How would you run "Immunity/Toughness to True Magic"?

[ironpoet]

I think you could make an interesting "Wizard Hunter" character that had Immunity (or Toughness) to Magic:

-3 (-8) Physical Immunity, Catch - Everything but True Magic
    (+2) Protects against something specific
    (+2) "Not Magic" is extremely common
    (+1) A little research could find out why Wizard Hunters are so feared

I wasn't sure how you would rule what counts as a magical attack, though (or, honestly, how to decribe a failed attack).

1) An Earth Wizard uses evocation to launch a boulder at you - The attack bounces off.
2) An Ogre uses strength to launch a boulder at you - You get crushed.
3) An Earth Wizard uses evocation to start an avalanche - Can this hurt you?  How is the attack rolled?

So my two questions are:

• What rules would you use to determine what is, or isn't, a True Magic attack?
• How might you describe the Immunity/Toughness working in situations where magic is being used to create a physical effect? (i.e. every element but Spirit)

[Mal_Luck]

I think the books already run it as the Ogre's Immunity power.

OW50:

Physical Immunity [–8]
The Catch (Stacked) [+5] is that ogres are
only immune to (mortal?) magic, not
mundane sources of harm.

Both 1 and 3 seem to be indirect attacks, while 2 is not a magic attack at all. For direct energy attacks (fire, lightning, entropy), I'd describe it as just washing over him, maybe messing up his clothes. Magic air doesn't mess his hair up... physical effects created by spells maybe... break or just do nothing (sand created with earth magic doesn't sting his eyes). In the PCs hands, I could see the difficulty in determining what is a direct attack or an indirect attack. I'd call an indirect attack anything that tags/invokes an item to use against them (like Harry using his car keys against Lord Raith).

First question, I think I'd just say anything that uses Evocation or Thaumaturgy. Though I might make an exception from certain creatures maybe (Faeries, Shagnasty, etc) or even certain sponsored magic. Indirect Attacks probably wouldn't count against his immunity, if only because they didn't when using magic against Lord Raith.

Second question, if it's a magic wall of fire... it's a magic wall of fire. I'd let them walk through it. Though whatever it is, probably needs to cause damage or be dangerous. Like a Wall of Earth, unless he just walks through it... I still think it would get in the dudes way.

[devonapple]

Immunity to Magic would most often apply to direct attempts to affect the body of the immune person: mental effects, transformations, grossly magical damage effects, things shaped from ectoplasm.

If a Wizard is clever enough to tag or otherwise incorporate an environmental Aspect (such as Boulders) for an Evocation, I think that spell would still hurt, as would the magically-triggered avalanche. Fire would be iffy: even if you take advantage of an existing inferno, you still need magic to funnel that fire somewhere. I guess if the "pipeline" is magic but the fire is real, then the fire gets delivered and still hurts the magically immune character. And if the wizard started a fire using magic, I would allow him to subsequently use that fire as  a basis for a fire evocation which would still hurt the magically immune character.

The real kicker is: how does it affect Demons and other creatures which are holding themselves together using (ostensibly) "magic" and/or have formed Ectoplasmic bodies?

[Bruce Coulson]

Since the immunity is 'true magic', I would rule that Summer Magic, demonic powers, Glamours, etc, work just fine against the character.

And if a wizard manages to use an environmental effect against the character, it should work as well.

[ironpoet]

I think the books already run it as the Ogre's Immunity power.

Physical Immunity [–8]
The Catch (Stacked) [+5] is that ogres are
only immune to (mortal?) magic, not
mundane sources of harm.

What I'm trying to figure out is,  "How do we distinguish between magical sources of harm and mundane sources of harm?"

It would be a pretty pointless power if a Wizard could say, "Oh, I'm not attacking him with magic.  I'm attacking him with fire.  His immunity doesn't apply."

[ironpoet]

Since the immunity is 'true magic', I would rule that Summer Magic, demonic powers, Glamours, etc, work just fine against the character.

I would agree with that.  (Although "Immunity to Any Type of Magic" would still fit the criteria for a +5 Catch.)

And if a wizard manages to use an environmental effect against the character, it should work as well.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.  Wouldn't summoning fire or hurling boulders be considered an environmental effect?  Could you give a specific example of when you think the Immunity would be bypassed?

