It's not just Aegis, it is a minor inconsistency in the rules that has huge implications. It does make me
Ars has dozens of things that can be done that will literally break the game. They are often found in tidbits. And if they don't break the game, I've seen conflicting understandings by players literally nerf entire character concepts that are already in play. SGs and troupes have some real challenges to navigate when those issues popup. This thread isn't [strike]entirely[/strike]too different from the simple HR thread, in that some really basic understanding by different people results in huge power differences.
See also Into the Lab thread, where Ben McFarland, others and I discussed T:Group. I'm currently in two different games which have entirely different understandings of how T:Group works, and I'm about to ask the SG in another game to adopt the understanding that I arrived at with Ben's help.
I've even seen one troupe determine based on a snippet in RoP:Faerie that there is only 1 Craft skill.
Do you interpret this to mean that those that have never had an AoH are untrustworthy or those that have had it for years and botched as casting then got one a day later are also now untrustworthy? Does trustworthyness of a Covenant happen all at once or over time? If you did not know that Durenmar had botched their AOH and took a week to case a new one until several years later cause then to fall into the untrustworthy bucket? Is there a time limit on the untrusting mantle being laid on a Covenant for a AoH failure? A day? An hour? A week?
All of these questions are rhetorical. I recommend running a game like this to see what would happen. I personally think the Order would come apart as the magi have no reason to trust one another. Would it even survive until 1220 as a serviceable organization? you could not trust any apprentice from those covenants to form a new covenant.
Might as well run Ars Paranoia.
That is simplifying it. Any aggregation of skills ( Dead Languages for example) can be considered one skill for the purpose of Puissant with Ability based on the snippet from RoP:F
Where does trustworthiness come from? I said noteworthy, as in of note or of interest, as in an exception to the understanding that all covenants have an Aegis. I didn't even come close to saying that a covenant that doesn't have an Aegis is untrustworthy. You seem to have misread what I have written.
I'm not going to answer them, because they don't seem to be based on anything I wrote, but of you misunderstanding what I wrote and somehow coming to the conclusion that covenants without an AoH are untrustworthy. All that despite I said no such thing. FWIW, I think magi in Ars are far too cooperative.
Sure, it's a simplification, but your example is an inconsistency with RAW when there is such a virtue as Linguist. In a game where Living languages is treated as one skill family and Puissant and Affinity apply to the family then Linguist is a worthless virtue. Considering it was a virtue added at a later time, I don't think it should be a worthless virtue. And my example was specificly with Craft, but again, it's treating all Craft as a family and Puissant and Affnity Craft apply to the whole family. I mean, if you're going to do stuff like that, it's not a minor virtue, at least call it a major.
Saying that because Dwarf blood adds +1 to all Craft skills, all craft skills should be affected by puissant or affinity. Likewise with languages, living or dead.
Poor/Wealthy virtues techinically refer to how TIME-rich or poor you are, the sort of wealth or poverty that gives you xp, the only currency players crave. A Poor Noble still lives massively better than many others. A poor guild-master has to spend months on guild business while still finding time to make things to sell in his shop, so is busy 3 seasons a year, while a wealthy Journeyman may spend 1 season making a few commissions at a good price, then have enough money to do exactly as he pleases. Yes, the virtue/flaw names are slightly confusing but reflect that having more free time is a big bonus, having less free time is a penalty.
The every 20 years with aging rolls is down to whether the "unlucky 13" roll is possible this decade or not with your longevity ritual. The unlucky 13 has to be in there to provide a chance of catastrophic aging for people unlikely to roll 23+. This is largely academic for people whose defence against aging is eating well or minor faerie blood, but it does provide the effect for high-powered magi that decades alternate in danger.
It's possible to get an open-ended result and end up with a huge score, although the likelihood is remote. It's much more likely, given the amount of vis that might be used, that you'll botch, which means wasting the season, contending with a possible Twilight episode, and not earning any XP. On the averages, studying from vis doesn't seem so bad, except when you consider the very likely negative outcomes at higher Art scores, the general propensity for their being a thriving book trade in the Order, and then the sheer cost.
If the average aura is 5 (it's not, but let's assume it is) then an average roll would provide 11 xp, about the same SQ as a sound tractatus. A sound tractatus costs 1 pawn of vis, studying from vis only costs 1 pawn when Art score <=5. Even if you bottom feed and get really subpar tractatus and grind away at 8xp per season, you're still going to be better off, because you're spending less vis AND you never botch.
4th edition had it partly right in tying the experience earned to the amount of vis sacrificed. In 5th edition, no one studies from vis unless forced to do so by circumstance, and even that is an extreme case.
