The example spells don't change the characteristics, but that doesn't mean the guidelines can't do it. Why do I think they don't do it? Mostly because they're built by magi for magi. While it's nice to make a large animal more offensive, it's not always nice to do so on yourself. Hitting harder while being slower and easier to hit might help you win the fight... and leave it with so many wounds you regret casting the spell in the first place. I could also make an analogy with how virtues are built.
Large and Small Frame don't modify stats. Dwarf and Giant Blood do modify them, but not in the way we would expect. And yet Gigantic follows the progression we would see on monster. I see the lack of stat modification in Corpus a feature that can be used in hermetic magic but is optional, and a spell with the same exact build but giving the usual stat mods to be valid too. If you look at the guidelines, there's nothing in there that makes animal special. & more potent - in fact, I would argue otherwise. "Utterly change the appearance or size of a person (though they must still remain human in form)." vs "Make a major change in a beast, while leaving it recognizably the same sort of animal" - I would say that if I evaluate the words, utterly change something beats a major change, despite being a magnitude lower. Utter lets you ignore those stat modification, if you want to.
Giving a bonus to strength and a penalty to quickness doesn't necessarily make the spell more powerful - it makes the spell more dangerous to use too. I personally would probably choose not to do so, because being able to act first and dodge tends to beat attacking last, soaking, and counter-attacking with a penalty to wounds and possibly missing (although with the upside of hitting hard if you hit).
You've left out a lot to skew in favor of avoiding Str/Qui, which makes avoiding it seem so much better than it really is.
First, do consider that your "more dangerous" is ignoring half of the danger. Consider all spell/environmental damage. Is +X Size, +2X Str, -X Qui really more dangerous there? For environmental damage and direct spell damage, it's less dangerous because Qui doesn't factor but you still Soak Damage; also, for environmental damage you're less likely to be as fully covered and so may reduce +Damage as well. For aimed spell damage you're more likely to get hit, but that doesn't add to damage so it's probably about a wash. For direct spell effects (e.g. ReCo paralysis, PeCo inflicting Wounds) the spell may well need to have an extra magnitude or more to even affect you.
Additionally, consider that Assume the Stature of the Giants of Eld, as it multiplies the weight of your armor, weapons, etc. by a factor of about 5 (assuming same thickness for same protection) and that the rules have said most of encumbrance comes from weight. A person wearing a full suit of mail and wielding a greatsword who receives this spell will go from a Load of 8 to a Load of 32 or so. The Str requirement for their weapon will, based on continuity we see elsewhere with giants, should go to +8, though that's not clear. That would be a 4-point penalty to spell casting and athletic stuff; while the Load wouldn't change combat, that sword might not be usable. (We conveniently ignore all this for Large and Giant Blood, where those characters for some reason wear the same size armor, but not here where the armor and weapons do grow.)
Respectfully, Callen, everything you list here except Finesse spell attacks work the same between both versions of the same spell. If you're boosting strength, it's often to go in melee combat. Which is where quickness matters most.
If the game designers didn't consider multiplying the encumbrance despite changing your gear with you, I suspect most saga won't rewrite the spell so as to break it the way you suggest. This is House rule territory.
Yes, that is true. The point remains that it is not necessarily more dangerous on the defensive side.
Is it really house-rule territory? You're saying canonical would be that I can grow a 20 lb object by a factor of 100 and just pick it up with my Str 0 character? I really don't buy that. That is what sounds like a house rule to me. Just because they didn't delve into the specifics I'm mentioning doesn't mean it's a house rule. We know the factor by which the surface area is growing, and we know how weight factors into Load canonically, and we know how much of a full suit of armor's Load is weight canonically. All I did was apply three canonical things.
Yes, I'm pretty we write formulaic spell descriptions with clear mechanics for a reason, and yes, I'm pretty sure the authors didn't intend for a spell that has this description: "The caster’s clothing, armor, and weapons are also increased in size in proportion." to generate this conversation arround the gaming table after the spell is cast:
GM: "Btw, you know those 5 points of Load you had for a Burden of 0? They became 50 points of Load and you now have a Burden of 8. Please roll an Athletics check when you take a step forward, because even though it's normally something you don't roll for, your -8 is going to matter." whining by the player, with the gamemaster quoting physics
Player: "Okay, so if I act last, how much Protection does my Heavy Leather armor give me, since it's thicker? What are the combat stats of my greatsword whose weight is ten times what it was?"
