The convention had been to place comments with the calculation line and thumbs up/down with the name. However, I pointed out that when emails about replies to comments come out this makes it nearly impossible to find the comment. So I requested (and another, and one neutral) that from now on the comments get attached to the name and the thumbs up/down get attached to the TeFe # under the name. That way the email will always tell you the name of the spell being commented on.
Yes. We have done some, but we haven't been thorough. So we will have do to do later anyway.
I believe we are trying to make the formatting like in the books. There are two standards, though. One is not to bother with most of it because everything is categorized and you only write in the requisites like the core book (e.g. Req: Mentem), and the other is to write out the whole thing like in MoH (e.g. MuCo(An) 45). I'm not sure which we're going with.
I prefer the abridged version, and once the spells have been reviewed, I go over them, making a nicer, cleaner file, and I try to make sure all spells are using the abrigded version, and that the calculation lines are in a similar formatting. But we will need to go over that after we reviewed all the spells, and move on to the next stage, before layout.
You can offer suggestions for formatting the spell, and I reserve the right to approve them. As English isn't my first language, I'm bound to make some mistakes, but we will review spelling and grammar at the next stage.
I try to make an addendum to spells we've changed, clarifying the changes from the original. This is both for the authors, so if they see a spell they submitted, but it's different, they can undertstand why, and for the community at large to understand.
Yea, someone finally reached my last comment from when I stopped three months ago! Guess it is time to start up again and finish the whole document now... not.
Joking aside, if the other Editors find it easier to work off of a first pass I can do that and if they rather get a chance for a first pass I will hold back.
I like the idea of splitting off each Form into its own document so we don't get bogged down in all those comments. It is a little problematic when we have spells where the designer used the wrong Art combination, though. Hold-til-later stuff would still be OK; they would just sit in the same document.
Before proceeding further, I really want to switch to the main comments being on the name of the spell so I can find things after reading the emails. The emails work really well, because otherwise you have to repeatedly go back through tons of comments to see when someone commented after you. But when you cannot find the spell being commented on it someone defeats the point.
Since we're starting to see a lot of "major abilities" showing up in MuCo, I'd suggested we try a poll here to see where people would put them. However, I have taken note that an "additional limb" is considered a "major ability" in canon (in contrast to examples of a "minor ability," and we do have a canonical Base for adding a limb (MuCo 5). So we can probably just go with MuCo 5 for consistency there and include a note that troupes might change this.
I started to create a poll thread before my last comment and then realized we should talk about it a little first. Also felt you should have the option since it was your idea. Just going with Base 5 and a note might be easier. That is 3 Magnitudes higher.
As an aside, the comments section of the document (little speech bubble in to top right) shows all new comments and can be changed to only show ones that are related to you by its drop down menu. I review every comment made even if I don't add new comments, normally no more than a few hours after max.
If you open it up and let the page sit there a minute or two (I just switch to a different tab and do something else like look at the Forums), it will fully populate and work smoothly. Once opened and fully populated it will even smoothly show new post.
@Red-Shadow-Claws this sounds like a great project (and a long thread). I'm interested to take a look - and possibly contribute if I can (I'm used to big projects - cough cough Chronology).
A google doc was mentioned? I didn't see it linked? Since thread is so long, if shared openly make sure first post has it. Cheers.
I was not able to find the guideline for Major Ability, can you point me towards a spell that use it or the guidelines ?
My pitch to differentiate between minor and major abilities:
Minor:
Does it help you perform better something that you are naturally able to do ?
Does it grant you a bonus lower or equal to +3 ?
Major:
Everything else.
Obviously, I have not considered all weird transformations, so let's discuss this. If we can get to something relatively simple, with minimal judgment call, that would be swell
Ex: eyes of the cat: improve your eyesight (significantly), still within minor change, but human can see a bit in the dark (not complete darkness)
Breathing under-water: major ability, human cannot "slightly breath" underwater.
Hear of the bat, that will depend on the Medieval paradigm. Modern understanding of echo-sonar clearly put it within Major abilities, but if medieval paradigm set it within superior hearing, human will have superior hearing (but no echo-location).
Major ability: wings (RoP:tI p.110), additional limb (RoP:tI p.110)
What I was noting is that an additional limb is noted as a "major ability," and there is a MuCo 5 guideline for an additional limb (MoH p.49). To be consistent with an additional limb being a "major ability" and using this MuCo 5 guideline, it would make sense for other "major abilities" to use MuCo 5 as a guideline as well.
MuCo 5 guidelines specifically says "human parts". Extra limb falls within this guideline. Wings are not human part. After all, it is MuCo 10 to turn a human into an animal, but MuCo 20 for a bird, and if we toss in T:Part (+1), we partially turn a human into a bird by granting him wings.
So we can either work on guidelines for minor/major abilities, or instead guidelines based on the origin of the part we want to impart to a human. The first alternative is using the existing guideline for "grant a minor abilities", with an extension, the second alternative is build on turning a human into another species guidelines, with Part as Target. Both could fit.
The problem of the second approach, Eyes of the Cat should become Base 10 (turn a human into a land creature) with Part, which gives a very different spell level.... AAAAArrrrrgggglllll...
And I forgot another topic: which skill to use when a spell grants an ability that is clearly new to a human (like wings to fly) ?
Magic cannot grant abilities, that is well established.
So, a human getting wings would not know how to operate them - at best a skill at 0. It would be quite a stretch to use Athletics or Swim (flying = swimming in the air ???).
An extra arm, I would be okay to let the person use an extra weapon (for example), that will either grant an extra attack or parry, or a +3 to his general attack. But a set of wings, it does not come with a manual.
Overtime and long period of practice, one can get acquainted to using wings, tentacles or spitting poison, but straight of the bat... mmmhhhh...
Notice that animals use Athletics for flight. Why there and not swimming as well, I donât know, but that is whatâs done.
Refer to the MuCo guidelines box where it says it can take some time to become accustomed to a new form.
.
Since these exist, there is no reason for us to try to make any further ruling.
As for the earlier idea of when we go from minor ability to major ability, I would mostly agree. But it doesnât differentiate, for example, between Claws and Large Claws.
Yes, I missed that... again.
A few minutes for Animal, but a day or so for Corpus.
We can use the base damage to decide if it is a minor or a major abilities. It might not be "logical" in certain situations, but it kind of preserves a level of game balance and it is relatively easy to apply. It also follows the trend for most direct spell damage: higher magnitude, higher damage.
However, physical damage should be capped: a natural claw can only do so much, then it depends on the strength, the body mass, the skill, but even though it will be capped. Above a certain damage bonus, it can only be achieved through magical means: poison, fire, cold, flesh destruction, etc...
Well, ArM5 already takes much of this into account Claws and Large Claws have weapon statistics. Beings of bigger Size (body mass) have more Strength (even though the scaling should be more than +2 per +1 Size), and Strength (both from Size and baseline differences) adds on to damage. Skill applies through Attack Advantage. ArM5 just doesn't cap damage.
I tend to look at it with two-level things like Claws v. Large Claws, Bite v. Large Bite, etc. as minor v. major.
I created a specific topic for everybody to discuss Muto Corpus guidelines. So if somebody want to start a poll or have suggestions to pitch, you are more than welcome.
