Q: What is the relationship between Ritual and Formulaic/Spontaneous Spells?
Or "When must a spell be a ritual rather than a formula?"

This question generally comes up on the list when someone posts a spell they
have developed.  When such a spell is somewhat powerful, somebody else usually
posits that they think the spell should be a ritual.  In an attempt to
forestall this cyclical debate (or at least arm the participants with some
extra ammunition), here are some basic thoughts and observations I have
prepared on the issue.

According to ArM3, p174, normal (i.e. Formulaic and Spontaneous) spells are
limited in certain ways:

1: A Normal spell may not affect an area larger than the Magus can see. 
Examples of rituals designed to surpass this limitation include Calling the
Council of the Beasts/Trees (InAn/InHe 45), Enchantment of the Scrying Pool
(InAq 30), Fog of Confusion (MuAu 30), Heat of Hell's Impending Doom (MuAu
35), Mists of Change (MuCo 30), The Bountiful Feast (CrHe 30), Sense of the
Fires Nearby (InIg 30), Wizard's Eclipse (PeIg 30), Summon the Haunting Spirit
(ReMe 25), The Shrouded Glen (ReMe 40), Opening the Earth's Pore (CrTe 40),
Sense the Feet That Tread the Earth (InTe 35).

Note: This limitation can also be bypassed to a certain degree by the use of
Arcane Connections.  Using Arcane Connections and the Law of Contagion, it is
often possible to affect a target outside of the Maga's sight without
resorting to a ritual.

2: The unboosted duration of a Normal Spell cannot be longer than one month,
without requiring the additional expenditure of vis.  Examples of rituals that
surpass this limitation include Enchantment of the Scrying Pool (InAq 30
D:Y/Perm.), Calling the Odious Drought (PeAq 40), Curse of the Unportended
Plague (PeCo 35), The Bountiful Feast (CeHe 30), Curse of the Haunted Forest
(MuHe 30 D:Perm.), Trapping the Fire (MuIg 20), Poisoning the Will (PeMe 50
D:Y/Perm), Exchange of the Two Minds (ReMe 30 D:Year), Aegis of the Hearth
(ReVi Gen, D: Year), Waiting Spell (ReVi Gen), Watching Ward (ReVi Gen).

[For rituals like this I'd say you can create a formulaic spell with exactly
the same effects if you use vis, at say only 5 levels higher.  -Heron]
[As increasing the Range of a spell adds 10 levels (increasing Duration is a
"variable" addition. ArM3 p.239), I would add at least an equal amount (10),
and probably even more, as I think changing a formula from a ritual to a
common formula is a "tricky" change.  -Tim]

3: A Normal Spell cannot perceive anything happening in the past or future. 
Example of rituals that dispense with this limit include Eyes of the Past
(InIm 20), Greeting the Maker (InTe 30)


This being said, there are a number of published rituals that, on first blush,
do not appear to violate any of these three rules.  I've lumped them into
categories and explanations that I think cover their nature.

a:  The "target is within sight, but spell raises forces from beyond sight"
rituals.  As the category name suggests, in spells such as these, although the
target can be seen by the Magus, the spell generally requires that the Magus
control and disrupt the forces of nature in an area far beyond his range of
sight.  These include Curse of the Ravenous Swarm (CrAn 40), Breaking the
Perpetual Drought (CrAq 30), Neptune's Wrath (ReAq 50), Breath of the Open Sky
CrAu 40), Rain of Oil (MuAu 50).  Calling tidal waves, gales, insect plagues,
etc., all require the Magus to dramatically alter the natural state/flows of
Nature on perhaps a Continent-wide scale.  Thus, requiring these spells to be
rituals fits well within the first limitation on Normal spells.

b:  The "Necromantic/Healing" rituals.  Such rituals basically re-impart
"vital" or "life-force" energy into live and once live creatures that are no
longer at "100% good health" for their species.  Examples include Full Health
of Beast and Bird (CrAn Gen), Free the Accursed Body (CrCo Gen), Healer's Ring
(CrCo 70), Shadow of Life Renewed (CrCo 70), The Walking Corpse (ReCo 25),
Restoration of the Corrupted Plant (CrHe Gen), and Return of Mental Lucidity
(CrMe Gen).

