Well, when you boil down what people do with Parma, you get 2 options:
Parma blocks magic as a shield (like in the RAW)
Parma suppresses magic inside it
The usual result being mix of the two with an "intelligent parma", so that parma will work as a shield at some times, as a suppresser at others, according to what seems to make the most sense to the GM.
When you get down to it, it's usually somewhat inconsistent, since it doesn't reside on clearcut rules but on the GM's decision about whether parma acts one way or another, despite attempts to put down some.
This "intelligence" usually shows clearly when asking questions of Boulder mutoed into peeble and Poison into water (or the reverse)
The only way I've found out of this conundrum is to draw a line in the sand somewhere.
That is, decree that Parma is to Magic like sunlight is to vampires. Like the "turn undead" ability of DnD priest, that destroyed the weaker ones while repelling the others.
So, parma suppresses the weaker spells (lvl 0 to xx. I think 10 is appropriate), and acts as RAW for the others.
This is far from perfect, but is is clear. You can still do Pink dot, but it requires stronger spells, which are usually equivalent to just having a "destroy weapons" spell, and can't usually be sponted without fatigue.
An alternative would be to do the same with Penetration (parma supresses spells with Pen under 10) or a mix of both (parma supresses spells with lvl and pen under 10).
Sadly, though, I think that, whatever the solution, it'll always be open to abuse.
Well, in these cases the list presents a House Rule or a few - not a thorough discussion. We can still present such house rules as examples, and refer to the more extensive discussion. The house rule on nourishing food, for example, is just one take on the issue. It can keep on existing as such regardless of any changes made in the FAQ entry on the subject. Depriving the list of house rules on contested topics will also deprive it of much of its useful content. So I think it's better to present house rules on these topics, but to also refer and link to the relevant pages from within the house rule's text.
I couldn't think of any that I liked. So I didn't include any. But of course, I'd be happy to include any... it's a popular topic...
So be it.
Sure thing. I wanted to put it up here first to get feedback before I post it on the wiki. Once that's done, I'll post it and let you (and everyone else) know.
I think "Clarification" is a problematic category, as it is often really "Interpretation" and when not then it's not really a house rule (as in the case of the "pace", above). So I think it'd be best to use the categories of Interpretation, Alteration, or Addition. And leave Clarification, like "pace", out of the list altogether. Does that sound good to everyone?
That.... is a truly major change to the setting and game. Do we want to include such big changes in the wiki list?
That is an interesting mechanic! The RAW works for me, as I think of Stamina as more like will-power than physical hardiness, but I can see the problem both mechanically and thematically. Your solution encourages more varied magi, which is cool.
I'll add it to the list.
That... is more like a game contract/custom than a house rule, no?
Yes, I think that sounds right.
I find that a magical bridge or spikes at the bottom of a pit often work well as an example against suppressing parma, too.
So... we should write this as an example house rule, yes?
I would tend to think such clarifications are very important, though I totally understand keeping them separate from house rules so-as not to confuse them with house rules. These aren't the immediately obvious things, but things that you end up wasting an hour searching for because you know you must have seen it somewhere. For instance, if you don't know where to look, it can take a long time to determine 1 pace = 3' or 1 round = 6 s. Even harder would be determining that Attack Advantage is not used with aimed spells since it's not even in the books but was listed as the official interpretation via the forums.
It is a large change, but so is Arts as abilities. I think it'll help portray the magical and faerie beings that are relabeled divine or infernal. It also keeps you a bit more on your toes. What it might also explain is why there is no magic now, when everything can be reasoned away, removing worship and wonder a bit, though this is speculation from a player, our alpha SG might have an idea for this.
I'd also include the large and conflicting houserules, noone will (or even can) use all the houserules anyway.
I think Stamina has too much physical annotation to be considered willpower. Ars could do with an attribute like that, though it is cought in virtues (strong willed) already.
List ammended! Well, with what I had so far. If you have further suggestions/corrections, let us know! Or wait till I post it on the wiki to edit it yourself there (I should post it there in a few days - once I see it's acceptable to the community).
