Comments on The Mysteries (Revised Edition)

[mean_liar]

You're way underestimating the utility of Magic Theory. It sets the upper bound on vis, but that's actually not that important for a Verditius with a decent Craft. It's main importance is that it does double duty of adding itself, as well as setting the maximum bonus from Shape+Material+Philosophiae, meaning that every +1 MT is +2 Lab Total. Doubling down with Affinity for MT is, considering the investment of XPs involved, nearly necessary, both to beat out the initial age limits on Abilities as well as to make beating them worth your while. You don't take MT at 5; you take it to the maximum you can get it.

Regarding MF for enchanting... well. It's been beaten to death. The line authors that did chime in felt it was appropriate; I don't think the line editor gave an opinion. Everyone else seems to want to ignore the HoH:MC rules text and I suppose they can if they want, but at that point one might as well preface your discussion on rules with whatever you feel like using. Like ruling that Puissant adds +10 to Abilities and is the best Virtue of course.

In any case, here's the calculations:

Technique 5
Form 5
Intelligence 3
Magic Theory 7+2
Magical Aura 4
Lab Quality +0
Inventive Genius 3

BASE LAB TOTAL 29

Magical Focus 5
Potent Magic 3
Craft 5
Shape and Material 9
Superior (Craft) Tools 1
Early Riser 1

ENCHANTING TOTAL 53

This is built on Potent, Minor MF, Puissant MT, Affinity with MT, and Inventive Genius; everything else is gravy (Cyclic Magic, Planetary Magic if Safety applies, Verditius Runes much later).

You're looking at starting with MT at 7, most Techniques at 5, a handful of Forms at 5, and a smattering of Abilities. For a newly-gauntleted Apprentice that's a damn good Enchanting Total, especially since you can apply it to such a wide variety of effects and increasing your other Arts to 5s is trivial.

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

@mean_liar

You're way underestimating the utility of Magic Theory. It sets the upper bound on vis, but that's actually not that important for a Verditius with a decent Craft. It's main importance is that it does double duty of adding itself, as well as setting the maximum bonus from Shape+Material+Philosophiae, meaning that every +1 MT is +2 Lab Total. Doubling down with Affinity for MT is, considering the investment of XPs involved, nearly necessary, both to beat out the initial age limits on Abilities as well as to make beating them worth your while. You don't take MT at 5; you take it to the maximum you can get it.

I actually think I do understand the importance of MT. But xps--especially starting xps--are not always easy to come by.

Also, even a Verditius with a decent Craft will sometimes do things that fall outside of that craft.

Regarding MF for enchanting... well. It's been beaten to death. The line authors that did chime in felt it was appropriate; I don't think the line editor gave an opinion. Everyone else seems to want to ignore the HoH:MC rules text and I suppose they can if they want, but at that point one might as well preface your discussion on rules with

Which text is this?

whatever you feel like using. Like ruling that Puissant adds +10 to Abilities and is the best Virtue of course.

Um, who ruled this?

In any case, here's the calculations:
Technique 5
Form 5
Intelligence 3
Magic Theory 7+2
Magical Aura 4
Lab Quality +0
Inventive Genius 3

That's 225xp for TeFo. You have an Affinity with MT, so that's another 93xp, for 318xp. Oh, and Craft 5? Another 75xp. 393xp total, so far. We have yet to buy Parma, AL, or anything else. The standard Aura is 3, but sure, this guy is welcome to a slightly better Aura.

BASE LAB TOTAL 29

Magical Focus 5
Potent Magic 3
Craft 5
Shape and Material 9
Superior (Craft) Tools 1
Early Riser 1

ENCHANTING TOTAL 53

This is built on Potent, Minor MF, Puissant MT, Affinity with MT, and Inventive Genius; everything else is gravy (Cyclic Magic, Planetary Magic if Safety applies, Verditius Runes much later).

Sure, I was not arguing that good stuff is possible, but...

You're looking at starting with MT at 7, most Techniques at 5, a handful of Forms at 5, and a smattering of Abilities.

