It’s correct as is. When the denominator is larger the final number is smaller. For ease I will use a speed of 48 units:
With current 48/6=8
Against current 48/8=6
Never mind. I misread.
I had to triple check to wrap my head around it.
Incidentally, the time in days concept is mentioned on the map, previous page.
Motivated reasoning. Extremely powerful.
That's not what the rules actually say: they say "A base Group contains about as much mass as ten standard Individuals of the Form."
I'm happy with the way things are currently handled here, but there's nothing wrong with your reading if you can sell it to the rest of the troupe. (And keep track of the weight of all the grogs, because you might only get 15 if some of them are notably hefty, but not Size +1.)
It doesn't seem to, does it. Given that "emotions" and "memories" are examples for a Major Focus, I think this one should be Major as well.
Already in the errata. But this is the sort of thing I am looking for.
The Mysteries p. 136
Conversion rule seems to imply that Dream is a Minor Focus and I probably go with it because it's narrow enough.
This is sound logic until you realize that the Large virtue means you're taller than 6 feet, and that the military typically hires based on physical prowess. Designing the Rego Corpus spell to target 20 size 0 humans may seem optimal until you realize your spell no longer works because more than one out of every ten enemies you encounter on the battlefield are size +1. I'd rather the spell works unless there's a giant-blooded on the other side. There are far less giant-blooded characters than there are large ones.
Also, typically the base individual cannot be divided in spells. I don't think a base group of Corpus affects a given weight of human entities - it affects a group of humans, and you don't get to affect more of them because you happen to target a crowd of children. There's no reduction in magnitudes for dealing with creating a spell affecting Might 1 elementals rather than Might 15 elementals either, nor the ability to treat a crowd of Might 1 elementals as a single Might 15 elementals, even if their global mass is less collectively than the Might 15 elemental alone.
It wouldn't be, though? You'd be designing the spell to target "a base Group". Which is "Mass of ten standard Individuals." Which for Corpus could be ten Large or twenty standard or two large and sixteen standard or forty Small or even five Giant-Blooded.
The other opinion is that base Group should be errata'd from "mass of ten standard Individuals" to "ten standard Individuals". That would make T:Group Corpus affect groups of up to ten, none of whom can exceed size +1. It is much less flexible but far quicker and simpler in play...at least for Corpus. Not sure what the knock-on effects of this change would be for other Forms.
I think it would cause more problems than it solves where the base individual is defined by mass. For instance with Terram it would be something like:
“Only 10 stones, each of which can be no larger than the base individual stone.”
Forget spells that can affect a flock of birds or a pile of gravel. You’d need two size modifiers, one that can allow the spell to affect more beings and one to allow it to affect larger beings. For most arts using mass is simpler and better.
1 Like
My understanding is that how you setup your target is needed during the spell research of a formulaic spell. So your spell description doesn't refer to a base group - in the case of a corpus spell, it refers to X humans of size Y. So yeah, you can design your group target to affect many more children, but the spell then doesn't work on a size 0 or larger adult, the same way your formulaic ignem spell doesn't change from a ball to a cylinder when you cast it because you thought the new shape would be cool right now. Hence, I don't consider it wise to design a corpus spell capped at size 0.
That is a bad example and ignores so many instances of formulaic and ritual spells where the exact thing created or affected is subject to quite a bit of discretion at the time of casting. Conjure the Mystic Tower being one. A spell that can transform any land animal into a sheep is another, obviously transforming a goat into a sheep is far different from transforming a wolf into one. Almost any Rego craft magic requires significant discretion on the part of the caster. Lamp without flame lets you center it on an object or just an area. Etc.
Conjure the Mystic Tower has a +3 elaborate design built into it to pay for being able to design the interior areas however you want provided the overall size is the same. Designing a Mystic Tower that is empty inside or that has a standard floorplan that cannot be varied at all would likely bring the magnitude of the spell down.
Likewise, the transform any animal of up to size X into a sheep isn't a problem and is fairly aligned with what an animal spell should do. You'll note that "Transform any animal into a toad" isn't a "Toad of many forms" spell, let alone a "Transform any animal into any other animal" spell.
It does not. The floorplan is set by the author when you use a casting tablet and there is no reduction in level. I also believe it’s more all the little pieces that need to be in place, in stone, to make it work. Things like stairs, windows, places to affix wooden doors and shutters, that adds those three magnitudes.
Yep, and a Mystic Tower that is empty inside (e.g. a shell) would have no stairs or places to affix doors and shutters. You can have a conversation at your gaming table about how much you could get from a given complexity magnitude. For example, a mystic tower shell with no basement, door or window space, no internal floors might be 0, one with doors and windows but no floors +1, one that also has stairs and floors but no walls or other internal division +2. I think this is reasonable, and some troupes might allow more or less.
Casting tablet rules are about casting tablets, and how strictly the casting tablet must be followed says nothing about designing a new spell in the lab.
I'll stop here however, and let the Errata thread go on.
That's what I wrote. I just paraphrased rather than quoting. I said Group can handle a maximum of 10x the maximum for Individual. You said Group can handle as much as (a maximum of) ten (ten times) standard Individuals of the Form (the maximum Individual can handle).
Should I note that many people are initially confused as they miss Size +1 for the standard Individual for Corpus and assume Size 0, so leaving text in place that affirms the mistake won't helps solve the confusion?
I'm not saying it should be written as 20, either. I'm saying it shouldn't say something about the rules for Group while disagreeing with the rules for Group. That's the problem.
If you want optimal, design a Group spell to work on a Group. Group is already clearly spelled out. Both optimal and pretty simple, right?
I promise I searched both errata topics I could find. 
Then we're fine, because that bit has been deleted with the erratum to get ride of the problem of targeting people who don't form a Group.