Yup, the "`problem" is that the virtues have too many synergies. Yes, we find that to be problematic. People are not that "perfect". This is why creating characters is a group activity IMS. YMMV and it does (and should)
Cheers,
Xavi
This is exactly the same as saying: it's not "by the way, there's a bonus if you have a focus," it's saying you get you get a bonus because the focus applies.
Please look carefully at how I've inserted everything into your logical structures. They are identical logical structures. You cannot both be reasoning correctly and only agree with one of the two. To agree with only one would mean your own reasoning contradicts itself. Really, take a careful look at what I've quoted with the insertions for teaching or the focus above. The logical structure is 100% identical.
Chris
Uh, they get their own strong version of S&M bonuses: they are associated with two Arts and give +5 for each. They are also far from the only lab activity to which Verditius bonuses do not apply.
Chris
Hi,
Yes. You said yes to that fire spell the other day and I denied it, but you don't like magi with synergistic virtues while I actively encourage this.
Different strokeses.
Anyway,
Ken
Hi,
It's not. Not at all. The point of the paragraph in the familiar section is "you get to apply the focus." The point of the paragraph in the apprentice section is, "It is considered a Hermetic crime to deprive your apprentice of your Parma while teaching him."
These are two very different kinds of paragraph, two very different kinds of rule.
I have looked. And I completely disagree with your assessment about how you have recapitulated my reasoning, to the point of wondering whether you've even taken a moment to take in my point of view before spitting it out. I find the example you raise neither salient nor congruent, and I again explain why.
I don't think you are required to agree with me; I recognize that these rules are not written in any formal sense; I know that ideas are sometimes raised outside of a natural context. So I didn't say that you are wrong to extend the familiar rules as you do, but that I read them very differently.
Recapitulating: The way I read the RAW, a focus in wood does not apply to everything enchanted into a wooden item. I have read nothing that convinces me otherwise. Moreover, if Atlas were to publish errata that said a focus does apply, I would overrule it ITSIDR (well, ITSIMRIIG8+P).
Anyway,
Ken
Hi,
Yes. They're still special, still limited and I'm still ok with it.
Anyway,
Ken
Yes, I even went so far as to read through several pages prior to writing, even though I already knew what I read.
Ultimately it's all coming down to semantics. The entire argument you are making to try to invalidate my point is that when training an apprentice "Since an apprentice without a Parma Magica would normally suffer a -3 to all totals due to the affect of the Gift" is not a statement specifically about apprentices receiving a penalty for learning from someone with the Gift. Yet if it had been written "Apprentices normally suffer -3 to learning from their parens due to the affects of the Gift without Parma Magica," then it would be a totally different statement? In both cases it is specifically pointed out that an apprentice would suffer this penalty. You really find the two statements to be so totally different? The "since" and the comma instead of a semicolon and a slight rewording of the next part of the sentence are just different ways of writing the same thing, but the way used flows better.
I even think that the rules would be safer, for lack of a better word, if they were as you'd like for magical foci. Otherwise, as you point out, you could take a minor focus in wood and do all sorts of stuff with wooden wands, wooden staves, etc. It's scary. Yet I am able to see past my own preferences and dispositions to read for just the logical statements, too. Unfortunately, those logical statements disagree with both our preferences (since they are actually the same). The difference is I know I'm house-ruling it.
Yet I also must wonder what the writer was thinking with a magical focus in wands. That's extremely small in scope compared to something like wood. Was the writer making it small in scope with the though that is should be used in the way you and I don't like?
Chris
Can't recall where, but it is also stated that Parens generally cover their apprentices in their own parma in order to negate the effects of the gift in both of them and have no gift-related problems in training.
Cheers,
Xavi
Hi,
I don't see this being about semantics, and I guess I'm not communicating effectively here, and this is my fault because I respect your intelligence.
Let's see if I can be clearer by describing the parallel that I see (which differs from what you see):
a) The paragraph about apprentices is introducing a game concept not expressed elsewhere*. This concept is that a magus who trains an apprentice without extending his Parma to him is committing a Hermetic crime. Reading this, I feel comfortable assuming that this rule does not apply when a magus trains someone who is not an apprentice.
b) The paragraph about familiars is introducing a game concept not expressed elsewhere*. This concept is that a focus that covers the familiar applies to any enchantments invested in the familiar bond. Reading this, I feel comfortable assuming that this rule does not apply when investing an enchantment into something that is not a familiar.
So I think I'm consistent.
*In the main rules. It has obviously been expressed on these boards, and perhaps in supplements that build upon the rules.
