I'm surprised. I started to re-balance the game a while back, I didn't finish the project but I didn't find it needed a complete change-over. Well, I guess most playtesters won't like even "small" changes, like say re-scaling the Arts or Spell Guidelines.
Sort of a related question on this topic - how much did the scaling of spell power evolve over editions? Would the ArM5 Spell Guidelines for spontaneous magic be able to be applied in a 2nd/3rd ed game or is everything very different with regard to how levels of spells were determined with those editions?
If you compare ArM4 p.102ff Spells and ArM5 p.111 Spells, you find the ArM5 system far more precise and enabling for players.
I don't remember any specific differences in spell levels through the editions, and overall I think most effects have had the same levels. Although there are surely some examples here and there. 5th edition attempted to explain legacy spells with design modifiers, where the seemed to differ somewhat from the guidelines.
4th ed was the first edition to have lists of guidelines for each TeFo combo, to make SPontaenous magis easier. Earlier editions just required you to gauge the level of effect in comparison to spells from the list. But in 4th each Form had a specific set of parameters (Range/Duration/Target) to which the guidelines fitted. So sometimes you'd have to count magnitudes down, because you were casting an effectr at lower range or duration. 5th made things easier by having all guidelines start at the lowest parameters, so you only had to count up.
As for scaling of power, there may be differences in how high you could expect a magus' Arts to go. From 3rd and earlier you had little opportunity to increase Arts once you surpassed the library's score, only vis study and that had a practical limit as well, because Arts only increased in full levels. From 4th ed on you could always grind though any Tractatus you could find, and all exp between the levels were tracked, so eventually you'd gain a level. But then again, changing Penetration from being Casting TOtal to Casting Total-Spell Level meant something for 5th ed magi's power. A rule I'm very fond of.
1 Like
Generally, as others say, a lot has been done to make the new guidelines fit old spells. And some existing spells which do not fit the guidelines are included as exceptional results of experimentation or non-Hermetic legacies.
However, there are some notable exceptions.
- Invisibility was very hard in 3ed. I remember we were shocked when we moved to 4ed which made it a lot easier. In 5ed it is somewhere in between.
- Conjuring the Mystic tower was L50 in 3ed and L35 in 5ed.
- Hermes' Portal was L75 in 3ed, but here the main difference is that it is no longer permanent, so in a sense, it is the Mercere Portal which has replaced 3/4ed Hermes Portal for practical purposes.
2 Likes
Probably more like 98% of them. While the Hermes Portal can be set up in a few hours, getting 2 magi that can cast the same level 75 spell is pretty difficult even with casting tablets (let alone them having learned the spell)...and if you're spending the time to arrange for those folks, you could contract House Mercere to set up a permanent set of portals for slightly more vis.
1 Like
My fault. I thought Hermes' Portal was lower in 5ed. I was wrong.
However, Mercere is not, in canon, readily contractable. Mercere Portals are dangerous, something they learnt the hard way.
Mercere need more magi. As it stands they really don't have enough Gifted magi to do all the things they need to. Just having 2 Gifted Mercere with the capacity to make Mercere Portals is hard to float when you've got around a dozen (because canonically they lean towards Cr/Mu, not Re). Maybe if the house had around 30 or so.
1 Like
... or if the existing Mercere Portals are mostly old, and new ones are still an order-wide sensation.
1 Like
Not gonna comment on the Mercere Portal thing since its ease of crafting is entirely campaign based, like how much vis there is in the world.
Buuut I will comment on the whole number of magi, and I have to agree there. Its a bit ridiculous on how small it is. Especially considering how small the Gifted population is in general. So yeah, I totally would add a few more (maybe score) to the number in the House.
Oh hey, since we are talking about past editions, which edition brought the whole magical limitation on House Verditius. Because I have to say I do not approve of said limitation as to me it seems damaging the Gift and that is a no no according to the Code.
By cannon there are less than a dozen mercere mages, but this doesn't mean that number is stable- this may be a relatively low point historically. As long as you have 2 mercere mages who can make the mercere portals you have the capability of adding more- indeed one of them could only know the activating ritual (possibly the junior partner). assuming a fairly optimized combination of abilities and labs, and a lab text, they could be making a portal a season and installing them every 3rd season that they are working on this- 2 seasons total if both mages cooperate and each builds one. so one portal every 2-3 seasons spent working on them. I have to imagine even 1 new portal a year will far outpace demand, elsewise in a century Europe would be a virtual highway system of portals.
In theory with lab texts you could build both portals in a single season, but this would require using 26 pawns of vis in a season, which would require a magic theory of 13, on top of the requirements for the actual creation, though once you have built one and have the lab text it should always be a single season for future portal arches.
