... I think this summarizes why my group (and many others I believe) don't allow this.
One of my theories of character design is that if you never use it, the points don't matter. For all that the character sheet is a love letter to the GM, telling them what kind of stories you want to tell - at the heart of it, outside of a couple of core abilities and a strong character hook, most of the stuff on there is just fluff. Know a few languages? Or some Area Lore? Unless there's a concentrated effort to use them, they don't matter. The GM will forget (because they're busy with Story Hooks and whatnot for the entire troupe) that your character knows, say, Arabic. Or maybe they do remember...a year into play. Was it worth the 75 XP to be able to fluently speak to that one genie that one time? Eh, probably not, in terms of a cost benefit analysis. Had those points been from a limited pool, I would have felt cheated, and wished I had put the points into something I used on a more regular basis.
Which is why I have no problem min-maxing the bejuses out of the Complex character generation system. None of the character's core abilities (Magic Theory or his primary TeFo) went up - I had already established what those caps were with the basic character creation. Instead, most of the points went into background fluff that were never used, or "tertiary" skills that got rolled maybe once or twice.
What it DID do was let me be "finished" with the character before I started the game: that is, there was enough done with the core character concept that I didn't feel the need to stay in the lab with him (despite the fact that he was a lab rat), and so I was fine with taking him out on adventures.
1 Like
It's also for that reasons that I usually encourage house-rules that allow for cheap "background" skills that characters reasonably would have, but the players don't want to pay the points for. Usually I try to describe these as "meta-skills" - a single skill that encompasses a number of subskills, such as "London street urchin" or "French Pig Farmer". Each of those skills actually covers a number of skills that a magi won't likely use (and maybe one or two that actually is useful), but are convienent to have on the character sheet for background flavor. And if a PC can actually work it into a story? Eh, good for them.
I know that some systems explicitly lay this out: one of the editions of Big Eyes, Small Mouth had an XP multiplier assigned to different skill groups, depending on what genre you were playing in. Hard-core street action? Well, then your combat abilities cost more, and your social skills cost less. Romantic sit-com? Social skills were the primary, and your combat skills were just background. And so on.
1 Like
Sure, I didn't say that you couldn't take it, I was just saying that it doesn't do what you said it did originally, which was...
Either way the virtue adds XP. On the parens side of the equation, he has to be able to generate that much SQ in order for other magi to know he is a Skilled Parens. But, it can only be taken if the parens is not developed. If the parens is developed, you shouldn't take the virtue; in a fully developed character with an existing SQ that isn't 19* already, it doesn't bump the SQ up. And what you said, that taking the virtue improved the SQ of your parens teaching is true, but only in the case where he isn't developed, and it was always implicit in the virtue anyway, before Apprentices was published.
Probably one for the errata, but as stated the Skilled Parens virtue provides an extra season of teaching above and beyond what is required by the Code. Apprentices states:
Not stated above, but follows in the text is 3 seasons spent teaching spells. Opening the Arts is technically the first season of instruction, even legally, under the Code. So 12 seasons of instruction at SQ 19 is too many, if you're going from a bare minimum number of seasons of instruction, that is. When you recompute 19*12 XP and divide that value by 11 seasons to account for the season Opening the Arts, the SQ becomes 21. But it's also reasonable to expect that a Skilled Parens could teach 1 more season than is legally necessary, and teaches 1 season extra.
When viewed without using Apprentices Skilled Parens + Apprenticeship provided: 300 xp +150 spells. If you say that there are 11 seasons of instruction, 1 season of opening Arts (exposure), 3 seasons of being taught spells and 45 seasons of exposure due to being a lab slave, that means the SQ had to have been... only a hair above 18, call it 18. It's interesting to note that Apprentices inflates the value of Skilled Parens.
Be careful with comparisons within Apprentices. I don't recall double-checking Skilled Parens when I sent in the errata for the standard apprenticeship. I was just correcting the standard apprenticeship at the time.
The standard apprenticeship, IIRC & serf's parma, is 1 season opening, 11 seasons of instruction, and 3 seasons inventing spells (40 levels/season). Add to that 45 seasons of exposure doing whatever tasks are assigned. That's 49 seasons of exposure for 98 experience. The 11 seasons of instruction at SQ 13 provide 143 experience. When combined this is a total of 241 experience, very nearly the 240 listed in the core book. However, that had been listed as 12 seasons of instruction in Apprentices due to a miscalculation of exposure experience.
