Familiars

[Adauli]

As told I don't forbid Int I just think for magic animal Int over 0 should be bought with improved characteristics instead of direct with the 7 point for characteristics. But yea the Raven of Virtue is a great example against my way of thinking.

Despite the rules for animal characters we need to decide if the familiar are designed as grog or companion. If we go with grog then many concept are not posible because natural Grog only have minor virtue and flaw and I just found RoP:M 36 where it say:

but characters who are intended to serve a grog role in a saga may not take Major Qualities or Inferiorities

(I think this quoted line make some of the presented animal character in RoP:M invalid unless the magic companion virtue is added. i.e. the Stag of Virtue )

[Trogdor]

@Adauli

As told I don't forbid Int I just think for magic animal Int over 0 should be bought with improved characteristics instead of direct with the 7 point for characteristics.

I think that's entirely appropriate, and true for most of the animals of virtue (except the Raven of Virtue, which actually has the Weak Characteristic flaw). But from my experience, most familiars have Improved Characteristics.

[Adauli]

I think we go with companion level familiar? If I remember our discussion so far correct 2 people want Ritual Power and only companion character can pick them according the text passage from RoP:M I quoted above.

[Trogdor]

@Adauli

I think we go with companion level familiar? If I remember our discussion so far correct 2 people want Ritual Power and only companion character can pick them according the text passage from RoP:M I quoted above.

I could really go either way. If we have companion level familiars then I'll certainly make up my familiar as a companion. But if we limit familiars to minor virtues and qualities, I can manage that as well.

[silveroak]

designing a companion level animal doesn't mean the rules from grogs vanish, it just gives more virtues and flaws to add. The problem with the examples in ROP:M isn't so much what the stats are but that there is nothing showing how they were derived, given the base stats and stat modifications from the two other books. One of my pet peeves of the design process is that animals generally have a low com score for what are obvious reasons for normal animals, but when you give them gift of speech and the ability to write this means it costs an arm and a leg to ring up the com score instead of some kind of boost from the fact they are not longer mute. Creating animals is an area of spectacularly poor design in ars magica when you consider the importance of familiars to play.

[Trogdor]

The problem, as I see it, is how animals make up mental characteristics. They have seven points to spend on just the physical stats, and get their mental stats just handed to them. Those mental stats vary from -2 points for birds to -(a lot) for fish. Clawed and hoofed beasts don't do very well either. So, at a bare minimum a beast is made with 5 points on characteristics, if it's a bird, and likely negative points on characteristics if it's anything else. Most of the negatives go into mental stats. As you say, it's a big hole to crawl out of, especially if the beast is anything but a bird.

I'm not sure what the solution to that is. I'm guessing that Adauli would object to anything that might boost the stats of animals without them buying lots of Increased Characteristics qualities.

[Adauli]

Hold right there as I understand the rules in RoP:M its that you should spend the 7 points characteristics in the direction of how the typical animal of its typ looks like starting from a base of 0 as a human would do, keep in mind you also need to adjust the size with the free quickness and strength adjustments coming with it. Unless naturally you want to use the base given in other books for animals what in return give you free qualities, as this free qualities might not pointed out well the first method looks preferable. A magical animal also usual have the innate Mute and no Hands flaw.

[Trogdor]

The books are not entirely consistent in what they say. HoH:MC p. 39 specifically states that:

Unlike human characters, animals only spend points on their four physical Characteristics (Stamina, Strength, Dexterity and Quickness). Like human characters, each has up to seven points to spend on increasing these Characteristics. Negative points may also be taken to gain an equal number of positive points, but an animal cannot have more than two Characteristics with negative values, and the minimum value is equal to (Size – 5). There is no maximum Characteristic score for an animal, and no Virtue or Flaw is needed for extreme Characteristic scores for animals.

After spending points on Characteristics, add twice the Size to Strength and subtract the Size from Quickness.

These adjustments may give an animal a third negative Characteristic, or reduce a Characteristic below the minimum of (Size – 5).

The other four Characteristics (Cunning, Perception, Presence, and Communication) are given values according to the creature’s type.

There is then a table given for what the starting values are for mental characteristics for animals.

So, if we go with what's said in HoH:MC, then I think my description was accurate.

