Well, not necessarily more if it's a type of vis they'd want more than Vim. But at least that much.
Someone with an MT of 12 has to have Te+Fo+Int+Aura of 19 to get 4 pawns, and 29 to get 5 pawns. It's not at all a hard target to hit, but it's not automatic. If you set Intelligence to 2, because Com is already at 3 in the OP, and a standard aura of 3, you need Te+Fo=14 for 4 pawns or Te+Fo=24 for 5 pawns.
But this is why I dislike pricing services between magi in Vis, especially in vis that can be extracted from an aura. Time is the most valuable resource, and the time doesn't have to be serving as a lab assistant, it could be some other task. My general feeling is that these kinds of transactions will have at least equal amounts of time being exchanged, plus either more time, or vis, or both, depending upon the particulars.
Less capable teachers or less knowledgeable teachers might exchange access to a lab and protected guest privileges at a covenant for X seasons per season of teaching...
Also it is generally more effective use of the magus' time to write a tractus, which can be copied and sold repeatedly (even by a mundane scribe trained with a little magic theory- they could simply read the tractus for a season first) than to spend a season training a single mage.
The last comment prompts me to add to my list of naive questions based on insufficient reading.
Training can be used for teaching something with which one can earn a living. It seems that this would / should / could encompass using Magic Theory in lab work. Can a magus allow another magus into his lab, and provide training in magic theory? For a teacher very skilled in Magic Theory, this could be about as high, maybe higher than teaching solo, and it does not take up a season of the teachers time. (I presume the student could not also aide the teachers work while getting training.)
Thanks.
Several things about training Magic Theory I don't like...
The language that runs throughout the section on training suggest strongly that it should be used in the craft abilities, or abilities used to earn a living. Magic Theory isn't that, magi might not even use Magic Theory for several years, and then in the next few years they use it every season. It's an Arcane knowledge ability, not a trade ability. I don't think training in Latin is appropriate, nor do I think training in Magic Theory is appropriate. Magi may not want to step foot in another's sanctum. They give up rights when they do so. Teaching can happen outside of a magus's sanctum, training might, say if there were a spare lab, and if the magus wanted to leave his regular lab and do work in another environment, his lab may be customized such that he doesn't want to leave his lab if he's wanting to do "work" related to being in a lab.
Thanks Jonathan. One of the reasons I asked is the case of using training to enable apprentices to learn magic theory. That would get around the issue of using the trainers lab. But would still leave the question of whether training is applicable at all. It sounds like there is a leaning towards it not being applicable, but there is room for debate?
Based on how Apprentices handles those seasons, I would say the intent is that Training does not apply. I think it's main use is for Craft & Profession Abilities. I can think of a few others that would make sense, but those are the main ones.
I think some others might see it differently.
But the question becomes one of why use training instead of teaching? I've often seen the gaining of time mentioned as a possible benefit, which feels off to me, something of an end run. Magic Theory, as an ability, on it's own, produces nothing. One needs the Arts, as well. So how does one train when nothing is produced, or what can be produced isn't purely a function of an Ability score?
The only reason using training instead of teaching is when the teacher have a negative communication and no teaching skill.
That's not the only reason. And I have a bit more sympathy for that approach than I do for it used to save time or turbo charge apprentice advancement. I still don't believe it is appropriate for non-craft abilities.
Hulla - his issue is that he considers the game mechanic itself to be suspect when applied to Magic Theory - not that it can't produce a beneficial result.
I do agree with you that the mechanic itself is more efficient in the scenario you describe - especially if the individual in question has a high Magic Theory, and Low Com, and no teaching score. Jonathan.Link's issue is that he doesn't like the flavor text around the RAW game mechanic. I played a Rego Vim lab rat that had this exact issue: Com -2, Teaching 1, Magic Theory 12. It was much more effective for him to Train, rather than Teach.
That being said, prohibiting Magic Theory from being used with Training is essentially Jonathan's personal interpretation of the ruling. There's nothing in the RAW (rules as written) to prevent it. That's why he's shading his answer with qualifying language and the like - ultimately, the (very strong) defense against his interpretation is "yes, but that's not what the rules say you can do."
Note that this isn't acutally all that uncommon: 5th Edition is a fine book, but it's over a decade old, and is starting to show it's years. This is one of the parts of the book that can (arguably) be thought of as a typo or oversight by the original authors. (Although I could have sworn they've come on and said "yes, that's a fine thing to do.")
Jonathan: why would you consider an activity that is a direct function of an ability level to NOT be trainable?
For example: the amount of pages a scribe can copy every season is directly related to their Scribe ability - but I would say that you can Train scribing just fine, by having a master Scribe stand over you and watch you as you copy out pages.
With that in mind, I can think of a number of things an Apprentice could do with Magic theory in a lab that would count as Trainining - setting up the lab itself, improving a lab's Quality, or fixing arcane connections come to mind.
I have no issue with using it for scribe, it's a trade ability.
Yes - my point is that your argument, here, seems to be summed up in the following:
The number of pages a Scribe can copy every season is a function of their ability score. Yet according to you, this activity can be trained.
