For wards I see two options:

1- The ward is created with enough inner power to affect creature of it's level

2- The penetration total is the level at which it affects the creature or the level of the ward itself, whichever is lower

------------------------------------------------------------

2nd question sourrounds the MuMe spell that renders all the spirits visible including invisible targets.

The spell itself is high level which renders penetration quite difficult. Now I think this spell would bypass the invisibility spell but not a parma which reduces greatly the value of the spell.

Am I interpreting this spell right ?

I've been unavailable! Let me read the rules and get back you.

Patience padawan...

chuck

I'm going to tackle these seperately as they are seperate questions.

On Wards:

The way I read it, number 1 is true.

A Ward is a formulaic spell designed to work at the level of affect that it is built at. A 25 lvl "Ward" (based on Circular Ward Against Demons) would affect "all creatures with X might equal to or less than the level of the spell.... (Ars5 p162)

Penetration would only be involved if someone wanted to establish a ward in an area where the casting of the spell merited 'penetration'.

That is, if you are inside the boundary of an unfriendly Aegis, the casting level plus penetration would be used to determine if the spell can exist inside the Aegis. If there is no reason during the casting of the spell for the spell to penetrate some kind of magic resistance, then penetration is not relevant. Penetration does not play apart in determining the level of affect of the ward.

Does that make sense?

Chuck

On Muto Mentem and revealing the invisible:

The short answer is....

Sort of.

Muto Mentem spells are spells the change/alter the mind of the target. Spirits are mental creatures. Vision of the Haunting Spirit works on the premise that you are changing the mind of the spirit. The spirit chooses to hide it self, to be invisible. Muto Mentem is used to change it's mind, to make it *want* to be visible.

Having said this, could one use this spell to make a living person who is invisible visible? I say sort of.

If you used this spell, or a variant designed to work on living people (I don't think you need a variant, but some might argue you do) the end affect is that the target would *want* to become visible. That does not mean they would become visible.

Depending on the nature of the spell cast, invisiblity may run for a set time period. In this case, no matter how bad a person wanted to be visible they couldn't do anything about it. On the other hand, if the spell was cast at concentration, or if the spell could be canceled by the will of the magus, then changing the mind of the magus (I want to be visible) would bring about the result you wanted.

Consider that Vision of the Haunting Spirit is a TOUCH spell. If one wanted to use this on a magus that is invisible, one would need to touch him. One could rewrite the spell, alter the range so they didn't need to touch them. Such actions make this spell more expensive.

Given that the target you defined is a magus, yes the Parma Magica must still be penetrated. Given the high level of the spell, if one could cast it, they just might suceed in making the magus want to become visible.

Finally while I've enjoyed discussing this option, this possibility displays that there are numerous ways to solve problems with magic in Ars Magica. While this is a legtimate way, it would likely be cheaper and more effective to use Perdo Vim to dispell Invisiblity.

Material to consider,

Chuck

Edited 7/29/2005 8:28 pm ET by Tuura

'A Ward is a formulaic spell designed to work at the level of affect that it is built at. A 25 lvl "Ward" (based on Circular Ward Against Demons) would affect "all creatures with X might equal to or less than the level of the spell.... (Ars5 p162)'

Would affect...

Here is my problem with this. All the other spells that affect a creature with MR need to peirce the MR which means that a more powerfull magus has a better chance to cast Deamon's eternal oblivion of higher level than a less powerfull magus. The wards as you discribe it would have the same effect no matter which one had casted it.

Also the is a war against body's In ReCo, if there is no MR test, all the combat mages are useless against a creature that is warded against them. There is the dispell option but still.

I agree with your intrepretation but it's ramifications have a lot of impacts.

Thanks for your reply,

\\Muto Mentem spells are spells the change/alter the mind of the target. Spirits are mental creatures. Vision of the Haunting Spirit works on the premise that you are changing the mind of the spirit. The spirit chooses to hide it self, to be invisible. Muto Mentem is used to change it's mind, to make it *want* to be visible.//

I did not think about the fact that the mind needed to be in agreeance to become visible. My interpretation was that the mind would simply become visible because of the spell effect which is to render minds visible(even if it could not normally). I would describe it better as force an ability to a mind to become visible for the duration of the spell.

>>> Here is my problem with this. All the other spells that affect a creature with MR need to peirce the MR which means that a more powerfull magus has a better chance to cast Deamon's eternal oblivion of higher level than a less powerfull magus. The wards as you discribe it would have the same effect no matter which one had casted it. <<<

The difference as I see it is that with a ward you are not trying to affect the creature so much as simply setting up an obstacle which it has to overcome with its own penetration.

An analogy might be to say that if I want to be protected against another mage I do not need to penetrate his parma magica for my own to work against him. I simply set up the parma, and it's up to him to overcome it.

A better mage can do better wards, as he will have a better lab total to learn a higher level version, and a better casting score to set it up.

Cheers,

Pell.R.

//A better mage can do better wards, as he will have a better lab total to learn a higher level version, and a better casting score to set it up.//

What I meant was that a stronger can create the ward & then give the lab text to the weaker one & both casting will offer the same protection.

Personally I have nothing against it but it is where my SG jams. Let me try to get him to voice his opinion here.

"What I meant was that a stronger can create the ward & then give the lab text to the weaker one & both casting will offer the same protection."

If the "weaker" can cast it they are not that much weaker. So the argument fails implicitly. You need a specific casting total or greater to cast the spell.

If you assume that the stronger mage creates a spell near the upper end of his ability in Re-X and then gives the lab notes to another mage that other mage has to be within 10 points of the strongers ability to learn it anyway.

So a ReAu specialists makes a ward against faires of the Air at lvl 50, no mage with a ReAu casting total less than 40 can learn it. So "weaker" is entirely relative. If they have a ReAu total of <40 the notes are of no value to the mage. Add to that the rate of which they will learn the spell will be very low. So why would they bother even trying.

Strong ReAu Specialist
Casting total = 40 (Te+Fo+Int)
Lab total = 60 (Te+Fo+Int+MT+Lab+aura)
Creates a ward in 3 seasons of lvl 40

Younger ReAu Specialist
Casting total = 30
Lab total = 40 = would create a lvl 25 in 3 seasons

Now let us see.. the Strong one casts the ward and it has the same protection effect as if the younger one had casted it. There are many virtues that can even wider the gap but we can clearly see efen without considering the stress dit in the casting total that there is a significant difference.

I am missing your point. A lvl 25 spell will stop a MR 25 creature a lvl 40 spell will stop a MR 40 creature they are not the same spell. True the lvl 40 will also stop a MR 25 creature and they will both stop a MR 1 creature but I don't see how that matters. The higher level mage could cast the lvl 25 spell and it would have the same effect as if the junior mage had but this is true of a great many formulistic spells. That is the power of them. But a cloak of duck feathers is the same regardless if it is cast by a ReAq 50 or ReAq 5 mage.

The weaker caster could not even learn the lvl 40 spell as he has a 0 per season gain in experience or if he gains something from the lab notes (likely as I don't have the rules with me) it will still take him a fairly long time to learn the spell which he will just barely be able to cast without fatigue loss using a loud voice and expansive gestures.

Again I don't see what you are complaining about. The senior mage can easily cast the lvl 40 ward, the junior can barely learn it and when he has done so casting it will cost fatigue most of the time.

Why do you feel there is some sort of problem with the situation? Somewhere we missed each other and are running in opposite directions.

No, the younger magus can learn the level 40 spell in one season if he has access to the lab notes created by the elder (to invent something from a text your lab total must equal or exceed the level of the spell or effect).

He can cast it every time, so long as he doesn't botch, though he will often be fatigued by doing (formualaic spells succeed so long as casting total is no more than 10 less than the spell's level).

Pell.R.

//I am missing your point. A lvl 25 spell will stop a MR 25 creature a lvl 40 spell will stop a MR 40 creature they are not the same spell. True the lvl 40 will also stop a MR 25 creature and they will both stop a MR 1 creature but I don't see how that matters. The higher level mage could cast the lvl 25 spell and it would have the same effect as if the junior mage had but this is true of a great many formulistic spells. That is the power of them. But a cloak of duck feathers is the same regardless if it is cast by a ReAq 50 or ReAq 5 mage.//

Here is the point:

With wards, a Younger magus can acheive the same results as an older magus even if his magical powers are significally lower. I.e the Young magus when casting the lvl 40 ward is as well protected as the older magus that casts the same spell.

A cloak of duck feathers casted by the older magus is much different from the one casted from the younger magus. the easy example is that the older magus can cast it onthe young one but the contrary would probably fizzle since the older magus would resist.

In easy terms, with the current expression of the rules, the magic in the wards is much more potent the the other spells & is no related to the power of the caster just his ability to cast it or not.

///With wards, a Younger magus can acheive the same results as an older magus even if his magical powers are significally lower. I.e the Young magus when casting the lvl 40 ward is as well protected as the older magus that casts the same spell.

A cloak of duck feathers casted by the older magus is much different from the one casted from the younger magus. the easy example is that the older magus can cast it onthe young one but the contrary would probably fizzle since the older magus would resist.///

You are making a false comparison here. A formulaic spell, by its very defintiion, produces the exact same desired effect each time it is cast. It doesn't matter what the power of the magus casting the spell is. If successfully cast, the result is the same.

You are focusing on the elder magus's greater ability to penetrate Magic Resistance and using that as a basis for thinking a more powerful wizard should have a more powerful effect, but Penetration has nothing to do with the spell itself. The fact that the spell level detracts from the Penetration total (as a mechanic of spellcasting) has nothing to do with the effects of the spell.

If a magus with a casting total of 20 and a magus with a casting total of 60 both successfully cast 'Touch of Midas', they each get 6-inch sphere of solid gold weighing approximately 80 lbs. It doesn't matter how much higher the senior magus's casting total is.. his gold isn't better, or purer, or more plentiful in any way.

///In easy terms, with the current expression of the rules, the magic in the wards is much more potent the the other spells & is no related to the power of the caster just his ability to cast it or not.///

Wards are handled a bit differently, which is why the authors created the specific section to address them ("Magical Wards", ArM5 pg. 114). Your focus on whether a lesser magus's ward should be able to affect the same creatures as a greater magus isn't relevent, as the section clearly indicates that the target of a ward is NOT the thing warded, but the thing protected. It is not necessary to penetrate the Magic Resistance of a warded creature, because the creature is not the target of the ward.

You can construe wards to be too powerful, but maybe they should be. Wards have a significant place in folklore and superstition.. much more so than fireballs. Their inherent power is perfectly plausible.

//It is not necessary to penetrate the Magic Resistance of a warded creature, because the creature is not the target of the ward//

The main problem (as I see it) is that this is inconsistant. When you try to ward against a hermetic magus, you DO have to penetrate his MR. With all other types of wards there is no mention in either direction, so we can only guess what the author meant...

