Third ArM5 Errata Thread

Where it actually says this in the section on goetic magic.

It says so right after it describes how you can substitute your Rego/Vim scores for the normal abilities when using a Goetic Art. RoP:I p124, bottom left.

1 Like

Okay, I do see it now.

1 Like

I just wanted to say that, although I found the exchange funny, and the Magic realm chapter is undeniably a bit opaque, I think the design is clever, and it was not an easy task to pull off while staying true to the ArM5 cosmology.


Yes. Added.

Amazons are sufficiently Outsiders that they should arguably take Outsider in a saga that isn't all Amazons, and it isn't a problem in one that is.

An increased risk of a botch is extra danger. I think this is clear.

No, those are examples, to clarify what is meant by Source Quality. (It means Source Quality.)

That too, but that isn't the part of the rules that I felt needed the most emphasis. Multicasting a Ritual is likely to leave a magus crippled for some time.

I guess I should correct typos in the errata…

Yes, I think so.

This is also a bit outside the scope of errata, and not quite a central as some of the things I am trying to address.

1 Like

Ok, I was not clear.
Using vis Prava, for non-infernalists, makes every roll an automatic 0. This has two consequences:

  1. vis prava yields a significantly higher chance of a botch
  2. vis prava yields a low result, 0, which is more than 5 points below average even if you don't botch.

Saying infernalists do not treat a roll as an automatic 0 addresses of both 1. and 2.
Saying that infernalists using vis prava have no extra danger of a botch, as you proposed, technically addresses only 1. It fails to address 2. and leaves the reader in doubt whether:
a) infernalists indeed do not treat rolls as automatic 0s, meaning they get less danger and better rolls.
b) infernalists maybe roll a stress die as normal, but if they don't botch, they still treat the result as a plain 0 - so they get less danger, but no better rolls.

Now, I do not think b) was the Rule As Intended, but it it's closer to the RAW than a), and it was a point raised at my gaming table. I hope this time I was clear, if verbose!

You might include "e.g."

Usually the guidelines use magnitudes rather than levels to deal with bases in the 1-4 region. So you might want that "5" to be "1 magnitude."

I didn’t see this listed in the previous errata or either of the two threads here that had new errata to be added.
HoH:S new spell guidelines inset on p129

Rego Vim
General: Sustain or suppress a spell of a specific type cast by another with level less than the level + 2 mag-nitudes of the Vim spell. Examples of specifics types include Hermetic Terram magic and Shamanic spirit control magic.

This guideline states that it affects a particular spell but the sample spell on the same page, Quiet the Cursing Tongue has it affecting any spell cast by the hedge wizard for the duration. I assume the spell more clearly illustrates the author’s intent and think the guideline probably should be errata’d to bring them into alignment.

House of Hermes Societates p.129

A new guideline is added

Rego Vim
General: Sustain or suppress a spell of a specific type cast by another
with level less than the level + 2 magnitudes of the Vim spell. Examples of specifics types include Hermetic Terram magic and Shamanic spirit control magic

As written, this guideline appears to target "a spell" rather than an individual caster, but the following example spell targets a person.

Quiet the Cursing Tongue
ReVi Gen
R: Voice, D: Sun, T: Ind
The target of this spell cannot use any curse magic with a level less than or equal to (spell level – 10). If the curse magic is controlled by a Supernatural Ability, then its level is equivalent to (Score x 5). This spell can be used as a template for spells that affect other types of exotic magic.
(Base effect, +2 Voice, +2 Sun)


Errata the guideline to say, "Sustain or suppress a spell or spells of a specific type cast by another with level less than the level + 2 magnitudes of the Vim spell. Examples of specifics types include Hermetic Terram magic and Shamanic spirit control magic. This guideline may be used to target the spell itself or the caster of the spells."

HoH:TL p76, left column, third paragraph under "Fenicil's Rituals":

Before starting, the group needs to cast Wizard’s Communion spells with a combined magnitude equal to the Ease Factor of the ritual.

Should be Wizard's Vigil for the Lesser Rituals and a similar D:Year spell (itself necessarily a ritual!) for the Greater Rituals (the casting of which takes an entire season).

It is worth noting that this increases the already-exorbitant cost of the Greater Rituals (78 pawns base, but typically 39 pawns vis and 39 pawns of silver, with an extra season to prepare the materials) by a further 82 pawns (78 magnitudes of effect plus four magnitudes of Duration), to a total of 121 or 160 pawns, depending on whether prepared materials are used. Pretty sure this isn't intended. Not even sure it's acceptable collateral damage. Vis costs of Fenicil's Rituals might need a look to rein this in.

While we're on the topic of Fenicil's Rituals,

HoH:TL p77, right column, The Oath of Truth. Should clarify whether it can enforce any oath, or only the specific oath mentioned ("to tell the truth in an upcoming trial")[I suspect the latter]. Should clarify whether it can end without triggering, either under conditions established by the caster (if it can enforce any oath), or when the trial is over (if only the specific one), or if it remains pending forever (though there's little practical difference if it only applies to a specific trial that is now over, unless someone tries to dispel it).

Oh, wow. I never realized that the mercurian rituals were supposed to require a wizard’s communion sort of effect. That seems like it should not be the case… being the actual old Mercurian rituals, that working to learn the ritual should be enough to add your total in since it works quite differently than hermetic spells, adding the levels of each participant.

1 Like

I actively dislike the changes that made Wizard's Vigil a requirement, since Wizard's Communion was already a spell that did not fit standard Hermetic Theory. While other legacy spells have been exempted from having to meet the current framework by author hand-waving, they let a later book yeet Wizard's Communion.

Yes! I cannot agree more.

Really, it does not take that much to say that Wizard's Communion is an adaptation of the general techniques of Mercurian Rituals, and "as long as necessary" to cast the "communal" spell.
This is just so much more elegant and solves so many headaches.

An advantage to keeping it more generalized is that you can to R/T/D variations of other sorts as well, maybe to your benefit. For example, maybe you're the one doing all the spells being boosted and do a R: Touch version. Or maybe you want more distant magi to be able to be involved and use Sight. Maybe you choose Concentration and extend it rather than doing Sun. Etc.

I'll add my voice to those who like Wizard's Communion as it once was.

OK. Changed "danger" to "disadvantage".

Against the style guide… (But "for example" is fine, and has been added.)

Probably a good idea, although there are very few enchantments with a level of under 5 to make it worth creating the spell at such a level.

Yes, that is probably the way to go.


Noted. I'm not going to change it, though. (There are good reasons for that change to Muto Vim spells, and no good reason to exempt Wizard's Communion.)

I want to wind up the errata collection over the next few days, so that I can send Atlas the new errata file next week. If you have more errata, speak now, or… well, wait a bit, to be honest, because I'm sure there'll be another round of errata updates at some point.

Does Mythic Blood need clarification on the possibility of a Ritual power or no?

Already done.

I have pointed out several potential items for the errata that depend on exactly how everything ends with Adaptive Casting, General spells, and Similar spells. I mentioned them in that other thread because they're still conditional at this point.