The official errata list contains a lot of duplicate text. This, as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with different editions of books but seems rather to be a simple bug - possibly a case of copy-paste mistakes.
2 Likes
I agree with Minor Virtue, as per callen's rationale - compare it to Custos.
Ok, I feel a bit embarassed about suggesting it as an erratum but ... it got top likes (10) in the House Rules That Should be Core thread 
Fixing one arcane connection is a 7-day distraction.
If he instead devotes a season to the task, a magus can fix as many as his vis-handling limit allows.
Incidentally, I am truly impressed by the new errata.
2 Likes
I am not sure the following is even an error and not just a strange choice of numbers, but anyway...
The virtue Mythic Blood says that if your Casting Total falls short of the spell level by less than 10 points you do not lose any fatigue.
Comparing against the table on p81 this means that if someone with Mythic Blood casts a formulaic spell and (Casting Total - Spell level) is -9 or higher the spell works and no fatigue is lost; if the difference is -11 or lower the spell fails and the caster loses 1 point of fatigue; and if the difference is exactly -10 the spell works but 1 point of fatigue is lost.
It is this special treatment of failing by exactly 10 points which is so odd. It would make more sense if the description of Mythic Blood said "falls short of the level of a formulaic spell by ten points or less".
Then you'd lose fatigue if the spell fails, and no fatigue if the spell works.
As I said, this isn't obviously wrong, just strange and looks like it could be wrong.
2 Likes
Yes, this is a known problem, and almost certainly a copy and paste error at some point in the past. Atlas are waiting for me to supply the revised errata, and will then fix it. (I hope — if it's an internal web server bug we might end up with three copies of the new errata, and fixing it will take longer.)
1 Like
This is the basic issue. Maintaining two sets of errata, for the two printings, would significantly increase the work required to maintain the errata, and increase the possibilities for errors. (Only errata'ing one of the two printings.) I didn't think it was worth it, and still don't.
Just above, in The Fifth Ring of Solomon (p. 100): To determine to which realm as creature is attached, roll as described below.
"realm the creature", maybe?
And 'Failed Apprentice' should just be yet another 50 xp Virtue. No need to gimp it.
Agreed. However, there is one erratum in the first edition that is superseded by an erratum in the second edition. I recommend replacing the entry in the first edition with the one in the second and ignoring the first edition's section from then on.
Said erratum is the guideline regarding the duration of MuVi spells needing sufficient duration to affect the target spell.
1st edition version:
Muto Vim (p. 159): Add the following paragraph to the end of the general description: "A Muto Vim spell, like any other Muto spell, can only change its target for as long as the Muto Vim spell is in effect. ..."
2nd edition version:
Muto Vim Guidelines (p. 159): Replace the final paragraph with the following: "Muto Vim spells work by altering the magical energies that create the spell as it is being cast. ..."
I mention this because it has affected our troupe, as we noticed that the two editions had different entries for this section several months after the start of our current saga.
A quick strikethrough or asterisked footnote on superseded errata would do the trick without losing any information from previous versions errata.
3 Likes
I am not sure about this change. My main gripe is that it makes a somewhat confusing spell even more confusing, leaving players to ask "Why does this spell fail to fit the conventional Hermetic guidelines? What's the closest thing one could cast spontaneously? How does the level calculation work out?"
To understand what's going on, I'll try to deconstruct the spell; starting from the base guideline, and only then adding RDT and "other" modifiers. As far as I can see, there are two possible conceptual paths to the effect.
The first is a slightly modified ward, that, rather than keeping earth away from the target, instead keeps the target from earth. It's not clear whether this would require experimentation, though it seems the perfect example for a Modified Effect. In this case it would be:
Base 2 Keep dirt away from you, under your conscious control, +0 R:Per (the target is the magus), +1 D:Conc, for a final level of 3.
This might be increased by 1 magnitude (+1 stone) to possibly affect gravel in addition to dirt/mud, though I think it is unnecessary: in my view "something that you do not leave tracks on" is really where the stone magnitude should kick in. If the spell is not the result of experimentation, a further +1 for the "unusual effect" might be in order ... or perhaps not.
The second path to Trackless Step is something similar to Treading the Ashen Path (PeHe 30, ArM5 p.138) or, perhaps more aptly, Cloak of the Duck's Feathers (ReAq 5, ArM5 p. 124): an effect that in some sense is constantly reapplied to affect stuff that the magus comes in contact with.
