Project: Redcap - User contributions [en]

Magic Resistance Design

2014-01-18T14:29:09Z

Uriel222: /* Possible Fixes for the Pink Dot Loophole */ fixed typo

The details of Magic Resistance work differently in [[Fifth Edition]] than in previous versions of the game. Under Fifth Edition rules, it is much easier (compared to previous editions) to decide whether a given effect would or would not be subject to Magic Resistance. The Fifth Edition rules are not without their [[#Pink_Dot | problems]], though. This section explains the rationale for why the rules are what they are, and offers some suggested ways to deal with their shortcomings.

== Magic Resistance in ArM5 ==

See the [[Magic Resistance]] page for a description of exactly how Magic Resistance [[Magic Resistance#HowItWorks | works]] in [[Fifth Edition]].

== Why Magic Resistance Doesn't Dispel Magic ==

<blockquote>
A few of [the effects of [[Magic Resistance]]] are a bit odd. (Never mind ''Edge of the Razor'', try ''Edge of the Spoon'', a MuTe effect that gives weapons -1 to damage, by blunting them, and still makes them bounce off [[Parma]].) However, all the principles I could think of had odd effects, and the odd effects of this one seemed the least serious -- the odd effects of most of the others opened large holes in Magic Resistance. You can always House Rule around them, but given the interminable debates magic resistance provoked [in Fourth Edition], I decided to go with something simple.
 
The fundamental problem is that RPers D&D shaped instincts make no sense. Why on earth shouldn't magical weapons be resisted? They're magical effects. A set of rules that said 'magic resistance resists whatever you think it should in order to preserve game balance' would not have been much use...
 
''--David Chart, Berkeley Ars Magica List, 26 Nov. 2004''
</blockquote>

[[Magic Resistance]] in [[ArM5]] does not create a kind of anti-magic zone around the magus. That approach leads leads to serious problems. If Magic Resistance dispelled magic (even temporarily), a magus could transform a huge boulder into a pebble and throw it an opponent. The spell on the boulder would stop functioning when the boulder hit his opponent, and would turn back into a boulder! As another example, a magus could take something deadly, like poison, and transform it into something harmless, like wine. Then he could give another magus a glass of wine. If Magic Resistance could dispel magical effects, then the wine would turn back into poison and kill the other magus (unless it penetrated his resistance, in which case it would remain water until the spell wore off).

In short, a model of Magic Resistance that dispels magic is deeply flawed. There would be many ways to turn it against its possessor.

== The Pink Dot Loophole ==

On the other hand, since Magic Resistance keeps out all kinds of magical things, a magus can abuse his own magic resistance to get protection from mundane attacks. This has come to be called the Pink Dot Loophole.

Because Magic Resistance keeps out magical things, a magus can defend himself by casting a harmless spell on his opponent's weapon. The enchanted weapon would be repelled by Magic Resistance according to the [[RAW | rules as written]]. The standard example of such a spell is a [[Muto]] [[Imaginem]] effect that makes a tiny pink dot appear on the blade.

Any general Magic Resistance system is going to run into problems like this. The question is what problems are players and storyguides willing to accept. In ArM5, the second problem ("parma blocks pink dot") was considered less serious than the first problem ("parma can kill you"). There also seems to have been a strong desire to make a system that is simple and consistent so players can understand it and use it without major problems.

Note: If you read the rules as is, Imaginem wouldn't do this. As the whole object doesn't 'become' magical, the visualization of it would, so your magi would only be protected against the objects 'pinkness', since the sword is not being propelled, moved or created from magic.

=== No One Likes the Pink Dot Loophole ===

Not everyone is happy with the implications of the rules as they are written, but then, no one has come up with an alternative system that pleases everybody, either. People are welcome to try to "fix" perceived problems in the Magic Resistance rules for their own sagas.

<blockquote>
There is nothing wrong with playing with a vague, fudged version of what Magic Resistance stops in your sagas, if you don't like the effects of the rules as written. Actually, it's positively a good idea; this is your game, play it in a way you like. But you'll find that you do have to fudge, or people will invent the ''Tree of Dragon Slaying'' spell: MuHe a mature oak tree into an arrow, and fire it at a dragon. [If magic resistance dispells the magic, t]he mundane tree gets through, and being hit by an oak tree doing over a hundred feet per second would hurt even the toughest dragon...
 
