Call for ArM5 Errata

RAW you can distribute the spells at various targets, but each target, including the first, inflicts -1 to your casting roll. I would not allow one to redistribute them midway, as they are all happening at the same time, or so close that it appears at the same time.

Yes, you can hit the same target more than once. This is noted in at least one example, and the core book's description of Multiple Casting already says

A single target may also be affected more than once.

As for casting sequentially, of necessity (for several reasons I explained in the mastery thread) they are simultaneously cast rather than sequentially cast. For that reason, I require the decision on all targets before seeing the results.

Not quite. RAW gives -1 to Finesse rolls for targeting, not to the casting roll.

RoP:tI p.122

Early Punishment For the Sinful Witch doesn't work. It's a MuVi spell so it must be cast on a Hermetic spell as it's being cast. But it's designed to work on a previously cast non-Hermetic effect. So it violates the MuVi rules in two ways. On top of that, it's basic function as shown in the first sentence is really PeVi, which can target ongoing, non-Hermetic effects. So changing it to Pe(Mu)Vi(Ig) would solve almost everything, though technically this would need to move it to the PeVi section right below the MuVi section. Even the +1 for requisites is OK because the Ig isn't doing anything the Mu isn't doing, though if you want to make it +2 that's OK, too.

I said "almost everything" because there is an additional problem. Even for MuVi, this would be a major change and require a halving. Switching to PeVi this would be a broad dispelling and also require a halving. There is also a missing "or equal to" part.

as long as the effect has a level lower than this spell’s level + 5 + a stress die (no botch).

This needs to be changed to something like "as long as double the effect's level is less than or equal to this spell’s level + 5 + a stress die (no botch)" or something to that extent.

Wouldn't this be fixed by considering the last sentence of the spell defining which magic it is typically used to affect as the specific type of magic it can affect? Thus making it a narrow dispelling to work in line with the following PeVi guideline: "Dispel effects of a specific type with a level less than or equal to the level + 4 magnitudes of the Vim spell + a stress die (no botch). A specific type could be Hermetic Terram magic, or Shamanic spirit control magic. A magus must have some knowledge of a type of magic (although not necessarily ability to use it) to invent a spell to affect it. All Hermetic magi have some knowledge of all Hermetic magic."?

If it's decided that the last sentence refers to a specific and exclusive use of the spell, the spell's description should be modified to say so explicitly. The sentence, "This is primarily used against infernalists who have woven protective enchantments around themselves...," implies non-exclusivity and does not forbid the spell's use in other circumstances, on other kinds of targets.

AM p139 (right column, under T:Inscription) and p141 (Runic Magic and Creo Spells text box): Clarify the Arcane Connection requirement for runic Creo spells; as written, making a flaming sword with CrIg runes appears to require building a uniquely identifiable fire of the exact strength required, fixing an arcane connection to that specific fire, somehow incorporating the arcane connection into the inscription, and then putting the fire out and never lighting it again. (It also necessarily means that you can have a valid arcane connection to things that don't exist, which is...interesting.) This means that hastily scribbling flaming runes on your grogs' swords when you get a premonition of an ambush doesn't work, which feels like a bit of a shame. The example in the text box also appears to treat a cloth as an arcane connection to a feast that was laid out on it once, which seems sus.

See previous discussion of the issue here.

~ ~ ~

AM p140, center column:

Hermetic Rune Magic has two major drawbacks. Firstly, the runes are a lasting Arcane Connection to the caster, and beyond that they function in a manner similar to the spell Opening the Intangible Tunnel (ReVi Gen), in that other magi can target the caster by targeting the runes. That is, a rival magus could cast a Touch spell at the caster simply by touching the runes, as if he were touching the caster.

The level of the Intangible Tunnel effect (and thus, the cap on what level spell can be transmitted through it) is not stated anywhere. Edit: on rereading, it appears the intent was for there to be no cap. Could still stand to be clarified, methinks.

In the second printing of Guardians of the Forests, the reference to Hildegard of Bingen as a Larta maga has been removed from p. 111, per the existing errata. However, she is still identified as such in the penultimate sentence of the section entitled "The Corruption of the Merovingians" on p. 137.

Edited to add: HoH:TL still mentions Larta magi in the first full paragraph on p. 93. I don't know if the intent was that Larta magi as a whole should be excised, or just the notion that Hildegard was one of them.

This is probably the best fix, but I can't find the rule. Do you know where it is?

How about adding a base individual for light, at 10 paces across?


Sure, if you want to errata all the other spells that produce light (and possibly darkness).

