OK, I'm coming up with a tactic or two for a powerful wizard using the spell Wind of the Mundane Silence to knock down an opponent's Parma and then quickly overwhelm him with other spells.

Basically it first off has to Penetrate their resistance. Then if the stress roll + the level of the spell exceeds 10x the opponent's Parma score, their Parma is literally blown down and deactivated.

So from here I have a few questions. First off, the spell is General, based off of Base effect, +2 for Range and +2 for Target. My first question is what level of spell is used? Do you use the base effect or the actual spell's level? For example, let's say you have a total level 60 WotMS spell, its base effect is actually 40, with 4 Magnitudes of extra levels for the Range and Target. Do you roll the stress die and add 40 or 60?

Next, the wizard in question is a Verditius, and will create an item that casts the spell (doing so saves fatigue, is more predictable in its results, and with a high enough lab total can possibly generate a Penetration total higher than he could make with a spell casting roll). An item is actived on a Quick+Stress die. Does that mean it goes off immediately? Also, can a wizard activate a magic item and start casting a Formulaic spell in the same round (said Formulaic spell actually going off at his turn next round)?

The idea is this. He creates a ring that can cast a high level WotMS, and when he attacks a wizard he immediately activates the ring and begins casting his next spell, such as Twist of the Tongue or Grip of the Choking Hand (or any other offensive spell really). With his opponent's Parma down, his own spells will get through almost unopposed on the next round.

The same tactic can be done in one round also. If he masters the WotMS and takes the Fast Casting Ability (or Fast Casts it spontaneously), he then can cast another spell or activate an item (which would take place that round). The main problem is that the Fast Cast WotMS is likely to be weaker.

>My first question is what level of spell is used? Do you use the base effect or the actual spell's level?

The base effect, which reflects the actual power of the effect.

>Does that mean it goes off immediately?

Serf's parma (I don't have my books at work), but I'd count the die roll as initiative

>Also, can a wizard activate a magic item and start casting a Formulaic spell in the same round (said Formulaic spell actually going off at his turn next round)?

No.

//... using the spell Wind of the Mundane Silence to knock down an opponent's Parma ... Then if the stress roll + the level of the spell exceeds 10x the opponent's Parma score, their Parma is literally blown down and deactivated.//
Do you assume here that Parma Magica is a spell, so WoMS can cancel it? Or rather, that the powerful wizard has researched and is using a spell like WoMS, but capable of canceling magical effects which are not spells?

Kind regards,

Berengar

"Do you assume here that Parma Magica is a spell, so WoMS can cancel it? Or rather, that the powerful wizard has researched and is using a spell like WoMS, but capable of canceling magical effects which are not spells? "

It says specifically in the spell's description that if you penetrate the resistance, and then roll a stress die plus spell level equal to twice the target's Parma x5 (Parma x10 altogether) it drops the Parma. Paga 161.

"The same tactic can be done in one round also. If he masters the WotMS and takes the Fast Casting Ability (or Fast Casts it spontaneously), he then can cast another spell or activate an item (which would take place that round). The main problem is that the Fast Cast WotMS is likely to be weaker."

I've no books to consult here at work but I believe that fast cast spells need to be cast in response to something. So to do this you'd need to wait for the opponenet to do something then fast cast WoMS as a response to the target's action and after this you could cast your attack spell.

//It says specifically in the spell's description that if you penetrate the resistance, and then roll a stress die plus spell level equal to twice the target's Parma x5 (Parma x10 altogether) it drops the Parma. Paga 161.//
You are right. I overlooked this very interesting side effect in the spell description.

Kind regards,

Berengar

"Mithriel, is there a basis for your answers or is that an interpretation on your part? Just looking for canon (or close to it), no offense. Thanks for your help."

I still don't have my books at work ;), but I do think my interpretation of the level issue is correct and that activating an item takes a round, just like casting a spell.

//Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with your interpretation, it makes sense. I'm more looking for an official answer though based off anecdotal evidence.//
Well, an official answer has to come from David Chart through official channels, of course - so I cannot provide that, and try to help you by just applying some common sense and text handling skills, whatever these are worth for you.

//Basically it first off has to Penetrate their resistance. Then if the stress roll + the level of the spell exceeds 10x the opponent's Parma score, their Parma is literally blown down and deactivated.

So from here I have a few questions. First off, the spell is General, based off of Base effect, +2 for Range and +2 for Target. My first question is what level of spell is used? Do you use the base effect or the actual spell's level?//

You indeed use the level of this given spell WoMS from p.160 - not the level of its base effect - in the formula "If the spell penetrates, and its level + stress die is double Parma x 5 ...". This is explicitly spelled out for this specific side effect in the spell description. It is also common practice all over the ArM5 book to use "level" in a spell description for "level of the spell".
If a magus were to invent a WoMS with - say - T:Struct, then the formula to dispel Parma in *that* WoMS version would be "If the spell penetrates, and its (level - 5 + stress die) is double Parma x 5 ...". Perhaps this is what mithriel had in mind.

//An item is actived on a Quick+Stress die. Does that mean it goes off immediately?//

See p.100: "You use an enchanted device an an Initiative point equal to Qik+Stress Die" and p. 174: "... they may cast spells at their place in the initiative order, but since spells have no initiative modifier this is based on their Quickness alone". So yes, the item effect goes off immediately at your initiative, just as your formulaic or normal spontaneous (no ceremonial or fast casting) spell would.
Let not p. 174 "it takes approximately one combat round to cast a spell, unless ... Thus, a magus cannot cast more than one normal spell, ..., in the same round" confuse you here: it is too weakly worded to derive from it alone that a magus needs to spend the action of his first round in combat to start casting a spell, which then only goes off at his initiative count in the second round.
After all in ArM5 it also "takes approximately one combat round" to make an attack with a sword, "thus a party to the combat cannot make more than one sword attack in the same round", and still the attack effects are applied immediately at the attacker's initiative.

//Also, can a wizard activate a magic item and start casting a Formulaic spell in the same round (said Formulaic spell actually going off at his turn next round)?//
Basically this is right, I only would phrase it differently, namely: "A wizard can activate a magic item at his - Quickness + Stress Die - initiative count in one round, and cast a spell at the same initiative count in the following one."
A simple, but mean trick for your old Verditius would be to give the WoMS item to his familiar, and in that way trigger both the item and cast his attack spell in the same round.

Kind regards,

Berengar

Actually, in a previous thread dealing with iniative and placing of magic in a round, it seemed that if with your initiative roll of say 8 and you cast a Formulaic spell, it would take all of that round and then it would go off on 8 of the next round.

"Let not p. 174 "it takes approximately one combat round to cast a spell, unless ... Thus, a magus cannot cast more than one normal spell, ..., in the same round" confuse you here: it is too weakly worded to derive from it alone that a magus needs to spend the action of his first round in combat to start casting a spell, which then only goes off at his initiative count in the second round.
After all in ArM5 it also "takes approximately one combat round" to make an attack with a sword, "thus a party to the combat cannot make more than one sword attack in the same round", and still the attack effects are applied immediately at the attacker's initiative. "

The wording might be weak, but the interpretation of the combat exchange taking a full round but resolving in the same round has consistency, in that there's an immediate resolution (you hit or you don't, and do damage or you don't). With the spells though, due to the fact that there's nothing else to go on, I'd say you'd have to conclude that it takes that one full round, mainly because there is no other resolution implied, especially since there is no 'magic phase' any more. A fast-cast spell has a resolution and is explicitly supposed to go off the same round. I don't see any such specificity for formulaic spells. I think the most consistent ruling is that you cast it on say Init. Phase 8 round 1, and it goes off Init Phase 8 round 2, and you start casting another spell which will go off on Phase 8 round 3 etc.

