I quite agree; while it is not a rule issue, the rules do impact the point. Most centrally, Redcaps are supposed to interact with magi on a semi-equal basis, are not immune to the effects of the Gift, but seem to have no particular trouble. Do they somehow hold their magical nose?
Companions are in an even stranger position. Redcaps are exposed to magi from an early age; companions are not. If the position holds that magi are repulsive, as opposed to merely strange, companions need a motivation stronger than their aversion to associate with magi.
(Assuming you read the Gift as that strong, which I generally don't.)
I would like to find a small precision I wasn't able to find in the rulebooks on practicing spell mastery.
"Finally, practicing a spell for mastery by casting it repeatedly is worth a Source Quality of five." ArM5, p.164
Is it possible to practice a spell without having the required target, components, etc.? Especially, do you need a terrific amount of vis to practice mastery for a ritual (that is important because a magus would want to master an Aegis)?
Nightwalk8ng just works. It's not resisted by wards, which is deliberately terrifying for people depending on the Aegis or Parma against Phantastic bodies
Perhaps one thing - some mention of how apprentices get their Virtues and Flaws after their masters. Either via transitioning through Infantia to Pueritia to Adolescentia, or being specifically taught them, or whatever. As it stands, in core, there is no or little way to build a lineage. A brief mention of how it should work will suffice I think.
Actually, I would like to see the opposite. The blow by blow detail of every season of every year since birth is monotonous and really kills me when it comes to prep time. I mean, have all that detail as an option, sure. But I would far prefer some generic lug-and-play stat blocks. Like they had in 4th edition.
You could shoot for an intermediate. For example, I'm currently building per-7-years Ability score tables. But I agree, having plug-and-play statblocks would be nice for prepping NPCs and such.
Well ... "just works" is a bit vague.
Does it warp people? Is it detectable via magic (e.g. second sight, magic sensitivity etc.)? Is it dispellable? If the answer is "no" on all counts, hmm, ok, it just got all the more powerful. Otherwise, what are the numbers?
"Characters in intangible phantastic form
may be harmed by spells that affect ghosts
or spirits, and may be seen with Second
Sight (Ease Factor 9)."
(HM:RE p104)
Ok, how? Because I can't quite see how "Ghost's eternal oblivion" would work mechanically on a character without might.
Also, ok for seeing them with Second Sight, but how about detecting the Nightwalking magic with Magic Sensitivity?
[Incidentally, I realized I am derailing the thread. Let us stop here and perhaps start a new thread about Nightwalking "hard numbers"]
Okay, I have been sleeping on this for a while and its time for me to have some OPINIONS.
First, we really need David Chart to specify if he's talking about 'books you should buy to have a good core experience' or 'rules we need to put into the core book', or even 'rules accumulated into the new Core Rules Additions book. It really changes my opinion on this, based on which I think, and catching up on this thread my opinion has changed. Unfortunately, he has also stated he cannot explain WHY he wants these threads, so I do not know if he can clarify which he was asking about.
Next: Lots of missing guidelines and options can be included in without really changing much of how the game works. More spell guidelines, more Shape and Material bonuses, more Spell mastery options. I don't consider this as essential as some people do - and I also don't consider that these are new 'rules' per se. They're new options for existing rules, and while I would like them, I don't consider them necessary.
Also, I would definitely support a lot of rules clarifications - not just 'This works in fashion X and that works in fashion Y', but specifically offering examples of how things MAY work, like Transforming Mythic Europe offering different definitions on how teleportation can work in different sagas.
I'm going to, for now, assume this thread is based on 'new or gathered rules for a Core reprint or a new printed book of the Core Rules Expansion', rather than just redefining what books are required to play the game well. I'm going to include these in some vague order of importance in my mind:
Please and Definitely: Some kind of way for characters to get new Virtues via mystery initiation or via Story xp-conversion. This expands the ways characters can grow, provides impetus to get out of the lab, and doesn't force people to interact with the game in a way they don't want.
Mundane beasts and slightly expanded Mighty Creature rules. I would like something for magical creatures in Core that is less specific than 'making this as a player character' (in the RoP books) and 'make it up have fun whatever imbalance' (the current Core book). Should also include the definition of each realm better than was stated.
Seriously, the rules for how shapeshifting works, from the HoH:MC book. Ideally with more explanation in some cases. Shapeshifting is important in Core with Bjornaer.
Some expanded rules for basic magical tropes. Specifically, Summoning and Necromancy come to mind. For a new player coming to the game and going 'I wanna be a necromancer!' he's not in a good position with the rules. Similarly if someone tries to animate a scarecrow to fight for him, there is NO real explanation of how that works.
More in depth descriptions of the different Tribunals, and what style of games they're leaning towards. Two or three paragraphs each is fine.
Magical Research. While it may not need to be as complicated as original research or integrating secrets, some sort of some rules for people who want to push magical boundaries would be very advantageous. I actually think it's less necessary than better necromancy rules.
