Actually, it now makes perfect sense. There is even the reference from the first mention of Reputation to the rules for changing them, which I had initially missed.
No, it's good as it is
David, having read the core book on and off since 2006 or so, I still managed to miss that rule.
In my opinion, the spell casting section should be comprehensive of as many other modifiers as possible. I'm not sure what else could be added, though I'm sure there's some other rule in a supplement somewhere.
Another not obvious fact for Spell Mastery is how many more are in the supplements, so for example, encouraging Troupes to create their own could be a useful piece of advice.
1 Like
Sure, but why not use «score» throughout? Sounds a lot simpler and less ambiguous to me, and it sounds like a simple and erratable change.
1 Like
Because then things would get really confusing.
"Faith Score" as a concept was introduced in RoP:tD. It does not exist in the core rule book. So the use of the word "score" on p189 in the core rule book does not mean the same as the word "score" in "Faith Score" as used in RoP:tD.
So either use the rules in the core rule book, where you have Faith Points, but no Faith Score. (For both True Faith and relics)
Or use the rules from RoP:tD where you can have both a Faith Score and Faith Points, which are separate from each other.
Even the core rulebook has two (2) concepts. The permanent(ish) score and the expendable points. Calling both of them points is as confusing as anything.
Yeah, the core rules for Faith points are confusing and poorly written. The rework of them in RoP:tD makes things much clearer.
But fixing the core rules can't be done by just changing a couple of words. It would require more extensive changes of the text.
Yes, and I think you are right about adding it to the spellcasting section. However, I don't think it is entirely fair to describe a rule about auras as "buried" in the main section of rules about auras.
That's already in hand.
This. That is why there are new rules in RoP:tD rather than very old errata for the core rulebook.
That's a good idea.
2 Likes
To be frank, it's a bit of a mess. You've got the rule for aura botch dice under Realm Interaction on p. 183 and then you have a footnote about botch dice in regios being multiplied from the base aura level on p. 190. It really would have been nice to have the botch dice info for magic spells in a single place, because every time it comes up, I'm like was it x2 or x3 botch die in a regio? Last time I looked it up, it took me over 5m from the moment I was in the section where the aura rules are, trying to figure in which part of the text it was written that regios were worst than regular auras. It's x2 incidentally, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn it's x2 for regios, but x3 for an actual realm, but that's written somewhere else and I lost track of its location.
1 Like
True, "buried" is just my perspective. 
Part of what threw me is the language (and again, forgive me for reading this at when I got the book in 2006 at not bothering to reread this chapter much in the last 15 years).
Auras also affect the number of botch rolls for an attempted supernatural act in a foreign realm. For each point of aura rating, roll an extra botch die. Use the original aura rating, not that obtained after multiplying by a factor in the Realm Interaction chart.
Here's what got me, when I read this back a long time ago, I simply thought "all realms are foreign" and so Magic Aura's apply to botch dice as well. Having played Ars Magica 4e, my reading comprehension stopped there, and I never did bother reading much of that chapter, thinking that "I already know that stuff." Now that I look at it again, the example of a Merineta Magus does make it a little more clear, but even the table on pg 183 does not explicitly discuss botch dice.
Also, on another note, page 190 says botch dice inside of foreign regio's are doubled. Again, a rule I wasn't aware of, and could be very helpful to have in the spell casting danger section. Thanks again for taking the time to read my concerns. 
2 Likes
You could add errata to the core book to point to the extended rules in RoP:tDm so players who are considering taking this virtue know where to go for more on this topic?
There's a certain point we have to think of the audience and realise we are a niche group within a niche group. Arguably Ars Majica is niche, and then people devoted enough to go to the forum, or for that matter check the internet for an on-line errata are uncommon.
At the point someone is going on-line for an errata, they probably have a good idea of the supplement books available, the general topic of the supplement books, etc.
An errata should fix glaring areas. It's hard to justify an errata helping finding a "hidden rule" easier, as the person had to go somewhere which is not the core rule book. That doesn't seem easier, and thus commentary about layout and formatting doesn't seem an errata thing.
