The Church 21, in the "Divine Warping and the Contemplative Mystic" box, left column:
"If a character who is engaged in contemplative mysticism suffers a Warping event and gains 2 or more Warping Points, regardless of the cause she enters an ecstatic condition called Divine Ascent."
Missing comma between "cause" and "she".
"The character’s Warping Score to now always added to Magic Resistance granted by True Faith if the character possesses that Virtue."
Not completely sure, but I think "to" should be "is"?
This would require people to point out the individual spells that they think are problematic. After all, the authors, playtesters, and editor didn't find problems with them — but there are a lot, so it is entirely possible we missed things.
Here is one for your David, from a booklet you made.
Fire Guardian (Semita Errabunda, p 4) is a PeIg effect which uses its Environmental Trigger to activate the power when a fire is in the same room as the enchanted device. This is within the range (Room) and form (Ignem) of the enchanted device. In addition it does not have an Intellego requisite. This does not seem to match the rules for Environmental Trigger (AM5, p 99).
While my group has made the ruling that an Environmental Trigger can be used to activate an effect based on something matching its form(s) and within its range, clarification from on high would be appreciated.
Personally that is my feeling for the whole book, but if someone wants to go through with a fine tooth comb and separate out the spells that don't match guidelines from those that do, then someone else double check that work- well that's going to be putting a lot of hours into rescuing one book.
Technically it should have a second InIg effect which is always on to detect those fires, though this would also cause warping as a constant use for the room being targeted, unless that spell has some trigger of its own (for example duration:day with trigger of sunset specifically so it only watches the lab at night would at least reduce warping exposure when combined with other potentially warping effects)
Yes. But, fortunately it has already been done in many cases.
The Ruq is a magical being, so that's not necessarily an issue. The falcons, hawks, and eagles on p.106 and p.177 are derivatives of of the ones I gave page numbers for. That's why I said "As all the others in LoM and TC&TC are derivatives of this, the one change (albeit in three places) fixes all the rest." There is no need to change any of TC&TC.
Main rulebook: "Blunt the Viper's Fangs" on page 119 has been errata'ed to be a level 20 spell. But the Bjornaer Magus Template on page 24 has it as a known level 15 spell. Fixing that would give him 125 spell levels, so the easiest fix is probably to give him "Agony of the Beast" instead.
Also, what may be a layout issue rather than an erratum: on page 176, the Armor Table confused me. As I read it, the columns say "Prot", "Partial Load", "Prot", "Full Load" and "Cost". Actually, "Partial" applies to the first two columns and "Full" to the next two.
A&A p.122 (upper box): It says "Many types of musical instruments are present beside the common brass trumpets and drums." To my knowledge, drums were actually not very common at all in most of Europe in 1220. Not that there hadn't been any drums at all; they had been introduced in Greece and then Rome way back. But from what I've read it was only in the near future that drums start gaining broad popularity in medieval Europe. Even if "common" is only there to refer to brass trumpets, the overall statement implies drums are more common than were instruments that were actually more common than them.
200-150 BC – African drums were widespread in Greece and Rome.
1200 AD – Opening of the Mediterranean trading routes by the Crusades brought incredible wealth to Genoa and Venice, enabling spreading of Middle Eastern, African, Indian and Asian influences over Europe. Among those new influences was also use of drums.
1450 – Large expansion of various percussion instruments. These medieval prototypes become basis of modern percussions.
Yes, in the ballpark of 1200 drums started spreading into medieval Europe. (I'm not sure why they died out from the Roman spread.) That doesn't mean they were common in Europe by 1220, let alone the implied more common than recorders/flutes (older flutes were more like recorders, not blown across like modern flutes) or some of the stringed instruments that were played extensively in the 1100s.
I'd just like to focus on the errata and not the scholarly debate of whether an adjective such as common was the right one to use with the latest round of research, or whether it should be footnoted with a contrarian perspective you can research more if you want to spend ten hours learning more about a minor point of history. This is a game. Drums existed in Mythic Europe. You can make them uncommon in your game if you disagree with that sentence.
In the Core Rules for the Virtue "Mercurian Magic" gives the character with the virtue Wizard's communion at the level of their highest spell, and when inventing a new spell of a higher level the character will automatically invent a Wizard’s Communion spell of the same level, without needing to spend extra time.
