Talisman Shapes

Best talk the inlay - a single specific shape from separate material - quickly over with your troupe. It is a border case.

Allowing such inlays looks like a question of aesthetics to me. It just makes talisman design easier, without opening it to abuse: and playing Ars shouldn't become bogged down in such minutiae.

Cheers

really? Because I don't see anything on p. 97 or 98 indicating that a painted or engraved image cannot give shape bonuses. Maybe you could quote the passage you believe supports this reading?

As there is a conflict, on this issue I am my inclination is to side with the text I quoted from the Mysteries in Page one of this thread.

It was in the chapter of the Great/Connusmate Talisman Virtues, and so I am more inclined to trust that the designers of that chapter, as they would have specifically thought about the basic mechanics of talismans in depth, rather than the craft magic authors whose focus was slightly broader.

Also it fits with my own prejudices of symbolic representations and the realm of froms actually having a concrete effect.

Bob

Let's walk through ArM5.

So the shape in question is a shape of the physical item you enchant - not some symbol or representation.

This doesn't change for compound items.

So these components are again items - and the shape and material bonuses come from their shape and material again, not some symbol or representation on it.

Best read the entire page 97, or course, to see this confirmed.

Cheers

Page 97: "The first thing you must do for any magical device is choose the physical shape of the item you wish to enchant — both the shape of the item and the item’s material. Look at the Shape and Material Bonuses table to see what sorts of items have bonuses relevant to the types of enchantments you wish to place."

That's not explicit that only the physical shape of the item counts, but I think it's enough to turn the question into "is there anything to indicate that anything else does?" I'm not aware of any such indication in the core book.

Ultimately, your saga, your decision. I think it's a House Rule, but it's unlikely to break anything too badly. You'll probably get more shape bonuses per item than you normally would, but the Magic Theory cap on the total bonus, plus the fact that it's already possible to stack lots of different materials, means it won't have too much impact. The main thing you'll be losing is a bit of flavour if everyone decides to just enchant something in a convenient shape with the right image on it, rather than actually producing boots for travel effects, or bandages for healing.

And thus to my point- it was not specifically prohibited, until someone decided to create a virtue to address a prohibition that did not exist. After all a painting of a crown could easily be seen as a component with shape: crown, material: paint.

ArM5 does not "specifically prohibit" auras of reason in its Realms section, laser swords in its Weapon Descriptions, or a time form in its section The Hermetic Arts. These things are just not mentioned.
If you look up ArM5 p.97 box Material and Size Tables for enchanted devices, you find no material: paint there either; and in the ArM5 core book you find symbols instead of item shapes only as 'Verditius Runes' in p.93 Verditius Magic.

Expecting in RPG rules explicit prohibitions of everything that comes up to your mind is just blatantly unreasonable.

Cheers and happy holidays

Neither is lead listed as a material bonus, should I infer from that that lead may not be used to make enchanted items? It seems to me that it is your position of "well you should just know that this is how it is because that is how I read it" which is unreasonable. The text prior to the introduction of the "solution" did not actually contain the problem being "solved", it existed solely in your perception of the rules. Shapes from artwork are specifically allowed in the sculpture of a beheomoth, why should a lead beheomuth have a shape bonus where an embossed gold one does not? Or one made of paint?

You have chosen the single worst example you could have. Not only is lead explicitly listed on page 110 of the core book, but it is also listed in three other books. I believe lead is listed for material bonuses more often than any other thing is listed for either a material or a shape bonus.

Such an inference would require some sort of statement that all enchanted items must use materials that provide material bonuses. Not only does that not exist, but the core book also lists materials for magic items for which no shape nor material bonus is listed, both making the reasoning behind this statement wrong.

Based on these two misreadings, I would really want to see quotes about anything else you reference. Where is the beheomuth?

TMRE p 39 Carving of Behemoth maybe ?

Thanks. I now see it on pages 32 and 33.

You have a major logical problem here, though. Note the description of what you seem to refer to and what you compare it to:

The canon example is specifically carved into the shape of Behemoth. Now let's look at what you're comparing this to. Is a painting of a crown in the shape of a crown? Is it roughly a hollowed out, not very tall cylinder, perhaps with a cap inserted? Or is it a flat representation of that? The painting is not actually the same shape as a crown, it just represents the crown. Your argument that artwork in the shape of something allows a representation of a shape of something does not follow logically. There is a related point as well. If representations of shapes apply to all shape bonuses, why is there any need to explain that this does work for tattoos and branding, which have there own small set of special rules? (HoH:MC p.51) Until you can explain how a flat depiction (painting, etching, etc.) of a 3-D shape is the same shape as that shape and ideally also explain why there would then be any need to make a separate statement that this works for tattoos and branding, I would never accept such an image of a shape being that shape itself.

Both One Shot and Salutor did point out (and properly quote here for us) that "shape" is specifically and originally referred to as "physical shape of the item." That's quite a bit stronger an argument than "well you should just know that this is how it is because that is how I read it." They provided you a textually supported argument, against which the argument you provide lacks sound logic and is incorrect about its references multiple times. So you, while showing you've read at least parts of it incorrectly and showing you have made demonstrably incorrect inferences about parts of it, say it's just how they read it? Your comment is so dismissive of sound reasoning supported by textual evidence while lacking those itself that it reads to me as, "well you should just know that this is how it is because that's what it actually says if I go back and read it properly."

