Why would it be?
Your mutoed staff only has the appearance of, say, a ring, so you can't consider it to be a ring for the purposes of attunment, just like you can't consider a Mutoed human to be an animal for the purpose of magic. The change is sustained by magic, it ain't real. Your ring isn't really a ring.
But, likewise, a spell to change hands into claws is of no use to a man changed into a fish, because he has no hands (his shape isn't right)
Maybe I wasn't clear, because I concentrated mostly on one side of the problem. The bonus doesn't come from just one, it comes from the accord of the two.
You've got a staff, in the form of the staff. Essential nature and shape are in accord, which allows you to tap into the properties of the Staff shape (which is what attunment does).
You've got a staff, mutoed in ring form. Essential nature and shape are not congruent, thus you cannot use the properties of the Staff shape, you're breaking that connection. Likewise, you can't attune it to the ring shape, since it is no more a ring than a transformed human is a donkey. It may look like a ring, but it isn't really one.
Why would a muto'ed human into a animal not affected by animal form? He assumes a temporary shape.
For talisman I'd say: temporary must match essential to give bonuses. Too hard to bookkeep otherwise and not very appealing.
For magic, temporary or essential affects.
But if it's just appearance, then it's still actually a staff, right? So you would keep the staff bonus. That was my view of the thing in the first place. The argument to which my reply had been made was against it just being appearance.
For the third or fourth time in this thread alone I must say this is completely incorrect. A Mutoed human will be affected by magic as if an animal.
That's where I agreed there was a good argument. It seems that there are two good cases:
The bonuses come from Essential Nature. Essential nature doesn't change, so the bonuses remain as they were. (My view)
The bonuses come from accord between Essential Nature and current shape (and material I assume). If the shape (or material) changes to no longer match the Essential Nature, then there is a lack of accord and the bonuses disappear. (Your view)
Both of them work fine, depending on where you think the bonuses come from. The second one might or might not need a point of clarification when there are matching bonuses from different shapes (or materials) - the question is exactly what you mean by "accord" or "congruent" in this case, by what is it being measured? That doesn't change its viability, just clears up a potential question.
I tend to see familiars and talismans as similar in many ways. There's a unique bond via Hermetic Magic, it creates a two-way arcane connection, you can benefits from the bond, enchantments can benefit from the bond, you have special ranges to each other, ... (might have left something out). Personally, I like to keep things as consistent as possible across the board to make rulings and guidelines easier. So...
How would you rule with familiars? You must bond with an animal with magical connection (generally Might, but other things qualify), assuming you don't have something special like Faerie Magic, Summoning, Spirit Familiar, Theurgic Spirit Familiar, ... Even those only expand the list, though. So, for those who go with Essential Nature accord, do you rule the same way with familiars? If your familiar changes into a human, do you temporarily lose the benefit of the cord scores because the familiar's Essential Nature is no longer in accord with what it must be to allow a bond?
The change is not exactly "superficial", but nor does it change "Essential Nature". But I'd think that it is superficial with regard to the Shape/Material
(And yes, it certainly does...)
Let's take this to a logical extension - an impractical exaggeration, but a good example of the aforementioned "can of worms".
A mage wants to create a lesser enchantment to bind a faerie, but doesn't want to make it obvious. So the mage takes some "iron shackles" (+8 to Bind Faeries), and Muto's them into a flower. Then they enchant that flower to do the job. Does that flower get +8?
At this point in the example, I'd have to say "no" - the Shape enchanted is not "iron shackles", it's a flower - so it would only get a Flower bonus (none listed). Otoh, enchanting the shackles and then Muto'ing that would seem fine.
However, this does not address "S/M Talisman casting bonuses", which was the OP...
Hrmm... so let's take my above example and interpretation as a Talisman...
We create a Talisman out of iron Shackles, +8 for Binding Faeries. Then we Muto that to a Panpipes (permanently, with vis), and attune to that - and get +6 to Control Faeries. Then we Muto it again (and again, permanently) into an "Amulet bearing the sigils of angels" - and get +7 to Ward Vs. Demons. Then we turn it into our staff, or maybe a ring for convenience.
