Lol, yes thats a rather good description... :mrgreen:
Doesn't RoP: D state that Angels are immune to such effects?
And something inspired by the mentioning of DEO and Angels: It'd be nice if the core states, as was later cleared up in RoP:I, that DEO targets anything with Infernal Might, and that the difference between a Demon (fallen angel) and something with Infernal Might, is significant but not relevent to the historical name of the spell. And, frankly, from the point of view of the person who is being tempted, it doesn't really matter if the tempter is a damned soul itself, a fallen angel or a spirit of some place corrupted by Infernalists.
Then I accomplished something 
Personally I'm not much of a history buff and much rather have cool stuff than pseudo-historic stuff. Don't get me wrong, I like Mythic stuff based on real-world history and myth, but I'll take God of War style "myth" more than Authentic Celtic Re-enactment Club myth any day of the week, thank you. I think the vitality-stealing idea is a very good way to frame the Titanomachi and many faerie stories, and while it doesn't really fit other folksy faerie tales of historical conceptions - I don't particularly care.
It's a strategic choice that can be very significant and dramatic - but I don't think it's really flavorful. Let me put it this way - when a magus picks up raw vis to give him that little extra oomph he needs, that's fine. A costly price to pay for overstepping his power, and it comes with great risk (botch dice galore!). Great. But using the RAW (serf's parma) what we actually get is +2 per pawn with a maximum of Art+Art pawns, so for even a beginning specialist this comes down to being able to burn say 30 pawns of raw vis (!) for a bonus of +60 (!!). In other words, even a fairly-young specialist can boost his uber-killer spell to drop just about any critter he is facing by throwing piles of raw vis at it. And that's not fun. The Big Bad Faerie Lord should be something to be bargained, or avoided, or penetrated by collecting arcane and sympathetic connections - not something to face down by throwing enough raw vis at it.
I'm not against boosting spell casting with raw vis in general, but I do think it's over-powered. I'll grant you I've never seen this theoretical problem in-game, though - perhaps I'm underselling the dangers (getting 30 botch dice.... 
) and cost (30 pawns!!).
Why would low-penetration items be useless for magi? Why do you need a high penetration for, say, your Seven League Stride boots?
I think high-penetration too often means weapon-of-war and should be left for the magi, to make them formidable instead of their magic items. There could be exceptions, like, say, enchanting an arrow with all kinds of arcane and sympathetic connections to kill the dragon. But generally, low penetration works fine.
Where magic items fail is in having a magical sword be a better weapon to fight that dragon than a normal sword. But that's another matter.
Yes, that's certainly a fine option. However, it doesn't make Circle/Ring wards more effective than others 
I don't see these options as contradicting. ReVi is special, otherwise use ReFo.
Yes, that would be one way to paint it.
Alright, one faerie-like use. The general use, however, is just not faerie-like. It's also a rather problematic duration, I feel (what if you feed the fire magically? how long does a D:Fire CrIg spell last?).
The D&D way is to allow Interrupt actions. You gain the ability to do so by getting the Fast Cast spell mastery or virtue. You then can Interrupt once per round, letting a spell off before another's action. Want more? Want to Interrupt without a special power to do so? Sorry, no can do. There's a limit to how fast you are...
I'm not sure if that works too well for magi, especially given the need to fast cast defensive spells.
It's just a dis-proportional increase in power. A few XP ago you had a magus capable of doing X in a round, a few XP later he's now doing 2X in a round... Many spells are powerful enough that to have them strike once or thrice in a round is really unbalancing.
Rewarding focus is great, but the magus is going to focus anyway if that's his focus... the reward should be comparable to what other virtues of the same power give, not exceedingly higher. A Minor Magical Focus can easily give even a starting magus +5 where he wants it most, and as much as +20 for an elder one. Show me another Minor virtue that does that! It's too powerful. Cutting it in half still keeps it powerful, perhaps even too powerful, without making it an obligatory choice for any even a slightly min-maxed magus to take.
