One of my problems with the Voice range is that, if you take the Quiet Magic Virtue (worse yet if you take it twice), you have a more limited range with many spells.

If Voice range spells only travel as far as people can actually hear you and if you have a Virtue that makes it easier to cast spells with little or not noise, then you need to re-invent all your Voice range spells so that they actually function -- essentially your Virtue can also function as a Flaw.

I don't see the problem here. The magus with Quiet Magic Virtue can cast spells with voice just like all other magi, he just can do it better without voice. The limited range in spells can be offset by selecting spells that affect targets with the range of Sight instead of Voice, or by taking the hermetic virtue Flexible Formulaic Magic, and adjusting spells on the fly.

When it comes to casting Range:Voice spells without voice, the rules are quite clear: see the box on page 83 in ArM5; using no voice, the caster can only affect himself with spells with that range. There are no limits with other ranges.

"I don't see the problem here. The magus with Quiet Magic Virtue can cast spells with voice just like all other magi, he just can do it better without voice. The limited range in spells can be offset by selecting spells that affect targets with the range of Sight instead of Voice, or by taking the hermetic virtue Flexible Formulaic Magic, and adjusting spells on the fly."

To reiterate, a magus with the quiet magic virtue does not take penalties for using a softer voice. They are not forced to use a softer voice, they can stil use as loud of a voice as they wish.

I completely agree with this assement of the issue. For a quiet magic mage to use thier virtue they have to reinvent almost every spell to be either eye or sight.

What was wrong with leaving the ranges near and far ranges anyhow.

///I completely agree with this assement of the issue. For a quiet magic mage to use thier virtue they have to reinvent almost every spell to be either eye or sight.///

This is how I see it, as well. The Quiet Magic virtue is designed to allow a magus to offset the penalties of casting magic with soft or no voice... it is not meant to allow the casting of Voice range spells silently.

///What was wrong with leaving the ranges near and far ranges anyhow.///

Actually, there would be Reach, Near, and Far. My guess is they compacted these 3 ranges into a single Voice range because 1) the difference between the ranges isn't enough to justify a one to two magnitude increase in spell level, 2) keeping the three different levels instead of the single Voice range wouldn't work with the new spell guidelines (which are much better than previous guidelines), and 3) they wanted each paramter (Range, Duration, Target) to have the same number of levels (5).

I prefer the new system, myself. It has a certain elegance to it. Though it did take some time to get used to the new Voice range.

Although the True Lineages book has reintriduced vis boosting in the form of a Virtue or Mastery ability, after 5th Ed. was released I continued to allow all magi to boost spells with vis... though my costs were a wee bit more expensive than that required by True Lineages. This seems like an excellent means of overcoming the problem with the Quiet Magic virtue. Though it requires the expenditure of vis each time, said magus could master his Voice spells with the Boosting ability, and thus have the option to cast them silently at range (by boosting to Sight).

///He never said he wanted to cast voice range silently, he intends to make noise, just not intelligible words. ///

You should reread the post... in fact, he DID say that.

Casting Voice spells by squawking would be even more out of the question. The Quiet Magic virtue would have no bearing on that. Taking the virtue out of the equation (and the Heartbeast), can a magus cast a Voice range spell by speaking gibberish, or even speaking some other, non-magical phrases? Say, for instance, can a magus cast a spell at Voice range while engaging the target in casual conversation?

A generous SG might allow it, explaining it as casting silently (in which case Quiet Magic would offset the penalties), while requiring a Concentration roll for talking (or squaking). I wouldn't allow it, myself. I belive the "voice" in Voice range implies more than simply soundwaves to carry the magic.

Of course, you could try and invent a new Range as a Minor Hermetic Breakthrough (see HoH:TL Bonisagus section) that could be used in animal form, perhaps "Cry / Howl / Call" etc, which would be of a similar range to Voice but rely on a natural sound of the animal/Heartbeast etc., while still requiring some form of sound etc.

I see no reason to preclude House Bjornaer from having developed such a Breakthrough, perhaps taught only to their initiates or as an Inner Mystery of their House.

Would be an interesting flavour in addition to the mechanics implications.

Regards,

Jarkman

: Of course, you could try and invent a new Range as a Minor Hermetic
: Breakthrough (see HoH:TL Bonisagus section) that could be used in
: animal form, perhaps "Cry / Howl / Call" etc, which would be of a
: similar range to Voice but rely on a natural sound of the
: animal/Heartbeast etc., while still requiring some form of sound
: etc.

You only need to do this if you want to use the new ranges with spontaneous spells. See page 114 of the rulebook:

Formulaic spells can be invented with ranges, durations or targets that are not listed here. This is usually slightly more difficult than if the closest category were used, but is largely left to storyguide interpretation.

You can use the old ranges, durations and targets from AM4 for your formulaic spells.

Regard,
Adumbratus

P.S.: Please donīt tell this *br*h*mr*y, in case he graduates to AM5!
We would be lost in new preposterous ranges, durations and
targets.

///Formulaic spells can be invented with ranges, durations or targets that are not listed here. This is usually slightly more difficult than if the closest category were used, but is largely left to storyguide interpretation.

You can use the old ranges, durations and targets from AM4 for your formulaic spells.///

Sure, but the key there is "this is usually slightly more difficult than if the closest category were used". Since Voice covers all of the ranges between Touch and Sight, any non-standard range within that parameter would have to be more difficult than Voice... thus, you might as well use Sight and be done with it.

: Since Voice covers all of the ranges between Touch and Sight,

No, Sight and Voice (and the old reach, near, far) are quite different beasts. E.g.: with Voice a magus can affect someone behind a closed door he can hear but not see.

And House Bjornaer really needs more options, Hermetic Magic is way too much humanocentric.

Regard,
Adumbratus

"No, Sight and Voice (and the old reach, near, far) are quite different beasts. E.g.: with Voice a magus can affect someone behind a closed door he can hear but not see."

Wrong. If you can't see your target, you need an arcane connection to affect it, and that uses the range of arcane connection (+1 to sight).

"And House Bjornaer really needs more options, Hermetic Magic is way too much humanocentric."

Hermetic magic is based upon the teories of human wizards. However, it should be possible to invent a spesial versjon of a spell where the required gestures must be done by flapping wings and the voice requirements is a spesific animals sounds. This would be tricky to cast in human form, but have advantages in heart-beast form.
(Our Owl-Bjoernar has a mythic blood ability that requires flapping of wings and hooting)

Draco writes:

Wrong. If you can't see your target, you need an arcane connection to affect it, and that uses the range of arcane connection (+1 to sight).

Wrong-

Ranges p.111 clearly states that... 'range of a spell is the distance to the nearest part of the target.'

Here's the tricky part. Range needs to be addressed in terms of Target. The book details the example of Range of Touch, Target of Room. The book clearly details... 'even though he is not touching any of those people and indeed CANNOT see them. The target of the spell is room, and thus the spell does not violate the Limit of Arcane Connection."

Having established this, one could have a range of Voice, Target Individual. One does not need to see that individual to affect them. However, that Individual must be able to hear the spell caster.

Furthermore, Range is established at the time the spell is cast. So one could yell loudy to make sure they are heard, but then whisper to maintain the spell.

