"pointless and facetious"?

are you taking Ars Magica entirely seriously? I hear that DND has spells like this, and portrays entire worlds in which Loud Burps are appropriate "weapons"...

It's certainly a simple enough spell to cast. In a previous edition of the Wizard's Grimoire, I believe 3rd edition, they had a list of Faerie Magic spells, that often produced embarassing effects. One was called the Trumpeting Fart I think.

Magic can certainly be used for strange, even silly tasks and effects, but low level spells like this would probably be reserved for Spontaneous magic, or to study and practice one's precise control as well as the effects of magic.

To decode the 'bible code', is possible under hermetic code. Under 4th Edition, it would be Intellego Mentem, Level 30 (Thoughts Within Babble, +5 Levels for Deciphering encoded writing)(5th Edition would be Intellego Animal/Herbam/Terram, depending on the materials used, Level 20 (Level 4, learn all mundane properties of a plant, +1 for touch range, +1 for concentration, +2 for difficult effect, deciphering encoded text)). The prophecy part is how you interpret the results you get, not a result of the spell (the prophetic stuff is already written, you have to find it first). However, in my saga, I wouldn't allow it, for the following reasons:

1) The Bible/Torah is inspired from the Divine. One might classify it merely as a book, but I would say it is a Divine book. Hermetic magic can't affect the Divine. From a technical standpoint, the spell would work, except on it's intended target, unless God wanted you to know something in the code.

2) Historically speaking, the existence of the Bible Code wasn't posited until the renaissance; The first instances I know of someone trying to figure it out is Da Vinci. There may be some earlier attemptes to decipher it, but I'm not sure. I think Newton took a stab at it as well. It wasn't until the early 20th century that someone got into the code.

Codes and ciphers, up until the early 20th century, are rather simplistic, consisting mainly of ceasar ciphers (messages wrapped around sticks) and letter subistitution (A=E, E=I, etc...) schemes. Still, I think a hermetic mage could use magic to crack an ENIGMA, ,VENONA, DES-3, or RAINDOLL (I know this isn't it's actual name, it's something like Rindjel) cipher, but he wouldn't know how he arrived at the plaintext...

Steve

under 5th Ed, you can't translate a book - you need a living mind which is reading the book, and use Inme on them.

out-of-character -- spells would take out all the fun of studying dead languages and hunting down ancient incomprehensible tomes, replaced by a brief hand-waving.
in-character -- the parchment and scribing on it has no mind, nothing to crack the code with. You can learn the history, and learn something of the writer: what they looked like, how they wrote, when they wrote the book... but not "what they meant".

If you read the Laboartory chapter in the 3rd, 4thor 5th Ed book, you will see that investigating a magical device is a seaon long activity, and in uncertain and difficult.

To replace that with a simple spell is out of proportion.

Reading the Intellego Vim guidelines (for spells to analyze magic) you see that spells can tell you: that something *is* magical, what flavour of magic it is, and approximately how powerful (a spell magnitude, or the number of pawns of Vis invested in a device) - but sepcifically leave out explaining what a spell or device does.

Note also that Hermetic Magic is quite poor ar investigating non-Hermetic magic (e.g. Alchemy); indeed, *any* magical method is weak at investigating an alien type of magic, and stronger within its own area.

Intellego Terram will tell you what something is, what it is made of and how fine it is.

What it is worth to a buyer depends on the person, what they want, and how well they Bargain, and is properly the province of a Bargain skill roll.

Having said that, items tat have "standard" value, like coins, can be assessed readily, including detecting adulterated coin; gems are a bit harder, as the quality of a gem affects its value in non-linear ways. (Do *not* forget that "cut" gemstones do not exist in 1220 - gems are polished, and round, not cut and faceted - they lack the sparkle of the later cut gemstone.)

I made a spell just like this for my column in the fanzine Hermes' Portal. So needless to say I think it's a good spell idea. :-)

You can use my name for the spell if you want: "Torrent of Vitriol."

The Hermes' Portal Web site is http://perso.wanadoo.fr/styren/hermesportal/hermes.htm

The e-mail address for the publisher is Hermes.Portal@wanadoo.fr

// new spell,prequisites-muto aquam 8
// name,age wine

I think it looks good in principle. I don't know why the level is 8 - did you choose that because it's between 5 and 10?

The next step is to set the Range, Duration, and Target. That will help decide if the level is right.

>> I chose muto4 & aquam 4 because I thought that was the minimum
>> levels to age alcoholic beverages.

OK, I can see what you're thinking. It's a good start but you have not quite learned how to use the spell guidelines yet.

If you have the free Fourth Edition Ars Magica book, the guidelines for Muto Aquam are on page 114. I think the applicable guideline is "level 3: change a characteristic of a liquid within its normal range" (in this case, make alcohol seem more aged).

>> range-arms length
>> duration-moon
>> target-alcoholic beverage

For Muto Aquam, the base Range is Touch, the base Duration is Sun, and the base Target is Small (also on p. 114). You want to increase the Range to Reach (that is, by 1 step) and the Duration to Moon (also 1 step). So the final level I get would be 3 to age the wine + 1 for increased range + 1 for increased duration = 5.

This is kind of a special case because the base guideline is below level 5. From level 1 to level 5, each increase in a spell's range/duration/target adds one level. After level 5, each increase adds 5 levels. That's on page 104 (bottom of the right-hand column).

