Oh, sorry - I'm used to keeping OOC questions/comments in the OOC threads, and reserving IC threads for only IC posts, so the story isn't disrupted as you read it.
Will do.
Over the last couple of months, I've had to go through every story in order to summarize them for the chronology. That gets hard when posts are spread out among multiple groups. Even if you're just reading the stories are stories, rather than as a record, if you can't find the OOC posts, you're going to miss a lot of what's going on.
That being said, anything that applies generally to the saga can reasonably be posted in "OOC Discussion", even if it's inspired by a particular story.
Scott
I mentioned this in a reply to Sal's note about last weekend, but I'll be incommunicado from later today until after the weekend.
I might have time to log back on later tonight, but otherwise, readya then!
(Theo will push ahead as per his last plan - wait and watch, try to be "temperate" and a "clear thinker", even while being treacherous.)
ALSO, I missed that he is "Humble" - so he should have been consulting the brothers more than he's been. That is starting with the most recent post.
And back (in body if not in mind).
I hate to see any rule get nerfed when it doesn't need to be, esp here where it's "fallout" from a diff issue. One solution would be to allow VA to create larger bonuses, maybe bump "default" bonuses by 50% (once only). That could explain where some of the higher-end bonuses like Red Coral (+10 vs. demons) and Silver (+10 vs. lycanthropes) came from (which might otherwise have only had +7 or so, which is already very strong).
Of course, many of the existing bonuses might already have been "boosted" in this way as listed, and so are not available to be boosted again - which leaves the door open for SG discretion on a case by case basis.
Perhaps a cap of +5 for quick ones, and we leave the defaults alone from the core rules, with the hand waving / understanding that they might have been discovered through VA or not.
Yeah, something in that direction. (I have a hard time picturing any mage to have spent a season to gain a +1 bonus in any Shape or Material, or even anything much less than +4, yet those are quite common. I like our interpretation better.)
Another topic - are we ruling that Range:Personal spells have to penetrate that caster's own Parma? Or are we ignoring that extra source of dice-rolling? (If it matters, I'd vote for the former, but I've played both ways.)
I'm still not sure about the extra complication of having two levels of bonuses, but I'll consider it....
I think canonically range Personal spells don't need to penetrate.
Scott
By RAW, personal range spells don't have you pentrate Parma - see page 85 of the main rule book, under the "Functioning of Magic Resistance" section. I don't think there's any reason to deviate from this.
On the Shape and Materials front, I'm a bit wary that this turns into "and you get +5 to your lab total whenever you're making an enchanted item", but am struggling to come up with ways to prevent it from doing so that don't add masses amount of bookwork. I suppose there could be a complete houserule that says using a non-standard shape/material bonus costs something, but I'm not sure that's compatible with the original desire for the shapes and materials to be only examples.
Yes, most enchanted items are going to get a shape bonus or a material bonus, or both, but I think that was the original intent of the list--and the shape or material that gives a bonus isn't always the most convenient one. Plus, using them adds color, and makes enchanted items seem more appropriate to their uses.
Scott
Yep - but allowing you to make up your own suddenly turns them a lot more convenient unless there are some sort of restrictions in place. I think there does need to be some sort of restriction that means they don't all give a +5 bonus (and saying making the narrowness of the area affect the size of the bonus doesn't help, as people will just choose an appropriate narrow area), and also makes them have to be appropriate (this can be handled by troupe opinion, to an extent, although that's likely to lead to arguments).
Basically, I want to avoid rules that result in people just saying: "Okay, I want to enchant my oak wand talisman with $enchantment - the fact that it's made of oak means it'll get a +5 bonus for $marginally-plausible-reason. Oh, and I'll attune my talisman to that bonus while I'm at it, so I'll get a +5 bonus whenever I cast a relevant spell in future as well."
But not all bonuses are going to be +5. The existing lists are pretty clear on that. I don't think there's going to be a practical +5 bonus for every project, either.
Scott
The existing lists, definitely. I think there needs to be something stopping people from just picking the cap as the value given by a new bonus, though. Maybe roll a simple die and divide by 2? (Only allowed for shape/material per project.) Possible also say that creating new bonuses cannot result in a particular shape/material having more than one bonus. That method doesn't make any allowance for the appropriateness of the shape/material to the bonus sought, but is at least relatively simple.