[Moriden]

What I'm trying to figure out is,  "How do we distinguish between magical sources of harm and mundane sources of harm?"

this comes up in the wheel of time series actually. basically if the item actually causing the harm is a real physical object then you take damage. if the thing causing damage is magical it doesn't.

So creating fire/earth/lightning whatever and throwing it at him will do nothing. but ripping a chunk of wall out of a building and hitting him with it would do damage.

[Sanctaphrax]

I would allow the immunity to work against all spells that weren't backed by the invocation of an appropriate aspect for effect.

[devonapple]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.  Wouldn't summoning fire or hurling boulders be considered an environmental effect?  Could you give a specific example of when you think the Immunity would be bypassed?

Damage sources summoned from nothing would be prevented.
Damage source which could plausibly come from existing matter and energy would still hurt.

Summoning boulders made from ectoplasm to bury someone? Immune.
Tagging and destroying a nearby rock formation (scene Aspect) to bury someone? Success.
Striking someone with "force shuriken"? Immune.
Grabbing a handful of shuriken from a wall and throwing them using evocation? Success.

Firing lighting from your fingertips? Immune.
Tagging a nearby lightning storm (scene Aspect) to strike your target? Plausibly successful.
Firing fire from your fingertips? Immune.
Tagging a nearby fire source (scene Aspect) to strike your target? Plausibly successful.

[ironpoet]

I would allow the immunity to work against all spells that weren't backed by the invocation of an appropriate aspect for effect.

On the one hand, I think that makes a lot of sense.  On the other hand, I feel like it makes it too easy to bypass the immunity.

Air Wizard: I'm making a free Declaration that I am "Surrounded By Air", then I'm going to tag that Aspect to magically crush that Ogre with massive air pressure.

Earth/Spirit Wizard A: I'm making a free Declaration that there is "Stuff Around", then I'm going to tag that Aspect to magically hurl stuff into the Ogre.

Earth/Spirit Wizard A: I'm making a free Declaration that "Ogres have Mass", then I'm going to tag that Aspect to magically hurl the Ogre into the wall/ground/whatever.

Water Wizard: I'm making a free Declaration that "I have saliva", then I'm going to tag that Aspect to magically spit a high pressure volley into the Ogre's eye.  (Okay, that one's a stretch, but you get the idea.)

Fire Wizard: This is arguably a bit tougher, but you could just carry a lighter around with you, or declare that the air contains "Ambient Heat" that you could magically drain for a Cold Attack.

[Sanctaphrax]

Free Declarations require a roll are reliant on GM fiat. Just don't allow those Declarations and you'll be fine.

Remember, not everything is an aspect. A swordsman can't usually make a free declaration that his sword is "sharp" for an attack bonus.

[ironpoet]

Free Declarations require a roll are reliant on GM fiat. Just don't allow those Declarations and you'll be fine.

Remember, not everything is an aspect. A swordsman can't usually make a free declaration that his sword is "sharp" for an attack bonus.

Good point, although I think that just pushes the goal posts a little.  What constitutes a valid Environmental Aspect?

Would a nearby boulder?  The ground?  Nearby furniture?  A handy deck of cards?  Which of the examples listed above would you allow, and why?

[TheMouse]

If the player gets to roll to hit the immune character, it's probably a direct magical attack. It doesn't really matter if they're flinging stones, shooting lightning bolts, or increasing the air pressure to crush the target. Those things are narrative spray paint over the fact that the player is making a magical attack.

If the player isn't rolling to directly hit the immune character, it might not count as a magical attack. This is blowing up a building so that stone chunks fall or lighting it on fire. Anyone in the area is then subject to the risks of environmental damage.

[Bruce Coulson]

Opening a pit/fissure under the character?  Plausible/possible.

The key is that the damaging effect/item must be something that exists in the mundane world.  Collapsing a building on the character would work; the building exists, and its falling down on someone would hurt.  The fact that magic (rather than a wrecking ball) caused the building to collapse doesn't matter, as far as the immunity is concerned.

[devonapple]

Compromise:
Require an attacking Wizard to Invoke for Effect an existing (or created) environmental feature in order to bypass the Toughness.

This still leaves it in the GM's hands to approve or deny, and will cost the Wizard a Fate Point if they are not able to free-tag the environmental feature.