Spell Mastery is not uncommon in my troupe.
We just recently accepted a new member to the covenant (player is new to Ars Magica and have been in play for about a year in-game). Every magus/-a aside from him has Mastered at least one spell, including my lab rat Verditius.
It is not uncommon to Master your combat spells. Or even to just pick up a few basic attack spells like Pilum of Fire and then Master them for resistance. At least in my current troupe.
Mastering rituals to reduce the number of botch die from the vis usage tends to be very usefull depending on your trope's understanding of "calm
conditions".
It probably wouldn't break anything. It would solve your issue of General spells being a notational convenience, as Adaptive Casting existing essentially requires magi to recognize general spells. However, I think magi do recognize General spells. Let's say one magus casts Aegis of the Hearth (ReVi 20). Now let's say a second magus casts some spell that we note as Aegis of the Hearth (ReVi 25). What name do the characters use for the second magus's spell? If it's still known as Aegis of the Hearth, then the concept of a General spell is known in-character even if characters wouldn't use the term "General."
That said, while it wouldn't really break anything, it wouldn't fix much of anything, either.
Yes, this is one of the problems. As it exists, we can have situations like the following. Imagine a magus with Flawless Magic who has a General spell at level 30 with Spell Mastery 10. The magus spends a single season in the lab inventing the same spell at levels 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, each time taking Adaptive Casting. Does the magus get to add +5 and remove 5 more botch dice when casting the level-30 spell?
There remain other problems that must still be addressed as well. This only addresses one of them.
Yes, that would be nice. There are some times the formula is tougher to write, like when the pattern goes 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, ... That 1 there is tougher to include, but it would still be better to write it with such a pattern and a note about the exception with that first magnitude used.
There are also other guidelines that don't seem to have such a pattern due to wording, even though they do. Consider CrCo healing wounds: "Heal a Light Wound" v. "Heal a Medium Wound." The higher-level one does the same thing ("Heal a [severity] Wound"), it's just more powerful. Technically these qualify, but I don't think writing them as a pattern would simplify things for anyone.
That's a separate issue. I've always read the core rule "the maga may not exploit any other spellcasting options, as there is not enough time" (p.83) as saying you cannot do this.
Pretty much every magus I make. There tend to be a few spells that are so central to a magus's repertoire that it's worth sinking 5 or 15 experience from character creation or adventure into these at the very least.
For this to be intelligible, the only thing you need to use in game is the concept of magnitudes. Which I think you can't do without anyway, because it is basically needed to make both magic theory and most intellego effects revealing magnitudes to be intelligible in game. So the spells are essentially called "Aegis of the Hearth, 4th magnitude" and "Aegis of the Hearth, 5th magnitude). I suppose you could come up with another way to name things (Least, Lesser, etc.) but at some point you'll run out of adjectives or end up with magi using different adjectives then yours. Magnitude remains the simplest and most plausible option.
Test
Magnitudes are also obvious with things like Aegis of the Hearth due to them matching the normal (not Mercurian Magic) vis requirements. E.g. This ritual requires 6 pawns of vis, so let's call it 6th magnitude. Doesn't take Int +3 to match those up.
We do end up still having more stuff, but some names you suggest might well cover them. E.g. Aegis of the Hearth (ReVi 21) and Aegis of the Hearth (ReVi 25) are both 5th magnitude. The former might be noted as "least" while the latter is "greatest" since in-game the texts would be different and so there is some in-game differentiation between these two 5th-magnitude Rituals.
My point above, though, was that if we're using Aegis of the Hearth as a name for both of them, then in-game magi certainly do understand the concept of a General spell. I wasn't worried about the level v. magnitude labeling. Just that the very sharing of the name for known different power levels absolutely implies in-game magi are aware of the same spell with different power levels, which means they are absolutely aware of General spells.
I'm pretty sure general spells still follow the pattern of Hermetic magic having specific level of effects with magnitude intervals, and even though weird level of effects is possible through spell masteries abilities such as apotropaic and rebuttal, researching an Aegis of the Heart at level 21 - between magnitude intervals - isn't actually possible within current hermetic theory. Otherwise I largely agree with you that Hermetic magi understand the concept of a general spell.
Most spells are assigned a level, which is usually a multiple of five. It need not be, how-ever, and magi may well invent spells of inter-mediate levels. Spontaneous spells often have other levels, as well.
From Core p115, first paragraph of “Level” section.
Whatever they want. They certainly don't actually call either of them "Aegis of the Hearth", as that's English, and they speak Latin. They might use the equivalent of "Ward of the Wizard's Fortress" or "Shield of the Arcane Fane", or "Walls Against Fell Powers", or "Up Yours, Herne" (Level 40, penetration 45).
That's why there are two identical spells with different names in TtA. It's not an error; the magi who invented them and put them in the libraries gave them different names. Now, that can only be used to a very limited extent within the game, because players need to be able to tell whether spells are the same in game terms, and it would be impractical to give the full details every time in any case.