No it didn't. It only added to the confusion by populating the world with many, easy to come-by, spirits. Why bother adventuring to get Ignem vis when you can use any fire as an arcane connection to a spirit of fire and render said spirit for raw vis? And where does RoPM mention what happens when you scour a Magical aura, collecting all spirits currently present to render them for raw vis? Do spirits return, and if so at what rate (so I'll know how fast my raw vis source is replenishing, duh)? If they don't return, what happens to the aura? To the things whose spirits I've taken? RoPM gives a few vague sentences, nothing conclusive, and that's it (serf's parma).
I actually like the new Enigma. Oh well.
Which is all good, but please do add LOTS of extra magnitudes, not just a few. Otherwise it's too easy to overcome.
I still think might score stripping is better left as a ritual. No need to do it fast, in-combat.
And ArM is still bad at the "monster bound under the tower" thing. Get a monster bound and in one place, and then you can just kick it with small kicks (magical or mundane) until you kill it. Which is kinda realistic, but not fun. Perhaps if wards/circle fail if you attack across it... ?
Yes, I concede. It just wanted it to nerf invisibility
I'm suddenly struck by the thought of a skeleton's hand disintegrating as it strikes the magus... But yeah, perhaps you're right.
I'm not sure. I do think there are too many experience-sinks there, but I also find it hard to get rid of any.
Yep.
Right.
I haven't, but I don't see it. Magi still get 120 points to spend on Arts, and still generally gets so much from improving them that they will improve them over other Abilities.
But your solution would work too, I guess. The thing is you need to change the whole spell guidelines and how Might/MR works which basically gets you where I'm at (needing to invest lots of xp to create impressive spells and penetrate), except that in my version you also increase the importance of sundry bonuses that tend to be more colorful than just Art increases (bonuses from Mysteries, Cyclic Magic, and so on).
I do like the idea that Might increases Soak, though. That would undermine mundanes/companions, though. I need to think it over.
It works for some things. It doesn't for the most part though, IMO, and just isn't fun to have Metrinita doing this very Flambeau-like thing.
That's certainly an option. Works for magical Daimons too.
On the contrary - it states that they are vulnerable to them, but that few magi realize this.
Things I'd like:
-
A massive simplification of character creation, covenant creation, book creation, experience, well, basically everything that people who like that sort of thing call "crunch". I'd like to (and do) play Ars diceless, but if I can't have that, I'd like a variant that I can hand out at GenCon and people just get. I'd start by getting rid of half the Attributes. Then I'd get rid of tracking carry-over experience for every Art and Ability and have pooled seasonal experience instead.
-
If I can't have that thing above, then I want a phone ap that does all of the math for me. I don't want to have to shell out $$ for campaign tracking software.
-
If I can't have that, then I want a heap of generic characters available for free, that I just add story hooks into.
-
An end to the idea of a canonical setting. I'd like things to be normalish near your covenant, and get progressively weirder the further away you went. The idea that there should be the same Byzantium for everyone as a baseline is IMO, not a useful one.
-
And end to the idea that all of the books need to integrate with each other. My kitchen tools don't all intergrate with each other: I use the one I want for the thing I want. Game books should be the same.
-
Each group of magi-replacing hedge magicians shouldn't get a new set of mechanics. They should just use an individually- crippled version of the Bonisagus mechanics, IMO.
-
I'd like to get rid of the names "Order of Hermes" and "Tremere". They are trademarks for another company, and they cause weird skews when searching for stuff on the web.
1 Like
Well, firstly, it all depends how you keep your vis stocks. We have Perdo Vis in the form of crumbled rocks from a slowly decaying cliff, for instance, and the Vis which is extracted from a spring which freezes every midwinter. The players know this, and make a big thing about shifting it around into useful containers, so that way it retains its flavour. As for the 30 pawns ... 30 pawns of relevent vis is a massive quantity - canonically fines for major crimes (but not Hermetic ones) are of the order of two to 5 rooks - what magus carries those around on the off chance?
You need high penetration for those because otherwise a magus has to lower his Parma to use them - for defensive items in particular, that's a fairly heft problem.
Yeah, but that's a Pink Dot issue.
True. The fact that a circle ward lasts indefinitely and encloses an area already does that.
They don't, but by RAW, that's not how it works. ReIg with one spell summons all Ignem Spirits, but the ReIg ward only stops faeries or magical creatures or ... Ward Against Faeries of the Woods is, I believe the canon example. I just wnat consistency.
