This is my understanding as well.
The "hint, hint" part was a request for a bit more detail…
Presumably, it is the access to equipment and Abilities that is the problem, rather than the "badass Spaniard" part? I think you're right. It probably does need to be upgraded. That will create a minor awkwardness as it collides with the status for the Almogaten, but that's not actually a rule problem.
I like that a lot. I need to think about whether it is within the scope of errata, however. (It looks like it would maintain balance, and it is unlikely to impact anything previously written.)
Thank you. There have been a lot of very useful contributions.
Variations of that seem to be a fairly common house rule. My current group has something similar, in that we say it is ~week and the seasonal limit is Magic Theory. This does not have be errata however since it is something that is possible with an OR breakthrough. That is how we defined it.
It does open up the possibility for a paper/booklet/book covering the advancement and possible changes to Hermetic Magic. While an official or semi-official (which your personal materials are) would be best, even a community created product would be great.
In reference to the virtues of Almogavar and Almocaden
Grogs, page 90, column 3, third paragraph:
“A typical band of Almogavars consists of around a dozen men, guided by an Adalil (sergeant) and led by an Almogaten (captain).”
The correct military ranks are:
Adalil (leader) دليل " the one who shows the way".
Almogavar a llom cavall (mounted Almogavar) present only in some areas
Therefore the rank of Adalil is not equivalent to sergeant, but to general.
I know that Mr. Chart warned:
“There have been a couple of errata about historical facts, such as dates in sourcebooks. I'm afraid I'm not going to be incorporating them, because I cannot easily check whether the original authors, or the person offering errata, got it wrong. If they are mistakes, they will get treated as ways in which Mythic Europe is slightly different from Historical Europe.”
so I am incorporating the reference here for your convenience:
8 posts were split to a new topic: Daimons and Aspects
Redcaps are often merchants and traders. In fact, C&G p. 107-108 states: "All traders have a Social Status Virtue representing the style of trade in which they engage... These Virtues, in ascending order of wealth, are: Merchant ... Merchant Adventurer, Factor, and Capo. The Redcap Virtue may substitute for any of these Virtues."
The problem lies with Lone Redcaps (HoH:TL, p.92, and p.100), basically more independent Redcaps who choose to "not maintain ties to a Mercer House, and thus do not receive magic items and longevity potions" (HoH:TL p.100), but are still supposed to perform their Redcap duties, or risk being cast out of the House.
Now, it seems reasonable that if a "normal" Redcap can perform his duties while sailing around as, say, a ship captain, so should a Lone Redcap. However, the rule in C&G does not apply to Lone Redcaps, and possibly for good reason -- Lone Redcap is a Minor Social Status Virtue, while some of the "trader virtues" Redcap can substitute for are Major. It would be balanced to require a Lone Redcap to pay for such a Virtue. But by the RAW, it can't be done, because a character can only have a single Social Status unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Thus, I think something like the following should be added to the Lone Redcap Virtue:
"This Virtue is compatible with any other mundane Social Status Virtue that could reasonably allow you to perform your Redcap duties, such as Merchant or Mendicant Friar"
Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not count as a reference. Medieval history is not one of the fields in which it tends to be reliable, so unless the author drops in to say that he got it wrong, I can't incorporate this.
Now that's an even better idea.
The Wikipedia article @Kuni_Mizomura quoted, especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almogavars#Requirements_and_military_rank, quotes the Siete Partidas of Alfons X textually in the appendix:
"las cosas que han de ir a bien, siempre han de ir, y subir de un grado a otro mejor. Así como se hace del buen peón un buen Almocadén, y del buen Almocadón buen almogávar de caballo, y de aquel, el buen Adalid"
So his objection is solid and based on the medieval document proper. The Adalid might be more of a captain, though, and the Almocadén more of a sergeant.
The reason for proposing it as an erratum was this.