"With wards, a Younger magus can acheive the same results as an older magus even if his magical powers are significally lower. I.e the Young magus when casting the lvl 40 ward is as well protected as the older magus that casts the same spell."

If both mages are casting the spell and it is not something trivial for the mage with the higher casting total (who may or may not be older) then both mages have a comparable casting total, this is due to the fact you can't learn a spell that isn't within 10 points of your casting total.

And in one case the mage casts it without the fatigue loss and in the other case the mage risks fatigue loss.

Your argument that his magical powers are significantly lower is not grounded in game reality in this case excepting the ward is very weak, but in this case it is likely the higher casting total mage can cast a better ward while the lower casting total mage can not. Clearly the higher casting total mage is in a better position in this case.

"A cloak of duck feathers casted by the older magus is much different from the one casted from the younger magus. the easy example is that the older magus can cast it onthe young one but the contrary would probably fizzle since the older magus would resist."

Not under the game rules it isn't as was pointed out. The only difference between the two spells is that the Casting total 50 mage could force it onto the other mage in principle. Though doing such a thing would usually invoke Hermetic law and tribunals and so forth.

Formulistic spells, as again was pointed out, are used by the Order of Hermes for the reason that they produce exact and reproducable effects regardless of who casts them.

"In easy terms, with the current expression of the rules, the magic in the wards is much more potent the the other spells & is no related to the power of the caster just his ability to cast it or not."

A "ward against creatures of the..." is a defensive spell it it location specific (you have to draw a ring on the ground), you cannot move except within the ring, and all it does is stop the creature from crossing the ring, for it to have any value it had better also stop any magical attacks from the creature though I don't see how it could stop mundane ones...as in the dragon picks up a stone flys over head and drops it...hard to see what good a anti-dragon ward would do you then. There are other wards which stop say for example metal, fire, stone, etc from affecting the caster but they are all fairly limited.

A ward can always be brought down by a wind of mundane silence spell, or a spell breaker item. Or just worked around as indicated above.

Given all this I don't see why they are unbalanced which is what "more potent" means when it is all said and done.

You are forgetting is that if my mage casts a Lightening Bolt at a mundane the effect is exactly the same regardless of what my casting total is compared to the 35 required to cast the spell. If I have a casting total of 25 the mundane takes the same damage (assuming I succeed) as if I have a casting total of 60.

If you go changing wards you have to change every other spell. Since if a lvl 40 ward cast by a casting total 60 mage is more powerful then one cast by a casting total 40 mage so to is a lightening bolt cast by a casting total 60 mage compared to a casting total 35 mage.

I'm rather dubious about this whole idea. Formulistic spells being the same regardless of casting total of the caster is not new to AM5 and it worked fine in the past.

"If both mages are casting the spell and it is not something trivial for the mage with the higher casting total (who may or may not be older) then both mages have a comparable casting total, this is due to the fact you can't learn a spell that isn't within 10 points of your casting total."

Not to go off topic but I find this to be rarely true of magi more than 5 years out of apprenticeship, and not reliably true of magi who are less than five years out. For most magi in my experience "int + Magic theory + aura + other miscellaniious stuff" will be greater than 10 (often much greater).

///The main problem (as I see it) is that this is inconsistant. When you try to ward against a hermetic magus, you DO have to penetrate his MR. With all other types of wards there is no mention in either direction, so we can only guess what the author meant...///

Where are you getting this from?

The Rego Corpus guidelines (ArM5, pg 134) specifically state:

"General: Ward against creatures associated with Corpus from one realm (Divine, Faerie, Infernal, or Magic) with a Might less than the level of the spell. Note that Hermetic magi have no Might, and thus are not affected by such spells."

This clearly indicates you cannot ward against a magus.

<Where are you getting this from?>

He took it from page 134. Rego Corpus guidelines level 15

"Ward a target against other human beings. Note that, to ward off a Hermetic magus, the ward must penetrate the magic resistence."

I had not taught of this. This would indicate that all wards must penetrate magic resistance. Aldo it is not expressed in other form of wards...

Do I dare step into this?

The way I read the rules you cast a ward on a target. That target traditionally is a place and traditionally that place can not move.

Traditionally to define the boundaries of a ward, one casts it at circle.

So under normal circumstances one casts a ward on a place and the ward's boundaries are defined by the limits of the drawn circle. Traditionally a place doesn't have magic resistance so these issues of penetration are not relevant.

If a ward is cast in area where Aegis of the Hearth exists then the ward must use normal spell casting rules and penetrate the Aegis. If it succeeds then the ward works at whatever level it is cast at. Penetration is once again not relevant after the issue of target's magic resistance is dealt with. All of this had been discussed in earlier posts.

Again, a ward is cast on a target. Can a target be a person? Yes.
If one targeted a person as the recipient of a ward then yes, the ward would need to penetrate the persons magic resistance just like how a ward would normally have to penetrate the resistance of a 'place' (if it has resistance like an area protected by Aegis).

If one targets a person as the recipient of a ward, then the parameters of the ward must change to account for this. For instance, the ward would need to be cast at Individual rather than Circle. The spell cost may be the same, but it is technically a different Target and a different spell.

As I read it, if a person cast a 'ward' target: Individual, it would essentially work like a poor man's Parma. It would provide the target, an individual with protection from whatever the topic the ward is (Magic, fire, ect).

Again one would need to penetrate Parma Magica and if successful, then yes the ward would go into affect.

Having established all of this, what mage is going to 'attack' another mage by placing a ward on him? I can't think of any.

The alternative is a magus wants to ward one of his magus buddies. Such a mage would likely *Want* the ward, so they would drop thier Parma Magica to recieve the benefit of ward against Whatever. Such an act makes this discussion moot.

If one is trying to protect a buddy magus and he doesn't know your trying to protect him, fine check penetration. Then the ward acts as normal.

If the point is to protect oneself from another magus there are numerous others ways that are more cost effective than "Ward Against Wizard". Improve Parma Magica, become invisible, change your face, have a heart beast, ect, ect, ect.

Hope my answer isn't to snotty- my truck got totaled yesterday,

Chuck

"If one is trying to protect a buddy magus and he doesn't know your trying to protect him, fine check penetration. Then the ward acts as normal."

By this I suppose your point is that it that the reference in the guilines refer to the magic resistance of the target and not the would be warded off magus that tries to affect the warded target.

Now I'm reading it over again and I help to make sure that the text meaning that you need to penetrate the MR of that target & not the creature warded against.

Thanks

>He took it from page 134. Rego Corpus guidelines level 15
>
>"Ward a target against other human beings. Note that, to ward off a Hermetic magus, the ward must penetrate the magic resistence."
>
>I had not taught of this.
>This would indicate that all wards must penetrate magic resistance.
>Aldo it is not expressed in other form of wards...

Because I think it is not necessary. The magic resistance comes only into play, if the ward is against something "mundane" (not being part of a realm) which has a MR (like a magus, who is only associated with a realm).

Regard,
adumbratus

WillEx:
"Personally I have nothing against it but it is where my SG jams. Let me try to get him to voice his opinion here."

Here I am. The Miscreant and Ugly SG. :p

WillEx:
"What I meant was that a stronger can create the ward & then give the lab text to the weaker one & both casting will offer the same protection."

This is a description of the problem.
LEt me say it in other words. Despite all the respect I can have fo rthe people here, i think thi sthread have mostly missed the point here. So another explanation is in order.

This is a problem of game balance. The 5th edition produce a good and original game balance by substracting the level of a spell from the casting total to calculate the penetration. The problem: why would ward broke this rule ? A ward is a magical effect, that affect a creature. So should be resisted(AM5 p.85-86) But enough of rules: they won't help solving our dilemma. Cause this is a dilemma.

The problem here is not as much about the rules, as it is about what impact they can have on the balance of power on Mytic Europe.

***
Concrete exemple, to explain:

A mage create a wall of magical fire. A creature enter the wall. The mage must penetrate MR to do damage. OK ?
A mage cast a ReCo spell on a passageway. The effect is that it disallow passage for all body-like creatures to pass. It should be reisted. OK ?
A ward is pretty like those above spells. In reallity, at least. I mean, In-GAME, it will have about similar effect on creatures.
Is it resisted or not ?

Continuation of the exemple: the dilemma

Let's take mage A, Larch, who is powerfull (no stats needed to see the point)
Mage B, Nicodemus, is less powerfull.
A stated fact: Demon C, Valentien, is beaten by mage A, but beats mage B. (I hope you see this is a possible proposition) Beats meaning that, in the end, the one who beat will win, if all conditions are similars. Yes you can use imagination to oversome difficulties, you can do a lot with ..etc. But what you have to remember is that A beats C, C beats B.

How does that translate in rules terms ? Mage A have a casting total enough high to pierce the MR of C.
Mage B can't pierce the MR of C, using spells that could make him "win"

I see this as a normal situation. My players have to either, facing a situation, beat the enemy, OF run away because they face a threat too powerfull for them (or arrange another solution, like diplomaty - my creatures are gentles, it is always the players that want to fight :p joking;) OR use imagination to...etc

But the game balance set the situation, for a part. It set what the players have to face off: is it a great challenge ? or something they can solves only with a simple spell ?

OK
Let say, solution ONE: wards is NOT resisted.
Suddenly, Mage B can stop Demon C !!
Why is that ? how can he do it ? is it an ancient spell found in a obscure and forgotten temple ? no, it is simply a normal spell, every mage have. Do you know it is possible to use ward to capture a creature within it ? Yes i would ask for a targeting roll, but this is not as hard for a young magus than to cast a PeVi on the Demon.
Some game balance is not preserved.

Solution TWO:
Ward ARE resisted.
As with other spells.
Bu then the wards become much less usefull.

Well , i don't remember what solution i prefered. Me and my gang will talk about it tomorow. Probably WillEx will come along and post our results ^^

I think it's quite resonable that stopping something should require less power and knowledge than doing something - in fact the game would be unbalanced otherwise. And it gives you, the SG, the very important ability to have a player encounter a demon without either of them dying (and without some arbitrary deus ex machina).

// Do you know it is possible to use ward to capture a creature within it ? Yes i would ask for a targeting roll, but this is not as hard for a young magus than to cast a PeVi on the Demon.

Drawing a Circle around an attacking demon is going to be quite a difficult targeting roll, in my estimation.

First I have to confess that your email is hard to follow. Your numerous examples obscure your point, so I may fail to answer your question. If in fact there is a question in your mail.

//The 5th edition produce a good and original game balance by substracting the level of a spell from the casting total to calculate the penetration. The problem: why would ward broke this rule ?//

It doesn't.

