Sure, if we want to use house rules. But we are talking about canon, right? There distinctly is rounding in canon.
Chris
I didn't say there wasn't. And MetaCreator is a frequenty adopted house rule...
60% is almost the best case: 3 -> 5 xp (66%) is barely better than 5 -> 8 xp (60%). Moreover, a lab rat would gain 2 -> 3 xp (50%) which would pull the average down. Only a double Affinity would offer (1+1) -> (2+2) xp (100%).
The general solution is 50% + 1 per 2 odd seasons. For instance, 10 seasons of Q11 will give (10 * 11 * 1.5 + 5 = 170 xp). Those 5 extra xp are but one short adventure.
Again, with double Affinity a lab rat could gain 40 xp in 10 seasons. The 100% bonus looks impressive until you compare that to the 170 xp from above. The moral is: don't do lab work for the Affinity bonus.
Lab rat: 1xp in Art 1, 1xp in Art 2 every season. If Art 1 has an Affinity, then the lab rat gets 2xp in Art 1 and 1 xp in Art 2. That's 100%, pulling the average way up. Or if you're using correspondence rules and just dump it all into Art 1, you get 5 for 3, which is roughly 67%, still well over 60%.
Roughly, yes, and that makes the % value of the +1/2 depend on how much you get in a single season. However, I say roughly because this is only true if the Quality is truly random. It isn't. With lab work you get 1, 2, or 3 (with correspondence). Even neglecting player choice that could make that odd 100% of the time, it could still be odd 67% of the time. The same happens with adventures: 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 is odd 60% of the time randomly, or up to 100% of the time from player choice. So, roughly, yes, but in truth that is not the general solution.
Uh, no, that is absolutely backward. If you want to get the most Affinity bonus you want to put lots of lab work into the Affinity's Art/Ability. You do much better putting some reading seasons into the other Arts and putting 1 or 3 per season into the Affinity's Art than you do by reading for the Affinity's Art and using the lab exposure entirely for the other Arts. If that's not clear, look here:
10x Q10 tractatus and 10x Q11 tractatus (will always be split evenly to deal with averages)
20 seasons of lab work (skipping correspondence)
Thinking lab work is bad for Affinities:
10 seasons reading -> 160xp in the Affinity's Art
10 seasons reading -> 105xp in other Arts
40xp from exposure in other Arts
Net: 160xp in the Affinity's Art, 145xp in other Arts
Thinking lab work is good for Affinities:
8 seasons reading -> 128xp in the Affinity's Art
12 seasons reading -> 126xp in other Arts
40xp from exposure in the Affinity's Arts
20xp from exposure in other Arts
Net: 168xp in the Affinity's Art, 146xp in other Arts
Those are for the same time investment. It should be pretty clear that using exposure from the lab with an Affinity can be more beneficial than not doing so. It is better to put book time into your non-Affinity Arts in exchange for a point a season put into Affinity Arts in the lab.
Chris
I'm sorry, I don't follow this piece?
2 xp from exposure, becomes 3 xp (well, 2+1) because of single affnity, namely
How is that 100%, unless you look purely on Art 1 in isolation?
Since i/we have always either used a base/adjusted XP notation system(ie never more than 1XP total extra from rounding) or simply had a separate listing of how much regular XP is needed per level with affinity, no then it adds as close to 50% as is possible without being 100% exact.
My above use of a dual notation of base/adjusted XP isnĀ“t a HR, merely another way of doing it "by the book".
It still getĀ“s rid of the exploit completely. And iĀ“m not sure if thereĀ“s any specific way of HOW you get the Affinity bonus in RAW either? Which would make the other method no more HR either.
Spreadsheet? Aw thatĀ“s cheating! IĀ“ve got Arts up to score 70 and Abilities up to score 25 handmade with and without affinity. :mrgreen:
So you don't round up the Study Total? You keep the Study Total as a decimal and then round up in the very end. Right?