I think you are starting to get the hang of it. Would you like to try another?

Aged wine was not _commonly_ better than new wine during the time period or for hundereds of years afterwards. people did not store wine with the same precautions as are common today and it went bad long before it underwent any of the transformations that we assiciate with ageing.

So, I'd use a different name for your spell.

you need to start to include more information in your spell designs:
we cannot sensibly help if all you say is "level 5" and do not say what Range, Duration or Target is affected. Indeed, you will help us enormously if you follow the 5th ed style, and include a statement of the guideline used, and explicitly show your working or additions for RDT, requisites and complexity etc.
Good spell design goes on to explain how and why the spell works within the framework, how it uses the basic magic to produce its effect: look at the examples.
(The free 4th Ed book does not include the calculations of each spell - I can however strongly recommend purchase of the 5th ed book as it is in many ways superior!
For free examples of new-spell design - download the PDF magus characters from the Living Covenant:
http://www.atlas-games.com/arm5/
)

Then people can help by pointing out errors in the application of magnitude adjustments, or argue as to which guideline is the correct one.

Finally note that "3-6 miles" is a lot of ground,a nd the spell needs to explain and justify why it covers so much, and not a much smaller area.

wine to vinegar can be either of two effects:

1) transmute substance of liquid into a different liquid (Muto Aquam), which will be temporary, and revert when the spell ends.

2) since Vinegar is known to be degraded wine, wine which has "gone sour" by exposure to air, you can also degrade wine by Perdo Aquam, which is non-reversible.

The PeAq trick only works on Wine, Beer, Cider or such; suitable MuAq will turn any liquid into any other liquid.

//new spell-knowledge of atlas
//inteligo terum5 with a aquam requisite
//effect-you gain intense knowledge of the terran around you for up to
// 3-6 miles in radius(useful for finding your way around the place)

I still do not think you are applying the spell design guidelines and process correctly. It looks to me like you just guessed at the level.

I would not allow this spell in my game because a 3-6 mile radius does not correspond to a legal Target for a spell. If you have the ArM4 book the Target categories are explained on p.104 of the 4th Edition book.

I'll show you one more time how spell design is done in Ars Magica. You have an idea for a spell - that's the first step. Good. Also I think the Aquam requisite makes sense. Good.

Next step is to find the guideline that best matches the effect you're looking for. You have an Intellego Terram spell so we go to p. 150 of the 4th Edition book. Looking through the guidelines, I think the closest one is "Level 2: Learn one visible property of an object." So your spell starts from a base level 2.

Next step is to choose for range, duration, and target. Since the spell just affects the area around the caster, it has very short range - Touch. What duration do you want? Let's say Concentration - it lets you keep the spell going long enough to find a safe route through the area. Target is tricky but the best target for this spell is Boundary (p. 104). It allows you to see a large area enclosed by a specific boundary: a small island, a valley, etc. In Fourth Edition you can use the Boundary target for ordinary spells (according to the Fourth Edition errata on the Atlas Web site). In Fifth Edition, anything affecting a Boundary target would have to be a ritual.

The final step is to adjust the level of the spell for the new Range, Duration, and Target. The base range for Intellego Terram, according to ArM4 p. 150, is Reach. You only need Touch (-1 magnitude). The base Duration is Concentration and that's what you want, so no change to level is needed for Duration. The base Target is small and you want Boundary, which is 4 mangitudes higher. The final level I get for your spell is 2 -1 for range + 4 for target = 5.

Well look at that, you got it right. My first impression was that Level 5 was way too low. But did you use the process I explained here, or just make up the level? When you post spells, please explain how you figured out what the level of the spell should be (you do not have to go into as much detail as I did - I am trying to teach the process).

Spells of shadow are tough. I am not really sure what Form/Technique to use either. There are some players who would say it can't be done, because it's hard to fit shadows into the existing Forms. If you try to think of them from the standpoint of medieval science, then medieval people understood shadows the same way that we do - they're caused by your body blocking light. How can you affect a shadow when it's just the absence of something?

I don't agree with that point of view, though. This is just a game after all and explaining things in terms of Aristotlean physics is not my idea of a good time. Besides, shadows are just cool, and animating a shadow is also cool.

There are two ways I can see to do a shadow spell. The less scientific one is with Imaginem magic - the shadow is, after all, an image of the thing that casts it. Another way is to make it Rego Ignem (controlling light) with an Imaginem requisite. So I think it would be Rego Ignem with *two* requisites: Imaginem and Intellego.

Take a look at the spell "Image from the Wizard Torn." Its effect is similar to your animating shadow spell.

Here's another thought - can a shadow enter a dark place? I would not think so because shadows cannot exist without light. Your mileage may vary.

Shadows belong to imagonem, as it is the blocking of a image. Basicly such a spell would be ReIm with a In requisite (to see and hear). Basicly this is a variant of "Image from wizard torn" as previously mentioned - the difference is mearly cosmetic...

---

As for the "purifing stomp" - spell, this is a variant of the disenchant ritual. Does the same thing, only for infernal instead of magical items. It would be a PeVi ritual.

The flaw can already be done as a specific application of the Compulsion flaw.

The mage with this would most likely live alone, or end up with problems when his covenmates get tired of him wasting vis on worthless items.