''--David Chart, Berkeley Ars Magica List, 27 Nov. 2004''
</blockquote>

<blockquote>Neither do I. On balance, though, I like the alternatives less.</blockquote>

=== Possible Fixes for the Pink Dot Loophole ===

A number of possible fixes for the Pink Dot Loophole have been proposed. All of these (except the first) would be considered [[House Rule | House Rules]].

* You could simply ask everyone in the Troupe to agree not to exploit the loophole. Doing so may be intellectually unsatisfying, but it does allow you to get on with the game. [[Erik Tyrell]]'s suggestion from the official Ars Magica [http://www.atlas-games.com/forum/viewforum.php message board].
* Change Parma Magica so it doesn't protect a magus against his own spells. There are two consequences to this. First, the Pink Dot Loophole is made harder to exploit but it is not completely eliminated: two magi working together could still make one another invulnerable to weapons. Second, a magus will not need to lower his Parma to cast beneficial spells on himself, so this could be seen as increasing the power of a magus.
* Rule that Parma Magica only protects against effects that target the magus or include the magus in the target area. Magic swords would then slide right through Parma, but so would a lot of other things. In particular, under this variant, magic resistance would no longer offer any protection against nonmagical water magically transformed into poison. It would open a lot of vulnerabilities in magic resistance, allowing it to be bypassed by clever (read, devious) players.
* Make some kind of "intelligent Parma" rule that magic resistance can distinguish between effects that are potentially harmful and those that aren't. This also makes it easy to cast spells on yourself and it also calls for a lot of rulings by the troupe on what exactly can be resisted and what can't - the very situation the Fifth Edition rules seem designed to prevent.

== Hedge Wizards and Magic Resistance ==

In [[ArM5]], the only general-purpose Magic Resistance available to humans is [[Parma Magica]]. That means only [[Hermetic Magus|Hermetic Magi]] have magic resistance. [[Hedge Wizard]]s don't. [[David Chart]] explained the reasons for this:

<blockquote>
Given that we are talking about game design, a meta-game reason is sufficient. After all, why are fermions subject to the exclusion principle, apart from the meta-game reason that it allows solid bodies to exist?
 
Ars Magica is a game about Hermetic magi. They are, and should remain, the focus. However, other traditions of magic are fun, and people like them. Thus, I wanted to create some space for them.
 
One possibility, that seems to have a number of supporters [on the [[Mailing Lists#BerkList|BerkList]] ], is that Hermetic magic is wonderfully general, but that hedge traditions are more powerful in their specialities. I don't think this option is viable.
 
Why? Because people only play one magus-type character (in general), and very, very few people want to play pure generalists. If you want to play a particular kind of specialist, which will you pick: the Hermetic, who could , in principle, learn to do things in which you have no interest, or the hedgie, who is better at what you want to do?
 
Of course, if Hermetic magic is just better in every respect than every other tradition, no-one will really want to play the hedgies, either, so that's not much fun either.
 
The path I'm taking is this. Hermetic magic is the most powerful form of magic available to humans. It is the most flexible, and while other traditions might match it in raw power, in a limited area, nothing obviously exceeds it. However, there are things that Hermetic magic cannot do; the limits of magic. Some hedge traditions will be able to break one of these limits.
 
However, to be fair, there should be something that only Hermetic magic can do. That something is general magic resistance. It's probably the most useful unique power, which is right, since Hermetic magic is supposed to be the best. If you like, the 'limits of magic' are those listed in ArM5, plus 'The Limit of Magic Resistance'. Major traditions break one limit each; Hermetic magic breaks the limit of magic resistance.
 
Now, a specialised tradition will have defences that work against specific magic. It might even have something like Form resistance, against a limited range of magic. But if a Hermetic magus goes outside that range, the other tradition has no defence.
 
Not having general magic resistance is a major weakness. Giving it to all hedge traditions gives us more flexibility to make their active powers interesting without risking making them more attractive, in raw power terms, than Hermetics.
 
If magical and faerie creatures can grant general resistance, then traditions that work by summoning and binding, or bargaining, would logically have it. Ruling out traditions that summon and bind creatures does much greater violence to my sense of the fitness of things than disallowing the power to magical and faerie creatures. Hence, in order to allow spirit masters, Titania can't grant general magic resistance.
 
Pure meta-game considerations. The in-game justification is 'Magic and Faerie don't work like that'. They are, after all, realms of power with no real-world, or even, to be honest, real-myth equivalent.
 
