Familiars (Major) v. wolves, snakes, canines, etc. (Minor).
Transforming humans into animals (Major) v. self-transformation or shape-shifting (Minor).
Teleportation (Major - TTA, missing above?) v. magical transportation (Minor).
Now, it's perfectly legal to have an overly restrictive Magical Focus. It's also fine to have an overly restrictive Minor Magical Focus. There is no rule against those. The problem is that a lot of people see a Major (or Minor) Magical Focus that is overly restrictive and then start ruling that other ones must also be Major because they're as broad or broader, which is not logically valid but an easy mistake to make.
I've actually been thinking about the Familiars focus as a Major one quite a bit lately and I'm ok with it. Familiars are a key component of almost all magical traditions. They are the keepers of many secrets and many powerful entities. This makes the focus much more versatile and useful than its minor version. The Magi of ancient traditions probably have had their souls travelled beyond a Magi's reach but the spirit of his familiar might still be attainable or even still alive! Also in a wizard's war, most powerful Magi have a familiar and they are already considered a vulnerability but to someone with a MMF in Familiar, they become even more so. Third, it makes the Merinita concept of wanting to have temp familiars a bit more feasible. Does it compare with the MMF Spirits? I'd say that it does. Concept won't be the same but it is a concept adjacent to it and you do not need to fish for a mystery to hunt down a Familiar spirit... you get to have a powerful familiar from early on.
I mean, a Focus in Birds is cool but it limits you to a familiar in birds. Allows you to do stuff with birds a bit more easily but there is a lot less variety of epic stuff within reach.
Yes, it is useful for a bunch of thing. But, honestly. consider something like a Minor Magical Focus in raptors. It still applies to all of your Familiar bond (yes, limited to raptors, which of course you'll get), but it also applies to those spells that turn you into a raptor. It applies to the spells to create and control raptors. It applies to all the spells you use to enhance raptors, which can include yourself in a raptor form. Yes, you're limited to raptors, but there are far more raptors in the world to affect than there are Familiars. And it's got a ton of utility outside of that.
I'm not saying a focus in Familiars isn't cool and isn't more useful for some builds. But that's like saying a Magical Focus in wooden wands should be Major because it's more useful for someone who really likes wooden wands. That's now how Minor v. Major is gauged.
What we have here is a Magical Focus that covers less breadth than a Minor Magical Focus, but it is listed as a Major Magical Focus.
Yes but very few raptors are pertinent while very few familiar are not. Doesn't matter if there are 1000x more raptors out there than familiars if the only thing that is worth targeting is a familiar that is not a raptor. I'd argue that there are many more pertinent familiars out there than there are pertinent raptors.
In this case, quality/diversity of target is often more important than quantity.
Familiar Focus affects targets in all Techniques & all forms for a narrow range.
Wooden wands focus affects targets in all Techniques/Herbam narrow range.
The question is how narrow does it have to be to be considered a narrow field vs a fairly limited area?
Familiars are slightly more narrow than say "Magi" & I think many would consider "Magi" to be close to the MMF Men or Women even if it is way more narrow than those. I think for the same reasons, we should keep Familiars in the MMF bucket.
W
MMF definition:
"Your magic is much more potent in a fairly limited area, such as weather, necromancy, birds, or emotions. This area should be smaller than a single Art, but may be spread over several Arts — necromancy, for example, covers both Corpus and Mentem effects. You cannot be focused on laboratory activities, although a focus does apply to laboratory activities."
mMF definition:
"Your magic is particularly attuned to some narrow field, such as self-transformation, birds of prey, or healing. In general, the field should be slightly narrower than a single Technique and Form combination, although it may include restricted areas of several such combinations. Healing, for example, is a part of Creo Corpus, Creo Animal, and possibly Creo Herbam."
Really? In the many games I've played I've almost never seen a spell or an enchantment that "Familiars" would have helped with that an animal choice appropriate the the character's Familiar would not have. But I have seen many, many effects apply to such animals that aren't Familiars.
So does "raptors," "canines," etc.
So you say, but canon does not back you up. This simply might be true, but it might not be. Specifically, we know this is not an exception for Familiars; we just don't know how exactly it is not an exception. That it is not an exception is more suggestive that it also applies to enchanted items, but it's only suggestive.
While Familiars can be seen as somewhat narrow because it only affects those bound by Magi, or a few other traditions. It applies not just to animals. After all, a Magi with the appropriate Virtue may bind a spirit or a Faerie as a Familiar, and they would fall under the Familiar MMF, so to me it's not a clear cut.
Yes, but "ghosts" applies to non-animals and also works on such a Familiar. Etc. So applying to animals or not is irrelevant. The real question is: outside of your own Familiar, does "Familiars" have more applicability than "ghosts" or "canines" or "raptors" has.
Indeed. I think that WilliamEx is arguing that, since you are a magus of the Order, you will tend to interact with familiars (Hermetic or otherwise) other than your own quite a bit, even though the total number of familiars in Mythic Europe is likely to be minuscule compared to the total number of raptors.
