another factor in this for comparison is that (artes and acadame) vulgar poetry can be written with an AQ equal to poetry+com+Artes Liberales/3 plus other assorted bonuses for extra time or virtues, which can in turn be studied with a SQ of AQ/2 (AQ=artistic quality), which I am throwing out for comparison of equations.
I am not sure how meaningful the average is here. There are probably some mature magi who have gone out of their way to pull the average up. I am sure, though, that a lot of magi only start thinking about teaching when they train their first apprentice. They would average Q9 or less. .My magus took his first apprentice with SQ8, though it did increase a lot during this apprenticeship.
What I find odd, even with your supposed average SQ13, is that teaching is inferior to reading in too many important cases. A sound primer, which I presume the roots are supposed to be, has SQ about 20 or above. The master will at some point realise that they are obliged to slow the student down by teaching in person.
Of course, we are hitting at several points where the rules are not completely plausible. Firstly, high-level advancement is doubly penalised, both by the pyramid scale and by lower available of high-quality books. Only a single penalty would have sufficed, I think. Secondly, individual books are over-rated, where real life learning would normally rely on cross-referencing books in a library. Then there is OP's concern, but no solution will fully make sense before all points are adressed in conjunction.
Indeed. This would also address one major issue with Ars Magica book rules: it takes far too little time to write one, compared to the time it takes to "absorb" the knowledge therein.
It is always useful to know what the setting implies. The 240xp for creating new magi according to the core rules imply that the average teacher can generate a SQ of 13. My take was to treat the +6 bonus when writing books in the same way: it's just the average, but particular magi will have slight differences due to their scores. The +6 don't really applies to extraordinary teachers or linguists, the same way the 240xp don't apply to "Skilled Parens" (who, from a direct reading of the rules, either generate a SQ of 18 or teach the apprentice for 5 additional seasons, or a combination of that).
Agreed. The SQ 13 for an average master given in Apprentices assume 11 seasons of teaching one to one an the other 49 seasons are exposure XP for the apprentice (including three seasons teaching spells and 1 season opening the Arts, resulting in 15 seasons of teaching, one every year), totaling 241xp. We could reasonably argue that, instead, this shows that 240xp is too little for a recently gauntleted magus and that, say, 300xp, would be a better value. On the other hand, access to several books on the right set of Arts and a master sensible enough to let you learn from them could indicate the "Skilled Parens" virtue, or something equivalent.
We also can't forget that usually apprentices have zero knowledge on Latin and Artes Liberales, so unless either the magus or someone else spend a few seasons teaching him he has no way to learn by reading. From literacy onward it's better to read, sure, but again that's assuming you have the right summa on hand.
Than there is the point that the Periphereal Code obliges the magi to teach at least one season per year. The law doesn't care that this is not the most optimum approach for apprentices, it's more concerned with the duties of the magus. We could also say that from a summa you can at most learn the Arts, where the magus will teach you how to be a magus at the same time (which the rules don't reflect, and have no real way to except for becoming a simulationist mess).
But then, this all only applies to apprentices. If you are a senior magus, yeah, you will want to learn from a book, unless you want to raise an Art for which there are no summa of the right level available. In that case, a competent teacher could be better than a tratactus or summa.
This I think can be easily addressed by giving a quality bonus if you have a specialized library. The specific rules would have to be fleshed out, maybe something similar to the research bonus presented in Covenants p.98?
Not at all. If the master uses the apprentice as a working assistant three seasons out of four, then he needs SQ13 to get to 240xp. While this may be the case for certain masters at a certain stage of their career, I don't think that is that common.
That is true, and if the covenant does not have teachers of letters, it is a slow and arduous process to make one's apprentice useful. I suppose Latin is not strictly required to serve as a lab assistant, so one could gloss over it and let the apprentice learn Latin by exposure, but it seems out of character. I would guess the master does not have the vocabulary to discuss magic and lab equipment in vulgar with their lab assistant.
I said that individual books are overrated, not that the library is underrated. If there is one thing the game does not need, it is more bonuses. YSMV
I can see this being the Teaching Bonus for some Labs.
1 Like
Actually I think Apprentices assumes a master that does the bare minimum, uses the apprentice as a lab assistant a couple of seasons every year and that in the rest of the time the apprentice isn't studying, training or practicing. Anyway, that's besides the main point of the topic.
I might have misunderstood you. But I see no way to account for several books when studying without giving either a bonus to study if you have several books to reference or a penalty if you don't. Unless you are just raising a point, not suggesting a changing in the rules.
Generally speaking, I also don't think we need more bonuses.
If we were discussing ArM6, I would absolutely suggest a change from individual books towards libraries. This has been suggested by other before, and fuelled by one of the authors' regrets over the current system.
The point I was making is that the problems are so complex and deep rooted that no house rule is going to be satisfactory.
That depends on the level of satisfaction you are seeking. If your goal is perfection you will never be satisfied. If your goal is better it is not that difficult to achieve.
That's where we disagree. What mitigates one problem aggravates another.
If the problem mitigated is of greater significance to you that the problem which is aggravated then you have, at least subjectively, improvement.