Why not just do it by comparison with existing bonuses? Yes, it's a bit more adjudicating, but they do seem to have more logic than just a random die roll.
Scott
My concern there is that it will tend to the argument "this is a very specific and narrow case, so it should have a high bonus". Which is a reasonable argument in general, but has the problem in this case that you can always pick a suitable very narrow area to fit what you're trying to do, so it being narrow isn't actually a handicap. Or did you have another way of adjudicating the bonus in mind?
Oops - yeah, I meant any spell cast by the mage on themself, sorry, mis-typed.
"Marginally plausible reason" is worth +1 at most. But that's handy if nothing else fits - I mean, something should, even if "we" non-Hefrmetically trained players can't find it. Myself, I'd want to see something either "obvious" at face value or backed by some sort of medieval reference to get into the +5 range.
Common sense?
To use your example of "oak", oak is a large, strong tree, so an effect that strengthens wood (CrHe or possibly even MuHe) would make some sense - +3, maybe +5, somewhere in there. But to claim that oak applies to "CrCo" to make a person/animal/armour stronger??? +1 at most, and probably not that. (Go get some muscle tissue, or possibly some spinach, if you want a real bonus.)
For something over +5, I think it would have to be undeniably appropriate and/or well-referenced in myth or literature, and also narrowly defined - maggots to PeCo destroy a body, or hemlock to PeCo poison a person (and "shape" is much easier than "material" here*). A lantern might help detect honesty (ala Diogenes), but not above +5 as it is not obvious at face value in the way that Saddle:Riding (+7) is. However, I might give +3 to a horseshoe nail to lose a war, if that enchantment were possible. 
And after all that - SG has final say. Period.
(* Note - this could (would?) lead to "the image" of almost anything giving a large(ish) Shape bonus, but that means that such magic items are almost literally "labeled" as to what they do. Which, in a way, is appropriate.)
This is way too much bookwork, but my first though was to ask the person presenting the bonus to anchor it in the setting's lore. +1 for each reputable source/ref for the material as used in a mythic/legendary story, cannon ref, or historic setting. Max +5?
Unanimous agreement of a number carries over all.
In the wider picture, the bonuses would only be really abused if this is combined with talisman attunement. A one time extra few points in a creation lab total is not game changing imho. We could perhaps agree to a max of +3 unless the shape/material is so blisteringly obvious that it basically reflects the object's mundane function for the effect.
e.g. a Lever pulley granting a bonus to lifting with a ReTe effect, and oven granting a bonus to heat things within it for CrIg, a quill for writing beautifully, a bucket for transporting water.
This is zero bookwork.
It's 1-2 bonuses per enchanted item, and those should already be listed on the character sheets when the item is made as part of the lab notes. Done.
I was saying it was too much bookwork to ask the person to reference their bonus in the context of the setting.
Obviously the bonus needs to be written as part of the enchanted device construction description.
Ah.
Well, it has to be done somehow for every new Bonus, but that doesn't have to be an extended discussion each time. And it doesn't have to be referenced if it's obvious at face value (a "lamp" may not be connected to "honesty" without a reference to Diogenes, but it would be at face value for "creating light" so no reference necessary.)
I have terribly handwriting, so I want an effect that improves the appearance of my Scribing. I claim as Shape either a magnifying glass (to see better) or a parchment-maker's knife (to scrape/correct the mistake) at +4, and as Material... um... purified water, for "pureness of effort and 'fluid' writing", +3. I provide wiki links to the lens and knife.
And my work is done. The Troupe weighs my suggestions and adjusts accordingly (and probably reduces/denies the water bonus), and I either use it or I don't.
And to avoid multiple suggestions if/when the first fails to get the desired bonus, we can houserule "1 submission/season" - so if the first is shot down, the mage can do something else that season, or go with what they have, but we don't want to see endless "how about ink?" "how about hermetic ink?" "well, then, how about purified oil?" "well, how about purified honey?"... etc. GIve your best shot, give multiples at once, but don't milk it.