Personally, I'd rank a Focus in Familiars roughly on par with one in Raptors (in part, one would have to nail down precisely what counts as a familiar - e.g. does a Sahir's helper spirit count?); and in fact, I'd consider either a rather narrow Minor Focus. Let me note in passing that "Ghosts" is way broader than "Raptors".
Yes, I understand that argument. But I presented the issue with this already: who will interact more with the subject of their Magical Focus? Will the mage who turns into a raptor and controls raptors who can all be enhanced (including the mage themself) interact with raptors who are not their Familiar use magic to which "raptors" applies more or less than the mage who has "Familiars" interacts with other Familiars in such a way that their Magical Focus applies? I honestly cannot vaguely see more such interaction with other peoples' Familiars, especially when I have seen multiple magi where nearly everything they do falls under such an animal Magical Focus, and it lets them be very versatile.
I guess it depends a lot on the saga. In any case, I do agree that Familiars is narrow enough to be a Minor Focus, and by a long shot.
One thing to keep in mind if your Focus is on a very specific class of things, with which you then interact a lot (e.g. Raptors), is that in many cases it will limit how much one can benefit from a Lab Text. Sure, you'll be able to learn that "Turn into a Hawk" spell from a Lab Text, but it's far less likely that there's a Lab Text around for "Enhance a Raptor by doing X" rather than "Enhance an Animal by doing X".
Yup, at least for learning such a spell. But, of course, that applies to both sides. And it would matter a lot more if there were many more spells out there. As-is, players tend to make many of their own spells, which is one of the draws of Ars Magica, and then there is no worry about it not quite applying.
I read it just as applying the usual base 4 creo corpus guideline to the debilitation check to avoid suffering side effects from a disease, something medical attention can also do.
I think I understanding your point of view. From my point of view, having a guideline being published later doesn't change much. I've never seen an RPG whose rules don't evolve when new supplements come out. Having a unique spell in the base book doesn't mean unique spells can be created outside of an experimental context unless there's a very close parallel to existing guidelines for a troupe to adjudicate that's covered by hermetic theory. There's a rule for using unique RDTs without developping a full-fledged RDT integration (at a penalty), as far as I know, there's no clear rule that says you can do almost everything not covered by one of the limits. If it did, funnily enough, all the books with mysteries and integration would have somehow restricted the magic system but putting things that were eligible for research in book 1 offlimits without a study source. There are spells labeled in the base book where it's clear the integration into magic theory is imperfect, but I can't say that experimental results were well outlined everywhere. There are also examples of spells which seem to incorporate flaws without a clear statement that it was an experimental result.
Oh, I totally agree. That's why part of the post you replied to was in disagreement with ezzelino and citing Mysteries as a clear reason. But there is also nothing saying there are no readily accessible guidelines that are unlisted. There are many more examples of spells with unlisted guidelines, both from core and not. For example, people used to say you can't do more than +30 damage with CrIg, because that's the most that is listed; then they had to contend with Last Flight of the Phoenix doing +40 damage, while there is still no guideline listed above +30. So it's clear there are some guidelines that are not listed that you can freely use with vanilla Hermetic magic. But it's also clear you cannot just do absolutely anything that doesn't break the limits with vanilla Hermetic magic.
We do know that there are many things Hermetic magic can do, that do not use any published spell guideline. Spells like Treading the Ashen Path and The Eye of the Sage are examples of this.
(Also spells like Wizard's Communion, Aegis of the Hearth, and Enchantment of the Scrying Pool, but those are all noted to either be the result of a breakthrough, or remnants of old Mercurian rituals)
We also know that there are some things that Hermetic magic can't do, even though it doesn't break any of the Limits of Magic. An example of this is duplicating procedural memories, so you could transfer an Ability from a person to another. HoH:S notes that this is something Hermetic Magic theoretically should be able to do, but that so far nobody has managed to figure out how to make it work.
The MMF Familiar is indeed quite narrow but making it a mMF would be understating it.
I know that in may campaigns we cut out the Familiar from most hermetic interactions but the cannon setting is that most mature magi have a familiar. Also, most non-hermetic traditions also have a form of familiar which can simply defined from having a bond cord with a Human.
That means that in most wizards war, as opposed to a Raptor mMF, the focus can play a significant role. Familiars are also one of the most precious things a Magi has which means that if they are lost or sick or injured or kept captive or gone rogue, etc. the Magi will seek the player character that has a reputation with Familiars. There are limits to how many stories that can revolve around raptors...
The MMF in Familiars will impact the game much more like the other big hitting MMF (Men, Women, Damage, The Gifted, Necromancy, Fire, Weather, etc.) than the likes of a mMF which is usually too restricted to strike wide reaching reputations except for the Healing one which if it fits your concept, will get you the far reaching "Healer" reputation if you want it as you'll be able to learn early the higher level rituals that allow you to heal injury/crisis/poisons/diseases.
