Would it be possible to invent more than one spell per season?
For example: I have a lab total of 76 in Intelligo Vim and I wish to invent Piercing the mystic veil it is level 20 so it would take 40 of my 76 lab total. Can I then use my last 36 lab total to get piercing the divine veil and get +4 for having a similar spell?
Yes, absolutely. You might lose some of the benefits. For example, you invent two InVi spells but only have a spell that's similar to one of them; inventing that one would get a bonus from the similar spell, but the pair don't get the bonus.
Here's the best way to sort it out for a single season: Divide your lab total by 2. You can invent a total of that many spell levels within that TeFo combination, no matter how many spells they are.
You also do not invent any of the spells until the end of the season, so you can only gain a "similarity" bonus for spells you already know at the beginning of the season.
Yes, absolutely. Provided both spells are of the same TeFo. This is in the core rules, p102, under the heading 'Multiple Laboratory Activities.'
Check with your SG. There is no definitive ruling I am aware of about this. If you are the SG, decide what is going to benefit your saga most. Personally I'd probably allow it, but that's just my preference and nothing to do with the rules as written.
Yes, I missed that bit. That would definitely be in house-rule territory to allow early invention to permit later invention. Of course, it's mostly only magical work that is tied to the seasons at all, so it wouldn't be that unreasonable a house rule.
The bonus applies to the first spell, which leaves a higher remaining total for the second. I have been playing that way for years and everyone seems okay with it. I also let them do it that way. It makes sense, to me, but YVMV.
However, and this is more important, it is a simpler approach. It counts out the middleman and a layer of complication. Just generate a grand total, including all applicable bonuses, and divide as needed.
If you apply it fully to one of the spells, you have also applied it to the other spell because it lets you move that many points from the first to the second (unless you're inventing something like a level-2 spell with a level-50 similar spell). I could see halving a similar spell bonus like that.
Yes. That is exactly the hack I mean. I use it and allow others to do so. But without dividing. Simple quick math that speeds decisions trumps complications that seek to slow players down.
We do multiple-spell inventions a lot, but I don't think we've ever sees the similar spells calculated in. It is different situations whether the bonus applies to just one of the two (or more) spells or all of them, in theory. I don't think we'd calculate the bonus in twice if it applied to both, we'd just calculate one Lab Total and see how many levels of spells could be invented from this.
We have been known to mix inventing spells form scratch at the same time as from lab texts. In this situation we just look at the lab total and calculate that the 'spell form scratch' requires x2level points and form text just 1xlevel. So Lab Total 50 allows the invention of a lvl 20 spell from scratch and a level 10 from text.
I could see a simple rule: use the lowest applicable similar-spell bonus, counting a lack of a similar spell as 0. It's a lot easier than trying to do any fractional things and it avoids some messiness about taking the best bonus.
Regardless, it's definitely in house-rule territory to have a spell developed in a season count as a similar spell to another spell developed in the same season.
Personally, I just tend to use percentages: ie, if inventing the first spell uses up 54% of your lab total, you have 46% of any lab total you want to put together to do something else: enchant an item, research another spell with a different TeFo, whatever.
From what I recall, it's been established that the reason the authors DIDN'T use this system was simply due to ease of bookkeeping, rather than anything in-game.
Too complicated. Say you have a LT of 52. Invent one level 20 from Lab Text leaves 32 remaining. Invent a level 15 from scratch leaves 2 points. Which go to the wind.
Don't want to invent that Level 1 spell you are always sponting?!?
YSMV. I find the math fairly easy. To be fair, I pretty much write up every character and seasonal activity for Ars in Excel, though.
Yes, you might find the math easy. I do, too. But then not everyone is me or you and it's not even an YSMV thing, it's a difference that can commonly pops up within a troupe. I see a lot of similar commentary on the forum, I have probably done it unconsciously, too. There seems to be a fallacy that things should be done a certain way because it's not hard for whomever to do. That doesn't make the game better, doesn't make it accessible to a wider audiance. It's complexity that doesn't add to the game, and keeps people from the game, slows it down, and discourages people from diving in. Amul once said that Ars Magica is the game for people who liked homework in high school. It's funny, because it's true. Don't get me wrong, I like the crunch during the downtime, but a lot of people don't. It becomes a problem when someone who finds it "easy" to push the rules to their limit and achieve spectacular things, while everyone else is lagging behind, because they don't do as much min-maxining/optimization. Is that good for a saga? It depends largely on the troupe, but generally speaking, I would say no.
Then there is the whole stance that what you propose isn't even suggested as RAW. Sure, you can interpret that it happens that way, but it's not unreasonable, but it's just as reasonable to presume that every project undertaken in a season is done in parallel and finishes at the end of the season, which wipes out the idea that you can use a similar spell bonus for a spell invented "earlier" in the season for something that comes later.
So...it doesn't depend on the saga: it depends on the people who make up the saga, and the house rules you put together in order to make the game more enjoyable for that particular saga.
shrug. OK. I call that YSMV.
Assuming you were speaking to me, this is a misattribution - I didn't say anything about spell bonuses; just learning multiple spells in the same season.
And totally miss the point...
I did missattribute what was said to you. My apologies.
I think you're discussing the difference between a house rule that you believe would alter the playstyle for everyone in a given saga, but would be more-or-less acceptable to everyone at the table, and one that statistically would be beneficial or interesting to one or two players (while disenfranchising everyone else).
ie, the difference between "setting Gentle Gift as a minor virtue (because the group as a whole doesn't RP the penalties of the gift all that much)", versus the aforementioned "letting PC's use percentages of lab totals in spell creation." The first, in theory, affects everyone equally. The latter is a bonus to at best one or two people in the group who like to crunch the fiddly bits, thus leaving the non-crunchers at a disadvantage.
Your argument seems to be that there ought not to be house rules that do this, because it makes the game less accessible to the non-crunchers that you believe are highly likely to be at any given table.
To which I respond: "Yes. All of that discussion I consider to fall under the aegis of YSMV."
Actually, RAW does a little more than suggest lab work aligns with the seasons. I believe it was clearer in ArM4.
So, as opposed to other cases, lab work set into seasons is not an abstraction. It is tied to the actual season. So, even if you have a lab total of 100 and are making just a level-5 spell, that spell takes the whole season. You could skip a bunch of days here and there and minimize your time in the lab (reducing the lab total by putting time into other things), but the completion is still tied to the season. All those other things must essentially be in parallel with the lab work. Now if all that reducing lab total to put efforts elsewhere puts things in parallel with the lab work, should not multiple laboratory projects do so as well? If not, you could say that you start your level-5 spell and will work on 9 more of them, then 9-10 days into the season (1/10 of the season) you could change your mind after finishing the first spell and do all the other stuff. Thus not having the spells invented in parallel violates RAW. Thus having the similar-spell bonus from a spell being invented apply to another one invented does not work in canon and requires a house rule.