Thinking about Parma Magica
Reading and re-reading the Magic Resistance rules - I'm just becoming more and more confused about the intention of the new Parma. Some of the suggestions by the Authors redcap.org/FAQ seem positively strange compared to the way we've traditionally run the Parma.
As a troupe, wise as ye all be, can you help me with the following questions - then we can discuss if we want any house rules.
1. If I hit another magus with a sword with 'Edge of Razor' cast on it, is the whole sword resisted, or just the spell effect?
If the whole sword, then - If I cast 'edge of the razor' on my sword, can I still physically hold the sword without supressing my Parma?
If the whole sword, then - If I cast the following spell on a group of swords ..
Conjuration of the Pink Dot CrIm 10
Creates a pink dot on up to 10 swords within range.
[B: 1, R: Voice +2, D: Diameter +1, T: Group +2]
Would those swords now be unable to strike me, without penetrating my Parma?
3. Would a magically created wolf be able to bite a faerie with Might? Or a magically created sword be able to hit him?
If no, then - Can a shapeshifter (under a spell like curse) bite a Magus without penetrating magical resistance?
4. Would a magus putting a MuCo spell (e.g. eyes of the cat) on someone mean they are unable to still punch me without penetrating my Parma?
If so, then - Would a Magus with a Longevity Potion Ritual, be unable to touch another Magus without penetrating their Parma?
If so - then can a Faerie with a weak Might hit a magus?
Perhaps I'm simply making this more difficult than I have to - but what seemed at first very simple, has now got rather confusing. Is it just me?
Edited by: Badger101 at: 17/1/06 19:43
As discussed with Nick, I believe that the PM rules are the one area where we should depart from the standard AM5 book. The pink dot spell provides a good example of why, IMO, the rules as written are silly.
Instead, I favour something similar to (horrible phraseology approaching) "effects that do not penetrate, do not penetrate, but the mundane objects on which they have been cast still do." So a (low pen) magical sword might still fail to affect the target, but a (low pen) BoVF cast on a mundane sword would not result in the sword being blocked (though the BoVF would be). I would couple this with a common sense ruling that creatures with might scores can still interact physically with other entities with magical resistance. So, a faerie could still punch a Magus, but he would have to penetrate the PM to affect the target with his faerie song.
Re: Thinking about Parma Magica
I concur that the magic resistance rules as they stand in AM5 need some clarification as to how we will play them. I’ve read the Redcap faq and AM boards and see lots of contradictions, some of which Nick R has already highlighted.
We probably need more discourse to hammer things out. However if we do go for the rule, "Effects that do not penetrate, do not penetrate, but the mundane objects on which they have been cast still do." (which I like), does that mean that the conjured wolf with no penetration can harm the faerie with a might score? Can the dragon’s claws pass through the Magus’s parma ignoring their magic resistance? Or Mr’ Roses great question can a Magus ride a conjured horse if he’s got his parma up.
I like Nick’s suggestion as a starting point, I’m sure we’ll come up with sensible house rules that fit in the magic is an art not bound by science (or rules) camp.
On a closely related point, I’ve got a question about house rules for the following:
Upon rereading the rules concerning MR in depth, it’s clear that participants of magic combat have two options available to them, when trying to harm an opponent:
1. Using the penetration skill, arcane connections and low level spells to penetrate an opponent’s parma, thus causing him/her harm.
2. Alternatively a Magus can cast a spell that only indirectly affects a target. In this case, the target’s magic resistance is irrelevant, as the spell does not target her (AM5 pg.86 Aiming). These types of spells all require targeting roles (Finesse + Perception), unlike direct damaging/resistible spells which always hit their target.
Now I know Nick W is not keen on the second option available in the standard rules, in fact he gave me the following quote when I mentioned it to him some time ago. “No! You’ll have people Creo Animaling elephants over people’s heads and trying to crash them”. While a little dramatic (and technically resistible by parma due to them being magical elephants), I get the point and agree with him, I’d rather see the second option scrapped.
However if this option was removed are we saying a magus’s parma would protect a magus from the following instances, if it was not penetrated?
1. The Earth Split Asunder (Rego Terram) rips the earth open beneath the magus’s feet plunging him into a chasm, if there’s no penetration is the magus unharmed by the fall and the possible earth closing above his head?
