Adaptive Casting

Games Discussion Ars Magica
62

It's broader than it was, but considering that a common complaint about spell mastery is that "it's not worth the time unless you have Flawless Magic" ... I think it's quite right in terms of broadness.

It does have some slight ... quirks that I am not sure I like. These are intrinsic to Adaptive Casting, but the broader it gets, the more some of them get amplified. The most egregious is that once you have mastered one spell, if you develop similar ones it might just make sense to keep mastering the first to improve your "effective mastery" of the others, even if you never cast that first spell again. That's ... not entirely pleasing, aesthetically, though it's probably not a big issue.

63

It reached the point where I became convinced that trying to provide an authoritative clarification would do more harm than good. (Although I should add a cross reference to the relevant part of ArM5 to the erratum.) Euclid notwithstanding, "similar" is just very difficult to make precise.

Still worth debating, though, because unclear cases are likely to come up in sagas.

64

My feeling is that this is how Adaptive Casting is supposed to work, and that the oddness is the case in which you never cast the first spell again. I think that is unlikely, partly because it is hard to make a spell redundant in ArM5, so I can live with it.

And yes, I am aware that it is a power boost for this ability. I don't think it is too much of a power boost, though.

1 Like
65

Also, it's less aesthetically displeasing than the option that results in "let's invent a pile of low-magnitude similar spells and get Mastery 2 in each of them to pick up a pile of extra abilities easily".

2 Likes
66

While clearing up "closely related effect" surely fits that mess you indicate, I don't think clearing up "same effect" would be problematic. It only comes down to two things: Are two different levels of the same general guideline the "same effect"? If they are the "same effect," should we be playing semantics or should the other methods of writing out patterns also be included as "same effect"?

67

In that case, I can't really claim to be a huge fan of having mastery work for 'similar spells' - something that we've kinda written off as a mess. :-/

68

I actually doubt there are any more. Off the top of my head, I can't recall ever having seen any other instances of books on Mastery at all. They seem to have been either overlooked or omitted deliberately

69

Also, it'll give a lot more power to the magus, who learns Mastery for just one of his "project a bolt of fire spells". The Resistance ability of Mastery already makes this very easy on the defensive side of fire spells, by them being Similar. But now the PoF master has no work at all involved in moving op to casting BoAFs - his Multiple casting, Penetration, Stalwar Casting etc all just carry over easy-peasy. I dont like that.

General spells, as I see them - most of them anyway - exist as effects at different power levels, and the variation lies in how powerful a creature can they affect/ how powerful a suprnatural effect they can affect. Wards, summoning, and control spells follow this, as do meta-magic effects. Sure, might-strippers are different, because they allow you to use low level effects, consequently with higher Pen, to whittle down large creatures. Right now I can't remember any other General spells.
But from the guidelines, and published spells (mostly core book) some spells are General and some aren't. I have never had problems with this.

It had never occurred to me, that Mastery books for a General spell needed to be different, and be specified for "DEO fnordth magnitude" and that this was different from "DEO fnordteenth magnitude".

I don't think the situation has ever arisen in our sagas, we have just had one book on DEO Mastery. But if anyone ever first mastered the spell and subsequently learned the spell at af different level...then the Mastery would only apply to the first known instance of the spell. To master the second one, you'd have to learn that one specifically. But could you just read the same book? Normally, that is not allowed.

Frankly, I feel this is a level of detail for Mastery that seems odd, seeing as you can read a Tractatus written by a magus with any mastery ability and learn any other one you'd like yourself. This is a tremendeous level of flexibility.