Abraham:
why don't you try the following exercise with your "rag of washing", and post the results:

ignore any spell name for now - spell names vary from mechanical to cute to "authentic soundig" but tell us very little.

go back to the ArM book,
look through the spell guidelines for something like the magical effect you want. Note it down. (If you are still using the 4e PDF file, note down the base Range, Duration, Target of the spell guideline you have just picked;
in 5e all guidelines start with a basic Personal/Momentary/Individual (apart from a *very* few exceptions))

consider the level of the guideline and the RDT you have noted. Are these enough (can you reach a plausible target? Do you need Near or Voice range to reach out, or will Touch do? Does the spell last long enough to work for you?)

Do you need requisites to make the spell work with mixed Forms? (Adjust the design if so).

using the spell-design rules, adjust the RDT to suit your intention.

Now compose a post to the list, showing the GL you are using and its level, and the final level, TeFo+Req, and RDT.
Don't forget to state which ArM Edition rules you are using, as 3rd, 4th and 5th have different rules for spell design (although game play is very similar), so if you want meaningful feedback, you need to guide people to what you are doing.
*Now* give the spell a name that suits its design, and ask what people think of the spell design!

If you post a real spell design instead of a spell name, people will try to give you informed criticism.

"
spell name-concentraite vim
version-4th
prequisites-mutovim 7 with a creo requisite(maybe can't think of any better form to use)
this spell basically allows you to gain vis from everyday items(appropreate to the item you are draining at least)
duration-year
range-touch
target-item to be drained of course!
a more powerful version makes the vim you colloect more powerful yet"

Beyond the fact this a game destroying concept (free vis is not a good thing) and most SG would have cat fits over it...there must be a really good reason why you can't use a CrVi spell to make Vis...but at the moment I am drawing a serious blank as to why not. It doesn't seem to violate a Hermetic limit but its obvious as the day is long that it isn't possible...major exploit city if it where...

Can someone comment on why it isn't possible though?

Excluding distilling vis from an aura :)

I can't say why it wouldn't be possible, but I doubt they wanted to make it legal. For magi to be able to create vis out of thin air would destroy the whole game, economy of wizards and maybe even the whole Order.

There was a spell in the third edition of ArM, Change the Nature of Vis. It was a MuVi ritual, that allowed the magus to transform one pawn of vis into another art per one magnitude of the spell - at the cost of the ritual, of course. It was removed in the fourth edition, and does not exist in the fifth either.

Considering that there are no permanent spells anymore and that a magus can only create something permanent with Creo rituals, creating vis would again be a ritual, and consume vis as it is being cast.

//...there must be a really good reason why you can't use a CrVi spell to make Vis...but at the moment I am drawing a serious blank as to why not.//

You need Vis to create anything permanently - also Vis. So perhaps the Vis created by experimenting Bonisagi was so far not worth the Vis they expended for it?

Kind regards,

Berengar

One of the limits of Hermetic magic is that you can restore energy - fatigue and vis...

That is reason enough why such a spell wouldn't work.

--

As for a spell to consentrate it; It could be used to draw the vis into a smaller object (would be around lvl 15, and ReVi), but this doesn't have any effects on the actual use of the vis.

"You need Vis to create anything permanently - also Vis. So perhaps the Vis created by experimenting Bonisagi was so far not worth the Vis they expended for it?"

Making it permanent has to be a net loss...but why make it permanent?

A duration of diameter would allow you to boost your next cast spell by using the vis then. A duration of day would allow for its use in a healing ritual and a duration of 3 months (allowable as a formulistic spell) would allow you to study the dratted stuff.

Its not precluded by any hermetic limit, energy doesn't apply as vis is a perfectly natural substance (in the setting) and I don't see why if you can create wood out of thin air you could not create vis.

I agree it is a nightmare and should not be allowed...the 3 month variety would cause havok in vis trading as just a minor example.

"Its not precluded by any hermetic limit, energy doesn't apply as vis is a perfectly natural substance (in the setting) and I don't see why if you can create wood out of thin air you could not create vis."

What is vis if not energy? While I'm not 100% sure this was mentioned spesifically in 5th ed, it has been in all previous editions. Remember that you can't restore fatigue either, and you can't bind a familiar with a simple spell...

---

"Making it permanent has to be a net loss...but why make it permanent?

A duration of diameter would allow you to boost your next cast spell by using the vis then. A duration of day would allow for its use in a healing ritual and a duration of 3 months (allowable as a formulistic spell) would allow you to study the dratted stuff"

First - 3 moons is about 3 time the max duration of a non-ritual spell...

Second this wouldn't work for the same reason that natural healing stops when you're under the effect of a non-momentary healing spell. It's not a natural substance, and rests solely on the spell that created it.

---

However it might be possible for a magus to create a spell to make fake vis. It's useless for spellcasting, labwork etc, but it detects as vis. Good for bluffs, and for cheating other magi.

//A duration of diameter would allow you to boost your next cast spell by using the vis then. A duration of day would allow for its use in a healing ritual and a duration of 3 months (allowable as a formulistic spell) would allow you to study the dratted stuff.//

Hmm, that really sounds like a new Durenmar research project: temporarily created Vis and its effects in casting spells, rituals and study.
I think that these effects are rather interesting than beneficial: healing spells giving way when the spells creating the used Vis expire, weird study results from a non-standard substance, and so on. They certainly challenge the fantasy of a storyguide, though.