//A mage create a wall of magical fire. A creature enter the wall. The mage must penetrate MR to do damage. OK ? A mage cast a ReCo spell on a passageway. The effect is that it disallow passage for all body-like creatures to pass. It should be reisted. OK //

Ars5 p. 114
"Rego spells can create wards which protect the target from things of the appropriate Form. These use the normal targets, but the target is the thing protected, rather than the things warded against..."

key words: "the target is the thing protected"

What this means is if you cast "Ward" on a "passage" the passage is the target. If the passage has some kind of magic resistance such as Aegis of the Hearth, then yes the Ward must penetrate in order to work. If the passage has no magic resistance then the ward goes up without problem.

"The target is the thing protected, rather than the things warded against..."

In your case, the target is the passage, not the 'body like creature." Because the body like creature is not the target, penetration is not relevant.

This means once the ward is up, should 'body like creature' want to cross it, their magic might will need to penetrate the ward's level. That is, if you have a ward of 25 lvl, the 'body like creature' must penetrate 25 levels of magic, not the other way around. Does that make sense? The creature must penetrate the ward, not the ward penetrating the creature.

This also mean that if super mage and whimpy mage cast 25 lvl ward X, the result will be the same. Ward against X with Might of less than 25 lvl. Yes, super mage and whimpy mage have the same end result.

If super mage and whimpy mage tried to cast ward on the passage and there was an Aegis of the Hearth in place, Super Mage would have a high penetration and would have a better chance of penetrating Aegis of the Hearth and getting the spell to work. So Super Mage still has an advantage over Whimpy Mage.

Concerning the rest of your mail, while I understand A beats B and C, the mail then takes some jumps I simply can't follow. I understand your two possiblities, but I don't see how you come to them and more importantly why.

In review,
Wards must penetrate the target. The target is the area affected, not the thing kept out.

The thing kept must pentrate the ward to enter, not the other way around.

All of this seems consistent and keeping with Ars5. If someone thinks I'm wrong, please tell me. But currently I don't see what the problem is or why this revelation threatens game balance. To be honest, besides Aegis of the Hearth, I don't think we've ever used Wards in the game. Raise your Parma, it's the better buy in the long run.

Chuck

I suppose one could modify a ward so that it effected Room. Such a Target would negate the need for a target roll and assure the creature is trapped with in. Naturally this adds 2 magnitudes to the spell level, but it's a great way to trap a demon.

Numerous stories have demons trapped to a place, typically a room. Off the top of my head, I can imagine an old pagan site where a demon was trapped in a room long ago. Perhaps the site is being renovated into a Church and the fledgeing Divine aura is weakening the magics that trap the demon.

Allowing the Church to develop could release the demon, keeping the church from growing could be viewed as 'work of the devil'. Sounds like classic Ars Magica material to me.

Hmmmmm...

Chuck

\\This also mean that if super mage and whimpy mage cast 25 lvl ward X, the result will be the same. Ward against X with Might of less than 25 lvl. Yes, super mage and whimpy mage have the same end result.\\

Hmmm this gives me the idea of creating a holy hand bag with multiple Re-Form... Who needs the holy hand grenade that requires a penetration total... my SG will never allow it but it would follow 5th ed rules for wards.

Beware of your apprentices... or those that cary magical bags... or of rooms... or circles...

I think this illustrates the core of our troupes problem. It would mean that an apprentice can ward off his master or any other creature since MR is not involved. You can trap birds in trees worms in the ground, faeries in a bag, dragon in a bag.

Wards are thruly the most powerfull attack in 5th Ed. If you see this as something that is game balanced well I have no further points to add.

Um, you keep loseing me.

How is an apprentice suppose to trap his Pater?

Let's put some real numbers to this.

Rego Corpus, Lvl 15 "Ward a target against human beings"
R:P
D:M
T:I

We want this Ward to *work* so lets make it right:
Modified Parameters:
R:V +10
D:S +10
T:C +0
Rego Corpus "Ward a target against human beings" Lvl:40
R: V
D: S
T: C
Let's say apprentice wants to 'trap' his Master inside a ward as your worried about.

This spell is Rego Corpus Lvl:40
The minimum Lvl that a magus could have to cast this spell is Rego Corpus 30 (10 lower than the Lvl of the spell).

Rego 15 Corpus 15 costs 240 points. A starting apprentice isn't this strong, so even with specialization, they couldn't cast this spell. So the premise that an apprentice could hold their master is empty.

But lets say they've studied and now have Rego Corpus of 30

Let's say your Pentration is 3, that seems fair.
Character rolls a 5, completely "average".

30(spell)+5 (roll)=Casting Total 35+ 3(pen) 38-40= Penetration of -2

Ars5 p. 82 "If penetration is zero or negative, the spell cannot affect any target with magic resistance, even if the score of the magic resistance is 0."

So here's the situation I imagine.

Master is standing in room. Apprentice casts "Ward".

Apprentice must roll a target. I would argue this counts as their ability to run around the magus with a piece of chalk and drawn the circle that will 'trap' him. Is this being generous? Please tell me if it is.

Apprentice rolls a -2.

If the Master Magus has his Parma down, he still recieves a Form bonus.
"...even spell cannot affect any target with magic resistance, even if the score is 0"

Ward fails

If the Master Magus has his Parma up.

Ward fails, read above.

If you think my die rolls unfair. Let's assume the magus rolls a 1 and a 10. That would be a die roll of 20.

30 (casting score)+ 20=50+ 3 (pen)=53-40= Penetration of 13

Your Master Magus, a magus at least 15 years your senior will have a meager Parma Magica 3, Corpus 5. This seems fair.

3*5=15 + 5 (From)= 18. Parma Magica 18> Penetration 13, spell fails.

Again, I'm am old school Ars2, if my numbers are wrong please correct me. Did I for get Auras and Stamina? Yes, but the example still holds even if modified by 5 points in the apprentices favor.

This is why you need to move beyond the theory and make a practical example. Again, if I've read any of the books wrong, please correct me, but I don't see any 'by the book' apprentice captureing his Mentor with a ward.

Versions of the spell that involve holding worms underground or dragons in a bag, change the Arts involved and the parameters of the spell. So the above example can't be used to directly detail how it works for worms, dragons, or fairy. But in the discussion of whimpy are as good as super, the reality of the situation is when you put numbers to the theory you must see that whimpy can't even cast the spell.

Furthermore, if one were to take this effect or a variant of it designed to hold dragons, fairy, or whatever, and make it an enchantment, it would be even more difficult as one must add levels to the spell in order to account for frequency of use.

If the frequency of use was 1 it would add +0 to the spell level. Constant effect would add 6 magnitudes (right?) to the spell level. So in addition to enchanting a bag, an item that doesn't conjure images of durablity, a magus would still need a Lab Total that exceeds at Rego Corpus 40. Certainly possible, but again not for an apprentice. Even for a magus 5 years outside of gauntlet, such a feat would be challenging.

So, do I think this maintains game balance, yes I do. I'm comfortable continueing this conversation and will continue to suggest trapping a dragon or Fairy in a a bag will be as challenging given that one must modify spell parameters (Range, Duration, Target). Such facts will make all these other 'your captured' senarios more difficult than you suggest.

Chuck

Edited 8/22/2005 2:11 pm ET by Tuura

Edited 8/22/2005 2:46 pm ET by Tuura

\\Um, you keep loseing me.

Let me go into details.

Rego Corpus, Lvl 15 "Ward a target against human beings"
R:P
D:M
T:I

We want this Ward to *work* so lets make it right:
Modified Parameters:
R:T +5
D:C +5
T:Room +10
Rego Corpus "Ward a room against human beings" Lvl:35
R: T
D: C
T: Room

//This spell is Rego Corpus Lvl:40
The minimum Lvl that a magus could have to cast this spell is Rego Corpus 30 (10 lower than the Lvl of the spell).

hmmm... assuming no vis of ReCo is used Yes.

//Rego 15 Corpus 15 costs 240 points. A starting apprentice isn't this strong, so even with specialization, they couldn't cast this spell. So the premise that an apprentice could hold their master is empty.

Let us say 10 / 10 + 10 Corpus vis = Casting Total of 40 + aura + stm + pen + mastery = Penetration total

Let us be conservative and say he just has a piece of Rock of the lab of his master and a representation the lab with him with a mastery score of 2 (penetration,Fast cast) score of 3 and a stamina score of 2 = 63 + die

63 - spell lvl + die = 28 + die = 33 (assuming 5)

//Ars5 p. 82 "If penetration is zero or negative, the spell cannot affect any target with magic resistance, even if the score of the magic resistance is 0."

There is no magic resistence to a room unless there is a special protection...

//So here's the situation I imagine.

Apprentice cast the ward by touching the room in which his master without words or gesture (-15)

The master is trapped unless he can dispell the ward while the apprentice friend is fletching him to death.

If there were MR test to make then the master could probably resist even without the parma.

The master is now dead...

//Furthermore, if one were to take this effect or a variant of it designed to hold dragons, fairy, or whatever, and make it an enchantment, it would be even more difficult as one must add levels to the spell in order to account for frequency of use.

Not if it is a spell cast on a bag warded against the fey for example.

To dammage or control the fey in any way you need to penetate it's MR. With the bag, you just need to trap it within it. Hell, you could create a bag over it and ward it after. No MR roll needed.

This is where I see it is unbalanced.

Maybe I'm missing something, but why not simply require a ward spell that traps something to need to penetrate the parma/MR/might, whereas a ward to protect against something doesn't.

This would allow game balance: you can protect yourself against things too powerful to destroy, but you can only imprison things you which you can affect already by the normal rules?

//lurk mode re-enabled

// I suppose one could modify a ward so that it effected Room.

One could, but that wouldn't stop a warded person leaving or entering. Page 114 says those effects apply only to wards with a target of Circle.

But yes, I strongly approve of the idea of a trapped demon, and especially one that becomes more powerful on holy days.

Tuura, your idea of the trapped deamon within a church is truly good, i like it.

But when you concentrate on the rules of the game, you miss my point, and fail to take it from theory to practice.

As WillEx said:
"Wards are thruly the most powerfull attack in 5th Ed. If you see this as something that is game balanced well I have no further points to add."
You miss the point when you speak about target, and targeting the ground. Search and read well my text.

But understand me well: if your solution works for you, then it's perfect for you ! I don't want you to change your own way of playing. All I ask is to cooperate on solving the problem we are encountering, and of those that are in our position. For I think there will be...( I don't want to debate on that last subject)

Our question was about to ask for an idea of solution, a subject that has been avoided altogether in this thread, instead argumenting on "does that question has value?" This is sad.

****
DuckfaceDrag has attempted an answer, i thank him for that. But...
We can't really demand that a ward be resisted when used for trapping something, and not deamnd it when just stoping. Because the same ward-ring could be used for the two, to be trapped or stoped being a point of view...well it could work, but not in my campaign.;)
Even if we would use your idea, it would not really solve the problem, because I maintain that only stoping a creature is an effect powerfull enough to care -where trapping is only different comparing to stoping in that one is offencive and the other is defencive - my point of view.

