Special Ranges, Durations, and Targets

It depends. The rule are so little detailed in the base book that I suspect there are a fair number of gamemasters who don't know it's mentioned at all, and if the paragraph is refered to, may very well just consider those rules to have been overruled by the original research rules in HoH:TL anyway. I tend to prefer a rule that's somewhat tough but clear and achievable than a gamemaster who has to make up his frankenstein monster, or rules that make this so simple they devalue mystery cults. Perhaps you have a different experience than mine using that section of the base book.

1 Like

In the saga that I'm in, similar to what temprobe mentioned, we've superseded the kind of throwaway "Also, you can just make up whatever" line in the core book with experimentation and original research. We treat all of the weird core spells as having been experimental spells that received a side effect or side benefit from experimentation, or were produced as slightly-non-hermetic effects by partial breakthrough research. They can't be reproduced with spontaneous magic, or invented on one's own (without similar measures), but we assume all core book spells are relatively common lab texts available to haggle for at tribunals n' such (with the exception of a few things, like Hermes' Portal and The Shadow of Life Renewed).

The saga has an emphasis on research and long-term plans, though. And the "make up whatever" line, and this errata, would undermine that particular kind of game, though I admit it's probably a huge benefit to games on shorter timescales, or whose focus is more on granular adventuring than the slow plodding of years of lab work and politics.

In those kinds of games, you'd want the drama of a cool spell right now! And not, like, in several years. Which is understandable.

However, even with that kind of game, I might find the inconvenience of Hermetic Magic's rigid parameters kind of an interesting problem to solve or circumvent. :thinking:

Writing for Ars Magica sounds complicated, with its purpose being different for different people. :woman_shrugging:

4 Likes

After some more though, I think that a good mix of what temprobe suggested, the recent clarification that "good experimentation" results can make things ... better, with no level change, and the (excellent) proposal of David Chart above, which is ultimately just a clarification and a restriction-to-mythic of the current rule, would be succintly the following:

You can design formulaic spells with non-standard RDT parameters, though they must be appropriately mythic. Normally, they are slightly inefficient compared to existing parameters, (i.e. higher level than what they achieve would suggest - though by no more than a magnitude).

However, if you experiment, any good result can produce a spell with a parameter or set of parameters just as efficient as Hermetic ones, or even slightly more efficient (no more than a magnitude) in specific conditions, and a discovery will allow you to design other formulaic spells with the same parameters.

1 Like

This may be on the side of too generous. Developing a new RDT applicable to any spell is the canonical example of the kind of benefit you can hope to gain from a minor breakthrough which is normally a few years of efforts for even a dedicated and skilled researcher.

1 Like

Note that what I proposed only works on formulaic spells! Not on spontaneous magic, not on enchanted devices, not on familiar bonds etc. which is what a new RDT provides. And remember, you have to get a Discovery, which is by no means easy with "ordinary" experimentation. Finally, note that a single RDT (or a single combination of RDT) is usually only a subset of what you get with a Minor Virtue, that typically yields at least two or three.

So, I do not see it as too generous, but to each his own! In general, encouraging casual experimentation is a good thing, in my view - because people otherwise rarely bother with it.

I don't see that this really added anything to what was there already. I was fine with the original rule. I think David's putting the lid back on is probably a good thing. Either writing requires some adjudication by the troupe anyway, and with adjudication by the troupe I don't see a problem with the original rule. As the saying goes, if it isn't broken, don't fix it, right?

Well you're clearly not an engineer.

4 Likes

@Christian_Andersen?
In my (limited) experience, engineers typically will agree with @callen - but their costumers wont.

2 Likes

If someone insists, and are willing to pay, we'll fix something that isn't broken (perhaps break something that was already fixed).
Otherwise we may just say we fixed it - sometimes customers don't understand it anyway.

1 Like

After all, doesn't the saying go "Broken is in the eye of the beholder?"

In my experience as an engineer we will always want to improve on the current design and fix problems that nobody else sees to be problems. Of course the "flawed" model may be what is on the market, but we know we can make it better.
But then again we are talking about engineering here, not a repair shop.

There's one particularity that strikes me - Special parameters created this way must be different from entirely new parameters, but how? What is the benefit to getting Faerie Magic, if the player can simply create a spell that's "mythically appropriate"? If anything, tying particular parameters to Virtues and Flaws creates slight confusion to what is and is not allowed.

My suggestion would be to explicitly tie special parameters to Original Research - if you get Discovery, the created effect has a parameter you're looking for, but obviously you can't just teach it or use it without performing a Breakthrough - but you'd still receive a working, inflexbile prototype.

Does that make sense? It would put a definite lid on the question of what is and is not allowed, and how.

1 Like

There are at least two advantages in having a Virtue allowing access to "special" RDTs, plus occasionally a third.

First, with such a Virtue you can e.g. cast spontaneous spells with that special RDT.
Second, if derived from such a Virtue an RDT need not be less efficient than the closest "standard" equivalent, and is in fact often more efficient. Take Faerie Magic's Year+1 Duration. It's slightly longer than D:Year, as D:Year lasts between three and four seasons, depending on when it is cast, while D:Year+1 lasts a full year, plus one day.
Third, special RDTs from Virtues often "bend" Hermetic Magic, see e.g. T:Bloodline.

2 Likes

For anyone pointing to RDTs created by OR, those have a freely teachable virtue attached to them. That freely teachable virtue is actually a major benefit of OR over experimentation (and discovery), since it includes the benefits ezzelino mentioned.

As I have pointed out in other threads, every Hermetic Magus actually has the Virtue "Parma Magica" for free.

2 Likes

What I mean by tying special parameters to Original Research is to change how Original Research works - I propose a single Discovery to produce a working prototype with the special parameter baked in.

For example, Grimgroth wants to produce a spell that lasts for as long as he walks, so Duration: Walk. He uses Original Research to design the closest orthodox spells, until he gets Discovery, at which point he may stabilize it. Once stable, the result is a prototype that indeed has the Duration:Walk.

On the above example, Grimgroth gains the spell he's looking for, but unless he pursues the research further, he cannot teach or reproduce the Duration save for using the lab text to create the exact same spell.

I do believe OR works like that already. A discovery gives you a single spell working copy of what you are researching, which with enough stabilized versions allows you to complete the Discovery and allow it to be used everywhere.

I checked the Original Research section, it doesn't seem to work this way by default. It does mention you may create oddities, but that's caused by normal experimentation results, nothing to do with OR.

Hence why I want it to work like that.

It depends. Ancient Magic integration does say that the spell can break hermetic limits (e.g. new RDT), but cannot be varied in anyway or reinvented without the lab text. Original research isn't explicit about it - although I fail to see how you would get breakthrough points on a new RDT if you don't incorporate it into your spell.

I'd love that to be the case. It would put a definitive close to this can of worms.

Breaking hermetic limits is a bigger thing than just a special RDT though.