It states that you must choose the physical shape of the object to be enchated, it does not state that only the physical shape can be used for bonuses.
If by "correctly" you mean the way you read it then you are tautologically correct, that is not however the correct usage of "correctly". The rules are poorly written, as always, poorly edited, as always, and poorly playtested, as always. Which is hardly saying anything new. It simply irks me that rules based on one person's reading, or even several person's readings are then added so that those who read things differently are then forced to change how their entire games operated, which could have been resolved through more playtesting (with a less homogenous playtest group) and greater clarity in writing and editing. And yes I am ranting again.

Oh, wow, you really need to start reading better. Look again at what I wrote. I never said "correctly." So where exactly is my use of "correctly" not following proper usage?

I also never said you are incorrect. I pointed out significant flaws in your argument against what One Shot and Salutor argued based on textual evidence. Your argument contained multiple demonstrably incorrect references to text and multiple demonstrably incorrect logical steps. So one side is backed up, and the other side can't support his opinion successfully at all so far. Which side should I think is correct?

...says the person with multiple demonstrably incorrect readings of the text in this one section and who demonstrably has an incorrect reading of what I wrote. I know there are many errors. I should, as I've personally submitted more than half the items in the errata. At the same time, I judge the writing to be better than you do. And I would never trust your judgement of what is clear in writing until you start demonstrating your reading comprehension is anywhere near the level possessed by those writing the game. A good place to start would be trying to correct all the errors you made in the last few posts and see if you can still make your case.

On top of that, I find your "always" accompanying what you just wrote to be quite disrespectful of those who have put in a lot of effort and time to create something most of us find quite wonderful. I am quite appreciative of their work.

Hi,

Shape vs painting: There are a few virtues that specifically allow a bonus to be gained for a picture of a thing rather than for being the thing. Amulet Magic from RoPD, for example. The Rusticani also can do this. If you don't have the virtue you don't get to etch a crown on something and get a crown bonus of any kind. It takes a very special reading of the rules for there to be any ambiguity here.

Poorly edited, poorly written, poorly playtested: AM5 intentionally retains its classic late 80s design aesthetic, sometimes called 2nd generation. This provides benefits and limitations. I think that AM5 has finally broken beneath the weight of supplements, yet it remains one of the most meticulously edited and written rpgs in the business. Most of that effort has gone into considerations that differ from supporting a modern rpg aesthetic; 13th Age this is not! As for playtesting, I do agree that there are too many supplements with too many variations and spells and entire systems of magic to allow much in the way of test coverage. And then you can combine these...

Anyway,

Ken

You forgot: And with the most thorough playtesting procedure that I [Tellus] am aware of within the industry. But otherwise we agree.

Hi,

No, I did not forget.

I had no idea about what you are aware of. I still don't.

I also had no idea that your awareness of this matter or any other is either valid or relevant. I still don't.

I'm fine if you disagree with my take on test coverage. But really, if you're going to say something, say something.

EDIT: Apologies if I mistook your intent here. Words on the Internet sometimes lose or gain something in translation.

Anyway,

Ken

My apologies, I wasn't communicating very clearly.

You'd explained why the first two were not the case. I was trying to explain that "poorly playtested" is incorrect as well, without pooting you name on it.

My apologies for the poor attempt at communicating.

Hi,

Ok.

"Poorly playtested" is me quoting someone. Those aren't the words I'd use, but I do agree that over the course of its run, AM5 playtesting became increasingly insufficient to handle all the new rules, subsystems, spells, virtues, flaws and their interactions.

This began to occur as early as RoP:M and TL, with baroque rules that didn't always work with other rules or sometimes even with themselves.

By the time we reached Magi of Hermes, I decided it made the most sense to treat any spell writeup as someone's house rule that happened to be printed but that also needed to be validated to the exact same extent as anything posted to these forums. For all that AM is supposed to have the most awesome magic system around, I bet that it's easier to get consensus about the level of a D&D spell than an AM spell.

And there are still arguments about how things like core MuVi and Parma really work.

Poorly playtested, maybe not. Insufficiently playtested, I think is fair. Also fair would be to note that AM5 is trying to do something different, and that there simply isn't enough manpower for decent test coverage. Which there isn't.

I also don't see any basis for AM having the most thorough playtest in the business. Certainly it cannot be in terms of playtester count, because things like D&D Next probably got more testers than there are active players of AM5. Nor can it be in terms of time per supplement, because AM5 supplements came out rather quickly. Nor can it be in terms of pre-release exposure to the community, because even train wrecks like RMU have received years of playtest and exposure, which in that case isn't going to help at all, because updating a classic game system (like AM) in a satisfying way is hard and they are failing mightily. Nor can it be in terms of "everything just works simply and smoothly, so the playtest must have been" because that's obviously not the case. An iPod, this is not.

AM5 has its upsides, to be sure. But the system is sprawling and baroque and even cantankerous, and it seems that part of the philosophy of AM5 has been to differentiate different kinds of magic by using new and different kinds of subsystems, each of which is also baroque and cantankerous all on its own, and therefore difficult to test alongside all the others.

This design philosophy is hardly unique to AM5, nor is the tension between the benefits of a single game mechanic and the blandness that usually arises from the utterly generic.

The design decisions of AM5 favoring flavor over simplicity increase the amount of testing necessary to achieve a given level of coverage, because there is so much more to test.

AM5 has good things to offer, but it also has lots and lots and lots of bugs.

Anyway,

Ken