Kind regards,

Berengar

terrible - awful!

apart from having no foundation in the book's guidelines, it ruins all the story ideas about hunting for vis etc, and all that makes vis a scarce resource and a valuable commodity.

(Note: the same is true of books and study, as the time (season) takent o study or write, or to copy, is a cost levied against characters - very relevant in a long-span game like ArM)

as for details:
muto spell effects end and undo when the spell ends (apart form incidental effects, such as something sagging while made soft), so muto won't be useful

creo needs vis (and a ritual in 5e) to make it real (other 5e spells can't be made real, nor is there any permanent duration)
4 spells can be made permanent - but can still be dispelled - by using Vis. Only "mundane results" can be "made real" with vis.

any spell which improves on vis is a game-breaker, just as DND spells to create XP would... You are increasing a game-commodity, something which acts as a limit-by-value.

creo animal can produce ME glue - note that it'd be a "treated product". (I don't have the GL here to check).
there are also reco effects which would do something similar...

Also note - it's very much easier to comment on ideas if you separate posts, rather than putting the tag-end of one spell idea, and the start of another, into the same post.

"Hmm, that really sounds like a new Durenmar research project: temporarily created Vis and its effects in casting spells, rituals and study.
I think that these effects are rather interesting than beneficial: healing spells giving way when the spells creating the used Vis expire, weird study results from a non-standard substance, and so on. They certainly challenge the fantasy of a storyguide, though."

We can talk about it in person sometime. But the point I am trying to make and which seems to be eluding you is that the rules DO NOT stop this from happening (though everyone is in agreement that it is a game breaker)...the arguements against don't stand up worth spit. So Abrahamray has finally contributed something worthwhile...there is a fairly large "oops" in the rules which normally would not be visible since everyone knows the setting. Its an "out of the mouths of babys" sort of thing.

Creo created substances are normal...if "perfect" whether they are vis or wood or steel or fire. That creo-ed vis is absolutely normal vis and infact should be easy to create since vis is the essence of magical power and creo makes the essence of something. Created vis that is expended in a healing spell is the same as normal vis, it is exactly the same thing as creating wood, starting a fire, cooking a meal and then the spell on the created wood vanishes...does the food go back to being uncooked? No. Same thing applies the magical energy from the vis was used...the effect continues as the momentary ritual is over with. Or if I make a CrTe and stick it through you the effect of being run through (as in you're dead) doesn't vanish when the sword does...or a PoF etc.

Time for an errata I think not to mention possibly another Hermetic limitation.

Actually, having taken a look at the book again - you are right. There is no hermetic limit against making vis.

However, it falls under the same catagory as any spell replacing a lab-activity. It is somewhat like making a CrVi spell to make magic - and use that to replace any other spell. (with casting requisites offcourse).

It doesn't work.

There are no guidelines for such a spell, so maybe a 100 lvl spell is required for a single pawn of vis.

"Actually, having taken a look at the book again - you are right. There is no hermetic limit against making vis."

I am glad we agree.

"However, it falls under the same catagory as any spell replacing a lab-activity. It is somewhat like making a CrVi spell to make magic - and use that to replace any other spell. (with casting requisites offcourse).

It doesn't work."

I dissagree. Vis is a perfectly natural (if magical) substance, any and all mages know what it is. There is no reason a mage capable of creating an animal, water, acid, lightening, fire, ice, stone, a human body, or any of the other things that Creo-spells allows can not create vis. There are no rules in the spell system which prevent it.

"There are no guidelines for such a spell, so maybe a 100 lvl spell is required for a single pawn of vis."

You argue first it can't be done, and then say well even if it could it would be hard. That means you don't believe it can't be done B-P

What needs to be done (to my way of thinking anyway) is that the people in charge of the rules (David Chart?) need to look at the situation carefully. Then decide how best to deal with the situation. Then of course we get to gripe about how they did that :)

"You argue first it can't be done, and then say well even if it could it would be hard. That means you don't believe it can't be done B-P"

This is the result of the spell "two-faced diplomat" - allows me to see two sides of a debate. Both sides agree that it CrVi spells shouldn't be a method of gathering vis...

---

There is a way to create vis with spells (as opposed to lab activity). It can be made in the same way magi make auras - as a side effect of their magic.
Creating a magical beast would be a good example - they contain vis by their very nature.

Same could perhaps be said for some kinds of rock. Or whatever.
(Remember that raw vis is allways part of something - loose vis (sometimes called fluid vis) simply means there is an aura.)

Anything else should at the very least require a magical discovery...

---

Btw - sorry I ramble and make little sense from time to time - I tend to write whatever I think - Rather than think about it too long...

//... is that the rules DO NOT stop this from happening (though everyone is in agreement that it is a game breaker)...the arguements against don't stand up worth spit. ...//

Let's look more closely: we know both, that there are no ArM5 rules about creating raw vis with a CrVi spell, or about temporary raw vis. There is also no indication in ArM5 that temporary raw vis can exist, or that somebody even thought of it.

Indeed, the mere possibility to create temporary raw vis without expending raw vis in the process makes the wording of the 'Limit of Creation' nonsensical (ArM5, p.80): "Hermetic magic is incapable of creating anything permanently without raw vis. This limit affects all uses of Creo magic. However, ... Creo magic that does use raw vis does not need to be maintained."
So, if I could create temporary raw vis with Hermetic magic and without expending - standard, permanent - raw vis, that temporary raw vis would still be raw vis. So it could still be used to Creo something that does not need to be maintained (by the last quoted phrase). This would reduce the entire limit ad absurdum.

