The rules for fatigue seem to be very silent about what how lost fatigue levels translate when you change shape to/from a shape with more fatigue levels than your normal shape.
For example, if you change shape to a bear (which has two more fatigue levels than a human), use up most of your fatigue levels so that you are only one step from unconciousness and then change back to human, what happens then?
On a related issue, the spell Gift of Vigor when used by or on someone with more fatigue levels than usual can get unclear. Gift of Vigor talks about "lower fatigue level".
Normal people have the fatigue levels "Fresh, Winded, Weary, Tired, Dazed, Unconcious" (ArM p178) Creatures with extra fatigue levels have more than one level of "Winded" and perhaps of the others as well. depending on how much extra they have. (HoH:MC p40)
So is a creature who has lost 4 points and is down to their 2nd "Weary" level at a lower or higher level of fatigue than a normal magus who has lost 3 points and is at "Tired"?
There are two fundamental reasons for this, which I believe has been considered canonical for quite some time (I can't trace back when it was made official, but from what I remember it was a fairly long time ago)
The first and least important reason is "philosophical": since performing a Longevity RItual again takes no appreciable amount of time, it should not be treated as a lab activity for any purpose, inclluding vis limits.
The second is "practical". Vis limits are probably the greatest bottleneck on longevity Ritual development for the very, very old; beyond a certain point, you just can't handle those 2 pawns/decade. If you don't apply those limits to further performances, then you can have old magi age gracefully: their old Ritual will become slowly less effective and impossible to improve, but they will not be left out there in the cold without any Ritual at all.
Vis Prava in the hands of Infernalists (RoP:I p.19) "does not incur any added chance of a botch (compared to normal vis)". This would seem to imply in a very roundabout way that Infernalists do not treat stress rolls involving vis Prava as automatic 0s, or items instilled with it as Experimental Disasters (which also makes sense, as otherwise using Vis Prava could entail less "oomph" for infernalists, which feels against the theme). If so, it should probably be clarified.
On a related note, we read "Vim vis may be extracted froman Infernal aura (of any strength) by a Hermetic magus as if it were a Magical aura (ArM5, page 94)". Does vis extraction weaken Infernal Auras as it does with magical Auras, as per rules in RoP:M? It could be read both ways.
In artes and acadame the description of how purification can improve a material's magical bonus is confusing, in that it refers alternately to an alteration and purify, where purify is elsewhere described as separating a material into its component parts, such that brass would be seperated into copper and tin, which would make it difficult to enhance its ignem bonus.
Since it appears that only "Aegis is immobile" options are being considered for the official stance on the Boundary debate, Covenants needs a Major Site Hook for "Invalid Target for Aegis of the Hearth", and at minimum Constantly Mobile (Major Site Hook, p9) and Erratically Mobile (Minor Site Hook, p10) need errata to add a note that they may require "Invalid Target for Aegis" (or whatever hopefully-more-mythic name is applied to the Hook in question).
But if for some reason every Aegis must be immobile within the frame of rerence of "absolute space" rather than within that of its own Boundary, yes, I agree. I would call the Major Hook simply "No Aegis", and it could apply for other reasons. For example, because it runs the risk of waking the local sleeping dragon.
MoH p.42: Conjured Daylight says "T: Structure" followed by "+3 Size." While it would seem that should be "+3 Structure," Structure is illegal for such creation, so "+3 Size" is reasonable. The target should read "T: Individual" or "T: Group." If Group is chosen, it would be +1 size, or the level of the effect would change.
When casting Unravelling the Fabric of (Form) on a spell that targets an area, like Aegis, is T: Ind enough?
The corebook says:
"Spells and magical effects do not have sizes, so size modifications do not apply to the levels of Individual Target Vim spells. However, Vim spells affecting areas, or number of spells, must be increased in level for large areas or large numbers, as normal."
Does it mean that you need extra sizes to affect something like a spell whose target is a Structure or Boundary?
This phrase addresses Vim spells targeting an individual spell.
This phrase addresses Vim spells targeting areas (like dispelling all spells in a T: Room area) or several spells (like targeting a T: Group of spells). If such areas or numbers are large, their size matters and ArM5 p.113 box Targets and Sizes applies.
Fast Caster virtue isn't very clearly described. If it is meant to help ma magus Fast-Casting, it is not in the wording of the virtue. As written the virtue just adds 3 to the magus' Initiative roll. In itself, this is odd, because the magus may not cast spells every round. It should clearly state that it helps with the Fast-Casting roll, if this is the case. Othertwise it should not have that name.
And with the risk of tampering with the Initiative system per se, it is really odd that you add a weapon modifier for Iniative rolls, because the grogs need not be attacking every round.