Here's where we start getting my 'maybe' list. The Rego Crafting rules, and possibly advanced crafting rules. I would also include a clarification on Profession vs Craft, and possibly a decision on how specific you need to be for something to be a craft. Craft: Blacksmithing can make a platinum-adamantine sword in World of Warcraft, and cannot make anything combat-worthy in many interpretations of Ars Magica. So, I'd like either an explanation of what is defined as a craft, or at the very least a table of 'decide how specific you want it to be'.
Expanded covenant growth options. A basic system of finding new covenfolk to fill gaps and some rules on perhaps increasing health or wealth or opulence of the covenant. Rules on expanding the library - specifically how Magi get new books and lab texts via trade, with a few different options on different saga types (Wizards Don't Like Each Other, 1 pawn of vis per 10 levels of lab texts. Wizards Like Sharing, 1 pawn per 50.) I understand that this is a very, very variable thing based on who's running the saga.
Some expanded ideas on non-combat ability challenges. I actually really like the debate rules and how they compare to Certamen and combat. I think this could be expanded to include other similar situations as well, in fact. A long term political maneuver could easily be done via Intrigue, Area Lore, Org Lore on a seasonal level, granting bonuses based on effort and time. *Writes down this for later as an optional house rule to expand on
Now, things I definitely do not want to see thrown into core rules;
Anything that forces the players to deal with complicated mechanics that they didn't already have. This includes most of the things people like in Covenants as a book. I would love lab customization rules that were not directly tied to finances. A simplified system of this I would like, but I don't like how Covenants as a book feels entirely based around yearly money-tracking. I would also include the Labor Points mechanics in this. Also, like, all of A&A, C&G, Lords of Men. Basically, I don't want 'Core' to include new systems.
I would include MOST of the Realms of Power special rules in here. We don't need to know how faerie actor rules work, not really. It's more important to know faeries are influenced by humanity. We don't need to know HOW that Saint happened.
The optional combat rules from Lords of Men (but not the mass combat rules), including Evasion, crossbows, Ready Missiles, and rolling a die to successfully interrupt or defend (instead of doing it automatically).
The Fast Casting clarification that a character can’t cast a normal spell and Fast Cast on the same round.
The effect expiry errata, that clarifies the bonus to lab totals for effect expiration does not apply to lesser and charged items.
The clarification that wound penalties apply to Soak rolls, such as when struck by a Pilum of Fire.
The Book of Mundane Beasts, with animal qualities.
The rules for casting tablets, extraordinary vis, and customizing labs.
Rego craft magic.
Original research/integration.
Mystery initiation.
The update to how the Craft skill is defined, from City & Guild.
I think you mean clarification that a character CAN cast a normal spell and a Fast Cast spell on the same round, but not two normal spells as many people mistakenly think after looking at MuVi. That a character can is explicitly written into the core rules, but it is hard to find.
Or are you saying you want this rule changed? That would create a lot of issues in a bunch of places.
This is already explicit in core under effect expiry.
First, I expect he forgot because you explicitly can
a magus cannot cast more than one normal spell, or a fast-cast and a normal spell, in the same round. A very fast magus may be able to cast more than one fast-cast spell, but this is beyond most magi.
Nothing says you can cast multiple fast-cast spell as well as a normal spell, though.
So this isn't about including a rule as about changing a rule. And this rule has reverberations all over the place. For example, Dimicatio absolutely relies on both a fast-cast and a normal spell in a single round; changing this rule means scrapping Dimicatio or rewriting it entirely.
It's also a rule that may often lead to winning initiative = winning a combat.
Oh, I forgot one: the clarification that “Day of Communion” does not work with ritual spells like “Aegis of the Hearth” unless its duration is extended (typically to Sun).
"Day of Communion" (and the extremely similar "Wizard's Vigil" from the same book) do explicitly work with rituals - that is the whole point of them.
It is "Wizard's Communion" that is not supposed to work with rituals after an errata changed the rules for MuVi spells.
(An errata that I personally choose to ignore since I don't think it improves anything. As far as I am concerned Wizard's Communion works just fine with rituals, but that is a house rule and not the official rule.)
My house rule, which feels like a STRETCHED interpretation is that casting Wizard's Communion and then starting your ritual immediately is fine, because Wizard's Communions is magically special and non-Hermetic.
Pre-errata text for Muto Vim guidelines:
"Most Muto Vim spells last as long
as the spell that they have altered, with a
nominal duration of Momentary."
I choose to interprest this fairly literally, letting MuVi spells last as long as needed to alter the spell they target - but using Momentary duration for purposes of level calculation and the like.
For Wizard's Communion in particular it is noted as being pre-Hermetic in origin, and thus not subject to quite the same limitations as Hermetic spells.
Needing multiple MuVi spells of not only different level (since just about all of them are General) but also different durations, that just needlessly complicates things in my opinion.
A Muto Vim spell, like any other Muto spell, can only change its target for as long as the Muto Vim spell is in effect. Thus, its duration should normally be at least as long as the spell that is its target.
So you would have needed a year-duration (and thus a Ritual version) of Wizard's Communion for it to work with Aegis of the Hearth pre-errata.
Your version is pre-pre-errata, never even showing up in the second printing, meaning it hasn't even been the in-print version for most of two decades.