So it appears to me that creating temporary vis is something which a clever Bonisagus might attempt to extend Hermetic Magic Theory beyond Bonisagus. If such vis could be created - without expending raw vis - for even some small time, it would prove that the 'Limit of Creation' and the nature of vis needed to be reinvestigated and reformulated, leading to a more encompassing limit, and a better understanding of the fundaments of Hermetic magic. (Just like relativity theory transcending Newtonian theory.)

//Time for an errata I think not to mention possibly another Hermetic limitation.//
This appears to me a little exaggerated. But we should indeed continue this face to face.

Kind regards,

Berengar

It might be that if temporary vis were created, it could be used in a ritual to make something permanent, but that permanent item would disappear at the time when the spell creating the vis expired. That still doesn't account for the problem of creating a heap of vis that would last for a day just to cast some other spell (such as providing extra penetration for an Incantation of Lightning), but that's another matter.

I would expect that if it would be possible to create the vis from 'thin air', the creation rate would be based off the formula for harvesting vis from an aura...that is, pawns per season. Spells would require a special casting duration for this.

On the other hand, an errata to fix the loophole would work just fine.

//It might be that if temporary vis were created, it could be used in a ritual to make something permanent, but that permanent item would disappear at the time when the spell creating the vis expired.//

This is very plausible and a good house rule. *If* I would wish to introduce temporary vis, I would rule exactly that way.

But this house rule clearly contradicts ArM5, p.80: "Creo magic that does use raw vis does not need to be maintained."
Nothing there says that the raw vis in question would need to be permanent: use of unspecified raw vis just causes, that the Creo magic needs not to be maintained.
My point in the post you reply to was, that both the ArM5 rules and ArM5 Hermetic Theory just do *not* allow for the existence of temporary Vis, and would have to be adapted *if* it existed - by house rule, probably initiated through a magus' discovery - in a given campaign.

In other words: in ArM5 there is no such thing as temporary raw vis, and it cannot be created at all, unless you house rule.

//On the other hand, an errata to fix the loophole would work just fine.//
Here you wish a loophole fixed that you yourself created first by allowing temporary vis. With similar justification I could request, that e. g. spells temporarily creating powerful magic items out of thin air, or transforming the caster into a magical beast with powers transcending Hermetic Magic, be explicitly ruled out in the 'Limits of Magic' section. I fear that, by attempting to make this section waterproof against imaginative gamers, we would instead turn it into an infinitely boring infinite list.
ArM4 went another way, allowing imaginative additions to Hermetic Magic Theory and practice - moderated by the storyguide - with the Original Research rules from WGRE. And I expect something like that in the ArM5 True Lineages book again - though I do not yet have it on my desk.

Kind regards,

Berengar

Here's a new spell I want to invent:

Purify Water

This spell simply casts out all the impurities of the water and leaves it safe and drinkable.

I would guess CrAq but I don't know what base level of effect it would be. For that matter, I'd be curious about what sort of spells I would use to purify metals of impurity as well, the corresponding Terram effect.

Any spell of that type is a "Regio" effect...and I think they are in the spell selection of the ArM5 book...but I might be thinking of the WG as well which had a number of such.

But purifying water would be a ReAq, purifying metal a ReTe (though rather unnecessary since the ReTe spell could make what you wanted directly from the appropriate raw materials), purifying air would be ReAu, etc.

You could also do this with Pe(x) assuming you know what you want to get rid of PeAq spell to remove salt from water for example...might be PeAq(Te) in this case or maybe PeTe(Aq). Or maybe both work depending.

This sort of thing is trivial...likely you would make some lab equipment to do it if you wanted to do it regularily.

Intellego spells give the caster some kind of information, they do not cause any magical bites. Take a look at Touch of the Goose Feather (Perdo Corpus 5, page 132 on ArM5, and 126 on ArM4), it is a good example of making someone else's casting more difficult.

I don't think you can cause a person to fail his spell unless you dispell it (Perdo Vim or for example Perdo Ignem on Creo Ignem spell).

You don't seem to understand the magic system yet. SirGarlon posted two excellent messages, detailing the spell level calculation. They're found at
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=580.28 and
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=580.33,
and you really should read them through and concentrate on them. They're also both found at this same thread, "new spell".

Your spell ideas always have low and strange levels; level 5-10 spells cannot really do much, and there's no point in inventing spells on levels other than multiples of five, since the guidelines always conform to them. Spells that are lower than level 5 are an exception to this rule.

So before you post another spell idea, take a look at the rulebook and consider, if the form and technique are suitable for the spell effect. Then take a look at the guidelines and existing spells, if are there any similar effects there. If there is, use it as a basis for your new spell, but if not, try to look at the "power levels" of the spells - spells that move a person 7 leagues away are very hard, while spells that move objects slowly near you are very easy. When you've found the base level for your effect, look at the range, duration and target, and adjust them to be suitable for your new spell.

One last thing: magic in Ars Magica is very different from other rpgs, so you need to actively forget about their system and spells, and think only in the lines of Ars Magica. This means that there are no portable holes, magic missiles or other such spells.

Bearnard used Creo Imaginem to declaim:
"I don't think you can cause a person to fail his spell unless you dispell it (Perdo Vim or for example Perdo Ignem on Creo Ignem spell)."

