Magic Resistance .. the debate so far. (long but important)
When we decided to run an AM5 game the initial intention was to play the game 'as is' - and avoid introducing House rules from the start.
I agreed to this, initially, but detailed reading of the Magic Resistance rules and discussion sites has led me to believe that we need to discuss how Magic Resistance works in our game.
A summary of how AM5 plays Magic Resistance (MR). See pages 85 and 86 for a more detailed description.
MR blocks magical effects that attempt to affect an individual.
Things created by magic, or that are changed or sustained by magic, can be resisted.
Indirect attacks, requiring a targetting roll that is contested by a defence roll, penetrate MR automatically.
My concerns about the AM5 resistance rules See this thread for more detail.
Created animals or weapons (which need successful attack rolls to do any damage) are also resistable. Not just by Magi - but by anything with a Might score.
A shapechanger or a Magus who turns into an animal would also have their attacks resisted.
Enhanced or altered objects and entities are also resistable - so if a sword has 'Edge of Razor' cast the whole sword is resisted. A person with a strength spell on them could not punch a faerie without the strength spell effect penetrating the faerie's Might.
Interpreted strictly, the rules appear to allow quite a few low level 'exploits' which can be used to make objects or entities 'magical' so that they can be blocked by Parma.
Conjuration of the Pink Dot CrIm 10
Creates a pink dot on up to 10 swords within range so they can be blocked by Parma Magica.
Taint with Magic CrVi 10
Taints the target with magic so that it must penetrate Parma Magica in order to affect the Magus. This spell can be deliberately cast with zero penetration, so that the object cannot affect the Magus.
Also, strictly interpreted, if a magus created a magic sword, then his Parma might resist him trying to pick it up.
My suggestions for avoiding the exploits.
If a magically created or altered object has to roll to hit a target (e.g. a targetting roll or an attack roll) then it is treated as effectively a mundane object for the purposes of penetration.
The target gets a defence roll to deflect/dodge/avoid such indirect attacks.
A Magus can automatically overcome his Parma when he wants to physically interact with a magical object.
A separate spell effect placed on an object must penetrate magical resistance to have any effect.
Concerns so far:
Whilst the suggestions avoid the low level exploits and having to supress your parma to pick up something magical you've created - there is concern that direct hitting spells (like Ball of Abysmal Flame) then become weak in comparison to indirect damaging spells (like Leap of the Fire).
However, the presence of a defence roll means that for Leap of the Fire (which requires a fire to already be present) the targetting roll is contested.
With Ball of Abysmal flame the spell is also contested - but this time the penetration score is contested with the magical resistance of the target.
Some examples ...
A Grog with high defence, but no magical resistance: Ball of Abysmal Flame would be the most effective attack (by far)
A Faerie with low defence, but high magical resistace: Leap of the Fire would be the most effective attack (though you'd have to start a fire first)
A Peasant with low defence and no magical resistance: Both spells are viable - but Ball of Abysmal Flame is likely to be quicker.
A Griffon with high defence and high magical resistance: Either spell will be contested and could likely fail. Best solution is probably by collecting Arcane Connections and developing a boost to penetration for Ball of Abysmal Flame.
Choices
I need the troupe to decide some of these issues - preferably before the campaign so I can plan challenges for the magi and the covenant.
a) We stick to AM5 rules as they are - and allow the potential exploits. b) We stick to AM5 rules and fudge a ban on exploits (though this is almost impossible - as any spell could potentially render an object 'magical'). c) We basically stick to the AM5 rules, but reinterpret the rules a little (as I've suggested above - or some other way). d) We ditch the AM5 rules and create our own consistent method for determining resistance (we do this for AM3, but I'm concerned with so many of us reffing we'll get inconsistency unless we have some detailed rules). e) Some other option that I haven't considered - please suggest one! Edited by: Badger101 at: 26/1/06 16:44
Re: Magic Resistance .. the debate so far. (long but importa
Here are my choices and the reasoning behind them.
c) We basically stick to the AM5 rules, but reinterpret the rules a little (as I've suggested above - or some other way).
This would be my first choice. It sticks closely to the Canon principles, however it also removes some of the quirky/bizarre rules you'd see playing option A). Remember we can always implement additional house rules after the fact if we find elements that do not fit in with the spirit of the game.
b) We stick to AM5 rules and fudge a ban on exploits (though this is almost impossible - as any spell could potentially render an object 'magical').
