Ask a simple question, Awakened edition

[Tessie]

The thing about Familiars is that you can cast on things you view remotely through them. The fact that you are viewing them remotely is what allows you to do so; there's no reason you should be able to cast remotely on the familiar before you've chosen to share senses (but the fact that it's reflexive makes it a moot point, practically speaking).
But even if we were to assume that you always can do that because the Familiar has Connected Sympathy, the advantage is still not the same as that stated in Soul Windows because you still need to use a Reach for remote viewing. The other difference is that you can cast through your Familiar while Soul Windows only states you can cast on the soulstone itself.

Soul Windows references a rule that doesn't exist. The best thing to do is to either consider it a feature of that particular spell alone, or just ignoring it because it's not an actual rule. I'm personally leaning heavily towards the latter because I very much prefer consistency in how the rules of magic are applied.

[proindrakenzol]

So the familiar condition does also mention this benefit.

However, nowhere in the core book can I find where it gives this benefit to soulstones (or the connected level of sympathy) and I'm happy to just let only the "Soul Window" spell from Sos gain this benefit instead of every spell though a soulstone as a broad application.

From the Soul Window spell:

"Since the mage has a Connected link to her own
soul stone, this spell doesn’t require sympathetic range to cast."

Connected Sympathy allows you to cast on the thing with which you have Connected Sympathy without the Sympathetic Range Attainment. Viewing a thing remotely and in real time allows you to cast Remotely by spending two Reach total (one for Sensory Range, and an additional for Remote) without having the Sympathetic Range Attainment.

A Familiar has both Connected Sympathy and the ability to be sensed through, by default. A Soul Stone has Connected Sympathy by default, but no method of sensing through unless you cast Soul Window. Ergo, a Legacy Pedagogue would be able to cast any spell on a Daimonomikon they scribed without the Sympathetic Range Attainment, but would have to cast a spell similar to Soul Window to sense through it.

[totalgit]

Connected Sympathy allows you to cast on the thing with which you have Connected Sympathy without the Sympathetic Range Attainment..

Cant find any reference to this anywhere. Familiar and "Soul windows" mention it and that's it.

[proindrakenzol]

Cant find any reference to this anywhere. Familiar and "Soul windows" mention it and that's it.

Is Soul Window not rules text? The sentence is pretty clear that the reason the Sympathetic Range Attainment isn't required is due to the Connected Sympathy property.

I'll also point out that there just aren't that many ways to have Connected Sympathy: Mage and their familiar, Mage and their soul stone(s), and Legacy Pedagogue and Daimonomikon are the only "naturally" occurring examples. The only other way is via Space 5's Create Sympathy.

[Tessie]

Is Soul Window not rules text? The sentence is pretty clear that the reason the Sympathetic Range Attainment isn't required is due to the Connected Sympathy property.

When a rule is described within a specific spell, it's either specific to that spell or a reminder of a general rule. The reason given for the rule is not specific to the spell and there exists no such general rule for it to act as a reminder of, so it's a very dubious ruling which I would not accept at face value.
My guess is that the writer confused the rule that Connected Sympathy isn't Withstood with the idea that it doesn't require Sympathetic Range at all.

[Letalis]

Hello all. I was wondering, how would one kill an archmage? When their body is destroyed, they just reappear inside their golden road since they are meditating out of it. Would one have to attack the golden road itself? Or breach the golden road and attack the archmage in that realm? This brings up another question, what is the difference between an archmage and their road?

[Satchel]

Hello all. I was wondering, how would one kill an archmage? When their body is destroyed, they just reappear inside their golden road since they are meditating out of it. Would one have to attack the golden road itself? Or breach the golden road and attack the archmage in that realm? This brings up another question, what is the difference between an archmage and their road?

You can totally kill an archmage. Their ability to instantly (and loudly) return to their Road from outside of it makes the process difficult even before accounting for any spells and superhuman Traits they have, but their Health and damage to it is real. The Road is just the home dimension of the archmage that forged it.