Ah, but you can force a concentration roll with various noise making and pinching spells (At least, in 4th edition). With some, you don't even have to make it through the parma!

Flare Bit (Creo Aurum(Ignem) 15)
Range : Voice
Duration : Momentary
Target : Individual
Aimed, +3

Surrounds the target with puffs of thick, opaque smoke which appear with a loud report and a flash of light. While no damage is done, the smoke is sufficient enough to block vision, and the noise and light sufficient to be a distraction to actions requiring concentration.

(This was the write up for 4th Edition, my 5th edition books are packed for a move right now...)

Steve

You're right, a magus may indirectly cause another magus' spell to fail. Seems like I left that part out of my message. I did think about it, and was going to add it there, but it seems to have slipped from my mind. Still, this spell (and similar ones too) do not cause a person to fail his spellcasting immediately and automatically - they disturb him and he has to take a concentration roll. The roll itself may be impossible to make ("damaged" or "dodging" ease factor being 15+), but it's still not automatic.

//B

Let me try...

"prequisites-mutoanimal 9"
If you mean a level 9 Muto Animal spell, spells mormally fall into levels that are multiples of 5. Which is very apparent from the rulebook. In any case certainly higher than 10.

"effect-you change a animal into a huminiod"
Changing the body to a human body would require a Copus requisite, changing the mind would require Mentam.

"duration-decade(10 years)"
There are no durations of 10 years, again this should be very apparent from the rulebook.

"range-sight(maybe)"
Range directly affects the level of the spell, so if you want sight vs touch you will get different levels.

"target-animals"
One or more than one? Obviously if the spell changes an animal into a human, it will have no affect on a chair.

"other spell-crossbreed
effect-you can make fantastic crossbreeds of animals
prequisites-rego/muto animal 13(I think)
range-reach
duration-permanant(for resulting animal caused by this spell,for the other animals about a year)
target-animals to be crossbread of course"

Again, looking at the core rules will get you some of the information you need. Spell level 13 doesn't match other spells. If you want the duration to be year you need a ritual. That doesn't even begin to address issues of Essential Nature. Can you even force 2 seperate species to mate? Can you meld 2 dissimilar natures that way? Sounds like Original research territory to me.

"sounds weird right,tell me how you would use these spells."
I wouldn't. You are proposing the spells however, so how would you use them is the question you should ask yourself.

Hmmm...no that is not correct.

Taste is a sense, so the form is imaginem.
As you are changing the taste the technique is muto.

Also see the 4th edition rules under spells and you wil find the exact spell you propose if memory serves.

Duration one meal is also not possible...the relevant durations are:
momentary, concentration, diameter

You could do the spell other ways:

ReMe or MuMe to make him think the food tastes bad...

MuHe(An) or MuAn(He) to actually change the food so it is spoiled and will taste bad...

Also why are you not sure "exactly" the magnitude of a spell is trivial to determine once you know the technique and form plus the duration, range and target. 3 or 4 is probably a tad low but I would need to look at the rules to be sure...why don't you take the above information and redo the spell and see for yourself? Consider this an excersize for the reader.

sigh.....
Bonus to what?

Penalty to what?

How does the magic (in paradigm) cause the penalty or bonus to occur?

Write out a level calculation.

It is time for you to actually pay attention to the replies people are giving you.

Fleeting Fame - It's much too powerful compared to other spells giving bonuses. Look back at the spell guidelines for what appropriate levels would be, and look at spells like Aura of Enobled Presence. The name also doesn't fit with Medieval paradigm.

As with all your other spells, please list Form and Technique.

//bonuses to deplomacy(+1 per level of spell)
penalty to animal handling(-1 per level of spell)
also I did put form & teqnuiqe(see innisal spell description)
but to recap flleting fame is instianious & its form & teqnuiqe is rego & mentum
gift aplification is rego vim//

Hee hee hee Stupid is me! I'm AbrahamAss!

What I meant to say was...

Bonuses to diplomacy (+1 per level of spell).
Penalty to animal handling (-1 per level of spell).
Also, I did put Form & Technique (see initial spell description).
But to recap, Fleeting Fame is Instantaneous and its Form and Technique are Rego and Mentem.
Gift Amplification is Rego Vim.

Boy, that was hard!

Now, do I REALLY think a spell should give +/- 1 bonus or penalty per level of the spell? You better believe it, cause I have no clue how this game is played and completely ignore the constuctive criticism offered by everyone. I prefer to continue being a moron.

I am trying though.... trying to piss you all off!

Hee hee hee There's no stopping me! I'm AbrahamAss!

<<bonuses to deplomacy(+1 per level of spell)>>
ok, but how does the magic give you the bonus? Does it directly control the target? Who is the target?

Do you understand how spell levels are calculated? In this game having a skill of 10 is truely remarkable...outstanding really. A master diplomat would have a skill of 6 or 7. Do you think that your spell would fit in line power-wise with other spells from the book? If your spell gives a +15 to diplomacy you should always succeed in that skill, even when making unreasonable demands. Does that seem in line with other 15th level spells?

<<penalty to animal handling(-1 per level of spell)>>
Making someone fail is not the same as botching...I don't think this will have much impact. And see above for level comments.

<<also I did put form & teqnuiqe(see innisal spell description)
but to recap flleting fame is instianious & its form & teqnuiqe is rego & mentum>>
Read the rules about making spells instant duration.

