Ars Fabrilis is the term that many Hermetic magi use to describe magical techniques for crafting items. The published Ars Magica rules have presented this concept in a variety of ways, some of which are in conflict with each other, and in some respects are conceptually flawed. Previous saga rules have attempted to address these flaws, but have done so in a patchwork fashion, rather than addressing the underlying conceptual variances.

Two essential paradigms for magical crafting lie behind all of the various rules, both published and specific to the Bohemian Rhapsody saga. The first paradigm, which might be called the Platonic Paradigm, is that more powerful magic enables the creation of better things. In this paradigm, the "quality" of the result is more dependent on the power of the magic than skill at making things. Thus, higher-level spells can create better things.

The second paradigm, which may be referred to as the Artisinal Paradigm, is that more highly skilled magi, either by virtue of Finesse or a Crafting Ability, are able to create better things. In this paradigm, the "quality" of the result is more dependent on the skill of the magus, rather than on the power of the magic.

Both paradigms have appeared in the published rules. The core rules and Covenants have tended toward the Platonic Paradigm, while Houses of Hermes: Societates has rules consistent with the Artisinal Paradigm. Unfortunately, in both cases, the conceptual basis for the respective paradigms either was not adequately considered or was ignored. In the case of previous saga rules, the Platonic Paradigm was slighted, and the Artisinal Paradigm was paramount. Upon further consideration, however, the Platonic Paradigm was slighted inappropriately in one respect, and this revised saga rule will attempt to address Ars Fabrilis in a conceptually conherent manner.

The essence of this saga rule will be to distinguish between Creo and Rego magic, and to apply one paragigm to each. Creo magic will use the Platonic Paradigm, while Rego magic will use the Artisinal Paradigm. One reason for the muddled inclusion of both paradigms in published material is that both make sense from different perspectives. By clarifying how those perspectives apply to magic, the conflict between the two paradigms can be resolved.

The essence of the Platonic Paradigm is that magic draws upon Platonic ideals to create things. Thus, more powerful magic may be able to more accurately mimic a Platonic ideal, resulting in a better "thing." This concept, when applied to Creo magic, has an intuitive appeal. However, when applied to Rego magic, it becomes muddled, because Rego magic is not directly drawing upon a Platonic ideal, but is mimicking what mundane craftsmen do.

Mundane craftsmen may also be thought of as attempting to attain a Platonic ideal, but their approach is through greater skill, rather than magic. Thus, Rego magic, which is mimicking the work of mundane artisans, should also approach the ideal by means of skill, rather than through the power of the magic. The Artisinal Paradigm, therefore, is more appropriate for Rego crafting magic.

For the Bohemian Rhapsody Saga, Creo magic will use a set of rules based on the Platonic Paradigm, detailed under under Ars Fabrilis cum Creante, below. Rego crafting magic will use the rules in HoH:S, corrected and enhanced as noted under Ars Fabrilis cum Regente. Any published material that applies the Platonic Paradigm to Rego magic should be ignored, such as several errant guidelines for crafting given in Covenants (50-51) and the Rego Herbam guideline "weave thread into a tunic" (ArM5, 138).

Ars Fabrilis cum Creante

"Creating an artificial thing by magic requires some skill on the part of the magus, reflected by his Finesse Ability.  An Int + Finesse roll is made to determine how good the created thing is.  ...A magically created item will always be the right sort of thing unless the magus botches his Finesse roll." (ArM5, 77). For the Bohemian Rhapsody Saga, the term "conjuration" will mean creating something using Creo magic.

Each Hermetic Form has its own guidelines concerning conjuration of things of that form. This saga rule does not replace those guidelines, but does clarify and expand on them. For the Bohemian Rhapsody Saga, the following rules will apply:

- Compound items require requisites of all of the Forms involved, as would be expected; in some cases, these requisites must be part of the spell design, while in other cases, casting requisites may be appropriate

- Adding one magnitude to any Creo conjuration will improve the quality of the conjured thing by one result category, roughly equivalent to a three point increase for a Crafting or Finesse roll

- Adding two magnitudes will produce a superior-quality item (as defined in C&G, 67)

- Conjuration of excellent-quality items (C&G, 69) requires a Ritual effect with three additional magnitudes, plus an additional magnitude per additional bonus point applied to the item

- Using a model of a thing may add a modifier to the Finesse roll for the quality of the thing conjured, according to the quality of the model:

Note that if additional magnitudes are used to improve the quality of the result, the Finesse roll for quality may be irrelevant unless the magus botches the roll. Because the thing conjured "will always be the right sort of thing," a conjuration of a superior-quality item (for example), will be a superior-quality item unless the Finesse roll is botched. A higher-quality result on a Finesse roll may produce an even-higher quality result, but will not produce a lesser-quality result than that mandated by the specifics of the conjuration spell.

Ars Fabrilis cum Regente

Rego crafting uses the rules presented in HoH:S (60-61), except for a few corrections. HoH:S lists a number of spell levels in a sidebar (p 61). Unfortunately, despite its assertion that these levels are "correct," many of them are in fact incorrect. This may be quickly confirmed by noting that HoH:S gives the same spell levels for stone, metal, and gemstone. The following chart corrects those errors, giving the correct levels for Rego crafting spells with parameters Touch / Mom / Ind:

Contrary to the implication of the chart in HoH:S, the relative preparation or lack thereof does not impact the level of the spell required to craft with Rego magic, it merely affects the difficulty of the Finesse roll. For example, making a tunic from "prepared" wool requires less work by mundane craftsmen than making a tunic from "raw" wool, but in either case, the same spell level will suffice. Only the amount of time required by mundane craftsmen would change, and thus the difficulty of a Finesse roll to make a tunic from wool with Rego magic might increase*.

The relative difficulty of Finesse rolls may be managed by performing work in stages. For example, a magus might prepare raw wool with one effect, representing the work of mundane craftsmen for that process, and then make cloth from the resulting prepared wool, and then make a tunic from the resulting cloth. Each stage of work requires less overall time by mundane craftsmen, and thus presents less of a Finesse challenge. This might seem overly conservative to some, but in fact, such crafting spells are relatively easy, and most magi will be able to cast them spontaneously, especially if done in a favorable aura. Similarly, if a maga chooses to create a formulaic crafting spell, her lab total is probably going to be sufficient to create two, three, or even more spells within the same Arts. Thus, creating formulaic versions of the three effects mentioned above would require a single season, with a lab total of only 18.

The simplicity of such Rego crafting spells, and the desirability of separating out the work in stages to reduce the difficulty of Finesse rolls, may make creating spells with a Part Target more attractive. Adding a single magnitude to those listed in the chart above does not add appreciably to the levels (they all remain first magnitude effects) and may enable a maga to perform Rego crafting magic in stages, even on a single item. This could potentially reduce the difficulty of any single casting to no more than that required for "daily" work of the sort desired. This could enable magi with lower Finesse scores to craft items corresponding to the daily work of semi-skilled or even skilled artisans, and those with more advanced Finesse scores to achieve results equal to those of highly or exceptionally skilled artisans.

*Note regarding crafting a tunic with Rego magic. The distinction between "raw wool" and "prepared wool," while accurate, may not be significant to the Ease Factor of a Finesse roll. Some notes may clarify this, and hopefully act as a guide for other types of crafting.

Two aspects of mundane crafting are relevant to a magical crafting Finesse roll. First is the skill category of the respective mundane activity: unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled, highly-skilled, etc. as reflected on the Ease Factor chart (HoH:S, 61). The other aspect is the amount of time required for the process, represented by four categories (HoH:S, 60): work that could be done in a day, work that could be done in a month, work that could be done in a season, and work that could be done in a year.

With regard to creating a woolen tunic, the process may be summarized in five steps: shear sheep, process wool, spin thread, weave cloth, cut/sew cloth. If we examine these five steps, the first two or three are the least relevant in terms of the skill of the crafter. Although technically even a semi-skilled person could fashion a crude tunic from cloth, for this purpose we'll assume that a proper tunic is desired, which would require the work of a skilled crafter. Weaving thread into a cloth is also a skilled task, at a minimum: cloth that incorporates patterns, or finer cloth, could require a highly-skilled crafter. Spinning thread from wool is something that a semi-skilled laborer can do, as is processing wool and shearing sheep.

Thus, in any attempt to make a tunic, the last steps of weaving cloth and cutting and sewing it into a tunic are the ones that require the most skill. Whether or not the wool is processed is not significant when considering the skill required to produce a tunic.

When considering the time required to complete the various steps, it is clear that no one person, regardless of their skill, could process wool, spin thread, weave cloth, and sew it together into a tunic in a single day. However, the same is also true if the wool has already been processed. It would require more than a day to spin the thread, weave the cloth, and cut and sew it into a tunic. Thus, whether or not the wool is "processed" or "raw," to fashion a tunic from wool would require enough time and effort from a crafter to require the use of the "work that could be done in a month" guideline.

The Seasonal Production Chart (C&G, 68) states that a tailor may make 32 suits of clothing in a season. Assuming that a "tunic" would be the primary item of a suit of clothing is probably inaccurate, but for this purpose let's say that is the case. That means that a tailor would require about three days to make one suit of clothing. Using similar estimates for weaving, spinning, etc. means that with prepared wool, at least, a tunic would not take more than a month to make. But would preparing the wool take long enough that it would require more than a month? Some research indicates that washing and carding enough wool for a single tunic would not add enough time to the overall process to exceed the "month" category. Thus, whether or not a magus is working with "raw" or "prepared" wool is unlikely to affect an attempt to craft a single tunic with Rego magic.

However, when considering the crafting of a group of items with Rego magic, such as a tunic, smallclothes, leggings or hose, etc., the quantity of material required could well exceed a month of total time, and thus working with "prepared" wool might be necessary to remain within the "month" category. Similarly, finer or more complex cloth might require more time, as well as more highly-skilled crafters, and thus could increase the Ease Factor significantly.