I suspect it would have been easier to convert earlier versions to a D&D style world than it would for 5th ed.
Hi,
Really?
"You have firm confidence in your own
abilities, and have a Confidence Score of two.
You also start with five Confidence Points,
rather than the usual three. (See page 19 for
Confidence rules."
If you apply this once, as written, you have a score of two and five confidence points. If you apply it twice, you have a score of two and five confidence points.
But we can instead apply the Quality twice.
"The character’s
Confidence Score is increased by one. A
starting character also gains two additional
Confidence Points to spend. This Quality
may be taken more than once."
This give us 3(7).
I don't see another valid reading.
Sure. You can also notice that 1 and 3 are Fibonacci numbers that satisfy Score::Points is fib(n)::fib(n+2), as are 2 and 5, so the general formula must be that applying this virtue 0 times give you Score=fib(1) and Points=fib(3), where fib(0) and fib(1) are 1, and applying this virtue N times gives you Score=fib(N) and Points=fib(N+2). Yay!
One can do many, many things.
And I suspect it's the lack of just one more editing pass, which is why Arkliss has 2(6) as do generic Lindwurms, unless Self-Confident has a secret clause that Lindwurms get another point. Of course, the secret clause nets Lise and The Spirit of Self-Importance 2(8); take that pathetic Lindwurms!
I'm curious how your mathematical function for the same virtue manages to come up 2(5), 2(6) or 2(8), because I'm pretty sure that's not how functions work.
Anyway,
Ken
Yes, you do:
More generally, using a finite number of points to infer a pattern necessarily gives an infinite number of possible solutions. This is why statistically you need to look at extra points for increased confidence in a pattern. With just the two points, you develop patterns with zero confidence in any of them. That is the proper logic behind it.
Or perhaps it's that the writers were told they could give any number of Confidence Points, so long as the Confidence Score is correct? That would make these others work out quite nicely as well.
I can write a function to give those, sure. I can write an infinite number of functions that will give those, again limited by time. You just have to be aware of what "onto" or "surjective" mean in mathematics and pay attention to how they're mapping.
Hi,
No, I don't. Because there is no way I see that as a valid interpretation of the virtue in question.
If you are not sure about what the text of the virtue means, we have plenty of native English speakers here to help reach a consensus.
I kind of suspect that it won't involve Fibonacci numbers.
Gosh, maybe there's a pattern of sample characters needing an editing pass?
Sure. Once we're in the land of "Just make something up," I find it hard to use it as a basis for adjudicating rules intended to be more than "just make something up."
No, you can't:
So your 'function' for applying Self-Confident once can only produce one of "2(5)", "2(6)" and "2(8)".
And once again, back to the main point: Once a group adopts the reasonable (and actually written) rule that virtues only apply once unless the rules for applying it multiple times are explicitly defined, they never, ever have to worry about a conversation of this kind occurring at their table.
(So they can get back to making sure they are doing MuVi right. 
)
Anyway,
Ken
Yes, you do see them. You said you didn't see them. You're just not doing inductive reasoning. You've found one pattern and you're sticking to it, which is a logical error.
Yes, I can. You are again throwing assumptions at things and not recognizing them. Correlation doesn't so imply causation For example, you could write the function as Confidence Score (S) as a function of starting Confidence Points (Po) as
S = floor( sqrt( Po ) )
That's a perfectly valid function that results in 2(5), 2(6), and 2(8).
Sure, but as we've also seen, almost everyone decides to ignore this when it comes to Initiations. That was my entire point from way back on this. People are going different directions on things presented the same way.
You could say that your initial confidence score is 2^(number of times you have self confident virtue) and the points are score^2+1.
and your players will take self confident 4-10 times per character, and rule the game in the beginning until they deplete their initial confidence points and are running on what they have earned...
but hey. YSMV.
Considering you can pick that up canonically pretty quickly without even spending the Virtues on it, is it so game-breaking to spend so many points on it? Considering you'll run out of points so quickly taking advantage of this that you would have been better with a flat +3 on what you applied it to several time rather than the last one you took (as you mention), is it so game-breaking? I would never, ever do this from a min-maxing standpoint.
main point is that it 1) can be extrapolated from the 2 data points, however broken and 2) is your game to read as you wish
because game balance and ars magica coexist only in a state of irony.
