HR and CD discussion

An enchantment is only a single effect, no? Or am I missing something? As I recall, you can only get one S&M bonus per enchantment (effect), usually taking the highest bonus you can, if you have multiple that might apply to a specific enchantment. Then, the process of opening the item for enchantment does quite a good job at establishing what S&M bonuses are available to enchant and have no impact on an actual enchantment, they are independent of the overall actual magic item, if it has multiple effects or enchantments laid within. Obviously, there might be, to go back to your example, of Pilum of Fire, lab texts for enchantment that use a staff, some that use a ruby, or perhaps even a lamp. Does the fact that the staff is made of steel or iron, the fact that the ruby is set in a ring, or that the lamp is made of brass have an impact on the enchantment/effect? No. With respect to the last item, the brass lamp, you have an ignem bonus of +3 for brass or a create fire effect of +4 for the shape of the lamp. More than likely, unless it is necessary, and it would be specified with the recipe, the material doesn't get used in the enchantment, but the shape does.

Yes, your proposal is stricter, but, IMO, needlessly so. There are enough constraints on item construction of time and vis cost. Further, the cost of lab texts makes acquiring a lot of enchantment lab texts somewhat prohibitive, as well.

Now, in practice this ruling means is that it is more likely that players will get the full benefit of having a lab text for an enchantment. I'm OK with that. It might create the possibility that you can crank out magic items, however that is limited by overall vis availability. You might be able to undertake another lab activity using the same TeFo combination, but again, I don't really consider this to be a major issue.

Well, I'm away from my books. I haven't put Dropbox on this computer, and havent' downloaded my collection. I stand corrected, with respect to my recollection of S&M bonuses.

So it is possible to use more than one S&M bonus. Again, the recipe is going to be specific. Given that combining S&M bonuses may well cause enchanting an effect to exceed the limit of magic theory, usually only 1 S&M bonus will be used. Encahnting lab texts that use more than 1 S&M bonus are going to be considered rare in this saga, and will not be easily available for purchase with build points. Also, to use the lab text, you must have sufficient Magic Theory to take advantage of all bonuses used in the recipe. So if a recipe for Pilum of Fire enchantment has a total of +7 for S&M bonuses, your Magic Theory score must be 7.

The sentences from the core book that Trogdor posted support usage of multiple bonuses when enchanting a single effect (whether for a lesser item or for an individual power in a greater item). In the end, the magus is capped by his Magic Theory score on how much of a bonus he can stack from shape and material.

The source of the confusion may be with regard to the talsmin attunement bonuses, which do not stack. Only the highest one applies to a spell being cast.

Indeed, there might be a lab text for enchanting a Pilum of Fire into a staff (the magus who wrote it gained +4 to his lab total), a second one to enchant the same effect into a ruby (gained +6 to his lab total), but also a third one to enchant it into a staff with a ruby (gained +10 to his lab total).

That last one would have required the magus to have a higher score in Magic Theory to be fully exploited and the lab text would reflect it. A higher bonus in exchange for a reduction in reusability.

Just to be clear, my understanding is that the lab text itself provides a set benefit if you meet the shape and material requirement contained within it. It does not determine whether the whole bonus can be added to your lab total. That is simply based on your Magic Theory score.

So if the lab text specifies that a Pilum of Fire effect needs to be enchanted in a staff with a ruby, it can still be used by a magus with Magic Theory 7. The magus will only gain +7 in S&M bonuses to his lab total, because he is capped by his Magic Theory, but if his lab total reaches the level of the effect he'll be able to enchant it in a single season. No matter what bonus the magus who wrote the lab text actually had.

The reverse is also true. If the lab text specifies that a Pilum of Fire effect needs to be enchanted in a staff, if the magus using it adds a ruby to his staff and his Magic Theory score is high enough, he can get the full +10 S&M bonus to his lab total.

EDIT: Note that Verditius Runes are combined with the S&M bonuses when considering the Magic Theory limit. So lab texts written by Verditius magi are less likely to have multiple S&M bonuses specified in them. I don't think that the usage of Verditius Runes should be indicated in those lab texts, since that constraint would limit their usefulness to other Verditius magus only.

EDIT 2: Note that I'm not concerned about lab texts that we purchase with BP. I am more looking at it from the perspective of the reusability of lab texts Bartholomeus produces. If he takes two seasons to invest a power into staff A, it would be nice to be able to use that lab text so he can invest that same effect into a second staff (like his talisman) in a single season. And then there's the question of experimenting on a first item and then replicating the (licky) positive result into a second item.

Deleted stuff already stipulated thereto.

No, because this makes lab texts, essentially universal. If your magic theory isn't high enough, say you have a 7, and it uses S&M bonuses of 10, you simply can't understand the process, therefore the recipe, and it provides only the similar enchantment bonus, not the full bonus.