People have responded, so I thought it would be wrong to delete or greatly edit this post. My next post apologises for the glaring error in this one.
3 Likes
I think it's quite implicitly obvious that stuff about Faith will surely get expanded in RoP:tD, don't you think? 
1 Like
I read the title and thought I should re-read the original post.
Oops. The only defence I'll provide to my last post is others mentioned the errata and dragged me to respond off-topic. Keep posting those issues about rule location.
Someone mentioned botch dice and auras. I think the appendix at the end would be a good spot for the aura table to be located. I appreciate the table, while not huge, is not small. Maybe a truncated table just with magic vs other auras, as how magic is affected by auras is more common than the other interactions. How often has one had to compare fae vs infernal for example? This is not an excuse for an anecdote for when it happened. The question is rhetorical.
1 Like
That the rule about how faith points work would be changed? No, I don't think that's obvious.
I am assuming that errata'd wording is intended to be carried over as-is to any new printing, so leaving it out of errata also leaves it out of any new versions.
Not sure if already said but:
-
when is the vis spent when you are casting a spell . The question happened when our magus was casting a ritual and was stopped during the casting.
-
can a magus stops voluntarily casting a ritual?
-
does the magus needs to have the vis at the start, the end, or from start to end to cast a ritual?
-
how long does it take to cast a circle spell relating to the size of the ring. What are the concentration level required?
-
is it possible to use two metamagic spells (MuVi A and B) on a C spell? Must B spell takes the C(with A) level into account or only the C level into account? otherwise said: must B be a "two magnitude" change spell, or can B be a "one magnitude change" to be cast on a C spell which will be modified by one magnitude due to A MuVi spell?
-
for the non US ones among us we decided long ago that "a pace = a meter". Is the pace an arbitrary measure (our opinion, as in "one unit of distance") used to calculate all other things related to it or a real measure in game, with RP implication?
-
why does magi not fly more often. all pc use flying because it puts you out of reach and easy targetting. Why no NPC does this? there must be something we miss in the rules making it hard (and do not say concentration rolls: most magi have a base of 8+ in this).
-
how do characteristics relate to mass of mussles "appearance". Is a +3 sta /-3 str character more heavy than a 0 sta & str one?
-
when a spell is in the core rulebook with a special level, is that spell assumed to be the result of experimentation? (ex: the InAu spell level , or the crystal dart which does damage unrelated to anything to its level compared to other damage spells)
-
why do most spells in the corebook use "concentration" duration when irl i see most spells with sun duration which allow to be used without any roll and for a longer time.
-
if you cast a spell with sun duration, can it be made permanent if you follow the sun course? (yes... irl they thought about making a flying invisible castle covenant, following the course of the sun, and with everything created forever with sun magic).
-
why doesn't every NPC magus use the famous "make a hole below your enemy with MuTe(Au)" then let them fall and turn air back into earth. Is it related to the code? most of the players assume it's because NPC are just not very smart and I'm quite lost why it is not the happy solution for living a happy life for magi.
-
do familiars not advance XP (as magical being rules), advance XP (because of the link) or not advance XP except for magic theory (because of magical being rules + core book about them getting magic theory XP and helping in lab).
2 Likes
This is only a relevant question in a world that is round and where you don't burn to crisp / fall off the eart past a certain longitude and latitude. Of course, some sagas include america, south africa, australia, etc. But this isn't the typical Mythic Europe. Even if you're playing with a round world which is wholly accessible, this wouldn't even come up as a relevant question unless you found a way to travel 1000 miles per hour, which an absurb speed level for anything but a lightning under the current game system. Of course, I suppose the question might come up if you teleport throughout your day every few hours to live in a different city, but... yeah. I guess we have different sagas if this is a problem for you that you absolutely need a canon answer on.
When is "sunset" and "sunrise" exactly for Ars Magica purposes?
