Question: what is the status of armor from LoM? Are all options open, only with approval? I ask because it is 1245, and I do not know if you are counting plate as available or not. I equipped Mateu with chain and great helm as his maxed armor, but I have no idea if you are already using the plate options.
Apart from that, Mateu is ready to go. He is slightly younger than before, so he has been in the Pyrenees area for the last year only.
Answering my own question.
Knight 1250
Hospitalliers 1250
According to my Osprey book "English Medieval Knight (the red one) 1200-1300, plate was still a thing of the future (1275+) but some pieces ofnplate was starting to be seen, like the pieces that protect the knees or lower legs. Plate surcoats no, but pieces of it were in development.
Will look into plate jambes then 
Oh, I missed it, sorry for the waste of time.
Oh? That's fun, how different persons see things differently.
To me, what you're describing is more a character who knows of the gift, meets a new magus, and keeps saying "No, this ain't real, this is the gift speaking, I mustn't trust my feelings".
I take "becoming acclimated to a specific Gift" as literally that, kinda like addicts getting used to a specific drug: With time and familiarity, it bothers you less and less.
Note that this is kinda contradicted by the part where good treatment and all impacts the time this takes... But if this were only an intellectual battle, any character could, kinda, become "immune to the gift": You wouldn't have to begin everything anew with each new magus.
So there's probably a bit of both, I dunno 
Anyway, human or animal, and whatever the view, I think you can get used to someone's gift, and that good treatment can shorten the time it takes. Animals aren't stupid, and they remember how you treat them.
Of course, I totally agree with you that seasons is waaaaay too short anyway, and agree that the section above is to train an animal, absolutely not getting it to be used to your gift.
That is my take on this as well. As I read the corebook, people don't trust you, and, on top of this, you've got a -3.
Or, maybe, since people, especially magi, don't hang around horses a lot, it's just that they don't spend enough time with them, and caring for them.
I prefer this interpretation, as it allows magi to dedicate their time to have a favourite animal... which becomes all the more precious since it took so much to get it there.
It also allows Mage-Knight to ride one horse (but not horses) without needing a special virtue, or magic.
Also, Relics are the Best Thing Ever against demons 
So much so that I'd houserule the part on then in RoP:tD
This kind of thing was at the core of many disputes between Silveroak and me 
In my opinion, he does overspecialized characters with a level of skill that you're not supposed to have, aside from legendary characters who should be sought by kings and archmagi alike (Quoting Edge of the Razor and its paltry +2 to damage: "sharpens a metal edge to a degree unequaled by manual methods").
Yet, all they do is sit around and churn things, like "Who's next for an excalibur?". I believe they should be mythic, or treated like plot devices ("Now, the king has heard of your legendary smith. He requires her services"), but they feel mundane and boring, at least to me.
Obviously, Silveroak disagrees 
But there's another thing. I think he's wrong in his assessment of City and Guild.
Number of items produced.
He bases himself on C&G p68, "seasonnal production chart", that says a craftsman produces (skill/5) * 2 longswords per season.
The thing is, there's that big headline above the chart: "Standard quality items produced in a season"
=> Yes, donna can churn out 6 longswords. But there are standard quality.
The beginning of "Basic Craftsman Production" (p67) says it: a Worskshop total is similar to an hermetic one, and the procedure to craft goods should feel similar to creating hermetic spells.
=> IMO, you can't both produce more items and better ones, just like having a lab total of 50 doesn't mean that you can produce twice as many spells twice as strong as with a total of 25.
Usability of Excellent Quality items.
This is briefly touched upon in C&G 69: "Excellent quality items are generally made for a specific person or purpose".
This is further clarified in detail in BS&S 112: "excellent items (...) must be personally tailored for the user. (...) if, for example, an excellent cloak is stolen, then, for any other user it is merely Superior, adding +1 to a single Ability"
Note, though, that this will only slow down things.
I like that interpretation as well. It would be nice to think that a magus could, over the course of years, train an animal to at least tolerate them. (Though given the time it might take and the fact that animals have far shorter lifespans than magi, that might be more difficult than it seems.) My concern with that interpretation is the quote I took from p. 76 of the core rules:
Animals also react badly to people with The Gift. In their case, the reaction tends to be a combination of fear and hostility, with much more hostility if the magus has the Blatant Gift. Gifted characters cannot ride horses without magical aid, as the horse tries to throw them off as quickly as possible. Similarly, they can never train dogs to recognize them as friends.