"Basically this is right, I only would phrase it differently, namely: "A wizard can activate a magic item at his - Quickness + Stress Die - initiative count in one round, and cast a spell at the same initiative count in the following one."
A simple, but mean trick for your old Verditius would be to give the WoMS item to his familiar, and in that way trigger both the item and cast his attack spell in the same round."

Basically then, the item starts and goes off on phase 8 when he says 'Bobbity!' and then he immediately starts casting a spell on Phase 8 also, said spell manifesting on Phase 8 next round.

//With the spells though, due to the fact that there's nothing else to go on, I'd say you'd have to conclude that it takes that one full round, mainly because there is no other resolution implied, especially since there is no 'magic phase' any more.//

The simplest interpretation of the - admittedly unclearly worded - rule about working magic in combat is, that the spell is resolved and goes off at your initiative, just like any other action in combat linked to your initiative - such as activating a magic item, attacking, disengaging - is completely resolved at that time.

All more complex interpretations basically can only build on the one phrase "It takes approximately one combat round to cast a spell ...", which appears simply too weak to build a new type of resolution of initiative-related actions in combat on top of it by introducing preannounced and committed actions spanning rounds. Such a new type of action resolution should have left traces otherwhere in the text, too, for example in the description of the combat sequence on p.171, and would have deserved an additional example. But none of this is there, so the most simple solution above is very likely the intended one.

I am sure that there will be some time an official clarification of this issue, and in a talk today was made aware of a post of David Chart resolving this subject on the BerkList already.

Kind regards,

Berengar

Cool, I'll wait for that resolution then.

Now if only the problem of enchanted items and items with spells on them penetrating Parma could be solved...

"Perhaps this is what mithriel had in mind."

Indeed. Thanks for detailing!

//I am sure that there will be some time an official clarification of this issue, and in a talk today was made aware of a post of David Chart resolving this subject on the BerkList already.//

Would it be possible for you to inform us of which digest this apeared in? The latest I recieved was #2126, and I can't seem to find the post by wading through the topic lists.
It would be VERY useful. In advance; Thanks!

//Would it be possible for you to inform us of which digest this apeared in?//

Apparently David Chart sent that mail to the BerkList around Christmas. Adumbratus will post particulars when he finds it, but if you happen to have some time to sift through the old posts, you might well beat him to it.

Kind regards,

Berengar

//Uum... I did try, honestly I did. But couldn't find it.//

And I reckon we can dispense with further sifting.

At least to me the following - which was biting our noses already a few days - is sufficient clarification: http://www.redcap.org/FAQ/FAQ2.html#spell_initiative.

Yep, that's what happens if one is too busy grubbing money, preparing vacations and attending birthday parties to read important updates to the Redcap-FAQ.

Kind regards,

Berengar

So then, if your Magus's iniative is 8 and he casts a spell on round 1, it goes off at Iniative 8 on round one?

OK, that's what I was looking for, something pretty official.

However, that does take away one of the advantages that magic items used to have, in that they were supposed to be faster than casting spells. Also, what's the sense of making a fast cast roll and taking the -10 penalty for your spell casting roll, when all you have to do is beat their iniative? I suppose fast casting allows you a second chance then, if you lose iniative.

I'll accept this ruling, but I don't agree with it. It made fast casting and magic items weaker.

//And I reckon we can dispense with further sifting.//

Okay, that is one good argument in one direction, but to me the faq isn't as cannon as a clarification by David Chart.
But thanks an˙way, I was aware of this part of the faq, and have read it you see, and I'm starting to fall in that direction as far as how I like to do things in our saga. Even if I'm am still rather fond of gcifer's interpretation.
But it would have been grand to se what Mr. Chart has to say about this. David? Please?

Hmm, well, the point of the FAQ is to answer players' rules questions so David Chart doesn't have to. Wouldn't we all rather have him editing the next Ars Magica supplement than answering rules questions he's already responded to?

