ReTe Telekinesis

[callen]

@lvgreen

Can't place these spelss. Where are they to be found?

Sorry. I just meant to follow the link to the errata that had been posted.

@OneShot

did not explain, how these relate to the Unseen Arm of the OP or to your last post.

Do I really need to? Look at the erratum for Vessel of the Clouds (emphasis mine):

delete the reference to +2 for metal in the discussion of ReTe (there is no modification for simple movement)

Not only is there no +2 metal, it says exactly why there is no +2 for metal and the explanation does not restrict itself to fast movement. And if you think this only applies to metal, look at the erratum for The Heart that Could Move Stone.

As for not explaining, I didn't think I needed to explain how an explicit comment about simple movement applies to simple movement. This looks just like a ridiculous dig at me, as you don't really need me to explain that, do you?

[temprobe]

Callen, sometimes people ask questions to understand where you're going with an idea and it's neither because they're stupid nor because they're trying to take a dig at you. This is a discussion forum. Chill, okay?

[callen]

Yes, but a certain person has a past history of making these digs about me not being able to read or interpret well, even when it’s shown I’ve been correct. From anyone else it would be taken differently.

[OneShot]

@lvgreen

I think I would rule that the Unseen Arm merely modifies the spatial co-ordinates of a solid object.

This then distinguishes control and move in the ArM5 p.155 Rego Terram Guidelines:

The guidelines for controlling dirt, sand, mud, or clay are listed below. Add
one magnitude to control stone or glass, and two for metal or gemstones.
...
Level 1: Control or move dirt in a natural fashion
Level 2: Control or move dirt in a slightly unnatural fashion.
,,,
Level 3: Control or move dirt in a very unnatural fashion

It makes that text quite badly written, though, as it starts with an apparent introduction:

The guidelines for controlling dirt, sand, mud, or clay are listed below.

which then turns out not to be an introduction at all: some guidelines listed below cover control and move as significantly different operations, with different further modifications:

Add one magnitude to control stone or glass, and two for metal or gemstones.

thereby excluding effects just moving them from the increase in magnitude.

Level 1: Control or move dirt in a natural fashion
Level 2: Control or move dirt in a slightly unnatural fashion.
,,,
Level 3: Control or move dirt in a very unnatural fashion

It thus appears like written by a programmer for a parser and optimizing code size, not by an author for a reader. But it nicely covers later errata in spells without an apparent need for further errata in the guideline.

Anyway we know that saving space in the spell section of ArM5 was a major concern.

[callen]

Yes, exactly. We've known since the original printing of the core book came out that there were issues with the language here. So many people quickly noticed and pointed out (back on the Berklist) that Unseen Arm can move metal and has no +2 listed.

If "control" includes "move," then it is pretty ridiculous to say "control or move" repeatedly. That should leave us with the distinct impression that the author is trying to distinguish between "move" and "control," meaning simply moving something may work differently than controlling something in other ways (e.g. craft magic), as you note. As we should have this distinct impression (which we know to be correct with 20-20 hindsight), then we want to re-read the sentence about extra magnitudes. We should then notice that the extra magnitudes apply specifically to "control" and are not noted to apply to "move" (which we also know to be correct with 20-20 hindsight), as you also note.

So it does end up being consistent post-errata; just moving something doesn't need the extra magnitudes while "control[ing]" something does. Why did we need so many errata? (And I think I found another spell in need of an erratum.) Because it really wasn't written so well in the core book, thus confusing other authors later.

[lvgreen]

Once again my memory fails me. I was looking at the ReTe guidelines just the other week and was certain I recalled them.

I need InMe on myself before I think of posting on these forums - I seem to always seem to forget something.