****
What you have to know is that we converted our campaign from 4th to 5th edition.
While doing so, all penetration total for all spells where lowered - because of the new rule for penetration (which i like a lot !)
To keep about the same game balance i have to lower the MR (infernal power, etc) to keep game balance, so that *about* the same spells could affect *about* the same creatures.
You will understand that wards then became suddely very much powerfull !
In comparison to what/who other spells could affect normally, wards affect creatures of much more power.

Here is the solutions we tought about:

#1 Wards are not resisted. They are very powerfull spells, ultimate in doing their effect on a creature - can affect a creaature without by passing MR.

#2 Wards are resisted. Aegis isn't (because it is a breakthrought, whatever reason). Wards are very less powerfull than Aegis. Soon I would see them popup everywhere (joking)

#3 Wards are not resisted, but they are underestimated in the new system. So I add some level to it...like +20, or say that they affect equal to (level /2), etc - other math. formula.

#4 Wards and Aegis are resisted. The players are in deep sh**. *I tought at first* but...as i write this down, i realise it would be perfect for a wizard's communion spell. So 2 mage would have some problem casting an Aegis, but 6 can cast a level 60 (counts as a level 10 - so pen. is higher) eheh, i like this idea afterall...

//Let us say 10 / 10 + 10 Corpus vis = Casting Total of 40 + aura + stm + pen + mastery = Penetration total

Let us be conservative and say he just has a piece of Rock of the lab of his master and a representation the lab with him with a mastery score of 2 (penetration,Fast cast) score of 3 and a stamina score of 2 = 63 + die

63 - spell lvl + die = 28 + die = 33 (assuming 5)//

By "Rock" I think you mean "Rook". First, your being conservative when you suggest an apprentice has access to a Rook of Vis? This might be the dividing line right here. Even with access to a rook of Vis, I'm not quite sure if I follow your numbers. But this is really beside the point.

//Ars5 p. 82 "If penetration is zero or negative, the spell cannot affect any target with magic resistance, even if the score of the magic resistance is 0."

There is no magic resistence to a room unless there is a special protection...////

Correct.

Perhaps I haven't been clear. Yes, the target of a ward is typically a place. That place has no magic resistence. I never open said this, but last write up did include a resistence for the defending magus.

If a Magus were standing in a room and you conjured a spell that turned 'air to stone' Target Room, the magus would be able to resist this the air surrounds him, even though he isn't the target of the room.

A ward prevents someone from entering an area, or leaving it. On this much we agree. I argue that regardless of whether you use circle, or room, or boundary, when the ward is cast, if the magus occupies the same space as the target (let's say it's room), the magus gets to roll vs. Parma Magica to defend themself.

To me, this seems to solve the problem. They aren't automatically trapped by the spell, they still recieve a resistence roll. Now if the magus isn't there at the time of the wards creation, no roll is necessary. The ward goes up and the magus can't enter the area. If he wants to, he must penetrate the wards protection. But again, in the case of trapping someone inside a ward. Because they occupy the same space as the target, then they should get a roll to resist. Doesn't that solve the problem?

//Apprentice cast the ward by touching the room in which his master without words or gesture (-15)

The master is trapped unless he can dispell the ward while the apprentice friend is fletching him to death.

If there were MR test to make then the master could probably resist even without the parma.

The master is now dead...///

As I described above, I believe the defending magus should recieve a resistance roll because they occupy the space as the target. Surrounding them in ward is like surrounding them in stone. They might not be the direct target, but they still become surrounded by magic. Magic can be resisted by Parma Magica, so they can use Parma Magica to defend themselves.

Also on a purely arms race mentality, if the apprentice has access to a mere rook, only the dullest master would not be equipted with a mere Queen to defend them selves, but I digress.

/////Furthermore, if one were to take this effect or a variant of it designed to hold dragons, fairy, or whatever, and make it an enchantment, it would be even more difficult as one must add levels to the spell in order to account for frequency of use.

Not if it is a spell cast on a bag warded against the fey for example.///

Well that is interesting isn't it. Hmmm. I see your point, but propose you consider this.

A ward is more than "General Level"

Let's pick Faerie, because we've mentioned it several times.

A Ward of Faerie holding would look something like this.

Ward Faerie Lvl 25 Rego Vim 25 lvl
R:P
D:M
T:I

We clearly need to modify this inorder to make it work.
R:T +5
D:S +10
T:I +0

Casting Level: 40

Such a spell would allow you to cast a spell on a bag and have it work for duration of Sun. So your magus must still cast a Rego Vim 40 lvl spell inorder to hold a 25 lvl faerie. I argue that this is expensive given the result. This seems balanced.

If you want to capture a 40 FM creature you'll need a 55 lvl Rego Vim spell. This is very expensive and seems very balanced to me.

//To dammage or control the fey in any way you need to penetate it's MR. With the bag, you just need to trap it within it.//

All the above spell does is prevent the fairy from leaving the bag. The nature of a ward holds something inside or outside. So it wouldn't damage the fey or allow one to control. It would simply hold the creature in the bag. Specifically, the creature could not get out of the bag. If you wanted to shoot spells at it, you would still need to penetrate it's FM (and not ruin your bag in the process). If you wanted to control it, you would still need to cast Rego spells and pentrate it's FM. The ward would not cancel it's might score, the ward would simply keep the creature from escapeing.

//Hell, you could create a bag over it and ward it after. No MR roll needed.//

If you created a bag over it, you would need to penetrate it's FM. Again I argue that because the creature occupies the same space as the intended target, the fairy would get a FM resistance roll. Looking at the descriptions on how Parma Magica works, I argue that if the creature was inside the bag and resisted the ward, they would 'slip out' of the bag, feeling the slightest thing trying to hold them back.

Chuck

This is where I see it is unbalanced.///

Your letter is sent to Duckface, but you call out my name so I assume this is for me. I think.

//But when you concentrate on the rules of the game, you miss my point, and fail to take it from theory to practice.//

I fail? Didn't I take it from theory to practice when I used these very words and tossed down some numbers so we can talk about this in practical terms. Huh?

//All I ask is to cooperate on solving the problem we are encountering, and of those that are in our position. For I think there will be...( I don't want to debate on that last subject)//

Why do you think I write these, to make the rules harder, to confuse people? My goal here is to aid in solutions, I think I've offered valid solutions based on Ars5. It's not a matter of what I like or prefer to play. I'm reading the book, and saying this is what it says. I've gone so far as to ask on several times to be corrected should I be wrong. I don't see any of the bigger more knowledgeable gurus stepping up and saying my reading of the book is off. If you chose to do something else by all means;"I don't want you to change your own way of playing."

//Our question was about to ask for an idea of solution, a subject that has been avoided altogether in this thread, instead argumenting on "does that question has value?" This is sad.//

I provided a solution, which I've tried to clarify. Asking if the question has value isn't 'sad'. It's a legitimate question, often people make assumptions about how something works without their assumptions having any basis. I proposed that your question was strange given that the game seems to have a functioning solution that suggests your dillema is internal to your own game.

//We can't really demand that a ward be resisted when used for trapping something, and not deamnd it when just stoping. Because the same ward-ring could be used for the two, to be trapped or stoped being a point of view...well it could work, but not in my campaign.//

I'm all for consistent rules. As I stated in the previous mail. Block of stone and Ward are in many ways simular. If a magus occupies the same space as the target of a ward (lets call it circle), then I believe the magus should recieve resistance.

Look at it this way. You create a block of stone , target circle. You create a ward, target circle. Circle empty, no resistance roll. Circle the place an magus occupies. Magus gets to resist block of stone. Magus gets to resist Ward. The ward is trying to surround the magus in magic that holds him to that spot. He gets to resist. Again, if no one there, no resistance necessary. This is consistent and requires no deep thinking.

//What you have to know is that we converted our campaign from 4th to 5th edition. While doing so, all penetration total for all spells where lowered - because of the new rule for penetration (which i like a lot !)
To keep about the same game balance i have to lower the MR (infernal power, etc) to keep game balance, so that *about* the same spells could affect *about* the same creatures. You will understand that wards then became suddely very much powerfull ! In comparison to what/who other spells could affect normally, wards affect creatures of much more power.//

So this is it! I say the book makes sense and your question seems odd. You say it's 'sad' that I suggest your dillema/question is asked at all. Now, slightly later you explain you've added a patch to the game. So in light of that small bit of information, does my comment seem so 'sad'?

What your saying is you want a patch for your patch! I get it. Yes, this makes a lot of sense now. The game as written wasn't fine, so you 'fixed' it. Now you need to fix your fix. Yes, that makes sense! All is clear now.

//Here is the solutions we tought about://

Go with number 2:
#2 Wards are resisted.

On the condition that wards can only be resisted when trying to 'trap' someone. When cast on a mundane object, no roll is necessary. If the mundane object is a bag, and someone tries to put that bag over someone's head, the spell must still penetrate in order to "surround and hold" the person inside the bag. It's not a tweak or an exception to the rule. Your trying to surround a magus in magic, so they get to resist. This is essentially how I read the rules are suppose to work any way.

Oh yes, I also propose #5

#5, Throw out your patch and watch the game magically fix itself (pun intended).

Chuck

//DuckfaceDrag has attempted an answer, i thank him for that. But...
We can't really demand that a ward be resisted when used for trapping something, and not deamnd it when just stoping. Because the same ward-ring could be used for the two, to be trapped or stoped being a point of view...well it could work, but not in my campaign.;)//

Thanks for your thanks! :)

Tuura seems to agree with me (Hi Tuura!), but you don't. Fair enough, it's your story after all!

But, is it really any different to how all other spells work? If a creature/object with parma/MR/might is present in the spell's area of effect, you have to beat its' resistance. If such a creature/object is not present, you don't.

The difference with wards (and I think this is your objection - correct me if I'm wrong) is this:

Case A: normal spell.
A magus casts a ring of fire spell to keep enemies out. If a magus/demon/etc approaches, the fire spell needs to beat its' resistance otherwise it doesn't harm the magus/demon/etc. Mundanes get burnt.

Case B: ward spell.
A magus casts a ward spell to keep enemies out. If a magus/demon/etc approaches (whatever the ward is against), it is kept out unless the magus/demon/etc beats the spell's level of effect.

//Even if we would use your idea, it would not really solve the problem, because I maintain that only stoping a creature is an effect powerfull enough to care -where trapping is only different comparing to stoping in that one is offencive and the other is defencive - my point of view.//

The difference in power level seems to be:

Normal spell: needs to beat the resistance value with enough power left to actually affect the creature.

Ward spell: only needs to be able to beat the resistance value.

If you don't like that (which seems to me to be how the rules are supposed to work), then you'll need a house rule.

If you rule that all wards must beat the resistance value with enough power left to actually affect the creature, then that should work well enough.