In my troupe, we HR'ed that Iniative rolls are only modified by Qik. Only when you need Action Priority Rolls (from Lords of Men), to see who goes first with Delayed actions etc - or for Fast-Casting spells, will we use the Weapon Ini modifier, and the Fast Caster virtue bonus.
I just came up with another subject, which has been discussed quite abit on the forum, at some time fairly recently:
Do Animal spells l which only affect the mind of the animal - require size modifiers?
This is not clear, and I say: No!
Mentem spells do not require size, it is as easy to affect the mind of a tiny faerie as it is to affect a huge dragon. The mind has no size. And there is a reference to Mentem for designing animal-mind spells. It makes no sense the two aren't the same.
Sadly, looking at the Animal spells, it seems at least some of them have required size.
*Opening the Tome of the Animal's Mind: No size modifier, no reference to which animals it may affect.
*Disguise of the Putrid Aroma: It sounds like a mind-spell because it does not create or alter a scent. No size modifier, no reference.
*Soothe the Ferocious Bear: No size modifier, no refrence. Although a bear is more than size +1 so the spell won't actually affect a bear.
*Vipers Gaze: Not relevant, likely uses "Paralyze an animal " guideline, so not a mind spell.
*Panic of the Elephant's Mouse: No size modifier, but a friendly reminder that the spell does not in fact work on an elephant. This seems more a spur of the monent note than a general ruling, considering how many other animal-mind spells don't use or refer to size.
*The Gentle Beast: Does include Size modifier (the only core book spell with this!)
*Mastering the Unruly Beast: No size modifier, no reference
*Commanding the Harnessed Beast: No size modifier, no reference
I also note, that of the physical animal spells, only 4 encompass a size modifier:
*Curse of the Ravenous Swarm, but this is for the size of the swarm i.a. the number of vermin
*Wizard's Mount + Steed of Vengeace: Both horse spells, where size was remembered.
*Blunt the Viper's Fangs: Uses size modifier, Funny, because this is named after small animal, whereas those named for Bear and Elephant don't remember size in the design.
I want to say this is a thing I would also like to see. Explicitly saying size mags are not required to affect the minds of animals, as it is it is easier to affect a giant or magical intelligent bear than a mundane bear.
The Church makes you ignorant: if you are a Priest (Minor Social Virtue, ArM5 p.47,TC p.26) the ArM5 corebook provides free access to Academic Abilities, TC does not. A typo?
Rival Magic p.46 and Apprentices p.61 are in almost-but-not-quite-direct conflict. RM asserts that any of the (presumed fairly common within the Order) books on Parma Magica are sufficient to teach the Ability to any Gifted student, regardless of tradition. Apprentices asserts that there is a hidden trick or key to performing the ritual to invoke a Parma, which can be omitted from instruction to allow a student to gain experience in the ability without actually being able to perform it, and which is revealed separately after a newly fledged magus swears the Oath.
The single case which allows these not to contradict is if the key exists and may be omitted from in-person instruction, but must necessarily be included in any and every book on the Ability. This possibility, while avoiding any explicit logical contradiction, seems nonsensical bordering on farcical.
As such, one or the other of these sources should be errata'd, either
Apprentices to strike all reference to pre-Oath instruction in Parma and Rival Magic to clarify that books on Parma are rare, highly controlled, and a Low Crime to write, possess, copy, or be aware of without immediately attempting to destroy in several Tribunals* and a High Crime in at least one*, or alternatively
Rival Magic to instead state that books on Parma may at best serve as sources of inspiration for an exceedingly ambitious Amazon attempting the Hermetic-tier Breakthrough of integrating Parma Magica.
* Leaving unspecified exactly which, of course, to suit the dramatic and/or political needs of any particular saga.
It is neither nonsensical nor farcical. Say the action is a complex series of tongue motions done with the mouth closed and timed with the hand motions. The master can easily teach the hand motions wihout revealing the tongue motions but a book explicitly trying to help you improve beyond the “I can’t do it yet” level must actually describe the syncing of these and reveal the secret.
It is absolutely farcical. To borrow your example, if you can gain XP from learning just the hand motions from a teacher, why could you not gain the same XP from learning the hand motions from a (presumably illustrated) book? If the syncing of the tongue and hand motions is the important bit, why does learning only the hand motions in increasing detail increase your understanding of the Ability at all?* And if it does, why would the books bother mentioning the tongue motions at all, since clearly you don't need them to improve in the Ability!
*Note that according to Apprentice you explicitly can gain experience in the ability exceeding level 1 (with no upper limit expressed or implied) without ever receiving the key.
Often when learning a complex physical activity you break it into parts, concentrating on footwork in dancing then moving smoothly with your partner is one glaring example.
