Topic: Spell Signature

[RandalThor]

First, maybe this should be broken off into it's own thread.

That's why the Dabbler doesn't work. Not because the profession concept doesn't work, but because magical forensics (which is a big part of the profession concept) isn't a fully defined concept in itself. The magical forensics part of the foundation for the house of Dabbler is quicksand, if that makes sense.

I don't agree. (Though, one could point out that the game and these professions were created in the early days of forensics, so it is understandable that they (the designers) couldn't bring in such concepts/information fully.) Now, I can see saying that mundane devices (like Geiger counters) cannot detect magic, maybe just the after effects. (Like the dead burning dude on the ground.) But, even the after effects would leave certain amount of information, even if it is just that this magical fire (which they couldn't detect at all) was hotter and did more damage that the one they investigated yesterday. They may even be able to determine the exact temperature the magical fire emulated in order to cause the damage they are seeing.:

That being said, the way the magic system is devised (and sort of has to be a system), I believe the following point to a more mundane/scientific friendly magic

First of all, the game designers at ICE color coded the different magics. I can only imagine it was so that when you used many of the detect spells, you could tell the difference between the different types. (Channeling, Essence, & Mentalism.) I think the "color" is like a flavor or taste, or fingerprint. (Though, not as specific, more like it tells you the species as apposed to the individual.)

Second, you have the various different detect spells, and counter-spells out there. To me that says there is something quantifiable to detect and/or counter-spell, you sort of need to know a bit about what you are dealing with to counter-spell, at least. (Yes, the detect spells are there to give that information, but they are giving you some sort of quantifiable information about the spell at at hand.)

Third, and maybe the biggest reason, magic can be taught. If it as so completely unknowable, one person could not teach another person how to do magic. The only thing they could say was, "You must figure it out on your own how the magic works for you, I cannot teach you." The fact that there are individual spells, like Firebolt and Shield, that do the same thing for each caster that uses them. (Barring the minor changes due to level and using spell manipulation.)

I just thought of a fourth that may actually be the biggest reason: it was and is still being developed by humanoid beings that are either humans, or very close to being human in mental capacity/methodology that it really couldn't be so chaotic and unknowable that each individual does it in a completely unique way, that is completely inscrutable to others. Which means that the same mental processes that developed forensics in a mundane world, would do so in a magical one. (IMOB - for Belief.)

[GrumpyOldFart]

Exactly. Magic is teachable, therefore it is quantifiable, at least to a degree. Magic generates predictable results that can be modeled, therefore it is quantifiable, at least to a degree.

To whatever extent a magical source produces different results than a similar mundane source (eg things affected by magical fire but not affected by mundane fire), someone with an extensive knowledge of forensic techniques and the proper data gathering tools can find trace evidence that illustrates those differences.

Spells apparently have a "signature", each caster/spell combination is unique, such that it's possible for a skilled enough observer to be able to tell the difference between one spell and another, the same spell scaled or "Mastered" different ways, and the same spell cast by different spell users. Stipulating that, one could even suppose that there is an observable difference in the same spell cast two different times by the same caster.

True, most systems limit such fine detection to other magical techniques. Nor am I saying magic has to conform to the rules of science. I'm saying that "on the target end" if you will, magic interacts with the real world, a person, place or thing, and leaves real world traces. After the spell is done, that trace evidence is subject to the same rules as the rest of reality, and as much can be told by what isn't there as by what is. An easy and obvious example of this last is the fireball blast radius, that not only gives an investigator clues to temperature and concussion (blast wave), but also shows the lack of a conventional, mundane fuel source/oxidizer.

See what I mean? Magic doesn't have to conform to science... but the real world results on the target end pretty much have to, or else 1) forensics doesn't work on magic and 2) your magic subtly undermines the "realness" of your mundane setting.

First, maybe this should be broken off into it's own thread.

I agree, the magical forensics discussion has wandered rather far from the point of the undead discussion.

[GrumpyOldFart]

Spells apparently have a "signature"...

In many games at least, among them many ICE products.

