Reading the advance Chapter 10, there were some references that confused me. I can't escape the feeling that I missed something and these would be clear to others. Can someone help?
Page 383 Standard Texts, paragraph 1: "For nine of the Arts, there is a basic text that, over time, has come to be accepted as the preferred primer for a magus seeking the competence necessary to train an apprentice." Which nine Arts? "These texts, called the Roots of the Arts, are widely and cheaply available." What are the names of these texts?
Page 383 Standard Texts, paragraph 2: "In eight of the Arts, there are summae that are
widely accepted as the finest works yet produced." Which eight Arts? And why one less than the nine? "These works, called the Branches of the Arts, ..." What are the names of these texts?
Page 383 Standard Texts, paragraph 5: "Certain magi consider the root and branch
symbolism employed in the advertising of standard texts to be a vestigial druidical practice, and they refer to the Foundations and Pillars of the Arts." What are Foundations and Pillars?
Arts are specifically not specified to let each ST decides which one are suitable for his saga and which one could be written by the PCs.
Roots are Q15L5 or Q21L6 - as you see, they allow to go from 0 to 5 or 6, without any specific virtue. They are "one-use" Summa, are supposed to be easily accessible for one or two pawns - I personally consider that each Tribunal has a set that can be rented for 1p/year. There is little reason to have them in a library as they will only be read once per magi.
Branches are using the rules for the finest quality of work: Q = 35-L, usually Q20L15 (within this range) and are extremely valuable. Within 2 years of work (8 seasons), a mage can learn the whole content of the book.
Uh, no, just no. Read it again and you'll see it's pretty clear that's not what they are:
These texts vary, but all have a Level of at least 7, and a Quality of at least 21.
.
That has intentionally been left up to troupes:
Each troupe should decide which Arts have Roots based on the needs of their saga.
.
There is no reason there have to be the same number, nor even that the Arts need to match. People wrote them for different reasons. Again, generally this is left up to troupes, but we do have a single, canonical example:
For example, the Branch of Terram in 1220 is De Lapii, by Jeremias filius Guernicus, a Summa on Terram, Level 17, Quality 14.
And that is a terrible example. A dirt-poor Spring covenant with absolutely no enhancements to its' library (Core Rules, p 71) can easily start with a copy of that 'Branch'. To me that implies that this 'Branch' is not rare nor precious nor particularly valuable in any way; and the rule about Art Summae casually mentions that 'better summae are available through play'.
Non-Bjornaer magi can write Summae with qualities up to 28; and Bjornear magi can exceed that by perhaps as much as another ten points of quality -- and that does not include strange-but-positive effects of Twilight which might result in greater insight. It seems like famous and respected works which are seen as definitive 'great works' ought to closer to the high end of what is possible -- but this saga-by-saga choice is colored (badly) by this example.
I agree that De Lapis seems to be a poor branch, perhaps too poor to be a branch. I would have put it higher, more in the L20, Q15 range. It's only 4 total below that, but still a little lower than I would expect.
I disagree with the 28 cap on Quality for non-Bjornaer, as non-Bjornaer can get most the same bonuses as Bjornaer. They're just more readily available for the Bjornaer. (And that's leaving out Astrologically Mutable Good Teacher.)
I think that actually shows that the BP system for covenants is borked more than it says anything about what the Branches should look like.
The range of assumptions about what the Order looks like and how prevalent books are is pretty wide. I think it would have been better not to have any of the Roots or Branches defined. Because that might be an amazing book in one saga and a ho-hum book in another.
Still, you can assume that superior books exist, because they are theoretically possible. But there's presumably a reason that only 9 Arts have Branches. There is clearly going to be an objectively best book for each Art. So 'literally best game mechanics' is apparently not all that is required to get labelled a Branch in character.
They already suggest this by the fact that sometimes the author of a new "Branch" gets lost because everyone still assumes the original Authority is the author of the new book. De Lapii is the recognized best book. That doesn't mean some rando doesn't have a better one in his library.
If you can find a way above Q:28 for non-Bjornaer, then I would be interested in knowing about it. Astrologically Mutable does not apply for an entire season, and so using it to benefit seasonal activities is very much open for debate. Even things like 'Legendary Characteristic' and 'Object of Virtue' are specifically limited to 'die rolls' -- which means that they do not apply for writing books. Getting above Q:28 is hard; Bjornaer only manage it with certain House Mysteries.