This would be my second and less than perfect choice.
d) We ditch the AM5 rules and create our own consistent method for determining resistance (we do this for AM3, but I'm concerned with so many of us reffing we'll get inconsistency unless we have some detailed rules).
This option could be viable, but is realistically impractical given the time until the first session.
A & E aren't really options as I see it.
Edited by: SimpleSimon101 at: 26/1/06 17:02
Re: Magic Resistance .. the debate so far. (long but importa
After looking at all this I am definitely in favour of option C. I'm keen that we try and stay as close to the canon rules as possible but clearly they don't work in the cases highlighted so it seems sensible to make those changes necessary to ensure that magic resistance doesn't allow exploit type abuse. I'm confident that we all have pretty similar ideas as to how the game should be played in spirit and Nick's proposals all seem to fit in with how I see that. It seems likely that in the initial sessions we will have a few of these type of issues crop up (there are bound to be broken bits in other areas of the rules as well) so we may need to take an occasional brief time out early on until we have a solid understanding of how the rules work.
I suggest that it is probably worth in the first and maybe second sessions running exclusively with Nick R as ref so that we start to establish some consistency. This shouldn't be a problem with the other beta ref areas so if Nick is prepared for Mestitia to be a bit quiet early on I can't see a problem with that and it will help us to establish a campaign feel before the rest of us start addign our twopenneth.
Re: Magic Resistance .. the debate so far. (long but importa
I vote for (c), though I'm still a bit wary that targetting rolls will not provide sufficient protection against area-effect spells. Alternatively, we could always use the AM3 rules....
Re: Magic Resistance .. the debate so far. (long but importa
Hmmm, this is a tricky one, I can see why option (c) appears most attractive, but I share Nick W's concerns about area-effect and other targetted spells that would then go through the parma. In fact I would go further and say that I think that if we go with (c) as proposed then magus to magus combat is going to be worse than the "bad old days". You'll have to be invisible with lots of anti-detection spells as being seen is going to be tantamount to suicide when there's a magus with a decent finesse score out to get you as parma won't matter at all and all the cool stuff about boosting penetration with arcane connections, horoscopes etc will be largely irrelevant. That said, clearly the pink spot sword spell makes things ludicrous so a literal interpretation of canon won't work.
I haven't thought all the implications through fully in my head but as an initial alternative, would things work if we just assumed that the parma suppressed rather than resisted magic?
i.e. If the parma resisted the Conjuration of the Pink Dot cast upon a sword, the dots would vanish temporarily if it struck a magus. Similarly a grog with enhanced strength would have that suppressed briefly for the duration of the contact of his fist and the magus' jaw.
If this happened to just a part of a magically created thing such as a conjured wolf's teeth would be suppressed then it would be repelled or you could just have it vanish temporarily before reappearing (this is magic after all).
I look forward to hearing the terminal flaws with this suggestion One problematic example that immediately springs to mind is a punch from a magically strengthened magus with his own parma, but then that happens with the AM5 canon right?
Edited by: KillAllTremere at: 30/1/06 10:19
Re: Magic Resistance .. the debate so far. (long but importa
Quote:In fact I would go further and say that I think that if we go with (c) as proposed then magus to magus combat is going to be worse than the "bad old days".
I don't understand the problem either of you are referring to ...
why are 'area effect spells' a problem? - looking through all the potential 'area effect' magics I can find in the spell list ...
Weaver's Trap of Webs
Chaos of Angry Waves
Waves of Drowning and Smashing
Ice of Drowning
Pull of the Watery Grave
Stench of Twenty Corpses
Wreaths of Foul Smoke
Charge of the Angry Winds
Circling Winds of Protection
Rain of Stones
Talon of the Winds
Infernal Smoke of Death
Curse of the Unportended Plague
Trap of the Entwining Vines
Wall of Thorns
Coils of the Entagling Plants
Arc of Fiery Ribbons
etc etc
All of these spells - and indeed all but a handful of spells I could find, do not need targetting rolls so therefore are resisted by Parma.
I wasn't able to find an 'area effect' spell that used a targetting roll (and therefore bypassed Parma).
Have you actually looked at how few spells actually require targetting?
Strike of the Angry Branch
Tangle of Wood and Thorns
Tremulous Vault of the Torch's Flame
Leap of the Fire
The Earth Split Asunder and Creeping Chasm (It doesn't mention a targetting roll, but I'm assuming they do from what is said on p86)
There may be a few more that I didn't spot - but overwhelmingly, almost all spells are direct; so can be resisted by Parma.
Even in AM3 these did not need resistance rolls - indirect damage spells have *always* been a feature of AM!?!
Re: Magic Resistance .. the debate so far. (long but importa
Ok, so what would happen if a magus conjured a big fecking hot fire in one place and then rego'd it at another magus?
Re: Magic Resistance .. the debate so far. (long but importa
Quote:I haven't thought all the implications through fully in my head but as an initial alternative, would things work if we just assumed that the parma suppressed rather than resisted magic?
If you read any of the discussions about Magical Resistance on Atlas or on the Berk list the reasons are quickly apparent why David Chart avoided the idea of suppression.
e.g. Transform deathly poison into milk MuAu 5
Transforms a fatal poison into harmless milk - so that InAq spells will report it harmless. Upon drinking the liquid, the Parma suppresses the effect - turning it back into fatal poison.
[B: 2, R: Touch +1, D: Sun +2, T: Ind]
e.g. Transformation of the crushing boulder MuTe 15
Transforms a boulder (up to 10 paces per side) into a stone so that it can be thrown at someone. If the stone hits a person with Parma - the spell effect is suppressed and the person takes damage from the boulder sized object.
[B: 4, R: Touch +1, D: Diameter +1, T: Ind, +1 size]
There are loads of these kinds of exploits when you think about them. I suggest we do not adopt a suppressing Parma - a blocking or resisting Parma prevents a whole swathe of exploits.
e.g. in the first case - the liquid would be blocked (perhaps spilling down the caster's chin). In the second under AM5 canon - the stone would simply bounce off the caster. In my suggested change, the caster would be hit with a small stone (because the caster had to make a Thrown attack roll to hit them) - but the stone does not change back into a boulder.
Re: Magic Resistance .. the debate so far. (long but importa
Fair enough so suppressive parmae are broken too, feck!
Is there a way round my previous conjured bonfire-chucking example?
Edited by: KillAllTremere at: 30/1/06 17:26
Re: Magic Resistance .. the debate so far. (long but importa
Quote:Ok, so what would happen if a magus conjured a big fecking hot fire in one place and then rego'd it at another magus?
Good question - first let's look at the spells involved.
Base individual for a fire is a large campfire (+5 damage). For a fire to burn naturally it must also have some fuel (otherwise it's effects are momentary and magical).
So ... you want a really big fire. Bonfire does +10 damage (size +1) .. on p181 it suggests that molten lead does +12 damage. To get an object to burn much more fiercely we need to set fire to a really big object.
So perhaps a House fire? You find a person next to a House and set fire to it.
Conjure the House of Flame CrIg 30
Base: 5 (ignite flammable things)
Range: Voice +2 (touch would be a silly idea!)
Duration: Momentary (we just want to get things burning)
Target: Structure +3
The damage associated with the intensity of the House fire is not listed, but the base effect is only 5 - so it's a bit disappointing +10 damage. That seems a bit low, but then molten lead is only +12 ... Let's be generous and make it +15 damage. Now we have to move the flames (before everyone runs away from it)
Leap of the Raging Flames ReIg 30
Base: 3 (Move it swiftly whilst burning naturally)
Range: Voice +2
Duration: Momentary
Target: Structure +3
+2 magnitudes because of the intensity of the flame (see p143)
Causes flames up to the intensity and size of a House fire to leap up to 10 paces in any direction where it catches if there is sufficient fuel. Make a targetting roll to hit, if successful the flames do +15 damage.
The problem for this strategy is the huge increase in size required to get a natural intensity of flames greater than +10 (in which Leap of Fire is overly generous).
This is a general weakness of all 'natural' objects - there is a basic limitation to the damage they can reasonably do.
A magical flame can easily be made to do +30 damage - to even approach that level of intensity with a natural fire - you'd need a volcano or something!
So - an exploit involving 2, 6th magnitude spells (and fairly limited circumstances when it could be used - also presumes the magus you are attacking is too stupid to use the round to move away from the fire more than 10 paces).
Oh ... and the magus concerned gets a defence roll! Pray they aren't quick on their feet or have a bodyguard with a shield.
Not much of an exploit really ...
Edited by: Badger101 at: 30/1/06 17:45
Re: Magic Resistance .. the debate so far. (long but importa
Serf's parma etc as I don't have my rulebook with me, but can you not just conjure a magical fecking hot fire and chuck that instead of a natural one? It doesn't have to be natural as you've got a targetting role with the rego...
Re: Magic Resistance .. the debate so far. (long but importa
Quote:Serf's parma etc as I don't have my rulebook with me
I don't really understand what you mean by this bit ...
