Apprentices and Failed Apprentices

[Jonathan.Link]

@LuciusT

@Jonathan.Link

@LuciusT

Fair point, I was overlooking the Story Flaw aspect of it... though I return to the Oath of Fealty example. However, Suppressed Gift does give you something Magical Air doesn't: Arts scores and the associated Magic Resistance. It makes sense that a failed apprentice would have some score in the Arts.

I don't think that's the case, regarding resistance. I specifically remember that if the individual with Suppressed Gift knew Parma Magica that they would be unable to perform it, and I think I remember it mentioned form resistance wasn't functional, too.

Apprentices, page 13: While the Gift is suppressed, the character cannot perform Hermetic magic, improve his Arts or perform the Parma Magica. His Arts do provide him with Magic Resistance and he continues to suffer the negative social penalties of the Gift." (emphasis added, obviously)

I stand corrected. I just skimmed it last night after I got home from urgent care for my big toe infection. The story flaw is the part that grabbed me.

@LuciusT

Edit:

@Xavi

Just tested it. I cannot add Jonathan to foes list. Not that I want to, but just to check However, I had no problems sending LuciusT to the bottom of Tartarus. In the case of Jonathan it seems he is ranked as moderator, probably of one of the subforums (admin of one of the online sagas?) and so cannot be ignored.

In the case of LuciusT, he's just an idiot who really needs to remember when not to hit the submit button.

I never did take it personally. I probably have a stronger personality online than IRL. Passionate debates are good debates, IMO. I wouldn't do what you suggest regarding Failed Apprentice and Suppressed Gift, merely because it subtracts from the continuum of possibility, but it's not entirely without merit. It's just not as...final as far as the Gift being truly gone/destroyed as I would like in many cases.

[DIREWOLF75]

@callen

@DIREWOLF75

And a failed apprentice is not mundane either. They had The Gift.

I would nitpick on that and say that they HAVE the Gift. It just doesn´t work properly.

I would nitpick this. "They had the Gift" is a much truer statement. Saying "they have the Gift" contradicts the Virtue's description in multiple places; it explicitly says otherwise. Yes, they may still have it in a not-properly-functioning way. But this does not mean they did not have it in the past, so the former statement is still valid. However, they may no longer have the Gift at all, which works with the former statement and not the latter.

Regardless, the Virtue does not make still having a portion of the Gift a requisite for being a "laboratory assistant."

Chris

No, my point was along the direction of -the gift can be destroyed, but not removed-... If it was once there, it wont go away, but a person can effectively not have it, because it is no longer functional.
This makes their ability to have supernatural abilties and act as lab assistants completely logical without actually changing anything other than how you read RAW.

Ie. they have lost their ability to use the gift, but it´s not gone from them.

[callen]

@DIREWOLF75

No, my point was along the direction of -the gift can be destroyed, but not removed-... If it was once there, it wont go away, but a person can effectively not have it, because it is no longer functional.
This makes their ability to have supernatural abilties and act as lab assistants completely logical without actually changing anything other than how you read RAW.

Ie. they have lost their ability to use the gift, but it´s not gone from them.

OK. I get what you're saying now. It's essentially the same as my comment earlier. I still don't love your terminology since the Virtue says "may not have" which either means "cannot have" or "is permitted not to have," either way saying not having the Gift is possible.

Chris

[Henricus]

Will this also immunise them against warping from an aura higher than 5?