Already from 2nd ed, when the houses were named, House Verditius needed casting tools to cast their spells, but also had a bonus ability to add to lab totals for enchanting.
Much the same through 3rd and 4th I think
1 Like
I am not quite sure what @Heru_Kane is referring to.
What is new in 5ed is the ritual whereby Hermetic magi trained in other Houses may be initiated into the outer mystery and join Verditius. That had an odd feel to me, and arguably would be violating the Code.
In prior editions the House training was an atomic parcel. You were trained in one tradition and came out with certain benefits and flaws. All opening of the Gift is in a sense damaging it, in the sense that it irrevocably closes wholly or partly to other initiations, but the apprentice is not a magus and hence the Code does not apply. The Verditius flaw is not qualitativily different from the Bjornar flaw.
1 Like
Ah, okay, so from basically the beginning. Gottcha. That's some interesting information there.
How those of the House are required to use Casting Tools. Their initiation damages their spellcasting ability which in my opinion is something that should be problematic within the Order.
Basically I am not a fan of there being a group whose initation weakens their base Hermetic magic.
Yeah, I agree. Going from 'normal casting' to being forced to use casting tools seems something that the Code would look at askance. Just like if a master didn't have the proper art scores and gave his apprentice defieicinet arts across the board.
Yeah I get that. Though I do disagree with the idea that Opening of the Gift damages the Gift as it really doesn't.
I have a problem, as I said above, with a House causing its people to be weakened in something as fundamental as spellcasting.
If it wasn't for the fact that House Verditius is a founding House I doubt something like this, if implemented in the more recent times, would be accepted. Same with the whole Familiar thing, especially as its noted that a version without said limitation could potentially (and should have been over the year) have been created.
But that is not what is happening. Definitely not in previous editions and I think not in 5ed.
The apprentice was not able to cast any spells prior to opening, so nothing is damaged. Opening releases powers, none are removed. In previous editions, this opening was an atomic piece of training, so the apprentice never had the power to cast formulaic spells without casting tools.
This seems still to be the case in 5ed. It is not the mystery which removes the ability to cast formulaic spells without tools, because if it were, there would not be any need for the ritual to damage the Gift.
I can agree that it is strange that the Verditus have not learned to open the Gift without this flaw, but I don't think it is a big deal, really.
Hardly strange at all, considering their main flaw is Hubris. They can't conceptualize a generation of magi with 'better' spellcasting, any more then they can conceptualize using a book to learn Craft: Automata rather than crippling their Gift with a Necessary Condition.
Bjornaer is almost as hidebound. Granted it's a single flaw, and they've never known otherwise, so they probably don't see it as a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Having a Heartbeast makes you a more complete magus than having a Familiar, from their point of view.
Magi choosing to join these houses are voluntarily participating. There's no crime in damaging your own Gift, even if the help of others is involved (and someone has to bring a suit for there to be a crime).
Well, the initiate could cast the Ritual of Boethius on himself, and then there is no problem. Casting it on someone else is arguably breaking the Oath, even if the target consents. The ban on depriving someone of their magical power is unconditional. Obviously, you want be convicted if nobody takes action, but the target could change his mind, or someone with a grudge could decide to press charges just to harm you. Still your conscience might be the greater problem.
The fact that you get away with it, does not make it within the Oath.
It wouldn't get past the Quaesitors unless the participant was misled as to the effect of the ritual. Nobody is going to bring the issue before tribunal when the participant knew and voluntarily participated in a sacrifice of magical power to gain some other magical power; otherwise every mystery cult ever would be continually dragged in front of tribunal.
And then there's the political aspect. Piss off the entirety of house Verditus by dragging their mystery cult business in front of tribunal for a case of Caveat Emptor? No quaestor worth the name is going to do that. Every Verditus will stand up at tribunal in offense at the suggestion that their Gift is 'damaged' and you might get a Wizard's March right there and then, possibly with the support of house Merinita and Bjornaer plus whatever mystery cults that are running in the background.
The Code is there to punish gross violations of hermetic norms, not compensate magi for making poor life choices.
1 Like
No, the Code is not there to punish. The Code is there for magi to abide by. When it comes to punishment, the Code has already failed. Punishment is there to mitigate the failure.
I agree with you, that prosecution is unlikely, unless a large faction of the tribunal wants to punish you for something else which is not a blatant violation of the Code.
1 Like
The oath specifically includes the requested punishment for violation (expulsion from the Order) and a request that if expelled, the magus is slain rather than suffer the infamy of expulsion. Punishment is baked into the Code.