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