''--David Chart, Berkeley Ars Magica List, 10 Jan. 2005''
</blockquote>

== Legacy Page ==
The history of this page before August 6, 2010 is archived at [[Legacy:magic_resistance_design]]

Permanent Effects

2014-01-18T14:24:05Z

Uriel222: /* Rituals */ fixed typo

In the basic [[Fifth Edition]] rules, the [[Permanent Duration]] does not exist. there are two ways to get a permanent magical effect, and a third way to create long-lasting effects that approximate permanency.

== Enchanted Devices ==

First, just about any effect can be made permanent via an [[Enchanted Device]]. One way to do this is to make a "constant effect device" as explained in the sidebar on p. 99. For instance, to turn someone permanently into a frog, you could make an enchanted device that attaches to the victim, say a collar or cloak, with a constant effect. Then design the effect so it can only be activated or deactivated by you ("Effect Use", p. 99) and build in a [[Requisite]] so the item changes along with the wearer, becoming part of the animal form. Then, if you manage to get someone to put on the item (and it penetrates his [[Magic Resistance]]), poof! he's a frog, he cannot voluntarily change back, the item can't fall off, and the effect does not expire. Of course, you had to spend one or more seasons in the lab to make the item, which is a big investment just to turn one person into a frog. Also, the item would cause [[Warping]] as a continuous effect (p. 167).

== Rituals ==

The other way to get a permanent effect is with a [[Momentary Duration]] [[Creo]] [[Ritual]] as explained on p. 112. Some people are a bit confused by this, so here is re-phrased explanation. Normally a [[Momentary Duration]] spell happens and then is gone: if you conjure an apple with Momentary duration, an apple flickers into existence and then the spell wears off and it flickers back out. As a special exception, if you use a Ritual, then the apple would become real and non-magical during that moment, and it would act like a non-magical apple when the Momentary duration wore off. Non-magical apples keep existing, so the apple would be "permanent" and indeed it could not be dispelled.

== Ring Duration ==

The [[Ring Duration]] can create long-lasting effects with no pre-determined expiration date. If the ring is graven into a durable material such as stone or metal, the spell will last indefinitely until the contents of the Ring are moved.

== Other Permanent Effects ==

[[TMRE|The Mysteries: Revised Edition]] includes some new options for magi who've been Initiated into certain mysteries, including a way to create permanent effects.

=== Legacy Page ===
The history of this page before August 6, 2010 is archived at [[Legacy:permanent_effects]]

Latin

2014-01-18T14:20:45Z

Uriel222: Added link to Google Translate

'''Latin''' is the primary language of the [[Order of Hermes]]. Most magi use it as a spoken language among themselves, and also to write [[Lab Text | Lab Texts]] and other [[Books]].

Latin is also the language of the [[Church]] and of educated Europeans generally.

In Eastern Europe, [[Greek]] typically fills a similar role. Magi in the [[Thebes Tribunal]] may or may not learn Latin as a secondary language with which to communicate with foreign magi.

== Latin Primer for Ars Magica Players ==
There are several good English-Latin dictionaries online. For example, you might try [http://cawley.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookdown.pl http://cawley.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookdown.pl]. The information you find there or in any Latin dictionary is useful, but you can be even more accurate by learning a bit about Latin grammar. If you're looking to say something in Latin, chances are it's a name for a character or a covenant or something like that, for which a little summary of Latin grammar should be very helpful. If you want to translate your covenant charter into Latin, that's a little too ambitious for this FAQ.

Here's two common Ars Magica words as they might be presented in a Latin dictionary:

aqua -ae f. [water]
magus -i m. [magician]

Latin nouns have several different cases. Case describes the purpose of the noun within the sentence. The first case is called the nominative, which is the case you would use if you want to name something, like a magus or a covenant, or if you wanted to define the subject of a sentence. These are likely to be the most common words you'll want to look up, and conveniently, this is the word presented by a dictionary entry.

Latin doesn't have articles, like "a" or "the," so they can be applied as desired. "Magus" means "magician," "the magician," or "a magician," and it is up to the reader to determine the meaning based on context.

In the dictionary listing, after the nominative, you will find a suffix which tells us how to form the second case, which is called the genitive. The genitive is used to indicate origin or possession, and can be roughly translated as "of (word)." For example, "magus aquae" could be translated as "magician of the water." The order of the words doesn't matter; you could say "aquae magus" and mean the same thing, the emphasis would just be more on the water than the magus, something like "the water's magician."