1 Like
Actually, it cannot be logically extrapolated. Sure, you can fit some function to them and extrapolate with that function. However, with only 2 data points, you can have at best 0 confidence in your fit. As a result, at best, you can have 0 confidence in your extrapolation, which means the extrapolation is completely arbitrary and invalid.
Well said!!!
Hi,
No, I do not. I do not see this as a valid interpretation of the virtue in question.
It's a very special kind of reasoning in which you tell me what I'm saying and seeing, and then argue against that.
If only we were talking about that.
Of course, we have not been. We have been talking about stacking the same virtue, and you raised an example from RoP:M to demonstrate that this happens. The operation in question is the operation of the virtue and getting a singular result from it, and if we use RoP:M as an example, we get contradictory results from applying it, well, even once.
So, since you've summed up your entire point, I'll sum up mine, and then I don't think I have anything interesting left to say on this topic:
- A group can adopt any set of house rules it likes. House rules are a good idea. Make up what you like.
- The rules as written do not allow a virtue or flaw to be taken more than once, except as explicitly specified.
- A group is free to ignore this rule at their pleasure, and will often get good results.
- I think it is a good idea as a strong default position to not allow virtues to be taken more than once, except as specified.
- A group that is willing to allow a virtue to be taken more than once after character creation ought to strongly consider also allowing it to be taken more than once during character creation.
Anyway,
Ken
It's because you've changed what you said. Originally you said you didn't see it. Now you're saying you don't see it as valid. Those are different. I'm not disputing the latter. Changing what you're saying isn't a flaw in my statement.
As for the validity, don't take my word on it. Ask just about any scientist in the world about fitting a function to two data points only. Ask them what they think of the validity of that.
Yes, the whole point of bringing it up is a contradiction with a rule. And I did from the get-go say it seemed nonsensical from the Virtue as written in the core book. But you haven't brought up something contradictory, just perhaps something we're unaware of. We have known for certain since the core book, and specifically with Virtues not long afterward, that the same alteration can have different affects on different types of beings. A Hermetic spell increases Size by +1: what happens to Str and Qui? The answer: it depends on the sort of being it's applied to. Improved Characteristics go to what maximum value? It depends on the sort of being with it. Etc. I'm just not going to jump to conclusions.
I would have loved more consistency, myself. It would allow for more deductive reasoning instead of inductive reasoning with minimal data points.
Sure. All of this sounds quite good, though I'm not sure about the very last point. Would you say a group allowing you to go past 10 points of Virtues later on ought to strongly consider allowing more than 10 to be taken at character creation? Would you say that a group allowing you to go beyond 1 Major Hermetic Virtue later on through Initiation ought to strongly consider allowing more than 1 Major Hermetic Virtue to be taken at character creation?
Hi,
To be (perhaps insufficiently) clear about what I am saying:
- A group can adopt any set of house rules it likes. House rules are a good idea. Make up what you like.
- The rules as written do not allow a virtue or flaw to be taken more than once, except as explicitly specified.
- A group is free to ignore this rule at their pleasure, and will often get good results.
- I think it is a good idea as a strong default position to not allow virtues to be taken more than once, except as specified.
- A group that is willing to allow a given virtue to be taken more than once after character creation ought to strongly consider also allowing that same virtue to be taken more than once during character creation.
I have opinions about 10 points of vfs, and about the number of Major Hermetic Virtues a magus ought to be allowed to have, but I consider them not relevant to the last four bullet points above.
But ok, my opinion about this without the books open in front of me:
- The rules as written permit a magus to take up to 10 virtues balanced by flaws during character creation, excluding House Virtues.
- These rules almost certainly do not apply to virtues and flaws gained after character creation. A magus can eventually have more than 10 virtues, more than 10 flaws and an imbalance between virtues and flaws.
- I think a group should think carefully about allowing a magus to exceed 10 virtue points during character creation, because it steps on the toes of ExMisc, because it eases the already complex task of character creation, and because the players and the GM might have a hard time taking in so much interplay of game mechanics. But a group that does allow it also benefits from a wider palette of characters, so it is not a mistake. Either choice is good.
