Since a Magus can have 0 in Technique and Form, but must have 1 in Magic Theory, and can research a spell in his lab, yes, Magic Theory is essential.
If someone with MT 1, in an Aura 3, and with Int +2, 0 in both Perdo and Ignem, can still research a spell of levels 1-5, then MT is Essential.
Also, I haven't looked at the new ArMDE, but in my core book, a Magus needs to have AL 1, since you need to be able to read and write in Latin. So, only Philosophiae can be at a score of 0 when casting Rituals. But casting rituals is not a Seasonal Activity, so it's not something to compare.
As your strange example said:
You can't work in the Lab without MT 1 (not assist, since even an apprentice with just 1 or 2 xp in MT, and a score of 0, can, technically assist), then yes, MT is Essential to Lab Work.
And before you rant off, an apprentice should take the 2 exposure xp in MT when his Arts are Opened.
That's why I went to the additional point that you cannot do this lab work with MT 0 if it's doing anything with vis, and possibly also not if it's a charged item. The point is that even if you decide to bypass the Lab Total, you still need that score in MT for much lab work.
Perhaps ... but no clarification is made for Divine Ceremony used without a Leader (it's only very indirectly that one can glean that yes, for those characters who have no Ceremony score, it's treated as 0 in the Total, but a Total is still generated).
Sorry, it's probably my fault, but I really fail to see the logic in this statement. It's like saying that if someone with a bicycle and a day off can still go on a picnic, then a bycicle is Essential to go on a picnic. Keep in mind that a 0 in an Art is not the same as a 0 in an Ability, in that with a 0 in an Art still provides some knowledge of that Art.
As for assisting in the Lab, strictly speaking the rules say "Anyone who has The Gift and a score of at least one in Magic Theory may help you to perform any activity that uses your Magic Theory."
So, first of all, a score of 1 (five full xp) is needed. But second, and more importantly, someone with Magic Theory helps you to perform activities that use your Magic Theory. So, this says that you cannot use help in the Lab if you have no Magic Theory, because then no activity you carry out can use Magic Theory, and thus no one can help you. But it does not make explicit that you can't perform a lab activity without Magic Theory, per se. I hope that was clear!
I am not disagreeing with this at all.
Let me recap what I completely agree with:
Magic Theory is important for Lab work.
Magic Theory is necessary for a lot of Lab work.
There is no strong evidence that you can do Lab work without Magic Theory (at the same time, I think there is no conclusive evidence of the contrary for activities that use no vis).
However, I still think that:
You can't perform "standard" Laboratory work without a basic understanding of the Arts (I keep repeating "standard" because I am excluding helping someone else, or setting up a lab). So Magic Theory is necessary, but not sufficient.
You can happily earn a living with Craft: Blacksmith alone. So Craft: Blacksmith is sufficient for a season of blacksmith work, and thus arguably more central to it than Magic Theory is to a season of Lab work (since Magic Theory "shares the stage" with the Arts).
I am not aware of any contradiction in my argument!
But I agree there seems to be little point in arguing further.
Core Book p.164 "Hermetic Arts cannot be increased by training."
Training is different than teaching. Masters are required to teach 15 seasons to an apprentice or face a low crime.
CoreBook p.165 "A teacher may gain exposure to Teaching or the language of instruction, but cannot do anything else in a season when she is teaching. Hermetic Arts can be taught, but only one-on-one"
Seems to me pretty clear that the apprentice cannot train in Hermetic arts and if being taught, master needs to dedicate himself to him for the season.
Actually, Apprentices, p.44 clarifies that Training - since it's direct one-on-one instruction - qualifies for the season of yearly instruction the master must provide. The big question is whether a magus can perform "standard" laboratory work in the same season he's training an apprentice in Magic Theory - by similitude to what a mundane Craftsman could do in a season spent earning a living with his Craft ability.
An apprentice can have their Arts opened, and attempt to cast a ritual, without having learned how to read or write, not having a single point in either AL or Philosophae.