Thus, voice has an advantage over the ranges of reach, near, far. To catch up on this discussion, I feel that voice is more in paradigm than the arbitrary ranges of 'reach','near', 'far'. That is, it is in keeping with the game.

Voice also allows for a simpler spell construction as mentioned earlier.

Finally, I agree that a FORMULAIC spell is a rote. It a rote without variation that produces a particular effect. Wings flapping or a voice 'squaking' are not words and gestures unless the spell were designed with flapping and squaking as the word's and gestures. This point of view is a very liberal interpretation of the rules and also means that a spell who's words and gestures are 'flapping and squaking' could not be used by a mortal man. Something to consider should you allow that very liberal interpretation.

For those who like Heartbeasts, they are a major advantage and the system doesn't need to be changed to make things easier for the Bjornear. Consider that a Bjornear that has need no gestures, need no words, and has all their spells altered to Range of Sight could essentially turn into a gadfly and cast spells at magi all day long and never be found.

To make such a possiblity 'easier' by tweaking the spell guidelines to the Bjornear's favor is to begin a path that players could grossly abuse.

Chuck

My interpretation is that any spell needs a connection of some sort to the target. The "range" of the spell is simply a measure of the connection required to affect the target for a given amount of effort (or conversely, the effort required for a given connection).

The easiest spells are those cast on yourself: you have a very close connection with yourself, so such a spell is easy.

After that, if you can touch the target then you are connected to it. Being able to see into the windows of his soul is also quite a close connection.

Being able to reach out with your voice is rather more of a distant connection, and merely being able to see them is worse yet.

If you can't even see the person, then you really need some odd arcane connection of another sort. As these are relying on the law of sympathy or a similar magickal law, rather than being direct connections, they are much harder to do.

You still need to know who or what it is that you have the connection to: a connection is nothing if the other end is unknown. If you can hear something moving, but not see who it is, you cannot cast a spell at them.

Cheers,

Pell.R.

> Here's the tricky part. Range needs to be addressed in terms of Target.
> The book details the example of Range of Touch, Target of Room. The
> book clearly details... 'even though he is not touching any of those
> people and indeed CANNOT see them. The target of the spell is room, and
> thus the spell does not violate the Limit of Arcane Connection."

> Having established this, one could have a range of Voice, Target
> Individual. One does not need to see that individual to affect them.
> However, that Individual must be able to hear the spell caster.

correct

however, the caster must also be able to "sense" the target in some way. You can, however, cast a spell on:
* someone the other side of a wall that you have sensed with InCo or ImIm (or whatever)
* someone the other side of a wall, treading heavily, so you hear them

Sight is not a requireed sense, but some sense, magical or mundane is still required.
You can't shout and hope that if someone is there they will be affected.

(And strictly they only have to be "able" to hear you, not actually hear - they may be deaf, unconscious, inanimate, or it can be noisy and drown out your words - but so long as the words carry far enough they carry the spell with them.)

Well my initial reaction to reading that a magus on some level must 'sense' the target was, "well of course."

However my magic theory sense went off and now I'm not so sure. I think sometimes the best way to understand a definition is to read the first sentence and apply no more information to it. The rest of the definition often tries to explain the first sentence through examples, but these examples can often complicate the definition just as they try to help it.

Having said this, the definition of Voice reads: 'Anything to which the magus's voice carries."

The magus voice is the carrier, the sound of the voice is essentially equivelent to the touch of the body, the visual contact of an eye, or the mystic conduit of an arcane connection.

No where in the rest of the definition of Voice does it state that a 'sense' other than voice needs to be used to 'target' the intended Target.

Therefore, I do not believe that a magus needs awareness through another sense in order to affect a target with the range of Voice.

I'm willing to debate this or simply disagree, but if what you propose is true, that one must be aware of an intended target inorder to affect them with voice. Then in theory, if a mage has had his sense of sight, smell, and hearing removed through a mystic surprise attack, let's call it 'the black bubble', the defending mage can not counter attack via the range of voice because they have lost the ability to be aware of another person.

Furthermore, the requisite of awareness inorder for Voice to work seems to be in conflict with the definition, "anything to which the magus's voice carries."

Finally, if awareness is necessary inorder for the range of Voice to work, it would follow that the same requisite exists for the other ranges.

So I ask, if imagonem magic is used to alter or remove properties of an object, can a range such as touch fail?

For instance you tie a mage up in ropes but have the sense of touch removed from the ropes via Perdo Imagonem? That is, from the perspective the tied up mage, you are aware that you are bound, but you can not feel that you are bound by rope. Because the mage can not feel the ropes, will the range of touch fail to affect the rope?

Something to consider,

Chuck

And House Bjornaer really needs more options, Hermetic Magic is way too much humanocentric.

Ummmm.

Hermetic Magic was designed by humans for humans, so yes... your correct. It's 'humanocentric."

To my knowledge, no animal has yet to design a magic system. Perhaps Mysteries Revised will address your humanocetric complaints. Perhaps.

Chuck

> Having said this, the definition of Voice reads: 'Anything to which
> the magus's voice carries."

that's because the restrictions on sensing things are in the explanations of targeting, not range.

...
> So I ask, if imagonem magic is used to alter or remove properties of
> an object, can a range such as touch fail?

No it would not fail. An example would be someone whose sense of touch was removed, but who could see things, could cast spells on anything in contact with them. (Note that Touch includes all "in contact", including yourself)

///: Since Voice covers all of the ranges between Touch and Sight,

No, Sight and Voice (and the old reach, near, far) are quite different beasts. E.g.: with Voice a magus can affect someone behind a closed door he can hear but not see.///

I'm not sure I follow what you are disagreeing with. 4th Ed. has a range of Touch... this is equivalent to the 5th Ed. range of Touch. 4th Ed. has a range of Sight... this is equivalent to the 5th Ed. range of Sight. In 4th Ed., you also have Reach, Near, and Far. In 5th Ed., the spells that used these spells have been converted to Voice range.

So what are you trying to say? Is Reach, Near, or Far, in your opinion, equal to range Touch? Or range Sight?

If someone wanted to invent a spell (in 5th Ed.) with a special range of Near, what would you base the magnitude on?

Looking over Ars5, I do not see anything under Targets that suggests awareness is required in order for a mystic affect to work.

p111 reads:
"Range governs how far the target can be from the magus..."
"... Target describes what the spell can affect."

No where is awareness necessary, discussed, or suggested.

Returning to the Target Individual the definition reads, "The spell can affect a single discrete thing..."

Range of Voice reads, "Anything to which the magus's voice carries."

If one establishes the above parameters as all that is necessary in order for something to be affected by magic, again awareness is not a factor.

Returning to my rope question, I knew I wasnt being clear (kick myself).

Let's say a mage is asleep and he's tied up with an *invisible* rope that in fact has had ALL of it's senses removed through the use of Perdo Imagonem magic (can't see, here, taste, touch, smell the rope). Let's say this rope was cast at level 1000, nobody every will be able to detect it. However beyond it's uber cloak, it's a mundane peice or rope, or shackles or whatever.

When the magus wakes up, he will be bound. He will clearly see and feel that his arms can't move, but he will not be able to detect that he is bound by a mystically cloaked rope. Given this condition, under the requisite of awareness, touch can not affect the rope because he can not sense the rope, even if he can sense the secondary affect (his arms are bound).