Well, Ancient Magic does something similar with Duration: Storm and says that a magical storm ends when the mundane storm would have ended. I find this unsatisfying, myself. The easy solution is to state that a Fire duration spell cannot affect the fire itself because, well, it can't. It's faerie magic and is allowed a little whimsy. Alternatively, require a mundane fire.
Ech, here I just disagree but then I tend to assume that magi win at combat, with whoever goes first winning, especially against mundanes. I don't see this as a bug but a feature.
Well, specifically it said extracting Vis from an aura weakens the aura, and that an aura derives in great part from the spirits and magical beings of the land. As a consequence, destroying them weakens the aura. The rules are there. As a slightly different take, does a Spirit actually need to contain Vis? Most spirits are tiny, after all.
Heathen! Traitor! Animal!
::coughs:: It's the one bit I absolutely and totally hate, I'm afraid. For me, it ruined my favourite House. As I said, I know others disagree, but ... I'll just go and froth in the corner, shall I?
I'd be happy with either Ritual requirement or more magnitudes, yes, and for much those reasons. The problem with wards failing if you attack across them is that then you can't summon things into preprepared wards, and the definition of an attack depends entirely upon what's in the ward. CrIg is death to an ice elemental but a backrub for a fire elemental, and a possible reward for a favoured servant.
I like easy invisibility - it means sneaky people sneak. As for combat, flight is the real killer. A magus with low level ReCo and a defensive spell against arrows is basicly immune to anything a mundane can think of and highly resistant to most magical threats as well. So it goes. Magi win at combat against mundanes. Magical creatures, faeries and demons, on the other hand, as well as other magi, can see invisible some of the time.
Oh, I don't want a dispelling parma, just oen which blocks magical properties. So a skeleton is a skeleton, and its magic infuses it, but the bone is still hard bone and hurts, just as a magus under the Parma can still punch another. The sword cuts, but the fire on it doesn't burn. A sword turned to diamond now has magical hardness and so needs to penetrate, however. Poison turned to water is magical water, so doesn't quench thirst, but is also no longer poison, so doesn't kill. That sort of thing. I think it ties in better with the stuff from A&A, though I admit that that's preference. The silliness is easier to swallow because its self consistent and thus something to think around rather than just a pink dot.
That's certainly an option. Works for magical Daimons too.
[/quote]
Works for me.
That's a big one! Well, all of them are, but in a way this is biggest even though it's the smallest.
Hermes isn't really very suitable as a god of magic. I have to say, though - The Order of Trivia doesn't sound as impressive 
As another different take:
- Stripminas ex Flambeau: "Um, who are you?"
- Big hulking version of all the lil spirits used for vis, who decided to see what was going on: "I'm your worst nightmare."
Story time!
I'd like to second this notion! The folk witches from Hedge Magic are one of my favorite additions to the game, not the least for the fact that they just use Supernatural Abilities rather than a whole new set of Arts.
To each their own. Me, if I want to play a generic fantasy setting, I don't choose Ars Magica. I don't go the whole detailed research route myself, but I still prefer Ars Magica to have some basis in real folklore and history. If Mythic Europe was ever removed from Ars Magica, that would be the edition I didn't buy.
These, I'm afraid, are some of what I like about the game and system. The ability specific XP is one of the great selling points, in fact.
Such software exists, albeit not for phones yet. It's also extremely time consuming and complicated to code, so I doubt you'll see it free any time soon.
That'd be very nice, yes, but I think it'd also be easily provided by having people just have a stickied thread on this forum. The Core and Covenants already have generic stats for almost every mundane you can think of.
Never! Or rather, I don't believe this has ever been the case except in broad strokes. The setting says, "This is what Byzantium looks like", but the people and the stories are always up to individual troupes. I, for one, love the canonical setting even if I don't play in it. It provides a consistent backdrop so that my improvised work has a setting in which it can make sense and not appear out of place.
But they do integrate - your knives cut up things of the size determined by your pots, pans and oven, so you probably don't own a roasting spit or complete butchers tools. Your pots work with your stove, and your microwave stuff with them. Game books likewise - D&D is a microwave and Ars Magica is an Aga - there's some overlap in things you use with them, but most is specialised. Requiring things not to be ineqgrated has been done in the past - specifically, D&D 3.0 and 3.5 and the resultant mess of contradictory and unbalanced supplements was a source of great frustration to people.