[totalgit]

You can totally kill an archmage. Their ability to instantly (and loudly) return to their Road from outside of it makes the process difficult even before accounting for any spells and superhuman Traits they have, but their Health and damage to it is real. The Road is just the home dimension of the archmage that forged it.

Their health and damage are real until they excise them and then they might not be.

Im unsure if in 2e its now implied that archmages project some form of other body outside their golden road instead of leaving physically but either way catching one unawares outside its golden road is going to be tough so the best bet is to try to kill them inside their golden road with all the problems that might involve (getting there, fighting defenders + the AM itself). And after all, that if they have excised themselves so that they don't die when their health boxes say they should...then your shit out of luck.

So yes you can kill a AM until you cant...

[totalgit]

As Tessie and i have said a few times now, it says

"Since the mage has a Connected link to her own
soul stone, this spell doesn’t require sympathetic range to cast."

The bolded "this spell" part is what we are talking about, personally I'm fine with soul window on its own allowing this. I'm not fine with allowing any spell to ignore sympathetic range because of a connected connection. Being able to cast an area scale Celestial Fire spell on your soulstone and everything in its range without space 2's attainment just because it is your soulstone is not ideal.

[proindrakenzol]

(never mind, not worth it)

[Tessie]

That is not the point I was making.
The "this spell" phrasing does mean the effect applies to this spell (though necessarily exclusively), but the reason given is phrased as a general rule (or, as is more appropriate for individual spells, a reminder for a general rule).
"Since the mage has a Connected link to her own soul stone,[..]" outright states that having Connected Sympathy is the reason this spell doesn't require Sympathetic Range. That means anything else the mage has Connected Sympathy with should be treated the same, or it would demonstrably not be the reason for why Soul Windows ignores Sympathetic Range.

Given that general rules should never be given in spells, and the fact that spells cast on subjects with Connected Sympathy aren't Withstood, I think the most likely explanation is that it's supposed to be a reminder text rather than a newly introduced rule but that the writer mixed up Connected Sympathy spells not being Withstood with the mistaken notion that they don't require Sympathetic Range at all, meaning it's a reminder text for a rule that doesn't exist.
Thus I heavily recommend ignoring that sentence outright.

[proindrakenzol]

That is not the point I was making.
The "this spell" phrasing does mean the effect applies to this spell (though necessarily exclusively), but the reason given is phrased as a general rule (or, as is more appropriate for individual spells, a reminder for a general rule).
"Since the mage has a Connected link to her own soul stone,[..]" outright states that having Connected Sympathy is the reason this spell doesn't require Sympathetic Range. That means anything else the mage has Connected Sympathy with should be treated the same, or it would demonstrably not be the reason for why Soul Windows ignores Sympathetic Range.

Given that general rules should never be given in spells, and the fact that spells cast on subjects with Connected Sympathy aren't Withstood, I think the most likely explanation is that it's supposed to be a reminder text rather than a newly introduced rule but that the writer mixed up Connected Sympathy spells not being Withstood with the mistaken notion that they don't require Sympathetic Range at all, meaning it's a reminder text for a rule that doesn't exist.
Thus I heavily recommend ignoring that sentence outright.

This is a pretty compelling argument.

On the other hand, I don't think it breaks anything to allow non-Sympathetic Casting on things with Connected Sympathy since there's only three.

I'll probably just see if it ever comes up in my game before I even make a ruling.

[Andrew Kaninchen]

Another Geist (and Vampire, for that matter) and Mage crossover related question, this one might not be too simple, but here it goes:

What would you do for buf/heal/other spells that would usually relate to Life (Knit, Mend, the attributes buf one I forgot the name of etc.) on Geists and Vampires?

If I were the st in the game that made me prompt that question, I'd probably require solving a Mystery for each type of supernatural which isn't obviously targeted by such spells, because I like the idea of using Mysteries for that.

But I ask more as the concrete nature of the problem. That is: is a Sin-Eater "alive enough" to be targeted by Life? Is it "dead enough" to be targeted by Death?