EDIT: Just in the core book right next to Lamp Without Flame, you also have Moonbeam and Palm of Flame. All of them really vary only in the brightness of light they produce and Palm of Flame having some descriptive effects (while it is "fire", it does no damage).

While I would very much like adding a system like the other elemental forms have in which what part of the form you are using determines its base individual size, are you willing to go through all of the books and errata every spell/effect so that they all line up with this new base individual?

Also my initial math was low, since the spell would actually need Size +2. That makes every other spell or effect 2 Magnitudes to weak or expensive.

No need to errata everything as long as they produce less than 10 paces of light.

It mostly comes down to this, which shows up contained in either one or two sentences:

most characters should take the appropriate one as a specialty. Educated or well-traveled speakers will have tried hard to rid themselves of their dialect, and may have standard specialties (see ArM5, page 66).

This has shown up repeatedly in books since GotF. However, that sentence is completely absent in AtD.

Meanwhile, the penalty is written as:

Same language, different dialects -1

That shows up in most the books, too, usually in a table.

I would propose fixes of:

most characters should take the appropriate one as a specialty. Educated or well-traveled speakers may have standard specialties (see ArM5, page 66).

which allows other choices for them but doesn't specify that they're trying to "lose" a "dialect" and

Same language, no shared dialect -1

which handles the lack of dialect for the reader and others. As for the locations, ugh:

GotF p.138
TSE p.41-42
AtD p.10 (lacks the first sentence(s))
TL&TL p.143
TCI p.21 (lacks the second in a table but has a note about it)
F&F p.19-20
TC&TC p.185 (lacks the second in a table but has a note about it)
LotN p.10-11
BS&S p.18-19

I'm not sure if it shows up casually in other spots that have some notes about languages such as this thing in Ancient Magic p.94. There "dialect" is used where they would be noted as similar languages rather than different dialects elsewhere, as the penalty is -2 rather than -1. That may need its own fix. I didn't spot it in HoH:MC, RM, nor HMRE, all of which contain additional languages.

Oh sure, just let every spell and effect but that one produce 1/10th of the allowable light throughout the entirety of the Ars line.

Fixing an error by making it the new standard means that everything else which used that base is now wrong. What the proposed fix is doing is hanging the value of X from 1 to 10, then ignoring every other instance which actually used the correct X = 1. To go from a diameter of 1 to 10 is Size +2, which means that every other spell/effect is 2 Magnitudes less powerful or more expensive then it should be.

But there is another spell, at least one, that produces more han 1 pace of darkness, this would also allow for that. The moonbeam spell uses the circle of the caster’s arms to define the area. None of them really bother with the 1 pace fire rule and obviously fit within 10 paces for light.

EDIT: so they are inefficient, so what?

The other spell that produces darkness has Size +1 and produces 3 paces.

Plenty of MoH spells are being errata’d, or have recently had erratas submitted. This can be part of that and he errata can take that into account.

As I said, it is a case were you ether fix the one thing wrong (that would be changing Lamp Without Flame to 1 Pace) or you have errata all over the place to bring every other instance in line with the thing that was previously wrong (or just let them be massively inefficient).

I would actually rather make the change to the Base for light production be changed to 10 paces. However if that is what is done then every instance of its use in every book should be changed to reflect the increase.

EDIT: There actually is a third possibility, which is that you provide how far light radiates out from its source. Of course this adds its own complexity based on how it lowers in intensity over distance. You could go with something like "Each increase in Size +1 from the source, the level of brightness drops by 1". I actually think something along these lines would actually be the best answer but it is by far the most complex.

This would result in a spell like Moonbeam only producing its ~1 pace of light (equal to moon light), Palm of Flame producing ~1 pace of light equal to a torch/~3 paces of light equal to a candle/~10 paces of light equal to moonlight, and Lamp Without Flame producing ~1 pace equal to bright cloudy day/~3 paces equal to torchlight/~10 paces equal to candle/~30 paces equal to moonlight. This would be closer to how actual light production works but is obviously much more complex. Most RPGs that bother with this have the base brightness out to a radius and half/reduced/shadowy out to double the listed radius.

This came up in another thread, arguably a hard-to-find rule, but I think it is easy enough to qualify as erratum.

Under longevity rituals, in the paragraph on repeating the ritual upon an aging crisis, it should be specified that the limit on the amount of vis useable is the respective arts (as if casting a spell) rather than MT which was the limit upon first creation. Apparently, this is disambiguated in TMRE.

Cf Average life span of a magus

Already been discussed and a new errata proposed in yet another thread:

Oh dear. It is still too hard to find for me, but sorry for duplication.

I think ArM errata would be much better managed with continuous updates and a ticket system à la github.