Why? The Magic Theory of Bonisagus is neither complete nor perfect, and other traditions can do things that Hermetic Magi can't. The model of the system, that of Techniques and Forms, should be preserved where possible for ease, but enforcing homogeneity just makes things dull and evne that breaks down for some magical styles. The fact that Vis is divided according the the Hermetic Arts is already a stumbling block. As it is, Magic can do just about anything, but each Tradition uses is in different ways and so achieves different things, some of which are impossible for others because of incomplete understanding or flawed methods. Requiring completely different things to use the same rules just seems ... boring.
I'd like to get rid of Byzantium. It was a real city, and complicates searching for things on the web. ::shrugs:: I like the history, and getting rid of things for that reason doesn't seem to add anything at all to the game itself.
First, I'll suggest that this is not the place to argue points - if you suggest "X" or "+1 for X", and someone else suggests "Y", there's no need to post again to defend "X" - unless you really want to rehash every other thread that's been started since AM 5 came out, and many before, and that'd be pretty dull. 
This is a list of suggestions - the editors are bright, they know the history of these debates, they can choose which and why. If you feel something needs reopening and a new examination, just start a new thread - please!
- wards (rules that are acceptable for all - easier than sqauring a circle, barely)
Wards work - it's the penetration/etc of wards that gets confusing. One simple mechanic, "Size X Ward protects against Size Y Critter" is cleaner.
Also, clarify that wards are only "passive protection", not any active effects - that's tacitly understood, but needs to be overtly stated.
- better incumbrance rules for negative strength (for all those who play str -3 characters)
And rules for using a weapon with lower Strength than "minimum" - one line added to clear that up.
- House verditius is overpowered (or is it just penetration effects for items, or should all lab boni be limited by MT)
Imo magic items are in general too easy to use. One action to find, take into hand, aim, use - and return to where you found it, usually. Bleh. That can be argued to be a SG responsibility, and Ars is traditionally "hands off" on such quibbles, but a comment, to put the idea into the mind of the SG, would not be out of place.
- a reputation system that is strengthened
? - how? I see the current one as working just fine. It's up to the SG to enforce it or ignore it, and that's a traditional approach for AM - to allow each Troupe/Saga to use/emphasize the rules they prefer.
- flaw: female
Sorry, no. Again, this is Saga/Troupe dependent. There is certainly room for this to be added as a HouseRule for strictly accurate historical games, but in a "Mythic Europe", females can have the same basic opportunities as men - in some sagas. If yours is diff, offer new flaws as you see fit.
- collapsing realm lores into one skill
Gawdz no! Differentiating lore is, imo, important - and the breaks between Realms is a perfect internal division. "I know things about stuff" is asking for a broken skill.
- reducing the number of social skills (so they can be bought more easily)
Sorry, nope. Being the perfect social animal is not easy - and shouldn't be.
+1! (my personal pet peeve, admittedly. 
)
It may seem a radical revision, but that one term is only a tool, and it's time to dump any tool that doesn't serve its intended purpose well. I strongly believe that any confusion between versions will be minimal and more than compensated by the loss of confusion between target/Target, which is too idiomatic and commonly used for other, unrelated and overlapping purposes.
Since the Tech/Form are in the form of a sentence "I/verb/object" (PeCo = "I destroy body"), and the "Target" and Form are closely related, as a starting suggestion I'd suggest that it be chaged to the "Object" of the spell effect - Range, Duration, Object. So...
o Ranges, Durations, Objects (p 111) ... The range describes how far the object can be from the magus, the duration describes how long the object will be affected, and the object describes what the spell can affect...
o Guidelines (Ignem) ...The base object for Ignem is a large campfire or the fire in the hearth of a greathall.
o Aiming A maga may want to cast a spell that affects something other than the object, and only thus only indirectly affect the final target. In this case, the target's magic resistance is irrelevant, as the spell affects the object, not the maga's target. However, while spells always affect their objects, indirect effects may not always reach their final targets; these must be aimed...(p 86 - compare this to the original!)
o Magical Senses: ...Each magical sense object grants the recipient information through one of his senses... (page 114)
o Magical Wards: ...Rego spells can create wards which protect the target from things of the appropriate Form. These use the normal objects, but the target is the thing protected, rather than the thing warded against, and the range is the range to the target, not to the things/object warded against...