That seems to imply to me that a magus could never ride a horse without magical aid. And it explicitly says that a magus can never train a dog to recognize them as a friend. I have to think that if it were possible to gain enough familiarity with a particular beast this description would have a qualifier. For example, it might say: "Gifted characters cannot ride horses without magical aid or a great deal of training, as the horse tries to throw them off as quickly as possible. Similarly, it would take years to train a dog to recognize them as a friend." Since the rules did not provide such a qualifier, I tend to think it's impossible.
This is very helpful and I will take the time to review this. Been putting it off. The page number citation helps 
Silveroak did break the "Don't be a Munchkin" rule. But it was a long time ago. And Silveroak is one of our most active participants. And he has yet to do anything such as this. It is just theory. So not a huge concern. Yet.
My own personal issue is that the character sits in the background. But that is about to change. Donna wants to go on the Ancient Discovery expedition. Which should be fun. Exposing and playing the character helps me to understand the character and remember their quirks. I feel that characters need to play to their flaws to get others to recognize them and give me the opportunity to be inspired how I or another can make that flaw work for a story.
true, however it indicates that it is usually made for a specific purpose, not that it takes longer. it also doesn't say it doesn't, so it is something that requires a house rule. I am fine with the house rule given.
I have 3 issues with that official rule about dogs and horses.
Magi wouldn't be unable to have animal companions in this case.bthis is not true.
Gifted people would be unable to approach a mundane animal to befriend it so they can turn it into their familiar. This is untrue as well. Even if magi tend to link themselves with Might creatures, other Gifted people like Folk Witches do not. And this would be impossible for them if that rule was in effect.
It is less cool that hitting your real world head against a wall until it bleeds and removes a.lot of story potential.
So, I think the rules writers went overboard in their restrictions here and would simply ignore it if I had to.make a ruling. If we use this strictly say bye bye to familiars. Ever.
Xavi, I have to respectfully disagree with you. I think the rules make complete sense, and honestly, to ignore them really takes the bite out of the social disadvantages of The Gift, which are supposed to be an issue. And I would expect that animals would be even more affected by The Gift than humans, because they can't eventually come to rationalize the feelings they're having the way a human (or sentient being) can.
As for familiars, as you said, Magi only choose familiars with "inherent magic" and as you said, generally have a magic might score, and thus wouldn't be affected by The Gift. As for Folk Witches, I honestly don't have an opinion since I play Ars Magica to play a Magus and haven't really read much about them.
But there are absolutely ways that a Gifted person can have an animal companion. Gentle Gift and Inoffensive to Animals come to mind immediately. And of course there are magical means like Animal magic to make animals more amenable. And maybe you can share your Parma with an animal to make it immune to your Gift?
I create a blatant gift Magus. I assign him an animal companion. He has incompatible animal everything.
Suddenly this supplement comes out and he is illegal?
Second case: Finding a mundane animal and binding with him as a familiar is a single season lab activity for a blatant gifted witch or magus. I suppose it is a traumatic experience for the animal and that he is tied with ropes during the whole season. And as a consequence he develops the True Friend virtue after being bound to the witch or Magus.
Making it very hard to train an animal is not a problem. I actually would like that a lot more than the binding a familiar easily as it happens in the previous paragraph. The problem is tha the rules say that is is just not possible. At all. Ever.
I hadn't thought of that. Then again, the Virtues are for all sorts of characters, Gifted and non-Gifted. It may be possible that some combinations of character and virtue are not possible. After all, non-Gifted people can't take Hermetic virtues, grogs can't take Story flaws, and it would be extremely difficult for certain character types to take certain social virtues that their race or gender might make implausible.
A non-Gifted grog or companion could certainly have an animal companion. Perhaps if a magus wants to have one for story reasons they can have one who has Unaffected by the Gift. That could explain how they befriended the animal and doesn't do injustice to a back story. .
I can't say for certain that it's categorically untrue. It would certainly make it harder to approach an animal to make it your familiar. It certainly wouldn't be impossible. The rules basically say that without magic, you can never really get an animal to like you. But it's clear that you can have some sort of transactional interface with them at a -3.
You can thus use various skills (at -3) to convince an animal to become your familiar. And once it's bound, magic keeps it from minding your Gift. I certainly think that means it would not make familiars an impossibility.