The number of Arcane connections a mage can fix in a season is a function of their MT ability score. The level of Quality a mage can improve a lab to is a function of their MT Ability score. There are a few others, I think - but the point is that those are directly things that can be produced by someone with a MT score, and nothing else, and is directly proportional to their skill - just like the number of books a Scribe can copy.
Therefore, it seems that Magic Theory passes your test - something can be produced with it, and only it - just like Scribe.
EDIT - gaining Insight for a Hermetic Discovery is also a seasonal activity that requires nothing but Magic Theory (in fact, it explicitly says that you don't need arts to do this) - and if successful, produces a Lab Text.
Something is produced here, right? What is produced solely with Magic Theory?
You appear to be using a HR to justify something in RAW, or certainly my interpretation of RAW. Fixing an (a single) arcane connection by RAW is a season long activity. It also does not require Magic Theory, only that one be Gifted.
Sure, if you want to do those activities, I suppose I could better swallow the bitter pill, it is a very limited set of circumstances that one can train Magic Theory, at least to the full extent of the score, see more below
It "passes" in a limited set of circumstances. So if you want to train by undertaking activities that only use Magic Theory, I have less of an issue of it.
By and large though, Magic Theory is but one component (often a small component) of a lab total that produces something. As it is a component, the amount of training should be proportional to the part Magic Theory plays in the Lab Total. If I imagine myself as a magus and could train magic theory while doing some traditional lab work, how much does my work rely upon only magic theory? It seems obvious to me that it would be the fractional amount of the lab total, I'm thinking a ratio of Magic Theory/Te+Fo, Aura, Intelligence and lab bonuses I'm counting as externalities, which is actually a benefit in this case. So, if my Te+Fo is 45 and my Magic Theory is 10, I'm spending most of my time working with Arts, and about ~20% of my time using magic theory during the season. I'm focused more on the Arts involved in the lab total, so if 20% of my time is for Magic Theory related tasks, then the SQ should be 20% of Magic Theory score, or 2.
As I have said elsewhere, time is the most important commodity to a magus. There is never enough of it. As a player, I'm looking for ways to increase the amount of time my character has doing the stuff he wants to do. This feels like an obvious way to provide that time, but it seems to come with no cost, it's all upside, which I really dislike as an SG. As a player who is also an SG, it just doesn't feel right to me. And I know that for certain characters it's very appealing to do training over teaching, but again, this seems to be benefiting a character who made some choices early on, much more than someone who decided that they were going to be a good teacher. At least for training Incomprehensible still applies.
I would argue that one can be trained in professional skills which have no product per se with no problem, so why not magic theory?
What I would have a problem with is the trainee adding to the lab total during the season of training, since under training it specifically states that hey cannot produce anything useful.
I think that this is the cost right here. If an apprentice is being trained in MT then they absolutely do not contribute to the Lab Total of the training Magus.
Bob
Those advocating training over teaching seem to be overlooking a very important sentence under the Training heading on page 164 of the core text. It's something I hadn't been able to quote, since I've been traveling.
How many magi use Magic Theory to earn a living? That statement in the quotation above is the basis for my understanding that it is limited to trade/craft skills. The scribe that KevinSchultz mentioned is using Scribe to earn a living, right? No canonical book uses training for Magic Theory, if it were possible, I'm sure Apprentices would have mentioned it. It's much better to train an apprentice during a few seasons of lab work early in the apprenticeship (especially when their age and lack of knowledge in Magic Theory mean they probably no or a negative impact on the lab total) than it is to teach them, and they get more experience in Magic Theory by training than exposure, possibly even teaching depending on factors unique to the magus involved.
Just to use something a little different to make sure the questions and answers are clear. I think clarifying if the following is Training would help clarify what people consider Training versus Teaching.
What about a turb training (lower-case "t") with swords and shields against each other while being overseen by the turb captain? I'm not saying the turb captain is giving lectures to all the students, they go and try the lesson out, and repeat for the season. I'm saying they do this as essentially practice with an expert overseeing them and making helpful comments while practicing his own swordplay. Would this not be Training (capital "T")? Or is this just a different style of Teaching? Nothing useful is produced at all. Is the turb captain doing his job and thus earning a living?
He is doing his job and earning a living, but he isn't using the Ability to earn a living. He isn't swinging his sword like the carpenter is swinging the adze to earn his living. His living is earned by leading the turb and ensure that they are trained and capable, and the Abilities that he would use in that season aren't necessarily Single Weapon/Great Weapon/Thrown Weapon, etc. To me, it has to be a different form of teaching.
If you look at the Training process differently, it's there to allow those who must work during a season a way to pass their knowledge down to others, without requiring that they take a season away from their livelihood, or lose one of their free seasons. Under the teaching model, they would have to give up one of the free seasons they have, which might be their only free season, or go without income for one of the seasons just to train someone. Magi don't have these problems. Grogs don't have these problems. It doesn't seem appropriate to use them within a Covenant setting, unless a character is truly independent from a covenant.