Hermetic Astrological Modifiers and Path Magic

[Mailanka]

I'm tinkering with the decanic modifiers for path magic (because I think path magic better serves Cabal than standard wizardry) and a fight between two ways to model the paths and their interactions with the decans. I wanted to see which side of the fight you backed and what thoughts you could bring to bear.

In the first corner, weighing in at a trim 200 pounds, a master of complexity, technique and precision is the model of Paths divided by Decan. In this model, we have several decans covering the same path (for example, there's a decan that covers using Spirit to manipulate ghosts and another decan that covers using spirit to manipulate demons), and these are separate skills. You don't have the Path of Spirit, but the Path of Demons and the Path of Ghosts. Just because you're good at Akton/Demons doesn't make you good at Belbel/Ghosts. You can view each decan, each portion of reality, as divided into a separate path (which fits the separate words of power associated with each one), giving us a nice, neat precision that means each decan is self-contained, but this has the disadvantage of making for some very weak paths (If you subdivide the elements path into their four constituent parts, you get very small, narrow paths), and it's a bit of work for the GM.

In the second corner, hulking around at 400 pounds of pure, simple fury is the model of unified Paths. You have one path of spirits. If you want to summon demons, you use the modifiers from Akton, and if you want to summon ghosts, you use the modifiers from Belbel, but it's all the same skill, same technique. Someone who is very good at summoning spirits is good at summoning all spirits. This is very simple, keeps the balance of the path design nicely, requires the least work, but can be somewhat confusing for players (what modifies their path of choice depends on what they're trying to do with it) and allows for less differentiation.

Which do you favor, and why?

[Refplace]

I prefer the latter.
It is to my mind more get a bonus rather then get a mystical understanding by studying a Deacon.
That said I have set up entirely different Path systems.
So my preference in this case is not because I dislike the idea of changing Paths so much a I prefer to model the Deacons as a Bonus or penalty.

[isf]

I prefer the first option, bit I think the second one would be easier for most people.

[Sunrunners_Fire]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

Which do you favor, and why?

Second option.

Decanic magic is a Cabal secret; an edge that non-Cabal mages are ignorant of. Having mages learn their spells according to decanic magic means they can't be ignorant of it ... which deprives the Cabal of their magical superiority.

[isf]

Originally Posted by Sunrunners_Fire

Second option.

Decanic magic is a Cabal secret; an edge that non-Cabal mages are ignorant of. Having mages learn their spells according to decanic magic means they can't be ignorant of it ... which deprives the Cabal of their magical superiority.

That makes so much sense, I'd like to change my answer :)

[johndallman]

I'd back the second, because I've seen it used with Paths (in a campaign where I'm pretty sure the Cabal does not exist), and it works nicely, as well as the Cabal reason. It's also what's implied by the Path column in the table on p248 of Thaumatology.