I don't necessarily see it as removing story potential. It certainly limits some story possibilities. But it opens others, albeit ones based on a deficiency rather than an advantage. And really any character concept you choose will close a few story possibilities and open others.
And I agree with PoB that taking away the social disadvantage of the Gift really takes a bite out of what is supposed to be a major concept in the game. And it makes those who spent Virtue points to get Gentle Gift or Inoffensive to Animals feel a little less special.
Frankly, most sagas I've seen don't impose nearly enough of a penalty for the Gift. Often it seems that storytellers remember to impose a -3 penalty to rolls, but otherwise have non-Gifted people treat magi just fine.
FWIW, this is not from a supplement that suddenly came out. It is from the core rule book at the very beginning of the description of how the Gift works. It's one of the first things you see in the rules when you start to learn about how magic works. It shouldn't be surprising to anyone.
We have to be careful about what the rules do and do not say. They say, by way of example, that a Gifted person can never ride a horse without magical assistance and can never make a dog his friend. I think that's perfectly reasonable.
The rules do not say that you can't train a dog to perform a task. You'll be at -3 to do so. And when you're working with the dog it'll probably growl at you and nip at you the whole time. But you can get the dog to do the task if you're good enough at Animal Handling.
The rules do not say that you can't bind an animal as your familiar. Presumably this would involve some sort of negotiation process (easier for an intelligent animal - I'm not really certain how an unintelligent animal gives consent). Again, this would be transactional and would likely involve some rolls at -3 (or -6 for Blatant Gift). Hard? Yes. Impossible? No.
But if you want to befriend a dog such that it will sit at your feet while you read and jump on your bed to sleep with you, I do think that according to the rules such an outcome is (and should be) impossible without magic. At all. Ever.
In a world with magic, in general I prefer absolutes to be absent.
Regarding the effects of the gift, in my troupe we changed into -5 and -10 for normal and blatant Gift. If you had Gentle Gift you have -10 to your magic, since you just have a weaker Gift. So, we tend to agree that effects of the Gift tend to be downplayed. I just cannot see how removing any option to accomplish something is positive to the game or mythic universe.
That must be tough for the people who spent three virtue points and forewent a different major Hermetic virtue to get the Gentle Gift.
I have two thoughts on that.
First, this is Ars Magica. Everything is possible with magic (well, almost everything). Many of the challenges faced by a Gifted character can be, if not overcome, at least addressed with magic.
Second, we limit our characters all the time in the choices we make at character creation. If we have a character who is missing a leg or is blind or is mute they will have certain options removed from what their character can accomplish. If a companion is a Moor, he may have certain options forever blocked off. A female companion can never become a Christian priest. A Jewish companion would also suffer certain absolute restrictions within the historical setting. It's the same with Hermetic flaws. Some of those will absolutely restrict a magus from taking certain actions. Character flaws are meant to restrict us, and we think they're a good thing.
The Gift is sort of like a four-point virtue and a one-point flaw all rolled up into one. Yes, you get really cool abilities for being Gifted. But you suffer a flaw, just like any other flaw. And that flaw will limit you.
In the end we build a character with a set of benefits and restrictions because we think it will be fun to see how we can use the benefits to our advantage and succeed despite the restrictions.
So, I don't see it as a bad thing to say that some character concepts take certain options off the table. Not everyone can do everything. Character design, much like life, is about making decisions and prioritizing what you want.
oh geeze, where to start.
I believe in the sanctity of Virtues. Meaning that, if you take the Animal Companion Virtue as a magus, that specific animal is unaffected by specifically your gift. No extra is needed. As for Hedge Wizards, it is rude to say I am unconcerned. But I really am not that concerned. Folk Witches and Grugachan are kinda cool though. Sometimes it is best to make case-by-case exceptions.
Maybe the gifted folk witch met a cat that shares the same birthday,
I also do not think in absolutes. It is a game, and the subject is magic. Games are games. They are fiction. Magic doesn't have to be fully rationalized. It is fiction.
There are as many ways to rationalize things as your imagination permits. Even going "by the rules".
As for "Animal Training" and "Ride", I am of the opinion that, if your Ability total is high enough to overcome the penalty, you can still use the ability at a penalty. Same for social abilities like Charm. Cosmetic negative effects are always present. But cosmetics are not absolutes.
