Why? Its possible to create other things that cant exist naturally...
I agree, but I see that line in the CrAn guidelines as an exception. The word "Individual" is capitalized, meaning it's referring to a Target and not a generic "thing".
Maybe not, but that's how I read it.
(And Weaver's Trap of Webs is an ancient legacy spell, one inspired directly from a game-that-shall-not-be-mentioned, and all bets are off with those! 
There is nothing "natural" about that spell or the webs. )
Salvete, Sodales!
AM5, p. 113, Tatgets and Sizes: "...A base Group contains about as much mass as ten standard Individuals of the Form. This can be split uo in any way desired, so it could be [...] or ten thousand individuals, each one thousandth of standard size."
Apart from the 'Weaver's trap' there is the 'Curse of the Ravenous Swarm' which obviously produces more than just 1000 locusts (which wouldn't be such a big problem), and there is a spell to create a horde of scorpions in MoH.
The only hint pointing into Cuchulainshound's direction is the capital 'Individual' in the guideline, but a combination of the base rule for group targets, the introductory text for the CrAn guidelines, the variety of examples mentioned and the line editors comments in this thread, I'd deduce that this isn't the way, that phrasing is supposed to be read.
Of course, lieke always, your game, your rules.
Vale,
Alexios ex Miscellanea
As someone pointed out abit earlier in the thread - pearls are considered gemstones in ME, so you'd use the guidelines for making gemstones under Terram instead. At least that is how I'd rule it...
True. There are arguments for CrAn as well, but i do think CrTe may have a stronger one.
No no no...
First, I want to know where that reference is from, a "context".
Cuz I'll bet a rook of vis that it's not in reference to Forms, but either to "Material and Size" for holding vis for Enchantments, or from somewhere like City & Guild in reference to Trade.
You can have an intelligent, talking dog and "consider" it as one of the covenfolk, but that doesn't make it Corpus. Peasants can consider pixies vermin, like rats, but that doesn't make them Animal. One could "consider" hardened lava or obsidian to come from a volcano, but that doesn't make it Ignem. You could rightly say that narwhal ("unicorn") horns were considered magical, but that doesn't make them Vim.
It's known that pearls come from oysters, that makes pearls an "animal product", which makes them Animal, the same as ivory. Not Terram.
There may be Terram Techniques that can affect them, and they might be "considered" as gemstones for trade and commercial purposes, and for enchanting, and for social flash, but not for which Form creates them.
I also think pearls should be Terram.
Remember: we know that pearls are a "product" of the oyster, but I'm not 100% the ancients knew that, or simply believed that the oyster somehow guarded this stone the way e.g. a dragon guards his treasure. I believe there are legendary stones said to be found in the head of dragons (ammonites ?), and those fall under Terram. I also in some book of some previous edition (Wizard's Grimoire RE?) there was a CrTe spell that actually shot a stream of pearls at the target.
As the one who made the reference, yes and no. I was thinking that the CrTe guidelines show that gemstones are harder to make then stone, and that if using CrAn to make a "valuable" animal product, you should assume the guideline follows thru, that is to say, pearls (gemstone) should be harder to make then shell (stone). The editors are not perfect. Better to assume that they missed a guideline then to go against one of the unspoken limits, that magic is "harder" when making something intrinsically precious. Coal and Diamond are both carbon, but magic treats them differently. Why? It's magic.
So, you're saying that because pearls are more valuable than other animal products, that you assume pearls should be harder to make than shells, and since the CrTe guidelines say that gems are harder to create than "stone", that this makes pearls "gemstones" in canon?? 
Because I think that's what you just said.
Why? Because wtf is carbon?! That's "why?"!
I am, that's why I just mentioned it above. (Unlike some, I try not to just pull such assertions out of any handy orifice and present them as "fact". 8) )
The internet is a wonderful thing - you should try it sometime...
Google search: Key words "oysters pearls medieval"
First result: bestiary.ca/beasts/beast548.htm
(Elapsed time, 12.83 seconds)
It also makes it easy for one to look like a fool ... you should be careful!
I assume that that 12.83 seconds was too little time for you to read what the site you are suggesting says:
A stone that can swim about and swallow dew? A stone that has a leader, and has a breeding season? Sure, that's a stone.
No, I didn't read the unattributed summation at the top, because I've read Pliny before. And he places them under "shellfish", not "stones".
But if you really need that much help to figure it out, I'll give you one more for free - Try the original: penelope.uchicago.edu/holland/pliny9.html
(Note - Pliny's Natural History is an Authority.)