2. Creo Herbam effect to create a wooden box around the Magus, are they trapped inside if there’s no penetration?
3. The old much debated on forums effect “destroying the air around a magus, so he can’t breathe”.
I’m not sure what the right answer is at the moment, but what ever we choose has to be better than the possibility of plummeting pachyderms from the sky, during full scale wizards war . Edited by: SimpleSimon101 at: 18/1/06 8:52
Re: Thinking about Parma Magica
I don't want to throw out or rewrite AM5 magical resistance - so here are some interpretations that could be argued within the current rules.
If a magically created 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.
Example:
If I use a big CrCo spell to increase my strength, then the resistance rules might suggest that the faerie can resist me if I try to punch it (though presumably not if I just hit it with a mundane sword using my increased strength?). Under this interpretation, the attack roll needed to punch the faerie would effectively be 'targetting' - and thus bypass magical resistance.
If I create a magical wolf, then it can bite a magus by virtue of making a successful attack roll.
A Magus can automatically overcome his Parma when he wants to physically interact with a magical object. Any spell effect associated with the object is resisted, however.
Example:
If I use CrTe to conjure a sword, then I can pick it up without my Parma Magica resisting it. However, for a magical sword with a touch range death spell; I'd be able to pick up the sword, but the 'death spell' effect would be resisted by my Parma.
If I create a magical wolf, then I can pat its head.
A separate spell effect placed on an object must penetrate magical resistance to have any effect.
Example:
If I cast blade of virulant flame on my magically created sword, then the sword will hit (if my attack is successful), but the flame spell (if resisted) causes no additional damage.
If I grant my conjured wolf 'teeth of iron' and it bites a faerie - then the bite attack will not be resisted, but the iron teeth effect must penetrate to cause any extra damage.
Edited by: Badger101 at: 22/1/06 16:21
Quote:“No! You’ll have people Creo Animaling elephants over people’s heads and trying to crash them”.
Conjure the falling elephant. CrAn 50
Creates an elephant (size +4) above the head of the target. A Perception + Finesse roll (contested by the target's defence roll) is required to place the elephant precisely (a botch indicates that the elephant appears over the caster's head). The elephant falls naturally, crushing the target, causing +18 damage (p181 - equivalent taken as being hit by a mature tree).
[B: 15, R: Voice +2, D: Diameter +1, T: Individual; +3 Size, +1 Elaborate effect (conjure in the air)]
I'd rather have a 10th magnitude exploit (conjure the falling elephant), than a 2nd magnitude one (conjuration of the pink dots)
Edited by: Badger101 at: 23/1/06 17:36
Re: Thinking about Parma Magica
I still haven't fully gone through the AM5 rules wrt parma but I think you may need to modify one of your suggested interpretations as, unless I'm misunderstanding the one cited below, presumably you'd want a magically created ball of flame that has to roll to hit a target to be parma'd...
If a magically created 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.
In the meantime I'll try and have a proper read through and think on it so I can hopefully suggest some solutions rather than just problems
Quote:I think you may need to modify one of your suggested interpretations as, unless I'm misunderstanding the one cited below, presumably you'd want a magically created ball of flame that has to roll to hit a target to be parma'd...
Mike, good to see you posting.
Actually in AM 5 the magically created ball of flame would automatically hit the target specified in the spell. Making it resisted by parma.
Check out page 86 under aiming. In summary it says that spells always hit their targets, however indirect effects may not reach their true targets, and must be aimed. Destroying the earth underneath a maga, so she falls to into a pit, would be indirect because it targets the earth and not the maga. A Creo Ignem spell would automatically hit the maga, because she is the direct target. There are several other examples of indirect spells on that page.
Nick
Quote:A Magus can automatically overcome his Parma when he wants to physically interact with a magical object. Any spell effect associated with the object is resisted, however.
That sounds good to me.
Quote:A separate spell effect placed on an object must penetrate magical resistance to have any effect.
Again a good solution. No chance of resistible pink spotted swords.
Quote:If a magically created 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.
I agree with this for the CrCo spell in the example, however I’m not a 100% sure that CrAn elephants over peoples heads would not need to penetrate due to the elephants being magical, however ReAn to drop a mundane elephant on someone’s head would not be resisted, but would require targetting. Then again if a lion with magic might can maul a maga through her parma then why not a conjured one? A fireball cast at a maga needs to penetrate parma, but if the same spell started a building burning and the maga was trapped inside, she wouldn't be protected by parma. My brains hurting now, an interpretation that perhaps requires futher clarification.
Edited by: SimpleSimon101 at: 23/1/06 12:12
Re: Thinking about Parma MagicaIf a magically created 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.