...not starting. A magus right out of Gauntlet has 240xp to spend on goodies. The high Craft can come out of earlier xps, 5 years spent learning a craft. But that leaves us 318xp to spend, and we have 240. Good Parens closes the gap, but not fully, and we still need AL 1, Speak Latin 4 and Parma 1, or 60xp. Educated provides 50xp and lets us use more of our pre-Hermetic xps for Academic Abilities, but we still have a shortfall of 23xp, yet have spent two more virtues to get here, and have a magus who enters play older than most.

For a newly-gauntleted Apprentice that's a damn good Enchanting Total, especially since you can apply it to such a wide variety of effects and increasing your other Arts to 5s is trivial.

I admit curiosity about how you achieve this for a newly-Gauntleted magus. (His already having a lab set up for him, I'm happy to hand wave away.)

Anyway,

Ken

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

@YR7

The whole spirit thing is weird. I need to think more about it.

Yes. I don't believe the spirit stuff has been thought through sufficiently. They are too easy to summon with Hermetic Magic. In previous editions of the game, summoning a spirit required a Ritual and cost vis. A return to that paradigm helps a little, but not for the magus who can see spirits and simply target them with spells. And spirits are everywhere, though powerful ones are harder to come by. Still, the spirit of a mountain is going to be powerful, and mountains are easy to find in the Alps.

But what then? As you point out, the spiritual and mundane worlds are intimately connected. If a magus turns the spirit of Mount Matterhorn into vis, what happens to Mount Matterhorn? Worse, from certain legitimate points of view within the game world, the spirit of Mount Matterhorn is an angel, as are many 'spirits' of things...

Anyway,

Ken

[mean_liar]

@Ovarwa

I admit curiosity about how you achieve this for a newly-Gauntleted magus. (His already having a lab set up for him, I'm happy to hand wave away.)

Educated and Skilled Parens. I assume most magi will take these unless their concept is something off of the typical academic path most magi broadly follow.

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

@mean_liar

@Ovarwa

I admit curiosity about how you achieve this for a newly-Gauntleted magus. (His already having a lab set up for him, I'm happy to hand wave away.)

Educated and Skilled Parens. I assume most magi will take these unless their concept is something off of the typical academic path most magi broadly follow.

This doesn't work, as noted above: This magus still has only 300xp to spend on Arts, Parma, Magic Theory and so on.

The Arts cost 225xp, MT 7 costs 93xp and Parma costs 5xp.

Anyway,

Ken

[callen]

@Ovarwa

Hi,

EDIT: Checking some math.....

@mean_liar

A few personal notes on Verditius:

Minor Magical Focus (shape/material) is obviously the lead Virtue.

I know that some people think that a focus in, say, wands, applies to any enchantment instilled in a wand, whether or not it affects the wand, but I've read the rules a few times and I don't think it works that way. But if it does.... yeah.

Considering a focus in falcons would apply to all lab totals used for enchanting a falcon as a familiar, it seems this is what is intended with the focus in wands.

@Ovarwa

Puissant Magic Theory, Minor Potent Magic, Planetary Magic, Inventive Genius provide static Lab Total bonuses of +3 apiece (or higher, for Puissant MT). Affinity with Magic Theory is probably too good to pass up.

Puissant MT provides a static bonus of +2. But this also boosts the amount of vis usable in a season, and applies to everything. I consider this the bedrock lab virtue.

Planetary Magic does not provide a static bonus; it can easily provide no bonus at all, or a botch.

Inventive Genius is usually good for a Verditius.

Affinity with Magic Theory is surprisingly unimpressive. It's not terrible. But it does not yield a +2 bonus until MT has 183 natural xps. That is, it doesn't pull even with Puissant MT until both magi have devoted 183 xps to it, when they both have effective scores of 10. Few magi will ever see that Affinity yield a +3, but a dedicated Verditius might do it, I suppose.