I personally like it how it is because it means that a SG can throw a monster at the party which they can't kill, but can still hold at bay. Otherwise the SG is limited to monsters which the party can kill, or ones that should kill them. A stand-off situation is pretty useful particularly if you want to make recurring baddies or potential allies if the party can make friends with it.

Sorry if it's long-winded, but I hope this is useful to you.

Duckface Dragon

//By "Rock" I think you mean "Rook". First, your being conservative when you suggest an apprentice has access to a Rook of Vis? This might be the dividing line right here. Even with access to a rook of Vis, I'm not quite sure if I follow your numbers. But this is really beside the point.

I meant rock for an arcane connection but it is unnessary in this case I admit. the fact that the casting magus casts silently & without movement but uses 20 pawns of vis is also a bit strange but I think you got the point.

//Perhaps I haven't been clear. Yes, the target of a ward is typically a place. That place has no magic resistence. I never open said this, but last write up did include a resistence for the defending magus.

If a Magus were standing in a room and you conjured a spell that turned 'air to stone' Target Room, the magus would be able to resist this the air surrounds him, even though he isn't the target of the room.

A ward prevents someone from entering an area, or leaving it. On this much we agree. I argue that regardless of whether you use circle, or room, or boundary, when the ward is cast, if the magus occupies the same space as the target (let's say it's room), the magus gets to roll vs. Parma Magica to defend themself.//

Then this will become a Parma question thread. let us verify where the line drops.

Case 1: Defending magus is inside a circle and the ward is activated
Parma or no ?

Case 2: Defending magus is in a field and a CrTe to sourround him of a circular wall around him is casted
Parma or no ?

Case 3: Defending magus is inside a tower and a magus draws a circle around the tower and activated a ward
Parma or no?

Case 4: A circle with an active ward. The magus runs toward it and hit's it hard.
Parma or no?

we here suppose that the ward is againt the show targets. Subsitute the target with any creature if needed to present different outcomes if any.

I do think that the outcome of your logic will be that all are resisted except Case 4.

Your arguments to support that case 4 is not resisted & still is game balanced is that the core rules already take this fact into account.

I'll need to think about this a bit more but feel free to confirm my claims here about your logic in the mean time.

As a point of clarity, when I brought up circle of stone sharing simularities with ward I didn't clarify myself.

Air to Stone, target Circle. All the air inside the diameter of target 'circle' becomes stone. This is what I imagined. I clarify this point to discuss your questions. I will provide two answers. The Short answer and the Long.

//Case 1: Defending magus is inside a circle and the ward is activated
Parma or no ?//

Parma.

A magus is standing uninhibited inside a normal circle. Activating the ward is an attempt to the surround the magus in magic that holds him inside the boundary of the Circle. In order for those magics to hold him inside, they must affect the magus. Parma is a Magus defense from such magics.

//Case 2: Defending magus is in a field and a CrTe to sourround him of a circular wall around him is casted
Parma or no ?//

No

A circular wall is not what I meant to describe. If a magus is sitting in a field reading the Daily Magic Journal, and some one uses Creo Terram to create a wall that circles *around* him he is not affected by the magic. You could even take a second spell and slap a room of top the magus. Magus trapped, no Para roll needed.

However, if you were trying to engulf a magus in stone. That is, create a solid block of stone inside the target range of circle, and have a magus pull a Han Solo (carbonite freeze him). The magic is trying to trap/bind/hold the magus. Then yes.

Parma roll to prevent the magic from impeding the magus.

//Case 3: Defending magus is inside a tower and a magus draws a circle around the tower and activated a ward
Parma or no?//

Parma

This is exactly like Case 1, but you've widened the circle and put something physical between the magus and the magic.

Parma for the same reasons as described in Case 1. Because it is the same case.

//Case 4: A circle with an active ward. The magus runs toward it and hit's it hard.
Parma or no?//

Parma

This one is tricky, but only because of how we think about it.

If a normal person runs toward an active ward, they would hit it.
If a magus parma fails, they act like a normal person and would hit it. This is because Rego Corpus Guidelines clearly establish that a ward must penetrate a Magus magic resistance to work.

If a magus parma suceeds, the ward is not dispelled. Parma does not dispell. Parma 'grants magic resistance'. Therefore the magus can cross the ward feeling the 'slightest pull' upon their Parma Magica.

Now, to understand what this means in terms of the actual spell, we need to return to the creation of a Rego Corpus Ward Spell. Previous mails have established that the magus who casts the spell will be casting a Rego Corpus 40 lvl spell. In the case of people, one must exceed the casting total to get in. This we sort of knew already, it's the easy example.

But we also learned that it costs Rego Vim 40 lvl to keep a creature (pick your realm) of Might 25 lvl out. That means, if you cast your Rego Vim 40 lvl to keep a fairy out spell. If Fay with a FM of 25 or less can exceed the casting total, they can move about freely. However, the ward doesn't even work on creatures with a FM of 26+. That is, if a fay with FM of 30 approaches the ward, they don't need to roll to get in or out because their might exceeds the spell effect, even though the casting total is 40, which is higher than their FM of 30. Does that make sense? Wards are handy, but they aren't economical. If your game has tweaked pentrations, Might scores, or both, then yes Wards are going to be messed up.

I suppose as I write this, it would seem that I'm back tracking and essentially saying my earlier stance that penetration isn't necessary isn't true. When I stepped into this, I meant to establish that a target is typically a place and typically places don't have magic resistence. Your troupe is using wards in ways I never really imagined before, it's a legitimate use-again I simply didn't imagine it. I think my proposal is a solution that is consistent with the game as it's written.

For *any spell*, if a magus occupies a place and that place becomes redefined as a target (such as circle), then the magus can recieve the protection of the Parma Magica. This protection occurs because the place they occupy is being redefined from a mundane one to a magical one. Again, if anyone thinks I'm wrong I'd love for you to chime in and tell me why. My interest isn't in disagreeing, it's in understanding. I apologize for my snapishness, it was my intent to help out.

Chuck

@DuckfaceDrag :
You understood perfectly what I was meaning. Maybe i explained myself badly somewhere. It was a long time I posted here, I didn't knew the habit of this forum.

Now I realise I should have said at the beginning that I want an advice on a house rule.

My position is that the 5th rules are really better balanced than the 4th (great work boys !) but has still criticals flaws that must be fixed. I do not say all campaingn will encounter those flaws.
I say mine encounter some, and i think those are enough general in nature that other gaming group may experience them.

Your idea: On after toughts, with Tuura precisions, your idea of Wards resisted only when used for trapping could be used. And in other cases not. I haven't put enough toughts to it, sorry! =\

But i still think i will use the all is resisted option. Maybe a personnal preference. I like the fact that it give real importance the the Wizard's communion spell. 6 youger mages can cast a spell 2 older magus could do with equal force. Thus the coming of Covenants. Anyway... not linked. =)

***
For your ideas, what would you think as a solution if the campaign was to be solved simply by *stoping* a demon ?
Ne need to kill him or anything - to stop is the ultimate goal here. ;) A tought one, eh ? =)

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
@Tuura:
There seem to be some misunderstanding here. I didn't intended to insult you in any way. If it was perceived that way, sorry.

I just think that you are arguing on a matter that doesn't answer the question. Yes, a question's value can be questionnable. But you explain why it is so , by using rules, where I maintain that
some aspect of it are unbalanced. As it was said before, if you think rules are ok as they are - fine ! =)
I will make a post on rule for the benefits of all, despite the fact that it doesn't answer my dilema. (but everyones helped, on aftertoughts: just speaking of it clearify the mind :) and there was some good lines of thoughts)
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

*******
RULES
*******
Wards
As with all spells in 5th editions, a magical wards effect must bypass the MR of a target to affect him.
*******

Demonstration ( as this seem to be a place for it ^^ )

p.114 reference to wards is only an explanation on what does wards. It doesn't say it has special status regarding penetration.
"(...)but the target is the thing protected, rather then the things warded against(...)"
It is a sentence about target consideration only.

***The spell(ward) is resisted if the target (the thing/person protected) has MR.
True !

***The spell(ward) does not have to penetrate a creatures MR to affect it.
Why would someone think that way when following the rules ? (well i tought that way for some times ^^ but not now...)

P.85 : "A large boulder turned into a pebble by a Muto spell bouce off her resistance, as above."
The fact that the thing *affected* is NOT the the initial target doesn't mean that the spell is not resisted.

What is misleading here i think, is the very description of the spell.
[Some may think that wards are an exeption (and you may continue playing as you were doing before !) ]
"wards a circle against creature with MR equal or lower of it's level"

But notice that it only mean that the spell(ward) is powerfull **enough** to do that effect.
Like a fireball is powerfull **enough** to do +30 damage.
A PeCo spell of higher level would "affect" more health level (manner of speaking) ;
a higher level spell would affect more persons ( a group rather than a person ) ; or a bigger target ( see size rules ). A fireball is more powerfull as level goes up. Same for wards !
But all those spell are resisted alike.

So:(by the rules)
//Case 1: Defending magus is inside a circle and the ward is activated
Parma or no ?//
No . Is resited when the mage try to cross the ward

//Case 2: Defending magus is in a field and a CrTe to sourround him of a circular wall around him is casted
Parma or no ?//
See Tuura above.

//CASE 3//
As Case 1.

//Case 4: A circle with an active ward. The magus runs toward it and hit's it hard.
Parma or no?//
I am not sure, but it seem Tuura as the same idea as i have ?
But it is the oposite of what you said on Case 1.
Anyway, same answer as in case 1.("Is resited when the mage try to cross the ward")

"I apologize for my snapishness, it was my intent to help out."
No problem. =) I may have too as I said earlier.

//Your idea: On after toughts, with Tuura precisions, your idea of Wards resisted only when used for trapping could be used. And in other cases not. I haven't put enough toughts to it, sorry! =\//

I don't have my rules with me, but here's my take on the problem:

The enemy is a might 25 demon.

If you use the rules as written, you get (unless I've made a mistake):

1.A ward of level 25+ will keep it out/away.
2.A ward of penetration 26+ and with 25+ levels of effective spell left over is needed to trap it (ie 50+ total).
3.A spell of penetration 26+ is needed to affect it directly.

This means that wards are about as strong as other spells, in this case.

If you rule that all wards need to penetrate, then this changes case 1 to needing the same as case 2 too, however a spell such as Demon's Eternal Oblivion of 26th or greater penetration will harm and reduce its might until it is destroyed.
This means that wards are very weak, compared to other spells.

Does this still hold true when the enemy is another mage?

Enemy is a magus with a parma of 25.
1. A ward vs the gifted (which is not a standard spell and would need to be created) needs level 25+ to keep the mage out.
2. A ward to trap the mage would need to be 50+ again.
3. A spell of penetration 26+ would be needed to affect the mage directly, but would need enough levels of power left after penetration to do something useful.

