Newbie Solicitation for Advice (#3?)

This is not true.

In a peaceful situation, a mastered spell never rolls botch dice on his stress die if a 0 occurs.

At the opposite of formulaic, ritual use always a stress die. That doesn't mean that they are always stressful.

True but a little misleading: in a peaceful situation (when using a simple die roll*), there is never a chance of botch regardless of whether the spell is mastered.

The definition of a stress die includes the possibility of botching, so whether the characters are feeling stress or not is irrelevant: rituals always include a chance of a botch.

Excellently put. I second this fully and whole heartedly.
For those who would think otherwise from my above post, please understand that I was arguing not about the boosters themselves, but purely about the artificial restrictions that some people were suggesting.

Again wrong: mastered spells always use a stress die, even in peaceful situation.

No, Gerg is right (even if you are too) - see page 81, "Formulaic Magic" -

"If the maga is not under any pressure, it is a simple die"
What this means is that all those casual "daily" utility (formulaic!) spells - lighting candles every night, or removing dirt, or scrying on the Duke - no chance of self-destruction, even if unmastered, no matter how many times you cast them.

Once mastered, it's always a stress die, but with rules which mean you cannot botch since there are no botch dice if relaxed-
"...Mastered spells are always cast with a stress die, but if the mage is relaxed there are no botch dice..." (p 86, last par)
What this means is that the Mastered Caster regains a chance at an open-ended roll to attain high Casting Totals, but still not the usual chance of self-destruction - all good.

So, in short:

Unmastered Formulaic:
no stress: Simple Die (+1 to +10)
Stress: Stress Die (+0 (or botch?) to +9 or doubled)

Mastered Formulaic:
no stress: Stress Die, no botch dice (+0 to +9 or doubled)
Stress: Stress Die, -# botch dice = Mastery level (+0 (or (less chance to) botch?) to +9 or doubled)

Funny thing is, you seem to be agreeing with ExarKun :slight_smile:


That is wrong. Thus my answer. And as spot Tellus, you are exactly saying what i say :stuck_out_tongue:

Relative to how RAW presents "average" power gain and Vis availability i guess is the rough answer.
I´ve tended to be in somewhat Vis poor games(especially after i changed so that any lab work uses Vis or gets penalised(or get a small bonus from using extra, making Vis richness much more desirable and noticeable), because even with low gains Vis was still stored up in big chunks) and the "worst" would be that it took some time to fix.
This is one of the reasons why i changed Permanent to raise the magnitude of spells somewhat(and raised the Vis cost severely to get Permanence), because it seemed "less than optimal" for a permanent spell to be 20 levels lower than one for Year duration...

Exarkun, i would NEVER allow this kind of spell to have anything but Target Individual. I consider that going severe munchkin.

Dont forget that you can develop the low level version much more easily first(because getting the one for +5 right away is going to be somewhat of a strain, both to develop and in Vis for Casting), preferably the highest possible that you can get in 1 or 2 seasons of work(unless a major specialist, usually thats the level 35 one). The similar spellbonus makes a BIG difference when you create higher level ones.
Preferably, you find a NPC or PC that is either a Creo specialist, or one with CrMe specialisation. Unless they´re young they will likely have 20+ in both Arts(or 30+/5+ for a Creo spec.), with some MT( 5-8 ), Int(+3 ), familiar(4-9), decent lab(3-9), ok aura(3-5) and your PC as assistant(6-12), that will often reach a lab total of 70-80 without problems.

Problem then is that they become utterly useless. Raising +4 to +5 would then be a Level 75 ritual. That kind of vis expense and the warping for raising a stat more than by +1, and just the much greater difficulty in developing the spell... No, at that point it has no reason to even exist at all.

Yup, that was a big part of my point as well.

Oh yes. Which is why only relatively few actually DO up stats a lot.

Warp yourself for 5 years to write the best summa ever. The stop being so communicative. How is that useless? :confused:

But well, them being useless is a fairly positive result IMS, so I would buy it. YMDV


Um... no.

What exactly do you think is "wrong" with it? Doesn't specify Mastered Spell, so I see only RAW re any standard Formulaic casting.

Nothing "wrong" about that statement. In a peaceful situation with standard formulaic spells, you use a simple die, and so there is zero chance of botch. True = not wrong.

And nothing "wrong" with that statement either. In a peaceful situation, even when mastered there is no chance of botch. True = not wrong.

Now, combining the two together does confuse the dice thing up a bit, but it's still not "wrong", just not as clear as it could be.

(English: The idiot bastard child of incestuous European cousins.) :unamused:

Why is this wrong?

  • ritual always have a stress die thus may botch, even in peaceful situation (unless mastered, of course)
  • peaceful situation is not using a simple die roll, since mastered spell always use a stress die, even in peaceful situation
  • non fatiguing spell casting do not use a die roll (neither simple nor stress) in a peaceful situation
  • in a peaceful situation, casting a spontaneous spell needs a stress die.

Choose your reason :wink:.

Most caster would be in a magical aura which has no impact on botch dice ("Aura ... botch ... foreign realm." ArM5 p 183, realm interaction).

And there this crazy last sentence on p 86 "Mastered ... relaxed ... no botch dice". The only way out of madness is to decide that rituals are never relaxed.

BTW, maybe the Ritual Casting Total should be errata'd to be "... + Stress Die" instead of "... + Die Roll"

That has been suggested before - (may even be erratta'd? I know I use it, forget if it's "canon" or no)

No one (except you, just now) is talking about rituals.

He wasn't (necessarily) talking about mastered spells.

No one ( except you , just now) is talking about spont spells (see rituals, above)

(see rituals, above)

I'm done with this.

Really? I could have sworn that rather a lot of us were talking about Instant Creo spells with lasting effect (making them rituals) vs spells that rather quickly pass level 50, making them - again - rituals.
Did I miss something?


No one in the cited exchange* is talking about Rituals...

(* Gerg, EK and myself)

I'm sure someone, somewhere is talking about Rituals.


out. (no, really.)

Not to throw any fuel on this particular debate, but...

First, I thought Mages were "native" to magic auras, and therein did not incur extra botch dice. Foreign realms would be Divine, Infernal and Faerie.

Second, if talking about mastering CrMe rituals invented by the player (implying no mastery lab text is available), how exactly would they do that? The only method I have found for mastering a spell without a lab text is through "practice", requiring repeated casting of the spell over and over during a season. That would seem prohibitively expensive for a ritual.

You may practice the spell and not cast it. Nothing against that in the rules.

The Ars magica community has a longstanding tradition of encouraging the use of ReIg wards or asbestos suits. You should have seen Ber(zer)k List in ye olden days.

They are. Lots of people forget that detail.

Yeah. It's ... (almost) generally accepted by most (some, anyway) board members that you can practice rituals without actually fully casting them.
Going through the motions, so to speak.
Personally, I always so this as practicing "this bit" repeatedly, before moving on to the next bit. Kinda like how many people learn how to dance.
After all, rituals consist on no less than a full hour of words and motions - there has to be some variation in this :wink:

Yeah. It's ... (almost) generally accepted by most (some, anyway) board members that you can practice rituals without actually fully casting them.
Going through the motions, so to speak.
Personally, I always so this as practicing "this bit" repeatedly, before moving on to the next bit. Kinda like how many people learn how to dance.
After all, rituals consist on no less than a full hour of words and motions - there has to be some variation in this :wink:
I see your point, more or less, but on the other hand, I'm not sure I'd be cool with letting someone "master" a ritual they had never cast. That seems... A bit odd. Maybe it's the programmer in me, but I look at that as someone doing a code review and then declaring the code bug free without ever running it, let alone exploring use cases or edge cases. Mastery to me seems to be about knowing the edge cases as well as the use cases, therein reducing the chance of unexpected problems cropping up (botches). Maybe if I was a chemist, I'd have a different perspective 8).