Chris
No decimals, no rounding of study totals at all. Note down all XP as normal, this is the base XP, then for affinities you add an "adjusted number" which is always +50%, if base XP is uneven, adjusted XP rounds up as normal, but if base XP then next gets +1XP then the round up means adjusted XP remains the same. Ie, there can never be more than one single effective XP extra.
That Affinities can lead to rounding Study Totals up is RAW, explicitly.
I have no problem with people using this HR and have happily played in sagas using it. But let's be honest, no rounding of Study Totals at all is an HR as it directly contradicts what is written explicitly in RAW.
Chris
Well, problem with that is that RAW actually says it in one place(for Arts), but specifically does not in the other(for Abilities)...
So, as RAW contradicts itself, what IS RAW is pretty much an open question.
IF, the first Affinity variant had had the rules and the second just "like for abilities but with Arts" or even the reverse had been true(although doing the reverse would look totally strange and be bad editing) then it would still have been reasonably clear, but as it is, both Virtues have a complete explanation written out, and one lacks the "round up" completely while the other includes it for both study totals and even starting experience.
And... since there are no other inconcistencies of this sort in the book, it seems like it isnĀ“t one. But that creates a rule exception that is just odd... So, essentially iĀ“m applying the stated rules for Affinity Abilities also to Arts, because they cant be exploited, adding the AM5 general rule that you round up if there are fractions, simple as that.
Right, but you don't round up Study Totals "at all," meaning not even for Arts. Thus you use a house rule. There is no question about this.
No, RAW does not contradict itself. In one case it tells you specifically. In the other it's left vague. It doesn't tell you if you round up, round down, or don't round at all. All three are possible. That doesn't contradict the other, it just isn't explicitly one way or the other. There is an enormous difference between not specifying and contradicting.
Had you said you ruled one way on Arts and the other way on Abilities, that could be a rules interpretation. Since that's not how you rule on Affinities, your method is a house rule. There is nothing wrong with it, but you should not claim it is not a house rule.
Chris
I declare this thread officially derailed... 
Incorrect, in one place it IS there, in the other it is NOT. Very simple and binary. Not a hint of vagueness.
Fine, why dont you show me any other place which makes such a difference between 2 otherwise identical mechanics.
And as iĀ“ve already stated, the contradiction is created through omission, as it is an exception to the standard.
No kidding...
ARISE FROM THE GRAVE OH LONGEVITY THREAD!
New question:
I've been playing around with the Lesser Elixir and ran into the same problem regarding vis limits. Frankly, the Lesser Elixir is not as potent as believed.
First, you need to gain the Virtue with it being the fifth step in the Order of the Green Cockerel (my test character's mystery). This took until she was around sixty. Then she needed to add materials to it. Each addition of a component requires the maga to brew a new batch of the potion. Per the rules, this would require a new investment of vis at her new age. This pawn limit is restricted by her Corpus Art. So while your maga may be 110 years old, the possibility of adding additional components is not very likely unless you still spent a significant amount of time working on your Corpus. Granted, it does provide two things... 1) No chance of a failure for a long time! AND 2) Apparent Age remains static even without Unaging.
As an example, my Maga is approximately 90 years old, her Longevity+Elixir rating is 15. So she isn't going to roll an Aging failure forever... but she needs to have a Corpus of 18 to add new components to her elixir. Basically, she needed to spend about ten years adding components to get it up to 15, when her Corpus was where it could be used to brew new batches.
In the end it's moot... since Warping will take her long before the Elixir ever runs out but the added trouble of getting Lesser Elixir and the study/prep times is almost worth less than focusing on Magical Theory and Corpus alone.
I wish the Lesser Elixir would replace the vis requirement... that would be an actual bonus! An option to allow components to replace vis would be nice. That was an option in 3rd or 4th edition but I can't remember if it was replicated in 5th edition.
Another Thought
Considering a rule to allow Magic Theory limit or Art limit in longevity rituals to brew new batches. Kinda silly that you can brew a new longevity ritual for a 80 year old with MT/8 but you can't brew it again without a Corpus of 16. I think you should be able to use the higher number. Maybe I'm missing something...