I'm not quite sure what the issue is with the Aegis and botches?
Why is it a problem (for the RAW / setting) if covenants occasionally botch their Aegis? Most botches while bothersome are not fatal, instead they tend to be weird and unexpected. Also, bear in mind that most botches are obvious and visible. So, if a botch renders the Aegis ineffective (which not all botches will) then the magi will probably notice and hence can have another go at casting it.
There's a risk of Twilight from botches, but that's just the cost of being a magus.
It seems to me that in the setting, magi would just accept that botching an Aegis was a risk. Given the rough size of Tribunals, it seems that each year one or two covenants in the Tribunal might botch their Aegis. Which means that for that year, those covenants have a slightly weird Aegis or some problem with it, or those covenants merely cast the botched Aegis again if the particular botch problems are considered by the magi to be too risky.
The point is that the cost is too high if you presume that mastery doesn't mitigate all botch dice from rituals, or completely and utterly irrelevant with a season of practicing spell mastery if a single point of spell mastery allows you to cast a ritual as if you were relaxed and use a non-botching stress die. Then there is no cost to being a magus.
If most magi of a covenant need to be involved in the casting, especially in canonical covenants like Magvillus with it's 10th magnitude Aegis, and assuming it has full penetration, it needs a number of participants involved. You're starting with 11 botch dice, and then adding one for each participant in a communion, then you are subtracting mastery, virtues, and familiar golden cord, but that number is still probably around 5 or 6 botch dice. So every participant in the Communion for the Aegis now has to contend with a possible twilight episode, if more than one botch was rolled, and you've also thrown away 10 pawns of vis.
It's not just the Aegis, although the Aegis is the most common application of the problem.
On one hand, some believe that Mastery 1 will mitigate all risks for casting a ritual spell and site the rule that mastered spells, cast under relaxed conditions use a non botching stress die. An Aegis, or any ritual really will never be cast under stressful conditions. I've had this argument, I've had players tell me they will wait until it isn't stressful and then do it. It's always stressful, why? And the rules don't exactly support the idea that rituals are always stressful, merely that they are always cast with a stress die. Which goes to the other hand, some believe that casting rituals is 1+X botch die at a minimum, where X is the number of pawns of vis. You can further reduce risk by additional levels of mastery, virtues and Golden Cord, but it is also increased for each participant in a Wizard's Communion. And if there is a botch, then everyone in the communion gets the effects of that botch, or if a double botch or greater has to check for Twilight. It makes casting a high level Aegis, like the canonical one in Magvillus problematic on a lot of logistical areas. Back to the other hand, Mastery 1 no risk of botching makes all rituals pretty much risk-free, except in contrived situations which everyone knows at the table is contrived to make the casting stressful. Yay, natural storytelling!
Not all botches render the casting so ineffective that you need to cast it again. Not every magus who tests for Twilight fails the test, and Twilight is something that is meant to happen occasionally to magi. And not all Twilight episodes are bad.
Assuming that the caster has actually mastered the ritual.
Not necessarily. Depends on the nature of the botch. Many botches affect the spell rather than the caster. Potentially, even a botch affecting the caster might not affect the other participants in the communion.
The Criamon don't mind. In fact, they probably avoid taking measures to mitigate botch dice. After all, increasing their Enigmatic Wisdom scores basically directly shortens their lifespans anyway, so it's not like they're predisposed towards sacrificing current time for longevity.
Of course, assuming that the magi do all participate and do all fail their Twilight Avoidance test.
From the point of view of the grogs, for example, a botched Aegis cast via Wizard's Communion with multiple consequent failures of the Twilight Avoidance test means that something weird happens (everyone turns purple, all the beer boils, the horses turn into swarms of bees, the northern tower become unaccountably locked, the moat repels attempts to cross it, or whatever) and some or all of the magi fall into Twilight for minutes or hours or days. Statistically, this might happen once every couple of decades. So, it's something that older grogs tell younger grogs about and might happen a few times in the life-time of a grog.
Which is all very embarrassing for the magi, but it's not like that's actually an existential threat to the covenant in normal circumstances.
Even if that is a tremendous problem (given some other extenuating circumstances), it seems entirely in line with the setting for covenants to sometimes have a crisis triggered by a botched Aegis casting.
Awhile ago, having bent my mind on the math concerning Hermetic Empowerment, and now considering the botch issue discussed here, I concluded the following...
There is no die roll and no chance to botch.
