If you go by that standard then some of the core rulebook spells wouldn't even qualify lol. I'm in favour of keeping as much as possible, clearly marking (or moving to a separate section) things which are questionable, noting why we think they are dubious in an editors note, and trusting that people are clever enough to deal with all that. Give readers the choice of what to use and what not to. Ars is already a game where RAW is very dependent on saga specific decisions on interpretation anyway.
Keeping two distinct "strict RAW" and "weird stuff" sections means that the core part of the document will remain the kind of resource you envision, while retaining the other content for people who want it. Best of both worlds.
In terms of rebalancing though, I strongly feel we should not be editing any of the content in a major way if we're attributing it to people. Small corrections are one thing, rewriting a spell for something as subjective as "balance" is another. I think we should limit ourselves as much as possible to providing commentary on spells we think might need changed, but preserving the original content.
I generally agree with all of these points, and totally agree we should start with Creo Animal and work through from there.
I'm still very back and forth on how to treat General spells, because I like the look of it with specific spell levels, but General spells are probably more useful and more proper. Drat.
Say we have a Creo Animal spell with the Rego and Mentem requisites.
I prefer to write Cr(Re)An(Me), so it's clear that there are requisites.
But the Core book, and one of you, prefers to write it:
CrAn
Req: Rego, Mentem
That's me. I like to respect a standardized formatting. I tend to go by what's in the base book, by habit, but I know the Grimoire has both forms, both outlining the requisite on a separate line, and in the art & level declination at the top. I can go with either, as long as we're consistent. Likewise, I'm the one who's obsessively changing things like (B 3, R: Touch +1, etc. to (Base 3, +1 Touch, etc. mostly because I don't want each quoted author to have his own format for spell design, and there's some standard formating in the gameline.
A standard style is probably a good idea. I don't have a strong opinion on which to use, consistency is what matters.
Before we go too much further can we agree what to do about inline edits in spells (where we add to or rewrite the body of spells)? I really think it's important to make clear when this has been done so I suggest the following style(s):
If the level/guideline/RDT has been adjusted: add a nota bene after the spell indicating the change e.g. "NB The spell guideline has been adjusted from the original version changing the spell from level 20 to 25." or "NB: The range has been adjusted from the original version."
If additional info or a caveat has been added to the spell description: Italicise the additional text and add a NB stating "NB: Spell description has been altered. Edits marked in italics."
If the spell has been rewritten completely: add a NB to the effect of "NB: reworked spell inspired by the original created by X".
Again, I really think we should avoid this as much as possible but if it's going to happen lets clearly indicate it. Reprinting someone's work as they wrote it (with attribution) vs printing an edited version that we claim is their work are two very different things, and the latter is pretty poor form.
I totally understand about the +1 Touch instead of touch +1.
I have done it for most spells, but by the time I got to the Iron Bound Tome, it was just too much
Just between us (and obviously, we're the only ones reading this, right?) I'd prefer to nix and skip all the spells that require us to create a creature or include a new one in the spell's description.
I think for some of them it suffices to leave it vague and let people create their own profile, and some you can point to a published creature profile.
For ones where that won't work I'd agree that it's easier just to exclude them.
To save posting it repeatedly in the document: Andrew Breese is the guy who runs "The Ironbound Tome" Andrew Breese = The Ironbound Tome
Anytime there are two copies of a spell, one from each of those, then it is the same spell from the same person and thus a duplicate. We should decide if we would rather use "Andrew Breese" or "The Ironbound Tome" as the Contributor.
I would like your input on the 5 remaining CrAn spells that are not finalized. Do we want to keep them, and if so, how do we change them, or do we want to discard them? That way I can start work on finalizing CrAn, as you move forward to InAn.
I worry that if we get in the habit of doing too much editing like we're seeing with these, then we'll never get through the pdf. We're closing in on just CrAn, so 1 of 50 sections, after all.
Of the two left, change Swarm of Angry Hornets to use the Swarm damage rules.
For the book repair, I don't really even want to go there. Already had the fight over a repair books spell in a long thread. I like temprobe and don't want to argue with him again.
Rebuilding the Tome of the Mind is going to be very hard to make possible for all Saga. See here where I managed to design something the OP liked and decided to use for their Saga that many others disagreed with.