PoP: Magic Might does not render the animal immune to the Gift. And you cannot share Parma without the consent of the target. Finding the right Familiar is a matter of hand-waved kismet. Even under the best circumstances. You can't just make any magic animal a familiar. Metagame OOC you do, but in game it should be a spiritual discovery. You were meant to be together.
On a side note, have any of you seen that recent episode of Rick & Morty where Morty gets a dragon? Priceless 
As for the Gift HR Xavi uses in his games, not my cup of tea, but if it works for him then fantastic. I would suggest a slight revision. Gentle Gift is a Minor Virtue and carries a -3 Penalty to casting (not lab). Blatant Gift would be a Minor Flaw, and grants a +3 casting bonus. Normal Gift unchanged. Keep all the social penalty stuff. OR, reduce the social effect to -1 Normal and -3 Blatant, Gentle/Blatant are again Minor.
Maybe that animal the magus feels a connection to and eventually bonds with as a Familiar has something like Unaffected by the Gift?
If a magus, even one with Blatant Gift, has Animal Companion - it works. The magusâ backstory should explain why, or decide it is a mystery, or that it doesnât matter to you. Just make a choice. I donât see why a magus shouldnât be able to have a non Familiar animal companion, but if your Troupe doesnât want him to, then define why.
I think the social effects of the Gift should be remembered but not exaggerated. The -3 can be mitigated by high social ability scores but the feelings of suspicion and envy prevails.
People can over time get used to the Gift of specific people but not in general. IMHO it should be the same for animals.
And as for certain hedge wizards, a peculiarity of their Gift, after being opened to their relevant Traditions may be that certain animals arenât bothered by their Gift.
That is a perfectly valid explanation to me which serves a purpose of not ruining the mythic feeling of some hedgies befriending animals without them being Familiars per se, while still retaining social effects of being Gifted, which IMHO is important to keep wizards and mundanes separated.
I have a vague idea for something. I am referencing the Armaments HR, which is based off of Lords of Men, both of which differ from C&G.
My idea is to add twice the bonuses provided by the weapon to the divider. And round down instead of up.
Items Produced = Craft score divided by 5 + (twice the bonus(es) provided), multiplied by two for Longswords.
Donna, at a score of 15, can produce in a Season...
(15/5) x2 = 6 Standard Longswords
(15/7) x2 = 4 Superior Longswords (+1 Attack)
(15/9) x2 = 3 Supreme Longswords (+1 Attack, +1 Damage)
(15/13) x2 = 2 Excellent Longswords (+2 Attack, +2 Damage)
(15/17) x2 = 1 Exceptional Longswords (+3 Attack, +3 Damage)
(15/21) x2 = 1 Extraordinary Longswords (+4 Attack, +4 Damage)
15/25) x2 = 1 Exquisite Longswords (+5 Attack, +5 Damage)
Lords of men is extremely lenient in how good weapons can get.
So, Donna can produce +1 +2 and +5 sword (no reason to go for `3 and +4 swords. Unless there is a materials cost. Excalibur is not just a blade, it is decorated with exceptional craftsmanship in gold silver and precious stones.
Not relevant for this saga since Andorra is wealthy at Amazon or Microsoft levels but it would be something.
Keep thinking that way and we will go broke in no time. Carmen tends to be tight with the purse strings. But you have a point. Material cost should be a factor. As long as she is not cranking out Excalibur every season, it isn't a big concern. Donna is a Dwarf blooded blacksmith. She is perhaps one in only a dozen people in Mythic Europe at this skill level. There are rumors of a magus in Denmark who is even better.
C'mon man. Don't break the system when I am trying to compromise. Anything better than Supreme (+1/+1, the Toledo Longsword) has to be custom made for the individual. The Excalibur (+5/+5) you make for one guy is Supreme (+1/+1) in the hands of another.
We may have conflicting visions of what sort of "business" Donna is maintaining. I see her as working exclusively for a single client, Andorra Covenant. Even if not exclusive, I cannot imagine where her other clients would come from.
really? what market could their possibly be for high quality weapons in late Reconquista Spain as it enters into the period of the Iberian crusades?
I was asking primarily as a reason to allow him to get his weapon for this adventure as opposed to a later one, not a problem otherwise. Though the quality of an item is also a bonus to enchant it, so...