Is that kosher?
Wow - now I'd have to reverse my previous decision with regard to Talisman Attunements - no way! While expensive, it just really doesn't feel right - it seems like munchy abuse of the game system, not consistent at all with how I understand AM Hermetic Magic and the "Shapes" bonus. How could a wooden staff support having a +8 "Shape and Material" bonus for Iron Shackles?
And note that the same could easily apply to Material - Muto'ing material is just as easy.
Doesn't mean it's "wrong" - nothing in the rules specifically precludes it. Just doesn't look right, not at all.
It does? I know the Mage/Familiar is specifically described as symmetrical, but how is the mage an AC to his item? (Where do you read this?)
No... they... will... not. And for at least that many times - where are you getting this? Find support in The Rules and give a citation or quit just "claiming" it.
The human/animal essential nature bit is found in part on page 117, bottom of Animal Spells -
"...Most shapechangers do not change their essential nature, which remains human, so their bodies are still affected by Corpus spells."
Adding the description under the Law of Essential Nature* to Muto, we arrive at something not changing essential nature when under the effects of Muto. Anything else would either require that 1) the above statement is spurious and Essential Nature has nothing to do with it or 2) Muto changes essential nature - and either of those are going to be a hard sell.
(* "While Hermetic magic can completely change the way a thing appears, it cannot affect what a thing is" (emphasis added), p 79(
So find your support in the book, and get back to us on that.
Nope, because it no longer has the shape of a staff.
How to put it...
Take transgendered people, for a very freudian exemple
You've got this man (staff), who becomes a woman (ring) through medics and surgery (Magic). Despite his appearance, she's still a man genetically (Staff), and can't have babies (Ring S&M bonuses). Biologically speaking she's not "truly" a woman, despite her wishes and feelings.
On the other hand, the fact that she's a man (Staff) genetically speaking doesn't mean that she can have sex or babies like a man (Use the staff S&M bonuses), because she no longer has a dick.
What the Talisman really is must be true to what it looks like. Is that so complicated?
With all due respect, I don't like your view.
Why?
Because it means that every magus will attune, say, a staff. Or an armor. Or whatever. And then muto it into a ring, giving him staff/armor/whatever S&M bonuses forever, because, most of times, the ring form is so convenient.
I don't understand your question, can you explain it?
To me, this is quite clear.
When you attune a talisman, its shape/material must be true, not something sustained by magic.
Thereafter, in order to use that shape or material, it must be there too, not changed by magic.
For exemple, say your talisman is a bronze staff. If you muto it into a stone staff, the bronze material attunements are suspended, but it's still in a staff shape, so those are safe. If you muto it into a bronze ring, it's the reverse.
Well, I don't see them as similar magically speaking, if only because the relation to the familiar is much more like a shared, mystical relationship with another being, whereas the talisman is just an extension of your will and power.
When your bond to a familiar, magically speaking, you don't bond to a shape or material, but to a might aligned to a realm and a form. This is quite different from attuning a S&M bonus. Note the words: Bond vs Attune.
For exemple, takle a dolphin. It might have animal magic might, or aquam faerie might, and thus be suitable to very different magi. The fact that it is a dolphin is irrelevant: The Water Faerie magus will not seek a dolphin. It'll seek a water faerie with which to bond. It might just as well be a spirit of rain.
=> The appearance of a familiar is irrelevant, it's his realm and might that is. If these change, the bond will be usually broken, although I can see cases where it might not, such as gradual, shared evolution of the magus and familiar backed up by a breakthrough, or infernal corruption of the familar and thus the bond.
But transgendered people have more than just their appearance altered, and you said in the comment I quoted that it was just appearance.
For example, you MuTe a broadsword into a greatsword of the same materials. Does it lose it's attunements?
So anyone could bond, for example, a giant with Magic Might as long as the TeFo is appropriate? No, this is not what the rules say. There is also an issue of shape/material/something similar. It needs to be an animal (without something expanding your ability), and a giant doesn't qualify. If it's not an animal, it doesn't qualify, which brings me back to my question. There's no right vs. wrong in how it's handled, but how it's handled is the closest parallel I could find.