There may be a better word than "object", but I hope we all agree that there has to be a better term than "target".
- making all virtues compatible with character generation (e.g. elementalist)
A little expansion to account for older magi would certainly be welcome!
- raising DEO difficulty by 5-10 lvls (to balance)
I'm not sure this is the answer, but something.
I, for one (altho' I may be in a minority), also believe that different "XEO's" for different Realms/Targets would be appropriate, and in part can solve this problem. One "Magical Might's Eternal Oblivion" spell just seems too easy/cheesy, and not in keeping with the split between Realms, but maybe that's me.
While on that topic, a clearer definition of "What versatility does one standard effect have?" A CreoForm spell creates X - but how many varieties of X? Let's take CrIm - a spell to create the illusion of an adult human. Does that mean anything from Lady Godiva to the Black Knight in full armour to a skeleton or corpse or the devil or a Priest in sackcloth or the king in cloth o' gold or your mother?
With CrTe, does a spell create "a sword", or can it create any similar weapon/tool? Does a CrHe create just one type of tree in one form, or can it be any variety, any age, any shape? Finesse comes in somewhere - but where, and when, and to what degree?
Inexorable Search specifies that it requires 2 versions to search for both living and dead bodies - not intuitive from the guidelines, nor any other rule or comment - is it alone in such? How rigidly should such be applied, and when? What are parallel limits in other Forms?
Some spells list "+1 Complexity" to achieve such versatility - and others don't. Some simple standard would be nice, imo, perhaps a quick comment as to what constitutes "complexity" and what one magnitude achieves, at least vaguely.
Possible Examples:
+1 - control intensity of effect (for instance, CrIg light or PeCo pain spells)
+1 - as fast as a man can run (ReFo)
+2 - as fast as a horse can gallop (ReFo) (max speed allowed?)
+1 - CrFo - any example of the base effect
+2 - CrFo - anything reasonably similar to the base effect
etc.
The problem is that the Vim Guidelines are not comprehensive, and (only) perhaps they need to be expanded. For all the possible effects, there are only a handful of examples, some trivially predictable (and some quite redundant). Vim is, imo, one Form where priming the pump of the Players' imaginations should be encouraged to a greater degree with more and concrete examples.
? - What do you see as problematic? For me, I find the format very clear -
(Base #, R, D, T, Req, Complexity)
The only quibble I'd have I've already made above, to define "complexity" and what variability one effect can achieve.
Agreed. There is a severe limit to Finesse, but not so much to Arts - to base the target # on Finesse is to prevent an Archmage from creating a perfect X without a specific formulaic spell - and that just doesn't seem to fit the genre, imo.
Heh, naturally! arrogant and self-centered bunch of turds that we are... 
Making Talismans more important would not be a bad idea. In genre, they are often key - in Ars, they are optional. Re-routing some essential game elements through a talisman (or inviting such by limiting those game elements if not via a Talisman) would, imo, make those more important, and that would help stories and give Hermetic Magi more in common.
+1. Up to some degree at least. This would make it possible to trap something that you cannot hurt - dangerous, but a second best.
+1. There are some InFo spells that should be blocked by MR, but some (similar to detecting active spells) should be easier with high MM creatures. Assuming MM == MR is far too simplistic.
+1. On a ship? On a large wagon? On a wall? On the side of a (growing) tree? On a curtain?
"Hands off" is fine up to a point, but there are way too many questions that are left unanswered for the average SG to even know where to begin addressing the obvious holes and ploys.
Hrmmm... "lower" a bit, perhaps.
The purpose (I believe) was to allow starting magi to achieve impressive effects in a narrow field, and to encourage "concept magi". Unfortunately, the result is often uber-power-magi who are just limited and dull, and absurdly over-powered in comparison to their peers. Limitation of this can always be passed to the SG, but an in-game limiter would not be a bad thing - SG's have enough to do.
Hrmmm - I'd tend to disagree. This makes any Might Draining mandatorily a controlled-environment action - either Arcane Connection or across a Ward/trap, or something similar. The "Back to Hell With You!" quick spell effects are too much fun and too much action to just delete.