Quote:can you not just conjure a magical fecking hot fire and chuck that instead of a natural one? It doesn't have to be natural as you've got a targetting role with the rego...
Ah - yes, ok. Under the AM5 canon - the House fire would have to be natural. However, under my suggested changes then that isn't the case - true. However, if you want to create and sustain and then move a huge magical fire - you'll still need to be shite hot at Ignem (pun intended).
Conjure the Intense Flame CrIg 40
Creates a fire (the size of a campfire) that burns with an intensity enough to cause +30 damage.
Base: 25 (+30 damage)
R: Voice +2 (again, touch isn't an option really)
D: Diameter +1 (Has to last at least one round)
T: Individual.
Throw the Intense Flame into the Face of the Enemy ReIg 30
Causes a flame of an intensity sufficient to cause +30 damage to leap up to 10 paces. A targetting roll is required - and the target can make a defence roll.
Base: 3
R: Voice +2
D: Momentary
T: Individual
+5 due to intensity of the flames involved
Ok - under my suggestions this exploit is more flexible (you don't need to conjure or be near a House), and does a lot more damage.
That's still an 8th Mag and a 6th Mag spell (and again the target gets a round to move 10 paces away from your fire - and gets a defence roll vs your perception + finesse).
However, I think this one is easy to stitch. The kinds of objects I've been referring to in the main thread have been 'naturally' occuring (but magically created ones) - e.g. swords, staves, wolves, etc.
A fire that does +30 damage is clearly an unnatural effect (short of falling into a volcano) - so we could probably shore up my suggestion by making it a troupe ruling whether any Cr or Manipulated object is still essentially a natural one.
In which case House fires are fine - as are wolves and swords. But +30 damage campfires, wolves which are 25' high and swords which have an edge sharper than any sword - are not.
Edited by: Badger101 at: 30/1/06 18:06
Re: Magic Resistance .. the debate so far. (long but importa
Quote:If a magically created or altered object has to roll to hit a target (e.g. a targetting roll or an attack roll) then it is treated as effectively a mundane object for the purposes of penetration.
So to avoid the kinds of exploits that Mike has raised ...
To qualify as a mundane object for the purposes of penetration - the object created must be within natural limits.
Some examples:
If you created a sword that matched the stats for a typical sword from the main rules - it could be treated as essentially a mundane object for the purposes of penetration. However, if you try and get around the Edge of Razor spell, by creating a sword that had an unnaturally sharp blade (+2 damage) - then the sword would have to penetrate Parma to do any damage.
If you create a bonfire then you could use leap of flames on it to burn someone - the bonfire is considered essentially a mundane object. However, if you create a bonfire that burns supernaturally hot (e.g. +30 damage), then the flames would have to penetrate Parma to cause damage.
If a Magus creates a typical wolf - then its attacks are considered essentially mundane. However, if the Magus conjures a wolf with supernatural strength and size (e.g. Size +0; Typically wolves have Size -1). Then it's attacks would be resisted.
If a person casts a strength spell raising a Grog's strength to a maximum of +5 - then their punches are not resisted. However, if somehow they were able to raise the grog's strength to +6, their punches could be resisted.
Mike - Nick; does that go some way to allieviate your concerns? Of course, the decision as to whether an object was 'typical of its kind' would be a troupe one.
This still means that people can conjure a typical sword and stick edge of razor on it - but that's already covered. The typical sword gets through Parma, but the razor effect is resisted (so the damage isn't boosted by +2).
Re: Magic Resistance .. the debate so far. (long but importa
If you are going to quote the "Berk list" at us, Nick, you need to learn about Serf's Parma as well. Google 4TW! On a more constructive note, how does the (c) option cope with Conjuration of the @#%$ Big Hole, which destroys a football field sized amount of earth from in front of the caster? A Qui+Ath roll won't save you.
Re: Magic Resistance .. the debate so far. (long but importa
Apologies for the spam, but I have been drinking. My meta-concern is that the rules for when a spell is, and is not, targetted are unclear.
Re: Magic Resistance .. the debate so far. (long but importaSo to avoid the kinds of exploits that Mike has raised ...
To qualify as a mundane object for the purposes of penetration - the object created must be within natural limits.
Sorry Nick, but I still think it leaves magi too vulnerable. If you try conjuring trees or fecking big rocks instead of fires then you can get a lethal projectile thats within natural limits that can be conjured by a starting magus that is not parma'd. e.g.
