Night-Folk learning Sorcery

[Starcomet]

Didn't some systems or such have rules where if you were 'changed' - like a mage who got embraced - you could get some of that experience back to spend on stuff more appropriate to your condition? So like a mage might retain some magical potential but it is treated as blood magic (like what happened with the Tremere.)

I know this is the case for the older edition of sorcerer. If you changed into another entity, you could convert your path dots into relevant dots in the new disciplines, spheres, arcanoi, etc of that night-folk you are now. I think STs would follow the same rule if like a mage became a vampire and such.

[Prometheas]

Depends on who you ask and the sources you use. As Aleph says, it's all over the place, and you probably forge your own headcanon depending on how you want to piece it all together. FWIW I think human 'souls' are malleable, but have a finite capacity, and certain iterations (like becoming a vampire even if you're a mage. Certain lesser 'mutations' of the soul (IE kinfolk, ghoul/revenant, etc.) might co-exist in a 'hybrid' manner with certain other mutations but still creates problems because it's functionally an unstable mix. But if you wanted to enforce those boundaries more rigidly (like I think original Sorcerer did) then it's like with vampires - you can take your soul one way, but that cuts off other paths. Depending on how you handle it you could have it both ways ('full' power sorcery - like 6 dots, isn't compatible with ghouling or suchlike, but say level 3 might.)

Not sure about the enforced limitations part. I'm pretty sure that would make certain powers in WOD impossible, like the alchemy 5 power that let's you have a 3 dot power from any splat or the garous gifts that do similar stuff.

It'd also make a small, but significant number of important NPCs rules-illegal. I don't know about you, but letting NPCs break rules that players are forced to follow is a red flag for a bad ST to me. It's a warning sign that the ST wants to make the story about their special NPCs rather than about the player characters.

[Astromancer]

Frankly, it's a game/campaign thing to me. If it suits the way the group is playing, okay. If it gets in the way, it's gone. The "rules" are guidelines. Do what fits YOUR story.

[Aleph]

Didn't some systems or such have rules where if you were 'changed' - like a mage who got embraced - you could get some of that experience back to spend on stuff more appropriate to your condition? So like a mage might retain some magical potential but it is treated as blood magic (like what happened with the Tremere.)

I know this is the case for the older edition of sorcerer. If you changed into another entity, you could convert your path dots into relevant dots in the new disciplines, spheres, arcanoi, etc of that night-folk you are now. I think STs would follow the same rule if like a mage became a vampire and such.

Sorcerer -> Splat it's easy

Splat -> Splat , w/o strong restrictions can be more polemical.

You all mention the easy mage - > vampire (that can be done with a bite), but we can imagine a vampire with Sorcery (as per the old rules that allowed a Merit) using Alchemy 6 to transform into a Mage. What then?. Do we allow Sorcery 6 to break the Curse of Caine w/o any fuss? (+ get True Magick for free). Or Vampires with Spheres + Sorcery it's now a thing?

Ironically, the first option may not be such a problem for Vampire: Archmastery (Prime 6 + bunch of Spheres) was said to be able to break the Curse (but not to give True Magick) in a Vampire book. I think it had complications, however. Conditions that would raise the difficulty (appart from Paradox) that Alchemy 6 doesn't have.

In Mage, it kinda shits on the ideas presented in Red Sign, that make breaking the Curse of Caine feasible, but also a big deal, and has a whole chapter of potential consequences (not excluding the end of the world) - which, btw, I think make for far more entertaining stories than just saying "OK, you've accumulated enough XP, now you can safely break the Curse"

[Starcomet]

Sorcerer -> Splat it's easy

Splat -> Splat , w/o strong restrictions can be more polemical.

You all mention the easy mage - > vampire (that can be done with a bite), but we can imagine a vampire with Sorcery (as per the old rules that allowed a Merit) using Alchemy 6 to transform into a Mage. What then?. Do we allow Sorcery 6 to break the Curse of Caine w/o any fuss? (+ get True Magick for free). Or Vampires with Spheres + Sorcery it's now a thing?

Ironically, the first option may not be such a problem for Vampire: Archmastery (Prime 6 + bunch of Spheres) was said to be able to break the Curse (but not to give True Magick) in a Vampire book. I think it had complications, however. Conditions that would raise the difficulty (appart from Paradox) that Alchemy 6 doesn't have.

