Can the Luck virtue be used for Original Research?

Games Discussion Ars Magica
41

It's also about blowing yourself up with Warp every time you make a Discovery worth anything (ie, there's a good chance a lvl 25 Discovery will probably throw you into Twilight), as the only way to avoid that is to do Magnitude 1 research effects the entire time. As it stands, it IS that much harder, simply due to the time involved.

Therefore - yes. Someone who could more easily do this could more easily get Discoverable ideas - at the expense of a significantly shorter lifetime. The optimized route would be to only do a lvl 5 effect every season - essentially have a small research project cooking alongside your regular projects. And to that....I actually have no problem with it. Even if you were hyper-optimized (and getting a theoretical 75% or so success rate every other season from doing this full-time - +60% from the base errata roll, +10% or so for my theorized "how much luck would someone really good at this get" bonus), it would take a LONG, long time for your research to bear any sort of fruit.

And at that point...Sure, why not? The character was hyper-designed to do this. Let 'em do their cool thing.

2 Likes
42

Why?

A 5 magnitude discovery would have an average -0.5 warp point, thus no twilight.
Remember that you substract a simple die from the magnitude level.

In my saga I have been doing original research with a Bonisagus, and on 4 experiments, only the level 65 one brought me to twilight but I did understand it.

1 Like
43

To calculate an average, you take all possible values, and multiply them by the likelihood of occurring. Doing so, you get the following:

1: 4 warp x 10%
2: 3 warp x 10%
3: 2 warp x 10%
4: 1 warp x 10%
5 through 10: 0 warp x 60%

For an average of 1 point of warp per experiment, and a 30% likelihood of having to roll for Twilight.

That doesn't include the 25% or so chance that you'll pick up warp and simply fail to stabilize (10% chance of rolling Complete Failure or No Benefit each, and a couple of percentage points here and there on different charts for variations of failure), and thus have to do it again.

Personally, I see that as rather a lot of warp - but then again, I almost always play Cautious sorcerers with large Gold cords. Your playstyle may be different.

2 Likes
44

Two important RAW notes:

  1. It says the amount of bonus from Luck is based on the amount of luck (rather than skill or talent) is involved. The amount of luck doesn't change just because you don't get the outcome you don't want. By RAW, though, you could quite reasonably adjust the bonus from Luck to get the best possible odds, but that's different than choosing values after the roll to make it work.

  2. The section on Warping Points for Stabilizing the Unknown needs editing or other rules do as they are contradictory. It says "If you gain more than 2 Warping Points you must roll to avoid Wizard’s Twilight, as explained in the Wizard’s Twilight section of Ars Magica 5th Edition’s Hermetic Magic chapter (page 88)." Meanwhile, what it references says 2 or more, not more than 2. I would assume this is a math error in HoH:TL.

1 Like
45

Integration is harder than you suggest. Creating the effect and gaining breakthrough points - the part of Integration that has a 100% success rate - is the easy part of the process. The hardest part is finding the source of insight. Most of the examples in Ancient Magic and other books suggests this is meant to be a long and difficult process. Acquiring a Grigori Insight, for example, involves finding a fallen angel and spending an entire year studying with it. I would expect the adventure involved in this to be much riskier than the warping roll associated with original research. Then the Magus has to understand his Insight with an Int + Magic Theory roll against an 18 ease factor. This is going to involve failures and lost seasons for most characters. Finally, the Magus gets to create an effect determined by the Storyteller, of magnitude and form/technique that may not correspond too the Magus's current knowledge. All in all, only the most extraordinary characters are going to succeed at integrating ancient magical secrets. This is the way it should be, IMO.

Anyone can do Original Research under the RAW. An apprentice with MT 1 and Lab Total 10 can create a safe 1 magnitude experimental effect in a single season, while a journeyman with MT6 has 2/3 of the MT bonus allowable for anyone and probably has the Lab Totals to create effects as large as even a master dares risk. I'm not sure how a character optimizes much for the process, to be honest. Using the multiple laboratory texts rules entire Covenants or even larger groups can collaborate to safely develop even difficult breakthroughs. Making this process fast and reliable by further increasing the probability of successful discovery makes things much too easy. It leaves open the question of why House Bonisagus isn't releasing new discoveries every decade or so, as per their Hermetic Oath. The process is also much less interesting from a game perspective than is Integration.

