Call for ArM5 Errata

Games Discussion Ars Magica
267

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.

268

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.

269

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?

270

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

271

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.

272

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.

273

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

274

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

275

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.

2 Likes
276

No worries. Just pointing it out, which I should have done when responding in the Avg Lifespan thread.

EDIT: also LOL at the forums implementing a ticket system.

277

I'm a bit unhappy with The Whole From The Part (InCo20, HoH:TL p72). The idea that information about the Essential Nature of a target can be derived from an Arcane Connection to that target, while targeting only the Arcane Connection, is...uncomfortable. The particular spell is fairly reasonable; it just gives a mental image of the subject of the AC without clothes, tattoos, scars, or other mutilations.

The problem becomes when you extend it to other forms: can a similar InMe spell reveal personality traits (or at least those from Personality Flaws, since Flaws are generally considered part of a character's Essential Nature)? Can a Pralician use Comprehend Magic to reveal their Hermetic or Supernatural Virtues and Flaws (might require Original Research to develop an appropriate InVi spell or to extend the capabilities of CompMag, but seems within the bounds of possibility)? How much information is someone's Essential Nature?

This is clearly and blatantly using magic to gain information about a magus, but it's also completely undetectable since the magic never actually interacts with the target at all, and its existence makes me extremely uncomfortable.

Edit: Not sure why this is replying to my older post as it has nothing in common with it except vague concerns about Arcane Connection weirdness. Re:the older post: tl;dr if you can have ACs to nonexistent things, and you Creo (Form) one of them at R:Arc to restore to health/good condition/raise from dead, do you have to personally know every detail of the thing you're restoring (probably requiring a Finesse roll despite this being, functionally, a healing spell) or do you get to yoink information about it out of the past and bend the Limit of Time till you can hear it creak?

1 Like
278

Because, in ArM5 Core, Faerie Magic is not an Ability. The Ability is only introduced in HoH:MC. This is, I think, outside the scope of errata, although I agree that it would be nice if it could be fixed in some way.

279

Here is an attempt at the experience clarification. What do people think?

Advancement (p. 163): Change the sentence after the formula to say "A character may only gain experience from one source (one book, one teacher, one set of adventures) in one season."

Adventures (p. 163): Add the following sentences to the end of the first paragraph. "Note that the Source Quality is for the whole season, no matter how many adventures happen in a season. (Multiple adventures in one season would be a good reason to set a Source Quality of 10, however.) Similarly, an adventure that takes more than one season may serve as a source of experience in each of those seasons."

6 Likes
280

If we get a better system to handle light and darkness... yes, I'm willing to help.

281

That was more directed at David since he is the one who actually has to go through and write the actual errata for everything. It is why I came up with the illumination based on brightness, since that would only require an errata for Lamp Without Flame and the CrIg base.

It would add more complexity to the rules, but hey we play AM. It is already a very complex rule set so a touch more complexity in the creation of magic light would not be a shocker.

1 Like
282

Agreed. That was not quite what I envisaged.

Rather, I suggested that github or similar would be a better forum for the process than this one, both by applying version control and making revisions available for each change implemented and in terms of the ticketing system.

But sure, it probably does not fit in Atlas' commercial model, nor in the production process, nor would I expect the majority of posters here to regroup on a different platform.

283

Too difficult for errata. Not exactly easy for a rather larger project.

Same level as the runic effect. No idea whether that was the original intent, but it's the only available level.

1 Like
284

Ah, so we don't explicitly say anywhere that there is no penalty. That makes it a lot easier, because we can add a single note to Living Language in the core rules that "no dialect" is a dialect, and gets a -1 penalty with other dialects.

285

I have finished with the errata in this thread. Thus, I am going to close it and start a new one. (I've not finished with errata yet; there are all the complicated cases, for one thing.)

Thank you.

5 Likes