Raw vis is often gathered in objects, such as a wolf's tooth or a certain leaf or so on. What is a good name for such objects?
I'm thinking of 'Vestige', as it evokes the fact that magi harvest it from fallen creatures. Not technically always, but the name stuck. It also sounds cool.
I think the offifical name is Items of Qaulity, but that name... sucks, sorry.
An artificial item vis was transferred to would be 'Vessel', or technically 'raw vis vessel'.
That sounds superfluous to me. Raw vis has to have a vessel, that's what makes it raw, as supposed to the fluid vis which is flowing all over the world, and which the magi tap into to cast spells. (OK, the concept of fluid vis is no longer explicit in 5ed, but the concept of raw vis has not changed.)
Both vestige and item of quality are used for other things in RAW.
I would be reluctant to «decide» on a word, because any attempt to define it would tend to draw the attention to mechanical rules. Real magi would not use one well-defined word. Just «raw vis» or «vis item» work just fine, and other words may be used depending on the nature of the raw form.
I find I need to refer to the concept. Just calling them "items that contain raw vis - but natural ones, not ones where the vis was transferred into, you know?" is cumbersome and does not sound cool.
Yeah, I'm blissfully ignoring that.
«natural raw vis»?
I propose "Native vis", native as "(of a plant or animal) of indigenous origin or growth."
No need to mention raw, since by default Native vis is raw.
As long as fluid vis is an actively used concept, I would assume that «native vis» is fluid by default, but you are probably right since we rarely talk about fluid vis as vis at all.
I don't think magi would bother to have separate names for items that contain vis "naturally" vs items that you have transferred vis into. Mechanically there is no difference between the two.
Usually they'd just be called "vis". Or perhaps "vis container" if you specifically need to refer to the item in which the vis resides.
And yet there is. Items of virtue, for example, can be enriched. Dedicated vis is a valuable component of a Talisman. You can't simply transfer dedicated vis in another material and have the same result, as far as I know, nor can you transfer vis in a topaz and then call that a topaz of virtue. And then there are virtues like Craft Magic, which relies on vis present in items. Pretty sure you can't simply transfer vis into leather and make an enchanted armor out of it with that virtue.
Special variants of vis, like extraordinary vis or dedicated vis are not normal vis. They are not special because they are in their "original" container, but they must remain there to keep their special properties. There are specific terms for those kinds of vis, but no need for a special name for their containers.
Most vis is just normal vis however, and it doesn't change if moved from one container to the other. Mechanically there is no difference at all between having it in the "original" container or some other.
I am pretty sure Craft Magic doesn't care how the vis ended up in the item used - at least there is nothing in the description of the virtue suggesting it matters if the vis has been transferred into the item or not.
You are right that it does not say explicitly, but yet it makes little sense otherwise.
The virtue description presents it as a restriction that the vis already has to be in the object which has to be used in the resulting item. Transferring the vis is trivial, and done in a day; and having to transfer it is hardly limiting. It already takes a day, maybe more, to craft the item.
An official name for Vis in general, as opposed to "Vis", I don't think so, however, I am sure there are slang terms for nearly all collected vis.
Especially if it's worn, as mentioned in the rule book, as a subtle threat that when pressed the magi has vis to use.
The wolf's tooth. "I'd prefer not to use Fenrir's boon today, but if I have to I will."
One more example slang terms
"Gambler's Curse" - Vis in the form of Snake Eyes. (If I don't get a few groans on that name, I consider I have failed)
Transferring vis is trivial if you are an hermetic magus. There is nothing which says you must be a hermetic magus to have Craft Magic. You can have the virtue without having the ability to transfer vis.
Besides, who says it is supposed to be any kind of significant restriction/limit that the item need to contain the vis?
Explicitly? Nobody.
The reason why I bring it up is that the virtue feels overpowered if the vis can be transferred into any object for crafting. The way Rusticani can buff up grogs with charged items is already very powerful. Easy access to permanent items too feels a bit much.
So what you are saying is that because you feel the virtue is too powerful, it therefore has additional restrictions that are never mentioned in the text?
Sorry, but I am not feeling convinced.
Yes. That's the most important why I think this should be the prefered interpretation.
Then it does not make no sense to me to stress the restriction if it is trivial, which is the main reason I think it is a valid interpretation.
Either way, it would not be the only place where a simple omision in the rules has effects unintended by the authors.
It's how I read it. You're right, the restriction isn't explicitly spelled out. Even though the way it's spelled out is obtuse, I can't think of a good reason the authors used phrase turns like crafting objects that already contain raw vis into an enchanted object, and "this differs from hermetic magic in that (...) the vis does not have to be part of the object to be enchanted" with an example where the crafter obtains the pelt of a magical beast as a component, if the rustic magi could simply transfer raw vis into an item prior to crafting in order to meet that requirement and skip the trouble of acquiring said component.
I agree with loke here. In our games, magi always call the vessels themselves "raw vis" (vis cruda). E.g. "raw Animal vis appearing as a bear's skull, worth three pawns".
There probably are a few terms for a vis thingy. Vis, for one thing. I can see where there could be little distinction between the object and the essence.
However,
Vessel
Materia
Pot
Urn
Varius Latin terms
Olla
Vasum
Ampulla
Amphora
Arca
If a specific name is really needed for such an object, a possibility is "a (vis) "well".
Because that's where fluid vis collects (and can be drawn from), just like water in a well.
Well, «well» sounds like a replenishing source to me.