Magically created objects and animals are effectively 'indirect effects' because they do not automatically hit their target. Thus the attack roll is a 'sufficient check' on the power of these spells - and magical resistance can be ignored.
Yes, this is the most contentious when it comes to my suggested interpretations - as I want to use attack rolls as targetting rolls for the purpose of magical items and animals.
This would mean that a CrTe sword or a CrHe staff would not be resisted by Parma; as the attack roll is a 'sufficient check'. This means that magically created weapons would be useful against magi, fae, demons, etc. Targets would get defence rolls as normal to avoid the attack - in addition, Magi would use ReTe or ReHe spells to ward these attacks.
I would also like CrAn animals to be able to bite things, and CrCo or MuCo augmented people to be able to hit things with magical resistance - again, I'm suggesting that the attack roll is a 'sufficient check' on the power, without them being resisted as well. As well a defence roll, Magi would use ReAn or ReCo spells to ward these attacks.
Most elemental Creo as well as Me, Vi, and Im spells automatically hit their targets - thus no targetting or attack rolls are required. Magic Resistance would potentially block these and penetration totals would be needed.
There are occasions when even these Creo spells might not need a Parma check, but need a targetting roll instead. For instance - if you used CrIg to ignite straw under someone's feet, then the flames from that straw would not be blocked by Parma. A targetting roll would be required - remember this is contested by the target's defence. In addition ReIg, ReAu, etc spells can be used to ward these effects.
What's the benefit of this ruling?
Quote:No chance of resistible pink spotted swords.
Because then there is no doubt as to whether an entity can attack you. If they have to make an attack roll, then Parma is ignored.
For instance - under the AM5 resistance rules, if I cast "Purification of the Festering Wounds" upon someone, they cannot hit me without penetrating my Parma. I would say that, because they have to make an attack roll, this is a 'sufficient check' - and Magic Resistance can be ignored.
If I summon a wolf to protect me against a faerie, under AM5 rules the wolf has to penetrate its Might to hurt it. This renders magical animals (swords, etc) fairly useless against most supernatural creatures. Under my interpretation, the attack roll needed to hit the creature is a 'sufficient check' - and Magic Resistance can be ignored.
This prevents people using spells like the following ...
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.
[B: 3, R: Voice +2, D: Diameter +1, T: Individual]
... which can be used to render swords, animals, people, etc utterly unable to physically affect a magus.
This makes life difficult for a ref in terms of setting appropriate challenge ... if a 2nd magnitude exploit can render any beast, warrior, shapeshifter, sword, axe, staff, spear, etc unable to affect a magus.
A 10th magnitude exploit, however, like conjure the falling elephant can be easily checked. Few people will ever be able to cast it (let alone develop it), and it would be easy for the troupe to slap huge 'elaborate effect' modifiers to the level of the spell.
e.g. If I made conjuration of the falling elephant have an 'elaborate effect' modifier of +2, then the spell becomes lvl 55 and thus a ritual requiring 2 hours and 45 mins to cast ... unlikely anyone will exploit that loophole!
Edited by: Badger101 at: 23/1/06 18:00
Re: Thinking about Parma Magica
Hi Nick, those are good questions, and they’re likely to cause a few headaches at first glance.
Quote:Tangle of Wood and Thorns
Strike of the Angered Branch
Leap of the Fire
The above spells all require targeting rolls to successfully hit an individual that is not the original target of the spell (The original targets of the spells are a branch, a length of wood or a bonfire), Under AM5 rules the three spells would be resistible due to the three elements all being under the influence of magic when they hit PM or MM. However in Badger101’s interpretation they would not be resisted due to their targeting to hit requirement.
I’m in two minds regarding these spells; they’re all relatively low magnitude (LvL 10-15) and can reasonable damage (10+ for two and a very nice effect for “Tangle of Wood”). However they all need the required target in range to use them.
“Strike of the Angered Branch” has an attack score so can be defended against as you would in combat; Apart from requiring a handy bonfire, I would say that in most cases “Leap of Flame” would burnout after the first casting, so it’s a one shot wonder spell making it of questionable use. “Tangle of Wood and Thorns” is a very nice spell, lengths of wood are readily available (a staff comes to mind) and restraining a Faerie/Magus through magic resistance would be very useful; in its concentration duration I think it’s probably ok, however with a longer duration I might have to have a rethink. (NB notice the Muto requisite in the spell calculation, thats missing from the description)
My current feeling is that these spells should penetrate PM and MM, however like all things if the troupe feels a spell is overly abused we can make an alteration as a group.