That means a Perdo Herbam spell (Range: Touch) to destroy the rope would fail. But we know that's incorrect. Perdo Herbam Range: Touch would destroy the rope, even if he can't feel/see/taste/touch/hear the rope.

That's because the caster need not know he is bound by rope in order for the spell to work with the range of touch, which reads, "...anything he touches, whether person or thing."

Therefore, awareness is not a prerequisite for the range of touch. Why should it follow that awareness is a prerequisite for Voice? Eye and Sight alone seem to suggest awareness and I would argue that even here awareness is not necessary. I argue that Eye and Sight work because the eye is acting as a mystic channel between the caster and the target. It is secondary that the magus is 'aware' of the target.

Consider that if awareness is necessary in order for magic to work, then one is essentially suggesting a new factor in the sucessful casting of Hermetic magic. That factor (awareness) in theory suggests that wrongful awareness means spells can fail. If Voice can not work because you are not aware of the target, will Voice fail if your target is cloaked in illusion (alterning your awareness of the target)?

That is, if you can clearly see John Smith and you say, "I curse you!" But it's not *really* John Smith, but someone made to look him him, will the spell fail?

I would argue no. That's because one's awareness of the target and whether it is or isn't John Smith is not relevant. That the target heard you is all that matters. That is the definition of the range Voice.

And what about Sight? If awarness is necessary, will spells of Range: Sight fail if you see an illusion and not the 'true' thing?

The definition of Sight reads, "anything a magus can see." It does not say anything one can see accurately, or 'truely'. Sight does not require one to be able to percieve through illusions and be 'aware' of the true target. If you can see it, you can hit it.

I've looked at "Spell Design" and "Hermetic Limits", and those two areas do not suggest or state (to my knowledge) that awareness is a necessity for spells to work. So I have to stand by the position that the Range of Voice does not require a magus to be aware of a target inorder for the spell to work.

Chuck

Edited 6/30/2005 3:02 pm ET by Tuura

Edited 6/30/2005 3:07 pm ET by Tuura

Edited 6/30/2005 3:10 pm ET by Tuura

Another point to consider on the subject of voice and awareness.

A magus can create an item with the Range of Voice. This item must have a voice via Imagonem magic. However, once this prerequiste is met, the item can affect targets at the range of voice.

Items, do not traditionally possess awareness of a target. This point lends considerable strength to my arguement.

I can imagine a variety of mythic items acting like the Sirens, lureing people to death by song and always and forever unaware of their intended target. Perhaps such an item was made by what's his name the Mad, ex Verdi.

More material to consider and discuss.

Chuck

///Another point to consider on the subject of voice and awareness.

A magus can create an item with the Range of Voice. This item must have a voice via Imagonem magic. However, once this prerequiste is met, the item can affect targets at the range of voice.

Items, do not traditionally possess awareness of a target. This point lends considerable strength to my arguement.

I can imagine a variety of mythic items acting like the Sirens, lureing people to death by song and always and forever unaware of their intended target. Perhaps such an item was made by what's his name the Mad, ex Verdi.///

A couple points to consider... Most devices have to be triggered by the magus (who by default is thus selecting the target), or have to have some other means of sensing when a target enters present and within range.

How would you actually create the "siren trap" you mentioned?

A ReMe (T: Individual) effect to lure a person to his death could be done as a Continuous spell, but the mechanics behind Voice range indicate they affect what is in range at the time the effect begins, not things that come into range once the effect is active. Anther option is the item could have a shorter duration, but have to be triggered when an appropriate target is available (thus, as mentioned, necessitating some other means of detection).

Now, if you used some target other than Individual or Group, you wouldn't necessarily need to be aware of the specific people that are affected, but you would still need to be aware of the actual target, be it Circle, Room, Structure, or Boundary, etc.

I believe a certain logic has to prevail here. How can a magus cast a spell without knowing the intended target? If a magus stands in the middle of a crowded room and arbitrarily casts Ball of Abysmal Flame without actually choosing a target, will the spell randomly pick someone to toast? I think not. At best the spell would fizzle... at worst, it would botch.

The fact that a T: Individual spell can only affect a single individual and not every individual within the sound of the magus's voice implies some method of choosing a target (and thus being aware of the target) is required.

///Here's the tricky part. Range needs to be addressed in terms of Target. The book details the example of Range of Touch, Target of Room. The book clearly details... 'even though he is not touching any of those people and indeed CANNOT see them. The target of the spell is room, and thus the spell does not violate the Limit of Arcane Connection."

Having established this, one could have a range of Voice, Target Individual. One does not need to see that individual to affect them. However, that Individual must be able to hear the spell caster.///

Here, I believe, you are creating a false loophole. In the case of the T:Room spell, indeed, you do not need to be aware of the specific individuals in the room because, by definition, the spell affects everyone in the room (assuming a Corpus spell, of course). You DO, however, have to be aware of the room, itself... the actual target of the spell.

Change that to T:Individual or T:Group, and it no longer applies. You would have to be aware of the intended individual or group of individuals.

The Siren trap was meant to conjure an idea, I wasn't planning on detailing the specifics of a trap. However onc could make an item that sings, and anyone that hears the singing walks towards the item. The trap could be something as simple as crashing on the stones of the island or making a moat filled with daggers and throwing an illusion over it.

The point of the siren trap is that an item isn't aware of the target and lacking awareness, the range voice still works. If there is intent here (perhaps the magi places his intent in the item during construction) it is, "anyone who hears the song."

I will return to this idea.

//A ReMe (T: Individual) effect to lure a person to his death could be done as a Continuous spell, but the mechanics behind Voice range indicate they affect what is in range at the time the effect begins, not things that come into range once the effect is active. Anther option is the item could have a shorter duration, but have to be triggered when an appropriate target is available (thus, as mentioned, necessitating some other means of detection).//

These are legitimate questions on the construction of the item and again my point isn't to built the trap but to detail that awareness isn't necessary in order for a magic to work at the range of Voice. We could discuss in a seperate threat, the strengths and limitations of items with continous effect. Perhaps my example was poor in technical execution, but I still think it holds in conjuring the idea of some inanimate and unaware object singing and luring men where ever. Whatever the on/off mechanics of the trap might be, I do not think item needs to be aware in order for the range of Voice to work. Again Voice reads, "anything to which the magus voice carries."

//I believe a certain logic has to prevail here. How can a magus cast a spell without knowing the intended target? If a magus stands in the middle of a crowded room and arbitrarily casts Ball of Abysmal Flame without actually choosing a target, will the spell randomly pick someone to toast? I think not. At best the spell would fizzle... at worst, it would botch.//

Well this is an interesting question and you've cited an wonder example because BoAF has a Range of Voice and Target of Individual.

If you don't 'pick' a target I would say you don't meet the requisites of the spell and it fails. So in your example, you fail to meet the conditions of the rote and it doesn't work. But what does it mean to pick or fail to pick a target? I will get to this.

On an intuitive level I did say my knee jerk reaction is yes, a target must be 'picked' and in order for that to be done one must be "aware" of the target. Yet when I read the rules I do not see anything that suggests one must be 'aware' of a target in order to 'pick' a target. It is counter intuitive but magic isn't necessarily logical. I do believe it is possible to 'pick' a target without being 'aware' of a target. I will explain in a moment.

