Fan Grimoire?

Oh, I understood it as non-standard RDT from the corebook.

Like, if someone wants to invent a spell with duration: meal

The question was about spells using RDT that not every Magus has access to, like Faerie Magic, or Chthonic Magic, Holy Magic, or other virtues through initiation.

1 Like

That was my reading when I voted.

I hope that, rather than just throwing them away, they are published with their rationale. Not necessarily with the same effort put into copy-editing, but in some format to let contributors know why they were rejected before they are resubmitted for the next edition. But yes, I too had the impression that nobody wanted the main list polluted with dubious spells.

BTW, I cannot see any example of virtue-specific RDT mixed into a longer list in RAW, not in core anyway, so the argument of having it just like RAW does not make an awful lot of sense.

The fact that the Core didn't publish any spells with Faerie Magic guidelines is a shame, in my opinion.
Sample spells are always good to have.

1 Like

Would you include spells from the The Net Wizard's Grimoire? I see from the post by @YR7 it is no longer maintained, although I added some spells to it over the last couple of years, and maybe others have too?

I have a problem with the GitHub file, not because it's short on spells, but because I have no idea who contributed each spell, so I cannot give the author credit in this project.

Is it possible to know who authored which spell? I'd like to give the authors credit

1 Like

Spells that are written in Hermetic are all mine and I'm the only author of that file. So, you can use them.

P. S. You can view changes to files and commits by clicking the clock icon on a specific file but it isn't obvious who wrote a spell or who modified it.


The authors agreed to share their spells, including moving them to another platform (if they read the fine print...), so there's that.

1 Like

Just an update

Am still gathering the various sources into one file (for now am focusing on spells), but work is a bit slow, because I try to make all entries have a similar look, so in many cases, i have to write the RDT, or the blurb at the bottom, with the base, and adjustments.

Also, a heads up to those who want to help critique the spells:

  1. Some spells seem to be duplicates, we'll have to consider what we do in that case.
  2. I only skimmed the spells, but I can already see that quite a few will cause some discussion.
  3. This is already giving me good vibes, and a headache, so I hope it would come to pass.

If you have something that can format things for you, you can generally copy and paste unformatted text and then let the computer pop the tags into it. That way you don't have to do that part by hand.

With duplicates we could write it up once while crediting multiple authors.


I've been away from the forums for a while so I'm a little late to the party here, but I think this is a great idea. Certainly feel free to use anything I've ever put on the forums (or elsewhere).

If you need an extra pair of eyes for reviewing stuff, I'd be happy to help. Likewise if you need a hand with handling all the data and formatting it - my day job involves a decent amount of data processing and typesetting documents (admittedly research papers and spec sheets rather than rpg fan supplements, but the core skills are broadly the same).


If you guys/gals can send me your email address, I will send you the link, and give you editing rights

1 Like

I've started to review the spells. That being said, I wished we had cut the spells into smaller sections, rather than work on a compilation of 230 pages. It will take forever to go through the document, not to mention that we may need to debate some of those and come to a decision to edit a spell, approve it, or not include it. Going back to check if someone reacted to a comment 50 pages back... not ideal. Perhaps we can work on a given chapter at a time, finalize it, move on to the next once we made all our decisions or something? And our approved section gets removed from the work document and moved into a finalized document. To have a sense of progress and all that.

1 Like

Not a bad idea, I started from the top down but it's already getting quite cluttered with all the comments. I'd suggest we start with Creo Animal for that reason, but I'm not married to the idea (Animal is not my favourite form, it's just alphabetically first).

There's also a question of how to resolve ones that are debatable. I think we maybe need to establish some ground rules on what will and won't be accepted to reduce the clutter. Then we can whittle it down just to the tricky cases.

A few ideas in that vein:

  • Duplicate spells should be merged, but acknowledging the alternate names with an AKA and giving credit to all the creators
  • Spells with similar effects but differences in range, duration etc. should be retained as is.
  • Spells which we agree seem sound in concept but which are questionable in terms of how well RAW supports them should be kept, but marked to indicate they depend on saga specific rules interpretations (maybe just putting YSMV after the name, or marking with a * or something)
  • Spells with correctable errors (levels added up wrong or something) should be fixed and a note added to that effect
  • Spells which are mechanically flawed (use wrong guideline etc.) should be removed, because at that point we're basically just writing new spells

It would still leave a decent number of edge cases but if we establish some criteria like this it will get rid of a lot of the current comments.

edit: also, kudos to @Red-Shadow-Claws for pulling this together, it's quite a compilation.

1 Like

Thanks, but the kudos is mostly for others who have pointed me at the resources from which this compilation is derived. If it was just me gathering, am not sure I would have had even half the number of spells it currently has.

1 Like

I realize it's a big file, with lots of spells, and I now realize I never added the spells from the Mystery and Virtue thread.

Duplicate spells should definitely be merged, the creators all credited, and acknowledging the alternate names.
Spells which use the wrong Guideline, I'm ok with correcting them, even if the spell changes TeFo, or level.
Spells which are completely flawed, should be removed.

And yes, focusing on Animal, or even just Creo Animal, and resolving everything, and then moving forward, should be advisable. If there are spells that seem fine to everyone, it would be nice if everyone mentioned thta the spell is fine as it stands, and then I will mark it as finalized.
Once we go through Creo Animal, while you move on to Intellego Animal, I will start alphabetizing the spells, and get it ready for a final pass.

I've started reacting to each spell with thumbs up/down for accept/reject. I think others should be able to add further reactions to the same so spells with lots of thumbs up and no thumbs down are good to finalise. Seems like the easiest way to me unless anyone else has a better idea?


We shouldn't include anything that isn't supported by RAW guidelines. We may even need to rebalance some of them, if necessary. There might be a case for allowing a spell where 5/6 think it looks fine but a 6th disagrees, but let's aim for a resource that should be able to used as is by ars magicka players and storytellers, with minimal house ruling, rather than a resource where half the spells are only valid if a given house rule is used. If we do the later, it will cast doubt on the validity of the whole exercise.