Puissant MT also allows you to raise refinement 2 higher, so the static bonus may be larger than +2 even though the base is +2.

I've shown more than once and don't feel like writing it all out again that this is an incorrect analysis of how Affinity w/ X works. Here's a quick summary of the two mistakes above:

1. First let's ignore error #2 below. Affinity w/ Ability actually starts catching up to Puissant Ability at 93 experience. Affinity grants +2 for 93-104, 120-139, 150-179, and 183+ experience applied. Puissant Ability is only better than Affinity w/ Ability roughly 33% of the time after 93 experience. The other 67% of the time they're the same.

2. Although I've seen some groups that record fractional experience, that's not really how it works. Though the specificity was left off one of the two, the other does explicitly tell you to round up. 50% of the sources will give you an extra 0.5 experience, counting character creation as a source. Any season spent in the lab will give you 2 experience. With Puissant MT you can put 1 point into MT to get 2 and 1 point into an Art. Thus you can tweak the sources granting that bonus to be greater than 50%. I believe I came up with a reasonable value of something like +60% being a better average 20 years out of apprenticeship. Other abilities don't tend to see this so much, but Magic Theory in particular does because of the lab work. Now all of a sudden most of those gaps start to disappear. It's just about guaranteed, unless you spend tons of experience in it during apprenticeship, that these extra points will cover the gap from 180 to 182. They'll also cover some of the gap from 139 to 150. If you're advancing slowly (mostly from lab work), they're likely to cover the whole thing. If you're advancing quickly 2 or 3 points is probably reasonable.

So all this means that if you do just about no lab work starting somewhere around 92 the Affinity frequently is as good as Puissant, falling behind only from 105 to about 118 and 140 to about 147. Once you reach 147 or so you should have just gone with the Affinity because its bonus will never be smaller than Puissant's. If, on the other hand, you do lots of lab work then Affinity should catch up to Puissant closer to 115. These two break points are far away from the suggested 183.

Chris

[callen]

@YR7

I won't allow a Magical Focus in some material or shape to affect all enchantments of said shape/material either. The focus is applied for magical effects that fall within its area, not for other magical effects that happen to be instilled into devices that fall within the area.

Do you follow the same rule with familiars, that an affinity with the animal type does not apply to all effect instilled in the bond and to making the bond itself, only to affects that fall within the animal type's area?

Chris

[callen]

Ovarwa, out of curiosity, why did you include the non-mystery virtues from the Merinita chapter while not doing the same with all the virtues from the other chapters? Not that I mind the analysis, but things seemed out of place to me. I would think that would really change opinions on Independent Study; it's much better for companions/grogs, perhaps better than Book Learner is for magi.

Chris

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

@callen

Considering a focus in falcons would apply to all lab totals used for enchanting a falcon as a familiar, it seems this is what is intended with the focus in wands.

I read that the exact opposite from the way you do:

strokes non-existent rabbinical beard Talmudically The rules need to state that a focus that covers the familiar also covers effects enchanted into the bond in order to create an exception to the general case. If the general case were as you say, then the section on familiars would not need to say anything about enchanting effects into the bond, for it would be obvious from the general rules about foci and enchantments.

The rule about familiars must therefore only apply to familiars, and not to other enchantments. Indeed, enchantments that are invested in the familiar bond are also special in other unique ways. For example, they never cause Warping.

1. First let's ignore error #2 below. Affinity w/ Ability actually starts catching up to Puissant Ability at 93 experience. Affinity grants +2 for 93-104, 120-139, 150-179, and 183+ experience applied. Puissant Ability is only better than Affinity w/ Ability roughly 33% of the time after 93 experience. The other 67% of the time they're the same.

If A is better than B 33% of the time and is otherwise the same, then A is better than B.

But you raise a fair point, and I agree that a character who a) is willing to begin play with 93xp in an Ability and b) intends to raise it to 183xp is better off with Affinity than Puissant.