//The fact that a T: Individual spell can only affect a single individual and not every individual within the sound of the magus's voice implies some method of choosing a target (and thus being aware of the target) is required.//

Well I'll agree with "...implies some method of choosing a target" but I'm still not certain about "... and thus being aware of the target"

So here goes:

If BoAF had it's Target changed to Room, would the spell work regardless of awareness?

I would say yes. Regardless of whether you are aware if the room is filled with people or empty, anyone/anything in the range of voice and the target of Room would be affected by this devestating attack. You 'picked' room, what's in it doesn't matter. So awareness of the contents of the room isn't necessary in this case.

The Target: Individual certainly suggests awareness. For on some level the caster must 'pick' a 'discrete thing". This is the point that I'm trying to discuss and still uncertain about. In the act of 'picking' a 'discrete thing', what properties must this thing possess in order for the spell to work?

The rules only say "a single discrete thing"

Couldn't a magus deciede "someone in this room, someone on the other side of this wall, someone I can't see?"

Aren't these single discrete things? Now I'm not even trying to suggest something such as, "the guy with coins in left pocket".

Actually when I think about this, this is much more discrete than 'someone in this room'. This I will return to as well.

My problem is the logic that everyone seems to be advocating is "need to know the specific target" suggests that a magus can not use Voice spells to defend himself from uber-invisible attacks.

That is, if I destroy the sense of taste/touch/sight/hearing/smell on myself and start lobbing pillum's of fire at you and were in a closed room with no way out. A defending magus can know that he's being hit by pillum's of fire and he can know that a mage is attacking him, but he can't use any Voice spells to attack/defend himself? Furthermore, I believe that if awareness is necessary, my uber-invisible rope still can't be broken because your not 'aware' of it.

I ask, Target Individual, 'the guy that's attacking me right this second' is an inadequate 'pick'? That is, this is not a discrete thing?

Again, Target Individual states, "A single discrete thing".

Yes, on some level on discrete thing must be picked, I won't argue anyone on this. But to say that you can't affect a person on the other side of the wall because you can't see them or don't know there name seems to be in conflict with the letter of the book.

I would argue if one has a hunch there is a guy on the other side of the wall, they can pick a discrete target "the guy on other side of this wall" and sucessfully cast at the range of Voice. Now there are conditions on this. In order for 'the guy on the other sife of this wall' to work, there can only be one guy (a discrete thing). If there are two guys, it doesn't work.

"Someone in this room" is to vauge because it implies there could be more than one person in the room. It's not a discrete thing.

What I'm trying to suggest is standing by the written rules, a discrete item does not require a magus to know *specifically* who they are attacking. They need only establish the target as a discrete object. With this in mind, Voice/Individual combination can (in proper circumstances) over come the 'behind the wall problem'.

More material to discuss,

Chuck

Edited 6/30/2005 6:32 pm ET by Tuura

Edited 6/30/2005 6:35 pm ET by Tuura

Ok, here is where I open my mouth and use Creo Corpus to insert as many feet as I can into it...

We'll use the example of Ball of Abysmal Flame.

Range of Voice, Target of Individual.

Range describes the maximum distance (in the case of a really powerful shout, about 50 paces in this case). Individual describes how large a target the effect can affect (in this case, one person size 0 to 2).

OK, you've got an area, within range, that has several potential targets within. You've cast the spell, you've got you're fireball, ready to toss, so you take aim...

Ah-ha! Most spells with range and a target of individual need to be aimed! You must manually select your target, and let fly with the spell. Note that this is more of a physical than a mystical thing, such as accurately throwing an apple-sized ball of fire at your target, or pointing your finger and someone, and blue dots appear on thier skin.

So, in this case, the caster should be able to discern his target when he let's fly with the spell - if he wants a decent chance of hitting his target. Our magus has been shrouded in darkness and silence, but still casts his spell, blindly throwing in a direction.

(Note: I've been known to toss BoAF down holes, not knowing whether or not there is a target, but the spells still goes off, and ignites any flammables in the way...)

One need not be able to see the target in order for the spell to go off, since the aiming of the spell is purely manual (not mystical) in nature. Your chances of success go up dramatically if you can see to aim your spell. :)

And the Siren's Call would best be a Constant Effect, R:Personal, T: Boundary.

Steve

The reason I ask you to explain how you would create the "siren" effect is because I am arguing that you can't create the effect you describe within the parameters you are advocating. How do you designate "anyone who hears the song" as a target? R: Voice can determine who is a valid target, but just being in range cannot designate the target.

As far as using T: Room for spells, this is not a valid argument. As I pointed out previously, the magus doesn't have to be aware of anyone in the room because he is not casting the spell on people in the room... the spell is being cast on the room. In that regard, the people in the room do not have to be within the range of the magus's voice, only the Room has to be in range of the magus's voice. Ball of Abysmal Flame with T:Room will create a sudden fireball in the room, which can potentially burn anyone and anything in the room. The fact that the magus doesn't know who or what is specifically in the room has no bearing on the nature of the spell and is not some benefit gained from using R:Voice.

As for an invisible magus attacking another magus, the attacking magus is still present in the room, so the defender can likely garner some clues to his presence and position, but I do not believe the magus should be able to simply cast a Perdo Corpus against an unknown assailant identified as "the wizard that is attacking me". I mean, it could just as easily be an invisible dragon attacking the wizard, or he could be being attacked via an AC through Opening the Intangible Tunnel. The point is, before the defender can defend himself directly against his attacker, he does need to be aware of who or what his attacker is. Until that time, he is welcome to fast cast defenses against the spell itself, or cast spells to help find the invisible assailant.

///Ah-ha! Most spells with range and a target of individual need to be aimed! ///

Under 5th Ed., spells of this nature are no longer aimed (at least under the definitions for Magic Resistance). In 5th Ed., there is no chance of missing with BoAF or its ilk. The only spells that are aimed are the ones that try to indirectly affect a target (and thus bypass MR).

Ultimately, Ball of Abysmal Flame is a poor example for this entire discussion, because, technicaly, the Target of a Creo Ignem spell is the fire itself, not the person you are hitting with the fire.

Siren's Call cannot be done as Constant Effect, R:Personal, T: Boundary. First, in 5th Ed., Boundary is not a valid Target for a device, as it is a Ritual effect. Second, R:Personal would mean on ly the device is affected and would not have any affect on anything else. But, all else being equal, in this case the target is the boundary, not the individuals within the boundary, so - like with T:Room - the magus need not be aware of the specific individuals, as they are not the target of the spell.

Hey Steve,

Under 4th Edition you are the master and correct that BoAF must be aimed and thrown. However under Ars5 BoAF is not an aimed spell nor does it need to be thrown. The spell states "a ball of flame shoots from your hand to strike a single target".

Aiming is not longer necessary, one simply hits. It's much more devestating.

I believe there is a subtle, but important difference between 'picking' a target and being 'aware' of a target. I make this distinction because the target individual specifies, 'a discrete thing'.

The book does not state one must see their opponent. It does not state they must know their name. It states one must establish a 'discrete object".

In a dark room, I believe it's fair for a mage to establish a target of "person closest to me." This is a discrete thing. Or "ceiling".