No, it isn't. If a lab text specifies something, you need to follow it exactly to get the full benefit of the lab text, if you deviate, you get the similar enchantment bonus (level of the enchantment, excluding Penetration). Whether the deviation comes because your knowledge of Magic Theory is insufficient to take advantage of the full recipe OR because you don't have the materials available is immaterial. You're not following the recipe laid out, and therefore don't get the full benefit of the text. Granted, it's a huge step down in what a lab text for an enchantment can do, but it's still something, which is significantly better than what the RAW allows.

Lab texts that provide the full benefit laid out under the RAW must have shape and material bonuses specified in them, it's not an option in this saga. Anything else, and any deviation from the recipe results in a similar enchantment bonus. So, if you want Verditius lab texts to be generic, they are only going to provide a similar enchantment bonus.

And the second edit, which came while I was typing. I've been wondering when talismans would be brought up, I should have specified them sooner. Talismans are special cases, regardless of the recipe, and how it matches, you only get the similar enchantment bonus for having a recipe, due to the extremely personal nature of the talisman. Keep in mind that this is still extremely generous by RAW standards, which basically makes it impossible to use any lab text to make a talisman, unless you are remaking your talisman using your own notes.

Regarding talismans, the actual text regarding lab texts says:

So it states that no one else can use a Lab Text that you wrote when instilling an effect into your talisman. There's nothing stated barring you from using a Lab Text to invest an effect into your talisman if it otherwise respects the constraints of that lab text.

A talisman is an Invested Item (i.e. a greater item). It only becomes a talisman after the magus attunes it as such. The magus could prepare the item, enchant it with a power using a lab text, and in a following season attune it as a talisman. So why not allow it after it has been attuned? The attunement process is supposed to make it easier to enchant your talisman, because of your link to it. If it bars you from being able to use lab texts to invest powers into it, then it is doing the reverse.

Just MHO. I'm cool if you rule otherwise in this saga. 8)

Sorry to butt in here, but let make sure I understand what's been written. I've got a lesser enchanted item, the Sun Disk, which constantly radiates light as bright as sunlight. [CrIg 18, continuous, 0 Pen (Base 5, +2 Sun, +3 refresh Sunrise/Sunset)]

Because I used Verditius runes, its lab text isn't usuable by a non-Verditius? They'd just get a +4 similar spells bonus, if they were trying to make an item/spell that produced sunlight-bright light?

Yes, I'm stating it here and now. Keep in mind this entire discussion is extending the rules beyond constraints of a lab text within RAW. I think the current implementation is wrong. We're changing it, I'm intending to make lab texts for items more useful than they currently are under RAW.

The reason why is that I believe talismans are extremely personal items. They also have a lot of power instilled into them. They also have a direct impact on the power magi can project by unlocking Shape and Material bonuses to be used in spell casting. That being said, you are exactly correct, you could instill an item with multiple powerful effects, taking full advantage of all the lab texts one might have available to create said item. However, when you attune that item to be your talisman you get your one attunement bonus. That's it. Want more? Add more vis, add more effects, instill more effects. It makes no nevermind to me... Enchanting an item with multiple effects is still going to be limited by the vis limit of the device, which is likely for nearly everyone to be less than what a talisman can hold. Taking said item as a talisman is just going to end up eating more seasons (and more Vis, bps), IMO.

Just so you know, I already ruled...

Assuming a Verditius even shared a lab text with a non Verditus. Hubris or not, I don't really see a huge trade in lab texts by Verditius, whether among themselves or with others. Any lab texts from a Verditius in wide circulation are probably involved in a Vendetta or perhaps the spoils of a Wizard's War...

Can a Verditius decide not to include Verditius Runes in an item, so that the resulting lab text is more easily reusable by non-Verditius?

See no reason why not. I'd have a question as to why a Verditius would do so...

Because he's already being ridiculed by the rest of his House, was never introduced into the deeper mysteries so doesn't have Hubris, is moving to an isolated covenant in Finland while the rest of the Order is suffering from a magical disease, and wants to produce lab texts that his fellow covenant members can use if they want to recreate some of his items for their personal use? :wink:

(I'm not likely to do that before the very end of his advancement, when he knows he's going to join the covenant. Even more likely is that he'd do this only once play starts.)

Are you missing +1 for two uses a day on that item? I know it's beside your main question.

I'll also point out that such items with continuous effects are truly continuous. There is no off switch. It's always on and can never be shut off until disenchanted/destroyed.
I was involved in a forum discussion about continuous effects a while back, and continuous effects on items are kind of a mess, in that they don't work that people think they should work, or it is at least not intuitive...

Here's the discussion: Permanent Control / Enchantment

That's why I'm proposing to use D:Conc and have the item maintain concentration for the Fan of Summer Breezes that Bartholomeus enchanted:

BTW, I think those two questions slipped away unnoticed and weren't answered...

Yes, I did miss that. Fixing. Thanks for catching it.

NOTE: Moved from the Saga development thread.

I've looked back and my questions are scattered and not particularly coherent. Some have also been answered. So let me put my remaining questions down in (what I hope is an) easily digestible form. Some are old and some are new. You certainly didn't miss all of these questions, because I just thought of a lot of them.