I'd like Mastery books on General spells to be...General. Whichever level you know the spell at, this is the one you'll gain mastery in, or choose of you know it at several levels. This is much easier to book keep.
Keeping things easy, I'd disallow the same book to be read again. Even if it was a Summa, you've already started down the path of mastery of one version of the spll. To gain mastery in the second one, find a new source. Luckily Mastery allows Practice.
Or, rule that the same book can be read again, to apply exp to the second (or subsequent) spell versions but: A) Quality is halved, B) there is a limit of gaining Mastery score of 1, and C) you may only choose Adaptive casting for these subsequent versions.
In effect, you master one version. By re-reading the book, you apply your knowledge to other versions of the same spell. Both Mastery abilities AND score.
I hardly think this will be overpowered; magi with so many instances of the same spell will IMHO be rare and over-specialized.

70

No.

Going for "similar spells" uses something that is already explicitly defined in the rules, and used in the context of spell mastery. It is clear enough for use in play, and just as giving someone +4 to a Lab Total is unlikely to be game breaking, allowing multiple applicability of the Spell Mastery is also unlikely to cause major problems. Especially as the troupe gets to rule on what is "similar".

71

I lack the experience and rigor of Callen and the other long-tenured posters, but from my perspective as a newer player this seems to be a marked improvement.

I believe my troupe was considering this version (Adaptive Casting applies to Similar Spells) plus one of the House Rules proposed above (All General Spells have a single mastery ability), specifically to make Spell Mastery Texts more valuable and worth trading for / writing.

1 Like
72

I was pretty sure there was another because I had seen one prior to Through the Aegis. I just found it again:

TL&TL p.23: Research Notes on Aegis of the Hearth, by Notatus and others. Tractatus on Mastery in Aegis of the Hearth, Quality 11

The lab text is for a specific level, but the tractatus isn't.

2 Likes
73

I am with Callen that text on Mastery of General Spells are not level specific. I would rather they stay that way.

3 Likes
74

I feel like for simplicity's sake, if you do this, it's cleaner / cleanest to go with the 'one spell mastery track per general spell' approach.

If "DEO 5" and DEO 15" are 'sufficiently differently metaphysically' that they have two different Spell Mastery 'tracks' - that is, mastery is learned separately for each level of the spell (as it currently is), it feels odd that books/instruction on one would be 'sufficiently similar' to carry over to the other.

This lets you:

  • Get rid of Adaptive Casting entirely
  • Removes incentives for weird (often Flawless Magic) Spell Mastery shenanigans involving general spells, inventing spells you don't actually intend to use for the pure purpose of getting a relevant mastery bonus either free or at a discount.
  • Helps with Mastery and Might-based-ward-scaling as a campaign progresses (those 2 mastery points you spent on learning a Level 20 Ward Against Beasts of Legend can remain relevant when you now need to learn a level 50 one)

I know it doesn't appear to be RAI currently (per David's above post) but it seems a much cleaner/simpler system. Some clarifications would be required - different versions of the general spells with for example, [Form] keywords might have their own mastery tracks.

1 Like
75

I'll admit it was a subject I had not given much thought. Even though I've playes enough magi using lots of generel spells, it has never come up that I had more than one version of each.

I knew from how Adaptive Casting worked - that each different level-version of the same General spell required different mastery abilities. I've pondered, that when learning the first level-version, and mastering it with multiple abilities and levels, subsequent level-versions learned need only Mastery 1 (Adaptive) to use the mastery of the first one.
But I've never batted an eye about books on spell mastery, and how specific they needed to be. Also, these are very rare in published materials, and while at least one of my magi have written such a book in a saga, no thought was given to whether different evels are different spells.

I like Wampa's idea, but can tell yet whether it would unbalance things. Is it too easy?
My own previous idea was that books on general spell mastery were somewhat universal, and could be studied regardless of what level you had. But that eash level-version required its own mastery skill. Wampa's idea saves us from having to think about what happens when you want to master the second verson, but you've already read the book.
My idea was they you could rad the same book again, for subsequent level-versions, but you are limited to Mastery 1 and may only choose Adaptive casting. So mastery for these is binary: either you don't have mastery, or you do and you have the same level and mastery abilities for this as for the first one you learned. It doesnt matter if the first verison you learn is level 5 or 50, they are equally easy to master

Some things about need to clear up which genereal spells are the same (DEO, Aegis) and which are in fact different (Unravelling the fabric of VIm is different from Unravelling the Fabric of Terram, Wizard's Reach os different fro Wizard's Expansion or whatever).

