came to rest on the ground and the rest remained on the magus? If it did that, obviously it could have no weight by which to crush the magus, but at the same time, could the magus then lift it? What would happen when the magus begins to move?

Another situation, with additional repercussions... the sinister Magus A creates a magical wall of stone in front of the goodly Magus B and his merry band of grogs. According to the guidelines provided, Magus B could run into the wall, and suffer damage, or climb upon the wall (just like the bridge). but what happend if Magus A pushes the wall over onto the party. Just like with the falling bridge, Magus B would not take damage, but what about his grogs? Would the wall simply stop falling as it comes against Magus B, and thus the grogs gain protection from the benefit of the magus's Parma, or would whatever part is not falling upon Magus B continue to fall and crush the poor grogs?

This is more of a excercise in visualization and trying to "rationalize" what occurs... it is easy enough to apply simple rules mechanics to make the final decision and just say "it happens".

I am actually considering making major changes to the functionality of the Parma Magica in my saga. Such that it would not distinguish a mundane rock dropped on your head from a magical rock dropped on your head. All things being equal, I prefer a weaker-Parma interpretation to a stronger-Parma one. Unfortunately, my vision for it doesn't apply the changes consistently, which is why I have yet to implement such a drastic alteration.

I am gonna go wild on this one. Bear with the length: this could be bad. All stuff in quotes is from ArM 5th, page 85.

First key quote. "Magic resistance keeps magic away from the maga, her clothing, and other items that are very close to her. It does not dispel magic."

//In my opinion, if the Sword were fully created by magic, "The Handy Hacker" (CrTe15 or so), then it would actually bounce off... that sword would not exist without Magic, and so it is resisted.//

Agreed. "If the target of the spell is a magical thing, which then attempts to damage the maga, the spells works, but the created thing is unable to affect the maga unless it penetrates her magic resistance...Things that are created and sustained by magic (anything not created as a mundane thing by a ritual spell) are magical for this purpose."

//If the Sword were enchanted to burn with flame, "Blade of Virulent Flame" style, then the Sword would not bounce. The blade, if a hit was scored, would do its normal damage... but the extra damage done by the flames would be stopped by the Parma unless the Penetration beat the Parma. I think there were even words to that effect in the rulebook, but damned if I can quote where.//

Disagree. The sword blade is enveloped with the flames, which are magical. You can't hit the maga without the flames hitting her first (no physics here...the flames surround the blade, so the swoosh of air doesn't push them away from the blade at the leading edge). "Things that are created and sustained by magic (anything not created as a mundane thing by a ritual spell) are magical for this purpose."

//If the Sword were enchanted with a pink dot, and the Dot did not penetrate the Parma, then for the time that the sword was swishing through the Parma (and the Magus) the Dot would cease to be, but the sword would be unimpeded. The blood covered Dot would return after exiting the Parma.//

Disagree. Parma does not dispel magic (see above). If the dot was at the very tip of the sword and you tried to poke the mage with the tip, it would be resisted. If you tried to chop off the head of the maga with the sword, but the dot didn't touch the maga (think 5 foot long greatsword here), flop goes the head. The sword isn't magic. Only the part with the dot is. Turn the whole sword pink and then the maga is safe.

//If the Sword were wielded by Rego Terram as a "Dancing Blade" effect, the Parma would stop it, much as it would stop a stone hurled by Magic... the Blade would gently bump up against the Magus, causing no damage. Neither the stone nor the sword would have moved without Magic, so they are resisted.//

Agreed. "Things moved by magic can cross the resistance, but their motion cannot..."

//If the Sword were enchanted with a spell to make it more accurate or to make it hit harder, then the Parma would negate whatever bonuses the enchantment gives, unless the Penetration beats the Parma.//

Disagree. The whole sword has been altered by magic and thus is now a magical thing (see above). Plus, it would be a bookkeeping nightmare.

//If the Sword were enchanted with a spell to keep the Wielder in a Berserk Rage, then the Magus could be struck by the Sword just as if a Berserker had been Wielding it.//

Agreed. The sword is not magic and the motion is not created nor sustained by magic. The magic is on the wielder, not on the blade.

//If a Ballista Bolt were transformed into an Arrow, and fired from a short bow, the Bolt/Arrow would bounce... because the Bow could never have fired the Bolt without Magic.//

I agree that it would bounce but disagree with why. The bolt/arrow would bounce because the bolt/arrow is now a magic thing. The bow could fire the bolt/arrow; it would just do a crappy job at it, as a bow could fire a rock or a shoe.

//If a normal arrow were fired from a Magic Bow that transformed the Arrow into a Ballista Bolt, the Parma would revert the arrow back into an Arrow if it did not Penetrate... but the arrow would still penetrate the Magi for normal arrow damage. The question is "Could the actual item have been moved by whatever force moved the transformed item?"//

Disagree again. Parma is not dispel magic and the transformed arrow is now a magical thing.

