Ahh.
An overly parsimonious reading could suggest that the the familiar might not be able to provide full assistance.
So, Looking at what the Failed Apprentice virtue says, and taking it on its face, it allows the character to help in the lab. Moving to page 103, there is no provision for another character to help in the lab. It specifically outlines Gifted and Magic Theory, but the virtue Failed Apprentice is, IMO, the loophole to the rule requiring the Gift and a score of at least 1 in Magic Theory. Now Covenants introduces yet another loophole, the Servant, who adds 1/2 his Int to the lab total. I think that's the extent of what's going on. Are we going to treat the familiars as servants, because they don't have the Gift? Because they certainly don't belong in the assistant category as the quotation above states...
From a game mechanics point of view, I would just apply the RAW in the corebook. The Lab rules tell us what a Lab Assistant does (adds Int and Magic Theory to the Lab Total) and describes two classes of individuals who can be Lab Assistants (characters with the Gift and Magic Theory, and familiars). Then, the Failed Apprentice Status Virtue merely adds a third class of individuals to Lab Assistant.
So, the failed apprentice adds her Int + Magic Theory as a bonus to the Lab Total, and counts towards the total number of assistants (from a Leadership point of view).
And a failed apprentice is not mundane either. They had The Gift.
An animal without any magic might might be reasonably considered mundane, though. You could argue shades that the familiar ceases to be mundane when he's bound, but...
In any event, if the Failed Apprentice still has some Supernatural virtue or flaw, would they be mundane? And then taking Richard Loves comment they weren't mundane and might retain some hidden essence not contained within the characters virtues and flaws...
Again, I think you're treating the Failed Apprentice too harshly, since the virtue confers the ability to assist in the lab, unambiguously, in the main rules, where there was no possibility of a "mundane" assistant previously. I'm personally fine with a "mundane" Failed Apprentice helping in the lab. I tend to think these characters could exercise some discretion as to the lab projects that they work on, and might be able to earn vis, much like a Redcap does, for performing certain services. He's not likely to be coerced through Mentem magics, due to the warping that might inflict, thus damaging a valuable resource. And, there is something to be said that his services could be too highly priced to make it worth it...
I agree. If you downgrade the failed apprentice's ability to assist in the Lab the Virtue doesn't really seem to do a great deal, and it is meant to be a Virtue.
Perhaps, that is certainly a possibility, although I'm not entirely convinced about its likelihood.
I'm not sure what a Failed Apprentice would use vis for? Perhaps he could buy items and a longevity potion, but unlike a Redcap he doesn't really seem likely to travel around to meet lots of magi (so has much less opportunity to buy things). I would have thought that room and board and some internal covenant status would largely be what he got for his assistance; much like any other custos level grog.
He could also be seen as a bit of a bad luck charm, and might also be considered a bit of an embarrassment. After all, a failed apprentice implies a failed master.
It's a continuum of possibility... I just seem to see a lot of discussion of how he helps in the lab, but not about who the failed apprentice is as a person. What he does, etc...
I keep wondering... just how common are failed apprentices? It's not all that easy to lose The Gift, is it?
Personally, I am intrigued by the Suppressed Gift flaw introduced in Apprentices. I'd be temped to require it for Failed Apprentices in my sagas. I think, to esselino's point, it represents a neat solution the "question" of Failed Apprentices by giving them a damaged form of The Gift.
At which point the player and storyguide/troupe agree not to have the Gift come back for that character. That's a level of flexibility required in the design of any character, IMO.
Then why have the flaw? I'd have to look at it to see what else it entails, I'm not recalling all the details of the flaw, at the moment. Does it just impose the negative social consequences of the Gift? So, this makes them even more likely to become a tool of the magus...may not fit into the player's wishes. If the negative consequences are the issue, then Magical Air is a suitable flaw to substitute, IMO.
Edit: Not really sure how much of the text I'm allows to post, but basically it explicated gives you the Gift and allows you to have Arts but not advance them or use them. You suffer the social effects of the Gift.