In Mage, it kinda shits on the ideas presented in Red Sign, that make breaking the Curse of Caine feasible, but also a big deal, and has a whole chapter of potential consequences (not excluding the end of the world) - which, btw, I think make for far more entertaining stories than just saying "OK, you've accumulated enough XP, now you can safely break the Curse"

I think all of this is where the ST has final say. In older editions, it was possible for Sphere magic, path magic, and True Faith to remove the Curse of Caine but now that may seem problematic from the metaplot.

I have a friend who barks at the idea a mage could make someone into a werewolf or other shapechanger because it is a condition blessed by a Celestine.

[Aleph]

Your friend it's rigth to bark. Not because mages shouldn't be able to do so, but rather because that fact should be taken in count. You shouldn't "Spirit 5/Life5/Prime 5", a bunch of successes, and it's done w/o taking the Lore of the game in count. Sammy had a whole story with many books surrounding his ritual (and even *that* it's seen by many as an abomination - pun not intended, but welcomed)

Mages breaking the Curse of Caine in "older editions" was first done by a character using pure ST fiat, latter it was an Archmaster level feat, even then it had MANY restrictions Alchemy doessn't have (I don't remember if quite rigth, but I think the difficulty increased with the age of the vampire, and also you needed Occult 7)

And EVEN THEN, I think that giving it in a limited capacity to a nigh impossible Prime 6 + lots of Spheres at 4 + Occult 7 was very, very, lazzy - and the correct way it's the way of the Red Sign. It's a big deal, it deserves more dedication than one little paragraph

And remember that Alchemy is not just European in origin but also Middle Eastern and East Asian. They all had the goal of purification and spiritual transformation.

True that. You have a good point here.

Still, I don't like it as a "6th level power" (that also allows to transform into werewolf, fae, whatever). It's way too simplistic to say "it's transmutation, so it's ok", it ignores the differences between the splats - it's not the same to turn into a vampire, that can be done with a bite, as to turn into a werewolf complete with the whole spiritual baggage, or a mage.

Archspheres are (with good reason) said to be badly written and game breaking, still the one that Awakens people (Spirit 9) dedicates more time to explain the process than Alchemy does. Alchemy 6 sent all nuances into the trash, allowing to sacrifice all kinds of holy cows in a single small paragraph, that doesn't even suggest the ST what to do when this happens.

In the same vein as how it allows to have all level 1/2/3 splat powers at the same Alchemy levels, regardless of the fact splats aren't balanced - pretty much begging for rules lawyers to seek into obscure books for OP powers that they have "rigth" to imitate.

That Path it's not "special" only because it allows Awakening. It's a very, very, "special" Path indeed, in many different and broken ways that can't be explained by only saying "purification and spiritual transformation", and that require ST careful adjudications in ways no other Path requires

You certainly could, but no ST would allow this and you would likely have a clash of paradigms or even hubris. Unless you get an opportunistic Legendary Sorcerer and an Archmaster/mage who share each other's paradigms, you would have constant conflict where the sorcerer might not like the idea of using their "Art" to slavishly make themselves and a snobbish patron perpetually immortal. Or the Archmaster might not like the idea of relying on a..."lesser mage" to maintain their immortality and it could instill the seeds that somehow their sphere magic is lacking in some way. Only an independent sorcerer looking for wealth and power would likely take up such an offer or the sorcerer was in love with the Archmaster.[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]
.
.
.
This would not happen due to paradigm conflicts and the fact you would need willing sorcerers happy to found such a school and "whore" out their art in a way to some Archmaster patron. To many sorcerers, their magic is often a spiritual, philosophical, or even an "honorable" family heritage that they would be unwilling to share with just anyone. And while you certainly could train an individual to Alchemy 6, it would NOT be easy. Just like it is VERY rare for your typical mage to reach 5+ dots in a sphere (Let alone 3), it is also VERY rare for anyone to reach the 6th dot in any path unless they were gifted and a prodigy or had a lot of help along the way.

Order of Hermes has you covered. Nearly half hermetics were Sorcerers before they became Mages (btw, this is a contradiction with Sorcerers having a harder time to Awaken - either that or Alchemy 6 it's far more common than we tought). More to the point: They teach Sorcery to normal people in their schools, and have a Paradigm that has been a staple for Alchemy since the classic era, and maybe even before (they had a lot of time to perfect this).

And, let's be real, Alchemy it's part of many, many, Paradigms since antiquity

See...this is why I don't like "conditional" limitations. Even w/o fiding actual holes in the rules, these limitations are way to dependant on assumptions that, like those you made above, may not be true. You need to check your conditions, to get sure they're hard enough.