This time, a ward is stronger than other spells, because you don't need any levels left over to do something useful. However, I would make a ward vs gifted people higher level because it is non-standard and would need extra requisites such as intellego to detect magi. If you just did a ward vs corpus, then it wouldn't need to be higher level, but clever magi can get round it (eg by shapeshifting to animal form).

If you rule that all wards are resisted, then you again weaken wards greatly. A simple low level spell can cause a lot of harm to a mage for less penetration (35+ penetration is needed for a 10th level spell to work).

Which do you want? Wards that are weak, but a great way of making magi combine OR wards that are slightly more effective (but only for keeping things away) than normal spells?

Remember a ward spell that isn't high enough level is useless - this makes it a large and ongoing investment for someone to keep learning better versions of it - you don't need to for other types of spells so this is a good reason for keeping them slightly better.

I like the rules as they are.

PS we're still playing 4th edition, but we've added some bits like the new penetration rules from 5th, so I might be a bit hazy on some things.

Duckface Dragon (the long-winded)

Ok, I'm going to actually skip responding to most of your comments, because I think your at a stage where you simple need to decide what you like best and go with that.

I will respond to one comment you made.

///Remember a ward spell that isn't high enough level is useless - this makes it a large and ongoing investment for someone to keep learning better versions of it - you don't need to for other types of spells so this is a good reason for keeping them slightly better.///

Ok, in the defense of 'weak wards'.

I don't have my books in front of me, but I'm nearly certain there's a rule out there that says if you know a spell and make a variant of that spell modifiying the parameters of the spell slightly, you can recieve a bonus to creating the new spell. That is, if you make a ward, your next ward will be easier to make.

Given this fact, if a magus lives in a bubble and must reinvent the ward as he grows stronger, then he would recieve a benifit from past work. So while a particular magus may end up knowing numerous wards, the more powerful wards would be easier to make because of the time invested in creating the weaks ones.

So you mention that the magus must make a 'large and ongoing investment'. I agree an investment must be made, but suggest that the investment is not a great as one might think.

Furthermore, given the new penetration rules the small wards will be more effective than the larger wards, because the penetration total will be higher for minor spells. So if you make a magus who spends all his time making wards he will have lets say a dozen wards available to him. He could cast the 60lvl ward to capture the 25FM fairy. However, it would be more effective for him to use his 25lvl ward and recieve a huge pentration bonus. So not only is it benificial to use a smaller ward, it's also benificial that the magus has more than one ward to chose from. He can pick the ward that best fits his needs, and in arms race where wards are the tools of war a Magus would want to have numerous wards to chose from.

In addition to this, one can apply the meta-game rule of buying/trading spells. If you put this into play, it could become very easy for your magi to access effective wards. This fact might encourage you to be conservative with the effectiveness of wards because if you make them very powerful and very easy to get, you'll essentially be inviteing all sorts of headaches into your game.

Material to consider when making your decision,

Chuck

//Ok, I'm going to actually skip responding to most of your comments, because I think your at a stage where you simple need to decide what you like best and go with that//

Umm..you didn't have to reply to any of my comments!

We are in full agreement about how we think wards work.

It's Iudicium who needs to decide, not me.
I was merely providing him with alternative scenarios so that he can decide how he wants to work it.

//So you mention that the magus must make a 'large and ongoing investment'. I agree an investment must be made, but suggest that the investment is not a great as one might think.//

I know this.
Just to reinforce my original comment for Iudicium: other spells don't need reinvestment at all, therefore this is an argument for keeping wards slightly more powerful than other spells.

Duckface Dragon (the slightly less long-winded)

Ok Ok, I'm terribly bored at work. I said I had nothing else to add and I'm a big fat liar.

So the way I see it, trying to cast a ward and 'capture' someone inside is very different than setting up a ward and keeping someone one out.

In terms of keeping someone out, the ward goes up and works at the base level of the spell. By this I mean, keeping 25MM out probably has a casting total of 40.

So you cast your Rego Vim 40lvl spell and keeps MM of 25 lvl out.

Anything 26+ can enter. No rolls of any kind necessary because the Might exceeds the abilities of the ward.

If something MM25 or less wants to enter. The creature must penetrate the ward. In this case the question is, does the creature need to simply exceed 25 or do they need to exceed the casting total? This is sort of the original question asked and I believe (?) we've agreed that the creature must exceed the spell effect level (25) and NOT the casting level (40 in this example).

So then one must look at the creatures ability to penetrate magic.

You cast a Ward X, it keeps MM 25 out.

A creature with MM 25 wants in.

Per Ars5 p184 Creature Pentration is MM- (5*Might spent)+Pen bonus.

So if a creature spends 6 points (6*5)=30. 30>25. Creature penetrates wards.

It would be seem then that wards are whimpy. That a simple expenditure has allowed a creature to pentrate the ward. But take into account the creature now has 19 Might points left. If a typical creature has a damage ability that power will usually cost 2 or 3 points to use. That means the creature has between 6 and 9 mystic attacks. If they want to leave the ward, that's another 6 points. This drops the attacks down to 3-6. If the creature wants to boost a power so it can effect a magus they can again use Might to boost penetration, but such a choice reduces there points by even more. Let us say they want one good strike costing another 6 points (Pentration of 30).

25-6 to get in (19 left). Saves 6 to get out (13 effective). Spend 6 to pentrate 13-6=7 Might left. Let us be conservative, but assume the power is stong, so 3 points. 7-3= 4 points left.

So the creature can get in and out of the ward and make one good shot at the person it's attacking. It has 4 points left, which in needs to divide between powering a second spell and pentration.

To me, this means wards seem appropriately strong enough to keep out creatures of approximate level. Can they get in? Yes. Can they do much if they get in? No.

More powerful creatures have more Might points to spend, but need to spend more to get in. This helps to maintain balance. I'm sure as the Ward gets more powerful, that this system begins to work in the creatures favor as powers rarely cost more than 4 points and because powerful creatures have more points they will be able to shoot off more powers. Yet for 'normal' creatures of 25-30 Might, this system seems to hold together.

Another very important point to add to the discussion.

I READ THE RULES WRONG!

Ars 5 p. 114 clearly establishes that Ward Guidelies are different than normal spell guidelines.

The base parameters are:
R:T
D: Ring
T:C

This means that wards are rougly 20 lvls cheaper than the ones I detailed in previous mails.

This fact doesn't make wards more effective, but it does make them cheaper to make. That very important fact again increases their effectiveness. One could convert Ring to Sun and Circle to Individual. Such a modification would allow to make Ward that I cast onto a bag.

A Ward circle 'can not be damaged directly or indirectly..." by the effected creature. This would should follow if cast on a bag. However, the bad could be cut, torn, ruined by other factors such as a person, or nature. Also, the duration is Sun. "Ward on a Bag" is much more fragile and temporary than a traditional ward.

I would argue that if you made "Ward on a Bag" and stuffed a magus inside. The magus could not grab the bag to try and tear it, but the magus could grab a knife and push it forward to poke and cut the bag. I don't believe this breaks the rule of "can not be damaged indirectly" because technically the knife, not the magus is doing the attack. The knife is not bound by the magics of the ward. This points makes "Ward on a Bag" even more fragile.

Did I grab the Magus? Yup!
Can he get out? Nope!
Is he cutting his way out or using an enchanted device to nix the bag? Yup!

I think "Ward on a Bag" could work if you pull some Full Metal Action and have a team of guys work together. Two stuff the magus in the bag, and before the Magus can act, the rest beat him with soap in a sock. It seems like a good way to hold a Magus, but if an apprentice can do it, I still think a senior Magus should have the means to counter it, even if their counter isn't an immediate defense.

Another point to consider is, how static is your game world? By this I mean, are your characters the only innovators in Mythic Europe? Specifically are they the inventors of "Ward on a Bag?"

If they are, then by all means let them capture and beat up several magi. But let rumors spread about what they've done. In an arms race, where wards are weapons of war, someone will come along either with a "Bag Buster" Spell or a better Bag.

If your characters aren't the inventors of this technique, then other people already have it. Maybe everyone has it. If that's the case, have some NPC's bag them and see how they like it. I'm pretty no one wants their charactes beaten by soap in a sox, not only will it hurt it's sort of demeaning.

Finally, the last possibility is that everyone has it, and by social convention nobody uses it. Can Magi kill each other? Yes! Do they? No. The Code of Hermes says it's wrong. Maybe the Peripheral Code says "Ward on a Bag", hell... any Ward used on a Magus, prevents them from practicing their craft. That is a High Crime. Not only is it wrong, it's punishable by death.

Trap a Mage, die. A Transitionalist would say no, but a Traditionalist would say yes. You kept a magus from his freedom to work magic? "High Crime!"

I throw these ideas out because maybe the solution lies in codes of conduct rather than patches or rules interpretations.

Chuck

Okay, I've given a lot of taughts to this and here are my conclusions:

As per 5th Ed CoreRules, Wards are spells and need to penetrate MR to have any effect. This Penetration is tested againt the receiving target(eg. room,bag,etc) if it has a MR and when in direct contact with the warded target(Faeries,demons,magus,dirt,air,etc).

Here is an Example that will show the similarity of wards and regular spells:

Spell Example: Place a flame on a stick, the stick gets a MR chance. If the MR fails, the stick is in flames. If you hit a Magus with the flamed stick, he gets two MR, one for the magical flames and one for the stick (assuming it was magical originally).

Ward Example: Place a ward on a circle, the circle get a MR chance. If the MR fails, the ward is up and running on the circle. The Deamon then tried to exit the circle by trying to drop a leaf on the circle using his demonic powers. If his MR holds, the circle is broken and he can exit. If not, his power fails and he is trapped.

This gives purpose to the Wizard Communion to have effective defences and does not unbalance the system by having the ultimate bag of holding (aldo it is still a good idea).

Just a small comment on your last post:

//The magus could not grab the bag to try and tear it, but the magus could grab a knife and push it forward to poke and cut the bag.//

This is clearly indirect interference otherwise all wards are useless since a Deamon can use a knife to take your example tocut the circle that is holding him. He could also use a pen or a leaf...

Long live the bag of holding!

Edited 8/24/2005 5:39 pm ET by WilliamEx

// A Ward circle 'can not be damaged directly or indirectly..." by the effected creature. This would should follow if cast on a bag.

Perhaps you think it should, but the book doesn't say so. "Wards cast with a Circle target are of particular note," it says, and goes on to list all the things that Circle wards do. There's no reason to think that wards with other targets do these things also.

// A creature with MM 25 wants in.
// Per Ars5 p184 Creature Pentration is MM- (5*Might spent)+Pen bonus.
// So if a creature spends 6 points (6*5)=30. 30>25. Creature penetrates wards.

No, no.
*Penetration applies when an effect comes up against magic resistance, not against another effect.
*The penetration formula is for creatures' powers, not for creatures themselves. Unless I'm mistaken, magic resistance doesn't ward against the bodies of creatures (unless said bodies also happen to be subject to a magical effect).
*The penetration is decreased by 5 per point spent: more costly powers, like higher-level spells, have lower penetration.