The concrete arguments I have for Sin-Eaters being targeted for death is, well, they died. They are the product of a complicated (dare I say ~mysterious~) Manifestation from an undead being tainted by the Underworld. A lot of Death here.

Arguments against it are: their organs, as far as I understand, work just fine. Their whole physiology really looks to be pretty much that of "a living person" when not using Plasm.

Vampires, on the other hand, are dead bodies preserved and moving due to their shenanigans. Only when they use Vitae do their organs "come alive".

So one could argue even though their souls are dead in both cases, a Sin-Eaters body is technically alive most of the time (with a few things, like the dead condition, making it temporarily dead again), whereas a vampires body is dead most of the time, only coming technically alive when using Vitae.

Therefore, Death could be used to affect vampires not under the effects of Vitae for this purpose, while Life could affect Sin-Eaters.

Now, I don't remember much from "life energy" as a concept in the game lines, but I assume it has everything to do with if Death or Life could be used to affect something is such ways. I'm asking here mostly to see if anyone could remember anything about it/has ever dealt with the same questions.

Edit: in fact, same goes for Prometheans, even adding Matter to the conundrum in the case of the Unfleshed.

[totalgit]

Another Geist (and Vampire, for that matter) and Mage crossover related question, this one might not be too simple, but here it goes:

What would you do for buf/heal/other spells that would usually relate to Life (Knit, Mend, the attributes buf one I forgot the name of etc.) on Geists and Vampires?

If I were the st in the game that made me prompt that question, I'd probably require solving a Mystery for each type of supernatural which isn't obviously targeted by such spells, because I like the idea of using Mysteries for that.

But I ask more as the concrete nature of the problem. That is: is a Sin-Eater "alive enough" to be targeted by Life? Is it "dead enough" to be targeted by Death?

The concrete arguments I have for Sin-Eaters being targeted for death is, well, they died. They are the product of a complicated (dare I say ~mysterious~) Manifestation from an undead being tainted by the Underworld. A lot of Death here.

Arguments against it are: their organs, as far as I understand, work just fine. Their whole physiology really looks to be pretty much that of "a living person" when not using Plasm.

Vampires, on the other hand, are dead bodies preserved and moving due to their shenanigans. Only when they use Vitae do their organs "come alive".

So one could argue even though their souls are dead in both cases, a Sin-Eaters body is technically alive most of the time (with a few things, like the dead condition, making it temporarily dead again), whereas a vampires body is dead most of the time, only coming technically alive when using Vitae.

Therefore, Death could be used to affect vampires not under the effects of Vitae for this purpose, while Life could affect Sin-Eaters.

Now, I don't remember much from "life energy" as a concept in the game lines, but I assume it has everything to do with if Death or Life could be used to affect something is such ways. I'm asking here mostly to see if anyone could remember anything about it/has ever dealt with the same questions.

Edit: in fact, same goes for Prometheans, even adding Matter to the conundrum in the case of the Unfleshed.

I wouldn't say vampires become alive when using vitae, they mimic being alive but are still dead. Therefore under the purview of death instead of life. Any life effect requires death instead.

Arnt sin eaters in 2e counted as living beings melded with a geist (yes they died but the geist brought them back to life) instead of 1e? If that's the case then Life should effect their body normally, maybe needing clashes vs anything the geist is doing to it also. If a mage wanted to mess with the geist separately then that would probably only require death The way i see it is that they are normal living people with extra abilities provided by the geist but still count enough for the Life Arcana.

I think Prime is usually the Arcana that gets mapped to Prometheans a lot? But then you can heal them using Forces Electricity...(not read enough of 2e to know or care about Prometheans in 2e)

[Satchel]

Arnt sin eaters in 2e counted as living beings melded with a geist (yes they died but the geist brought them back to life) instead of 1e?

The Bound are metaphysically dead, despite what their biological processes would have you believe — their remembrance of a ghost grants no Essence, and one of the first things the game tells you in the "Truth and Lies" sidebar at the front of the book is "magic that specifically affects the living does not work on them[.]"