My theory (YMMV) as to why these spells are rituals has to do with the limits
of Hermetic Magic.  As Hermetic Theory understands these things (non-Hermetics
may have a different understanding), Aging, Decrepitude, etc., (and to a
lesser extent, bodily injury, thus the vis requirement for permanently healing
humans) all seem to be part of a being's essential nature.  In tampering with
this essential nature, these spells are effectively pushing the limits of
Hermetic Theory, as it is generally understood.  Most likely the knowledge of
how to do this originates from "outside" sources, though long studying
Bonisagi and the like are also likely candidates.  In any event, the knowledge
of how to push certain of these limits has reached most Hermetic Magi. 
However, this knowledge does not really fit into their intellectual framework,
and so they are not capable of casting such spells on a normal basis.  To get
themselves into the right frame of mind for harnessing these barely understood
magical energies requires an in-depth ritual.

If you accept this "pushing the limits of Hermetic Knowledge" explanation, it
is also useful for explaining certain other spells.  Although already a ritual
by nature of bypassing the first and second laws above, Enchantment of the
Scrying Pool (InAq 30) is described as non-Hermetic and a remnant of Mercurian
knowledge.  Some have argued that Change the Nature of Vis (MuVi Gen) is
perhaps the epitome of altering the essential nature of something, as vis is
supposed to represent the essential nature of an Art.  The proffered
explanation offers a justification for allowing the use of this ritual. 

The one flaw in this theory is that doesn't explain why Wizard's Communion
(MuVi Gen), which is of Mercurian origin, is not a ritual.

c: The "create an Enchantment" rituals.  These spells enchant an object with
magical powers.  They have the same effect as instilled lab enchantments, but
for some reason or another are "easier" to perform, requiring only a ritual
rather than a season of labor.  Examples include Edge of the Razor (MuTe 5),
Statue to Animal (MuTe 25), Hermes Portal (ReTe 75), Shell of False
Determinations (CrVi Gen), Shell of Opaque Mysteries (CrVi Gen).  

However, I don't have a theory as to why these enchantments are easier than
most others.  Suggestions welcome.

Notes:  One, I include Edge of the Razor in this category because I read the
spell to effect more than a one-time sharpening of the blade which will
eventually (or quickly) dull; rather I see the spell providing a razor edge
which keeps its hone indefinitely.  I don't think that a plain old one-time
sharpening spell should require a ritual, but I would also dull the blade
after the first effective blow lands.  However, I think that the ritual should
have a duration of Permanent, and not Instant, which I would use for the
one-time version.  I'd also make the one-time version (_Sharpness of
Excalibur_) level 20, for trickiness/subtlety required to effect such
precision.  

Two, Hermes Portal has a base duration of Perm., and so theoretically can be
assumed to fit within the second law of rituals, but I would argue that a
Duration: Sun/Moon version would still have to be a ritual, so I think it fits
better in this category.

d:  The fourth category of non-conformist rituals is what I call the "just
difficult spells" rituals.  These are spells that could be cast as normal
spells, as they do not violate any of the laws of Hermetic Magic, but the
level of difficulty and/or subtlety required is so high that the normal
version would be out of reach of most Magi.  The extra time and vis
requirements of a ritual provide a Maga with greater focus, and allow her to
produce effects that would otherwise be outside her ability to attain. 
Examples include Conjuring the Mystic Tower (CrTe 50), Visions of the
Wandering Eye (InIm 45), Cascade of Rocks (PeTe 40), and maybe Opening the
Intangible Tunnel (ReVi Gen).  A Normal version of these spells can probably
be created at a significantly higher level, but there is no agreed-on specific
mathematical formula for this calculation.  


Thanks to Ken Kofman, Heron, Gintaras Valiulis for their contributions.
This entry prepared by Tim Hruby on November 14, 1994.

[Email addresses removed 2005-08-01 by HGS by request from author/editor.]