<<gift aplification is rego vim>>
I am not even gonna bother with this one.

He sucks you all in like the "blind" beggar in town. He is the King of the Thieves mascarading as the King of the Fools.

Take the high road. He only wins if you travel the low one.

I thought it would become obvious to everyone, but I think I need to spell it out for people like AbrahamAss...

I suggest it is time to just start ignoring posts that are not well-enough thought out to merit a reply.

Its not anywhere near as much fun as following an argument (the full half-hour too!) between Berengar and David W.

The initial willingness to help a supposed newbie is definitely gone.

<<Its not anywhere near as much fun as following an argument (the full half-hour too!) between Berengar and David W.>>

Its almost like they are married. (sorry guys, but you were taking things a bit far....)

>tell me what you think of this spell,please!

It's nonsense, but I come to laugh a lot when reading you now. :)

Abraham - you are almost certainly guessing from memory, as in your admission on the Enchanted Device suggestions.

Do not do that.

In the book you will find many example spells - a good way to start spell design is to take existing spells, and make a single change. Then make another single change...

Look repeatedly through the lists of spells and at the "guidelines" at the start of each spell section, which help to explain what each combination of technique and form cover.

If you do that you will discover existing spells ofsilence, and so, how to make silence around the magus, or how to make the magus silent.

Go and read it, come back and report what you found. (No, i won't give that answer directly, else you will not learn.)(Tiresome, and sounding like a teacher, but true...)

Ok, here's something that should make a bit more sense...

The effect is pinning the target in place by pinning thier shadow in place, via a knife or dart (or something similar)...

The problem is, what is the tech and form? Level should be 20 (for Individual, 25 for group)... But the exact tech and form remain elusive? Any ideas? Rego and ... ?

Steve

This doesn't really fall into the canon design of Hermetic magic, but I would allow a spell of this nature as a special metaphysical aspect of some type of mystae magic.

In general, however, I would think that such a spell would be Rego Corpus (as the effect is to "hold" the person). From there, I would likely require the Range to be Arcane Connection (i.e. using the shadow as the AC). As far as I know, an AC must be touched to be used, so to implement the dagger into the equation, I would likely require that the effect either be enchanted into it, or (if a spell) that it be tethered to the dagger (as illustrated in True Lineages).

depends on whether you are using 4th Ed or earlier (where shadows aren;t clearly defined) or 5th Ed.

5th Ed makes it clear that shadows are Ignem related, and can be manipulated by ReIg (bending light), and created with PeIg, destroyed (filled in) with CrIg.

In particular, in 5e, shadows are not Imaginem.... so making it clear why when you use PeIm invisibility, you leave your shadow behind!

/// Or just keep it as a standard Rego Corpus spell, adding the shadow-pinning only as a cosmetic effect or the sigil of the wizard in question. ///

Have to disagree, here... I can't see how by any stretch of the imagination you could treat pinning the shadow as a cosmetic effect. Pinning the shadow is the core effect of the entire spell. Otherwise it would simply be a Rego Corpus spell. The fact that you aren't casting the spell directly on the target that is ultimately affected is a major factor, not a trivial cosmetic "look".

Whether your fireball spell looks like a flaming skull or a glowing green ball is cosmetic. The effect remains the same. Whether you have to touch a person to hold him, or merely touch his shadow (however far away the actual person is) is NOT cosmetic.

/// 5th Ed makes it clear that shadows are Ignem related, and can be manipulated by ReIg (bending light), and created with PeIg, destroyed (filled in) with CrIg. ///

Granted, shadows are Ignem. That is explicit in 5th Ed. But in this case, the target of the spell (and thus the target of the effect) is not the shadow, but the "owner" of the shadow. The intent of the author is to use the shadow as a conduit to affect the target.

If the caster were to forgo the whole "pinning the shadow" aspect, would you allow a Rego Ignem effect to hold a person?

If the caster created an alternate version that damages the target by stabbing its shadow, would you deem it a Perdo Ignem effect... and allow that effect to harm the person?

I agree that this falls outside of canon Hermetic Magic. A normal shadow in Ars is like a normal shadow in reality, it's an area created where less light falls (simply put).

The simplest answer is to make it a Rego Corpus Spell and declare that the effect of pinning the shadow is just 'color'. In reality, the magus is targeting a person, not the shadow, and the knife holding the shadow is dressing to make the spell look cool. the knife, because it's not hitting the person, must have a range of say reach. this is kind of handy really because now your targeting score can suck and there's a good chance you can still 'hit' the target. Hmmmmm.

There are cultures where a shadow is more than just a trick of light. I believe the Egyptians considered it one of the many souls possessed by a person (a persons reflection was another soul, there are more). It could be possible under another system of magic to affect a person via there shadow.

A Hermetic Mystery could explore this possiblity and give a Magus power over a person via the persons shadow. Given the nature of Mysteries, it seems like over kill though. You have to learn the Mystery, move from Outer to Inner levels, then develop or learn the mystae spell. It's far simpler to cast Rego Corpus, bam! Person held. It's simpler to order a grog to do it, "tie him up"

It's also possible that Fay might be able to work this trick, but that doesn't mean Hermetic Fairy Magic could do it! I'd argue that it can't, unless of course it's just color (like the Hermetic spell)

All of this is based on the fact that I don't consider a shadow an AC to a person.