.
I agree; no example at all would have been far better.
Some of it is the same as you would do with a Bjornaer: apply animal Qualities. Just use Theriomorph instead of Theriomorphy.
No, there is no debate here. You just use three months when it applies to write. No need for them to be sequential. Only lab work is specifically tied to the seasons. Everything else can be spread out and generally is.
Now we are entering the realm of Saga-specificity: how fast do you want your mages to progress, what is the average power-level of the Saga, the protagonists, etc...
I did not see any reference to Theriomorph as a virtue aside from the Bjornaer Theriomorphy House Mystery; and that description centers around the person having a Heartbeast. Heartbeasts are possible in non-magi -- but it is very much a 'here is a disastrous story seed that you want to include in your saga'. What am I missing?
And there are other ways. For example, both Debauchery/Consumption and Ablating can raise a Characteristic beyond +5, though those are both Infernal methods.
Quite. The quality and availability of books has a huge influence on a saga, one I think deserves a lot of consideration.
I've been playing since 2nd edition - off and on, alas - and I've had the most fun in sagas that de-emphasized the quality and availability of Art books of any sort. I think it's simply because as you shift toward vis-study and lab work, it tends to emphasize the differences between mages. More have lacunae in their Arts, more specialize after finally securing a vis source, and there's more whacky doing stuff because study - esp. reading - just isn't as rewarding.
Hmmm... that sparks ideas in my mind for possible House Rules. Perhaps moving the role of the library regarding the Arcane towards providing a modifier to other activities, rather than as a direct source of learning?
I don’t remember the details, but there are rules on using a library to improve appropriate skill checks if you take the time to use it as a reference.
I’m not sure what else you’d do with it besides using books for learning.
I haven't had much time this morning to spend on it, but something along the lines of...
Get rid of the "Study from books" seasonal activity. Instead, you are performing one of the other seasonal activities, such as Practice, Teaching, Inventing a spell, or Study from Vis. And you have access to the library for the season you are doing it. Your library gives you a bonus to that activity, either to the SQ, to the lab total, or to both.
Some examples of what that could look like:
You are trying to improve your knowledge of Magic Theory. You can spend the season trying things out in the lab (essentially Practice for 4 xp) while also consulting the library, which is strong on the subject of Hermetic Magic (it gives +5 xp on the subject).
You are spending the season studying Aquam vis. Having access to a library that has some decent books on the subject, it gives you +3 xp. And perhaps reducing Botch Dice by 1.
You are inventing a spell while consulting the library about the various phases of the moon and how they affect it (whatever). The library gives you +1 xp to Exposure as well as a +5 to your Lab Total.
These are only rough ideas, but I think you get the gist.
Essentially, the library would become a set of bonuses for some subjects (Arts, Abilities, lab activities, etc.) Haven't had time to think on how the library would improve those bonuses, but it's just the kernel of an idea for now.
It is a good principle, but it is going to get complicated if you want to apply it to every possible activity. Bonus to practice sounds good, in principle. Making this work, I think, could be straight forward. Each tome could add to the bonus on a pyramid scale, but it would have to decline if you use the same library for a long time. This would still make books worthy treasures, and you will always want to get more.
If all art studies requires vis, you are going to need an awful lot of vis. Maybe the library could reduce vis cost? If you want bonuses to lab totals and exposures, we get an awful lot of bonuses to maintain.
Logically a community of scholars should contribute to the bonus as much as books.
Getting away from study from Books seems kind of un-thematic.I really only think it is the Tractati that cause a problem (assuming you think there is a problem :P).There's a lot to recommend Ars 5e's books compared to the flavorless libraries of the elder days. But it is true that it used to be that if you wanted to be the best, you didn't get there by reading other peoples' books. You could get good from reading books, but at some point you didn't have a choice but to forge your own path with vis studies or some other such thing.
Nobody suggested not to study from books. Arthur was exactly using the books as a tool for study. What we wanted to avoid was the reliance on a single book at a time.
My main concern is that mediocre books have little value. In real study one would normally use many books, also bad ones which have an original idea. This aspect is lost in the rules.