Edit:
Though I hadn't asked about bonding, but about shaping the bond (cords), perhaps you'd be happier if I'd chosen the traits you take on, then? That suits my question perfectly well, too. For example, I had a magus with a horse familiar (Essential Trait: Horse*). The traits he took on through the bond were nickering and standing while sleeping. Those are both certainly horse traits and seemed quite appropriate. So what happens when his horse shapechanges (via a MuAn(Co) effect in the bond) into a human? Does he stop nickering and sleep lying down while since the thing that grants these (being a horse) is no longer matched properly (being a human with an essential nature of a horse)?
But he's not "being a human". He's still a horse, just in the shape of a human.
If the horse changed into a cat, the mage would not suddenly purr and sleep curled in a ball. The magical/mystical connections are more significant and immutable than "current shape".
And that, I believe, is the crux of the disagreement - whether changing mere "shape" is enough to alter Shape & Material bonuses (and Familiar bonds, and Talisman attunements, etc.). And while at face value the answer seems "Well... DUH! Of COURSE!", otoh when one considers the complications (and abuse) that opens, and the element of "Essential Nature", then perhaps what we need (as much as I hate to suggest it) is to make a distinction between shape and Shape, the former being mutable via magic etc., but the latter being tied to Essential Nature and thus unchanging despite any external alterations and so determining consistent and unchanging S&M bonuses/etc.
Sure, but you and I seem to be of the same mind. I was wondering about the interpretation from those of the other opinion. I was wondering how they consider the shape/material (animal requirement) of a familiar in relation to all this.
Isn't it though?
Look at ArM5, p. 35.
Darius' Talisman is a Spear, opened with +4 to "Destroy things at a Distance", which sure looks like a staff to me.
Basically, a spear appears to contain a staff.
Never happened IMS but I would rule that if you cange the shape or material on a permanent basis (vis spending et al) you lose the shape or material bonuses of your item. It is still your talisman though. if you use other permanent methods of changing its shape (chpping it up with rego, for example) the item is simply destoryed. Muto-ing the item to other shapes and materials does not oppoen the item to the S&M bonuses for the muto-ed form since its essential nature remains the same. A sword shapeshifted to irton shakles cannot be enchanted to control fae.
And yes, a polearm could use shape and material bonuses for a staff IMS. Not the first time we do that. And the RAW has penty of talismans with A LOT of shape and material bonuses in it like "an iron shod elder staff with a copper top and embedded rubbies with spirals from bottom to top of bronze, lead, copper, tin and intertwinned oak.". The staff will look ridiculous, but have access to a 'plethora of S&M bonuses for enchantment. it will cost you a lifwetime to reach the lab bonus to enchant it as well.
Could you not open just a part of it for enchantment, say the staff part costing 8 vis, attune it as your talisman and then open the rest as you saw fit and needed room for more effects?
Yes and no. Since this is a compound item before attuning it as a talisman, you have to open the vis capacity of the largest component (in vis capacity). Sometimes this may not be the staff.
(And I'm rolling my eyes at the Rules, not at you, T - I agree, there it is. I just don't like it, not even a little bit.)
But are you then implying that one can create a "compound item", not only by attaching Shapes to each other (a Ring placed around a Staff), but merely by finding Shapes found within each other? So a spear would get Staff bonuses (for "the handle") and dagger(or sword) bonuses (for the point)? Hey, why not just claim all three - a sword certainly contains a dagger within it...
The rules do not specifically address this one way or the other, so that bonus to Darius' Talisman can be explained one of three ways - as above ("go crazy, combine everything you see"), or that's it's more errata, or that it is "liberal interpretation" - neither supported nor banned by the Rules, but since there is no "spear" bonus, a "staff" is close enough and deemed approp in this case.
A Talisman (or any Greater Enchantment) can certainly be "compound", altho' I've never taken that quite so liberally - a spear attached to a staff, maybe, but not "two-in-one". At face value, a spear is a spear and a staff is a staff, and the latter is not "a part" of the former" (much less an innate part).
Nothing B - they all get the +2 Pruning bonus for billhooks. 8)