Also from my understanding "Crest of the Earth Wave" would be full resistible in both rules sets however "The Earth Split Asunder" and "Creeping Chasm" would not be. Edited by: SimpleSimon101 at: 25/1/06 23:42
Possible Solution for Targeted Spells
I've had a thought regarding how to ensure that Targeted spells that circumvent PM/MM aren't overly unbalancing.
Spells that required targeting rolls, circumvent PM/MM as stated above. The target of the indirect spell is given a chance to evade the effect.
Wouldn’t that be more balancing? If a magus was to lift a rock above a Faeries head and drops it, shouldn't the pointy eared one get a chance to move out of the way?
Normal spells continue to always hit their mark and can not be evaded unless it's specifically stated in the spells description (an example would be “Crest of the Earth Wave”; where you get a dex roll to try and evade the wave). PM work’s as normal against these spells.
With target rolled spells you could use the targets defense score vs. the targeting score of the magus. If the effect hits, magic resistance is circumvented; if it misses the effect goes off but the target manages to evade.
In the above example if successfully evaded a Faerie could dodge a dropped rock, or raise his shield to protect himself (using the most appropriate description to explain the missed effect). However if the magus cast Pilum of Fire against the Faerie there would be no evading it and the Faerie would have to check MM vs. the spells Penetration.
I’m sure there are probably going to be examples of indirect spells that would be difficult/impossible to avoid, however this is the best way I can think of to balance the two types of spell that appear in the AM5 rules. It could be sleep deprivation but it also makes sense to me. Edited by: SimpleSimon101 at: 26/1/06 0:24
- Reasonable idea regarding defense rolls, but I still think that lack of MR is debilitating as (i) large/slow targets will not escape; and (ii) dodging requires a 12+ Conc roll to "return fire", which is quite tough.
- It does strike me as slightly odd that it is more effective (if a tad slower) to create a fire and then have it leap at a target than to shoot a Pilum of Fire directly at the victim.
Re: Thinking about Parma MagicaTangle of Wood and Thorns
Under the AM5 rules then if the wood was mundane, then no magic resistance roll would be made. The only difference with my interpretation is that if the wood had been created (with a CrHe spell) then it also would not be resisted.
With the thorns effect - if they were natural, then damage would occur. If they were magically created on a staff (Transformation of the Thorny Staff) then in AM5 the whole spell could be resisted. In my variation only the damaging effect would have to penetrate MR.
Strike of the Angered Branch
Again this is targetted, so in AM5 would not be resisted (unless the tree was magically created). In my variation, then again, it would not be resisted (even if the tree was created with a CrHe spell).
Leap of the Fire
This is targetted - so under AM5 it would not be resisted.
Crest of the Earth Wave
Under both AM5 and my interpretation - it is a direct damage spell which does not require targetting, so this could be blocked by Magical resistance.
Edited by: Badger101 at: 26/1/06 15:22
Re: Possible Solution for Targeted Spells Spells that required targeting rolls, circumvent PM/MM as stated above. The target of the indirect spell is given a chance to evade the effect.
I thought this was clear from my examples above. All targetting rolls are contested with defence rolls. So a skilled grog with a big shield will be able to bat them away.
This isn't a new interpretation, btw - this is as it stands in AM5 rules.
Reasonable idea regarding defense rolls, but I still think that lack of MR is debilitating as (i) large/slow targets will not escape; and (ii) dodging requires a 12+ Conc roll to "return fire", which is quite tough.
1) Depends on their defence roll. A large, though slow, grog with a good skill and decent shield will probably match most magi for Perception + Finesse. They get a shield bonus for a start.
2) True - so it is worth trying to keep an enemy magus busy with small indirect effects. Either that or punch a direct damage spell through their Parma.
A Pilum of Fire is great against a target with high defence - Leap of Flames is great against a magically resistant target (though likely slower).
So - you trade one against the other tactically.
Against mundanes with little defence - either is viable (though Pilum of Fire is likely to be quicker).
Against magically resistant targets with high defence - both are difficult.
That seems fairly balanced to me.
Edited by: Badger101 at: 26/1/06 15:14
Re: Possible Solution for Targeted Spells
This thread is getting very long - and two different issues are being conflated here. So I'm going to start a new thread with a summary of the issues (otherwise we'll start arguing in circles).
Edited by: 
My brains hurting now, an interpretation that perhaps requires futher clarification.
Edited by: 
Possible Solution for Targeted Spells 
Edited by: 
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies