Oh, ya. There it is. I'd been stuck on the ArM5 statement saying MT3 is necessary. So you can have Refinement -3.
You misunderstand Greater Focus. Greater Focus requires Greater Feature. (Though you could really go with Lesser Feature and Lesser Focus.) They balance +3 vs. -3 (not -2). Spacious is +1. Gallery is another +1. Elementary is -3. That leaves you at a total of -1 space required. But you only have -4 due to Refinement -3. You need another -3 in Flaws.
Chris
Crud, throw missing equipment*2 in there, and bump space up by one.
I'm curious as to what about medieval worldview makes you think they wouldn't see teaching as control? As I understand it the Socratic method is the basis for much higher education. That's all about instilling confusion and wonder then guiding learning.
Because?
Reference? I see a formal canon definition of Hermetic Enchanted Item. I also see many other things that could be considered magic items in cannon. Amazonian enchanted items, Automata, Rune Inscribed objects, Craft Magic, Wondrous devices the list goes on. Most of these do not share all the properties of Hermetic Enchanted Items.
Admittedly that does give some weight to your argument although I don't see why you think the house is doing it to limit it's own power. On the other hand a full reading of the IoQ splat shows that they are definably magical. They have magical properties, referred to as powers at least once. These powers are described as inherent, brought to their surface not by enchantment but sympathetic magic and Verditius runes. These magic powers can be detected by some InVi magic and analyzed in a lab as you would an enchanted item. They are Items with magical properties hence, Magic Items, with or without politics.
Really? There are a ton of magical things not blocked by MR. Rune magic, Second sight, The teeth and claws of some shapeshifters and most magical Creatures. Parma itself is not blocked by Parma. Magi under it's aegis (or even an Aegis for that matter) are free to bash each others brains out if they chose to stoop so low as fisticuffs. There also seems to be no requirement to penetrate when extending your Parma to something already protected by MR. (say if you want to shield someone with True Faith from the Gift)
In short IoQ's not being stopped by MR is an advantage they have over most other magical items. But it doesn't make them non-magical. Particularly since they are described as Magical in their write up.
Second sight does need to penetrate, RAW.
Where did you find that? As far as I know the species reaching your eyes aren't magical, and that would seem to agree with the guidelines given for Second Sight.
Chris
Second sight does not need to penetrate, and allowing Hermetic Intellego spells the same advantage is one of the possible outcomes of Hermetic integration of Folk Witch magic, described in HMRE.
Core rulebook. Only applies to realm interaction (my mistake) but it does need to penetrate the local aura if it's opposed. So Magicly granted Second Sight needs to penetrate in a dominion aura. Page 183, realm auras.
Also page 184 hints that supernatural abilities must penetrate.
The word "penetrate" does not even appear on p183. I don't know what you are smoking...
Top right corner, boxout, REALM AURAS realm interaction table: Supernatural activity rolls modified by aura.
sigh
No, second sight does not need to penetrate, not even an aura.
Second Sight is modified when the character using it is in an aura, as per the table on p. 183.
Exemplia Gratia:
Sven has Second Sight, associate with the Magic Realm.
He has Perception +1, Second Sight 4.
If he's using it in an area with a Magic Aura of 4, that a total of (1+4+4=) 9+ die.
If he is using it an area with an Infernal Aura of 4, that's a total of (1+4-4=) 1+die
If he was using a Supernatural Ability that needed to penetrate (ie. Entrancement), that penetration would be affected by his target's Might and the interaction thereof with whatever aura the target was in - which is not necessarily the same aura as Sven is in.
However, for Second Sight we have explicitly that
You mean where is says "Ability Rolls ... such as Second Sight"?
Tellus already did a reductio ad absurdum on that. Maybe you should revisit your assumptions.
+1
And perhaps you should stop with the ad hominem attacks?
That's not an ad hominem attack. Try again.
Fair enough, that was ad hominem. Still he did attack your argument first, and that attack was to the point and correct.
So when proven wrong, your now falling back on atop with personal attacks. The time to address personal attacks is when they are made, not after the facts have proven your argument incorrect. You said stop making attacks, plural. Insofar as I can tell one was made.
Actually, his rebuttal there was wrong. He claimed the word penetration was not on page 183. It is.
I may be incorrect in my facts, I am able to accept that. I do not, however, like being told that "You're wrong, accept it" without a reasoned discussion and civility. Neither of which are shown by "I don't know what you're smoking" or "Perhaps you should check your assumptions".
So yes, I am incorrect. But the attitude shown by people posting here is a bad one, and will put people off Ars magica if they come asking about the game. Especially when, regarding AM5's rulebook, the rules are scattered through the book and often are single lines of text randomly (by most assessments) placed throughout the text, so people getting things wrong is not unusual.
I will point out they only JUST clarified that Aegis needs to penetrate, and that this entire topic stems from a lack of clarity on the teaching rules.
No, the teaching rules are clear. We just have a case where someone is trying to take advantage of a Hermetic Lab bonuses to make a classroom a better space for teaching. That's quite a bit different than the teaching rules not being clear.
I am not sure what your non sequitur about Aegis has to do with anything. It's been pretty clear that Aegis has to be penetrate for quite a while, callen did a pretty comprehensive analysis of it, too. The simple fact is that all spells must penetrate MR to have an effect. People like to play without an Aegis requiring penetration, because they didn't have to deal with it in 4th edition. If you're trying to draw an equivalence, I think it's a mistake, in this instance.
Well, not quite, but I should have checked for "penetration" too. Then I'd seen where you were coming from.
And I strive to check my assumptions all the time. I am sorry you took it wrong.
Please use questions such as "Doesn't Penetration in the box on p183 means that Second Sight needs to penetrate?" instead.