1 Like
46

Integration is as easy or as difficult as the troupe wants to make it - in all scenarios in which I've been in, the opportunity has pretty much fallen into the PC's laps. (Runic artifacts, Hedge NPC's, spirits with non-hermetic powers, etc.) Actively going out and seeking a specific integration? yes. That requires focused research and years of planning...or it just requires that you find one of your grogs that happens to have an interesting supernatural virtue (such as Shapeshifting). Or it requires that you design your character with the requisite hooks. Personally, when I've designed a lab-rat style magi, I've had all the integration Hooks built into the Virtue/Flaw/history of the character. Your playstyle may be different.

Also note that some sources of Integration are ridiculously easy to find - such as, in my experience, Second Sight - it seems that every PC has at least one grog that has that one. So much so that, in-game, it makes me wonder why the Bonisagus haven't bothered to pick up the magical gold that is right outside their doorstep - or in some cases, literally inside their labs. From a metagame perspective, this is understandable: it's because the books give lots of options if players want to look into that sort of thing. In-game, though, the best response I've heard of is a combination of:

  1. The order is just now fully recovering from the Schism war, and hasn't been able to devote as much time to research as it has in the past.
  2. The order HAS been doing integration research - that's what the State of the Art of 1220 looks like.
  3. Bonisagus don't necessarily want to study what's easy, but rather what's interesting to them. (as suggested in HoH:TL)
  4. Hermetics tend to be snobby, and can't see the power and utility of (for example) Folk Witch magic - even though Folk Witches are apparently a relatively common tradition.

There's no indication that they aren't. I usually use point #2 in this case: Ars 5th edition is the result of the most recent Hermetic research up to date. All of the Hermetic virtues are (potentially) examples of partially-integrated magic systems; Elemental Magic (from the Elementalists), or Flexible Formulaic Magic (from...the Grugach?) are two possible sources.

HoH:TL, pg. 26-27 give the rough likelihood of any given type of Breakthrough to be made: Minor breakthroughs really ARE supposed to be common, if you could get Magi to study them. A Fast-paced saga could reasonably have a PC create a Major breakthrough during their timeline, while Hermetic breakthroughs are incredibly rare. Which suggests that a dedicated research player should be able to accrue 90 Breakthrough points in...well, I guess a century or so.

As such, if you're going to be doing percentages, assuming half of the Bonisagus are doing research: yes. There should be a major breakthrough at least every decade. In fact, HoH:TL gives you four examples of them (parma folds, Figurine magic, aspected magic, etc.), as well as the means by which they are published (the Folios.)

In looking through Magi of Hermes, at least 2 of them create Breakthroughs in their lifetime - getting rid of the Sterility due to the Longevity rituals, and Hermetic Metamorphosis. Others include new Guidelines, although I'm not sure if those are just clarifications, or actual creations by them. And in looking at the timelines, the time required looked to be (roughly) correct: the minor Breakthrough took ~25 years or so, while the Major Breakthrough is almost halfway there at 45 years. (Note that neither of these characters have Luck.)

The only evidence that we have of (Hermetic) discoveries not being common is the comment in the HoH:TL, where it comments that the Last Hermetic discovery was Parma, and that was done a couple of hundred years ago. Another likely possibility include the idea that only the PC's are PC's - and as such only they have access to the GM who tells them what is possible and what isn't - as it's entirely possible for OR to simply be Impossible, but to not know this until decades into it. As such, there could very well be numerous Bonisagus out there doing experiments that ultimately result in nothing more than quirky spells.

And, if we go on the idea that Hermetic Breaktrhoughs are difficult, just from a time perspective that's the case - if it takes ~100 years to develop a major breakthrough, it would take ~120 to 130 years for a Hermetic one. And that starts to get into "only the most heavily-optimized characters can do this, and only if they've been obsessing about it their entire lives."

Regarding why more magi don't collaborate: well, the OR rules themselves explicitly state why - there are personality conflicts and arguments on who gets the credit. In other words: short-sighted human nature. It looks like magi consider themselves "Proud arteurs making a magnum opus" rather than "researchers coming together to expand the common pool of knowledge."