I still don't think that magic resistance is meant to apply to the typical wards such as Ward Against the Beasts of Legend, besides the Might-dependent effect. These spells have not changed in level since 4th edition, whereas Demon's Eternal Oblivion, for example, has been rewritten to take the new penetration rules into account.

Something else to consider, which I mention only to cause trouble: some of the guidelines talk about creating a warding circle, and some of the spell descriptions mention a faintly glowing hemisphere. If a ward is an object created by magic, magic resistance will keep resistant creatures out, even if they're not the type warded against. However, as wards are Rego, not Creo, I don't think they do create anything tangible.

Ars 5 p114

"Warded things cannot act across the circle, no matter which side they are on, nor can they damage the circle, directly or indirectly."

I shortened this, but mearly quoted the book. So the book does say so.

//Penetration applies when an effect comes up against magic resistance, not against another effect.//

You are correct, to much Mountain Dew?

All of us, myself included have jumped topics making this discussion slightly confusing.

As a point of reference, Rego Corpus GENERAL establishes that Magi don't have Might scores so a Rego Corpus "Ward" would not affect them. However one could create a Rego Corpus Lvl 15 "Ward" human beings. Such a spell clearly reads "Ward must penetrate his Magic Resistance"

All the other Rego "FORM" Wards follow the general parameters of Rego Corpus. I think, after all this debate/discussion the solution might be as follows.

Rego "FORM" Wards "General" prevent creatures of Might or less from entering ward. Penetration is not an issue and magic resistance does not apply.

In the specific example of Rego Corpus Ward: "Human." The Ward (per Ars5) "must penetrate his Magic Resistance".

Only in the case of humans that possess magic resistance must the ward pentrate magic resistance. This exception to the rule likely occurs because the ward is designed to keep humans out (base 15), not a creature with a might score. By focusing on the mortal body, it keeps Corpus out. If the body has magic resistance, then they can resist. Other wards don't focus on the body of the creature persay, but on a Form and Might score held by the creatue. The 'magic' of the creature is the the focus, not the body. This fact keeps the creature at bay.

In theory, if a Fairy didn't have a Might Score, it could pass through the ward. This makes sense because in effect, the fairy isn't a fairy, it's something else.

So again: Ward General, no pentration/no resistance.
Ward Human (Base 15), Ward must pentrate magic resistance.
This seems to be "by the book."

Chuck

@TO ARS BREVIS [EDIT:AND TUURA you posted just before me, i didn't noticed)(and others: I don't know to who I answered...:p )

ArsBrevis said:
"I still don't think that magic resistance is meant to apply to the typical wards such as Ward Against the Beasts of Legend, besides the Might-dependent effect. These spells have not changed in level since 4th edition, whereas Demon's Eternal Oblivion, for example, has been rewritten to take the new penetration rules into account."

Well, it takes a higher level PeVi spell to "destroy" 50% of the IM of a Deamon with higher Might.
IM = 10 --> PeVi5........PeVi10 for 100%
IM = 30 --> PeVi15.......PeVi30 for 100%
The same is true for the wards. Notice that a ward stop also 100% of the capacity of a creature.

But...

Here is my/our little story, leading to the conclusion that Wards should be treated as any other spells: (if you find that to be of interest ;)

When we converted to 5th, our gaming groupe continued to use the wards as they were in 4th edition. But we quickly realised that would means a tremendous boost of power for wards.

We continued to use the 4th ed. wards, but I (SG) realised that they were to become rapidly ultimate against creatures. The fact that they could be cast as a formulaïc spell make them quickly usable. (one of my players designed a spell that create a perfect circle of precious metal - he still have to trace the circle with a finger, but this can be done quickly).

I like to play with houses rules. I and my gaming groupe know the game's mechanics well enough to enable us to play with them, to give a gaming experience that suit more our tastes. All the while keeping a better game balance. Anyway, this is why...

This is why I first found that to ask for a ward spell to penetrate MR to affect a creature would be more game balanced.
Thereafter, reading comments here, I found that the rules simply were probably meant to be like that also !

When you think about it, it makes a lot of sense:
- Wards are good when casted with many mages with a wizards communion
- Otherwise, they are as powerfull as any other spell.
- Aegis of the Hearth are treated as any other spell also. It must be cast with a Wizard's communion. An alliance with more mages have a stronger Aegis.
- etc.

Edited 8/25/2005 9:01 pm ET by Iudicium

"//Penetration applies when an effect comes up against magic resistance, not against another effect.//

You are correct, to much Mountain Dew?"

I say not true. Look-up the MuVi guidelines. If the other magus is not cooperating, you must penetrate the other magus effect so that your effect takes effect. I don't have the book with me but by memory it sounds something like that.

"Rego "FORM" Wards "General" prevent creatures of Might or less from entering ward. Penetration is not an issue and magic resistance does not apply."

Please detail what makes you think this way. I don't believe that saying that it is because it attacks the essence of the beeing is enough otherwise a PeVi against might would not need penetration either.

On Penetration:

Were at 50 posts in this discussin and I'm getting sloppy. I meant to cut and paste a larger comment and meant to agree with the premise that the creature penetration rules do not apply to creatures trying to cross a Ward. Creatures do not penetrate to cross a ward. Their MM comes up against the strength of the ward and can either cross it or not.

//Please detail what makes you think this way. I don't believe that saying that it is because it attacks the essence of the beeing is enough otherwise a PeVi against might would not need penetration either.//

Ok, first my theory on why it is this way is simply supposition. It's a guess on my part to explain the observable rules.

One can look at Rego + Any Form. The first part of the guidelines detail wards and establishes they are a general level.

Let's look at Rego Animal
General: Create a warding against animals from one realm (D,F,I,M) with Might less than the level of the spell (R:T, D:R, T:C)

Nearly every other Rego Form reads exactly the same.
"Something"... with Might less than the level of the spell.

Let's look:

Aquam "... creatures of water belonging to..."
Auram "... creatures of air from one realm..."
Corups"... creatures associated with Corpus from one realm..."

Corpus also details, "Note Hermetic Magi have no Might, and thus are not affected by such spells."

From this I inferred that if a Fairy "had no Might" it would not be affected by (fairy) wards. Of course this isn't possible. Only with Ward Corpus... Might of less than X do you have an exception. Humans have no Might and Wards clearly keep out beings "with Might less than..." So "no Might" means your not effected by Wards that keep out Might.

In order to make a ward that works on Humans one must keep out their body as detailed here:

Rego Corpus 15:
Ward a target against other human beings. Note to ward off a Hermetic Magus, the ward must pentrate his Magic Resistance (Parma or Form bonus if no Parma up).

Then we return to 'normal' rules:
Herbam "Ward against creatures associated with wood from one realm (D,F,I,M) with Might less than the level of the spell"

Ignem, "...creatures of fire belonging to one realm..."
Imaginem (No Wards)
Mentem, "...spirits belonging to one realm..."
Terram, "...stone creatures from one realm..."
Vim, "Ward the target against creatures with Might less than the level of the spell. A creature warded against cannot directly affect the target physically or by magical means. A spell of this nature will only ward against creatures from one Realm... Note that wards against magical and faerie creatures can also be constructed using other Forms, but that those wards are more limited in effect."

ONLY in the special case of Rego Corpus Base 15 Ward "Human Being" does it clearly state: "Note to ward off a Hermetic Magus, the ward must pentrate his Magic Resistance (Parma or Form if no Parma up)."

In all other cases it reads, "Ward against Creature of (One Realm) with Might less than the level of the spell."

It does not say or suggest that the ward 'must pentrate his Magic Resistance'

It is erroneous to make the assumption that a ward must penetrate.

However, if you insist there is contest between Ward and Creature, there is still a solution at hand. We have established that the Creature Penetration rules only apply to Creature abilities. That is, Creature Penetration rules do not apply to Magic Resistence. Magic resistance for creatures equals their Might Score (p184).

This means if you have a Ward of 25 and a creature of Might 25 wants to resist the effects of the spell they have a magic resistance of 25. Furthermore, creatures can not apply penetration to Magic Resistence. So you have barrier (Ward) of 25 vs. Might of 25. 25 vs 25. You have a tie.

Again, the creature can not use penetration to resist. Furthermore, the creature does not pentrate or dispell the Ward. The barrier holds keeping the creature out. That's the written rule.

There is no need for penetration because penetration can not be added to Magic Resistance. There is no need for a resistance roll because the creature always loses. Now rememeber! This is under the normal circumstances of a ward being cast Circle/Ring on a mundane target (the ground).

If you wanted to make Ward on a Bag, I argue that the person targets a mundane item (bag). But inorder for the bag to surround and hold someone (that is, throw creature/person in the bag) the bag must surround the creature/person in magic. First, one must target them. Second, the ward must pentrate in order to "surround" them and so resistance is allowed "sort of".

In the case of creatures, we have established that magic resistance equals Might, and the creature can essentially never win a contest against a ward. So even if you allowed a resistance roll, they always fail.

I would maintain the letter of the rules and allow the portable ward (25) to surround and hold the creature (Might 25). The trick would be in targeting as one tries to get the ward around a someone as that someone is likely actively resisting (increasing the targeting roll).

In the case of humans, Rego Corpus "Might spells" will not work on Humans. One must design a Rego Corpus Base 15 "Human beings"

In this case humans, like creatures they would be captured automatically.
In the case of magi, who possess magic resistance. As the rules say, "the ward must pentrate his Magic Resistance."

This is the written rule, it is internally sound and seems to cover all senarios previously discussed. Again, the orignal post has people playing with patches. I think the best solution is remove your patches and play Ars 'straight up'. But if you insist on maintaining your patches, you will either need to add additional patches or accept that in your games a patch biproduct is exceptionally powerful wards. Personally, I sort of like the idea of incredibly strong wards and as I suggested earlier social convention alone keeps people from using them. One should consider this a possible fix. Wards used to trap Magi are a High Crime. That will quickly resolve the Ward on a Bag problem.

Chuck

// Ars 5 p114
// "Warded things cannot act across the circle, no matter which side they are on, nor can they damage the circle, directly or indirectly."
// I shortened this, but mearly quoted the book. So the book does say so.

The book says it applies to wards on Circles. I think the sentence "Wards with a Circle target are of particular note" means that wards with a Circle target work differently from other wards. This is the most obvious reading, and also supported by the fact that wards with target Circle work differently from other spells in general, because they don't affect the area inside (see below). However, it could just mean that wards with a Circle target are particularly good examples of wards.

// So again: Ward General, no pentration/no resistance.
// Ward Human (Base 15), Ward must pentrate magic resistance.
// This seems to be "by the book."

The following is also consistent with the book:

Ward with target Circle, no penetration/no resistance. (Or alternatively, MR applies, but depends on the ward's level and not its penetration).
Ward with target Individual, Ward must penetrate magic resistance.