Shaman can make their shadow a fetch, which I would rule is an AC. Given that these special shadows are mystically linked to their owner, one could use them as a means to cast magic at mortal target.

"caribet" claims that 5ed clearly details that shadows are related to Ignem. I do not see this in my books. No Creo, Muto, Perdo, Rego Ignem spells seem to exist to influence shadows. It does state that Ignem spell affect light. It also states that: "Imaginem cannot affect light, but it can affect the things that light allows you to see"
I would argue that a shadow is not light, but a 'thing' that light allows you to see. Am I crazy? Well Imaginem discusses species, 'all things constantly give off species for each of the senses'.... 'those for sight require light to get any distance...

I'd argue that a shadow is a species and light allows it to be observed. Imagonem then, not Ignem would be the form to influence shadows. This seems in keeping with other Imagomen spells as one can seperate one's image from their body. They are moving the species. You'll notice that a corpus req isn't necessary to accomplish the feat. Your not affecting the body, your affecting the species. I would would argue that shadows fall in the realm of Imagonem and do not need Ignem req. Because again you affecting a species, not light.

Finally, the reason invisiblity does not affect a person's shadow is because ONE species or 'sense' is being affect. You still have a shadow, sound, touch, taste, ect. One could make a more advanced version that destroys shadow, smell, whatever...

More material to discuss....

Chuck

You make an excellent point about variations on this spell and how this moves beyond color. I tried to justify it by saying range of reach, your not truely affecting the shadow but the person. However this is an excellent example of how color can turn dangerous.

Can you imagine magi stabbing shadows and killing people. Yikes!

I'm still not sure about shadows being Ignem. I'm scanning my book and I'm not sold on the idea. Convince me and I'll change my mind, but until then I think they are a species and thus Imagonem.

Chuck

// I'm still not sure about shadows being Ignem. I'm scanning my book and I'm not sold on the idea. Convince me and I'll change my mind, but until then I think they are a species and thus Imagonem. //

I'm not trying to convince you on it... I tend to view shadows in the same light as you... but the comments were meant to take Caribet's statement into consideration.

I believe he is correct in that the direct manipulation of shadows requires Ignem, not Imaginem. You can use Imaginem as you have suggested, to alter how the shadow is perceived, but this doesn't actually alter the shadow anymore than MuIm on a person actually changes the person. The shadow retains its true nature and form.

Ignem magic, on the other hand, as it can directly affect light, can actually create, destroy, or otherwise manipulate shadows.

Ah! I see your point. Most interesting. It's a subtle difference, but I'm sold (sometimes it's that easy).

I got to playtest Mysteries and there was a huge section on lux and lumen that as far as I know only exists in my head now. It would be interesting to explore a mystery or alternative magic system that could better address light and shadow. It seems to me, that asian fantasy tends to have shadows that can do tricks like grab people, teleport, and 'magic stuff'. I don't know if this derived from lore or if it's the product of clever animators. It still looks cool. It doesn't fit into canon Ars at all, but it would be an interesting addition the growing systems of magic Ars possesses.

Chuck

///I got to playtest Mysteries and there was a huge section on lux and lumen that as far as I know only exists in my head now. It would be interesting to explore a mystery or alternative magic system that could better address light and shadow. It seems to me, that asian fantasy tends to have shadows that can do tricks like grab people, teleport, and 'magic stuff'. I don't know if this derived from lore or if it's the product of clever animators. It still looks cool. It doesn't fit into canon Ars at all, but it would be an interesting addition the growing systems of magic Ars possesses.///

Yes, in general, I feel "shadow effects" borders on the high fantasy and is a bit too AD&D for me. In my saga, I would only allow it along the lines of some mystery or, perhaps, something Faerie... but even then, I would likely view it more like a faerie or daemon "possessing" the shadow and giving it some tangible existence.

///There are cultures where a shadow is more than just a trick of light. I believe the Egyptians considered it one of the many souls possessed by a person (a persons reflection was another soul, there are more). It could be possible under another system of magic to affect a person via there shadow.///

I do like the possibilities this could bring to a character that embraces ancient, non-Hermetic techniques. Much like Mecurian magic still exists in the Order and is not fully Hermeticized, I feel other systems like Egyptian, or Greek, could have lingering elements. I would allow a player to take Virtues and Flaws to reflect such non-Hermetic influences, but a true "color" would have to be establilshed. I wouldn't simply allow them to take Virtues to gain benefits, without Flaws to impose sacrifices.

I could see a magus with a virtue that gave him a strong connection to his shadow, thus allowing him to cast Touch range spells on anything his shadow was touching. This would also serve as a vulnerability, however, in allowing Touch ranged spells and effects to be used against him via his shadow (should someone discover his secret).

I like both your ideas, the virtue and flaws and touch range of Shadows as well as Daemons. The virture system makes more sense than my proposal of a fully detailed magic system. If such a tradition existed in Ars, it would ikely exist as a lingering element rather than full system unchanged by time.

The Daemon inhabiting a shadow is a great idea! It's an easy way to explain how shadows could do all sorts of wierd things and it fits into the premise that a mystae could achieve this affect. The Thaumaturgy of Lux and Lumen. Cool.

On the subject of Daemons, I started a discussion titled Daemonic Beastiary and have few comments on it. If you find the time, I'm curious if you could read it and lend your insight concerning Daemon's v. Ars5 Parma Magica.

Enjoying the discussion,

Chuck