Clearly too-harsh Flaws or underpowered Virtues should be rebalanced in the errata, even if mechanically coherent and not game-breaking, because almost nobody will otherwise take them. This diminishes, quite literally, the game.
Most people (and I am not saying this based solely on this forum) seem to think that fixing arcane connections is overly expensive in the game, so it happens very rarely - it's just not worth it. Rebalancing the cost to fix an arcane connection effectively "brings back" this dynamic into the game and/or avoids distortions (e.g. before we introduced the house rule, people always kept sneaking in grog folk witches so that the magi could "subcontract" AC-fixing to them).
Saying "this is possible with an OR breakthrough" does not really address the problem, in my view. Because either people house-rule that the breakthrough has taken place, which is essentially like house-ruling that fixing arcane connections "always" took less effort; or some poor sod of a PC magus is going to have to spend inordinate effort for something ultimately of rather minor benefit. Better to exploit the folk witches!
Let me finish this post (and I shall try to avoid others on the topic) proposing a thought experiment. What percentage of troupes do you imagine house-ruling "fixing arcane connection is easier"? From my experience, a large percentage.
Now, imagine the official rule was something like that proposed - fixing one AC is a distraction, and a season allows fixing many. What percentage of troupes do you imagine house-ruling "It takes one whole season to fix one"? I can't imagine a single troupe doing so.
RoP:F p56 & 57 - Grant (Minor Virtue) and Grant (Minor Flaw) seem like they should each cost 25 levels (selecting the Ritual Power Virtue once, rather than 50 levels and selecting it twice) based on might cost. This would put them in-line with similar powers for magical beings from RoP:M p38 & 39. If this is not an error then that means the might cost of the effect is a special case and that should be noted.
The problem is that the fact that one 13th century document uses the terms this way does not mean that they were generally used that way. I don't think Alfonso X was establishing the Almogavars at this point, and it is possible that he used eccentric terminology that never caught on. It's pretty good evidence, but my policy stands. I don't know what the original author was working from, and it might well have been a text that had a whole section saying "The Siete Partidas says this, but it seems from all other sources that the terms were actually, in practice, used like this."
Do you expect any other medieval sources addressing the organization of late 13th century almogavers and bearing comparison to a precise statement from the Siete Partidas?
I will not pursue this topic any further.
I don't know. It's not my field of specialist study. The author researched it at the time, and I am not in a position to judge the relative importance of different sources. That's the point.
Good point. Done.
Added a note.
Definitely better to have the errata in the same book.
Well, the Virtue is in both categories. But "or" is probably clearer.
No; that appears to be independent. Indeed, it's slightly inconsistent. If using the Sympathies makes it a faerie power, then it would make more sense that the product has to become faerie-aligned, which is not what RoP:F says.
Convinced. I will errata F&F instead.
That's not really the issue. "And" would technically mean that only those who can have Hermetic Virtues can take it. If that's the case, why bother listing General at all, since those who can take Hermetic Virtues can also take General Virtues.
It really wasn't inconsistent. The lab work was already magic-aligned. If the Sympathy Trait makes the Ability faerie-aligned, then the lab work is now both magic-aligned and faerie-aligned. When that happens elsewhere, you use the better of the two, which is exactly what happens in this case in RoP:F.
Also, gaining Warping Points from botches is consistent with being supernaturally aligned.
I'm not saying I think you're making the wrong choice. I'm just pointing out the several spots to make sure you've considered when making the choice. Hopefully doing that in general helps avoid a further round of errata later.
So you're just getting rid of the note about it becoming a faerie power, right, keeping it non-aligned? Certainly not changing all those spots (the ones you named plus some more you missed) in RoP:F avoids some headache.
A point occurs to me regarding spells targeting standing spaces and things which enter that space- it could be read to allow an undetected demon to be affected since while you have to be able to detect the target, the target is now the room (circle. etc) and not the entity. If this is the intent that can still work, but this outcome should be specified with whatever is being done to allow for that possibility.