Let's say a magus with a lab total of 55 is trying to invent a level 30 spell. According to RAW, this takes him two seasons.
In the first season, he accumulates 25 points towards invention of the spell (55 minus 30).
In the second season, he completes the invention.
Would you allow him to invent a second, low-level spell (of the same Te+Fo) in the second season? After all, he only "used" 35 of his 55 points in his lab total, leaving 20 free for other uses. So he might be able to learn a level 20 spell from a lab text, of invent of level 10 spell from scratch.
RAW makes no mention of this, but this would seem reasonable. Provided that it is the same Te+Fo and the same kind of lab activity.
But as you said, RAW does mention allowing multiple lab activities in the same season. How does that not describe this, assuming not only the same TeFo but also the same type as you said? I don't see a problem with this, and I don't see how it is not covered by the rules. Perhaps the answer you want is that yes, you're reading the rules correctly.
Not exactly. Take all the spells you are creating and add them together and compare this to your lab total. You are creating 30+10=40 levels of spells. With a 55 lab total it would take 40/(55-40)= 3 seasons. Unless you've got a lab text for that second spell...
So you would add the spell levels before comparing them to the lab total on the second season?
If you were only learning 2 spells in a single season, it doesn't make a difference. Let's consider inventing without lab texts.
Lab total 55, inventing a level 15 spell and a level 10 spell. (55-(15+10)) = (55-15-10) = 30, so both spells are invented. To me, the rules on p.102 seem were clearly written for this case, where you can completed both within the same season.
Inventing a spell over two seasons, and doing a minor thing with the rest of the season, there are 2 ways to calculate this.
Your way: 55-(30+10) = 15 points accumulated. High-level spell is completed, and low-level spell is invented. Or 55-(30+20) = 5 points accumulated, if using a lab text for the second spell (needs 0 points of accumulation).
My way: 55-30 = 25, 5 points used to complete high-level spell, 20 points left to invent another spell (level 10), or learn one from a lab text (level 20).
Well, you're only working on one spell the first season. Why would the second spell make a difference then if you haven't even decided to make it yet?
Yes. You're just writing the equality two different ways. The first (what you said is my way) is how the books write it:
55-(A+B)=5+B
Now let's do some algebra:
55-(A+5)-(B+B)=0
and we have the second (what you said is your way). We could throw in an inequality to account for more situations, but it doesn't change the point.
I guess I'm in disagreement with everyone here. I'm saying that as a player, you'd work out what you want to do in the lab and see that it takes more than one season. If you wanted to "tack something on the end" it would still be part of the lab total for all seasons, not just the last one. Sure, the character may decided halfway through to do something extra but as players we look at lab totals and so forth for the whole project and work out the math. I'm saying it would take three seasons with that lab total to do those two spells, not two.
But it may not have been planned that way by the player.
Say the magus has a lab total just high enough to invent a spell in a season, but because of a story that takes longer than expected, he receives a penalty to his lab total. So he ends up with just 5 points shy of completing the spell. Are you going to say that because he wants to do something more at the end of that second season, he should be penalized on that first season where all he did (in the lab) was working on the first spell?
I would say yes it's a penalty, however I've almost talked myself out of this position. The thing that keeps me from admitting it past that previous sentence is this: Had the player planned to do both spells over multiple seasons it would take 3 seasons with a 55 lab total. "Tacking it on the end" seems like not planning ahead gets you free time. If so, why not plan to not plan?
Honestly, we do that all the time in real life. Let's say you have a big project (too big for one day) to do over two days and you also have to do some grocery shopping. You could do half the project one day and make a trip to the grocery store for half your groceries and do the same the next day, returning to the grocery store. Or one day you could do a little more of the project and the other do all your grocery shopping and a little under half the project. Which one is more efficient? Is it unreasonable that one is more efficient? How does ArM5 simulate this? Trying to work partway on both the level-10 effect and the level-30 effect on each of two seasons is less efficient than working solely on the level-30 effect one season and working on both a different season.
Also, necessarily planning all the seasons essentially means making plans is a bad idea for planning time efficiently since you'd be better off not even planning the level-10 spell until after the first season, which doesn't make much sense to me. (Same thing Rich is saying.)
I'd rule that the player must plan what activities are going to be performed.
To use real work as an example: when I give a worker a 14 hour job and two days to do it, it almost always takes the full two days. Human nature. If I as the manager wants productivity for the extra 2 hours, then they must plan an activity. I also have noted that sometimes staff will do the work in an order that suits them. They might tick off the two hour job first, then do the heavy task. That is why adding the totals in advance makes sense.
Your example seems to support what I'm saying in two ways. But it sounds like you were disagreeing with me. First, your example works contrary to the planning ahead issue presented above (that planning a 30 and 10 should take 3 seasons) that I was arguing against. You're saying it's more productive to plan to do the 14 and 2 than just the 14. But using the planning ahead ruling suggested above the character becomes less efficient with the 30 and 10 than with just the 30. Second, which would be more efficient in your work case? The employee could do 8 hours on that 14-hour thing one day and the other day do 6 hours on that and 2 hours on something requiring different set-ups. Or the person could split it evenly, 7 hours and 1 hour each day, having to do the set-up switching more times. Why waste time on setting things up and taking them down extra times?
Separately, for ArM5, look at who gets penalized. If you don't let someone plan each season one at a time, then the noob who gets through the first season and then gets into the second season and realizes all the spare time available gets the shaft, while the experienced player plans a level-30 and a level-5 simultaneously for the two seasons. If you do let people plan each season at a time but rule on intent in advance (the method I was arguing against), then the player who plans time well plans time poorly because he would have been better off not planning the second effect, deciding to do so in the last moment.
I far prefer letting people plan each season at a time without ruling on intent. That way the noobs are protected and the planning process makes sense.