[yammahoper]

In GURPS no one can learn magic unless they purchase the talent.  Even then there are talents that define just how talented the ability is.  In RM, this would be simular to limiting spell list to levl 10, or 20, 0r 25, etc, depending on the talant purchased.

RM represents this by Stat minimums, which I still enforce.  No one with a prime realm stat below 90 can learn spells from that realm.  imo, simply because a profesion has an assigned dp cost to learn magic doesnt mean the INDIVIDUAL PC can.

Taking a note from Tunnels and Trolls, archmages require a 96 in all prime stats.  I've never increased stt requiremnets for hybrids though I considered it.

To keep magic out of the realm of science, such approaches are necessary.  Magic can be an extention of the mystical, the spiritual, the force, even mana, and the ability to tap into that power is a unique talent, amixture of insight, spiritualism, intellect.

This approach still allws for schools and the like.  One game setting I created had special Vonnicutt like police/priest that sought the gifted and forcefully recruited them for the empire, not an uncommon theme (aise sedai, jedi, etc).

The practitioners of the craft become their own forensics experts as only they can understand the workings of the force/magic/etc.  Of course a King may demand objects be construed that could detect potential masters of the craft, maybe to prevent a prophcy come to pass, or just to swell his armies power.  In mechanics this would be a magic device that detects stat potentials, glowing a diffent hue and shade depending on the actual potential versus temp stat, providing important insight on the students current capacity versus potential.

Science or mystical, either way works.  I prefer the mystical, but if my players felt otherwise (and they have) I'm willing to run with the other.  Both can be the foundation for a quality game.

[markc]

  Sorry for the move topic fu as I messed up the name of the topic and then had to do some stuff to rename the topic and place it back in the right place.
MDC

[providence13]

I like the idea of spell signatures. Especially if you want to hide your signature or emulate the magic signature of another caster.

[Ynglaur]

I prefer to keep magic as a skill, plain and simple.  No prerequisites other than DP.  Of course, if your EM stat is low, then you won't be as capable: fewer PP, no bonus to SCSM rolls, no bonus to BAR, etc.  Basically, the same penalties a magician faces when trying to use a greatsword.  The thing I like about Rolemaster as written--especially RMSS/RMFRP--is there are very few things that "cannot" be done.  "Inadvisable", "unlikely", and "foolish", perhaps, but rarely "cannot."

Part of this comes to how you see magic in your world, of course.  If it's an innate ability, then by all means restrictions make sense.  My personal preference is that there is some "science" to it, in that if someone does x, y, and z, then results a, b, and c occur.  Most of the time: open-ended rolls make for strange events at times.  However, like many arts in the ancient world, practitioners of magic are secretive about their craft, and it generally needs to be taught.  Just as blacksmithing couldn't be self-taught even with ready tools at hand, so to is magic.  (Open-ended high research rolls aside...).

[RandalThor]

In GURPS no one can learn magic unless they purchase the talent.  Even then there are talents that define just how talented the ability is.  In RM, this would be simular to limiting spell list to levl 10, or 20, 0r 25, etc, depending on the talant purchased.

To keep magic out of the realm of science, such approaches are necessary.  Magic can be an extention of the mystical, the spiritual, the force, even mana, and the ability to tap into that power is a unique talent, amixture of insight, spiritualism, intellect.

But it is neither of those things in RM. All you have to do is take the time to learn (and, I would say, find a teacher willing to teach you).

Also, the 90 prime are just for being that profession, not for being able to learn to cast spells. If you had to be a particular spellcasting profession in order to cast spells, then all of the pure-arms professions would not have any spell list costs, as well as be unable to develop power points. But, they do, so they can - even without a 90 in the spellcasting stats of the particular type of magic.

Anyway, just by making it a talent (which I kind of like), or requiring a high attribute in order to learn and perform magic does not mean it will be kept out of the realm of science. Heck, you can almost say the same for our modern, mundane high sciences (quantum mechanics, very high-order math and the like). If you don't have the "knack" and intellect you are generally left back in the basics of science.

that sought the gifted and forcefully recruited them for the empire, not an uncommon theme (aise sedai, etc).