I'm disappointed that the FAQ doesn't answer the question to your satisfaction -- if there is something specific about the answer that is missing, please e-mail me at the FAQ maintainer's address (do not just post the problem to these boards, I don't want to have to hunt for it). I suspect, though, that you simply want to get a direct answer from the Line Editor. Please keep in mind that since David has already addressed this question, you're putting him in a difficult spot - it's not really fair for the whole fan base to insist he answer every rules question personally (especially if he's answered it before), and if he doesn't respond to your post then he looks bad for ignoring a fan.

I suggest you post your question to the ArM5 list. It has low traffic, David Chart reads and posts regularly, and rules questions get a prompt response (usually from fans, sometimes from the Line Editor). You can get subscription info for the ArM5 list from the FAQ.

-Your friendly FAQ maintainer

*** Edit 22 March 2005 ***

Maybe I was a little too hard on Njordi here - I didn't mean to single him out.

Let me rephrase what I was trying to express. I think it is OK to ask rules questions in the forums, and even to expect that Atlas Games people will settle rules questions eventually. What I do not think is OK is to ask Atlas people to drop what they're doing and answer a rules question, especially one they've already answered.

I've tried to collect the answers from David Chart into the FAQ so people can see what he had to say. I understand the desire for a definite settlement to a question and as a fan maintainer of the FAQ, my opinion does not carry the same weight as David Chart's. So I can see why the FAQ is not perfect.

I guess what I am trying to say, is please be considerate. Please read the FAQ so as not to bother David Chart with questions he's already answered. Please take a look at what other people have to say about your rules question before you request an official ruling - people who post answers to rules questions are trying to be helpful and they deserve to be at least listened to even if you don't agree with their conclusions.

I don't think Njordi really did anything impolite and I don't mean to single him out.

You're welcome! I'll be happy to give you a telling to whenever you need it. ;-) Seriously, I didn't mean to come down on you too hard. "Polite but firm" was what I was aiming for...

Thinking about it, there is something I don't understand. Why do you feel a need for an official answer? Usually for my own saga I am happy to just read the rules and argue with my players about what they mean. :-) For the FAQ I try to either base my answer on something David Chart wrote, or if that's lacking, to at least mention both sides of the discussion (it seems there are usually two sides). What I don't understand is why an answer from David Chart would be any better for you than an answer from someone else, if that someone else's answer were well thought out and well written. It's not as if David were infallible or anything - oops, maybe I should not have said that. ;)

Are you concerned that if you accept an unofficial interpretation, an official one will come out later that contradicts your ruling? Or do you feel the authority of the Line Editor will help quell arguments from your players? I really want to know, because for my own part (aside from the need to keep the FAQ as accurate as possible) I will pick "makes sense to me" over "official" ten times out of ten.

-Your Friendly FAQ Maintainer

//Thinking about it, there is something I don't understand. Why do you feel a need for an official answer?//

Well normally I don't. I'm quite happy with making my own interpretations of the rules and making house rules were I'm not happy with the official rules.
There's a couple of reasons why that's different in this case. 1)Our Ars group are currently using a somewhat anarcistic variant of the troup style play. We are several gm's, there is one alpha-gm, but he is very non-authorative. And a style has developed where disagreements have to be setteled by discussions, and everyone has to agree before the it can be closed. On this point we can't seem to agree.
2) The 5th ed is quite new. The changes from the 4th ed seem to me like they are quite well thought trough, they are there for a reason, and I get the impression that they substitute an intentional change towards ... simplicity, or preciseness, or a crossingpoint between those two. (If that made any sense)
Anyway, I get the impression that all the rule changes are the end product of a intellectuall prosess and that the outcome represent the wishes of the developer. When our group can't agree on how to interpret something in the rulebook, it then becomes very temting to hear what the intention of the change was, so as to better understand how the rule change came about, and how it actually is intended to be used in play.
Mind you, if I had got what I asked for, I wouldn't have felt any obligation to use the rules as David Chart has intended for them to be used. But it would have been easier to make house rules on them perhaps.
Hope this answers your question. Maybe we should move evt. further discussion on this off-forum?