Or, if you knew who was in the room prior to the lights going out you target "Steve" and hit without error. A discrete thing does not require you know it's exact position in the dark or even particular elements such as name or what he looks like.

Chuck

This discussion while interesting has diverted from the original topic.

I chimed about here:
656.15 in reply to 656.14

"No, Sight and Voice (and the old reach, near, far) are quite different beasts. E.g.: with Voice a magus can affect someone behind a closed door he can hear but not see."

Wrong. If you can't see your target, you need an arcane connection to affect it, and that uses the range of arcane connection (+1 to sight).
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I attempted to argue that this point is wrong. My position was and is, that voice can affect people that one can not see.

I've tried to hone my arguement under the excellent questions of my peers. Hopefully I can make myself more clear.

//The reason I ask you to explain how you would create the "siren" effect is because I am arguing that you can't create the effect you describe within the parameters you are advocating. How do you designate "anyone who hears the song" as a target? R: Voice can determine who is a valid target, but just being in range cannot designate the target.//

I agree. It seems I lack the clarity I desired to make this point clear.

//As far as using T: Room for spells, this is not a valid argument. As I pointed out previously, the magus doesn't have to be aware of anyone in the room because he is not casting the spell on people in the room... the spell is being cast on the room. In that regard, the people in the room do not have to be within the range of the magus's voice, only the Room has to be in range of the magus's voice. Ball of Abysmal Flame with T:Room will create a sudden fireball in the room, which can potentially burn anyone and anything in the room. The fact that the magus doesn't know who or what is specifically in the room has no bearing on the nature of the spell and is not some benefit gained from using R:Voice.//

Again I agree I failed to make myself clear. However I believe your valid reasons support my case concerning the nature of R:Voice.

R:Voice is independant of awareness. In order for a target to be established, one must look at (you guessed it) Target. However Target possesses a definition that does not mandate "detailed awareness" Target Individual is defined as: "a discrete thing."

What constitutes 'a discrete thing' is still open for discussion.

You establish:

//As for an invisible magus attacking another magus, the attacking magus is still present in the room, so the defender can likely garner some clues to his presence and position, but I do not believe the magus should be able to simply cast a Perdo Corpus against an unknown assailant identified as "the wizard that is attacking me".//

Why not? In the senario I established I said the defending magus is locked in room with another magus that he can not under any circumstances detect? Why can't he use R: Voice, T:Ind (a discret thing) specifically 'the wizard attacking me' to defend himself?

//I mean, it could just as easily be an invisible dragon attacking the wizard, or he could be being attacked via an AC through Opening the Intangible Tunnel.//

Well these things don't fall in line with my perfectly controled senario, but the solution to your variables is easy. The spell fails. If you chose (a discrete thing); 'the wizard attacking me' and it's a dragon or an AC, you chose the wrong target, the spell fails.

//The point is, before the defender can defend himself directly against his attacker, he does need to be aware of who or what his attacker is.//

Why? A magus can't defend himself on a hunch? I'm alone in a room, I think there's a mage here, he casts a spell of target individual (the discrete thing is:unseen wizard), Range: voice and says, "Reveal yourself!" This would fail, because he doesn't know *for sure* that somebody's there? That doesn't seem right.

//Until that time, he is welcome to fast cast defenses against the spell itself, or cast spells to help find the invisible assailant.//

But how can he ever find the invisible assailant if he can never establish a target that he can sense? Again, a target is defined as, 'a discrete thing' and I argue that one need not sense 'a discrete thing' in order to establish it as a target.

A discrete thing doesn't require that you know it's location in a dark room, it doesn't require you to know it's name or what it's doing or not doing. All that a discrete thing requires is that you clarify what defines it as an individual object.

Having done this, I argue that one can cast the spell and hit a discrete thing even if you don't know where it is in a dark room or what it's name is, or what it is or isn't doing.

So if you see Steve in a dark room and the lights go out, and Steve runs around in circles, you can target 'Steve' and hit him with BoAF (sorry Steve-your dead, no Parma don't you know).

If you suspect a man is on the other side of a wall, you can command him to 'come here' T: Ind (man on other side of wall), R: V and it will work, *if and only if* 'man on other side of wall' is a discrete thing and he can hear you. If there's two guys, it fails because man is not a discrete thing. If it's a woman, it fails. If it's an AC or a Dragon or anything else, it fails. In order for T:Individual to work you don't have to see the guy, you don't have to know who it is, you must establish the guy as a discrete thing and fall inside the limits of the spells range. If you can do this, the spell works. This is in keeping with the written rule.

Chuck

I still disagree with your observations, but if you like them, then by all means allow it in your sagas.

To clear the air, I have never stated that R:Voice is in any way dependent upon SEEING the target. This is not what I am arguing. If you want R:Voice to affect someone on the other side of a wall, fine.

For the issue of targeting, however, you are creating a very elaborate, hypothetical scenario with which to support your premise. You would be better off keeping things simple, as added complexity just muddies the water.

The definition of a discrete thing can't change arbitrarily. If person A is a discrete thing all by himself, then he is still a discrete thing if he is in a crowd. This doesn't change whether a magus knows his name or not.

In your scenario, you say a magus can target another magus that he has no means of possibly detecting or *knowing* is in the room. He casts his spell on a hunch and the magic fills in the gap and determines there is a viable target - a discrete target - to affect. Since the spell goes off, the casting magus then exclaims, "Yikes! There is someone in this room with me."

Now, what happens if there are two completely undetectable magi in the room? They are still both discrete individuals. The first is not any less discrete because of the presence of the second. Now we are back to asking does the spell randomly determine which magus to affect?

Let's look at it from another angle - Intellego magic.

How do you justify your position in light of the new Sense Targets. Under 5th Edition, you can't cast an Intellego Corpus (Imaginem?) spell with R:Sight, T:Individual to see if there are any any invisible people in the area. You have to cast a R:Personal T:Sight spell to accomplish that.

Take 'Shiver of the Lycanthrope', for instance. Say you have five people (potential werewolves) in a room. If you cast an equivalent spell at R:Sight, T:Individual, you have to cast the spell on each and every person in the room to determine if they are a werewolf. You can't simply cast it arbitrarily and it pick an qualifying individual on its own. To look at all of the people and see which ones are werewolves and which are not requires R:Personal, T:Sight.

Well in part we are beginning to split hairs, but I'm having fun so let's jump into this!

//The definition of a discrete thing can't change arbitrarily. If person A is a discrete thing all by himself, then he is still a discrete thing if he is in a crowd. This doesn't change whether a magus knows his name or not.//

Yes it can, because a discrete thing in terms of what is affected, is defined in part by the parameters of the caster while casting the spell. Everytime one 'picks' a target they are establishing parameters that define what constitutes a 'discrete thing to affect.' Poorly defined parameters results in spells that fail, accurate parameters lead to spells that succeed. Accurate parameters do not require certainty.

Yes person A is forever an 'individual' a discrete thing, but the spell works given the parameters defined by the spell caster. If Person A is a soldier in a crowd of priests, one can target the 'solider' with the R: Ind. They do not need to know anything else about him. 'Soldier' is a discrete thing in a crowd of Priests and the spell will succeed. It suceeds not because the a solider is a discrete things, so are the priests. It suceeds because the magus spell defined a discrete thing to affect inside the range of the spell.