I don't know. By 'writer,' do you refer to mean_liar? We can ask him. 
Of course, wood is a Major Focus and wands is Minor, so the latter is a lot more efficient for a magus who plans to churn out devices, especially since his character got to double up on a focus and potency.
(And fwiw, I have no problem with a magus who has a major focus in spirits and then takes Hermetic Theurgy. Yes, his focus applies to every single Theurgy spell he ever learns or casts. Pacts, Names of Power, Ascending, all of it. It's still not worth doing.)
Anyway,
Ken
I'd allow it for the bond itself, but not invested effects (unless the focus applies regardless).
I'd do the same here.
For me: focus apply to effects of spells /lab things, not the thing on which we do labwork.
YSMV.
I get that you're being consistent that way. The problem precedes what you wrote above. How do you get a lack of game concept for the application of foci elsewhere and not for the application of Teaching (the statement of -3)? Is it because of the location of the statement for the focus? Well, two of the five things mentioned there (after the list of exceptions) are consistent for other things and two aren't, so that provides no basis for judgment on the fifth being a special case or not. And it is clearly stated elsewhere that magical foci apply to lab totals, so that can't be it. What it really comes down to is a lack of specificity in the description of magical foci. There is that same lack of specificity in the description of the Gift's penalty. Even looking under teaching you won't find a single mention of the Gift. (Yes, I checked the whole Training/Teaching sections.) Yet when we get specific about teaching apprentices it shows up.
It comes down to the following. If you can make a statement about the rule on foci and familiars being a new concept, you can't deny the same statement about -3 for teaching apprentices. If you accept that the -3 for teaching apprentices is covered because the statement of what the Gift penalty is applied to is general enough that it includes teaching, you can't deny the same statement about what magical foci cover. The real problem here for us is that the description of the scope of magical foci is so vague (probably to allow a large variety of foci) that it does include enchanting wands (for example) as doing magic within the focus of wands, and thus the focus can be used for all enchantment of wands.
Honestly, you could make a much better case for what we both prefer a whole different way. Go back to the description of the magical focus. Choose (Yes, you have to choose this; it is not logically implied.) to interpret it as only when an object/being focus is the target of the magic or when the focus is directly altered by the magic. Then you could say that because the effects put into the bond must either affect the familiar or allow it to affect its master, the effects follow that interpretation of magical foci. Meanwhile you could say that placing a spell in a wand generally allows the user or the environment to do something to other targets, so the bonus wouldn't apply to everything put in the wand, only to spells that affect the wand itself. Ultimately, this still fails logically. It requires a specificity on magical foci that is not actually written. As written the bonus could be much broader. But this doesn't require people to throw out logic so much as to accept that the statement lacks the intended specificity.
However, by RAW and logic our preference always fails due to the statement of five exceptions and the following list of the five, thereby making the comment about foci not an exception. That's the clincher in the rules that really creates the whole problem. There is nothing to contradict this statement statement of exceptions anywhere, yet our preference for foci does contradict this exceptions statement.
Honestly, if you look at my first post, you'll see I had originally just thought our viewpoint opposed the suggested use of foci. I had not thought our viewpoint actually directly violated a logical statement about foci in the core rulebook. I only discovered this violation when reading the book really carefully to follow the case you made. I can't say I'm happy to have found this. At least now I know I must house-rule against such abuse since it's actually written into the rules.
Yet I still wonder if this "abuse" as I called it is intended with the focus in wands. As you pointed out, wood is a lot broader than wands and could be used far more abusively in such a way, while without such abuse the focus in wands is nearly worthless. Maybe I should write the author, though I'm not sure if the author is allowed to address this. Perhaps I should ask David Chart.
Chris
Whole separate thing:
Thank you!!! We have a player with that focus (from that group within Tytalus). That gives me some ways to try to help him out. You're right. It's still probably not worth it. But if he gets more synergy out of it, he'll be happier with it.
Chris
You know that is absolutely in violation of the ArM5 rules, right? That's fine so long as you understand that this is clearly a house rule, far far more clear than what Ovarwa and I are discussing.
Chris
Apologies for the derailment. I appreciate mechanical discussions like this, and Ovarwa's estimations of the Virtues is very helpful... I was just trying to follow the expansion of the thread to include other Virtue packages.
...