Well, I quote from books all the time, but I attribute it, and it's here on the Atlas forum. I'd say a mod could excise it easily enough if it was troublesome...
That [Suppressed Gift] does a lot more than what a character might ever be interested in doing and is a pretty hefty flaw to inflict on a character, especially a player character. I'd use that flaw as an excuse for exploring the losing and regaining of one's Gift, not as a means of limiting a character who is designed to never use Hermetic Arts.
If the troupe is going to have a discussion regarding the viability of a Failed Apprentice, the player making such a character should be allowed to make the character as much as possible with input from the troupe, but forcing specific flaw on a character who will never realize the return of his Gift is a very hefty penalty. Failed Apprentice is a virtue, and, IMO, shouldn't be "balanced" with mandatory flaws. If a player wants Suppressed Gift, by all means, I don't see a problem, but you suggested requiring it for anyone who takes Failed Apprentice in your sagas, which is an entirely different thing. Of course, it's your saga, your rules.
Well, Landed Noble requires Oath of Fealty. Diedne Magic requires Dark Secret (and you don't even get points for that one). I don't think it's unreasonable to say that Failed Apprentice requires Suppressed Gift. At the same time, as I also said, flexibility is required in character creation. In my saga, I would be inclined to make Suppressed Gift a requirement for Failed Apprentice in the same way Landed Noble requires Oath of Fealty but I would also be more than willing to discuss the matter with a player (in either case) if they had a character concept that required a different flaw or no such flaw. The "requirement" to my mind is much the same as in the examples I offered... a matter of background and setting informing rules decisions. Landed Nobles must have Oath of Fealty because to be a landed noble you must have sworn fealty to someone. Diedne magic requires Dark Secret because of the background of the Schism War. Failed Apprentice, to my mind, requires Suppressed Gift because a failed apprentice is someone who has lost their Gift and that's what the flaw is.
And those requirements are explicitly stated in the description of the Virtue as written. Again, Suppressed Gift suggests it might come back somehow, while the Virtue Failed Apprentice says that the Gift has not been completely destroyed there may be some Supernatural Abilities. I would encourage a prospective player of such a character to explore the fullness of Supernatural virtues and flaws, but I would counsel certain directions, not require them...
Respectfully, that's a weak argument, IMO, as Suppressed Gift did not exist at the time the Virtue in question was published. If it had, the text might be quite different.
Given my stance that all rules are suggestions anyway: Po-tay-to, Po-tah-to.
Still, I agree to disagree (insofar as we disagree, which isn't by much IMO) on this point... though I do think, for ezzelino who is looking for some solid guideline to hang his hat on visa vi "the problem" of Failed Apprentices, mine is a reasonable suggestion of a "solution."
Sure, if was necessary for the RAW to be adjusted, that could be an errata or it could also have been mentioned in Apprentices, that Suppressed Gift must be taken by Failed Apprentice.
And some would say that this is not a solution, such as me. I prefer guidelines and rubrics rather than hard and fast rules on if X then Y. If X and then A-P are appropriate, Q is questionable and R-Z are right out...
I'm also of the opinion that making Suppressed Gift automatic for a Failed Apprentice would cut down on design options. If the player wants the combination, let him select it.
After all, Failed Apprentice specifically says that there are many different reasons why you couldn't complete your apprenticeship.
If yours was an incomplete Gift, you may or may not suffer the negative effects of the Gift (it might have appeared as a Gentle Gift, but was really a weak one). If you lost your Gift, then again you may or may not suffer its negative effects. Is it completely gone, leaving you unable to perform any magical feat? Or does it remain, as a Supernatural Ability of some kind?
Let's keep all options open to the player. If he thinks having both make sense for that specific character, let him take both. You can always suggest it, I don't think making it automatic would be a good move. YMMV and all.
At the risk of derailing the thread, I'm curious: do you think requiring Landed Nobles take Oath of Fealty limits design options? If not, why do you feel it is different?
