Isn't that the Pink Dot loophole? Like, technically speaking you could make an extremely minor change to a weapon (i.e. adding a pink dot) and it would then have to pass magic resistance?
As a newbie myself I was curious about that so I looked up other responses elsewhere The general consensus to that I've read about is to just houserule the loophole away for weapons because otherwise it gets silly.
This message was last edited by the player at 16:43, Mon 05 Mar 2018.

I had thought it might be strange but then there is the spell Blunting the Iron's Bite (MoH pg. 50) which does just that, although its not a pink dot but halving the damage/attack advantage of the weapon.

Well, true there is that, but in terms of internal logic if you have to use a spell specifically to reduce a weapon's damage wouldn't it mean you can't just apply magic to a blade and have it face your Magic Resistance? Or that spell itself would do that in which case it's even more powerful...

Perhaps? I suppose the argument then becomes the inverse: if I used magic to improve a weapons damage/attack advantage would it ignore Magic Resistance? I would say that most would agree that would not be true. If so then the inverse should be held to the same standard.

That being said I'll probably just go with the house rule of closing that loophole.

As someone playing a magus who uses weapons, I don't see the problem with someone casting a spell on my weapon and it then being unable to hit them due to their magic resistance. Same thing happens if I cast a spell on my weapon to increase its damage and then needing to penetrate the target's magic resistance.

There is a reason the Leander plans on getting good at Perdo and Vim. He has plans to invent a R: Touch, T: Ind, version of Wind of Mundane Silence. Combine that with a few Unraveling the Fabric of (Form) spells with the Fast Casting mastery ability and he will be ready for some of these type of shenanigans.

A number of odd questions:

I have a magus with Short Range Magic and Minor Magical Focus (Self-Transformation).

If he enchants an item to shapechange the user, does his focus apply?
If he enchants an item with the ability to change its own shape, does his focus apply?

After he bonds a familiar, will his focus apply to an enchantment that changes his shape to match the familiar's?

If he enchants his talisman with the ability to transform into a giant bear, can it continue to function as his talisman while a bear? If the bear is killed, what happens to his talisman?

If he enchants his talisman with the ability to transform from its natural shield form into a bear skin cloak, can he still use the Shape and Material bonuses that no longer apply but are attuned? Can he now attune it as a Cloak as well as a Shield?

Obviously I've never played a Muto focused magus before. And never had one in the games I ran either.

I'll let someone more experienced than myself answer Shadowsmith's question. I am particularly interested in the answer as well for obvious reasons.

That aside has anyone played a magus with Unaging (Minor Supernatural Virtue, ArM5 pg. 50)? How did you balance this with other flaws and virtues? My thought is that you would need to have something like Faerie Blood or even Strong Faerie Blood to qualify but that's not all to uncommon for magi.

That seems to entire lack "self."


I wouldn't think so, but I see what you're thinking. You're letting the item transform itself. In my mind, the magus has the mMF, so it's the magus's self here. It's also one of the most powerful mMF available, only a little under the animal mMF, so I wouldn't think it needs any boost.


I would think so. It's still his own shape that is being changed.


Ugh. Well, killed is probably easier than hurt. I would look at the rules for damage to items in C&G. From there I would try to relate the wounds taken to the damaged/broken scale. I would think killed = broken.


People go different directions on this. Basically, it boils down to essential nature v. current form determining bonuses. I really dislike current form myself, as it opens up so many problems that I feel you have to start making lots of arbitrary rulings to contain it. I far prefer the essential nature route myself, which would mean the bonuses are always based on it being a shield.

I agree, but just wanted to check.


It doesn't need a boost, but this is getting into that fuzzy area that is found in Ars Magica. I could see some groups allowing it and others not. I know that some of you on this forum have a lot more 'official' knowledge than I do.


The only reason I'm not sure on this is that as an enchantment on the Familiar Bond, it is under the familiar's control, not his own.


Killed = Broken seems fair to me. There is a reason that such use would be rare at best.

Wounds being turned into damage to the talisman seems like an interesting way of handling this aspect.


I tend to agree with callen here. Essential nature should trump current form as far as magic is concerned. Except for Heartbeasts, a shapechanged human is still a human.

Was this the Mainau game? Set on a small island in Germany? We found some red flowers that contained vis.

I was playing Chrysaetos of Bjornaer in that game. My wonderful lightning casting eagle. I fried a couple of chain mail wearing attackers and the game died mid combat. I still really want another chance to play him.

New Topic Question

Do you think its possible to run a game, restricting the players to a single House, for example an all Tremere Covenant? Do you think there would be enough diversity between characters?

Absolutely ... and creates focus and unity.

As I'm doing just that, I would say yes. But I was careful to choose a house that wouldn't pigeon-hole characters.

For me, pigeon-holing is fine, so long as its all 'up front', and the players get the chance to agree, or walk.

Creating a focused group creates unity and direction immediately; which often has be be worked on at the beginning of other games, and can cause friction and lack of cohesion ... which either takes time to rectify, or can even kill the game.

In reply to Galley Slave (msg # 104):

My worry with pigeon-holing is about preserving player niches. For example, if everyone's a Pharmacopean, it gets really hard to make characters significantly different than each other. Yes, that is a very narrow example, but I find some of the houses force things in that kind of direction. Others provide a lot more flexibility.

Yes, I like the unity and direction part of it a lot. It can make a lot of sense, too, such as with Tremere magi.

I find the unity and directions important, especially here online.
If one role-plays table top with friends, everyone already knows each other; knows their friends' styles etc.   And friends tend to co-operate from the beginning more readily than individuals who (not only) don't know each other, but aren't even face to face ... and we all know how different f2f is compared to anonymous online posting.

A clear cut focus group and scenario can make a lot of difference for me.

In fact, in many games, I give character generation benefits to a player for 'each other PC of your House/clan/mindset', as a way of incentive.

A single House saga would probably be quite fun. You would get to dive into the internal politics of the House more and if it is a Mystery House, explore multiple aspects of the Inner Mysteries.

Some Houses, especially Ex Miscellanea, offer a wide range of options. But even with the focused Houses, such as Tremere, there is still plenty of room to personalize your magi.

But as Galley Slave mentioned, make sure the players on on-board with the concept.

This is what I'm thinking about,


link to a message in another game

It looks good to me. I've been wanting to play a Spring Covenant for a while now. Are you accepting RTJ's yet?

For the people here yeah, I have a little more organization to do to it.

I find your setup interesting, I sent you an RTJ, but I have no idea what kind of Tremere magus I would play. I would like to work with the group to make sure we have a range of talents and will make a good group.

Perhaps not the place to discuss but I just got accepted. Decided to focus on the  Scout specialization. Looking to continuing expanding my Animals spells since I have Inoffensive to Animals, Affinity, and Animal Ken.

Thruxus I think your game looks very exciting! I like the idea of all of the characters being from the same house because you can get the full flavor of that house without having to play favorites within the group.

Waves at people.

Waves back at Lamech.

Welcome to the community. I'm always happy to see more people involved in Ars Magica.