Can't do both in the same saga, however, and we have a player who's already designed his familiar using the RoP:M rules.
I would say "in the same way as humans" is taken to be synonymous with "normally" without penalties. So my interpretation of that errata would be that it clarifies that the penalty shouldn't be applied to Familiars. Otherwise it would seem to be an errata that would clarify or expand on nothing.
"In the same way as humans" can also be interpreted as having access to the full range of abilities (unlike normal animals) through the full range of learning methods like books and teacher (which animals cannot use).
In fact, my understanding is that animals, magical or otherwise, basically have an unchanging set of abilities, which doesn't change once they've reached maturity. Unlike humans, who can keep learning throughout their lives.
BTW, I will be working from the office tomorrow so I won't be posting until Tuesday.
Is there something which would stipulate such unchanging stats? I would tend to regard that as something of a conceit of convenience for managing stat-blocks of creatures more than a view regarding the nature of animals and whether they can learn? If animals were unable to learn they couldn't be trained either. We also have explicit rules for them being able to be trained, and gaining Ability experience through training (example RoP:M pg 82) so ... they do not RAW have set stat-blocks being unable to learn.
The interpretation that Familiar's SQ is penalized by their Might is one I haven't seen in other games I'm in.
It also clashes with the fact that we have stats for some Familiars with Might in the 15-20 range, and yet they still developed scores in Magic Theory. With a minus 15-20 to SQ, it would be next to impossible to teach them, and most Familiars, except maybe one season, where the Magi teaches them the basics (usually to get a score of 1 in one season), gain Magic Theory by Exposure when they assist in the lab, so their gain of Magic Theory is slow, but as time goes on, they become more valuable in the Lab.
Also, from the erratta:
Advancement (p. 51-2): On page 52, add the following sentence at the end of the first section, immediately before the Transformation header. "Finally, as stated in ArM5 (page 105), magic creatures bound as familiars to Hermetic magi learn in the same way as humans, and retain those Abilities if the familiar bond is broken."
If the SQ was penalized by Might, then they wouldn't add this sentence.
2 Likes
If we go with that, then I'd just request that familiars can't undergo Transformation (as described in RoP:M p52).
To compensate for the slower advancement brought by subtracting Might from SQ, Magical Creatures can go through Transformation. One of the options of Transformation is to trade 10 of the hardly acquired xp for a Minor Magic Quality, and there is a Magical Quality that gives 50xp to any ability the magical creature can learn (a familiar can learn anything a human can learn). Allowing Transformation to familiars on top of standard learning would just mess everything up in an ungainly tornado of horror and xp.
Disallowing familiars to go through transformation also means that the progression of the familiar as a magical creature is locked once it is bounded. For example, take Kiefskala (Wolfgang's familiar). With transformation he could get extra qualities (to spend in penetration, extra levels to increase the damage of it's poison breath, size increase, or maybe a ritual power that breaks hermetic limits). Without, he would be limited to his current stats + future advancement + whatever Wolfgang can enchant in the bond.
Am fine with that.
I never used the Transformation rules with a Familiar.
I understand the concern, but this feels like something of an overcompensation. Why not simply ban the acquisition of xp granting virtues during play? Leaves as much of RAW intact as possible, but neatly closes up the loophole.
Because a virtue/quality giving 50xp means this is the rough value of a virtue. If we ban xp granting but allow one to buy other qualities we are allowing one to purchase 50xp worth for 10xp. It just won't appear as xp, but as something else (powers, puissance, soak, etc).
We might just scale the cost (multiply everything by 5, so that buying a minor quality is 50xp), but at that point this is just making amends upon amends, and we'd need to make an exception to non-familiars still using the standard rules (we do have one Magical Companion at the moment, and any Magical NPCs we encounter should use the standard advancement rules for magical creatures).
I the end I find it easier to just ban familiars from Transforming. And it's somewhat thematic. They are now binded to the magus, in more ways than one.
2 Likes
The only issue I see with Transformation is that it is also based on study/xp for generating the points to purchase things. This however arguably is not a "learning process" that is covered by the learning penalty exemption of Familiars. That exemption is very specific.
"Familiars can learn Abilities the same way as humans."
Therefore Transformation is still penalized since it is not the learning of an Ability. Therefore the only way to overcome the penalties and achieve Transformation is with vis.
This makes Transformation non-casually vis-expensive and therefore a substantive decision as to what a Magus wants to invest in. Do they want to learn spells, buy magical items etc. Or do they want to vis-hunt and gather more vis to feed to the familiar to make it bigger/stronger (and thus be sacrificing personal advancement for familiar advancement)? This feels like it would establish a legitimate set of trade-offs using the meta-currency of Ars (vis).