76

I like the clarity; whether yes or no, clarity is good. I don't personally think this is a good choice because of things like Resistance.

Consider a Flambeau Ignem specialist with Pilum of Fire, Arc of Fiery Ribbons, Coat of Flame, Ball of Abysmal Flame, Circle of Encompassing Flame, Test of the Flames, Last Flight of the Phoenix, Self Immolation, and Stockade of Infernos and has mastered every one of them with Resistance. Seems pretty secure, right? Well, with all that Resistance the Flambeau gets no protection against a CrIg spell for +25 damage at Sight/Momentary/Individual. How about against Stellatus's breath? That's tricky. We see the same +45 damage maximum (base), but Stellatus's breath shifts in a different way than Last Flight of the Phoenix, so that's not clear since it seems to be the same base for different damage, which is just like the General guideline rule for different amounts. Meanwhile, we don't really know if Stellatus's breath is Touch or Voice or even Individual, so all those Momentary/Voice/Individual-Group ones might or might not work. We just have no idea. Even if we did have an idea, I don't think this sort of combing through a big list of CrIg spells to see if you have just the right combination is a good thing. Is this really what is intended for Resistance?

But that's just my opinion. Regardless, having a clear yes or no is a good thing.

2 Likes
77

My understanding of Adaptive Casting mastery special ability is that you must take it in the mastery ability you want to use for the other spell versions. So to use your level 6 mastery you have in DEO 5 with your other versions of DEO adaptive casting must have been one of he 6 mastery special abilities you took for that level 5 version rather than the other way around which is how I read what you wrote.

1 Like
78

You know, I do believe you are right. I think my brain is in TwilightI think the first people i playes with, when we switched to ArM5 many years ago got confused, and thought that was how it worked. Having never actually used Adaptive casting in a game, I think i just digressed into my past.

What you write sounds plausible. Taking Adaptive Casting as one of the abilities in the general spell one has a good level in, means any subsequent level-variants of the spell learned lets you take advantage of thus.
Books on mastery can just be spell-specific and not level-specific. And once the book on mastery is read, it can't teach you anyting else. if you learn another level of them spell, you still can't read the book again. Either you were smart and took Adaptive casting as one of the abilities in the originals spell, or else you need to go look for new sources.
Seeing as spell mastery is already so flexible, the no matter what abilities the author has, the reader can gain any other abilities by reading the book. This may be because book keepign it otherwise is a pain. But I wouldn't find it a stretch, that different levels of the spell don't require different books either.

79

At one point, we (our troupe) debated a houserule that you should take Adaptive Mastery with each version of a given general spell for which you wanted to use mastery abilities from other versions of the same spell.
That might've been why?

80

That is very likely.
And frankly, I like this setup better than RAW.
Because, if you spend time mastery a given spell, likely to levels 3+, it takes lot of exp. Then your Arts evolve, and you desire a higher level, and invent and use one. But for Mastery to carry over, you need to find the huge numbers of exp required to raise the already high mastery score 1 more level, in order to take Adaptive casting.
That's rough! And yes, I know users of PoF wanting to upgrade to BoAF have it harder, but the point of general spells is that they are a little easier. And if Adaptive casting is supposed to help users of Generel spells, then it would be much nicer, that you simply has to get Mastery 1 with the new version, take Adaptive and let the knowledge carry over.
I vote we use that House rule in our saga.

3 Likes
81

Frankly, I've always seen Adaptative Casting as the thing you buy so that you don't have to start a new skill because you've upgraded to a higher level spell, not something you pick to mix and match mastery specializations. I realize you can do it but I frankly think it's a waste of time at a minimum.

1 Like