House rules

I don not think so. Many sagas are short therm (loss of interest or time) in this case the +3 bonus is more valuable.

Yes, sure. I do not like overspecialization generally. It makes game balance unstable.
But I am not a SG now I just put some unorthodox ideas here.

No. You can use spells to cicatrize wounds temporarily.
And permanent healing rituals take an hour to cast or more. They cannot used in battles.

gaapprime:
These campaign settings sounds good. Not the usual fantasy conception.

guessmyname:
Can you find teachers to teach you hermetic arts 3 seasons in each year?
Do you worry because your SG reads this topic, too? :smiley:

If you find the +3 bonus too much, change the quality of the books....

Some games I've been in, its well worth having...some games you are better off with personal Vis source instead...
Depending on what the SG does...

Yes. Removing permament creation rituals would make ME more low fantasy. Not that it is neccesarily bad, nor did I call it low level magic!

The regular Cr recovery bonusses or the HR rego corpus ones?

Ravenscroft and Furion Transsanus
Sorry. I am afraid I must go a curse 'reading texts properly'. :confused:
I get you now.

Sorry, I do not know what 'HR rego corpus' means.

I think he means:

"House Rule, Rego Corpus"

:smiley:

Sorry - this place can get somewhat inbred when it comes to abbreviations. I was refering the a discussion elsewhere on the forum on a House Rule on using rego to speed up healing, somewhat like the recovery bonusses obtainable from Creo but in time instead - I don't do it in our saga, but I know some allow it.

Ok.
I see no problems with speeding up healing but it depends on the healing rate. E.g. I can accept double speed. Magic is magic and I like its creative use.

I'm guessing that the ReCo HR on Healing is based on control of bodily energy.

I would find rather something suits better to the medieval paradigm. E.g. taking the ability of animals with rapid convalescence.

Just to add - I mentioned the ReCo effect bc I know it was discussed and that some use it. However I strongly dislike it myself - both for the reasons of setting integrity ('metabolism' adjustment also rings too modern in my ears) and rule integrity (healing being the realm of Creo).

If the recovery categories seems to 'boxy' I would recommend HR that passing the recovery Ease Factor by certain amount would cut down the recovery time with a certain amount. This would keep healing within the realm of Creo, make recovery more flexible and less rigid, and at the same time give you more book-keeping aswell. :smiley: But to me still far better than using Rego, or Muto for that matter, to influence healing.

I agree, CrCo suits better.

EDIT:
After some thinking, the whole magic in ArM does not fit into the medieval paradigm. So my expectation above is exaggarated.

One house rule I'm thinking about introducing into our campaign (perhaps there is something similar somewhere in the canon but):

Cosmetic longevity rituals:
When creating a longevity ritual, a magus may sacrifice 1 bonus point on the aging roll to gain 2 bonus points to apparent aging only.
That is the "no apparent aging" result moves 2 steps up the Aging Roll table.
For example, a magus who would get apparent aging on -1 or more and an Aging Point on 6 or more could, instead of moving the numbers to 0 and 7 for his bonus, move them to 1 and 6.
The limit is of course 4 such cosmetic bonuses, as that is what is needed for the numbers to coincide (i.e. either no apparent aging or the Ritual fails.)

There is indeed something similar in canon. I believe it was in the 4th edition Wizard's Grimoire, but I can't remember the rules, sorry :slight_smile:

There was - but despite having also liked 4th edition I do believe many of us wouldn't necessarily take 4th edition material to be canon any more.

Generally I like the war rules of ArM5 because I made almost the same rules in my rpg (and btw a very similar magic "penetration"). However I cannot ask for plagiary because I published it only in Hungarian. :smiley:

But I am not satisfied with assigning dexterity to Attack. If one is thinking to choose between +2 Strength or dexterity statistically dexterity is far valuable than strength. You can add Str only ot damage but dex to both. Because if you hit you can add the score you rolled minus the def score to the damage. So dex increases both the chance of hits and the damage this way.

I would set Str to melee attack. Interesting to this the best ones of soldiers and heroes were valued high because of their strength and not their dexterity. So I suppose strength was more important in fight than dexterity. Dexterity could be important in martial arts and duelling with rapier but not in the European type warfare.

Strength is important because it allows you to drag more weight(like armour) into and in combat, and use better weapons... It also allows you to drive your weapon home (doing damage) when you hit. Dex prevents you from looking like a buffoon, flailing about and hitting notthing...

Re-reading this, I just had a thought: since having a light wound will allow you to heal your heavy wounds quickly, I'm probably going to allow a MuCo effect to increase the speed of recovery rolls to 1 per week (no matter what kind of wounds you have).

What base level Muto Corpus effect would you use as a guideline for this?

I'm back.. (and oh boy, a lot happens on this forum in 3 days!!)

.. and I'll just start with reiterating that I strongly dislike allowing any Technique but Creo heal wounds or affect the healing. It muddies up the Arts and as well as the setting. But it's your game so the more power to you, and the less nausea to me :smiley:

Personally I am considering introducing a HR on the regular recovery rolls that if you Recovery Total triple the Improvement Ease Factor the recovery time is decreased by a third. This would make the Recovery bonusses (especially the higher levels one that it is my impression seldomly finds any use) more useful as well as keep Creo the realm of creation and healing.