2. Although I've seen some groups that record fractional experience, that's not really how it works.

Agreed. I never assumed otherwise. But in the conversation at hand, we have been talking about magi who began play with a large chunk of xps in MT, where the fractional issue does not come into play except for one extra xp.

So all this means that if you do just about no lab work starting somewhere around 92 the Affinity frequently is as good as Puissant, falling behind only from 105 to about 118 and 140 to about 147. Once you reach 147 or so you should have just gone with the Affinity because its bonus will never be smaller than Puissant's. If, on the other hand, you do lots of lab work then Affinity should catch up to Puissant closer to 115. These two break points are far away from the suggested 183.

I'll accept that, and stand corrected for the general case. Thanks for pointing this out.

Anyway,

Ken

[callen]

@Ovarwa

Hi,

@callen

Considering a focus in falcons would apply to all lab totals used for enchanting a falcon as a familiar, it seems this is what is intended with the focus in wands.

I read that the exact opposite from the way you do:

strokes non-existent rabbinical beard Talmudically The rules need to state that a focus that covers the familiar also covers effects enchanted into the bond in order to create an exception to the general case. If the general case were as you say, then the section on familiars would not need to say anything about enchanting effects into the bond, for it would be obvious from the general rules about foci and enchantments.

The rule about familiars must therefore only apply to familiars, and not to other enchantments.

That's an extraordinarily large leap. Exactly the same reasoning leads to the conclusion that a magus can teach a mundane without penalty but must teach an apprentice with penalty since the penalty for teaching is specifically listed for apprentices. By your reasoning this would be obvious from the general affects of the Gift and so since stated here must be an exception to the rule. Do you allow magi to avoid the penalty for the Gift when teaching non-magi? Or are you non consistently applying such reasoning? Or, more directly, Puissant Arts don't apply in other lab totals since they're specifically mentioned for use with bonding/enchanting familiars. Do you let Puissant Arts apply to other lab totals?

Further reading of the section on familiars strongly implies that the focus should work the same way for wands. Here's how. It says the focus applies to Empowering the Bond. Empowering the Bond says "the rules are the same" with five exceptions, and that isn't one of the exceptions.

Chris

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

@callen

That's an extraordinarily large leap. Exactly the same reasoning leads to the conclusion that a magus can teach a mundane without penalty but must teach an apprentice with penalty since the penalty for teaching is specifically listed

The general effect of the Gift, -3 to anything social, is listed elsewhere. So no, I don't see this. Indeed, the section you refer to says "the apprentice would normally suffer -3 to all totals," with 'normally' referring to the usual rule. There is no new rule here.

for apprentices. By your reasoning this would be obvious from the general affects of the Gift and so since stated here must be an exception to the rule. Do you allow magi to avoid the penalty for the Gift when teaching non-magi? Or are

No, because the Gift applies a -3 social penalty to everyone not immune.

you non consistently applying such reasoning? Or, more directly, Puissant Arts don't apply in other lab totals since they're specifically mentioned for use with bonding/enchanting familiars. Do you let Puissant Arts apply to other lab totals?

Of course. The rule for Puissant Arts explicitly applies to all lab totals.

Further reading of the section on familiars strongly implies that the focus should work the same way for wands. Here's how. It says the focus applies to Empowering the Bond. Empowering the Bond says "the rules are the same" with five exceptions, and that isn't one of the exceptions.

Well, even after the five exceptions, the rules here keep listing things that are obviously exceptions. Thus, an enchantment that affects only the magus is under the control of the familiar. This in no way corresponds to the way items work. Similarly, every time a magus invests an enchantment in the bond, he takes on a characteristic of the familiar, but a magus who invests an enchantment in a wand does not become more like a wand, even if the wand is his Talisman. Another exception. These two paragraphs, by the way, bracket the one about foci. Familiars are special.

Without the paragraph about how foci work with familiars, I'd never imagine that a focus that covers a wand should apply to any effect enchanted into the wand. This is like arguing that a magus who takes a focus in words, which should be legal, also gets to apply the focus to any spell he casts using words and gestures.

I just say no.