But I agree with you in that no ST would allow this kind of abuse.

My problem with Alchemy it's that none of these ideas are part of the *wording* of Alchemy. Like: your idea of the Consensus affecting Sorecery this way it's not an actual rule in any book - it's merely a theory that depends on Sorcery being a slower form of True Magick, and even in Mage books this is uncertain.

In the end, the ST needs to be the "bad guy" saying that Sorecery *can't* do this or that, in order to better preserve the setting. That it *doesn't* provide mages with reliable immortality because...reasons...then enforce those reasons by ST fiat.

[Starcomet]

Your friend it's rigth to bark. Not because mages shouldn't be able to do so, but rather because that fact should be taken in count. You shouldn't "Spirit 5/Life5/Prime 5", a bunch of successes, and it's done w/o taking the Lore of the game in count. Sammy had a whole story with many books surrounding his ritual (and even *that* it's seen by many as an abomination - pun not intended, but welcomed)

Mages breaking the Curse of Caine in "older editions" was first done by a character using pure ST fiat, latter it was an Archmaster level feat, even then it had MANY restrictions Alchemy doessn't have (I don't remember if quite rigth, but I think the difficulty increased with the age of the vampire, and also you needed Occult 7)

And EVEN THEN, I think that giving it in a limited capacity to a nigh impossible Prime 6 + lots of Spheres at 4 + Occult 7 was very, very, lazzy - and the correct way it's the way of the Red Sign. It's a big deal, it deserves more dedication than one little paragraph



True that. You have a good point here.

Still, I don't like it as a "6th level power" (that also allows to transform into werewolf, fae, whatever). It's way too simplistic to say "it's transmutation, so it's ok", it ignores the differences between the splats - it's not the same to turn into a vampire, that can be done with a bite, as to turn into a werewolf complete with the whole spiritual baggage, or a mage.

Archspheres are (with good reason) said to be badly written and game breaking, still the one that Awakens people (Spirit 9) dedicates more time to explain the process than Alchemy does. Alchemy 6 sent all nuances into the trash, allowing to sacrifice all kinds of holy cows in a single small paragraph, that doesn't even suggest the ST what to do when this happens.

In the same vein as how it allows to have all level 1/2/3 splat powers at the same Alchemy levels, regardless of the fact splats aren't balanced - pretty much begging for rules lawyers to seek into obscure books for OP powers that they have "rigth" to imitate.

That Path it's not "special" only because it allows Awakening. It's a very, very, "special" Path indeed, in many different and broken ways that can't be explained by only saying "purification and spiritual transformation", and that require ST careful adjudications in ways no other Path requires

If I recall it does state Alchemy cannot reproduce the powers of the Fae, Wraiths, and Imbued so there are limits. Mage spheres cannot be reproduced, but individual rotes could with ST approval. And we must remember that Alchemy 6 powers are all said to be "...in theory". They intentionally leave it vague as to what you can actually do so the ST and player have to talk it out which may or may not be a bad thing.

Order of Hermes has you covered. Nearly half hermetics were Sorcerers before they became Mages (btw, this is a contradiction with Sorcerers having a harder time to Awaken - either that or Alchemy 6 it's far more common than we tought). More to the point: They teach Sorcery to normal people in their schools, and have a Paradigm that has been a staple for Alchemy since the classic era, and maybe even before (they had a lot of time to perfect this).

And, let's be real, Alchemy it's part of many, many, Paradigms since antiquity

See...this is why I don't like "conditional" limitations. Even w/o fiding actual holes in the rules, these limitations are way to dependant on assumptions that, like those you made above, may not be true. You need to check your conditions, to get sure they're hard enough.

But I agree with you in that no ST would allow this kind of abuse.

My problem with Alchemy it's that none of these ideas are part of the *wording* of Alchemy. Like: your idea of the Consensus affecting Sorecery this way it's not an actual rule in any book - it's merely a theory that depends on Sorcery being a slower form of True Magick, and even in Mage books this is uncertain.

In the end, the ST needs to be the "bad guy" saying that Sorecery *can't* do this or that, in order to better preserve the setting. That it *doesn't* provide mages with reliable immortality because...reasons...then enforce those reasons by ST fiat.

