David, you should take it as a compliment every time you see one of us asking for 5.5 rather than 6. That's because 5 was done so well overall that many of us don't want it altered significantly enough to warrant a truly new edition.
Glad to see you're still around.
Oh, I do. It is very satisfying to see that people still like what we achieved with ArM5. I suspect that a significantly different ArM6 is a better commercial approach for Atlas, though. It's not as if ArM5 and its forty supplements will disappear, after all.
Yes, less interesting
But I think a game needs to be viewed in commercial terms and learning curve for new players. Not just for flavour and simulated ârealismâ of magical traditions.
A core book which can be used off the bat, by itself is recommended. Why shouldnât you be able to quickly gauge or decide the magic of a hedgie, a faerie power, or an infernal curse?
Call it â minor traditions â then, which are included. And then those very interested in fully developed and unique traditions can buy that book.
ArM tries but the Supernatural Abilities are too weak to be the core magic of anything above the weakest hedgies.
RoP Magic describes a lot of creature powers from Hermetic guidelines anyway.
Back when I first read the core book I was annoyed about the lack of ideas for Mysteries for the Mystery Cults. Iâd want a core book which can be used by itself. Just basic stuff, with more advanced, unique stuff in supplements.
Ars Magica is never a system I would describe as 'easy to learn' or 'friendly to new players'. I've even dragged people in, and had them sit multiple sessions before deciding that the game was too mathy and not fun enough.
Of course, I'm still loving my game of Sorcerers and Spreadsheets.
There are some pretty major problems with having completely unique traditions:
On the other hand, 90% of the uniqueness of the traditions can be had by making them variations of hermetic magic, with certain art restrictions, casting requirements/bonuses and new spell guidelines. And it's also sorta consistent with the lore, Bonisagus being the great integrator and all that.
Off the top of my head.
Parma/Magic Resistance needs better defining, as it very easily causes arguments, especially in corner cases and with indirect magic (conjured creatures or altered objects).
Parma was also too important and as a result every magi scrambled early on to get to Parma 4-5 rather than studying Arts or doing interesting stuff. A blanket ban on Parma books (to keep it a secret) would be a good start, magi could just use Exposure XP for buffing Parma. Maybe if magi finished gauntlet with a Parma of 3 (rather than 1) this might be less of an issue overall.
Also, Parma is an Ability that is never used as an Ability, which is just bad game design. It's not modified by a Characteristic (I guess that Stamina would be its base Characteristic) or a die roll. Rolling your Parma vs hostile magic could be a fun part of the game, making everything less certain.
Spellcasting and Penetration needs some tinkering. It's extremely frustrating when your magi can cast a level 50 spell and it goes piffle because something has Magic Resistance of 5. I understand the logic of the way it works currently (the magic hasn't got force behind it), but it leads to magic casting dinky low level spells at each other rather than mighty magics. Maybe adding a fatigue element to Magic Resistance might change the balance of things - so big spells might not penetrate MR but would be tiring to resist.
Then there's the all-or-nothing nature of spellcasting vs MR. It might be a lot harder to implement a partial effect system where spells only partially get through MR but it would be more dramatic.
Vis use needs to be rebalanced. +2 per pawn is too little (though I agree that 4th edition +5 per pawn was too much, +3 per pawn would probably be about right), and the limit of Magic Theory x2 for lab use was far too low, forcing magi to have huge Magic Theory scores to make interesting magical items.
Many of the spells are kludgey and impractical or outright badly designed for use. For example, Conjure the Mystic Tower doesn't really have sufficient space for normal laboratories once you account for stairs and walls, and Aegis of the Hearth basically has its own set of bespoke rules (aside from the bespoke rules for wards) and is too small for interesting covenants (needs greater flexibility). And Curse of the Desert should be a PeCo spell!
Target: Individual needs some expansion, because as written, it is just a person and their clothes, which is often terribly inconvenient, it needs some 'slack' for worn/carried equipment.
Houses and Mystery Cults need some serious pruning. Mercere has 2 sub-factions in a house that might have 20 Gifted magi. House Criamon might have 50-60 members with 5 defined 'paths' that might have a dozen magi on each path? Criamon could be better 'organized' in the way Merinita is shown - more of a web of mysteries that can be followed along branches than separate pathways.
Realm books could use some addressing. There's the situation where these various Method and Powers users are far more user friendly to each other than magic traditions were prior to Bonisagus' Hermetic system. I.e. Gifted magic users have a bunch of various magic systems described in several books that are largely incompatible with each other and hermetic magic, but Holy/Faerie/Infernal characters seem to have far fewer barriers in terms of learning from each other.
Starting magi are kind of under-trained and could definitely use more Ability XP overall. Almost every in-game apprentice I've seen comes out leagues ahead of what the main rules provides.
This is a fascinating thread that I can't resist adding to. Lots of good points have been made:
Better artwork and higher production quality for the corebook is indeed vital. There are new RPGs being churned out all the time which look beautiful but with frankly mediocre content but still fools like me throw money at them because they look so nice. Ars Magica fifth edition has fantastic content but was let down by poor artwork even by the standards of the time and I am sure that inhibited take up. The visual appearance of a sixth edition core rulebook must draw new readers in.
We need an easier on-ramp. The fifth edition rulebook has been accurately described as an excellent summary of the rules for people who already play Ars Magica. It is not a good introduction to the game. We need a proper starter set and / or a quickstart - these are almost expected for games nowadays. And then perhaps the core book can still be more of a reference work, although the chapter structure could still be improved so that the rules for more advanced / long term activities come after the rules new players will want to learn first - like how to cast a spell.
I agree on the need for streamlining the rules and my priority would be to trim back in areas which slow down gameplay. For instance, I find the rules for magic resistance and penetration overly fiddly. Also it would be good to have spontaneous magic without having to divide by two or five, and the realm modifiers are rather fussy as well. If you are pausing the game for more than a few seconds because you have to refer to a book or do some even mildly complicated mental arithmetic, then the rules are failing you, in my view.
As others have stated, we need an overhaul and rationalisation of abilities. I think the core roll and add mechanics are very robust and also nicely flexible in play although in our saga we prefer the variant where a roll of 1 indicates a possible botch and a 0 counts as a 10 and 'explodes' so that another die is rolled and the result added to the 10. This way a high roll is always good and a low roll is always bad unlike fifth edition RAW which feels a bit counter-intuitive.
I think the core mechanics work fine in combat but I would like a foregrounding of tactical choices in combat as suggested by Christian Anderson (already there in core and Lords of Men to some degree) so that combat is a place where meaningful decisions can be made rather than it being a matter of simply cycling through combat rounds until one side or another is ground down.
It would be nice if the combat rules covered a wider range of situations. I doubt more than a small minority of sagas feature many D&D-style fights to the death between comparable opponents but that seems to be the assumed use of the combat rules. In my game we have seen:
The current combat system didn't model any of these particularly well. I think we winged it fine and they were all effective, dramatic moments but the combat system didn't help us much.
More developed rules for social challenges would be helpful as well - winning arguments at tribunal, making good impressions when visiting other covenants, explaining away suspicious circumstances to a quaesitor or churchman, etc. While I have combat maybe once every 10-15 sessions, there are significant social challenges pretty much every session, but this side of the game has had little attention in the rules.
I am happier with more complexity for rules covering long term activity as that is dealt with outside actual stories - e.g. character advancement and lab work. But it would be great to have some new digital tools to help with character and covenant management - Metacreator is invaluable but does not draw on every supplement and I would find a less techie interface much easier to use.
I think Fifth Edition is a magnificent achievement. It has enabled the most enjoyable, satisfying and creative games that I have ever been involved with. In particular I value the high level of verisimilitude in the setting, and the freedom afforded to the PCs, which enables a wide range of possible stories with as much depth as you choose to give to the characters and setting. I love the way that there is no over-arching metaplot or style hardwired into the system giving great flexibility in how the setting can be interpreted and used (the books, especially Dies Irae, suggest plenty of metaplots to include but nothing is forced down your throat).
It is a hugely ambitious game - in the range of stories it can tell, characters you can play, level of simulation you can employ (if you want), and extent of chronological development it facilitates - and as with anything that goes significantly beyond the limits of what has come before, there are some flaws and problems. But I very much hope a new edition holds to the current vision of the game and is a refinement of what has come before and plays to its strengths rather than going off in a new direction. The game is brilliant already - it essentially just needs some trimming back and to be rewritten with novice players in mind.
I like ArM5 the best so far. Unlike some others, I don't have issues with combat. I like, for instance, that the degree of success determines the impact rather than an independent secondary roll. I generally like the open-ended attribute + ability + roll mechanic (although I'd prefer just generically exploding dice).
I could always use more resources (tribunal books, game play enhancing accessories digital or otherwise, ...) and a different high-fantasy setting would be nice for games that don't want to be restricted by (a)historical Europe/Earth.
There are two specific things that I think are worth improving:
We have lots of changes in our campaign, not all would be good in a vanilla Ars setting. Among the things that could be used are as follow:
The most important thing
Parma Magica needs to be changed IMO. How it works and how powerful it is. This also makes it necessary to change penetration rules and introduce anti-magic rules, so to speak, for passive, proactive and reactive magic defense.
Stats etc
Change characteristics, more skills (especially for combat, it shouldn't be an easily learned hobby for magi to master), skill-groups masters in a given field might get a boost from, add/remove/balance virtues and flaws, introduce an endurance system to complement Fatigue: can be used for special maneuvers in combat and spontaneous spellcasting. Change Confidence.
Sorcery
Nerf ring duration (only wards), introduce a range between Voice and Sight, make several (we use 3) Arcane Connection ranges up to unlimited, reintroduce permanent duration, differ between creating something from thin air and healing/enhancing something. Remove minimal level for rituals and maximum level for formulaic spells. adjustment to Muto and Rego, including a nerf to crafts with Rego magic. Rules for natural resistance against spells: when you have it and guidelines for how hard it would be to resist. Change Form bonus. Rebalance some spell guidelines.
Change rules for warping and introduce temporal warping, remove that you can invent spells specially made for you so you sidestep warping. Change the Twilight system. Make familiars less of a magic item and closer to the idea of the third edition. Change the system for certĂĄmen, reintroduce the skill and add techniques for Tremere and those serious about it.
Study related
Change how books are written so people can improve writing, let books covering the same skill/Art boost each others Summa so a library of for example law books is even better then the best of the volumes in the library. Tractatus should be changed (we don't know how yet and have several different ideas). Introduce rules for using experiments to study.
Meta
Start from scratch if books about the infernal, dominion and the magic realm should be written.
Other stuff
New economy system, remove powers from priests: they should not be holy spellcasters. Maneuvers characters can learn and use in combat, fine tuning weapon stats. New rules for building laboratories. A new system for hermetic discoveries to make them harder and more special.
I would probably have optional rules for more cinematic combat online (if at all), using normal playing cards in a system that offers variation and tactic. We have not used it in Ars but in other games, works great for flashing blades kind of games. Either way, combat should not be the hobby thing it is now and turned into a real investment grogs and companions can master but magi seldom wants to waste their time with.
In my next campaign (if I GM another one) the Order would be the Hermetic Order, a timeline where Tremere succeeded and centralized the power. The Order would have a proper political system, taxes collected and used for the common good, some Houses would get a new purpose and roles (Mercere and Guernicus), etc. A more high fantasy setting where the Order and Byzantine joined forces and ushered in a new golden era of high culture, magic and technology.
Some powers make sense for priests- exorcisms for example, but it should certainly be something other than jacking up regular magic with divine power.
IMHO this needs to find some common ground between medieval european and mythic. May the Indiana Jones whip doesn't quite fit the theme as most people see it, but the tentacles of a demon might work in much the same way? A mobile, knife throwing rogue should be able to do with combat as it is. High-kicking ninjas or WWE moves are maybe best left for other games. I whole-heartedly recommend GURPS Martial Arts and Technical Grappling for that kind.
I think we need more options, rather than just attack, and these should thematically fit somewhere inbetween Medieval Combat Simulator and Wire Kung Fu.
I'd like combat to use simple, tactical chopices about what you do - for both attack and defense. Actually, let's call it Action (for when it's your turn in the Initiative sequence) and Response (what do you do when it's someone elses Action?).
I'd like to be able to Feint, Trip or Disarm, rather than just hack with a weapon, and these things can be done by normal "attack" roll where the Attack Advantage is what gauges your success. Feints - if succesful - gives a better chance for the next attack to hit. Trip knockes foe to the ground, giving some penalty or furtehr challenge. Disarming leaves foe defenseless, or forces him to yield etc.
I'd like very strong combatants (e.g. tree wielding giants) to be able to use their brawn and mass to overpower opponents, sundering shields and breaking spears. Attacks where normal parry/block defense it less useful, but where you need to evade and retreat. So defense needs to have several choises as well.
Grappling needs to be looked at so it works but is till simple, with follow-up options like Pin, Crush, Throw, Bite etc. Things a bit critter will do once it grabs you, as well as things two grogs might get up to in a clinch.
Some of the special moves might need expenditure of Fatigue
More options, but simple. The core mechanics might not even have to change much.
It's not so much a mechanical revamp that is needed for combat, but a question of guidance how to set modifiers given a circumstance and the specificity of the action. Each narrated dis/advantage or setting circumstance can be used to set the modifier for the attack or defend rolls. Margin of success still indicates quality. I find setting that modifier is difficult. How easy is it to use a sword to defend a takedown on gravel after a swing? Bogging down everything by micromanaging microrules surely isn't the way. I prefer a quick assessment of easy, challenging, difficult with modifiers, say 0, -5, and -10 to attack for disadvantages, useful. This preserves tactical choices by players evaluating environment, circumstances, and moves, while keeping mechanics simple.
The key is to give players, especially beginners, good guidance how to assess and set these.
I recently had the pleasure to play Splittermond, a rather new RPG from Germany. Here is what I learned: they invested heavily into a real nice starter kit - Manual, example characters, and a small saga (good enough for 3 afternoons or evenings). Really nicely done on the level of Artwork and Characters and getting people easily into the game. I think this is a goal that any new larger Game should try to archive.
So I'd leave substantial changes to the experts. But on the organisational level: please drop the current example character and templates, and replace them with nicely build characters and an intro saga.
Reorganize the book to make it more approachable. For example: spening a season to - if you want to learn spells, that is in the laboratory chapter, if you want to read a tractatus, that is in a different chapter.
We have four different "upbringing" flaws of some kind. The chapter on long term effects is in the rule book before combat - something people need in their first adventure, I'd guess?
Also: Terminology. Tribunal is the region, the event, and the other events of the same name (regional tribunal, house, grand). Sigil is both a nuance in the effect of a spell and a physical token at the tribunal?
Or: in some past edition some magi were having a small book of common spells, to cast directly the spell from the book, if I remember that correctly. I tried to see if this is still a thing or not, and found nothing in Arm5 core rule book.
I love the game and the setting, but I'm struggling with the rule book for Arm5.
I feel like the goal of ars magica is to make you feel like a true Magus. Not via the gameplay, but via the arcane summa you must read and reread to tease out the secrets of the game hah
back when it was white wolf this was a given. Ars magica was about searching through arcane rules, Vampire the masquerade seemed to take centuries, and Werewolf the apocalypse made you feel the aggravation...
And Mage was full of squirly esoteric tangents, which while interesting to read, made you forget what you were looking up in the first place. The newest version is a bit better about locating information and being consistent. But I estimate about a third of the text is Brucato going off on a soapbox tangent about whatever was just written. For example, you have a Flaw and a straightforward paragraph or two explaining the rule clear and consistent. Then three more paragraphs of SJW commentary on said Flaw. That and GM advice along the lines of (quote) "don't be a douchebag about it".
It is an amusing and refreshing style. But it could use some David Chart style editing. 
And that is part of the charm of ArM5. It is a high crunch system for gamers that love crunch. Always has been. David Chart has a talent for keeping authors on a clear focused path. I was fortunate enough to work under him on a few books (the only professional writing of my life so far). One of the main lessons I remember is the importance of being clear and concise. Something I obviously have difficulty with. Word count was an issue of course. But that is only part of it. I learned that the more words you use to explain something, the greater the chance that the reader will get confused or loose interest.
So if you think ArM5 is complex and confusing, keep in mind it could have been many times more so.
And as for the core rule book, my personal critique is not with the writing or editing. It could be written a bit better (if I had done it 
), but as far as editing for clarity, I give it an 8.5. Top shelf work.
Art, Color, and Layout. Those are the glaring faults that make it hard for me to turn people onto the game. There is the issue with an early wall of complexity, but I can guide them through that. Still, they need to have enough interest to at least read the book, and when they do, page 5 is a HUGE turn off. In and of itself the drawing isn't horrible. It would be better if it was a quarter of the size, NOT in red ink, and buried midway through or at the end when discussing the Faerie realm. Placed that early in the book and at that size and on the right hand size, it is the equivalent of a comic book "splash page". The pic on page 5 is a very poor choice for a splash. The guy with the snake on 73, the old man with the map on 109, those would have been much better choices. And even those are weak.
The art and color really does severely detract from the quality. If that is the only thing changed, I am buying it. Kick-start a deluxe nice-art version of the core rules, words unaltered, and I will contribute a whole paycheck.
Great. Now I want someone to write up the books in the 5th ed line using the rules in Covenants... 
I think that would be quite difficult.
ArM is very much rooted in the "Western" Medieval view, also most of us do not know enough about medieval China to do anything better than a crude parody which probably would not do justice or worse come off as racist.
For example, since in traditional elements in China are fivefold, Terram would need to be split into Metal and Earth to fit within the world view.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but I think it would require a major rework and would only use the basic rules from ArM but the Chinese magi (or Litterati? or Priests?) would follow different arts. Off the top of my head maybe an astrology based tradition would have as two casting arts an Element and an Animal to mimic the flexibility of the current system. So casting a Metal Horse spell on someone would make them bold?
Quickly:
+1 for a 5.5
And I'd really like a 5Ed treatment of all tribunals 
But if speaking about changes, for now:
Make the default stat 0. Having points to spend waste times, and changes little, especially as all similar characters (magi, fighters...) still end up roughly the same. Also, it makes sense that the average would be 0 
If you want better stats, you can have a virtue. I can see something like, for the same cost, either +1 to the whole stat, or +3 to a limited field (like "tough", "fast", "item creator", "good caster", "smooth talker"...)
For hedge traditions, I think we can have our cake and eat it.
All traditions may follow hermetic guidelines, but have bonuses in specific fields.
So, instead of having healing be a lower guideline for a given tradition, it would use hermetic guides but have +10 to casting totals involving healing.
Easier spontaneous magic. The divide is the killing.
I don't want magi to spont cast bridges, but lighting a candle with a gesture, brushing a room.. should be easy.
Maybe a measure of magical power separate from skill, so someone can have a stronger/weaker gift and still be a maga, and be more/less skilled. in a way, we already have that with Affinity, Focus and Puissant, but as it is, save for edge cases involving finesse, power = skill.
Gotta go!
The modular approach to character generation in Splittermond is also exemplary.