Thoughts?
Would anyone like to play or does anyone need a Companion?
Vorsutus could use one (at least! 
) and I would like to get another character more prone to getting in on direct action as it were.
Re: familiars, I'd still lean to remove it just to keep it simple and self consistent. But mostly for simplicity.
Re: companion, both. =D
I've been toying with the concept of a Wind Whistler hedge wizard for a looong time, but was delaying that until I had a better grasp about what kind of stories will he participate in. Could easily go for something else.
Thought a bit about making a Telsberg, but in the end decided against it. If I, say, stat Rudolph as a companion, I'm essentially defining the avenue of approach for the covenant (Rudolph is an ally, support him), which is something that, talking as a storyguide, I don't want to do. If someone else wants to have a Telsberg as a companion, OTOH, I think that could be very interesting.
Not sure about which kind of companion would suit Regulus. I would be open to a companion level familiar, in case someone is interested in playing a lynx of virtue. But generally speaking I try to think in companions less like pople to be paired with specific magi and more like people to fill in gaps. We have no medicus, no explorer, no warrior, no priest, no noble, no Redcap... Would be nice to have any of these around.
Question about spell mastery. I've seen multiple takes on how common, or not, certain mastery abilities are. I will freely admit that I tend to ere on the side of making them more common than not, but I wanted to ask instead of making assumptions.
The one that's coming to mind at present is Stalwart. It didn't feel like something that should be Mercurian only, but again, I wanted to ask.
I tend to err on the side of making such things less common instead of more. And to link access to such 'secrets' to stories, rather than pre-saga advancement.
In principle I think I would tend to agree that Cult secrets should stay secrets? I think there is a problem with this particular instance in that there are only a handful of sources of Spell Mastery abilities.
I suppose I kind of see both sides of the issue if you will. On the one hand the knowledge/secrets of the different Cults and the flavor and meaning that it builds into the setting should be preserved. On the other hand there is not an equal amount of material for access here. Makes me wish for more Cult/Mystery content spread around. It certainly does make sense that Mercurians would be more interested in Spell Mastery and ways to get mileage out of it. So ... in that respect that seems true to lore.
Not that I really thought about that when I knew I already wanted to make a "Mercurian Ritualist" as a concept, but I won't complain about having broader access to Spell Mastery as a theoretical result as well.
Simplicity you say...
And you play Ars Magica?
Intriguing. 
Personally I think that in the Order it is much more common for a Companion/Custos to be the Companion of a specific Magus unless they are in some way affiliated with a Covenant as a whole and/or someone born as Covenfolk. Otherwise my thinking is that you literally only become a Companion because a Magus made you one, for a reason, as an individual.
There is indeed a lot we don't have and could use.
I would add capo/factor and rogue/thief to the list.
We could use perhaps several Shield Grogs and/or Warrior Companions of different stripes, as well as some support characters.
IIRC, at least the Mercurian Spell Mastery options can be taught to someone outside the Mercurian cult, by having the Magus teach you Magic Theory, since Spell mastery options are part of your knowledge of Magic Theory.
Finding one to teach you, could well be the basis for an in-game adventure.
Same should be for the Mutantes, but those are much rarer to find.
If it worked like that arguably it would be like say "learning" a breakthrough/integration, and it then being a part of your Magic Theory (and how you would teach it to your Apprentices) afterward.
I mostly look at "companion" as a rules construct inicating the character power level, the same as "grog" when it means a minor character limited to 3 minor virtues/flaws (as opposed to it's meaning as a military member of the turb). They go in stories where it makes sense, regardless of the magi involved (but if their virtues or flaws make them specifically tied to a magus, then they will mostly appear in stories with said magus).
With our (to the moment fairly rotative) cast of magi, maybe this would be a better approach? Avoids the case where we make a companion specifically suited for one magus and the player of said magus latter stops playing, requiring either a rework of the companion or even invalidating the concept.
For what is worth I see spell mastery (and S&M bonus, and guidelines) exactly like that. The assumption being that core masteries, S&M bonus and guidelines are so widely spread that a magus will always have come across a source for those.
I think building them where they make sense as to how they become associated with Magi and then the Covenant is preferable. (Admittedly for values of make sense that align with my views? ) But once they are in the game even if they retain a "primary" relationship with the original Magus, they should be more general and just as prone to ending up in stories with other characters.
For example my varangian concept could just as easily accompany Regulus as a turb-captain/bodyguard as go out doing martial things with Belisarius. But initial relationship that resulted in him becoming a Companion is clear, and that was with Belisarius. And once the game starts he can start becoming more intwined with the Covenant itself and ... whatever happens happens (cue emergent story and setting development with trumpets and fanfare). 
1 Like