//So far as the Poison-transformed-to-water goes, I think that is a legitimate way to subvert the Parma Magica. A Mundane drinking the "water" would just get water, and at Duration's end he would suffer the effects of the Poison. A Magus would be handed a glass of "water" that turned to Poison when his Parma Touched it... and get the full benefit of his senses to realize the danger. If the Danger goes unrealized... it would be the same as drinking poison that was never magicked.//

Disagree. Parma does not act as dispel magic. The transformed water is a magical thing. If the poison were created by CrAq, bye bye maga.

//The Parma is meant to be a significant protection from magic, but I don't think it should be a security blanket for the Magi... protecting them from all ills perceived or unperceived.//

Agree in principle. It offers significant protection and it DOES offer protection form all ills perceived or unperceived. It is not Intellego Vim. It doesn't sense magic, it more filters it out.

//The Parma Magica is like the Aegis of the Hearth, in that it can detect and affect Magic originating outside or inside it, so long as that Magic is not from the same person who raised the Parma.//

Disagree again (I am sorry). "Spells cast with Personal range do not have to overcome magic resistance. Spells cast with touch range, even if cast by the maga on herself, do."

This is a tremendously difficult concept, and I wanna say Hoo-Haa to all that have lent a hand. And truely, it is up to interpretation all the time. Maybe that is why this is such a great game.

Don't worry about the length of posts... It's damned hard to explain intelligent thoughts using IM length sentences... ... ... and I think that we should all swear a solemn vow that the first poster to use "Netspeak" in a discussion should be drawn and quartered. Are you all with me?!?! *cricket-cricket* Nevermind.

---

Anyway, looking at things, I think the biggest gripe I have with Parma 5th Ed is that phrase: "...it does not dispel magic."

That is what makes it so difficult to interpret.

I have _always_ interpreted the effect of Parma to be a dispelling of the magic kind of thing. In our Saga, if a group was caught in Rain of Oil, the grogs and companions are covered in slippery, flammable oil but the Magus is just wet.

With 5th ed's "clarification," the Magus would not even get wet because the Muto'd oil/raindrops would stop at the Parma.

I much prefer the idea of Parma being able to stop the effects of Magic, but _only_ of magic. This does not take any "perception of intent" on the part of the Parma, it just takes the rationalization that Magic is a force/energy that recognizes itself. It is not like Gravity, it is not an absolute that either works or it doesn't. The Parma stops the Quality (to steal Pellinor's thoughts) that exists because of Magic. Sometimes this stoppage is literal, and sometimes it merely denies the magic taking effect.

---

With the Accuracy/Damaging bonus Weapon, I don't think of it as a Bookeeping nightmare... any more than remembering what a magic weapon's special qualities are against certain foes in D&D. If it comes up, someone sitting at the table will remember it.

---

The limits of Parma (maybe or maybe not officially described as 1" from the magus' form) are a good way to detail what the Parma does _not_ affect. For instance, a good way to stop a Magus may be to create a shell or cylinder of stone around them. So long as this shell is more than an inch from their body (and I would rule more like arm's reach) then the Magus is trapped. As the Malevolent Storyguide I would require the attacker to make targeting rolls for placement, however.

In the same vein as the 100' Boulder and the Falling Wall scenarios put forth by NZLD, what happens if you fill a Magus' Laboratory with earth using Creo Terram?

This scenario could lead to all kinds of argument. Is the spell completely stopped because of the presence of the Parma? Is there a 1" area around the Magus free of earth, leaving the Magus still effectively trapped and quickly suffocating as his 1" of air ran out? My answer would be that the Magus is surrounded by the earth, but not suffocating (as the Parma dispels the earth back to air) and with room enough to move to cast spells to escape.

Is that the strictest or loosest interpretation of how that Scenario could be worked out? Nope, neither one. However, it allows the attack to be a "success" while still allowing the Parma to offer protection.

Like I said, I may not be 100% consistent with the "physics of Parma Magica," but I try to hit the median where there is some trade off between the intentions of the attacker and the intentions of the defender. Yes, my Players have argued with me about this... right up to the point where a similar attack was stopped by _their_ Parma, thus keeping their Hermetic Butts alive.

J.

From reading your last post, I believe a distinction could be made between 'dispelling' and 'suppressing'. I favor a similar interpretation in many repects. To me, dispel implies the magic is negated. Gone. Whereas suppression implies the magic is made dormant as long as it remains within the parameters of the Parma Magica.