The Order of Hermes (OoH) indeed do train sorcerers at the lower ranks, but I believe it is implied that very few of them are what would be termed, "Legendary Sorcerers" as the Order is a Mage faction and would not foster such individuals to such heights like a sorcerer society would do. Indeed, the OoH tradition books states that they actually encourage their sorcerers not to become attached to sorcery/linear magic and instead try to "transcend" it. But I believe the contradiction between OoH sorcerers awakening compared to what the lore surrounding linear magic says, can be resolved by the fact that it is not impossible for a powerful sorcerer to awaken, just exceedingly difficult. The tradition book states that it takes some many years before finally awakening whereas for others it takes only a small amount of time. I believe that 1-3 dots in a path is still considered normal for awakening purposes and at 4+ dots it becomes extremely difficult for the sorcerer to awaken without some great revelation.

There is a reason why many feel the Path of Alchemy and Path of Enchantment are considered very powerful and extremely useful out of all paths presented in both books. It is the fact that both are very flexible and at higher dots, require a lot of ST approval and interactions given its open nature.

[Aleph]

-deleted for duplicate-

[Aleph]

If I recall it does state Alchemy cannot reproduce the powers of the Fae, Wraiths, and Imbued so there are limits. Mage spheres cannot be reproduced, but individual rotes could with ST approval.

I don't think you're really adressing my point.

I said:

In the same vein as how it allows to have all level 1/2/3 splat powers at the same Alchemy levels, regardless of the fact splats aren't balanced - pretty much begging for rules lawyers to seek into obscure books for OP powers that they have "rigth" to imitate.

So, not having Arcanoi suddenly makes rules lawyers *not* to seek into obscure books, or Alchemy become more balanced?

I assure you that there's more than enough obscure OP powers in the Vampire books alone w/o also messing with Gifts (that, BTW, don't exist at a single level. Did you know that the *same* Gift can be found at two different levels for different Fera/Tribe/Etc - this is to higligth that different Fera are better at dfferent things, but your beloved Alchemy lacks such nuances).

Also, the place where it mentions it can't imitate the powers of the mentioned splats, it's explicitly talking about the innate powers of those splats. It's in a different place than the line that indicates it can imitate up to lvl 3 powers of other splats. I think, RAW, it still allows to imitate Edges, Arcanoi, Arts - but even if it wasn't the case such a limitation it's very much not adressing what I've said at all.

And we must remember that Alchemy 6 powers are all said to be "...in theory". They intentionally leave it vague as to what you can actually do so the ST and player have to talk it out which may or may not be a bad thing.

It actualy can't transform you into a Fae or Werewolf. I was wrong about that. It's vage about transforming into a mage, vampire, "true inmortal" (whatever that means, I guess it means the Merit), and mummy.

Now, I love that Alchemy makes you able to ban Sorcerers making a "potion that causes Awakening" at level 6. This may (poorly, because it's still ST Fiat) adress a problem of Alchemy that I didn't mentioned, because I wasn't aware that it existed:

Sorcery being able to Awaken other people at level 6 while True Magick needs a Sphere at 9, and risks breaking the mind and the spirit of the receipt + mega Paradox beyond normal Paradox rules as per with any Archsphere.

I tought that Alchemy specified it was only able to Awaken the alchemist - that way it wouldn't be competing, and it makes more sense with how IRL alchemists tend to see enligthenment - but the wording of that damned Path it's so fucking wrong that it even leaves *that* door wide open. Again I'm forced to ask myself: What was that writter thinking!

Seriously: "In theory...it migth even be able to make a potion that causes Awakening" can be easily read as it causing Awakening on whoever drinks it.

But at least you can ban that. Thank god for the "in theory".

The Order of Hermes (OoH) indeed do train sorcerers at the lower ranks, but I believe it is implied that very few of them are what would be termed, "Legendary Sorcerers" as the Order is a Mage faction and would not foster such individuals to such heights like a sorcerer society would do. Indeed, the OoH tradition books states that they actually encourage their sorcerers not to become attached to sorcery/linear magic and instead try to "transcend" it.

I'm pretty sure OoH can have legendary Sorcerers.

They may even have one canon example. Canonically, Nicodemus Mullhouse it's an inmortal Hermetic Sorcerer that was able to outlive most Mages. He appears in Horizon: Stronghold of Hope

OoH it's the only tradition that has one canon example of an inmortal Sorcerer (in fact, I don't know if there it's another 100% canon example of an inmortal Sorcerer anywhere in WoD), but they're not the only one that has the posibility of having one.