Actually I believe that this use of "stones" might actually refere directly to shellfish or more specifically any bivalve. As in cherrystones.
No, I am saying that pearls are "gemstones" in canon because that's how they are treated, for purposes of enchantment. It's a very short list, the list that gives us how much vis "fits" into materials. That list goes from "least valuable" to "most valuable". Magic seems to follow suit. The higher on the list, the higher the guideline to "make" it. To claim that pearls are "animal products" when it comes to guidelines to using CrAn, but gemstones when it comes to enchantment seems incorrect, unless you are claiming that pearl is, in canon, the favored material for enchantment..........
Why can't they be both. I mean pearls really are an animal product and a gemstone in the real world. Cloth can be Animal or Herbam and has slightly different creo guidelines either way but enchants the same.
I've looked at that very short list I notice that while it is more or less goes by value it is not completely organized that way. For instance glass and cloth hold the least amount of vis. Now I'm fairly certain even poorly made glass is at least as valuable as most base metals at that time and cloth could represent anything from burlap to fine silk. Now I agree that generally the more vis a material holds the more valuable it is but there are exceptions. At the same time I could say the stronger a material is, but for a few exceptions, the more vis it will hold.
Also the list does not exactly match the guidelines for creo magic. Several materials that are equally easy to make can contain different amounts of vis. Leather and bone, silver and gold, glass and stone, not to mention the fact that gemstones are divided up into three different lines on the chart. Cloth made from animal products is at the bottom of the list but requires a group target just to create because it made of individual fibers. (Not to mention a ridiculously high size modifier if some people on this discussion are to be believed, just how many individual hairs make a wool sweater)
Now if your saying that pearls should be harder to make simply because the setting as written isn’t full of pearl encrusted magic items, I would say that there could be several other explanations. In my experience the game makes it far harder to get and bind the vis necessary to enchant gemstones then it is to acquire the mundane ingredients gems or otherwise. Also a gemstone of a few carets, perfectly serviceable for enchanting is actually cheaper then a sword.
I believe I am the one saying it can be both. It's just that when dealing with a transitional item like a pearl, go with the higher guidelines, if you have to choose. I mean, what about red coral? It's listed as a semi precious stone in canon. If you treat it like an animal byproduct, you could make a house out of the stuff. Nothing wrong with that, but I think it should be a higher magnitude spell then Wizards Tower....
Glass is a bad example, because magic, in canon, doesn't deal well with it, to the point (If memory serves) that CrTe cannot make glass. So it goes....
Sorry, wasn't clear in my last post. I was saying there’s no reason why pearls can’t be an animal product and therefore not terram but is still be a gemstone.
As far as glass goes magic doesn’t seam to have any problem creating it. It’s a level three CrTe effect same as stone it‘s right on the chart on page 153. There doesn’t seem to be anything unusual other then it’s one of the materials that shows the “Material and Size Tables” are not organized exactly along the lines of intrinsic value or creo guidelines.
Right, I'm just saying that "Gemstones", being more "valuable" then their basis (Stone, Animal), have higher guidelines. So CrAn : Pearl should be lv 30 or 35.
As to Glass, see page 51, Covenants. "Note that in the thirteenth century, most glass is not particularly clear - making clear glass is a alchemical process, beyond a craft spell. Glass often has bubbles and distortions unless a real expert works on it, with a proportionately high Ease Factor.". It sticks out because I can't think of anything else in canon where it states clearly with no wiggle room, that you can't make it with magic..... So you can make a useless fragile rock with CrTe, but the Glass we know and love, no. Makes the glassmaker the most valued craftsman in the Covenant.
That was always my understanding. Like ivory, and as opposed to generic animal bone or hide. Peals seem "a step above" when it comes to enchantment, certainly in genre.
Bone and soft stone are in the same class on the Material & Size table, as are wood and leather, but one is certainly not the other. To state that, because pearls enchant like gems, which are stones, therefore pearls are stones, is... well, not any sort of logic I'd want to defend, let's just say that and leave it alone. 8)
I'm not claiming or defending that. I'm just saying that the guidelines are higher for "better" stuff. Gemstones are stone, but with a higher guideline than "normal" stone, and I think pearls are an animal product, but with a higher guideline then "normal" animal product like wool. Better in these cases could refer to how useful they are in enchantment or their monetary value. Either way, higher guidelines.
Dont forget however that preindustrially, cloth of ANY form is far more expensive than you would expect.
They are not to be believed since they have intepreted RAW incorrectly. :mrgreen:
Yeah... Never liked that from RAW. Never used it either... 
Really?
Missed that... Think i will go on "missing" it.