+1 - Unless you're going for the marketing angle, a few more example animals in the Core Book is needed for the SG.
Bleh. Silent clearly means "no words", but magic doesn't need to "see" your gestures. Invisibility got tougher with 5th ed compared to 4th - maybe it needs to be tougher still by a magnitude.
+1! And a focus in Certamen is both overpowered and limiting for Tremere - sorry, no Tremere with any other focus. Personally, I was extremely disappointed when it stopped being a skill - Tremere with Puissant/Affinity Certamen (or both?!) is a serious advantage across all Arts, and ample to maintain their edge without being abusive, which it is now.
(There is actually probably a long laundry list of non-mechanic things like this - go out on a limb and formally define a "pace" as approximately a yard/meter while you're at it.) 8)
And expand on what a "flawed Gift" is, and how one achieves/identifies this.
+1.
As above, any of the threads that have devolved into contradictory or confusing citations from diff books would not be a bad place to start for things to clarify.
This raises an interesting and much broader discussion.
In 3rd ed (and less so 4th), the "Mythic Paradigm" drew upon what every player knew - not all players as a group, but whatever any Troupe understood about folklore and superstition, and used that as common ground (at least between the book and that Troupe, if not between Troupes and across all Sagas).
However, with the creative personal interpretations of individual imaginative and academic authors, the game has moved away from what is commonly known and toward a proprietary and increasingly dense and impenetrable explanation of how things work.
Species? The Divine? Faeries? Some of the Mysteries? AM has always invited a more "intellectual" approach than, for instance, that-other-game-that-shall-not-be-mentioned, and most other RPG's for that matter, and that's a good thing imo, but in some cases the bar seems to be raised to a post-grad level of comprehension and dedication, drawing either from specific in-depth academia or unique personal imagination of the authors - which great for some, not so good for many.
If there can be a common and simple understanding of these things, it would be good for all to find it, and cling to it, at least at some level.
[/quote]
[/quote]
+1. The sword with the pink dot still hits as a sword, but the pink dot is ignored. Done.
Diff game entirely. If you want to play Windows with Ars window-dressing, no need for a change in AM to achieve that.
Don't buy the supplement, create your own - that's what we've done for years anyway, back when we were broke students, right? Worked fine for me.
Like you way - it's there only if you want it.
Oooh - I disagree completely. One of the attractions of AM is the seamlessness, the fact that everything seems to fit and "make sense", or at least as much as is explained. When two IC explanations contradict, that's seen as medieval - when two game mechanics clash, that's seen as sloppy and annoying. The typical players I know, at least.
+1. If there could be one "Generic Non-Hermetic" system, to build whatever - with options, without, whatever - that would be SO much easier.
As a SG, I have someone come in and say "I want to run a Volkyr!" - and I say - "Ya know, I really don't have a week to learn that system well enough, so... no, sorry". Sad, but I don't want to fake it, and so I just don't go there.
And for my own contributions and kneejerks...
o Defining "+1 Complexity" for spell effects, commented on above.
o Defining the versatility of a single base spell effect, as above.
o Penetration of own Parma - automatic. How does it work? Just fine, thanks for asking - no need to worry about any complex explanations, that's simply how it works. To create a defense that prevents a low-powered mage to help themselves just seems like a terribly unpopular invention.
o CrAn - For creating animal products, WAY TOO COSTLY! (yes, shouting, sorry, but they just are.)
o Social Virtues - The current AM paradigm is that once a person becomes a mage nothing else matters, and also that they suddenly become seen by others as "a Wizard" and nothing else. Another paradigm would admit that a noble upbringing instills "nobility" on a person, and that the connections their noble family has are both recognizable and useful, even for a mage. Knight, Noble, Magister, Priest, Outsider - these are social dis/advantages that, imo, are both good story hooks and unavoidable if the mage re-engages in interaction with anyone who would recognize or appreciate such. To deny that there are any magi who take advantage of their upbringing (or suffer for it) makes no sense to me.
o Tied to that, in 4th ed a basic character spoke their native language like an uneducated peasant - Level 4. Speaking is one of the important signifiers for Social Status, and the diff between "non-technical topics / few mistakes" and "fluent / minimum to write a book", where only the mid-upper classes live. Educated are "elegant", and that's another (and appropriately costly?) option. Cuz if ya dont talk no good thats what folks know so you suffer it doncha. (Bloody peasant.)