If one defines discrete thing as 'that guy over there', it's a poor definition in the context of the crowd, it fails to establish a distinct thing for the spell to affect and the spell fails.

//In your scenario, you say a magus can target another magus that he has no means of possibly detecting or *knowing* is in the room. He casts his spell on a hunch and the magic fills in the gap and determines there is a viable target - a discrete target - to affect. Since the spell goes off, the casting magus then exclaims, "Yikes! There is someone in this room with me."//

Um... Yes. With the range of Voice, the casters *voice* carries the magic to the target and if heard by the target they are affected. The target must falls within the parameters defined by the spell caster. If the mage defines the target as "invisible dragon" and it's an invisible sprite, the spell fails because the defined target isn't there. But if there is a mage in the room and you define the target as "invisible magus", if that mage hears you, then yes your voice will carry the magic to the intended target and the target (whether your sure they are there or not) will be affected by the magic.

//Now, what happens if there are two completely undetectable magi in the room? They are still both discrete individuals. The first is not any less discrete because of the presence of the second. Now we are back to asking does the spell randomly determine which magus to affect?//

As I've tried to state, you must establish a distinct thing in terms of the spell. If there are two undetectable magi in the room, yes they are two discrete things. The caster must clarify which discrete thing he wishes to affect with the spell. Should you define the target as "invisible magus", the caster fails to define a discrete thing to affect. As we have stated, there are two invisible magi, 'invisible magus' is not a discrete target. Therefore the spell fails. However, could the magus define the target as "magus that just shot me" and with the range of voice try to affect a target he can not see? I argue yes.

"Magus that just shot me" is a discrete thing even in a room with two undectectable magi. The Range of voice will carry the magic to the target and if the target can hear the casters voice they will be affected by the spell. Where they are, who they are isn't important. The parameters of the target are satisfied and inside the range of the spell. The Spell succeeds.

//How do you justify your position in light of the new Sense Targets. Under 5th Edition, you can't cast an Intellego Corpus (Imaginem?) spell with R:Sight, T:Individual to see if there are any any invisible people in the area. You have to cast a R:Personal T:Sight spell to accomplish that.//

Heh heh heh, you *almost* had me!

Sight of the True Form is Intellego Corpus and it has a Target of Vision, not sight. Vision is equivelent of boundary. Under the range of Vision/boundary, one affects the *area* one can see but they are not obligated to specifically see an individual inside this area.

This spell and it's range of Vision, I feel supports my position that one need not be aware of another in order to affect them. After all, one need not be aware of the invisible to try and dispell invisibility. You can cast Sight of the True Form in front of you and try to determine if there's someone invisible standing there. You do not need to see footprints first, or hear them, or see there shadow. These things will certainly increase your chances of success in that your facing the right direction, and the target will fall inside the range 'Vision', but they are not necessary. You can cast the spell and try to reveal someone hidden my magic even if you can't see them or are certain they are there.

If the range was Sight, "anything a magus can see", the spell could allow one to see through illusions but it could never be used on something one can not see (the invisible).

Had you been correct, had Sight of the True Form been T:Sight then it would be *impossible* for the invisible to ever be detected (shudder).

//Take 'Shiver of the Lycanthrope', for instance. Say you have five people (potential werewolves) in a room. If you cast an equivalent spell at R:Sight, T:Individual, you have to cast the spell on each and every person in the room to determine if they are a werewolf.//

Yes, I agree. This is why I know I'm not making myself clear (perhaps I'm incomprehensible and never knew it?)

//You can't simply cast it arbitrarily and it pick an qualifying individual on its own.//

Correct. The spell never 'picks'. Spells can't pick. Magi can pick and when they cast spells they pick targets. Specifically they *define* targets and if the parameters of the target are met then the spell works.

Shiver has a range of Touch, the range parameter and target parameter is defined when a caster touches a specific target, guy1, guy2, guy3, ect.

//To look at all of the people and see which ones are werewolves and which are not requires R:Personal, T:Sight.//

Correct.

And if one added 10 magitudes to the spell (T:Sight) they could simply look at a group of men and determine (one at a time) which is a werewolf.

And if the range was Vision, the guys could be invisible and if they fell inside the range of Vision the caster would still be detect werewolves (even if he can't see them).

It seems you believe a magus must possess a level of certainty that I do not believe is neccesary in order for spells to work. I will again point out, that uncertainty can result in poorly established target qualifications/parameters, which in turn can make the spell fail. The more certain you are, the better a caster establishes ...[Message truncated]

This will be my last post on this topic, unless additional third-party insight is contributed. We can go about this until the cows come home and not make any progress. I don't see that you are actually supporting your position, but rather have only defended it using a lack of specific wording against it as proof of what is intended. It's like you are saying that WE (the opposing argument) CAN'T ASSUME the caster MUST be aware of the target because the wording of the book doesn't specify that... but that YOU (the pro argument) CAN ASSUME the caster DOESN'T have to be aware of the target because the wording of the book doesn't specify otherwise.

Frankly, "that guy over there", which I can see, is far more valid a target than "magus that just shot me", whom you don't even know exists. Yet you contend the first spell will fail and the second succeed. In my scenario, with two of your uber-magi, how would you know which one just attacked you? You are treating magic like it has some sentience to interpret the will of the caster and then act upon it, using its own innate means of detection.

///Heh heh heh, you *almost* had me!

Sight of the True Form is Intellego Corpus and it has a Target of Vision, not sight. Vision is equivelent of boundary. Under the range of Vision/boundary, one affects the *area* one can see but they are not obligated to specifically see an individual inside this area.///

Okay, I made the mistake of posting without the book in front of me and said T:Sight instead of T:Vision. I am not sure how you feel this supports your position.

You stated: "This spell and it's range of Vision, I feel supports my position that one need not be aware of another in order to affect them."

No one has argued that T:Room, T:Structure, T:Boundary, or T:Sight requires that you be aware of the individuals. This DOES NOT support your position. The target of these spells is NOT the individual people or items that may ultimately be affected by the spell. The target of these spells is the Room, or the Structure, or the Boundary, or the recipient's Sight. In that regard, you DO have to be aware of the specific Room, Structure, Boundary, or Sight to be affected in order to cast the spell.

You keep inferring that because the people in a room hit by a T:Room spell ultimately suffer the affects of the spell, that they are the target of the spell. This is completely and utterly an incorrect view. The room was the target of the spell. The presence of people is incidental and has no bearing on the casting of the spell.

With my Shiver of the Lycanthrope example, you chose to argue the semantics of it rather than answer the question. I KNOW that Shiver of the Lycanthrope is R:Touch. That isn't the point. I anticipated you would harp on that, so I specifically stated "If you cast an equivalent spell at R:Sight, T:Individual". You decided to ignore this altogether.

Even if there were only 1 werewolf amongst the 5 men (by your definition, a discrete individual), you cannot use a R:Sight T:Individual to ferret him out by simply choosing "werewolf" as the target. You would have to cast the spell on each individual, in turn. Perhaps the first casting will be the correct pick, perhaps it will take five castings.