The exact level calculation changes depending on whether we are going with Cloak of the Duck's Feathers, or Treading the Ashen Path.
If we follow Cloak of Duck's Feathers (my favourite choice, because it's so similar), Trackless Step becomes:
Base 2 Control or move dirt in a slightly unnatural fashion, +0 Per, +1 Conc, for a finall level of 3.
Note that Cloak of the Duck's Feathers is explicitly slightly unnatural, and making water roll off someone appears to me on par with preventing someone from leaving tracks. Also, note that Cloak of Duck's Feathers is R:Touch, but not because water is affected as the caster touches it - instead, some other target like a shield grog might be "Cloaked".
If Trackless Step is instead based on Treading the Ashen Path, it becomes:
Base 2 Control or move dirt in a slightly unnatural fashion, +1 Touch, +0 Mom, +1 "fancy recasting effect" for a finall level of 4.
Of course, one might be tempted to say that all of Trackless Step, Cloak of Duck's Feathers, and Treading the Ashen Path, are "non standard" and thus require a Lab text. I think that's a bad idea; I like a little "flexibility" in the way one can design spells. But that's just a matter of taste.
That's a good idea. Let's do that.
3 Likes
It hasn't been raised as a potential erratum. Hint, hint.
1 Like
Because I was thinking too much about the problems of people not realising wards need to penetrate. Yes, it is more confusing than helpful in this case, and will be deleted.
2 Likes
Almogavar (Grogs p74) is significantly more powerful than any other Free Virtue* and should probably be Minor. 
* Except The Gift, obviously.
1 Like
Mythic Blood (ArM5, p.47) nets a character a "magic feat" that can be invoked at will.
"The effect should be designed as a Hermetic effect, with a level + Penetration limited ...".
This does not rule out, in principle, Ritual effects, nor does it say that vis must be spent on them; which may be sufficiently unbalancing for an erratum.
Outlaw Leader, ArM5 p.57, makes the character (who can't be a grog) into the leader of a small band of outlaws; just like Mercenary Captain, but on the other side of the law, and slightly worse off. Now, many (most?) troupes will want to create those underlings as grogs..
What Social status should they take? The "natural" choice would be Outlaw (immediately above), but it's a Major flaw, so generally unavailable to grogs. One option, I think, is to take for Outlaw the same route taken with Outsider (also a Major Social Status Flaw) in RoP:D - make it Minor for grogs.
Something that came up in a thread some time ago.
If a mage uses "Haunt of the Living Ghost", or its variant from Hermetic Projects, the "Convening the Council" enchantment, his image can be seen by other magi, because the species (whether displaced ot created), being non-magical, are not resisted by Parma.
But these spells also have an InIm component, based on the "use your sense at a distance" guidelines, which allow the mage to see his surroundings.
Can he see/hear, people protected by Magic Resistance, including other magi?
Going by Ars and Academe and the species reference in "Convening the Council", if I understand correctly, he just moves his sense, and "receive" non-magical species emited by his councilmates.
AFAICT, none of these spells work by extromission or else, both their target and Target are the mage casting them, and thus, he shouldn't have to penetrate to see or be seen.
If "moving your senses at a distance" does just that, spells using these guidelines shouldn't have to penetrate unless their target is protected by MR (Like, using this through an AC to a Dragon to see from his location), which makes some scrying easier (which, IMO, is not nescessarily a bad thing, since it makes the provision against scrying all the more important)
If it doesn't, these spells become much harder to use. Specifically, "Convening the Council" should be errataed so that it either has a build-in penetration, or a mention that in order for it to work, magi may have to lower their Parma (If everyone uses this, you're essentially fine. If only one does while the others are attending physically, he can't hear or see his councilmates)
2 Likes
Why not just rewrite Trackless Step to be similar to a very limited Ward Against Wood? WAW causes the warded individual to walk slightly above any wooden surface. Therefore, Trackless Step could easily be written as a ward that specifically protects against earth below the target's feet. Now the target walks just above any earthen surface, thereby leaving no tracks.
1 Like
Yes. Targets protected by Magic Resistance still emit non-magical species, which the spell can pick up on perfectly fine. InIm scrying on a location (e.g. Summoning the Distant Image with an AC to the room, rather than a magus in the room) should be able to see creatures within that location even if they have Magic Resistance, as the spell doesn't interact with them at all.
1 Like