[Trogdor]

Also, may I question whether all animals are typical. Could there not be a particularly strong bear or a sickly dog, or a slow rabbit or a dexterous chicken? I, personally, don't believe that every animal is a carbon copy of every other. Yes, they should be centered around a "typical" animal of their type. But I think a point or two of variance would not be out of order.

[Adauli]

a magical animal should never be just your typical version of a normal animal. The problem you right now encounter is that you want to go with the HoH:MC rules to gain the qualities also. As said in my posting over yours there is the other way given in RoP:M 31 that you create the characteristics of your magical animal like a normal human with just the "mundane animal as a character guide" but in return not gain the free qualities of the animal.

Edit: But for a normal encounter with an animal during a story its enough to have the statistics of a typical animal.

[Trogdor]

I haven’t said that I want to do anything. I’m totallly agnostic about how animal companions are generated. I was merely pointing out some of the conflicting rules for making them. Clearly you have some strong feelings about which rules we should use. I’m guessing that you would prefer we use the rules solely from RoP:M without using the rules from HoH:MC. If that’s what the troupe wants, I’m perfectly happy to go with that. In fact, I suspect that would make it easier for us and would certainly allow for a broader range of possible familiars.

Am I correct in what you want? I don’t want to put words in your mouth. But at some point we have to get beyond just observing conflicting rules and get to the point of suggesting which ones we should use.

So, I’ll start. Here’s what I propose. Yes, i know this will conflict with some of the rules. I think it would be hard not to. I say we make up familiars as follows:

• allow up to 20 Might for familiars
• have the familiars made up like you would a companion
• have all familiar stats start at a base 0 and go up and down from there
• have the familiars made to roughly match the corresponding animal
• allow familiars to have Int
• allow familiars to have positive mental characteristics

These proposals may not be agreeable to everyone. But I’m placing them out there as what I propose. Everyone should feel free to propose what they would like and we can discuss it.

[Adauli]

Didn't we put the limit for familiar already at might 25 with even a maybe for might 30?

agree - have the familiars made up like you would a companion
agree - have all familiar stats start at a base 0 and go up and down from ther
agree - allow familiars to have Int

not full agree - allow familiars to have positive mental characteristics (see below for my suggestion)
not full agree - have the familiars made to roughly match the corresponding animal (see below for my suggestion)

Base size before virtues and flaws is the one of the base creature with the +2 strength -1 quickness +1 damage range of each wound level adjustment per size over 0 and the opposite per size below 0 (given in HoH:MC 39)
I would say when spending the normal 7 points on characteristics the value of all characteristics should be within +-3 of a typical creature (but also have to stay within the normal +/-3) of the chosen type although the spending of the 7 points start from a base of 0.
For creatures with cunning instead of Int this means -3 Int is considered the base of the typical creature.
Any points from Improved Characteristics or similar virtue can go beyond the limitations I set but still have to be within the normal +3/-3 limit.

So lets have look at a rabbit Size -3 means it get -6 strength +3 quickness what is already near the value given for a small herbivore (-7 str +2 Qick). With stamina +3 and Dex +2 given for a small herbivore 0 is also within the +3/-3 of the base creature so no need to spend points here. As it is a clawed beast the com of -5 need us to go to -2 with com what are 3 more points to spend. So the new 10 points we can spend on Per,Sta, Qik to a maximum of +3 Str to a maxium of +2 or Pre to a maximum of +1.
After spending the points it could look like this: Int 0 Per 2 Str 0 -6 Sta 0 Pre 1 Com -2 Dex 2 Qik +2 +3 and with taking 1x Improved Charateristics the rabbit get then Int +2

Edit: It look like we still need 1 more yes vote for the suggestion that Familiar develop with 15 exp./ year after they are bound till the game start. (If I didn't miss someone only Trogdor and me voted yes on it so far and I reached the time where the familiar will affect the lab total)

[Trogdor]

Magical Animals and Mental Characteristics
Let me provide more of my thoughts on this subject. RoP:M states that intelligence is a free choice for magical animals. To me, that means that magical animals can have a base Int varying from -3 to +3 (barring exceptional virtues/flaws), just like any other intelligent creature. There is no indication that the "standard" Int for a magical animal is -3. In fact, such an assertion is not in keeping with what is shown in RoP:M for beasts of virtue and other magical animals. Yes, regular, mundane animals that are elevated to become familiars move from having Cun to having Int -3. But that's the case only for the specific situation of a regular, mundane animal being made into a familiar. Magical animals are different. Some of them are intelligent (i.e., have Int instead of Cun) long before they ever get made into a familiar. As such, a rule that applies to mundane animals being made into familiars does not apply to them. For example, if I seek out a Raven of Virtue for my familiar, I will find that the "average" specimen has an Int of +1, and had that Int long before I ever meet it. To suddenly say that the smartest Raven of Virtue out there is Int 0 runs counter to what is set forth in RoP:M.