Regarding the Minor/Major Magical Focus, I think it really depends on how common or useful the focus is (though that's obvious, I suppose). If "wooden wand" is Minor, "wood" would be Major (or too broad for any Focus scope). The only real guidelines are "wooden wands" and "swords" were deemed Minor for HoH:MC, but there's no reason that all enchanting-focused subjects for Magical Focus would necessarily be Minor. I think the judge is in it's utility; "wood" and "amulets" would probably be Major, as they're clearly so applicable.
I think some house ruling is called for, but I'm not entirely certain what form it should take. I don't appreciate that Major Magical Focus (metal) can cover just about every enchanted item ever, but like the idea of Verditius mystery cults allowing access to enhanced enchanting Mysteries. In the context of this thread, most of the HoH:MC Virtues for the Verditius are Weak or worse; the Elder Runes are a Solid but the rest seemed unfortunate given the varied degrees of psychological crippling that accompany their Initiation. Given the ambiguity of Magical Focus and the fact that these Virtues in HoH:MC were almost certainly tied to enchanting I was simply happy to see the bone tossed.
EDIT: These boards have a tendency to come up with consensus house rules often, it seems. The Magi of Hermes discussion about ReCo wards against mundanes is another example where the books offer a guideline that the community largely seems to disregard; the HoH:MC Foci discussion is another.
Xavi Wrote - "Can't recall where, but it is also stated that Parens generally cover their apprentices in their own parma in order to negate the effects of the gift in both of them and have no gift-related problems in training."
I would add that this is probably common but not required, for example I can easily imagine most Tytalus magi training their apprentices without the softening benefit of their parma.
Hi,
I don't 'get' a lack of game concept for the application of foci elsewhere; I get a game concept for the specific application of foci to enchantments invested in the familiar bond.
Similarly, I get a game concept of -3 to all social rolls and totals from the general rule about the Gift.
I find your formulation here a bit confusing and convoluted: You ask how I "get a lack" and how I do not get a lack. What is happening is that I lack a general game concept of foci applying as described, and that I have a general concept of the Gift providing a -3 penalty to all social interactions.
The location of the statement of the focus, among rules that are specific to familiars, is suggestive to me that the rule applies specifically to familiars.
Once more into the breach:
There is a general rule for the Gift, in the section that explains how the Gift works. The Gift imposes a general -3 penalty to anything social. Once I know this, I do not need specific rules to tell me that there is a -3 penalty to seduce the princess, trade with the merchant or teach the apprentice. I also do not need the descriptions of each social ability--Charm, Leadership, Teaching, Bargain--to remind me "by the way, the Gift imposes a -3 penalty." Indeed, the rules about apprenticeship is not saying "there is a -3 penalty" so much as saying "because there is a -3 penalty, a magus must extend his Parma over his apprentice."
There is also a general rule for foci, in the description of Major Magical Foci. Various applications are described, but there is nothing here that suggests to me that a focus that applies when enchanting effects not covered by a focus into a device that is covered. The focus applies to Lab Totals, yes, but not the ones we are talking about. Once I know this, I do need new rules to extend the application of foci (or restrict them) in certain situations. This leaves me with a section about familiars, describing rules that govern familiars, not items.
No. I thoroughly don't see it this way.
Maybe you do, because you read the virtue and, on its own merits think, "Ah! So a focus in words applies to any spell I cast with words and a focus with wands applies to any enchantment I invest in a wand. Cool." From here, this starts you off with a different general rule from mine.
I start off with a different reading of the general rule, as described above.
Or when the focus describes the kind of magic, as for necromancy, or kind of effects, as in self-transformation.
And that's how I do read it.
There are other ways to read it, to be sure, but when I came across the virtue these made no sense to me. After all, if my magic is "more potent in a fairly limited area," I can choose a Major Focus in France! (Then, when the GM grumbles, I can go easy on him and take a Minor Focus in my covenant....) After all, if my magic is "more potent in a fairly limited area," I can choose a Major Focus in weather, and then say "there's weather going on, and I'm in it, so my Focus applies." I can choose a Minor Focus in wands, and then say "anything I invest in a wand gains the benefit of the focus, because, you know, wand."
I think the wand focus is more problematic than wood, because it costs less and still applies to everything.
(And I'm pretty open with foci. "Me and my stuff" is a perfectly good Major Focus, insofar as I'm concerned.)
Anyway,
Ken
Having read the thread, I think I am missing something. Celestial Magic has gotten the short end of the stick, and I don't see why. Astrolabe of Quality for +7, +3 for int, +5 for Arts Lib. for a +15 to the sum before the dice is rolled, given you a +5 to any lab total and five free Vis when enchanting, even if you roll a 0 on the dice. The botch dice in question would seem to be one, giving a one in a hundred chance of something going wrong. ?