Unfortunately the only non-Circle ward is also the only non-Might-related ward, unless spells such as Repel the Wooden shafts qualify. So we can't tell which hypothesis is correct.

It seems that wards with target Circle are rather different from other spells of target Circle, and indeed other spells in general. Most spells affect everything within the target space, but Circle wards seem to affect things crossing the boundary instead. For example, if you encircle a magical animal within Ward Against the Beasts of Legend, nothing within the Circle is protected from it. So how about a ward with target Room? Will that affect things entering or leaving the room, or things inside? I don't know. The same question arises with target individual: suppose a maga is possessed by a devil, and casts a variant of Circular Ward Against Demons on herself (target individual). Assuming the level, and if necessary the penetration, are high enough, there are two possibilities:

If the ward acts like a Circle ward, demons are unable to enter or leave the maga, or exert their powers into or out of her. The possessing demon can still affect its host, so long as it doesn't destroy* her, but it can't affect anything else. It is unable to leave, and cannot even be cast out by an exorcism (it seems more logical that wards block involuntary as well as deliberate passage). The demon could well benefit from such a spell, and might even force the maga to cast it.

If the ward protects its target, demons are unable to affect the maga. The possessing demon cannot use any of its Infernal powers on her, and if it has any non-Infernal abilities it might be able to employ while possessing, it can't use those on her either. It is able to use any applicable powers on other people, and it's also free to leave her, but not to return. I think this is more consistent with "Rego spells can create wards which protect the target from things of the appropriate Form".

// In theory, if a Fairy didn't have a Might Score, it could pass through the ward. This makes sense because in effect, the fairy isn't a fairy, it's something else.

I think you're right, although I also think it's impossible for a live fairy to exist without a Faerie Might of at least 0.

// Here is my/our little story, leading to the conclusion that Wards should be treated as any other spells: (if you find that to be of interest ;)
// When we converted to 5th, our gaming groupe continued to use the wards as they were in 4th edition. But we quickly realised that would means a tremendous boost of power for wards...

Don't leave us dangling! What was this boost of power?

// one of my players designed a spell that create a perfect circle of precious metal - he still have to trace the circle with a finger, but this can be done quickly

I don't see how that can work. If the spell has a Circle target, it affects everything within the ring at the time of casting, but if it's a Creo spell, the target is the thing created.

I need to think about some of your commments. Let my mushy mind, figure it out.

//I think you're right, although I also think it's impossible for a live fairy to exist without a Faerie Might of at least 0.//

And a FM of 0 is still a creature with a FM. I completely agree that fairy without a Might score isn't a fairy. It was a very theoretical example of what is necessary in order for a ward to not effect a Fairy. "IF" if a fairy or elemental or whatever could exist without a Might score than a Ward which effects "Might" could not work.

The rest I'll comment on later,

Chuck

//In all other cases it reads, "Ward against Creature of (One Realm) with Might less than the level of the spell."

It does not say or suggest that the ward 'must pentrate his Magic Resistance'

It is erroneous to make the assumption that a ward must penetrate.//

This is where we need to clarify our positions.

I say a ward is a spell and is bound by the core rules of the 5th ed like any other spell.

Let us compare a CrIg(Re) 25 spell of Circle duration that has the effect of creating a circle of fire that runs high up and only burns when crossed(entering/exiting the circle) versus a ward again the fearies ReVi 25 circle also.

Both are hermetic spells designed from the same magic theory. In the rules, it states that wards are a special note because the creature warded aginst canot do anything to free itself directly or indirectly.

Let us pose that the faerie is inside the circle at the time of the casting.

Both spells can be cast without a MR test onto the circle.

When the Faerie tries go thru the fire it will make a MR test to see if it is burned. The fire spell has a penetration total that needs to go thru the farie's MR to have any effect which means the magus needs a CT of LVL+MR to go thru. Instead of going thru the fire, the Faerie pies on it which finally cuts the circle and by doing so ends the spell and is free to go. This fire spell was learned as an hermetic spell of level 25 and faced two problems, the circle could be affected by the faery and it needed to penetrate the MR of the creatures that wanted to cross it to affect it.

When the Faerie tries to leave the ward What does happen ?

I say the same thing as any other spell except that the ward has the side benefit that the faery cannot pie on it to break the circle(Which is already a very big side benefit)

You say the ward holds the Fearie up to the level of the Ward without any other considerations(No penetration required which means that anyone who can cast the ward has the same protection/containment force)

This is where I need you to defend you point. Why do you think that wards should be so much more powerfull than any other spell in core hermetic theory. Is it a breakthru?

//The following is also consistent with the book:

Ward with target Circle, no penetration/no resistance. (Or alternatively, MR applies, but depends on the ward's level and not its penetration).
//

I disagree for the following reasons:

The core book stipulates in many cases that some spells are special and are subject to special treatment but unless it is specified they all must penetrate something that has a MR to have any effect.

Wards are a special note but there is no written part that states they do not have to penetrate the MR.

The book says that the wards ward againt creatures with a might of its level or less. There is no talk about MR I agree. Then again the book says that CrIg does lvl dammage without talking about MR either. This is according to me because, in both cases, these spells act normally toward MR.

I'll give my taughts about the warding personnal of a person that is posessed in another msg just so it is clearer.

//The same question arises with target individual: suppose a maga is possessed by a devil, and casts a variant of Circular Ward Against Demons on herself (target individual). Assuming the level, and if necessary the penetration, are high enough, there are two possibilities:

If the ward acts like a Circle ward, demons are unable to enter or leave the maga, or exert their powers into or out of her. The possessing demon can still affect its host, so long as it doesn't destroy* her, but it can't affect anything else. It is unable to leave, and cannot even be cast out by an exorcism (it seems more logical that wards block involuntary as well as deliberate passage). The demon could well benefit from such a spell, and might even force the maga to cast it.

If the ward protects its target, demons are unable to affect the maga. The possessing demon cannot use any of its Infernal powers on her, and if it has any non-Infernal abilities it might be able to employ while possessing, it can't use those on her either. It is able to use any applicable powers on other people, and it's also free to leave her, but not to return. I think this is more consistent with "Rego spells can create wards which protect the target from things of the appropriate Form".//

I think the spell needs clarification. ReVi spell of individual target protect the individial from the thing the ward wards against. Wards are barriers but in the individual target, it would mean that the whole are(body) is warded. Picture it as a circle except that the inside of the circle is also warded(hence you cannot trap a creature inside it).

This means the creature can weather possess the Magus or cannot. If he can, it means he can beat the ward and can use all of his powers.If the magus is already possessed, then this spell would kick out the devil if it penetrates the MR(I would add one mag. to the design of the spell to be able to have this effect otherwise it would ony protect againt outside infernal effects) or, if it does not, does not hinder the devil in any way.

You could also design another spell that binds the devil to the body of the maga with a ReVi: target individual. But that would be another spell & would also suffer from the same limitations.

Wards are special aren't they...

//
Picture it as a circle except that the inside of the circle is also warded(hence you cannot trap a creature inside it).

This means the creature can weather possess the Magus or cannot. If he can, it means he can beat the ward and can use all of his powers.If the magus is already possessed, then this spell would kick out the devil if it penetrates the MR(I would add one mag. to the design of the spell to be able to have this effect otherwise it would ony protect againt outside infernal effects) or, if it does not, does not hinder the devil in any way.
//

So if you don't add the extra magnitude, there's no effect on the possessing demon (except that it's protected from any other demons outside)?

I did wonder whether a ward could expel a creature, but that seemed dubious - doing something active seems beyond the scope of a ward. It does provide a solution to the possible problem of a mage-trapping bag though. It also makes it quite easy for magi to cast out demons, compared to the efforts required from a specialist priest who has spent many years studying exorcism.

//So if you don't add the extra magnitude, there's no effect on the possessing demon (except that it's protected from any other demons outside)? //

Well it all depends on the requirements of an exortion.If it is an effect that would be of fourth mag or lower then yes, just one mag is okay. If it is of more than four mag it would require two additionnal mag. It could also be a ritual effect. In which case the spell would need to be a ritual also.

A ReVi would be the way to go for an exortion ( A hermetic one alike those in the films ). A PeVi might be easier but could leave the possesed creature tinted(infernal vis left inside the creature)...

This discussion seems to have bogged down. Iudicium appears happy with his interpretation and everyone else seems happy with theirs. Try both versions out guys and girls but let us know how they pan out in actual play.

Going back to lurking.

Duckface Dragon
UDIC

@DuckfaceDrag
I agree with you completly. I think each way of using wards can have good result depending on the campaign. But my initial point was to ask for idea about how we could resolve our problem, not to discover what is the truth about a particular rule. I guess I started it wrong...

***

@ArsBrevis
Me: "(...)But we quickly realised that would means a tremendous boost of power for wards..."
You: "Don't leave us dangling! What was this boost of power?"

The problem comes from the conversion from 4th to 5th edition. The power level from 4th to 5th edition have been lowered, so I had to ajust my NPC accordingly.
It is a bit complex. Here it is:

Initial situation: A covenant with 6 mages, and with known adversaries that are demons, fearies, etc, with a Might score (A Might score sometime known by the player. They design their spells accordingly)

#1 From 4th to 5th edition, the same mage keeps the same casting total

#2 From 4th to 5th edition, the penetration for the same spell is lowered greatly (you must now substract the level of the spell from the casting total to get the penetration score)

#3 Thus, a creatures keeping the same Might score become more resitant to the same mage, casting the same spell. (Quote from my game that I want to avoid: "Oh no ! My spell failed because of the conversion to the 5th edition!" :p )

#4 I lower the Might by a 25%, to keep about the same "power balance" between the antagonists in my game (PC <> PC, PC <> NPC and NPC <> NPC)Nota: I lowered their parma also ;)

#5 Wards become more powerfull because of the lowered power level of the creature with might. For exemple, there was a particular demon that had 40 IM, he have now 30 IM. He is *about* as resistant now to hermetic spells as he were in 4th edition. But, now, wards affect him more easily. A ReVi 35 that didn't affected him in the 4th edition, now would affect him. This is only an exemple.

#6 Thus making the 5th edition ward too much powerfull *to my tastes* (maybe someone starting a campaign directly with the 5th edition would not have that problem ;)

***

Me: "// one of my players designed a spell that create a perfect circle of precious metal - he still have to trace the circle with a finger, but this can be done quickly"

You: "I don't see how that can work. If the spell has a Circle target, it affects everything within the ring at the time of casting, but if it's a Creo spell, the target is the thing created."

The ward is cast in two rounds:
- First one you cast the CrTe to make the circle.
- Second one you cast the ward, ReVi, tracing the circle with a finger along the already solid circle around you.
- Note that you can use a spell to create the circle you have to make to cast a Target: Circle spell.