Familiars and Learning

Well , yes , i kinda knew that.
But i was making a rhetorical observation , not supported by RAW , as to why general Familiars could be an exception.
Possibly this could be used in some sagas to define a House Rule.

Taking the idea that a Familiar is part of a Magus, i should say that all the things taht make thme better for the mage, but under the natural limits fo their types, can be, or must be like a Esencial trait.
I mean that the Familiar Bond changes both familiar an Magi, and then i can figure that a Familiar get the True Friend like part of a Quality/Virtue similar, not reflected but that should be the Familiar Essential Trait, and in the same way we can see it like a Trait that work faciliting their relationship with her maga.
I mean than a Familiar can learn Magic Theory becaus the Core Rules say it, and probably any other Ability trained by his magus, in the same way that a magus get the good side of the Bonds. Maybe the Familiar Total Lab should be like the max Experience Points that he can get without penality or the Silver Cord. I can figure that it should be house rul for those person.
All like suggestions.

I have a hard time reconciling the elaborate things said about familiars in the books (they are the closest thing to a spouse most magi ever have, many magi would rather be Marched than submit to the punishment of death-of-familiar, etc.) with an attitude that allows them to become background characters. My experiences contradict yours, too. Is this a common phenomenon?

Maybe the reason potent magical beings like daemonic aspects choose to become familairs is because the situation allows them to learn and develop in ways they normally can't.

Core book saysthat familiars learn like humans.

Where please?
I spent an hour looking for it when it came up in our local group

p105, "The Bound Familiar, para 2, sentence 3-4.

Also note that on p105, "The Familiar in Play", para 1, sentence 2 it says:

Even ignoring the first part, I would argue that that last bit would allow for any abilities the Magus possesses to be considered to have "Favoured Ability" exemption at the very least,

I would point out that Familiars, Longevity Potions, and Talismans are all unique to the mage, with their own set of rules. Trying to apply general rules to special cases seems incorrect.

Of course, the same is true of every Magic Might being according to RoP:M, so this doesn't make much difference. It's not about the method but about the Quality penalty.

Yes, I would tend to agree that this is suggestive.

I do like the Silver Cord suggestions. The Silver Cord tends to be considered by far the weakest of the three from what I've seen. I think that is due to the rareness of its function. Meanwhile bonuses to Soak and aging or bonuses against magical botches are nearly always very useful to magi.

Chris

Considering characters like the dragon librarian, it does not makes much sense to have that penalty as per the RAW. Except if the dragon has access to dozens of pawns of vis and spends a fair number of days getting them, that is. A penalty is perfectly OK to me (magical creatures evolving slowly, but not stopping to grow) but not the level of penalty seen in ROP:M. Otherwise only weaklings evolve and I find that quite weird. Also, a dragon moving to a new mountain would seem to suffer some sort short memory loss problem: he would be unable to learn the new Area Lore.

I would suggest simply dropping it and have magical creatures or ANY creature not being actively trained gain only exposure XP if you want slow evolution. They are busy doing their "animal stuff" 24/7, and do not have time to spends training et al. Easy. Familiars, OTOH, are "in class" most of their time, so they get massive training totals season after season. Hunting dogs also get training experience and other animals as well, but not most of the wild ones. This is why they evolve slowly. Being supernatural is not a problem or an advantage here.

All this is if you need rules for magical creatures evolving. For us most dragons and other creatures do not have stats at all, being what we need them to be at that moment, but if you need them to have detailed stats, I think this might be more consistent. They are already hugely penalized for not dwelling in a magical place, so more penalties seem overkill.

Cheers,
Xavi

I agree with this. I don't especially agree with the idea that all creatures with Might are immortal and unchanging. The RoP:M rule feels right for daimons and spirits (with the workaround provided in Mysteries) and for embodiments of the ideal forms such as the virtuous animals from RoP:M. Other beings such as dragons, giants, and even djinn usually age and grow, albeit very slowly, in stories. I would probably apply the rule to beings that live in the Magic Realm, ghosts (being dead already), and the ideal animals but not to other magical creatures.

I hadn't thought about it this way; you're right about the loophole. It's not as if daimons living in the Magic Realm are sucking down vis and changing from year to year, which they presumably could do under the RoP:M rule.