You need MT 1 or higher to assist in the lab, but I do not know of anything which says you need more than a single xp in MT to do lab work on your own. (Anything which requires vis will of course be limited by the usual limits on vis use, so MT 0 would preclude many, but not all, lab activities)
Unless the Parens Lab has high bonuses to Spells, or the Arts in question, the Apprentice can't even learn the ritual, since teaching a spell is limited by the apprentice's Lab Total for the Tech + Form combo.
And unless the apprentice has MT 2 at least, can he even cast the basic rituals? Since you need to use Vis to cast rituals.
And if one needs MT 1 to assist in a lab, saying that one doesn't need at least 1 to do your own Lab Work is such a fallacy that I can't stop laughting about.
The vis limit for casting spells depend on your Arts, not on MT.
You are right that the student does need to be able to generate a Lab Total to learn a spell, which could require at least 1 xp in MT.
It is not a fallacy of any sort to claim that you need higher MT to assist in a lab than to work in a lab on your own. A bit odd to be sure, but by no means impossible.
Certainly "arguably." You arbitrarily choose "sufficient" as your mark for "central" rather than choosing "necessary." You would then agree that Strength is more central to a season of blacksmith work than Intelligence is to a season in the lab, right? You would also agree that assistants are more central to a season of blacksmith work than they are to a season in the lab, right? You would also agree that a manual/text is more central to a season of blacksmith work than to a season in the lab, right? You would also agree that workshop improvements are more central to a season of blacksmith work than lab improvements are to a season in the lab, right?
And, fundamentally, why do you choose sufficient over necessary as your standard for something being central?
So out of curiosity, and my less than attractive contrarian streak, how do people envision training on a narrative level as opposed to a mechanical level?
The blacksmith example is pretty easy, we have tons of real world examples. Blacksmith explains what he is doing, while he is doing it, points out the tongs and the forge and explains these things. Maybe he has little Jimmy the blacksmith apprentice follow along, maybe make a little pocket knife for personal use while the forge is still hot. But the blacksmith is still making the sword, and Jimmy doesn't interfere particularly or get in the way, he just follows along, listens, and generally copies what the blacksmith does.
But lab work, at least in my envisioning, is far more intellectual. A lot of calculations, taking astronomical measurements, aura readings, jotting down ideas on paper, working out the mathematics of a spell, the related sympathies, etc. Where I run into a mental block, is envisioning how this translates into training. If we have a mage apprentice, little Timmy, how is Timmy picking this stuff up? Sure you can talk out loud, explain the nuances of Magic Theory as it applies to the spell, but at a certain point of complexity, you need to tailor what you are saying to the understanding level of Timmy, who has lower arts and MT than you. At which point you are no longer talking about what you are doing, you are teaching him. Do we give Timmy worksheets? Make him fill out astrological charts?
I guess I envision the lab process as something analogous to STEM fields. If a random teenager were sat down with an engineer designing a bridge, and allowed to look over his shoulder and ask occasional questions, I imagine they would pick up that forces tend to be pretty important, along with geometry and angles. But I am skeptical that he is going to get a lot of useful information out of it if the engineer is preoccupied with his work on the bridge, instead of changing focus and actually teaching.
Why can the blacksmith explain what he's doing while doing it, but a mage cannot?
Why is it that a blacksmith explaining things, isn't stopping everything to Teach, but a Magus doing the same is?
Yes, you can explain to your apprentice what you're doing, and how it affects things, but in both cases, a lot of it goes over the head of the apprentice, which is why Training generally gives a lower SQ than Teaching 1 on 1.
Let me try to illustrate what I mean with a slight hyperbole.
Imagine two activities, A and B.
In order to carry out A, 10000 tools are needed. Each is necessary. Together, they are sufficient.
In order to carry out B, a single tool is both necessary and sufficient; it's all there is to activity B.
To me, that single tool appears more central to activity B than tool number 9541 is to activity A.
This is not quite an issue of choosing sufficient over necessary.
Your example is so blown out of proportion as well as in disagreement with the rules:
What goes into the workshop/lab total?
Blacksmith: Characteristic, Craft, Aura, Assistants, Workshop, Manual
Mage: Characteristic, MT, Aura, Assistants, Lab, 2 Arts
That's nothing like the ratio of 10000 to 1. The blacksmith isn't even close to 1.