What a lively discussion!
First off, two thingsâŚ
- It is way too soon to start dreaming of ArM6 as a reality. Iw will (and should) come eventually one day, but I think we are two or three years off.
- I am way opposed to any and all ideas that have been presented that in any way makes magi weaker than they already are. I personally thing they are too weak already! Multicasting is much less efficient than it was previously, the power of vis has already been cut more than by half, and the x5 scale for abilities already is too much of a drain on xpâs. I say leave the power level stable, to suit a variety of tastes, since we have all already figured out how to customize that base level to our tastes.
Yes. I feel that the guideline for a âbinding circleâ should operate as wards do now, requiring penetration. Wards themselves should also penetrate, but it should be much easier; not having to subtract level if said ward matches both Realm AND Form (normal penetration would apply if said ward only matched Realm or only matched Form)
Two reasonsâŚ
- Game Balance
- Grammar; the very word âWardâ means to Protect, not to entrap.
some of which I naturally disagree withâŚ
No please no! I like cannon! I prefer old cannon to new, but still I like having that sense of a shared world we are all playing in, one that is easily researched in the library or on-line.
???
My kitchen tools all work together, at work and at home. If yours donât, then your lab is poorly designed.
Then again, I am a professional, and I have noticed that most (modern) folk who have never slung it out in a kitchen or on the line do indeed have inefficient set ups and odd gadgets.
But yeah, in a restaurant kitchen, all the tools do indeed work together.
Timothy, I love your moxie but I am utterly opposed to this idea. These Trademarks originate in this game. They are a part of our culture and history. To me, they are an important and cherished part of the game. I have generally been opposed to your revisionist philosophy, but this is a step waaaay too far.
For me, if the rumors were true I would like to see one of those 2 options: either an Ars Magica 5.5 that keep the setting as it is and refine and precise rules, or a completely different setting with modified rules for Ars Magica 6.
An Ars Magica 5.5 could very well answer some questions like the Polka-dot defense, how wards work, how penetration works for items, making being with Might more resistant, readjust the power level of magic by changing guidelines, etc. On the other hand, I would want an index of all the things those changes bring in every supplements printed so far for 5th ed, so that compatibility is total. I like the game as it is: yes there are improvements that could be introduced and some needed clarifications but I donât see the need for a new version of the game that would make 5th edition books âmore or lessâ useful, but with a lot of adaptations or even worst, almost completely useless. 5th ed. has matured nicely and the quality of the supplements is high: donât force me to throw these books out of the windows with an incompatible new edition! As for some elements of the setting that some players donât like and would like to see change (like House or Faeries), I think that it is all a little pointless as for every person that doesnât like something, there is someone who likes it. Best thing is for you to change the offending element in your campaign and even better, write something about how you see it and present it here on the forum or in a fanzine (like Mark Faulkner did with the Flambeau in Sub Rosa 3). I know I would like to see a supplement with different takes on the Houses, even if only to use these ideas as a sub-set in the actual Houses!
On the other hand, if the editors see the need for a 6th edition because they feel that there isnât much more ground to cover with the actual edition, I would recommend a major break with the old editions. Go in the past. Keep Mythic Europe, but set around 100 during the Pax Romana, or around 400, when the Western Roman Empire is dying. Invent a new group of magi from scratch, use the same magic system, but with 12 different techniques, 25 different forms and instead of a unified magic system, have every group with different flavours (using only a few techniques and forms, like the Hedge Magic groups) with enough things in common that the group can share so that collaboration is possible and competition too.
Just my 0.02 Mythic Pound...
And what three-dimensional volume does it affect? A globe? A cylinder (finite, infinite...)?
I like the setting as it is, and there are still tribunals out there to be done. What I would buy in a heartbeat, however, is a book (or two) which takes the default game and introduces it in broad strokes (so the histories presented in the other books are still useful) for a different time period. A Schism War supplement would be awesome, for instance. For the Roman Era, I think a supplement would also be cool, but since Hemetic Magic is explicitly a synthesis of other, older systems, a more Hedge Magic style supplement might be better. Either way, great fodder for things to do.