- I think that a group that decides to ignore Flaws or allow fewer Flaw points to 'balance' the virtue points is making a decision that offers real benefits, but requiring adhering to the rules in this regard is not a mistake.
- The rules allow a magus to take up to one Major Hermetic Virtue during character creation.
- Technically, the rules do not allow a magus to exceed one Major Hermetic Virtue, even after character creation. I strongly advise groups to ignore this rule, as I believe most already do.
- I think a group would do well to ignore this rule even during character creation, but retaining it is not a big problem.
- The rules limit a magus' Minor Flaws to five during character creation.
- I believe a group should ignore this limit, and instead inspect the character as a whole, which ought to happen anyway.
- This limit almost certainly does not apply to Flaws gained after character creation. I believe it would be a mistake to apply this limit after character creation, for the same reason I believe it is unnecessary during character creation.
- The rules set limits on the number of Story and Personality Flaws a magus can take during character creation.
- The limits on Story and Personality Flaws apply after character creation as well. I strongly advise a group to retain these limits, for reasons that make sense during character creation and which make even more sense later on. Any character ought to have a personality or be involved in stories, but these Flaws are severe enough to get in the way. If these Flaws prevent a character from accomplishing something he wants to achieve, they are doing their job.
Hmm. I don't think I missed anything relevant to magi.
Anyway,
Ken
@callen By your logic with Self Confident, Large would be able to be taken multiple times for size increases.
No, again, not so. You're making the same assumption I have repeated been avoiding making. Even when you reword the Virtue, that would still depend on how you read it. But let's take a look at it while we're at it. It sets your Size to +1 instead of 0. That sounds a lot like how Self-Confident is written, setting the value. But then we see in later books that it applies differently to different types of beings, adding +1 to Size rather than changing Size from 0 to +1. Still, my logic does not require multiple increases, because the question remains about the "if" statement:
If I have Large, I get +1 to Size for each instance of Large.
If I have Large, I get +1 to Size.
Which one is it? You cannot tell. This is why my logic most certainly does not lead to Large increasing the Size multiple times, even with the altered reading. You certainly could choose to play it that way if you want to.
Tough does not have any language to suggest that it can be taken more than once.
Thus the discussion is (largely) irrelevant.
QED.
The whole point I made was that exactly the same thing can be said about the following:
- Having more than 10 points of Virtues (unless a Mythic Companion, noting that the House Virtue (or V&F for House Ex Miscellanea) is free).
- Having more than 5 points of Minor Flaws.
- Exceeding 1 Major Hermetic Virtue.
- Having more than 1 Major Personality Flaw.
If you're going to start disregarding any of those for Initiations and not disregard this other limit mentioned in the same place, how do you do so without being arbitrarily selective?
your IF statement does not match the wording in RAW.
your size is +1 instead of 0
That is the wording.
Self confidence
Have a confidence score of 2
That is the wording.
You are assuming the addition
Please reread what I wrote. I specifically addressed all of this from the get-go. No assumption at all was made. I never said it works that way. I said you're assuming what I'm saying makes it work that way to suggest I've made an implication I haven't. I've showed you the several steps needed to incorrectly reach that conclusion about what I've said.
for clarity, when I say "can be extrapolated" I mean it is a 1 of a set of infinite possibilities which can legitimately satisfy the known data points, as opposed to being one of a even larger infinite set of possible equations that does not (and yes, I have had professors in higher mathematics class use the phrase larger infinite set- I realize it is numerically impossible yet it is an apt description).
Ya, I understand. Technically, there is a difference between a countably infinite set and an uncountable infinite set, so not all infinite sets are the same size (same cardinality). And with uncountable infinite sets you can get different cardinality as well. I haven't looked at the cardinality of the two sets to be sure the other isn't a larger infinite set.
Yup. The difference is that with more data points, almost all of these possibilities have zero confidence in them, while a finite set have non-zero confidence in them. Then extrapolation has meaning. There is no meaning to it with only two data points as at that point none of those infinite possibilities has any more weight than another. Stated another way, there is zero belief there is any pattern so there is no way to choose a way to extrapolate that has any validity.