Some of the classifications seemed very iffy to me - I'm not sure if setting limits on range increments is Alteration or Addition, for example. Please let me know if you disagree with my categorization.
Arts as Abilities is peanuts compared to your change AaA changes the rules to fit the themes and flavor text better, your changes will substantially invalidate a lot of the flavor text and significantly alter the supernatural scenery. Be that as it may, this is definitely a "house rule", and if you think it's appropriate on such a list than we shall include it! I will do so myself in the new draft/final version, unless you want to wait and put it in the wiki yourself.
Actually, I could totally see that adding to the game.... Corpus with a specialty in Healing or Mentam with a speciality in Ghosts. Like Ability specialities, it would help clarify and support the character concept.
It was the reason I asked, it won't give a lot more power, but makes the rule more consistent, and the characters better clarified.
Scope of specialisations would be interesting, would you allow Forms to have a Technique specialty? Techniques to have a Form specialty? Should they be limited like minor magic foci? Major magic foci?
I would be inclinded to have the specialties be much in the manner of magical foci, because I think it's more characterful than just Creo (Ignem) and Ignem (Creo). That said, I'm not entirely sure what would constitute good specialties for Techniques...
It would be better storywise to use the guidelines for foci, but a lot easier to just adjust you Te/Fo matrix. I am lucky not to have to make that decision just yet, I don't know what I'd choose.
I have another question, about the form bonus, and some other might occur. Should I splice them to a new thread?
Well, one of my favored Alterations:
Formulaic Magic Casting Total effects:
10+, no fatigue
0-9, 1 fatigue level lost
-1 to -10, 2 fatigue levels lost, spell still cast
-11 or lower, 3 fatigue levels lost, spell not cast
I´ve used several variations on this, overall they put formulaic spells more inline with both ritual and spontaneous in that you´re more likely to spend fatigue to cast a spell.
This one, i much prefer using the setting where +-3 is "normal" and a Minor Flaw means +-4, to better differentiate Flaws from what is "common" or "no big deal".
I disagree that this is anything "beyond what the rules and setting expect". Even with multiple additional (HR) XP virtues it wont break the system unless a player/SG does it intentionally. This also greatly curtails any reason to make a "scholarly" type of magi, because they will be loosing much of the bonus from the virtues taken.
This HR is basically a way to say that you want a whole category of characters excluded.
An alternative to this is that Wards that don´t penetrate instead of stopping only hinders.
So if you´re running from a demon through a corridor, put up a ward that would stop the demon if it had enough penetration, instead the demon has to take a round to get past the ward. Or similar.
Always preferred using a stricter ruling on those. Entering the circle after the spell is cast means no effect, leaving the circle breaks the effect. Basically the hardline part from both yours.
And totally the most preferred one IMO.
Nice idea but I think the penalty is seriously on the high side. Even if you only add 5 Vis, you have basically made it impossible to succeed with a finesse roll.
My way of handling this has been to simply note XP normally and then simply use that *1.5, if needed you write down the modified number next to the original one. No problems with rounding at all.
Those 2 are ok but don't quite work as intended if you gain (or lose) Affinity post-Gauntlet. OTOH, I prefer that both Affinity and Puissant behave the same way when gaining/losing which is that case with those 2 alterations.
IIRC, when we had someone gaining an Affinity(don´t think i´ve had anyone loose one), we simply put a mark on the "old" XP then noted new XP next to it. Not sure how I would prefer to do it with a loss, we´ve usually not changed V/F quite that easily post-character-creation (especially not with the "natural talent"-virtues) so I hadn´t thought about it.
I use the same system as Direwolf75, and handling both gain and loss is easy. Gain as Direwolf75 says. Loss - we just add the post-affinity total to the old total and call it the new total. This assumes you keep any affinity-granted xp. If your saga has the character mysteriously lose any affinity-granted xp (I don't agree with this, but it's your saga) then you just add the pre-affinity total to the old xp total and call it the new total.
Either way, you end up with one xp total again, and if the affinity comes back a second time then you just repeat the process. Well, unless having the affinity come back allows you to mystically re-gain the xp you mystically lost earlier - in which case... you're on your own. And did I mention I disagree with the idea of taking xp away when an affinity is lost?
"Well, if you call THAT adding to the game..." he said haughtily.
OK, ok, I give. It's more consistent and can add a little to emphasize a character concept. I did not include such an option in the house rule primarily because I didn't think of it. But also because the rule changes the Arts to be like Abilities, not to be Abilities. The difference is important because the official line policy is that an "Ability" gets the (Char + Ability) formula, as opposed to an "Art" that gets the (Char + Art + Art) formula. I can see all sorts of trouble brewing from virtues and rules applying an "Abilities" that can suddenly act on Arts. So I wanted to make the "minimal" change, and not get entangled in how to now list all the exceptions to how Abilities work. But perhaps I'm being too paranoid?
Hmm. Sounds like a good idea.
OK, cool.
I can see that.
The expectations will only be broken given PC and SG cooperation, sure. But assuming that multiple virtues do get applied regularly, on reasonable Quality sources, I do believe this can considerably speed up advancement.
What I don't see is how this HR denies a whole category of characters, including "scholarly" ones. Why shouldn't you play the character with Book Learner and Uimaginative Learner, again? Sure, you'll get less from your Affinity in Creo; still more than just the book learner, so you'd want to apply it instead, but less. So what? You're still getting more from reading books than studying from raw vis, generally, and even without the Flaw you're still getting more from studying books on other Arts.
That would mean that the ward has an affect against any MR at all. Even archangel Michael will need to stop and take a round to blow the barrier down. That seems rather excessive to me.
Should this option be mentioned explicitly? I was writing the above partly under the assumption that the reader will have the sense to mix and match different suggestions on the same topic, so that doing such crosses would not be necessary.
You're quite right. I'll lower it to -1, then?
Right. Should definitely write that down as another option.
We have a simple House Rule that allows a character to take an additional number of skills equal to their Int score (assuming it's positive) at a score of 0. These skills are representative of things your character is vaguely interested in or has dabbled with in the past but has no particular facility with. It doesn't break the game and it's a good way of getting players to direct their character's initial development (and it also acts as a reminder where they were going to put those pesky XP when they forget!)
Yes of course, my point was that it doesn´t speed it up so much that it breaks the system.
Basically, if you can reach Art scores of 20 in the two relevant, you pretty much have acess to all base guidelines for that Te/Fo combination, so even if you have 40/40 instead, what you can actually do with them isnt very different.
The big difference is that you get a lot more penetration "for free"(which you might otherwise need to aquire an AC to achieve, so mostly you just get things slightly easier) and how much you can do with spontaneous casting.
And you can get the latter capacity anyway by simply picking Life Linked S.M..
Why would anyone pick Book Learner if they rely on having Affinities for their main Arts?
And vice versa if they expect to learn mostly from books and have therefore picked BL, why would they even consider having an Affinity?
It´s like saying that characters doesn´t get the bonus from Puissant if they also have Book Learner. Look at it from that direction and you see that it seems rather absurd. And yes it really IS like that, you make some Virtues mutually exclusive.
You can make it gradual one way or another of course(like depending on power, it might just slow down a tiny bit for someone really powerful, while a lowend Might 5 creature could need more than one round to get past), I´ve done a few variants on it, while none is perfect, I´ve found ALL to be fun to have in play. Wards becomes much less on/off binary.
Mmm, good question... Yeah probably mention it AND perhaps still add a line about mixing the options as preferred. It was certainly not an obvious "option" as written now.
Yeah, -1 looks much more reasonable. Then if you´re skilled with Finesse you can still boost a decent amount without automissing.
AaA changes the rules to fit the themes and flavor text better, your changes will substantially invalidate a lot of the flavor text and significantly alter the supernatural scenery. Be that as it may, this is definitely a "house rule", and if you think it's appropriate on such a list than we shall include it! I will do so myself in the new draft/final version, unless you want to wait and put it in the wiki yourself.