Meanwhile, what is necessary?
Blacksmith: Workshop
Mage: MT, Lab, 2 Arts
What is necessary doesn't match your claim.
As can clearly be seen, your comparison is really deceptive about what is being compared. If that's it, just say you're making your choice arbitrarily rather than trying to argue invalid things.
Copied from the other thread as I think it is critical to the issue.
I suspect this is the heart of the disagreement. A blacksmith is using his craft skill for the majority of the time. I think we all rather intuitively understand that. It looks like magi and MT isn't quite as intuitive.
I see the mage as working mostly with Arts. Some MT of course but more as a tool not as the real skill. To bring an example from my days as an academic researcher - I used statistic and advanced math as tools to help me but the ability that I was really using to do productive work was materials science (or some more focused skill but that gets the idea).
Consider this- what does a blacksmith need to be productive? Technically a smithy, and strength. He dos not need a skill in blacksmith because he can default it.
What does he use? Strength, smithy, and blacksmith skill. Since only the skill is able to be trained he trains his apprentice in blacksmith.
What does a magus need to be productive in a lab? Intelligence, a lab, the Gift, the aura and magic theory, since it cannot be defaulted. Obviously then magic theory is more essential to lab work than blacksmithing is to smith work.
What does a mgus use? Intelligence, the lab, magic theory, the Gift, the aura, a form, and a technique. Of these only magic theory can be trained, which puts it on the same level as blacksmithing fro the craftsman.
So by either analysis magic theory is as or more important to lab work and training than blacksmithing is to a blacksmith.
As to the academic/practical, consider a scribe. a scribe is doing the work, which i rather academic, but still guiding the apprentice at the same time. This is a real world example. Real world architects had apprentices, at the building site, where they would explain what they were doing. I have seen, modern world, electrical engineers do the same in practice with an individual they are mentoring at a computer terminal. Admittedly the "apprentice" in such matters does not come in with zero knowledge, given the educational requirements to even get to an internship position, but the principal remains- it can be done, it has been done. Just because you don't understand how does not mean that it cannot.
Furthermore, this is a game about things we know cannot be done. A man is developing a spell to create water from nothing that will last for a month and you want to say he cannot train his apprentice in magic theory because you don't understand how that would actually work? Fine, explain how he creates water from nothing if you have to understand how things actually work for them to be in the game.
I'm on the "no, he can't" side of the argument, but I'm not going to make any changes to ArMD for this. At this point, I'm fixing mistakes, but not clarifying. This is something that can safely be left up to troupes.
I work in a STEM field -- chemical engineering. I've had interns working for me and I'd certainly consider what went on Training: they were there to learn, and although the company thought they'd hired interns to be extra help, in reality you don't get much useful out of an intern except for the most basic stuff.
You can visualize me in a "season" using Philosophiae (= chemistry) and "Engineering Theory" to make a living. Sometimes, that involved redesigning a process, or developing a new process. I'd explain to the intern the intent of each bit that "we" were doing and how it would fit into the overall plan. Then, I'd usually send the intern off to do some minor task related to that -- e.g., go filter a reaction batch, go calculate a reactor volumn, etc. Then, they'd come back and I'd check the work and "we" would use it to move on to the next step.
It was a chore. Basically, until they have some more advanced knowledge I'm not getting any use out of them. Usually the next summer they're a little more useful, having had both the prior experience and further schooling (= Teaching)... higher "Engineering Theory" score. By that point they are fairly useful and can do supervised work -- i.e., I get a Lab Total bonus from their season of obligatory work. Really, there's more of me teaching/training at that point so they'd be getting more than 2xp for Exposure... but ArM5 isn't a reality simulator.
So, while I'd say you can do "Training" in a STEM field, the rules aren't really a good fit to model reality and I'm not sure that it's helpful to the game if you can use Training to feed xp to your apprentice. But my hesitation isn't that it doesn't seem realistic -- my hesitation is that having to teach an apprentice is supposed to cost magi valuable time to get that season of extra Lab Total bonus. Allowing Training to convey Magic Theory undermines that intent; the wizard isn't really wasting a season to get a season's bonus. It seems like something best left to a troupe to decide how it will work for them.