Whoaah, there! Hold on a minute. The Aes Sedai did not go around and "forcedly" recruit, in fact it was not even considered illegal (by the Aes Sedai, some nations did) to even use the One Power (by women, and now by men). What you couldn't do is pretend to be an Aes Sedai, that they seriously frowned upon and generally went about punishing the person so severely (no/not much physical punishment, but more psychological) that they would never impersonate anyone ever again, much less an Aes Sedai. 

[markc]

IMHO you can very easily require a Talent to buy any profession besides a Pure Arms profession in RM.
MDC

[RandalThor]

IMHO you can very easily require a Talent to buy any profession besides a Pure Arms profession in RM.
MDC

Which is something I do kind of like that other games do.

I get why all the games have their magic systems the way they do: so that we, the players & GMs, can understand and use them. But that is also a point in the favor that the magic systems would be somewhat organized and categorical, so that the people of the world that uses it would use it much like we do science. Provided they could at all; I mean, if there is no magical detection abilities then there could be no magical forensics. But, as there are a plethora of detection spells, down to investigating auras of beings & things, I believe that magical forensics is a sound idea in the rolemaster rules system.

Anyone want to stat up the Mage Detective? I say he is a semi-spell user (of whatever realm, depending upon this job/origin), that combines arms, stealth, & magic detective lists. Sort of like a rogue/mage, I think.

[Cormac Doyle]

I wrote one ages ago

the problem is that like Seer or Astrologer types ... a "mage detective" comes down to

GM sets up a murder mystery designed to span 4 or 5 sessions with plot twists, red herrings and the like ...

the magic detective starts play

"I cast end the session"

Kinda a buzz-kill.

Check out the Sleuth profession in the Guild Companion Magazine
http://www.guildcompanion.com/scrolls/2000/nov/sleuth.html

If I was doing the profession now, I might change a few things ...

[markc]

  Mage Detective might also be Arcane Mage Hunter with a TP with magical detection spells and other associated skills.
MDC

[GrumpyOldFart]

Yes, but the "magical forensics" line of argument should be able to work in the opposite direction as well, by applying non-magical skills to magical effects. For example, weapons are subject to a damage caps or maxima in most systems. Someone who is skilled in reading the extent of force transfer in the area that took the blow (say, a shoulder) should be able to tell you with fair certainty the damage cap of the weapon that struck the blow, right? There's a difference in the wounds inflicted by a ball peen hammer and a 1 ton "pig" of lead, or an 8' x 16' sheet of steel, and the coroner will note those differences.

Shouldn't they be able to tell you with the same certainty, for the same reasons, the damage cap of the impact critical from the spell that struck the blow?

So just from that, you allow a non-magical investigator to have a good educated guess at both the nature of a given spell and the nature of the scaling, solely by the real world effects it leaves.

Where the problem arises is that magical detection may potentially allow for the detection of an individual caster (that guy, not this guy), information as to him personally (this was cast by an 8th level mage), etc. Fine and good so far as it goes, but how that affects the clues the non-magical investigator finds is left unstated and undefined.

Nor am I saying there has to be a trace (no, this guy casts square waterbolts, that guy casts round ones) for the forensic investigator to find and read. I'm saying such things need to be decided before the investigator reaches the site of his/her investigation. As noted above in the fireball example, the absence of data is as significant as its presence, nor does a change in magical nature (100' extra range scaling) have to translate to an effect readable by both magical and mundane means.

[markc]

  IMHO you should be able to have a guess as to the damage capable of a spell if you know the spell. But also if spells can be augmented by other spells to increase there damage you would also have to take that into account.
  IMHO it would be much tougher to see a wound and say ok it came from this spell. Yes, some would would be easier to guess at then others but you would still have a list of possibilities to chose from. Then you would have to use other methods to narrow down the list.
  IMHO using RM and spell mastery you could start detecting for specific spells until you found the right one. There might be some confusion with illusion spells vs normal spells but I will have to think on it some more as right now my brain is not tuned into that argument needs some time to think along those lines.
MDC

[RandalThor]

"I cast end the session"

This is the common argument against allowing all manner of detect spells, but I think it only points to the lack of imagination on the GMs part. (Of which, I have been guilty.) Look at modern forensics, they can do some really amazing things with the smallest bits (and, yes, I know that the TV drama stuff is pushed outside the realms of reality, mostly, but I have watched some shows on PBS about this stuff and it is incredible), yet still people get away with murder (literally).