As the existing errata point out, and through the Aegis makes clear, if casting a ritual Wizard's communion will not cut the mustard as it is not long enough in duration to cover the time to cast the spell - I assume, therefore, that Mercurians should be automatically given the "Day of Communion" spell from through the Aegis, either instead of or in addition to Wizard's communion.
Since their whole flavour is communal ritual spell casting, it seems out of flavour to give them a communion spell that will not work with rituals. I could, of course, be wrong, but it seems odd to me so assuming this was missed and needs amending in some way
Not sure if this is better in the hard to find rules thread. The Heat and Corrosion rules on page 181 interact with spells seeminglly not at all despite the statement that spell damage already includes the modifier for amount of exposure. For example, Coat of Flames does +5 and says the target is swathed in flames, whatever that means. Blade of the Virulent Flame also does +5 damage, also based on the same guideline. I suspect these two spells create different amounts of flame and cover different amounts of a target's body (a slash of fire when the sword hits vs a putative coat covering the target). Guidelines just create fire doing damage, with no indication of how much of the body is covered.
If Coat of Flames covers half the target it's true base damage would be 5/3, a different base damage than used for the spell. Also, +1.66 damage is weird. Similarly, how much of the target is covered with other spells? Ignem and other corrosivie spells could include a note for how much of the target is covered. Other options might be to include this in the guidelines or descriptive matter. The one line at the beginning of Ignem that rules for fire on page 181 doesn't fix the problem.
Mythic Locations, p.110, right column, under the entry for "The Silvery Miraculous Daffodil Wand", "almost nearly one thousand yellow daffodils" needs to lose either the "almost" or the "nearly".
Something that needs to be clarified is "same effect" from the definition of Similar spells.
Does Pilum of Fire and Ball of Abysmal Flames have the same effect? Why?/Why not?
Does a level 20 Demon's Eternal Oblivion and a level 25 Demon's Eternal Oblivion have the same effect? Why/Why not?
A mage invents a Pilum of Abysmal Flame spell, same parameters and description as PoF, except it is level 35 and does +30 damage, like BoAF. Does this have the same effect as PoF? Same effect as BoAF? Why?/Why not?
@ErikT
None of your examples have to be the same effect in order to be similar. If Range, Duration, and Target are the same, then a "closely related effect" suffices. The core rules explicitly state that "doing damage with Creo Ignem" is acceptable.
Better, IMO, to ask whether a a Sight range Pilum of Fire is meant to be similar to Ball of Abysmal Flame, as they do fairly similar, but not identical, things with different Ranges.
EDIT: I removed my personal opinion regarding the answer after seeing your rationale for asking the question on another thread.
I deliberately did not ask if they were similar - I feel highly confident the answer will be yes for all the cases I listed, and I do not think that is in any need of clarification.
I want to know if they have the "same effect" - because if I know if these examples have the "same effect" or not, I can much more easily judge if other cases should be counted as similar spells or not.
For example judging if a Sight range PoF is similar to a standard BoAF. The answer to this depends on if PoF and BoAF have the same effect or not - which is one of the examples I picked.
You're both looking at the same issue to essentially be answered the same way. I'd like to present why this is errata-worthy rather than just clarification.
The issue mostly comes down to how "same effect" is written and how the guidelines are written. For "same effect," we read
Two spells have the same effect if the rules description of the spell is the same,
If I write a level-based formula, as in Demon's Eternal Oblivion, then the rules description is the same for each of them. If I write them with specific amounts like +30 damage, then the rules descriptions are different. But this is all merely semantics. One person could write BoAF using a level-based formula, while another person could write DEO of each level, each with its own concrete number. The inconsistency in writing out the three styles of varying guidelines ("general," specific base and then add for more, and a whole bunch of different listed bases) causes this issue. Technically, right now it comes down to if you're clever as a player or not. If you know to write a formula when you invent your spells, then you get more similar-spell bonuses; if you don't know to do that, then you lose out on the similar-spell bonuses. A game mechanic like "similar spells" should not rely on a player's comfort with writing mathematic formulas abstractly.
I definitely get where you're coming from; given the fairly reasonable interpretation that two spells have the same effect if they use the same guideline to do the same thing*, PoF and BoAF use different guidelines and do not have the same effect, but DEO20 and DEO35 use the same guideline and therefore do have the same effect. And that's silly.
*by "to do the same thing" I mean that I wouldn't count, e.g., Rock of Viscid Clay and Clay of Rigid Stone as having the same effect, despite using the same guideline. Which I don't think anyone was arguing anyway, but just to be as clear as possible about it.