GM: "Hum, let's double the protection, because if you multiplied the weight by ten, then it's likely twice as thick everywhere. As for your weapon, hmm, well you have more reach, so I'll double the initiative mod, and I'll quadruple the damage, and I can't be bothered to reassess whether I should change the attack and defense bonus. But the strength requirement of your greatsword is now 7. So you can't wield it. On the bright side, since you can't carry it anymore, your load is down to 30, which is going to help you get away from a fight you can't take part in, although not that much, and you'll probably get fatigue levels just from moving." more cursing and debate, threats are thrown about flipping the table, GM tries to find a solution to this nonsense
Player: "Allright, so you're telling me if I want to be able to use this spell in the future, I have to carry a dagger which will then turn into a virtual greatsword, and ideally just thin leather clothes that will then protect me as well as heavy leather armor?"
GM: "Yes, pretty much. Or use another Muto spell to make your Heavy Leather thinner and a Muto(Perdo) spell on your greatsword so it's less heavy, and bring it back to its normal stats."
I think, occam's razor, that they intended the player to keep his combat stats, and change his size to +3. It's called ars magicka, not ars physicka.
Back on the question, do you fundamentally disagree with this statement:
Because at the very least, if you agree that an "utter change" (Muto Corpus 3) is at least as flexible as a "major change" (Muto Animal 4) linguistically speaking, and that the guidelines are otherwise the same, can you still argue to use Muto Animal guidelines for more potency than what Muto Corpus gives you?
Have you considered that the encumbrance doesn't change the combat stats and that you can still do combat just fine if you don't go in with too large a weapon? So the intent can remain, and yet the penalties for spell casting, swimming, etc. can still be there. Meanwhile, with this interpretation you don't have to assume that "Characteristics are not affected by the size change" means you become tons stronger and that we must now ignore lots of canonical rules. So my interpretation keeps the spell's functionality that you want (just don't use too big a weapon) while not breaking a pile of canonical rules (which generally means there is a problem with the interpretation).
Yes, absolutely. We should all disagree with this statement because canon unequivocally shows this evaluation is incorrect. We know for certain that the listed MuAn base-4 guideline can handle greater changes than the MuCo base-3 guideline can. Clearly we cannot look at size changes with or without Str/Qui since that is the debate. So let's look at the one other example for MuAn base 4: Touch of the Wild (MoH p.83). There we see it handles the physical changes allowed by the MuCo base-3 guideline, and on top of that training and domestication are affected as well; that would normally be along the lines of a +1 Mentem requisite added tot the MuCo base 3.
Since we know for sure MuAn base 4 handles more than MuCo base 3, we cannot conclude with any logical validity that the other MuAn base-4 uses lie within the scope of MuCo base 3. But it is not at all inconsistent with other uses of MuCo base 3 to say you get a change in Size and there is a +1 magnitude for the additional effect of altering Str/Qui. And, happily, this lines up with the MuAn equivalent beautifully. This doesn't mean using base 3 is necessarily incorrect, just that the justification for doing so is invalid and there is more consistency with it being base 3, +1 for the extra effect.
Note: I think your statement on the language is confused because it's not really "utterly change" something v. "major change" to that same thing, but "utterly change" limited aspects v. "major change" to much more. Dropping what is affected to evaluate the words "utterly change" v. "major change" in isolation is not logical, and that misstep can lead to erroneous conclusions.
Well, Corpus is getting well underway. Creo and intellego have been cleared, and I have moved a whole bunch of Muto, Perdo, and Rego spells that have been approved to the next stage.
Just an FYI, due to the events in Israel, I will not always be online, and progress on the Fan Grimoire will be slower. My mind isn't in the right space to deal with it all. Sorry for this unexpected delay.
I have gone over the Corpus file, and moved most of what had 3 thumbs up or higher. Let me know if I missed anything, or if anything else needs my attention.
(Better to reply to this thread, am unable to follow the notifications on the file comments)
Document is still up. Other than the review later section there is just the Muto Corpus and Perdo Corpus sections that need finishing. Then on to the next Art.
Personnel wise, we just need a sound off from anyone else willing to get back to it.
I am still interested to keep going, even more so since the news of the ArM5D and the CC BY-SA 4.0.
I might need the link again as it must lay buried under a few hundreds emails
Sorry for my silence on this. I've had lots of things on my plate, and still do, but would be great to continue this.
Ping me when you get the Corpus done, and I'll make available the Herbam file.