But the idea that there is some force inherent in Hermetic magic that forces magi to call these spells "Aegis of the Hearth" goes a long way beyond anything in canon.
How about this:
Adaptive Casting: You can use this Spell Mastery Ability with any Formulaic spell that is Similar (as defined on page XX) to the spell that you have learned the Ability for. This applies to both the bonus for the value of the Ability, and the special abilities. If you have separately mastered two or more Similar Spells with Adaptive Casting, you may decide which Spell Mastery Ability to apply at the time of casting, but you may not mix-and-match. If you have mastered one spell at level 2, with Adaptive Casting and Fast-Casting, and another at level 3, with Adaptive Casting, Quiet Casting, and Still Casting, then you may cast either spell with a +2 bonus and the option to Fast-Cast, or a +3 bonus and reduced penalties for using words and gestures, but you may not take the +3 bonus and Fast-Cast (and definitely do not get a +5 bonus).
Sounds reasonable to me.
It will make Spell Mastery a bit more powerful overall, but I don't see that as a real problem.
It will however also make the Flawless Magic virtue more desirable. Not for the automatic Mastery ability when learning a spell, but for the bonus xp when studying Mastery abilities.
Flawless Magic is already widely considered one of the best virtues in the game, so it probably doesn't need to be made even better. But even so, Flawless Magic won't suddenly become the virtue everyone must have - so probably not a serious problem.
However, since this increases the importance of spells being Similar, I think the definition of Similar spells need to be clarified somewhat. In particular the definition of "same effect". I have added a post to the errata thread about that.
(Why I think that needs to be clarified? I was recently involved in a discussion where we didn't quite agree on what counted as "same effect", so obviously it wasn't clear as it could be )
Yes, they can certainly give them any name they would like just like you could call me Mr. Allen, Christopher Allen, etc. and always be referring to me. However, I didn't choose Aegis of the Hearth randomly. They all know this is the one effect invented by Notatus, only usable at exactly this R/D/T but with varying power levels, right?
Something about this revision just rubs me wrong. I think it might be the expansion of the coverage allowed by Adaptive Casting, along with the requirement to judge if spells are Similar or not. It just seems like it will result in more complexity, more bulk, more power/meta gaming.
Almost every variant of HR I have seen and/or used of Adaptive Casting has been to consolidate the Spell Mastery ability. Reducing all the the Spell Mastery for a general spell (one with Gen in the level) to a single skill reduces complexity. Reduce the number of books and the number of skill.
Maybe I am more sensitive to it right now since I have been playing a character with Flawless Magic who masters lots of spells. I am at the point where tend to take Adaptive Casting as the first mastery ability for a new Gen spell I learn, so that I only ever have one skill to worry about for it (since our HR forces the consolidation into one skill after taking Adaptive Casting). I have 94 Spell Mastery skills, it would be 133 without that forced consolidation.
Yup. And it is worth noting this has been done in canon, too. There is at least one book on Spell Mastery for a General spell somewhere that does not have a level attached to it. So if Adaptive Casting remains roughly as is, we should track down those instances to give them levels in the errata.
The one element I am in disagrement about is Aegis of the Hearth, which is not just a regular spell but something special. I would think all magi know it by its standard name (the latin equivalent of Aegis of the Hearth) rather than Magus Antonio calling it Master's Home and Maga Jane calling it Domicile of Health. Considering every covenant casts this spell every year there is of course going to be a commonality to it.
So I totally think the Hermetic world knows that there are some Hermetic effects that can have varying power levels while still being the same spell pattern.
Also lets not forget that while we just call it Form and Technique and spell within the game itself there are many many rules and logics and written codes and elements of mystical math and stuff about each spell.
So, what are the General spells in the core rules (I'm not checking all the books right now…)?
Ward Against the Beasts of Legend (ReAn)
Ward Against the Faeries of the Waters (ReAq)
Ward Against the Faeries of the Air (ReAu)
Sight of the True Form (InCo)
Ward Against Faeries of the Wood (ReHe)
Dispel the Phantom Image (PeIm)
Restore the Moved Image (ReIm)
Lay to Rest the Haunting Spirit (PeMe)
Ring of Warding Against Spirits (ReMe)
Ward Against Faeries of the Earth (ReTe)
Shell of False Determinations (CrVi)
Shell of Opaque Mysteries (CrVi)
The Invisible Eye Revealed (InVi)
All MuVi spells
All PeVi spells
All ReVi spells except for Gather the Essence of the Beast
Note that, while Wizard's Communion is a General Spell, Wizard's Vigil is not. It is listed as MuVi 40 on page 75 of Through the Aegis. So, as written, Adaptive Casting does not apply to Wizard's Vigil.