You say on one hand that the magic doesn't pick the target, yet on the other hand, you contradict yourself when you say that a spell fails if two targets meet the caster's vague criteria. Since the caster doesn't know that either target is actually there, the only way it could work in one case and not the other is for the magic itself to *decide* whether the chosen target criteria was discrete enough. At the time of casting, if only one magus is present, the magic "knows" whom the caster intended to target.. but if two magi are present, the magic no longer "knows" which one the caster intends.

I have two final considerations:

Issue 1: The rules for T:Group spells specifically states that "The components of a group must be close together in space, and the group itself must be seperated from any other things of the same type." It then goes on to elaborate that "Three grogs huddled together...are a group: six people out of a crowd are usually not."

Consider that. This establishes that one cannot walk into a crowd and designate "all invisible magi" as a valid target for a T:Group spell. If this cannot be done with a T:Group spell, which is a more powerful spell, then why should a T:Individual spell be able to selectively pick a single invisible magus out from the same crowd.

I anticipate you will focus on the "must be close together in space" wording and say if the group of invisible magi are close together, the spell will work, but if they are not, it will fail. What I contend, however, is that the wording doesn't make sense in light of the way you propose targeting should work. If you can target individuals indirectly, why does a "group" suddenly have some metaphysical bearing?

Issue 2: I am going to use your completely undetectable uber-magus again. You have stated this magus (Magus B) cannot be detected by any means. So, Magus A casts Ball of Abysmal Flame against the "undetectable magus in this room that may or may not exist". You contend the spell will strike Magus B. So, through some means, metaphycial or what-not, the magic was able to find and strike the completely undetectable magus.

Now, instead of casting BoAF, Magus A casts an Intellego Corpus (R:Voice T:Individual) spell to locate the invisible magus. For your scenario to work, this spell would have to fail, because you have established that Magus B cannot be detected by any means. How then do you explain that magic can *detect* Magus B enough to light him up in a ball of fiery death, but cannot *detect* him enough to let Magus A know that, yes, there is an invisible person in this room?

"Frankly, "that guy over there", which I can see, is far more valid a target than "magus that just shot me", whom you don't even know exists."

I agree that "that guy over there" should be fine for a target.

"In my scenario, with two of your uber-magi, how would you know which one just attacked you? You are treating magic like it has some sentience to interpret the will of the caster and then act upon it, using its own innate means of detection."

It depends on how your uber-mage attacked him. If the uber-mage cast (without words) Ball of Abysmal Flame, the ball would still be seen to come from the (invisible) mage, and the person attacked could try to pop a BoaF back in the space that the mage was. I might require an aiming roll in that case (it would be a house rule, but might be applicable in this case). It all depends on how the attack was, and if there were any visible manifestations of the attack.

Changing the example a little, if the mage was invisible to sight but not sound, his speaking should be enough for him to be able to be targeted by a BoaF This gets back to the original point...though ignoring the factor of sending a BoaF through a door into a different room to be able to get him. It would be more appropriate to say you can affect him with Voice if there aren't any obstructions in the case of something like BoaF. This would be along the lines of if the person on the other side of the wall made the wall invisible, he still wouldn't normally be affected by a BoaF because, based on the description, the ball would smack into the invisible wall instead of veering down the hall, through a keyhole and into the other room to hit the mage. Now, if the mage can hear you, other spells such as Weight of a Thousand Hells should still work - again, it's going to depend upon the specific spells and how the effects manifest.

On your 2 final considerations, I totally agree with the first one: you can't select 'the invisible magi' as a valid group target in a crowd unless you have a way to sense them and they're all grouped together.

On the second point, there's counterarguments that can be made, but I think you're essentially right that you can't target the mage specifically if he's totally undetectable unless you've got some way of getting around the detection. The easiest way to do this is to use InAu to sense all the currents in the room, cast it with 0 penetration and target the area where you can't sense anything. If you can't see the mage, you can still throw a BoaF since the target is the flame, not the person being torched. I would say there's no chance of automatically hitting since you can't see the person you want to hit, but it shouldn't automatically miss either. At that point I'd put it up to house rules and call for an aiming roll with appropriate modifiers based upon where the casting mage chucks the BoaF and what the uber-mage who's invisible does for movement. We'll assume he's not a dummy and moves, but the question would be does he move enough to get out of the way of the path of the BoaF. For that matter, if there are 2 invisible magi, you might have a chance of accidentally hitting the other one. (and don't forget the the 2 uber-magi can't detect each other - what are the chances that they accidentally run into each other, trip each other up, mess up the other's spellcasting, etc). The mage should have a chance of hitting, but (like you said) the magic wouldn't have the sentience to automatically home in on the uber-mage.

>>Therefore, I do not believe that a magus needs awareness through another sense in order to affect a target with the range of Voice.<<

Lets try another example....A magus is in a peasant's hovel (with thin walls that hardly block sound at all) and there are 4 wolves stalking around the outside. He casts Pilum of Fire. By your argument Pilum of Fire will hit one of the wolves because the wolves can hear him cast through the wall. Which wolf does it hit? The "magic" cannot sense the wolves in and of itself, nor can it make a decision, not even a random one.

Could a magus simply cast Pilum of Fire all the time to detect invisible opponents? By the same argument you could just rattle off a spell with an easily visible effect to point out invisible opponents.

I think it is implicit that the magus must be aware of the target to affect it with any spell that targets an individual. Even group spells would require the mage to be aware of at least one member of the group. Arcane connection range spells imply that the magus is aware that an arcane connection exists in the first place.

Okay, I have finally had time to search the rulebook and have found the wording I knew had to exist somewhere. This should be sufficient to end this discussion.

Page 80, The Lesser Limits, The Limit of Arcane Connections

"Hermetic magic cannot affect an unsensed target without an Arcane Connection."

"Intellego can determine whether, for example, there are any people behind a wall the magus can see, but Perdo Corpus magic cannot affect those people until the magus is aware of them."

Ah the glory of books!

Well it's that simple, I'm wrong.

Chuck

: To my knowledge, no animal has yet to design a magic system.
: Perhaps Mysteries Revised will address your humanocetric complaints.
: Perhaps.

Well, there is a group of part-time animals who had several centuries to develop new ranges and targets better adapted to their senses.

Regard,
adumbratus

And did they? It doesn't appear so. It's widely known that Hermetic Magic is the most flexible and versatable mystic system in Mythic Europe, but this system does not compliment or encourage the strengths of individual practitioners.

Necromancers don't receive an undead bonus unless they take a virtue. Summoners don't receive a rego bonus unless they take a virtue. Even Flambeu don't receive an Ignem bonus unless they take a virtue.

Why should the Bjornear receive a bonus for using a mystic system designed by Bonisagus? A magus mind you, that has no heart beast.

The fact that Bjornear can cast Hermetic Magic gives them access to powers and abilities no Hedge Wizard specialized in animal magics could hope to possess. Primarily, Parma Magica, secondarily Formulaic Magic, third spontaneous magic.

These abilites are outside the capacity of Animal Hedge Wizards, and that the Bjornear suffer penalites when they don't use thier hands or voice is a penalty suffered by all Hermetic Magi who don't use their hands or voice.

Could spells be designed to accomodate the nature of the Bjornear? Certainly. Have they? It doesn't appear so.