Many Hermetic Sorcerers never Awaken. Yet they are no less power hungry because of that, and seeking inmortality to have the time to develop that power it's very much the average hermetic agenda - it should be in their agenda too. So, yeah, I don't think you're right at saying Hermetic sorcerers would have "very few legendaries" compared to any other faction.

Hermetics believe Sphere magick it's superior. Yet, if Alchemy or Enchantment offered such big and tangible advantage as reliable inmortality, allowing one to ignore the limitations imposed to powerful mages by the Consensus ... *not* using and fomenting the Sorcery that they have at their beck and call (and seeking other extreme solutions instead) would make Hermetics seem even more foolish than they already are - and if there's something we don't need, it's more lore about how Hermetics are idiots.

*I want to note this line in the character sheet of the one legendary inmortal Sorcerer I know about: "his prolonged life has begun to wear down his body even in Horizon's rarefied atmosphere".

"Horizon's rarefied atmosphere" seems to imply that, indeed, the Consensus would be a problem. In Horizon you don't have that problem, and that helped him to be so long lived.

This is how *I* would rule Static inmortality works in Mage, the Consensus most certainly would affect it. That way it looses it's biggest appeal for Archmasters, to be able to live many centuries w/o having to leave Earth. Then the setting doesn't shatter. But, alas, that's not written in the actual mechanics.

But I believe the contradiction between OoH sorcerers awakening compared to what the lore surrounding linear magic says, can be resolved by the fact that it is not impossible for a powerful sorcerer to awaken, just exceedingly difficult. The tradition book states that it takes some many years before finally awakening whereas for others it takes only a small amount of time. I believe that 1-3 dots in a path is still considered normal for awakening purposes and at 4+ dots it becomes extremely difficult for the sorcerer to awaken without some great revelation.

Yeah, you could say that Sorerers that Awaken were on the low scale of Static Magic. But is there support or hints for such a claim?

The fact that you mentioned, that: "it takes some many years before finally awakening whereas for others it takes only a small amount of time" isn't really helping your point. in the long run Sorcerers are likely to develop at least one Path at 4+, so there should be a point after many years where Awakening becomes statistically rarer. If the book said: "It takes some a small amount of time before awakening, but very few awaken after many years", then your point would be proven.

There is a reason why many feel the Path of Alchemy and Path of Enchantment are considered very powerful and extremely useful out of all paths presented in both books. It is the fact that both are very flexible and at higher dots, require a lot of ST approval and interactions given its open nature.

They both are very flexible and potent, and also arguably hard to use...but I don't find both to be equally problematic.

Enchantment 6 it's so vague as to make me wonder if it was necessary to writte it. The only indication it's that the results should amaze other Sorcerers. It could arguably provide very much anything, including inmortality.

BUT it never states that it does, and if Achemy 6 hadn't drop the ball by allowing for such a reliable inmortality in Mage, there would be no pressure on the STs by players arguing: "Yeah, Enchantment 6 should allow for the kind of inmortality Archmasters would only dream - otherwise Alchemists wouldn't be impress"

Enchantment never says "it migth even be able to make a potion that causes Awakening" - which can be easily interpreted as causing Awakening on whoever drinks it - so you could tell players asking for that: "hold your horses, you need a level 9 Sphere to do that, you can't expect Sorcery to Awaken people at level 6".

Enchantment it's worded in a way that ST fiat it's going to be *needed to use the power*. On the other hand, Alchemy it's worded in a way that the ST fiat comes as an adjudication over what the power very much says you could do, forcing the ST to be the "bad guy" banning stuff or adding limitations.

My only problem with Enchantment it's when it says it allows to duplicate Splat powers up to level 2...for the aforementioned reasons. The author of the book seems convinced these are "low level powers" that aren't going to be problematic, but I fear that's only trivialy true: when you have so many books to chose from, you're bound to find stuff that's more potent than any of the actual Artifact examples given in the book at that level.

However Enchantment doesn't place so much focus on doing this "crossover" as Alchemy does, and doesn't jump the shark so many times. And if you see the example Talismans of each level, they're not that OP or game breaking. If only they had avoided the word "Splat" in that one single line, everything about that Path would be kosher to me

[Starcomet]

I don't think you're really adressing my point.
.
.
.
So, not having Arcanoi suddenly makes rules lawyers *not* to seek into obscure books, or Alchemy become more balanced?