That does not strike me as a sensible distinction. The fact that it was, in the real-world history of the line, helpful to write Wizard's Communion as General, and Wizard's Vigil as a particular level, is not reflective of anything important in the fiction. So, I think "Is it described as General in the books?" is a non-starter. "Is it based on a General guideline?" is not much better, as @callen has pointed out that quite a few of the non-General guidelines can be written as General, with minimal effort — certainly no more special cases than Sight of the True Form. (With my philosopher's hat on, all spells can be rewritten with a General guideline, although the notation would be less than totally transparent.)
This is why I am inclined to rely on Similar Spells, which does reflect something significant in the fiction.
I am not inclined to merge Mastery Abilities, however. That is a significant power boost to Flawless Magic, even if you merge the XP rather than the levels, and Flawless Magic really does not need a significant power boost. (I think it probably is the "best" Major Hermetic Virtue, but it is not so good that you should take it regardless of character concept, so it is OK. It should not be made stronger by errata, though.)
(I also agree that Aegis of the Hearth is a special case, but it is a special case, and so we cannot generalise from that to any other General spells.)
Actually, Wizard's Vigil is listed with the same name at both level 20 and level 40. Meanwhile, the identical Day of Communion is explicitly written as a General spell.
As you know, I totally agree.
I'm a little confused here. First, without any errata Flawless Magic is immensely boosted by there being many different Mastery Abilities. It lets you pile the options that are based on Mastery level in one spot and then pick up a ton of others on the cheap that can augment that one favorite, big one. Or split things across a couple or similar. Right now condensing them into a single Ability does two things:
However, if your earlier suggestion on editing Adaptive Casting is also necessarily included to limit the Flawless Magic grossness, then not merging them won't boost Flawless Magic that way.
Second, won't Flawless Magic get a noticeable boost through using Similar Spells? Those with Flawless Magic are the ones with lots of Mastery Abilities, so they're the ones who can best take advantage, and this way they can use their tricks on quite a few different spells. This doesn't make it the wrong choice, it just confuses me when you talk about not boosting Flawless Magic.
Now, given this is the way it's likely to go, I have two suggestions:
You got most of them right. I only see:
Missed this one:
Discern the Images of Truth and Falsehood (InIm)
Misnamed this one:
Ward Against Faeries of the Mountain (ReTe)
So far I've found three instances in Through the Aegis where books on Mastery were given for General spells as a single Ability rather than separating them into different Abilities.
p.124
Calvacius of Tytalus, Destruet Extremum
Preiudicium, Demon’s Eternal Oblivion Spell Mastery, Quality 8. (8BP)
p.157
Helveticus of Flambeau, Scourge of the Infernal, Demon’s Eternal Oblivion Mastery Summa, Level 3, Quality 15 (24 Build Points)
Amadeus of Bonisagus, Fortress of the Home, Aegis of the Hearth Mastery Tractatus, Quality 14 (14 Build Points)
I fully expect to find more in more books. Not a lot most likely, but I've already found three examples from two different authors here.
"Similar Spells" is a power boost for Flawless Magic. A rather major one at that. It lets them get the benefit of Adaptive Casting in places it currently does not. It lets you do something like put all your XP into one of the PeVi Might Strippers or ReVi Might Wards, then use that single one for all of them. Or even better, put half of the XP into one of them to use as the primary, then putting groups of 15 or 30 XP into others to pick up another Mastery Ability or two that you have the option of using for all of them. If you have Flawless Mastery then you are looking at a total cost of 5 XP to get 15 in a Spell Mastery. You could actually build "Casting Packages", where you put several Mastery Abilities that are beneficial to use together in groups, then pick the package that best suites the situation.
Forced consolidation (without "similar spells") is not a straight power boost. While you will often end up with a single higher skill, the total XP in one area will result in a lower total level. 200XP in a single skill will result in a skill of 8, while in four skills would result in four skills of 4 (16 total Mastery Abilities). Even reducing each of them by one to account for taking Adaptive Casting results in 7 vs 12. It also blocks the putting a large chunk of XP in one ability to get a high bonus, then putting the remaining XP into small chunks to cheaply pick up other Mastery Abilities.
EDIT: And all of them result in increased complexity. The whole reason my group went with Forced Consolidation is to reduce it. So Similar spells is in my view horrible since it increases complexity and increases power (dramatically). It is actually making a case for Flawless Magic being a "Must Pick".
Thanks! Could you repost these in the errata thread so I don't lose them? I am working my way down that thread, but I'm currently stuck in the animals section, because we really don't seem to have checked those as carefully as we should…
Okay I am a bit confused here.
Let us say there is a ward expert with a bunch of spells. Is the consensus saying something like
a) His spell sheet might look like this
Ward Against the Beast of Legend (ReAn 5); Mastery 1
Ward Against the Beast of Legend (ReAn 10)
Ward Against the Beast of Legend (ReAn 15)
Ward Against the Beast of Legend (ReAn 20); Mastery 2
b) Or could his spell sheet look like this
Ward Against the Beast of Legend (ReAn 5 to 20); Mastery 3
Cause I would figure in such a growth of capability the spells would sort of condense into one slot, with the magus having options when he cast for all that its basically the same spell.