Does Magic Spell get TDM?

[Anders]

If you use the rules for sympathetic magic (Sympathy, Names, Contagion) in Thaumatology, there are plenty of TDMs. But vanilla... no.

[vitruvian]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

If you use the rules for sympathetic magic (Sympathy, Names, Contagion) in Thaumatology, there are plenty of TDMs. But vanilla... no.

Citation? I mean, it seems pretty clear that you wouldn't use both the time-related modifiers specific to magic and the TDMs for time on task, but I don't see where other types of TDM are at all incompatible.

[MC Baribandi]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

If you use the rules for sympathetic magic (Sympathy, Names, Contagion) in Thaumatology, there are plenty of TDMs. But vanilla... no.

I asked whether... using Sympathetic magic in Comfortable Situation and Dangerous Situation differs in Effective Skill Level.

In comfortable situation my mage is casting in Sympathetic Magic as well as dangerous situation, does my mage gets +4 TDM derivated in Comfortable Situation as well as TDM derivated in Sympathethic Casting?

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by vitruvian

That seems backwards. Spells are skills, TDM applies to skill use, so unless there's a statement to the effect that TDM doesn't apply to these particular skills, I'd think the presumption would be that it does.

Now, on the other hand, magic has all kinds of special rules relating to casting time, from reduced time for high skill to going ceremonial, so I certainly wouldn't apply TDMs for more or less time on task, since they would be in conflict with the specific rules for magic. I don't know that other situational modifiers should necessarily be excluded, though.

Spells are like skills, but are obviously different in important ways from the entities in Chapter Four. Since some of the difficulty modifiers do not work well with magic, as you note, it makes it more likely that an exception, if it applied, would be referenced somewhere, but (as jeff says), we don't see it. In this case, the absence of evidence strongly suggests the evidence of absence.

It looks to me like a lot of things that would normally give negative TDMs to mundane skills, would just cause Distraction checks for spellcasters.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

It looks to me like a lot of things that would normally give negative TDMs to mundane skills, would just cause Distraction checks for spellcasters.

I think the issue here is do casters get positive TDMs for routine casting, which I think really should depend on whether "routine casting" is even a meaningful phrase in the setting. I personally don't see any problem with allowing them even for ceremonial castings in certain settings.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I think the issue here is do casters get positive TDMs for routine casting, which I think really should depend on whether "routine casting" is even a meaningful phrase in the setting. I personally don't see any problem with allowing them even for ceremonial castings in certain settings.

Positive TDMs are the more problematic ones, unless the idea is to make magic use easier/more powerful. Natch, there are ways to limit abuse potential, but it's easier (MO) to just not use TDMs in the first place.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

No. The absence of such a reference related to magic use should be taken as an indication that it doesn't apply.

You know, they don't talk about TDMs in the combat chapter much either, but they certainly apply, as you can see in later supplements that talk about "plinking." It could be that magic isn't intended to allow that, or it could be that the Magic rules, like the combat rules, naturally assumed that the TDMs were implied and that magic was most often used "in dangerous circumstances" (especially if the spell itself was dangerous). I could totally see allowing someone to gain a +4 when casting apportation to summon a tea cup to their hand: It's not in combat, the spell isn't particularly dangerous, and it's just a minor use of their abilities.

TDMs cut both ways too, you know. Wouldn't attempting to cast a complicated spell while bent backwards over a table and surrounded by swirling bees be harder than casting it upright and in comfortable circumstances?

[starslayer]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

TDMs cut both ways too, you know. Wouldn't attempting to cast a complicated spell while bent backwards over a table and surrounded by swirling bees be harder than casting it upright and in comfortable circumstances?

Well it will require a will roll just to start in that circumstance. Though I am not sure if the rules for spellcasting in awkward situations specifically excludes negative TDMS as well.

[Forr]

I'm not sure any situation where you can potentially expend FPs can be "mundane" enough to justfy a TDM bonus.

Also, unlike real world skills, there is no basis on which to assign TDMs to spellcasting. What makes spellcasting hard in the way that tough locks make lockpicking hard? We don't know except what the books tell us, like injuries, low mana areas and magic resistances.

Regular spellcasting happens in seconds, and in most cases doesn't involve serious consequences if failed. If the situation at hand is truly mundane enough, the mage can just try again. You could argue that backlash poses a real, serious danger, and makes repeat tries risky, but then the situation isn't mundane after all and doesn't warrant the bonus.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Forr

Regular spellcasting happens in seconds, and in most cases doesn't involve serious consequences if failed. If the situation at hand is truly mundane enough, the mage can just try again. You could argue that backlash poses a real, serious danger, and makes repeat tries risky, but then the situation isn't mundane after all and doesn't warrant the bonus.

I enter subway trains two times a day, every weekday. While unlikely, if I ever slip, I can get my leg hurt. In the even more unlikely event that the machinist doesn't notice me and starts the engine while my leg is wedged between the train and the platform, the consequences would be much worse. Does that mean I should roll DX at TDM+0 twice a day? Slipping or stumbling poses a real, serious danger, even though it will only come up very, very rarely among millions of people.