I assure you that there's more than enough obscure OP powers in the Vampire books alone w/o also messing with Gifts (that, BTW, don't exist at a single level. Did you know that the *same* Gift can be found at two different levels for different Fera/Tribe/Etc - this is to higligth that different Fera are better at dfferent things, but your beloved Alchemy lacks such nuances).

Also, the place where it mentions it can't imitate the powers of the mentioned splats, it's explicitly talking about the innate powers of those splats. It's in a different place than the line that indicates it can imitate up to lvl 3 powers of other splats. I think, RAW, it still allows to imitate Edges, Arcanoi, Arts - but even if it wasn't the case such a limitation it's very much not adressing what I've said at all.

You misunderstand me, the powers of the Fae, Wraiths, and Imbued cannot be replicated at Alchemy 5 and it has been this way since pre-revised sorcery. That whole paragraph is a paraphrase from the older edition book that gave more detail such as: “…True Magick Spheres may not be simulated, although individual rotes may be copied at the Storyteller’s discretion. Wraithly Arcanoi cannot be synthesized (how could you study the powers of a ghost?), nor may the cantrips of the fae (which depend upon their links to the Dreaming)” (WOD: Sorcerer pg. 90). The only thing revised added on was the imbued remark. It is clear that Alchemy cannot reproduce the powers of those splats and that includes their innate abilities.

About shapechanger gifts, I think it it is referring to the Rank of the garou/fera in question. You can duplicate up to rank 3 gifts at Alchemy 5. I am looking in the W20 book and at gifts shared between breeds/auspice/tribes and I am not seeing any level differences (Reshape Object is Level 3 for Homid, Fianna, and Bone Gnawers. Axis Mundi is a Level Two gift for Lupus and Silent Striders for example) but it is possible in revised there were such abilities or even in W20 in other supplements I do not own. But since you need a sample of the werecreature, there is no contradiction. Let us say a Get of Fenris and a Child of Gaia have the same gift at different levels, The Get at Level 3 and the Child at level 4. A master Alchemist (5 dots) notices this power and wishes to reproduce it from both. They take a claw from each and make a potion from it. The potion from the Get works, but not from the Child. The Alchemist theorizes this is because they are two different "types" of Werewolves and that the Get had a more naturally affinity for the Gift that was more easily replicable since it was more potent in them compared to the Child despite being the same gift. A Legendary Alchemist could in theory replicate the effects up to Level 5, but that would require ST approval.

And this level clearly states you "need" something from the creature in question, and if you have a more scientific oriented paradigm of Alchemy, you also must study the creature up close. You do not just "make" the concoction out of thin air the moment you reach the dot. Very few of these splats would give a sample of themselves to some random wizard without something in return and I doubt the ST would make it that easy to acquire these materials.

It actualy can't transform you into a Fae or Werewolf. I was wrong about that. It's vage about transforming into a mage, vampire, "true inmortal" (whatever that means, I guess it means the Merit), and mummy.

Now, I love that Alchemy makes you able to ban Sorcerers making a "potion that causes Awakening" at level 6. This may (poorly, because it's still ST Fiat) adress a problem of Alchemy that I didn't mentioned, because I wasn't aware that it existed:

Sorcery being able to Awaken other people at level 6 while True Magick needs a Sphere at 9, and risks breaking the mind and the spirit of the receipt + mega Paradox beyond normal Paradox rules as per with any Archsphere.

I tought that Alchemy specified it was only able to Awaken the alchemist - that way it wouldn't be competing, and it makes more sense with how IRL alchemists tend to see enligthenment - but the wording of that damned Path it's so fucking wrong that it even leaves *that* door wide open. Again I'm forced to ask myself: What was that writter thinking!

Seriously: "In theory...it migth even be able to make a potion that causes Awakening" can be easily read as it causing Awakening on whoever drinks it.

But at least you can ban that. Thank god for the "in theory".

You are correct that the wording seems to suggest that you could create multiple "elixirs" of awakening. However, since Alchemy is itself a very philosophical and spiritual disicpline, any knowing ST could argue that the elixir would only work on you or another Legendary Sorcerer with Alchemy 6. You have all of the philosophical understanding of the theory of magic and enlightenment that when you consume the potion, it essentially gives you that "Eureka!" moment that allows you to connect the dots and understand and "transcend" (How this is done is of course left up to the ST and the player). If given to a sleeper with no belief in magic, nothing would happen as the sleeper has no understanding of mystical things.

