Call for ArM5 Errata

While fixing that, the text of the Minor version of Outsider should be corrected as well since RoP:tD p.136 says

This Flaw is usually only appropriate for grogs; companions and magi should take the Major Flaw instead.

Dropping "and magi" would make it correct:

This Flaw is usually only appropriate for grogs; companions should take the Major Flaw instead.

Realms of Power: The Divine p. 10

There are two guides for an aura of near-chapel cemeteries. By the reading of the first, one would assume the graveyard has an Aura of 3. The provided drawing, however, places the graveyard at Aura 4. In addition, the drawing's legend is missing entries for Church Common, Keep and Water Wheel (less important here)

This is confusingly inconsistent and should be corrected, either by removing one guide in favor of another, or specifically stating which guide has been used for the legend.

2 points:1 Not addressing spells because they are legacy spells means they are not consistant with the current edition, and you are requiring new customers to have the old edition to understand them. Pretty much anything that can be explained as "but it's a legacy spell" means it needs to be fixed, even if it is to indicate an in game reason why it does not follow normal hermetic guidelines.
2) A magus is inherently an outsider to most of Mythic Europe, but what about a magus who is a outsider within the order- for example if you are in the Rhine and the magus is a Moor (both racially and religiously) then they will stand out in ways that is not covered simply by Hermetic Magus or the Gift, and will be alienated within the order as well as without.

3 Likes

Regarding Longevity Rituals:

If you pay someone else to do the work for you, there are two questions that arise:

  1. Does the cost of it also include the Lab Text (presumably already without the maker's shorthand)?
  2. Does reusing it require you to have a Lab Total that equals or exceeds the Lab Total used to make it?
1 Like

See here for the rule: TMRE p.42 box Longevity Ritual Vis Limits.

In MoH, p. 69, a MuHe charm adds one magnitude for "Excessive Size Change" but in Hermetic Projects, p. 89, to reduce something by a factor of 1000, requires three magnitudes. The MoH effect reduces 20 lb sacks to the size of a grain, which seems like a millionth of the volume.

Some clarity would help.

Yes. There is definitely at least one error here. It may actually be that both are in error. I say that because the only core example we have (MuCo) suggests shrinking is notably easier than growing. If that's the general case, then the HP one doesn't need so many magnitudes and the MoH surely still needs more, so both should be corrected.

Fixed along those lines. (I've also fixed the Minor Flaw.) Thanks!

Because "Pagan" is not a social status in most of Mythic Europe, while "Jew" is.

1 Like

ArM5, page 164: The Source Quality range for Practice should be 4 to 8, because the following description gives no situation in which it could be 3.

Or have I forgotten something important?

1 Like

There are two I know of, but they're special exceptions, and even 3-8 wouldn't cover them anyway. Those two exceptions are Nature/Forest Lore's practice Source Quality equal to the Aura and Monistic Mysticism's Source Quality of Concentration (probably would never be 3, but it could be). As those are both special exceptions and go outside of the 8 region as well, I wouldn't worry about them.

Ancient Magic, page 114, left column: no double-space between Slaying of Niobe's Children and Eternal Youth of the Sun, and incorrect indenting of the latter.

While LoM p.139 uses "Weapon Attack Modifier" and the core book p.176 and p.177 use "The modifier to Attack" while p.171 and p.227 use "Weapon Attack Modifier" for one thing and there are many instances of "Attack Total" for something else, there is no such thing as "Attack Bonus" as used for The Avenue that Splinters and the Station of Blood and Bronze (HoH:MC p.67). "Attack Bonus" there needs to be changed, probably to "Weapon Attack Modifier."

In the meantime, although it's obvious, it would be good to align the core book's p.176 and p.177 with p.171, p.227, and with LoM by changing p.176's and p.177's "The modifier to Attack" to "Weapon Attack Modifier." Likewise for initiative, defense, and damage.

If my current understanding of how T:Circle is supposed to work is correct, "Be Rid the Tell-Tale Smoke" (PeAu20, MoH 28) is completely nonfunctional for its intended purpose; it would destroy all smoke within the circle at the time of its casting, but could not continue destroying any smoke that passed through it or was generated inside it, because that smoke wasn't there when the spell was cast.

Technically, due to the definition of R: Personal, the spell Last Flight of the Phoenix doesn't do what I think it's supposed to do: It will (despite the size modifier) only do damage to the caster and whatever said caster is carrying.

Assuming it has duration ring it would continue to destroy smoke within the circle, since that is how sustained perdo spells work. However smoke crossing into the circle would end the effect.

Smoke crossing the boundary of the circle wouldn't break the ring, though. Is this covered somewhere other than the RDT section of the core book?

thepsyborg is correct. D: Ring is fine and does what the spell intends. The issue is T: Circle. Changing that to Individual should work and won't change the level.

Generally smoke won't be able to cross it anyway since it's destroying smoke inside of it before the smoke can even cross it, though there is a possibility smoke from outside of it will cross it. However, I don't see how smoke crossing the ring would break the ring, and smoke coming in from outside wouldn't qualify as moving outside.

Consider that if a non-momentary duration of pit of gaping earth were cast- it has target part, but dirt placed into the pit during its duration would vanish, even though it was not part of the original target. Clearly this is something requiring clarification, but I don't believe the flaw is in the spell design.

Actually, considering further, I think this one comes down to a clarification that was asked for earlier about the parsing of the language within Circle. It's perfect with one reading and quite useless with the other reading.

2 Likes