The wards not penetrating is really still just a hangover from earlier editions where casting total was penetration so you could argue for more potent spells being needed. I would rather Form for ReForm cover all realms (This is a ward against creatures of fire. Creatures of fire beware. No, I don't care if you're a faerie or a demon.) and ReVi spells dealt with Realms since that feels slightly more flavoursome to me. Either way, a flat guideline would mean that the difference between a weak ward and a strong one is the difference between a weak PoF and a strong one. Both create fire, but the one cast by a master of Ignem burns more things - less bookkeeping that way. Having selective nonPenetration just raises the question, "Why?" and that gets intellectually unsatisfying fast.
Actually i would rather say that that version of D&D was unquestioningly the BEST by far.
But you got that thanks to there being so many sources of addon material that you could always find some that were either good or more or less exactly what you wanted.
Not saying either is better, just that both has its ups and downs and the end result can be either good or bad regardless how its achieved. Coherent it was not, and for AM thats probably bad.
Oh yes.
That´s how we always played it and i wouldnt like it otherwise.
Probably more, and i dont mind that as AM5 is still pretty darn good overall. I want tribunal books out now.
Aside from multicasting i partly agree. But multicasting is really nasty as it is now.
The x5 scale works perfectly fine to avoid 2nd edition "-i can do everything well enough" style magi that often appeared, not seldomly unintentionally even.
Totally agree that the current power level is a good compromise starting point.
If you want a powerup, maybe you should adopt SOME of our house rules. Ie only the ones that adds to the powerlevel. 
Seeing as most people (including you?) seem to argue that Wards are not powerful or useful enough, so I'm not sure that this is a strong reason.
Get a better dictionary. Most words have multiple meanings. There's a reason why prison guards are sometimes called "wardens".
Interesting thread, but also with many long posts, and maybe a bit difficult to learn all from.
Having played most of my ArM as 4th ed, I've now been playing 5th ed for quite some time now. And am also familiar with all the earlier editions.
When we played 4th, I thought the change from 'full-level advancement' was an improvement, since you got most out of all your studying. But in hindsight, the combination of all the factors affecting study totals back then led to great inflation and differences between those maxing it and those who didn't. I might be flipping back to the idea of full level advancement - magnificent in it's simplicity. It need not be a thing for a 6th ed (unless there is massive agreement), since it's a thing easy to House Rule.
At first 5th ed seemed to remedy some of the inflation seen in the Arts and Abilities in 4th. But considering how many Virtues exist to boost learning, I'm not sure the differences are that great. I do like the different sxales for Arts and Abilities though.
Wards: I never really liked the idea of a Ward being able to trap a being as well. Personally, I'd make the guideline say "ward against - or bind - a creature...blablabla..." So you need two different spells to do both things, but they use the same guidelines, so they'd count as similar. As for prison guards also called wardens - what if it means they ward the citizens against the inmates? 
Spell Guidelines: I simply loved the hard, rational, mechanical structure of it. It didn't spoil a single thing of the mythic feel for me. But I'm an engineer, so I'm used to this kind of structure, it's second nature to me, so...
Circle/Ring: I've always thought os this as potentially abusive. Sure, for wards they make sense. But to make a spell last longer than the D: Moon which normally limits Forumlaic spells, to avoid spending vis on a device - this sounded bad to me. But I've never acutally seen any abuse, so I guess it's cool.
Certamen: I like the idea, I've always liked it. But it simply doesn't work. Countless threads talk about this, especially why non-Tremere would ever do it. I have ambitions of changing the mechanics, so they are more like Dimicatio. So you can attack with different TeFo combos, and the opponent has to defend apporpriately. A Work in Progress.
Multicasting: I see the potential problems with focusing fire on a single target. So the problem seems in balance concerning 'combat spells', while other spells benefit greatly from affecting several distinct targets. Without needing to invent a version of the spell 2 magnitudes higher for T:Group. Supposing Multicasting only allowed multiple copies if they were cast in different subjects? Because the same spell doesn't stack with another version of itself. To hit harder - invent a larger spell!
Just to name a few of my ideas/comments