Again, raptors is cool but it will not allow you to get any special attention from your Sodalis.... just regular attention
Ain't all "good" news you know. Having a reputation that you can control one's familiar or that your Magic cuts through Parma like butter (Men/Women/The Gifted) or that ancient armies follow your commands (Necromancy), etc., comes with its load of issues/stories.
That's your gauge? That doesn't really match the rules well at all. How many stories do you tell about fire? Probably not that many. So "fire" should be a Minor Magical Focus? The rules for Minor v. Major are not about the stories. They're about the utility.
But we can also swing the idea around the other way if you want to stick with this. How many stories are about Familiars other than yours? Compare that to every single story being about raptors other than your Familiar because nearly all the magic you use in every single story brings raptors into the story. You simply cannot make that happen with other peoples' Familiars. (Note, it's still a poor method, as it basically punishes clever players and rewards less clever ones.)
We have a whole house who has a pissing contest every day about who has the biggest fire.
1st of all, Familiars also covers your own familiar so it includes all the "Raptor stories" + 80% of visiting Magi + 80% of Magi you could encounter + all Covenants + 80% of wizards wars.
I'm not talking about how many time you will cast a Raptor spell. I'm talking about the whole thing. With a focus on Raptors, you are a Magi with Raptor affecting spells which is cool but will not interest other Magi & few stories will involve raptors and if they do, the other players might feel neglected at some point. Familiar focus allows diversity of encounter. Familiars are all pretty much unique and each new Magi you meet has the potential to have a familiar angle story to exploit.
Many spells within your arsenal will apply to all familiars. InMe to pose a silent question. Wards to trap a creature or protect vs the dragon familiar. PoF will keep that cocky familiar quiet. Turn animal to statue will work on the Magi's familiar... Basically, you do not need to tailor your magi to the focus as much of a regular spell arsenal will apply to pertinent targets. Familiars after all are creatures that know a lot, powerful allies & a direct AC to their Magi.
Odd. I see it the exact opposite way. Takes clever player to leverage a different angle in each story. Using the same spells over and over... lets say to does not make them less clever but it does keep the imagination in a set box.
Your own Familiar = your own Familiar, so that's equal in comparison.
Really, 80% of visiting magi have Familiars with them and you cast spells on 100% of those Familiars? Or maybe 100% of visiting magi have Familiars with them and you cast spells on 80% of those Familiars? Or maybe roughly 90% of visiting magi have Familiars and you cast spells on roughly 90% of those Familiars? And same things for all those magi you encounter? So, for example, you go to Tribunal and you just cast spells on nearly everyone's Familiar? Or you drop by another covenant and you cast spells on nearly everyone's Familiar? And the spells you're casting on them to make sure you're casting so often are spells like Posing the Silent Question, wards to trap them, and PoF? No wonder you're in so many wizard wars. Honestly, this sounds like a blatant exaggeration.
Where did you get this from?
You seem to have a major misunderstanding here. Every single story the mage is involved in will involve raptors because that's the magic they do. The story will only not involve raptors if they're not in it. If the other players feel neglected, they've said you're not allowed to play your mage in the troupe. And why would they feel neglected if your mage uses their magic? That would be like players feeling neglected because a School-of-the-Founder Flambeau casts PoF on an adventure.
In which case your Magical Focus does not apply in the lab. Suddenly it's applying even less frequently than "raptors" for the mage who builds their magic around raptors.
I think you misunderstood me. I was saying that if the frequency of use is the gauge of Minor v. Major, then you have situations where a clever player might find a huge number of ways to use "raptor" so it would be Major for them, while a not-so-clever player might find few ways to use "weather" so it would be Minor for them. This would be in disagreement with the rules and punishing to the clever player.
Ancient Magic p.17 "All shamans have a personal familiar spirit, usually an ancestor spirit associated with their homeland that follows them and aids them."
Hedge Magic p.39 "Help in the Kitchen A folk witch cannot normally be assisted in her work by other characters. There are two exceptions: a folk witch’s familiar can assist her, and folk witches may assist one another during a witch’s sabbat (see later in this chapter)."
RoP:TI p.53 "The famuli are amongst the least of the False Gods; they are the demonic familiars given to some diabolists in return for service"
TC&tC p.41 "To establish the khadim bond, the sahir generates a Realm Lore Lab Total no
less than the spirit’s Might Score, using the Realm Lore associated with the spirit and his highest Solomonic art. He mustalso spend a number of form-appropriate pawns of vis equal to the magnitude of the spirit’s Might Score. This gives the sahir the same number of Bond Points (equal to the magnitude of the spirit’s Might Score) to spend on the following benefits
I could find other accounts but we get the idea. We have a few thousand witches with familiars, a few thousand infernalists with familiars. A few Hundred sahirs with bound creatures, Shamans & lets not forget hermetic Magi and all the other traditions I did not mention.
Sure... I tried twice already to explain so I'll let it be. I can summarize my position very simply. I agree with the RAW. Familiars is a MMF as per raw but you can house rule as you wish.