You state that "[f]or creatures with cunning instead of Int this means -3 Int is considered the base of the typical creature." I agree with this. However, I disagree that all magical animals start with cunning. As noted above, some magical animals begin with Intelligence (it is, in fact, a free choice for magical animals). Therefore, any magical animal that chooses to have Int should be assumed to have a "base" Int of 0.

Per is easy, I don't think any of us deny that Per can be positive for an animal, magical or mundale. There are just too many examples given of animals with positive Per.

Com and Pre are more difficult, I admit. But I'm persuaded by silveroak's observation that once you've given an animal the ability to speak (as many magical animals do), much of the reason for keeping Com and Pre low ought to disappear. I further note that the examples of magical animals given in RoP:M do not follow your proposal. I note that of the magical animals specifically disclosed, their Com varies from -3 to +1 and the Pre varies from -3 to +2. (FWIW, the lowest of these values are for animals who cannot talk.) If we include dragons as magical animals then it all goes out the window, as dragons are shown as having potentially very large Pre and Com (and Int for that matter).

So, I guess my point is that magical animals and mundane animals have very different mental characteristics. We should not limit the characteristics of the former based on the characteristics of the latter.

Also, I assume that you propose the same limits for humans and ghosts that you propose for magical animals, i.e., that they must be within +/-3 of the base value (0) for any characteristic. So, your proposal would not allow the Extraordinary [Characteristic] virtue or the Weak [Characteristic] flaw for any such familiar.

[Adauli]

You got it a bit wrong the +3/-3 to the base creature is before applying any virtue or flaw but after applying the size modification, also the points are still spend with 0 as start and not the creature base.
Effective I only put your "have the familiars made to roughly match the corresponding animal" into some set of rules that should be watched at the step before applying any virtues, flaws or magic qualities.

[silveroak]

It seems to me that what we end up with is this:

1. either find the animal or create it with the rules in HOH:MC.
2. create the character from base 0 stats, where final stats must be within +/- 3 (barring the use of certain virtues or flaws) of the animal's stats.
3. cunning gets changed to intelligence for evaluating min/max int or int is considered base 0 for this purpose.

on 3, might I suggest that the best option for any given animal be applied- for example an animal which normally has cunning +2 could go up to int +5, but one with cunning -2 can still get up to 3.

[Trogdor]

I guess I have to wonder whether we're talking about anything that's even likely to happen. Is anyone really planning on having a familiar with an Int of +4 or +5? If so, then I may need to rethink my whole familiar plan.

[Trogdor]

@Adauli

Edit: It look like we still need 1 more yes vote for the suggestion that Familiar develop with 15 exp./ year after they are bound till the game start. (If I didn't miss someone only Trogdor and me voted yes on it so far and I reached the time where the familiar will affect the lab total)

I'm assuming that if people have a problem with it they'll say something.

[thompsja]

@Trogdor

@Adauli

Edit: It look like we still need 1 more yes vote for the suggestion that Familiar develop with 15 exp./ year after they are bound till the game start. (If I didn't miss someone only Trogdor and me voted yes on it so far and I reached the time where the familiar will affect the lab total)

I'm assuming that if people have a problem with it they'll say something.

I'm good with 15 XP/year. Poenitens got his in year 10, so that's twenty years to do, already.

[thompsja]

So I started catching up development for my familiar, and found that there's special Abilities for entities with Magic Might: Resistance and Magical Meditation, found on page 51 of RoP:M If a creature does not already have these Abilities, can they gain them? These Abilities are considered supernatural.

[Adauli]

I will have my familiar only for 9 years before the game starts. So not that much gain here and thanks to our might limit I probably also cant use the full lab total of 54 (without apprentice) when binding the ghost because I think 29 Might go beyond what we will allow ^^.