1.) Is the rule for any Deficient Technique/Form that you must spend at least 55 points of your apprenticeship points in that Art? You seemed to cite that rule with me, but I note that two other characters have Deficient Arts without meeting this limitation.

2.) Can a player find someone to cast (Characteristic) of the Heroes during character generation for the cost of 36 vis (and a Warping point)? I note that Calpurnia has done this and wanted to confirm that it was a legit action before advancing my character. (I can see the arguments on both side of this issue, and don't want to make any assumptions.) I couldn't find any previous post from you addressing this, though I could have easily missed it.

3.) I wanted to confirm how a PVS would work. As I understand, it can be taken one of two ways: (1) prior to the saga start, in which case it provides vis only during character generation, but not during the saga; or (2) after the saga start, in which case it provides vis only during the saga, but not during character generation. I note that others have assumed 3 vis per year generated by the vis source. Is that correct? Also, I assume that the PVS must choose a Form and use that form throughout character generation (if that option is selected), trading off at 2:1 if another Form is needed.

4.) Is Craft Automata a freely available skill that can be bought by anyone without limitation? (I wouldn't want to take this with the OGC concept, but I'd like to know what options I have in general for character design.)

5.) If I go with mystery virtues for OGC (e.g., Unaging, Hermetic Alchemy, and Lesser Elixir) during character generation, how should I deal with the initiation scripts for those? I need to know if seasons for quests, etc. are required for initiation before I can advance. It would also help to know what Flaws might be imposed to help me make an informed decision as to whether the sacrifices are worth it for the character concept. I assume that spreading initiations out roughly evenly among advancement is appropriate.

6.) Can your apprentice be used as the subject for the major flaw Dependent? I see that Calpurnia has done this and wanted to make sure that it was allowed before finalizing my own flaws (which I had previously noted would include Dependent).

7.) What is the process for making a familiar? Do we start with the normal animal of virtue (if available)? To what extent can we modify the animal, or build up the animal from the ground up? I see that some magi have a host of custom abilities for their familiars. What's appropriate? I want to make sure I'm following the rules properly. What about Intelligence? I see that in some cases the Int is the base for the creature, but in at least one case (Angarr), the Int is higher than would be normal for a standard creature of that type. (Vesper isn't made up yet, so I can't use that familiar for guidance.) I'm not looking to have a super-genius for a familiar. But even the difference between a 0 and a +1 is significant in some circumstances.

8.) On familiars again, how will bonding technique and form be determined? I note that some people picked the default Animal Form for binding, while others did not. What I see so far is ReTe for a tortise (Calpurnia), MuAn for a hare (Bartholomeus), CrAq for a polar bear (Angarr), and ReAn for a wolf (Thyra). I note that the technique for binding was always the highest technique for the magus, while the form was either the highest form or Animal. Currently I'm looking at either an owl or a black cat and was curious about the TeFo for binding. RoP:M gives guidelines, but there are gaps.

9.) Is there any policy on gaining virtues from your familiar? I note that Calpurnia gains the virtue Unaging from her familiar, and Angarr gains Puissant Hunting. I don't want to overreach, but I'd like to know what's appropriate and what isn't.

Sorry for all the questions, but I want to make certain that I'm following the rules properly when making up my magus and familiar.

Trogdor, thanks for moving it, I was going to do so and reply here.

Deficient Arts aren't created equal, and as I saw it at the time, I saw an apprentice going from one master to another, and felt that it would be appropriate that the new master would attempt to make up for the shortcomings of the previous master. Auram isn't quite as impactful as say Terram, or even the techniques, which I've seen several techniques get the flaw.

Yes, it's legit.

Yes, 3 pawns per year is a reasonable number that I haven't said no to, so we'll let it stand. The vis source is either taken during character generation or at the commencement of the saga, player choice. And yes, the virtue is for only 1 Form of vis.

This is complex. The canon suggests that anyone can be taught it. I'm not going to gainsay that. There's certainly no ex Misc tradition built upon it. And, let's say that the cost for being taught automata is pretty high outside of House Verditius.

They have to be created, since Mysteries wasn't kind enough to flesh them out except to stipulate the virtues of flaws imparted as part of the initiation rite(s).

That's one of those things I've been meaning to come back and have a talk about but always get sidetracked. I'll handle that separately, in another post.

Spend a season hunting for a familiar, spend a binding the familiar. I don't have strict rules on it, nor have I given the familiars a final look over. Combat familiars, IMO, are a bad idea.

The book suggests that one should be able to find a familiar that favors their best TeFo. I don't think that's a problem.

Unaging isn't a particularly impactful virtue. Puissant Hunt seems pretty appropriate for a polar bear, or other predator (in a Hangout saga I'm in, my weather maga's Golden Eagle can also impart Puissant Hunt). If it's thematic to the creature, it's more likely to pass muster, and both those virtues seem to be in that vein.

Thanks for a quick response. This will help me get things moving more quickly.

JL - I've got a quasi combative familiar. The powers seemed right for the concept I had in mind but want to know where that comment comes from.