It may be, that Mysteries may address this though I doubt it. Original Research, while difficult could also open possiblities. I think a better approach though is the path of mysteries and such a path is likely left to you, the player to develop and explore.

Furthermore as I stated earlier, and successful development of spells that either accomodate for the animal form of Bjornear or ignore the penalites of useing no hands and gestures would give the Bjornear a massive advantage that could easily allow the characters to perform a vast number of feats without any means of being detected. Such a feat is open to gross abuse. While you are certainly allowed to make any alteration to the game you like, prior to removeing the penalites the Bjornear currently suffer consider the abuses your players could perform when capable of casting magic penality free while in an undetectable form (heartbeast).

Chuck

Enjoy the 4th, and remember our troops!

::: Since Voice covers all of the ranges between Touch and Sight,
:: No, Sight and Voice (and the old reach, near, far) are quite different beasts.
: I'm not sure I follow what you are disagreeing with.

Sight and Voice are simply different, a mage can affect something with range Voice which he can not see. And to use range Sight he has to see the target. Sight does not include Voice, depending on the circumstances the range Sight can be much longer than Voice, but that's it.

: So what are you trying to say?
: Is Reach, Near, or Far, in your opinion, equal to range Touch?
: Or range Sight?

No, they share the characteristics of Voice, with the advantage (or disadvantage) of a fixed maximum distance to the target and being more useful for quiet magic.

: If someone wanted to invent a spell (in 5th Ed.) with a special range of Near, what would you base the magnitude on?

In my campaign I allow spells which have not full magnitudes:
4th => 5th
Reach => Voice
Near => Voice + 3Lvl
Far => Sight

Regard,
adumbratus

Q: What did God do before creating the world?
A: He prepared a special hell for people asking such questions.

I agree that Bjornaer should not be able to cast spells in their heartbeast form without suffering the penalties for silent and still spellcasting.

The main view I have is that the Words and Gestures involved in spellcasting is not simply the making of sound and movement. It is the speaking of specific, arcane words and the performance of specific, arcane gestures (ala the hand diagrams in 3rd Ed., for example). Simply saying that Corvex the Crow just squawks and flaps his wings is not the same thing.

The problem with the House Bjornaer argument is that, even if a Bjornaer magus could research and adapt Hermetic magic to his heartbeast form, it would only work for other Bjornaers with the exact same Heartbeast. So, let's say Corvex the Crow can, through original research, cast spells by squawking and wing-flapping, but poor Bovinus the Cow would still have to develop his own system personalized to his moos and tail-swishing.

From a flavor standpoint, I would rather have a Bjornaer use R:Eye (or R:Sight, even) for his spells that he knows he will want to cast in animal form, and then master the spells so that the lack of Words and Gestures doesn't cause significant problems. Having an eerie crow constantly watching you and staring you in the eye every time you turn around seems to fit the mythic feel more so than squawking and flapping wings to cast spells.

//I agree that Bjornaer should not be able to cast spells in their heartbeast form without suffering the penalties for silent and still spellcasting.//

There is a simple Hermetic spell to help Bjornaers cast standard R: Voice spells.
MuAn(Co) 15 Voice for the Heartbeast (R:Personal, D:Sun, T:Ind)
The Bjornaer caster wraps a shawl around her neck and thus transforms the vocal apparatus of her Heartbeast form, enabling it to utter humanlike speech. This allows her to use normal words when casting Hermetic spells in Heartbeast form.
She can reverse that transformation any time at will.
(Level 5: change an animal in a minor way so that it is no longer natural - hence base 5, +2 Sun)

Whether a Bjornaer maga can cast this spell in human form and it still applies to her Heartbeast for the entire day might be subject to SG arbitration. An SG might also raise the spell level for trickiness in this case. But since the spell really fits in well with Bjornaer ways of feeling and thinking, I reckon that House has it as MuAn(Co) 15 indeed.
We will see once the book on the Mystery Cult Houses is out.

Kind regards,

Berengar

: Necromancers ...
.
.
.
: ... hands or voice.
I agree with all my heart and never said otherwise in my posts.

: And did they? It doesn't appear so.
We do not know until we have Mystic Lineages.

: Could spells be designed to accomodate the nature of the Bjornear?
: Certainly. Have they? It doesn't appear so.
The spells in the rulebook are only the most widely known in the order. And I think we will see Voice of the Bjoernaer again.

: Furthermore ...
Agreed like above, but I am not argueing about this.
The senses of animals are different and we have ranges depending on a mage senses. What is unbalancing about range Smell (as equivalent to Sight) for a Bjoernaer with Haertbeast wolf? I even disadvantage Bjoernaer, because I adjust Magical Senses according to the importance to the animal, if necessary.

Regard,
adumbratus

I like these discussions, because they force me to
reread the rulebook.

: It is the speaking of specific, arcane words and the performance
: of specific, arcane gestures (ala the hand diagrams in 3rd Ed.,
: for example).

I have not found this in the AM5 rulebook. That a mage has to use words is only indirectly implied on page 83. Perhaps children verses are enough like in Charmed (tv-show) and a simple more or less exaggerated waving of a hand or arm.

Afaik no information on the kind of gestures and words in the rulebook. (Would like to stand corrected.)

Regard,
adumbratus

Yes, I think you are right on the money! This must obviously be what the designers had in mind. Every time I watched Charmed, I felt this overwhelming sense that it truly captured the essence and feel of mythic, medieval spellcasting.

Perhaps the Classical magical traditions just had to wiggle their noses (ala Bewitched).

: This must obviously be what the designers had in mind.
Difficult to say if they did not write it in the rulebook.

: Perhaps the Classical magical traditions just had to wiggle their noses (ala Bewitched).
But that is obviously an exaggerated gesture.

Regard,
adumbratus

As I stated way down thread I would allow the caster to caw for standard voice range. Finally had time to look up and find the passage I based this on.
pg. 56 5th ed. Last sentence of the "Mute" flaw states that "A magus with this Flaw can be assumed to be able to make sounds, which are sufficient to allow normal use of the Voice Range.

I see nothing under the description of voice range to contradict this, especially since these spells do not depend on the target's ability to hear them.

// No where in the rest of the definition of Voice does it state that a 'sense' other than voice needs to be used to 'target' the intended Target.

See the Limit of Arcane Connections on p80.

// So I ask, if imagonem magic is used to alter or remove properties of an object, can a range such as touch fail?

You can touch something even if you can't feel it (e.g. Fog of Confusion p128).

// Then in theory, if a mage has had his sense of sight, smell, and hearing removed through a mystic surprise attack, let's call it 'the black bubble', the defending mage can not counter attack via the range of voice because they have lost the ability to be aware of another person.

Correct. The magus would need to use Intellego effects to sense anything he couldn't touch (or taste). Incidentally, destroying the sights, sounds and smells around the magus would be easier than destroying his senses, which would need to penetrate his parma.

// Because the mage can not feel the ropes, will the range of touch fail to affect the rope?

If he also can't see or hear or smell it, yes, regardless of the spell's range. In fact, he'll probably assume he's under a ReCo effect, and waste time trying to counter that before he starts using Intellego. Alternatively, with a target of Room the magus could destroy all nearby ropes, assuming he can sense some part of his surroundings.

If you continue reading, we discuss all sorts of definition then essentially agree that I'm wrong.

chuck