Newbie question: Restoring speech using Imaginem?

One of the characters in my saga has lost his tongue, and gained the “Mute” flaw. Now, some of the magi of the troupe want to restore his speech, but using CrCo is out of question. One of them wanted to create a lesser enchantment to do it, by using Imaginem… but I’m not sure this is possible.

The only method I can think of is using MuIm to turn his “grunts” into “understandable words/sounds”, including Intellego and Mentem requisites to give meaning to the sounds, and maybe adding an extra magnitude for complexity.

Is this right? Somehow it seems wrong…

Sorry if this has already been discussed before… I did a quick search and found nothing.

While I could see to an extra magnitude for complexity, I wouldn't require requisites. Creo Imaginem is fine here.
An enchantment with "concentration maintained by object" seems the simplest way to do it, and I'd probably consider that the intelligibility of his speech is limited in a non-intrusive, simple way, rule wise. Something like limiting his effective language score by his Finesse score, if he has Finesse 3, for example, the enchantment would allow him to speak as if he had 3 in his native lang./latin scores. If/when the character would like to overcome this, then and only then I'd ask for an Int+Finesse roll (adjust difficulty as you'd see fit).

Since that'd imply three constraints to so restore his speech, as such...

  • season(s) of work & vis spent to create the object.
  • Finesse limiting his quality of speech/effective language score
  • dependability of an object... which could be lost/stolen/disenchanted by other magi.

...I'd daresay that's not an overgenerous way of letting him deal with his affliction. ysmv.

I think that seems reasonable. I would require the InMe requisites as otherwise the spell should be less successful as it can only "guess" what he is actually saying.
Don´t think you need extra for complexity then though. You could add ~+2 for complexity instead of the requsites perhaps, ie. instead making the spell more capable of "interpretation".

A device that does Phatasm of the Talking head, which happens to display in the same place as the person's head.

I'd love to see a good sigil employed here... Face turns blue when speaking. Forked tongue. That kind of thing.

The main problem for this is that the mute character is a companion with no Finesse...

Yep, maybe having both requisites and extra magnitudes for complexity is too much...

Wow... That would be spectacular, indeed. However, I still see this more as a MuIm than a CrIm...

Ok, create the image slightly ahead of the actual face. The new species wil be sent instead of the person's face/voice.

MuIm guidelines suggest changing the sensations of an object. Trying to make the grunts become intelligible speech to others would be something I'd expect a Muto specialist to take up as a challenge in making an effect match the Phatasm of the Talking Head...

Seems perfectly sensible to me. As Direwolf suggests, a strategy might be to have a device that "reads his thoughts" and relays them as a "sound 'image'".

Out of interest, why is CrCo not viable? Is this just because the particular magi don't have the expertise to do do this?

Yup. Let's say my group is... "spiritually" inclined. And also, quite stingy with vis... specially when spent on a mundane.

And the enchantment would not be automatic (which would, most definitely, require some sort of InMe for "reading of intent" of the user). What this would do is put a magic device under the control of this mundane, and Finesse is required to get fine CrIm results if those results are not specifically defined/pre-programmed by the item itself. (For instance, I'd believe a device that says "yes" or "no" perfectly without Finesse, and perhaps with some other variables (like "volume/loudness"), but not one that then explains "why" by itself without user-input, not without the aforementioned InMe req's.

Additional mag's might well make more sense, since the "activation" is going to need a lot of variables to explain.

Not by the rules, but perhaps for the "scale" of the final effect. However, the Central Rule says to apply "common sense", not "mercy" - keep your rational (more or less) consistent with the rest of your Saga's interpretations of how magic works, and you'll be fine.