Once we've gotten all the spells reviewed, I will grant you access to the 'final' file, so we can go over it again, and try to catch any leftovers.
I do go over it a bit, but that's mostly to make sure the spells are alphabetical in each level, and making sure all the mechanical bits (the TeFo and the breakdown are listed similarly)
Of course, I will have to separate out the spells that require a virtue/initiation out to their own section as well.
I have no problems with the change as long as it's consistant.
I prefer to have comments linked to the title as well.
Did a setting change in the last day? Suddenly the email of comments is showing up empty.
I didn't make any changes
Now it seems to be behaving normally again. Maybe it's something with Google having a short glitch.
I did run the A&A Recovery roll issue by David for the errata, as something was off. He's going to adjust A&A, DI, and AtD. While direct healing still requires separate spells, as noted in the core book, Recovery rolls are a single thing for Hermetic magic. Since we were going the other way, we'll want to adjust back in the Corpus section.
So, a single spell can grant bonus to Recovery for both wounds/disease/poison?
Yes. As David pointed out, note that poisons cause wounds, which are dealt with as injuries. As I pointed out, the note about recovery rolls with aging crises is slightly erroneous since there are no Recovery rolls there, but not totally off since "recovery" is not capitalized there. So all Recovery rolls are either to injuries or diseases.
These are the spells/effects I found that had issues one way or the other:
True Rest of the Injured Brute (ArM5 p.117) - general bonus
Purification of the Festering Wounds (ArM5 p.12) - injuries or diseases
Circle of Recovery (TtA p.153) - general bonus
Bestow the Blessing of Apollo (MoH p.21) - injuries or diseases
The Soothing Balm of Telesphorus (DI p.95) - only diseases
The Hippocratic Staff (AtD p.98-99) - one effect for only injuries and one for only diseases
With injuries covering everything except disease, a bonus to injury or disease is general as well. So the first four will be fine as-is. The last two need editing (along with a change in the A&A statement).
So he is doing a complete 180 then?
EDIT: That is a pretty massive Errata that is going to require changing text all over the place in a bunch of books.
A 180 on the A&A rule. The core rules don't address it, while the core spells go the way he is going. So its not really a complete 180.
As for errata, here are the options:
A&A is correct: Change 4 spells, half in the core book.
A&A is incorrect: Change 1 spell, 2 item effects, and the note in A&A.
Overall the editing is in the same ballpark either way, about the same number of entries and across 3 books in either case. I think A&A being correct is less editing, myself. But it's not like one requires so much editing all over the place than the other. He chose he would rather have core be correct with a little bit more editing.
I personally don't like this change, though most likely that is because of the ripple effect of changing A&A to my groups ongoing Saga. Guess we will just have to HR it when that Errata comes out.
Or a you make a separate thread, tag David, and hope a bunch of people post in agreement with you. With a little less editing, if a large, vocal group of players would rather keep the A&A interpretation intact, he might well go the other direction.
@Red-Shadow-Claws That "Review Later" section, especially being at the beginning, maintains the massive amount of comments early in the document. Could we either move that to the very end or, as I'd prefer, hold them in another document for a while?
Everyone else, whoever is the first to make a new comment about halfway through Corpus, can we try to switch labeling conventions there?
If I move it to a different file, all the comments will be lost.
I will try, on Monday, to leave just Auram and Corpus, and move the Review Later to the back of the file
Oh, good point. We definitely don't want to lose the comments on all those.
I think that I just discovered a major part of the issue. Comments for spells that have been removed from the document are still in the document comments. There are literally thousands of comments for things no longer in the document that all have to load up every time the document is opened. They are what is causing the delay rather than the basic text.
Removing sections will not solve anything since all the old comments are still there. Most likely we will need to switch to different documents for only a single Form at a time to resolve the issue.
So what is the convention ?
I am new to the project and would like to help instead of spreading chaos, so I will follow the rules as long as somebody explained them to me.
My questions:
I am willing to put on some time and effort once I have these guidelines.
How do I see these old comments? I would delete them all if I can.
You click on the "Open Comment History" button (little speech bubble on the top right) and scroll down. Not sure you could truly delete them since the system is designed to maintain a history of all actions.