Hi,
slowly considers
You know? I didn't even think of the Astrolabe of Quality, which does change everything. You mean the Verditius Mystery Virtue, I presume.
Btw, an Astrolabe only provides a +5 S&M bonus. That's still good enough to change my perspective.
Of course, the magus needs to pay for, or build one one of these, and that's going to be expensive. The magus who creates one of these needs to have Philosophiae 5, the Items of Quality virtue and an astrolabe. So the magus who wants one of these is not going to have one for a long time. Once he does have it, though.... yeah.
So to get this +5 bonus reliably, we need:
3 Virtues: Items of Quality, Planetary Magic, Cautious with AL (botches really suck, and this is worthwhile because the character also becomes an awesome ceremonial caster).
180 XP: Philosophiae 5, AL(astronomy) 6
This guy might also want Mystic Choreography, because he is an awesome ceremonial caster.
This is something to shoot for, however, not something safe and sane for the start of play.
That is, the +5 bonus is nice, and you have convinced me that a magus can attain it... and sufficiently late in his career he will probably want to. I think Puissant MT, Affinity MT, Inventive Genius and Cyclic Magic come first.
considers again
Although a GM who is flexible about starting virtues (like, um, me ) might see the following Ex Misc (or, if you allow more than 10vfs, as I do in some cases, a Verditius:
Virtues: Puissant MT, Affinity MT, Inventive Genius, Cyclic Magic, Mystic Choreography, Cautious with AL, Doctor (the one from A&A that gives 300xp), Items of Quality, Planetary Magic, Magic Foci, Skilled Parens and 1 more.
As an Ex Misc, his big virtue is his university background, where the lineage originates. His style of magic is strongly rooted in his worldly knowledge, which makes it superficially similar to House Verditius, and they share some secret knowledge, perhaps arrived at independently. These guys also know how to bring from occult properties from the mundane, but in a more rigorous fashion than the ignorant folk magi of the craft magic tradition. And an astrolabe of quality as a gift from his parens upon completing his Gauntlet? Or maybe that's what he did as his Gauntlet? Sure, he can do this in a season easily.
(As a Verditius, of course, he'd have Verditius Magic and all the other stuff too.)
He has an extra 300xp, which get dumped happily into Latin 5, Medicine 5 (or Law or Theology, as you prefer), Philosophiae 5 and AL 5.
He has 300xp as a magus. Parma 1, Magic Theory 9+2, AL 6 ..... and 115xp to go. I chose MT 9 because 150*3/2=225, and I didn't want to think more about numbers.
Even spending nothing on Arts, he now has a base of 39:
03: Int
03: Aura
11: MT
11: S&M
03: Inventive Genius
03: Cyclic Magic
05: Astrology
This lab total applies to all devices, per Planetary Magic.
He can spont ceremonies that usually cannot botch, with a base of level 10. (Magic Foci tends to give +4 to the casting total; and then ceremonial magic.) He also has hooks into the academic world, though will probably quickly get a reputation for not teaching, which may be offset if he writes good books sometimes. Not that he needs to care.
So here we are, with a starting magus getting a risk-free +5.
His priority will be to increase Arts; this takes 15 seasons to reach 5s across the board (assuming nothing is spent on Arts ), at which point the lab total goes to 49 and ceremonies have a base of level 15, in 3 minutes.
I'm not sure that this is optimal, but it certainly is good.
Anyway,
Ken
That might be the difference. I see Mystery cults as social. I would expect the Astrolabe of Quality (Yes, I meant the Mystery virtue) to be given to the mage when he acquires the virtue "Celestial Magic". Verditius are social in canon and treated poorly by "regular" mages in canon. I would think they would be easy prey for Mystery cults to recruit. A very easy and valued gift for a new brother. I still don't see the burning need for cautious with Al. Regular botches suck, yes. One in a hundred adds a little flavor. Where are the extra botch dice coming from?
While I have you, might you look at Hermetic Architecture again? It might suck for one mage, yes, but I always saw it as something for a group of mages (such as a Mystery Cult....) to use. I don't think it's out of line that a entire Covenant would join a Mystery Cult. Covenants are formed by friends, friends share some common interests, it's hard to keep secrets from friends. Using Mercurian Rituals and Hermetic Architecture to raise the Covenant's aura to nine makes perfect sense to me. Given that the whole point of the Order was to allow Mages to work together, you would think there would be more team related virtues......