Anyway,

Ken

[mean_liar]

You're not going to have 5 in all Arts; the 225xp figure is too large.

[callen]

@Ovarwa

Hi,

@callen

That's an extraordinarily large leap. Exactly the same reasoning leads to the conclusion that a magus can teach a mundane without penalty but must teach an apprentice with penalty since the penalty for teaching is specifically listed

The general effect of the Gift, -3 to anything social, is listed elsewhere. So no, I don't see this. Indeed, the section you refer to says "the apprentice would normally suffer -3 to all totals," with 'normally' referring to the usual rule. There is no new rule here.

You stated that if the application should be obvious then a specific statement of the application means that is an exception to the general rule. Here the -3 to teaching would be the obvious application. Now we have a specific statement of the application to teaching apprentices. According to your reason for your case with the foci, this would imply the teaching penalty for apprentices is a special case and there is generally no teaching penalty.

In your own words, applied here to teaching: "If the general case were [to apply to teaching mundanes], then the section on [teaching apprentices] would not need to say anything about [teaching apprentices], for it would be obvious from the general rules about [the Gift and mundanes]. The rule about [teaching apprentices] must therefore only apply to [teaching apprentices], and not to other [teaching]. Indeed, [teaching apprentices is] also special in other unique ways."

I am following your "logic" precisely, as you can easily see from my second paragraph. You have there precisely the set of "logical" rules you are using for your above conclusion about foci.

How about a real-world example. Speed limit signs are posted in many places. Sometimes there are signs saying the speed limits are strictly enforced. Do you think this means that everywhere without a sign saying "strictly enforced" the speed limit is not strictly enforced?

@Ovarwa

Further reading of the section on familiars strongly implies that the focus should work the same way for wands. Here's how. It says the focus applies to Empowering the Bond. Empowering the Bond says "the rules are the same" with five exceptions, and that isn't one of the exceptions.

Well, even after the five exceptions, the rules here keep listing things that are obviously exceptions. Thus, an enchantment that affects only the magus is under the control of the familiar. This in no way corresponds to the way items work. Similarly, every time a magus invests an enchantment in the bond, he takes on a characteristic of the familiar, but a magus who invests an enchantment in a wand does not become more like a wand, even if the wand is his Talisman. Another exception. These two paragraphs, by the way, bracket the one about foci. Familiars are special.

Careful. You've misread the section. There are exactly five exceptions to what it says there are give exceptions to: investing the effect. All those other things you mention that are stated elsewhere are not exceptions to investing the effect.

Example:

Most colors are not primary colors. There are three exceptions: red, green, and blue. In theater lighting you mix colors; but when painting you are told to use red, yellow, and blue as your primary pigments.

Yellow does not become an exception to the list of primary colors just because it's listed nearby. It's part of a different but related group of things.

I hope you now see the problems with the way you're reading the rules. The statement about foci in a familiar animals and investing effects in those animals absolutely does not imply the opposite about wands. It is, however, an example that fits perfectly within the rules as stated elsewhere for magical foci. Also, it is not one of the five exceptions to instilling effects in familiars following the same rules as instilling the effects elsewhere. Thus, technically, a correct reading of these sections implies that the focus in wands does apply to instilling effects in wands. That may not have been the original intent of the focus in wands, though I expect it was, but that is how the rules read.

Chris

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

@mean_liar

You're not going to have 5 in all Arts; the 225xp figure is too large.

IIRC, you said that this guy has 50+ lab total in any combination. Then your summary listed TeFo each at 5, and the focus at 5. With all the Techniques and Forms at 5, I get a total of 225xp for the character you describe.

Anyway,

Ken

[Xavi]

Rising an art to 5 is a season of study (15XP). I think we can assume the guy had access to enough stuff to build that art level in less than 2 years past apprenticeship

In find this guy fairly impressive. And extremely powermongerish. A build designed by the rules and not by the story. Not kosher IMS even if kosher in the Ars game world.

CHeers,
Xavi

Madonna- Hang up

[mean_liar]

@mean_liar

...You're looking at starting with MT at 7, most Techniques at 5, a handful of Forms at 5, and a smattering of Abilities. For a newly-gauntleted Apprentice that's a damn good Enchanting Total, especially since you can apply it to such a wide variety of effects and increasing your other Arts to 5s is trivial.

You're conflating my general assertion of how specializing in one TeFo combination is not always necessary to achieve good results, with a build for a newly-gauntleted magus.

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

@callen

You stated that if the application should be obvious then a specific statement of the application means that is an exception to the general rule. Here the -3 to teaching would be the obvious application. Now we have a specific statement of the application to teaching apprentices. According to your reason for your case with the foci, this would imply the teaching penalty for apprentices is a special case and there is generally no teaching penalty.

Please reread the section, and notice that the paragraph about apprentices is not saying "by the way, there's a -3 penalty." It is saying that because of the normal -3 penalty, it is considered a crime not to protect the apprentice with Parma.

So the situation is completely different.

I am following your "logic" precisely, as you can easily see from my second paragraph. You have there precisely the set of "logical" rules you are using for your above conclusion about foci.

I don't think you are following my reasoning at all. The familiar section states a rule about foci. The apprentice section says that because of an existing rule about the Gift, magi are supposed to extent their Parma over apprentices.

How about a real-world example. Speed limit signs are posted in many places. Sometimes there are signs saying the speed limits are strictly enforced. Do you think this means that everywhere without a sign saying "strictly enforced" the speed limit is not strictly enforced?

I don't see how that's relevant. Street signs lie. Why, there's a Stop sign just down the corner from me, but does anyone stop there? Only when there is a police car.

Now, you can reply that rules also lie, and if you point to RoP:M to prove your point, I'd have to agree. This leaves us each choosing to read the rules as we prefer.

So not only do I think the rules mean what I say they do, I think the rules should mean this. I think it's a Bad Thing for a magus to take a Major Focus in, say, metal, and have it apply to everything he enchants.

But that's just me.

Anyway,

Ken

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

@callen

@YR7

I won't allow a Magical Focus in some material or shape to affect all enchantments of said shape/material either. The focus is applied for magical effects that fall within its area, not for other magical effects that happen to be instilled into devices that fall within the area.

Do you follow the same rule with familiars, that an affinity with the animal type does not apply to all effect instilled in the bond and to making the bond itself, only to affects that fall within the animal type's area?

Chris

Familiars are special. They are limited in the kinds of effects they can have. They don't get S&M or Verditius bonuses. I'm ok with this.

Anyway,

Ken

[mean_liar]

@Xavi

In find this guy fairly impressive. And extremely powermongerish. A build designed by the rules and not by the story. Not kosher IMS even if kosher in the Ars game world.

I have no idea why you'd find it non-thematic. What, out of those Virtues, doesn't work? Where's the incongruity? It's not a Holy Mage using Cthonic Magic.

EDIT: It's a Magic Focus and an overlapping Minor Potent Magic, Affinity and Puissant MT, Educated and Skilled Parens. And Inventive Genius. I think the major issue is that he's (overly)effective?

A magus with Minor Magic Focus, Cthonic Magic, and Minor Potent Magic alone on a single TeFo combo can generate Casting Totals of 50+ for a starting magus, prior to Method Caster and Special Circumstances. Is that better? Worse? Isn't the only real measure if the character is fun to play with and run stories for?

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

@mean_liar

@Xavi

In find this guy fairly impressive. And extremely powermongerish. A build designed by the rules and not by the story. Not kosher IMS even if kosher in the Ars game world.

I have no idea why you'd find it non-thematic. What, out of those Virtues, doesn't work? Where's the incongruity? It's not a Holy Mage using Cthonic Magic.

Except for my disagreement about the focus, I think it's a fine character (though he needs personality and motivation of course). Completely IC, why wouldn't a Verditius parens aim for apprentices of this kind, if he can?

Anyway,

Ken