1222-1227 OOC

I figure that when Korvin makes his breakthrough it will have to be with experimenting with LR. When he has to stabilize it, I'm guessing it will be around a 20th magnitude ( give or take 2) which will result in a huge chunk of warping and a vacation into Twilight :stuck_out_tongue:

Those Redcaps better be grateful :smiley:

Well, that will certainly minimize the number of attempts necessary to stabilize the discovery... But Aurulentus in Magi of Hermes showed it could be done with spells. Doing it with an LR is very expensive from a vis point of view, and I'm wondering if maybe some kind of bonus is necessary when someone makes an item or an LR...

He experimented with LRs at the end. Look at his year 30+ activities. 3 spells and 8 Longevity Rituals with 4 seasons spent stabilizing.

OR states that you can invent spells or items as experiments with give breakthrough points. So an LR and all that vis is open targets.

Well, when you experiment with an item you have to create it twice. When you experiment with an LR you have to do it twice, too which means keeping someone in your lab two times for 3 months at a time.
But you receive no additional benefit for the expenditure of vis. So why would you ever experiment with an item or an LR?

I guess that is why so few people do OR with LR :cry: The end point for Korvin and for Aurulentus are LR with different properties so the end much be experimenting with LR. Someone might do OR on automatia to improve them so their experiments might be with items they art making.

Aurulentus' lab total is only around 40-50 for the LR he is experimenting with so it is cheaper for him.

Peanut gallery: Actually, the cost of the LR has nothing to do with the lab total. It's the age of the berneficiary that determines how much vis is required (1 pawn per 5 years of age). So experimenting on someone younger is much less costly.

Thank you for pointing that out. Korvin will be lining up the 30 year old grogs :slight_smile:

Why stop there? If you are amoral enough, experimenting on children is much cheaper. :smiling_imp:

(Hi, my name is @#@(*?&$, I have come to collect your soul. We have kept a warm spot for you in hell.)

Perhaps if he integrates his discovery with Aurulentus' discovery then we get longer LR for morals with no fertility lost :smiley:

That typo is soooo revealing... :laughing:

I thought the amount of damage taken didn't transfer directly when you change size, but only the wound levels. For example, if I take, say, a 28 point wound at Size +3, which is an Incapacitating wound. When the spell expires, I don't. I don't keep the 28 points of damage and reapply it to myself at my current size. I had an Incapacitating wound before at Size 3, and I have an Incapacitating wound now at Size 0, not a new 28 Damage wound (which would be Dead).

At least that's how I've always interpreted it under 5e. It might have been different in 4e, don't feel like going and looking it up :smiley: .

I can live with that, too. I just figured it would be the other way around, because I hadn't read anything definitive... Call it a holdover from D&D, when buffs expired...

I'm definitely under the impression that wounds don't rescale themselves when size changes. But I looked in ArM5 just now and couldn't find it (either way) immediately.... :confused:

The best source would be in Magi of Hermes under Hugh of Flambeau, he has two spells for this express purpose. It doesn't specifically say that the wounds don't resize (and thus kill the recipient when the spell ends) but logically they would not.

I believe i also asked this question on the Ars General forum and got the answer that they wouldn't. I'll see if I can find it.

Here's the thread:


The consensus was that the wound you took at the increased size would not worsen or better when you changed size. So a wound that would have been dead at size 0 is Incapacitating at size +3, if you used a spell to make your size +3 before the wound landed, when you reverted in size to 0 again the wound would still only be Incapacitating.

Alright, I can go with that... changes in size don't adjust the actual wound level.


:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

In a moment of weakness, I'm considering sorting the Mons Electi library's summae according to the Com scores of their authors (or more generally, deciding how their Quality scores were achieved). The motivation is that when someone with high Com (higher than the author) reads a summa, they can gloss it to increase its Quality by 1 for readers thereafter (Covenants page 91). I know I know, a minor point to be sure. :stuck_out_tongue:

So, question: what do you expect the chances would be that a random summa would be written by someone with Com +3 or higher? 40%, more, less? (Note: that's a different question than the chances that a random person has Com +3 or higher: summae by high-Com people will tend to be more widespread than those by low-Com people.)

Well, the Writing Books section (p. 165, main rule book) says that the Quality for Summae is Com + 6 + Bonus, and for Tractatus Com + 6. Doesn't say what exactly the bonus is (part of it is, if you write at lower than your maximum allowed, you get a bonus), but I'd be tempted to say that an author's Communication is probably Qua – 6 – 3 (because I'm thinking that most of the widely-circulated books are written by magi with the Good Teacher Virtue),