Conjuration of the Rather Large Rock CrTe 15
base +3, diam +1, size +2, touch +1 (based on Wall of Protecting Stone)
Creates a rock 5x5x4 paces large
Wielding the Invisible Trebuchet ReTe 15
base +4, size +2, touch +1 (based on Wielding the Invisible Sling spell)
I don't know what the damage would be, but realistically if you get hit by a rock that big with any reasonable momentum behind it then it's going to be nasty. Even if I've miscalculated by a magnitude or two the combination of spells is still very achievable for a relatively young magus.
I don't think it's the created things that cause the problems (I have no problem with magical animals needing to breach parma to bite a magus), it's more the muto aspect. Is there anyway we can use something like essential nature to get round this problem? Or will that lead us back down the equally broken suppressive parma route? Hmmm... Edited by: KillAllTremere at: 31/1/06 10:18
Re: Magic Resistance .. the debate so far. (long but importa
Sorry to be negative, but I'm also a bit confused as to where the latest fix leaves us wrt magically altered swords as there appear to be two apparently contradictory messages in your last post (or I may just be being dense ).
if you try and get around the Edge of Razor spell, by creating a sword that had an unnaturally sharp blade (+2 damage) - then the sword would have to penetrate Parma to do any damage.
Doesn't this still leave the pink dot problem? Pink steel (or some variant on the theme) isn't natural and thus parma works and blocks the sword.
This still means that people can conjure a typical sword and stick edge of razor on it - but that's already covered. The typical sword gets through Parma, but the razor effect is resisted (so the damage isn't boosted by +2).
Isn't this an example of a suppressive parma and thus badly broken as you pointed out previously?
I promise I am trying to think of a solution as well as picking holes in yours Edited by: KillAllTremere at: 31/1/06 10:36
Re: Magic Resistance .. the debate so far. (long but importa
Here are some thoughts I’ve had, to address some of your concerns so far.
“Wielding the Invisible Trebuchet” on a “fecking big rock”, would require more than a couple of levels above 3rd mag. The Unseen Porter can move objects as if it was a person with +5 strength, and at a slow pace no more than 6ft above the ground. Also by basing it on Wielding the Invisible Sling you would produce a none targeted spell; as the big fecking rock was targeting the individual and would thus automatically hit.
To create the kind of effect your really concerned about you would need something like this.
Dropping the Weighty Burden ReTe (40)
Lifts a +2 size rock into the air, the rock hovers twenty feet up and can be moved through the air at fast speed. The rock can be dropped at any time by stopping concentration. To hit an individual in such a fashion would require a targeting roll.
I would also argue that such an action would take more than one combat round to complete.
How would this spell hold up under the different rule options?
Looking at the Canon AM5 Rules
A magically conjured boulder would automatically be resisted because of its magical nature. However if you using “Dropping the weighty burden” to move a natural boulder, according to the Canon rules your manoeuvred boulder would require a targeting roll to hit its target and if that Targeting Role vs Defence roll failed the target would be hit with no parma defence. This has always been the case with previous versions of AM, however I’m aware it’s never come up in St (probably for good reason).
Proposed changes to option c)
My interpretation would be that you can now use a conjured rock instead of a natural one, thus cutting down the situational limitation of such spells; however the targeting rolls penetrating parma would apply the same. From my understanding a rock simply conjured in mid air would not be classified as natural and there for would be resisted by parma, as would an elephant . Edited by: SimpleSimon101 at: 31/1/06 13:13
Re: Magic Resistance .. the debate so far. (long but importa
What might help us reach a conclusion with MR, would be to clarify as a troupe what we want MR to do/effect then work backwards to reach that goal.
I’ll kick off
1.Stop exploits such as pink dotted swords.
2. Allow enchanted/conjured objects and creatures to affect a magus as a mundane item/individual would, while the enchantment/magical effect is required to penetrate parma as normal.
3. Stop Parma from potentially harming a Magus as in the poison turned to milk example.
4. Drop targeted spells being able to automatically penetrating parma. However spells covered under the aiming rules in canon AM5 should still apply; in my opinion such spells should be complex, situational, high magnitude, possibly take several rounds and be difficult to pull off. That would justify why most Magi try to penetrate MR rather than work a way around it.
That’s it off the top of my head
Edited by: SimpleSimon101 at: 31/1/06 13:30
One problematic example that immediately springs to mind is a punch from a magically strengthened magus with his own parma, but then that happens with the AM5 canon right?
Edited by: 
Edited by: 
Edited by: 
Edited by: 
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies