Remember, there is the unwritten rule zero.
Troupe Decision Overrides Rulebook in all circumstances.
And this leads to several Grogs with Monastic Vows in our campaign. Not every Mendicant Friar is a Companion, after all.
Cheers
Personally I think there is a flaw in equating power level with campaign significance.
Who is doing that, here? I don't think that's even been suggested.
That is what I get from this sentence.
Take for example a redcap, who can easily be a scoundrel and a minor character in the game, but still has the redcap major advantage...
Major virtues and flaws have power in designating the importance of characters relative to one another. It has nothing to do with power and everything to do with how much attention one must pay to them.
So someone who ages quickly, or is pagan, requires more attention?
Someone with strong faerie blood will be a mover and shaker while someone with just faerie blood will not?
This argument makes no sense.
Yes, someone who ages quickly requires more attention, certainly it requires more bookkeeping, at the very least, but if you look at the text of the flaw, it suggest something major happened in the background, something big enough that for a grog is actually crowds out any other flaws such a character could take. And in the context of a saga where grogs can be promoted to companions suggests a change in the story of that character, and its impact on the game, over all. A pagan, which is a major story flaw, as defined by the text means being confronted with Christendom on a frequent basis, it means the player wants stories about his character being confronted so, since it is a story flaw.
With respect to Faerie blooded vs. strong Faerie blooded, I'm not saying anything close to that, there are many more things that define a character than one virtue and flaw, but a grog can't take strong faerie blooded, to allow him to do so, is like taking Ages Quickly as a flaw, and defines far too much of his background, leaving little room for other choices.
It makes no sense to me to saddle grogs, who are the bit characters (important, but small roles) of Ars Magica, with major virtues and flaws that leave them looking so very close to one dimensional. The faerie blooded grog who is good with a blade, is better than the strong faerie blooded grog who has nothing else to separate him from everyone else, except he doesn't age the same as everyone else...
But again, in answer to your assertion that I'm equating power level with campaign significance, I'm doing no such thing.
And yet to me it seems like that is exactly what these rules require.
Grogs were a fine mechanism back in 3rd edition when stats were being rolled and you didn't want to just reroll or throw away the poor rolls, but with a more point based system they really seem a bit redundant. After all you can have a companion with only 3 points in flaws, or 5 points in flaws if you wish. The only other difference is whether they can be played communally or individually, and there is no reason to simply say you can have claimed and unclaimed companions.
Also saying it makes a grog too two dimensional while at the same time pointing out that grogs are supposed to lack complexity...
A minor character isn't and shouldn't be one-dimensional. Putting a major virtue or flaw on a grog would do more to make a character one dimensional than taking 3 minor flaws. And while it is true that one can make a companion with 3 or less virtue and flaw points used, it's unlikely, but it would be an example of a character who is designed to grow into something, almost like an apprentice magus.
And here is the point-
grog=not important to the story
so why should this influence their power level in terms of being able to take major virtues and flaws or number of flaws and virtues?
is everyone in ME who is not part of the story a grog or less powerful?
why not just call them minor characters who can be used by anyone and not have separate rules for generating them? Or maybe forbid story flaws, but not major the number/magnitude of flaws and virtues? Is there a reason your warrior can't have giants blood or your ink maker be really small?
Minor doesn't mean not important to the story. All characters are important, but minor ones are the ones that can't change things on their own. They need the major characters to act or cause them to act. Minor characters should not be one dimensional anymore than major characters are.
From p. 17
It says right there in the text that grogs are not important enough to the story to be created as companions.
Oy.
That doesn't day they aren't important. It says they aren't important enough to be companions. There is a distinct and important difference.
the key point is that less important=less powerful. And in ways that don't make sense, like not allowing giant blooded guardsmen or dwarf cheesemakers.
"A companion is an important non-magus."
But enough nit-picking...
It comes down to the old discussion on whether you can play a one-handed mute dwarf without taking all the Flaws.
I can't help feeling that a magical species should be an exception to the rule that grogs can't have Major Flaws so long as every member of the species has the flaw. For instance, not having the dwarves take the Age Quickly Flaw seems like such a munchkin thing to do. The normal trade off in characters is how old they are, the older they are the more experience they have and the sooner their characteristics drop and they die of old age. Magical creatures don't normally age, but as their Might score penalizes their advancement totals, they have difficulty increasing their skills . If my grog dwarves have a might score of 2. they would be penalized 2 XP per season, presumably netting 7 XP per year. After 50 or 60 years, these grogs are going to have scary good weapon scores. Thematically it seems better to let them age, but with no major flaws, under the RAW, you are stuck with unaging dwarves.
7xp per year times 50 or 60 years does seem like a lot, but it's not as much as you think. I mean, you can start with mundane characters that are 45 years old, if you'd like, and they get 450 xp, yes, one must do aging rolls for the mundane. What circumstance has kept them where they are for 60 years and allowed them to advance in a manner that doesn't match their circumstances? You say that the dwarves are going to have scary good weapon scores, but why? Why do they need scary good weapon scores? Why are they practicing weapon skills, instead of doing whatever it is they do to make a living?
With regards to Age Quickly, and Magic creatures, one has to wonder how this flaw actually works on creatures who do not age, not creatures who are Unaging, as per the virtue. I don't think Age Quickly can work on a creature that doesn't age, it's like multiplying by 0. Let us also not forget that in the event of injury, magic creatures are more fragile than mundane creatures, because their wounds can immediately worsen, unlike mundanes where checking for worsening is only when one overexerts itself.
Where is this rule?
It doesn't exist, exactly. I wasn't remembering the rule correctly.
So it means that while they are not eating, drinking, sleeping or breathing that they don't recover fatigue/might and if wounded, it's as if they are exerting themselves and must check for wound worsening. The wound worsening only applies if they have otherwise done something that a mundane character would consider deprivation. I have to imagine that magic creatures might often go without eating, drinking, sleeping or breathing, because in the normal course of their day, they don't get much benefit from doing that.