So...there y'go. Yes. Breakthroughs should be much more common than they are in most people's games. However, as Ars doesn't have an official timeline, there's no real resource for (example) published Breakthroughs via the Folios as part of the background fluff. Personally, I've thought of doing so, simply as an interesting exercise in worldbuilding. However, I have not yet done so.

1 Like
47

lets look at this from a few perspectives:

  1. no errata, original version- I'm working in the lab, with a +3 modifier, roll an 8, and can modify that to a discovery
  2. with errata, I roll a 5, with plus 3 is 8, and I can then add 2 to get a discovery in addition to the season being a complte waste. Because apparently these two results are not completely contradictory?

now lets throw in luck- or various versions of it:

  1. it adds to the initial roll by +3 (or other set amount)- we have the same situation as 2) except that it makes it less likely to get a discovery since you any roll over a 7 will result in your base effect being too high to be able to get a discovery.
  2. no errata, extends roll flexibility- this is where it gives the same a s a situational +15 to magic theory with extra benefits.
  3. adds a variable amount to the original roll- probably the best case as it can ensure both a benign initial effect and being closer to discovery
  4. adds a variable amount after the initial roll situation- allows for even more mutually contradictory results, but otherwise gives better chance of discovery.

again, my position is that this is something that nobody thought through before publication.

2 Likes
48

I wonder what was the rationale for the errata. It makes the rules even more confusing than the original version.

1 Like
49

Actually, I find them somewhat clearer.
They tell you to just use the normal experimentation rules.
On top of everything else, if the final result is at least (10-Risk modifier) and no more than (10+Risk modifier), you get a Discovery as a bonus.

I think that the rationale is to have a system that is at least as likely to produce a somewhat "strange" partial result (the spell, device etc. you are developing gets modified effects etc.) as if you were experimenting while not pursuing a breakthrough -- which would not happen if "adjusting for discovery" took away whatever other "strangeness" you had rolled. It also clarifies that if you get a "Complete Failure", you still can get a Discovery (but the spell you were inventing will not be invented etc.)

1 Like
50

That's how I thought it worked too. The "double counting" that KevinSchultz and Silveroak are referencing seems an equally good read of the errata though. At least the original published version of the rules made sense.

51

House Boni probably isn't putting out discoveries every decade because they don't have an organized R&D program. They also seem really passive-aggressive when it comes to sharing their research. "Yeah, I'll shared my research. Go to the big library and pay the fees. My untranslated lab text is in there. Somewhere. Have fun!" So what you actually have is the occasional maga or magus gets a couple breakthrough points to something, maybe tells someone, maybe sends the notes to the big library, and then it never gets finished.

The real question is why House Tremere hasn't started up an R&D program? 90 mages? If they make every magus/maga spend a season (two if they make a discovery) attempting original research with a 2st magnitude spell, they'd get about 20ish* breakthrough points.

*Assuming a good chunk have 6+ magic theory.)

1 Like
52

Maybe Tremere is. It isn't like they are required to share their research.
If it were third edition they would be researching how to turn themselves into vampires...

1 Like
53

My impression is that the Tremere generally hire Bonisagi when they want original research done (with possible exceptions in cases where secrecy is required)?

1 Like
54

Great discussion guys. Now the next question is:

Can luck apply to the simple die roll when rolling for warping points after a discovery or stabilization?

55

Ah, a good question, with a tricky answer. What is luck in that case? Minimal warping points? Experience points? A new virtue?.........

1 Like
56

IMO, luck only applies if only one result surpasses all others.

The trick is that for original research, it's a bit hard because it's a fixed number you want to reach (10). A previous poster has already explained that. So either you allow the player to use a (decided by SG) modifier after his roll and before taking into account the +-3 max from MT, either it doesn't play a role.
If it does, original research will become faster because at the opposite of the +-3 from MT, it doesn't have to come into play the same way during stabilization, which is the tricky part.

For warping, there isn't one better result: a major virtue is better than 10 xps, but is 20 warping points which come with it better than 5?
So as there is no definitive answer, luck doesn't play a role.

1 Like
57

I would say no. Using luck to help on every roll in the process is too much for a minor virtue. I wouldn't let it help on the secondary rolls from the Extrordinary Results Chart (Disaster, Side Effect, etc.) either.

Luck doesn't reduce harm when opponents hit a character. I'd rather have luck help on the discovery roll and consider the warping to be an inevitable result of stabilization, like taking a sword thrust.

1 Like