In the long run the vis cost for enchantingis equal to or even cheaper than the cost of ritual casting
You can design the effect to be empowered to have a niceer Penetration bonus than would be availabe for the average casting.
The only die roll would be the spell to coerce a spirit into a prison, which is not a ritual and can be a Mastered spell with virtually no chance of botching.
The time cost is much greater, one or two initial seasons and another one every few years, until the empowered item is full up.
You can design the item with a linked trigger to keep it seamlessly perpetual. No down time or anything.
It's very true that not all Twilight episodes are bad, but it is also true that the more warping you have accumulated, the more likely you are going to have a negative Twilight Episode. And being able to avoid the Twilight is a function of how many botches you have to contend with.
But if we presume that there are 100 covenants in the Order, which is probably too low of a number, 10 of them will have to contend with a possible botch.
I guess I thought that was obvious. I mean, if you can master a ritual and remove all risk of botching forevermore wouldn't you do so?
A botch has two distinct effects. The magic is out of control, what happens is in the hands of the SG, and it's entirely up to him, although the troupe can grumble, he has a wide latitude here. The other effect is that everyone gains warping points equal to the number of zeroes rolled on the botch dice. If there are 9 botch dice and 4 zeroes show up, everyone in the communion gets 4 warping points and must check for Twilight. If we tag our everyman or average mature magus as 30 years post gauntlet, having acquired 60 warping points, or a warping score of 4. He isn't a Vim specialist and has a moderate concentration score of 3, and Stamina 1, the aura is 3 and he doesn't have Enigmatic Wisdom, so let's say his Avoidance total is 1+3+1+Stress Die vs 4+3+stress die. On the average, he's not avoiding Twilight, and this is an average check for him. Even if we reduce the botch dice to the minimum of 2, he's still not likely to avoid twilight, on the averages.
Now let's jump to Comprehending Twilight, which is probably Int 3+die vs. Warping Score 4+die, again, on the averages, he's not going to have a good experience. Finally, the average duration of the Twilight event, will take a day, at this current warping score.
The setting suggest this should happen rather often, if magi are casting rituals like stat boosting rituals and the Aegis, Bountiful Harvests and Mastery 1 doesn't mitigate all botch dice. In short, you have a situation where you have total risk, and you mitigate that with hard work or virtues and a strong Golden Cord, or you have a situation where for a season of effort you will never have to risk casting a ritual in a risky situation, except those contrived by the SG.
I guess I'm looking at this whole spell mastery and ritual spells thing as if it is a mechanic without a purpose.
I'm trying to understand the purpose of having ritual spells being so risky that one needs to spend a lot of time and effort (and possibly virtues) to avoid the risk, or spend a little time and never have to deal with risk of botching again. The more I harp on this (and I know I am), the more I come to feel as if Ritual Magic doesn't really fit within Ars, it's shoehorned into the system. Ritual magic works, in my mind, so much better as a lab activity if we are going to make it risk free. And if we aren't going to make it risk free, we need to recognize that a lot of magi will have fairly robust Vim scores, to handle casting Wizard's Communion, and/or Aegis of the Hearth, in addition to having spent a lot of time mastering the spells involved, acquiring a familiar, and being a naturally cautious sorcerer, or Mercurian.
Ezzelino's example of who casts the Aegis is exemplary of the problem; these magi are designed to cast the Aegis, and do it safely. Indeed, they can do any ritual safely. They have put a lot of time and effort into doing it, and they cast a pretty powerful Aegis. Canonically, Magviillus.
The other issue is that the mechanics of the Aegis are almost always glossed over, it's presumed to go off, the vis cost is merely subtracted from the vis stocks, and everyone moves on. If that's the case, what purpose does it have being a ritual spell, if it is always done without risk? In mechanical terms, it's a money sink. How narrative...
I think that Ritual Magic is a key component of what makes AM AM. Breaking down the mechanic:
A ritual costs vis. So you can do very few of these.
A ritual takes time. So you can't pull one out in the middle of combat.
A ritual is (possibly) risky. So you might botch.
Of these, I think the first 2 are essential and have been from the beginning. Taken together, AM healing is a very different beast from D&D healing. It is too expensive to heal everyone back up to full strength, and you can't heal during the middle of combat or other situations where you don't have at least a half-hour. Taken together, it is hard to boost characteristics or create food and water.
But botches.... I'm always in favor of minimizing these!
Botches also have a purpose, and are very important to some people. It seems reasonable that according to that school of thought, important spells should be even riskier.
As for simulations, Aegis botch frequency is far from the strangest thing that happens when one uses AM mechanics to actually model reality. (True of most game mechanics, that.)