The same can go for a magical investigation. The spells only give clues, and many spells specifically state that the results tend to be hazy and unclear. So, just because the mage cast Detect (Whatever) doesn't mean they learn the answer to the entire mystery puzzle. They get a clue, like it was not evocation magic, but conjuration, or that the lock was magically opened and not picked (or vice versa). You go from there in the investigation. There is a thread on RPG.net about handling investigations & mysteries in a game, I think I will go there and check it out a bit. Could help in these scenarios.

GOF, I agree. Mundane detectives can garner information as well as magical ones, and just like them, they get clues. Although, I though that with the "work in the opposite direction" statement you were going to talk about how magic can be used to hide evidence. The Mystic is a great example of someone who uses magic to hide, maybe their spell lists can be expanded to include hiding (or destroying) traces left behind.

[GrumpyOldFart]

...maybe their spell lists can be expanded to include hiding (or destroying) traces left behind.

Personally I consider that an excellent suggestion.

Mundane detectives can garner information as well as magical ones, and just like them, they get clues.

Exactly. It won't tell you "fireball cast by a 10th level mage, not an elementalist", at least not in so many words. But it should tell you temp, radius, whether or not there was an accompanying shock wave, fuel/oxidizer source, etc. at the very least, assuming your character is skilled enough to find out such things.... which may or may not be enough for you to deduce "fireball cast by a 10th level mage, not an elementalist".

It becomes a matter of correlating information gained (and absent) with known facts. As in an earlier example, if there was obviously a heat source, but just as obviously was no fuel/oxidizer source, that strongly suggests magical fire. But on the other hand if the target of the original fireball was a stack of barrels full of whiskey, after the fact you may not be able to tell the difference, at least not by that datum.

However, if there are observable differences between X spell modified to Y conditions cast by spell user A, and X spell modified to Y conditions cast by spell user B, the GM (and preferably the player of the forensics expert as well) need to know in advance which of those differences (if any) are observable by mundane means as well as magical means. As noted with the fuel source, an investigator can and will draw hypotheses based on the lack of data as much as the presence of it. If an investigator could reasonably expect to find _____ and does not, that will affect his conclusions... and the GM's "Oh, I forgot to think about that" will have misled him. Garbage in, garbage out.

[markc]

...maybe their spell lists can be expanded to include hiding (or destroying) traces left behind.

However, if there are observable differences between X spell modified to Y conditions cast by spell user A, and X spell modified to Y conditions cast by spell user B, the GM (and preferably the player of the forensics expert as well) need to know in advance which of those differences (if any) are observable by mundane means as well as magical means. As noted with the fuel source, an investigator can and will draw hypotheses based on the lack of data as much as the presence of it. If an investigator could reasonably expect to find _____ and does not, that will affect his conclusions... and the GM's "Oh, I forgot to think about that" will have misled him. Garbage in, garbage out.

 I do not know how one would tell the difference between a spell cast with SM to extend the base parameters vs one who did the same with the Spell Enhancements spell list.
 Now in my game I have different schools have different visual casting effects or unique casting visuals. So in that case if you do see the visuals you can draw some (maybe) info from that visual effect. But that is a game world element and not a Core Rules rule. In the Core a spell cast by one person looks the same as cast by another person unless the profession is different or used consumable materials.
MDC

[GrumpyOldFart]

Also please understand I'm not saying that "definition of the interface" between normal reality and magic has to be made by the game designers. I'd think their best option would be to signpost it, so to speak. Put something in GM guidelines warning that such decisions may have to be made somewhere down the line, and possibly give examples of easy solutions that mesh well with the system mechanics. A more sensible choice IMO would be for that job to be in the hands of the setting designer, as it has a large effect on the character of magic in the setting. And I suspect a large number of setting designers already have a system in mind to go with their setting, perhaps for just that reason.