The issue is that it's at least two minutes from when the first sliver of the solar disk appears over the horizon (let's call it the beginning of sunrise), to when the solar disk is entirely above the horizon (let's call it the end of sunrise). Similarly, it's a few minutes from when the setting sun first touches the horizon (the beginning of sunset) to when it finally disappears entirely (the end of sunset).
Does parma magica or a D:Sun spell last until the beginning or the end of the next sunrise/sunset?
This might seem marginal, but has a number of implications in e.g. Wizard's War. I seem to recall that in ArM4 it was clarified in some sourcebook (until the end of sunrise/sunset) but in ArM5 it's not clear and different authors seem to have a different take on it (e.g. one of Fenicil's Rituals was used agaist the Diedne in a way that suggests that's not the case).
I would note that a similar clarification might be needed for D:Moon, even though it seems more explicit ("after both the full and the new moon have set" seems to imply that it lasts until the end of moonset).
And for D:Year, which has an additional complication: a solstice or equinox is technically an instant, not a day. If you use it in the sense of "the day of the equinox", you have to specify when a day begins and ends. For example, if you assume that a day ends and a new one begins at the end of the next sunrise, then an Aegis cast on the winter solstice, lasts until the "end of the day" of the next winter solstice, which is probably what's intended. If you assume that a day ends and a new one begins at the beginning of the next sunrise, then an Aegis cast on the winter solstice lasts until the "beginning of the day" of the next winter solstice, meaning that most covenants are unprotected by the Aegis for at least an hour every year.
(A much simpler solution, that is also more technically correct: change D:Year to say "The spell lasts until sunrise on after the fourth equinox or solstice after its casting)
3 Likes
These are all (well, mostly — invisible supersonic castles?) reasonable questions to ask if you have been playing ArM for years and are in a group that tries to exploit all the interactions between the rules. And, to be clear, this is a perfectly valid way to play Ars Magica, and the rules are designed to support it. You are supposed to be able to find magically efficient ways to achieve things if that's what you enjoy.
However, I suspect that clarifying them all in the core rules would actively put people off the game. That's not the only way to play ArM.
2 Likes
I agree. In fact not having these set on stone can allow specific storyguides to add a lot of flavour to stories. Maybe sun durations expire as soon as the last ray of sunlight doesn't cover the area of effect, and so end sooner in a valey and later on a mountaintop (or a flying castle). And by saying that you can guess how Wizards' Wars are going to get messier and interesting. Or maybe it depends on the angle of the sun and there is a way magic gets synchronized somehow depending on your coordinates, and then it all gets more academic and precise. When these questions are answered, the answer sets how magic works and it is amazing to be possible to have different ways to model magic. In a game that is build around magic, having that freedom to change it all just by picking different options each time is amazing. So I'd really hate to see these fixed on the rules. I don't want the answer to be just one, I want to be able to pick the one we want each time.
1 Like
I suspect most groups playing ArM5 even for a dozen sessions do end up wondering whether a covenant is constantly protected by an Aegis cast every summer solstice and/or whether a magus can be constantly protected by Parma (or a D:Sun effect cast twice daily). A magus is in a faerie forest, protected from the evil magics of the place by his Parma: will he succumb at dawn or dusk? A magus is flying across the sea over a carpet kept aloft with a D:Sun spell: can he keep flying for days? Etc. Ultimately it's always very much the same question. It would take very little to make the answer clear (just a few words in how D:Sun, Moon and Year are written), far less than what's already spent giving examples for really edge cases.
Keeping the default answer to these very basic, fundamental questions unclear is harmful to playability. With a clear default people who play the game know what to expect and do not have to re-negotiate everything every time they start a new saga (or worse, end up arguing in the middle of a game session). A clear default helps (would have helped?) people writing material avoid contradictions. Etc. If a troupe wants to deviate from the default in a particular saga, nothing stops them - but it should be a clear conscious choice, with the awareness there may well be subtle ripple effects.
1 Like