You might question why we are using "aqua" instead of "aquam." Doesn't "aquam" mean "water" in Ars Magica? It does, but it is a different case of "water," called the accusative. This is because "aquam" is used as the direct object of a verb, such as "creo." Since "creo" means "I create," "aquam" is the thing created. If you're interested in writing complete sentences, you'll need to learn a bit on your own about the additional cases.

The suffix following the nominative in the dictionary entry also tells us the word's declension, which describes how the word is conjugated. This is how we know what suffixes to use when making other cases, including the plural. There are five declensions in Latin, which conjugate by five different sets of rules. Some even have multiple rules, either because of irregular nouns, or based on the word's gender. The gender follows the suffix, and is either female, male or neuter. Here is a list of the most common conjugations, based on gender.

{|
! Decl. (gender) !! nom. !! nom. plural !! gen. !! gen. plural
|-
|1 (f) ||-a ||-ae ||-ae ||-arum
|-
|2 (m) ||-us/-r ||-i ||-i ||-orum
|-
|2 (n) ||-um ||-a ||-i ||-orum
|-
|3 (fm) || * ||-es ||-is ||-um
|-
|3 (n) || * ||-a/-es ||-is ||-um
|-
|4 (fm) ||-us ||-us ||-us |-uum
|-
|4 (n) ||-u ||-ua ||-us ||-uum
|-
|5 (fm) ||-es ||-es ||-ei |-erum
|}

Third-declension nominatives can end with pretty much anything. Therefore, this is a good declension to use if you want to "Latinize" a word that isn't clearly Latin, or which doesn't easily fit into any of the other declensions. For example, the genitive for "Bjornaer" could be "Bjornaeris," and "Tremere" might become "Tremeris."

Thus, following these rules, "ferrum, -i, n." would conjugate "ferrum/ferra" in the nominative, singular and plural, and "ferri/ferrorum" in the genitive. "Mater, matris, f." ("mother") would be "mater/matres" and "matris/matrum." "Dies, -ei, m." would be "dies/dies" and "diei/dierum." With our expanded vocabulary, we could now say "ferra aquarum," meaning "iron of the waters," and "Matris Dies," "Mother's Day."

Adjectives look a little different. Adjectives always modify a noun, and they have to match the noun in case, gender and number. Therefore, in a dictionary, an adjective is listed in the masculine nominative case, followed by the feminine suffix, and neuter suffix. Here is an example:

magnus -a -um [great]

If you wanted to refer in Latin to a "great magician," you would say "magus magnus." "Great magicians," plural, would be "magi magni." Using the genitive, "Magician of the Great Waters" would be "Magus Aquae Magnae." Adjectives have several declensions as well, but you can usually just match the noun. There are some irregular adjectives, but they should be indicated for you in the dictionary entry. The declensions for adjectives go as follows:

{|
! Decl. (gender) !! nom. !! nom. plural !! gen. !! gen. plural
|-
|1, 2 ||-us/-a/-um ||-i/-ae/-a ||-i/-ae/-i ||-orum/-arum/-orum
|-
|3 ||-er/-is/-e ||-es/-es/-ia ||-is ||-ium
|}

Latin verbs, unlike English verbs, do not require a pronoun ("I," "you," "he," etc.). Rather, the pronoun is part of the verb's conjugation. For example, "Creo" means "I create." Likewise, "Creas," means "You create," and "Creat," means "he creates." You can use nouns with the verb; if you say "Magus creat," it means "The magus creates." Nouns do not necessarily precede the verb, though, so "creat magus" does not mean "He creates the magus." (That's where you get into accusatives again.)

Verbs are listed with at least two parts, like so:

amo -are [to love]

The first word is in the first-person active present ("I love"), ending in -o. The second is the infinitive, the word from which you can determine the ending for the other cases. By dropping the "re" and adding -or, -s/-ris or -t/-nt, you can conjugate most verbs in the present tense. Past and future tenses require a bit more study.

This summary should help you recognize and correctly use the words that a Latin-English dictionary will provide you. May you find and use many "boni verbi" in your future games.

== Google Translate ==
While far from perfect, [http://translate.google.com/#en/la/ Google Translate] does a passable translate of simple sentences (and a great approximation of the ''bad'' Latin common among priests of the time). Just don't trust it if you're using it for anything where accuracy is important.

== See also ==
* [file:Latin_For_Beginners.pdf|Latin for beginners]

=== Legacy Page ===
The history of this page before August 6, 2010 is archived at [[Legacy:latin]]

[[Category:FAQ]]