For instance, a magically conjured sword would seemingly pass through the magus, as the portion in contact with the Parma is temporarily suppressed, but would remain a whole sword. A dispel, on the other hand, would seem to either 1) cause the entire sword to puff out of existence as soon as it hit magic resistance, or 2) cause the portion of the sword that hits the magic resistance to dispel, leaving behind perhaps a hilt and a partial blade.

How would you interpret your Rain of Oil scenario in that context? If the magus only gets wet, while the grogs get oiled, what happens if the magus then takes off his robe and it falls outside the protection of his Parma (assuming the rain has stopped or is otherwise unable to fall on the robe)? Would the water remain simply water, as the magic was dispelled altogether, or would the suppressed magic remanifest and the robe is now covered in oil as well?

One of the thing that I like about your posts is that you think before you write. Now on to the abuse.

The main issues I have with parma being a dispel are as follows:

If it dispels , then the object or effect goes away. Thus, the pink dot is no longer of the sword. Problem with that is this works with ANY and EVERY item or effect. Once the penetration of the item or effect is less than that of the maga, it would go away. So the magic bridge would be dispelled.. the maga wouldn't just walk over it.

To answer NZLD. How about if I cast a raging bonfire on a pebble (penetration 0), walk into your house, drop the pebble and leave. If it acts as suppression, this works.

If the maga is unaffected by the fire, everyone can see the fire, it rages, and the maga can pick up the pebble, but she is not affected by it. I like this interpretation better.

To talk about the rain of fire (and that is one of the best..people burning all around and they can't get away...). Since the rain is magic'd into oil and then set on fire, the maga doesn't even get wet.. the oil can't touch her. And if she takes off her robe and drops it on the ground away from herself, it gets soaked with oil and then catches on fire. If it were suppression, the maga would get wet. But the rain/oil is now a magic thing and thus doesn't touch the maga.

CrTe lab trick. Spell doesn't work unless it penetrates. That is why the stone cylinder works. If you tried to encase the maga in stone (or fill a room she is in with dirt) the spell would fail. But, use the cylinder of stone or dirt and the spell works. And, as long as the tagetting roll succeeds, canned maga!

The wall and the giant boulder work the same. If they touch the maga first, they come to rest. How they then proceed to "fall" would be up the physics. Could the maga run around under the boulder, trying to keep it up in the air so that it won't land on the ground and crush her little 2 foot tall friends? Yes. What would the chance of success be? Story guide/troupe to decide. That is why they pay you the big bucks.

The best thing about this discussion is that I have been forced to think out these scenarios and come to grips with my belief on the interaction of parma and magic. Helps keep control of the "evil" players.

H

"For instance, a magically conjured sword would seemingly pass through the magus, as the portion in contact with the Parma is temporarily suppressed, but would remain a whole sword. A dispel, on the other hand, would seem to either 1) cause the entire sword to puff out of existence as soon as it hit magic resistance, or 2) cause the portion of the sword that hits the magic resistance to dispel, leaving behind perhaps a hilt and a partial blade."

I disagree that you have the supression as you state it here, based upon the example cited in the book about a magical bridge falling upon a mage coming to rest harmlessly on top of him. By your definition of supression, the bridge would be supressed and would be seen to fall through him. Likewise, if a mage walks on a magical bridge, by your definition of suppression here, he would suppress the magic of the bridge, fall through and plummet to his doom. Parma isn't really a suppression or a dispelling. As the name states, it literally is a 'magic shield' which won't let the magical effect pass by. It's probably best to think of it a a force field that affects only magical things (spells, magic items, etc) that covers the mage, his clothing, and talismans. For things like a sword with Edge of the Razor or the magical bridge, they hit the magic shield and stop at that point (as to magical rocks, magically conjured rain, etc).

Of course, this means that any food that someone uses MuIm or MuAn on to make taste better would also have the problem of bouncing off the mage's parma, unless it penetrates or the mage lowers his Parma. (Something wily ST's should look into - most players I know have used these spells in the past. You can find out if they regularly use these spells, and if so, roleplay out not being able to eat. That way you can find out if they suppress their parma in order to eat or drink. If so, you won't need to worry about Parma if trying to get poison into someone...just put on the Muto to change it into water with a duration of Sun, so at sunrise or sunset it turns back to poison...)

"//If the Sword were enchanted with a pink dot, and the Dot did not penetrate the Parma, then for the time that the sword was swishing through the Parma (and the Magus) the Dot would cease to be, but the sword would be unimpeded. The blood covered Dot would return after exiting the Parma.//

Disagree. Parma does not dispel magic (see above). If the dot was at the very tip of the sword and you tried to poke the mage with the tip, it would be resisted. If you tried to chop off the head of the maga with the sword, but the dot didn't touch the maga (think 5 foot long greatsword here), flop goes the head. The sword isn't magic. Only the part with the dot is. Turn the whole sword pink and then the maga is safe."

This makes sense to me. Extrapolating from this, though, the way around getting a sword with Edge of the Razor to affect a mage or creature with resistance is to strike with the flat of the blade in order to try to knock them out, so that the edge won't be a factor.

My answer would be yes: sharpness is a metaphysical thing, not simply a result of the shape of the blade.

Cheers,

Pell.R.

I've been doing some more thinking, and the main problems I have are with the magical bridge, playing-keep-up-with-a-magical-boulder, the falling wall, and so forth. The common theme is "what happens when the mage deliberately interacts with the magical object?"

If we take my argument about Qualities (now promoted to a capital letter by Scotsman: is this like moving from hypothesis to theory?) to its extreme, then the magical Qualities of the bridge cannot affect the mage and so he should not be able to gain the benefit of the bridge ( I think we all agree that parma stops benevolent magic as well as malevolent). Worse: if a mage creates a sword he may not be able to pick it up, or he may be able to carry an entire magical castle in one hand (as the magical weight is disregarded), and lab activities become very hard.

What I would like to propose is that parma works only one way: it stops magic affecting the mage, but that the magical item is still affected by the mage normally.

The simplest way to implement this is to say that effect of the parma is ignored when the mage deliberately acts. This could be a subconscious action on the part of the mage - we know he can consciously suppress it. Just as you instinctively brace your arm the right amount when you pick something up, and so can be taken off-balance if it is heavier or lighter than you expect, so you also suprress your parma, without having (or being able) to think about it.

So if the mage tries to catch a magical boulder and throw it back, then the involuntary suppression of parma with respect to the boulder could have embarrassing consequences (I am reminded of the scene in Asterix the Gaul where the Roman spy's strength potion wears off while he is juggling a menhir).

Another way to look at it might be to say that the magical effect has its own resistance, and so the mage is unable to affect it without deliberately going out of his way, such as a dispel magic or a rego spell. It would only have to be nominal resistance - enough to require a deliberate magical act. This might bet messy, though: controlling a magically-created sword with rego should be easy, but knocking holes in a magical bridge with perdo should be hard.

A third way is just to say that although the mage is "unaffected" by the bridge that is just to say it can't damage him, but it can still exert some minor effect. A bridge cannot hurt him but it can keep him up in what would otherwise be the air. A horse can still carry him; a kick from it would perhaps knock him back slightly, but not hurt or bruise him. Perhaps one can look at the state of the mage: if he is currenty standing and unhurt then the magic will leave him with those Qualities, though it may change his position somewhat (such a change is much less significant). This would allow for the blow from a magically-created sword to be felt, and maybe knock the mage's arm away, without wounding; or for a magical boulder to make the mage stagger slightly without falling. Perhaps the degree of effect is related to how close the magic comes to penetrating the parma.

Equally, then, the mage can have some effect on the magical entity. The magical weight of the boulder is still there, it just is very limited in what it can do to him. What he can do to it is then a function of his ability, and if he is not using any magical ability (eg he is just walking over a bridge) then he has little or no effect on it. It therefore acts as if it were mundane.

The falling wall is still tricky under all these options. I would probably say that the wall is a collection of bricks, and this is only so strong. If you treat the mage as a very very hard and strong object, from the wall's point of view, then what may well happen is that as it cannot sustain its own weight on a single point it has to give way around the mage. He is immediately surrounded by falling bricks (which may evaporate, not beng part of the wall anymore), and the main body of the wall is on the ground around him - possibly with grogs underneath.

If the wall is strong enough it will be supported by the mage. If he tries to push it off him, though, he may end up squashed by it (depending on which if any of the options above is taken): his best option is passive support of the wall while he walks (perhaps slightly bent under it - it is heavy, after all) out from under.

Cheers,

Pell.R.

Having thought about it more, I would agree that Edge of the Razor is affecting the whole blade, and keeps the blade from going through. Corroboration of this is the way that the spell it designed - target Individual. This would tend to say that it's affecting the whole sword, not just the edge. It should be possible to design a variant of the Edge of the Razor spell which truly affects only the edge, which would allow someone to strike with the flat of the blade and get through. The spell would be 5 levels higher, using target Part instead of Individual to target only the edge of the blade.

The only problem with this is that, from that aspect, you're back to saying that making a pink sword would allow the sword to bounce since you'd target the entire sword....

I am absolutely ok with a pink sword being resisted by parma. I think that part of the "resistance" to this idea is the farce that a pink sword is in of itself.

Also, suppose I cast "flaming sword" on the blade. I still can resist, but maybe my grogs would get a bit upset.

"I just thought it would be funny for a maga to cast the flaming sword spell on an opponent, be safe from the damage, and then look at the grogs and say,"All yours.""

Truly a man deserving of the Unruly Underlings flaw!!!! :-)