I'm pretty sure OoH can have legendary Sorcerers.

They may even have one canon example. Canonically, Nicodemus Mullhouse it's an inmortal Hermetic Sorcerer that was able to outlive most Mages. He appears in Horizon: Stronghold of Hope

OoH it's the only tradition that has one canon example of an inmortal Sorcerer (in fact, I don't know if there it's another 100% canon example of an inmortal Sorcerer anywhere in WoD), but they're not the only one that has the posibility of having one.

Oh I am not saying the OoH would not have Legendary Sorcerers in their ranks. I am just saying it would be a small handful as such individuals are in the same category as Archmasters in terms of rarity. And any sorcerer who achieves such a level, would likely not do so under the tutelage of their mage mentor but on their own through much difficulty and study. Even in sorcerer societies, with centuries or even thousands of years of mystical tradition and knowledge where one of the goals is to achieve such a level, have only a small handful of such magicians at the top of their ranks.

Many Hermetic Sorcerers never Awaken. Yet they are no less power hungry because of that, and seeking inmortality to have the time to develop that power it's very much the average hermetic agenda - it should be in their agenda too. So, yeah, I don't think you're right at saying Hermetic sorcerers would have "very few legendaries" compared to any other faction.

Hermetics believe Sphere magick it's superior. Yet, if Alchemy or Enchantment offered such big and tangible advantage as reliable inmortality, allowing one to ignore the limitations imposed to powerful mages by the Consensus ... *not* using and fomenting the Sorcery that they have at their beck and call (and seeking other extreme solutions instead) would make Hermetics seem even more foolish than they already are - and if there's something we don't need, it's more lore about how Hermetics are idiots.

*I want to note this line in the character sheet of the one legendary inmortal Sorcerer I know about: "his prolonged life has begun to wear down his body even in Horizon's rarefied atmosphere".

"Horizon's rarefied atmosphere" seems to imply that, indeed, the Consensus would be a problem. In Horizon you don't have that problem, and that helped him to be so long lived.

This is how *I* would rule Static inmortality works in Mage, the Consensus most certainly would affect it. That way it looses it's biggest appeal for Archmasters, to be able to live many centuries w/o having to leave Earth. Then the setting doesn't shatter. But, alas, that's not written in the actual mechanics.

Well this is why I said the consensus would eventually "force" the sorcerer to fail as the potions would eventually to start to grow weaker because of the consensus working against the magic. That is why immortality via sorcery requires constant upkeep to reduce this ware and tare, but it could be argued that the consensus would eventually win out...as long as it does not go back to a mystic paradigm.

Oh and what character sheet? I would love to see that !

Yeah, you could say that Sorerers that Awaken were on the low scale of Static Magic. But is there support or hints for such a claim?

The fact that you mentioned, that: "it takes some many years before finally awakening whereas for others it takes only a small amount of time" isn't really helping your point. in the long run Sorcerers are likely to develop at least one Path at 4+, so there should be a point after many years where Awakening becomes statistically rarer. If the book said: "It takes some a small amount of time before awakening, but very few awaken after many years", then your point would be proven.

Sadly, the tradition book does not state clearly and it is merely my reasoned assumption given what previous editions have said about linear magic. The OoH revised tradition book states: "In the Order of Hermes, one has but two options: succeed or fail. There is precious little understanding afforded to one who cannot complete the Tradition’s (granted, mercilessly complex and demanding) curriculum and Awaken. No matter how bright or skilled or noble a person may be, if she cannot eventually learn (and, for the Order at least, this is most certainly a learned ability) to peel back the great illusion of static reality and bend the laws of the Universe with will alone, she is a failure...Naturally, not all of the Order’s Awakened accept this long-standing policy of scorning the Tradition’s hedge wizards and other washed-out potential recruits as subhumans worthy of, at best, pity, but it is a hard habit to break for even the freshest fully initiated mage (who has almost always has had at least three years of indoctrination drilled into her head, usually more). Thus, these often talented and dedicated half-Awakened souls languish in a limbo born of rote elitism. Many eventually break under these strenuous conditions, but some few, perhaps more than might be expected, do persevere, their drive fueled by measures of persistence, defiance, hope and, often, hatred. Some of these dedicated few, in time, manage to Awaken. For most, however, it is a life of second-class citizenship that awaits them." Tradition Book: Order of Hermes (revised) pg. 41.

They both are very flexible and potent, and also arguably hard to use...but I don't find both to be equally problematic.