So Skilled Parens providing 12 seasons of instruction would not be an extra season when viewed internally for consistency. If Skilled Parens teach the same number of seasons, then 60/11=5.4545, so SQ of roughly 18.5. At the same time, that would effectively be a big downgrade for Skilled Parens since Apt Student would provide nearly the same experience during apprenticeship in addition to the normal amount is provides only after apprenticeship by the simple rules. So at very least rounding it up to 19 makes sense. I would really not consider that a noticeable inflation of Skilled Parens. But I would consider this method an inflation of Apt Student, Secondary Insight (which could use it), and probably Affinity.
1 Like
You're right, I didn't account for 4 additional seasons of exposure, due to Opening the Arts and teaching spells.
What? Where's the season of opening? The master is still teaching 3 seasons of spells, 12+3=15. So, I don't see how it's not an extra season of instruction, when viewed internally for consistency.
Now you're comparing it to another virtue, which is not internal consistency, is it?
From Apprentices, 12 seasons of instruction at SQ 19 is 228. There has to be a Season of Opening Arts, and there has to be three seasons of teaching spells, when combined with the seasons of being a lab slave comes to 49 seasons of exposure or 98 xp. 228+96=326, which is more than Skilled Parens + Apprenticeship provides from the Core book. If you make it 11 seasons of instruction + one season of Opening the Arts, you get to 307 xp. When I was recomputing the 12 seasons*19 XP/season, I wasn't being consistent with the core book, but I was being consistent with what's stated in Apprentices.
By my calculations of 11 seasons of instruction (and using the core book), Apt Student only provides 55 xp, when compared to Skilled Parens, which provides 60 xp and 30 additional levels of spells Apt Student is the poorer virtue, but comparing XPs given during a standard apprenticeship with 11 seasons of instruction in Arts & Abilities, they are comparable.
Apprentices did not account for the exposure experience properly. To get the numbers to work they added an extra season of teaching as a standard. This also costs a season of exposure. Thus they were short 10 experience via exposure and had an extra 13 from teaching, coming out close to 240. But without the extra season of teaching and by accounting for all the exposure experience, things work out well with 1 season/year as per the core book.
What I meant by internal consistency is that the quote is being misread. Apprentices says 12 seasons of instruction via a regular instructor or 12 seasons of instruction via a Skilled Parens. How is 12 seasons one extra season when compared to 12 seasons?
What I'm saying is that I didn't provide errata for the Skilled-Parens part. I just caught the errors in the normal part. So either use 12 seasons for both or use 11 seasons for both when evaluating them against each other. I should probably go back and provide errata for the Skilled-Parens part as well.
You seem to have forgotten that normally Apt Student provides absolutely nothing during apprenticeship. It is considered roughly on par with Skilled Parens because eventually you catch up and move ahead. It's like Book Learner. Would you say Book Learner is a far poorer Virtue than Skilled Parens because Book Learner provides 0 experience during Apprenticeship? The issue I was pointing out is that Apt Student has gotten a 55-point boost over normal, while Skilled Parens has gotten a minimal (6-point) boost (11 seasons to take into account the corrections). I wouldn't consider a 6-point boost much of an inflation when compared to a 55-point boost.
1 Like
It's not being misread, there's no mention of a regular instructor anywhere in that section. It says what it says, but it might be an error to be corrected via errata in light of what's said on page 16.
And then reading later, on page 16, where it describes the standard apprenticeship
So, either Skilled Parens does teach 12 seasons at SQ 19, or there is an error in the Skilled Parens section on page 10. Apprentices itself is internally inconsistent.
No, I really didn't forget, but I'm confused as to what the point is anymore. What is the Best and Worst virtue will totally change based on the context of the saga. If you're playing as an Apprentice, IMO, Skilled Parens doesn't make a lot of sense. If you're using ECCGR, again Skilled Parens doesn't make a lot of sense.
The value calculus of any virtue and flaw is going to be determined based on the nature of the saga and the rules used to generate characters AND the resources during the life of the saga. And any discussion about comparing virtues has to start from agreed upon point. I'm generally trying to stay close to the core book's rules for generating characters. Others have brought up ECCGR, and maine75man mentioned that Apprentices increased the SQ of the parens in Apprentices. It really doesn't, it sets it at 19, and then only if the parens isn't developed.
For my money, according to the core book's standard rules for generating a character, Skilled Parens is a darn fine virtue.
Jonathan, maybe you just don't realize you're not quoting the book verbatim? Probably you're quoting a post-errata pdf? That would be why it looks to me like you're misreading? That quote on page 16 of the book actually finishes "Added to 6 experience points gained from three seasons of Exposure, an apprentice gains 19 experience points a year for the first twelve years."
As I was the one who pointed out the inconsistencies (16 seasons instead of 15 in the core book, no Exposure while reinventing spells those 3 seasons), I can also tell you that I had not at the time pointed out anything about Skilled Parens on page 10. When the book was written they were both given 12 seasons of teaching. Thus, when written, Skilled Parens did not give an extra season. The extra season that seems to be showing up is because one part was corrected in the errata while another was not.
As for SQ 19, rounding 18.4545 one way or the other will not make things just right. Why not err in the side of giving a little more experience since other Virtues such as Apt Student and Affinities have become stronger via this method?
1 Like
Yes, you're right, that's it, I'm referencing the PDF. And when I was searching for errata in Apprentices, I was looking for Skilled Parens, and not the changes on page 16 (which according to the PDF are already there and fixed).
Huh? I never said not to give a SQ of 19. I'm saying that picking Skilled Parens when the parens is a fully developed character is not appropriate whether using ECCGR or whether playing the apprentice throughout his apprenticeship. If your SG said your master's SQ was 13, and you wanted to make it 19, sure, pick Skilled Parens. But that's a bit different. and I have no objection to the total being 19. My concern was talking (12x19)/11=21 XP. 19 as a SQ is totally fine, 21 isn't.
At least this bit's clear now. I should email David and ask him to fix the "12" on page 10, changing it to "11."
I'm confused...
Two things here. I was just calculating the total XP for Apprenticeship+Skilled Parens to be a hair above 18 and said just call it 18 (you get 296 xp that way). My comment about Apprentices inflating the value of Skilled Parens applied to the idea of resolving the 12 seasons mentioned within the context of Skilled Parens being discussed in Apprentices (12*19)/11=21 xp. Working within that context, you get 21 xp per season of instruction for 11 years, +49 seasons of exposure xp for a total of 329 XP, which would be an inflation of 29 XP over the core book. So, I was comparing 296 xp to 329 xp, and it was appearing to be a rather significant inflation of Skilled Parens.
It's probable that the source quality of the Parens goes up during the apprenticeship. Given all those seasons of exposure to Teaching (potentially 30xp every time you train an apprentice), possible lab improvements in Teaching - heck, even potential Communication bumps.
Re-addressing the main topic, I wanted to get an opinion. When establishing "best Virtues", should roleplaying requirements be factored into the mechanical viability? For "the other game" the answer would be a resounding no, but it's a more relevant question in Ars. Presumably, if you're taking a Virtue or Flaw associated with a certain archetype, it's because you're either playing that archetype or you're trying to make a sub/inversion. Roleplaying requirements aren't so hard when you'd be playing that way anyway, after all. But there's more dramatic failure opportunities, too, and likely a whole story may revolve around how hard it is to stick to your ethics/goals/whatever, meaning it can be pretty hard.
Depending on your perspective, for example, True Faith can either be one of the best Virtues for combat Companions or, alternatively, it could be one of the worst, given its position as an entire Major Virtue which the Storyguide can (and is in some cases obliged to) pull out from under your feet at the drop of a hat. Obviously, this depends on how God and the Church are treated in your game, since even that doesn't have a reliable standard... But eh.
So yeah, that's my question. How much consideration should RP requirements get in determining mechanical usefulness of Virtues?
@Akriloth - Reading back a bit I think most of the answers here have either excluded the breadth of variety that RP introduces in a virtue or flaw, or the RP aspects of the virtue or flaw are almost moot (meaning RP really not involved). To look at it another way, a munchkin approach to V&F selection will not select one as "best" if it has the potential to be derailed by a roleplaying aspect. Its probably not best if it's mechanics can be affected by RP too much. But then consider too that the best/worst/favourite etc aspects of the topic are already highly subjective, and have to be considered in context of the character in play.
There are not really V&Fs which are great for all character types (a hermetic virtue is junk to a holy companion, etc), so by that point I think everything should be factored against the RP potential, because that's what we're hopefully here to do. Otherwise the game is reduced to a potentially dull simulation of numbers and xp.
Some major flaws are not really flaws at all if the player of that character loves the impact the flaw has on their gameplay. The impact of the flaw is mitigated by the player's perspective and RP desire (...which might actually mean the RP aspects should be ignored, but I think that is a terrible munchkin approach to designing a roleplaying character).
And here we are on page 16... 
1st point - a challenge is a challenge. It doesn't matter if it's a Might 5 weakling or a Might 50 demi-god as long as it matches the players in strength. Even if you are completely outclassed, you could make a deal. Even if you are the Lion and it is the Mouse, you could play it fair. There are no monster levels or challenge ratings.
2nd point - a munchkin and 3 newbies adventuring together, the munchkin will resolve all the issues. It is more important that all players are on the same page and that resolving stories requires a little from everybody.
3rd point - revisiting your magus creation/advancement after having played him for some time is the best way to clean up what you missed. Get this approved and don't sweat the little things.
4th point - still, some Virtues are munchkin-good and fun-good. The ability to adjust R/D/T on the fly is godsent, tons of mastered spells allow you to act in every occasion, link to the faeries gives flavor, ease with an art or focus allows the impossible. Find something that is fun and allows you to pass the ball to another, empowering team synergy! 8)
5th point - Ranulf of MoH fame is blind as a bat and that's what brings him to life. He never had to cheat his way around his Flaws to make himself interesting. If you want to explore a limitation, do it. A good SG is not adversarial.
Um... Tugdual, I think you think that I was doing something that I don't think I was doing. That answer was completely irrelevant to everything I said. I'm not even sure what you think I was doing. That wasn't "omg why don't you munchkins roleplay", nor was it "lol I'm a nub who doesn't understand the difference between power and fun waaah!" The only viable explanation I can think of is you over-reading into my usage of the word "mechanical viability" and while that's a valid gripe in most other threads, it's literally the topic of this one. I wasn't calling an SG who does with the Virtue what the Virtue tells the SG to do adversarial, and a story that reaches climax with God turning from the character in their last moments before death can be just as good as a story where that doesn't happen.
But given that the point and spirit of the thread is mechanical application and effectiveness, not how much fun the recipient derives for it (not that those are necessarily different things, but you know what I mean) it is a fruitless point to mention that something can be blessed with suck yet still be fun. That wasn't even being debated. From a pure mechanical/power standpoint though, which is what the thread is discussing from what I've seen, having a (Major) Virtue which requires potentially self-detrimental actions from the character and voids its own benefit if that pattern is broken could be considered a crippling usage of three Virtue points, even if the Virtue itself is the Winnest of RARs when the pattern is stuck to. And I consider that line of thought worth discussing, personally, even if the end result is "nah, doesn't make much of a difference actually."
Not trying to come off as standoffish, but I feel like you were belittling me for not understanding the premises of the discussion, and as of yet I have no reason to believe I was incorrect, nor would badly-natured mocking be okay in either case. If I misunderstood your tone and your attempts were well-meaning or simply a result of misunderstanding of where I was coming from, I apologize profusely for any backlash on my part.
For us, best virtues and flaws are the ones that
- Give the character a clear definition or distinctive feature (like a focus, or the fact that he is a noble or whatever).
- The ones that generate stories and interpretative features (major personality flaws and story hooks).
- Mechanical benefits come a long third way. They are always taken, but are a one shot virtue, one that plays in the background and has no real relevance for the character above the number in the spreadsheet.
Yes?
Seriously, though, there's not a single or simple answer to this. It is going to depend on the saga, the troupe and ultimately your goals for that particular mix.
Sort of the way people write lots about how a skyscraper looks or how big it is, but not so much about the steel girders...