Enchantment 6 it's so vague as to make me wonder if it was necessary to writte it. The only indication it's that the results should amaze other Sorcerers. It could arguably provide very much anything, including inmortality.

BUT it never states that it does, and if Achemy 6 hadn't drop the ball by allowing for such a reliable inmortality in Mage, there would be no pressure on the STs by players arguing: "Yeah, Enchantment 6 should allow for the kind of inmortality Archmasters would only dream - otherwise Alchemists wouldn't be impress"

Enchantment never says "it migth even be able to make a potion that causes Awakening" - which can be easily interpreted as causing Awakening on whoever drinks it - so you could tell players asking for that: "hold your horses, you need a level 9 Sphere to do that, you can't expect Sorcery to Awaken people at level 6".

Enchantment it's worded in a way that ST fiat it's going to be *needed to use the power*. On the other hand, Alchemy it's worded in a way that the ST fiat comes as an adjudication over what the power very much says you could do, forcing the ST to be the "bad guy" banning stuff or adding limitations.

My only problem with Enchantment it's when it says it allows to duplicate Splat powers up to level 2...for the aforementioned reasons. The author of the book seems convinced these are "low level powers" that aren't going to be problematic, but I fear that's only trivialy true: when you have so many books to chose from, you're bound to find stuff that's more potent than any of the actual Artifact examples given in the book at that level.

However Enchantment doesn't place so much focus on doing this "crossover" as Alchemy does, and doesn't jump the shark so many times. And if you see the example Talismans of each level, they're not that OP or game breaking. If only they had avoided the word "Splat" in that one single line, everything about that Path would be kosher to me

I agree with you in general here.

[Aleph]

You misunderstand me...

At this point it's a nitpick, but note that I was always talking about the potential mechanical problems of stating you can the imitate splat powers without restriction, not about if it made sense or not...if one or three are exent, that doesn't really diminish much my point. It's "technically" a limitation, but you still have a lot of books filled with obscure powers out there.

That was what I was trying to convey mentioning how Gifts power can't be reliably measured by Rank, as shown by how you can find the same Gift at different Ranks. And how Vampire alone has enough variation in the "power level" of level 1-3 powers as to make such allowance a door that shouldn't be oppened.

The relative rarity or willingness of the subjects it's not really a factor you can easily control, nothing says the stronger powers are going to come from a rarer or more unwilling splat. That also depends on A LOT of external factors: Like where it's the chronicle located, the cultural baggage of the alchemist and the local members of the splat, how the story has developped so far, backgrounds & backstories, etc...

the powers of the Fae, Wraiths, and Imbued cannot be replicated at Alchemy 5 and it has been this way since pre-revised sorcery. That whole paragraph is a paraphrase from the older edition book that gave more detail such as: “…True Magick Spheres may not be simulated, although individual rotes may be copied at the Storyteller’s discretion. Wraithly Arcanoi cannot be synthesized (how could you study the powers of a ghost?), nor may the cantrips of the fae (which depend upon their links to the Dreaming)” (WOD: Sorcerer pg. 90). The only thing revised added on was the imbued remark. It is clear that Alchemy cannot reproduce the powers of those splats and that includes their innate abilities.

Well, kudos for WOD: Sorcerer. In Revised it's much less clear.

And I don't think "studying" the powers from ghosts and fae should represent *that* much of a problem as to justify an imposibility. It's surely harder than just poking them with regular needless, but a powerful Sorcere could find a way. If one had Paths to invoke and bind a ghost, and to create enchanted tools that can contain Plasma, such an endeavor migth be doable.

Of course, I would rather leave such a complex research as fluff to justify alchemical potions to do "ghostlike" things (like traversing trough walls) rather than allowing to directly grab another rulebook, and see what it has to offer at that level

I don't quite see what the authors had in mind here, but I don't think it was game balance. Perhaps they tought that Alchemy it's supposed to be related to the material world and not touch the other worlds, other than maybe to affect the soul of the practicioner.

I guess you need to Awaken if you want to be a Necro-Alchemist :P

Oh and what character sheet? I would love to see that !

It's in Horizon: Stronghold of Hope. A very Old book, I think Alchemy hadn't been invented yet, because he has "Herbalism/Brewing" instead

It's a very cool character. One that can show how a Sorcerer could get power within the Order and the Traditions without officially having a high rank.

[Starcomet]

Aleph Thanks!