Third ArM5 Errata Thread

[callen]

@dc444

My reading of situations where they say Formulaic Spells and explicitly remove ritual spells is that they are using the glossary definition of Formulaic Spells. I’m not sure how you can read it otherwise.

If they just did that, I would totally agree with you. But they didn't do just that. They also reversed it. We could say the same thing about explicit inclusion, that they are not considering Ritual spells a subset of Formulaic spells, and with the same certainty not be able to read it otherwise. Since they've done it both ways, at least one of them must be for clarity, and we don't know which one; that means we cannot ascertain anything from this. Here are the cases I've seen:
p.42: Flexible Formulaic Magic includes Formulaic spells and explicitly excludes Rituals.
p.58: Poor Formulaic Magic includes Formulaic spells and explicitly excludes Rituals.
p.83: The non-Ritual options include both Formulaic spells and Spontaneous spells while explicitly excluding Rituals.
p.86: Spell Mastery includes Formulaic spells while explicitly including Rituals.
p.92: Faerie Magic includes Formulaic and Spontaneous spells while explicitly including Rituals.
p.98: Attunement bonuses include Formulaic and Spontaneous spells while explicitly including Rituals.
p.115: General spells include Formulaic spells while explicitly including Rituals.

I don't think anything can be concluded based on there being one more inclusion than exclusion, either. That's close enough to an even blend of the two. As none of these would need errata either way and there are plenty of each, all we can really know is that many of the are there for clarity; they imply nothing more.

On top of that, there are a whole bunch of non-exclusionary statements that must be exclusionary to avoid a contradiction. There are a great many statements that require them to be separate. This is why there are so many items to put in the errata if this decision is made. There is only one spot I've found (just did) outside the glossary that pushes strongly toward Ritual Magic being a subset: p.111's "Level Guidelines."

.

However, now that I've found it again, there is one statement that, outside of not using the word "subset," is an explicit, core statement that Ritual spells are not a subset of Formulaic spells:

(p.115) Spells requiring rituals are those that fall outside the categories listed for formulaic and spontaneous spells...

Outside of using the word "subset," there can't be a much more direct an inarguable statement that the book specifies Rituals are not a subset of Formulaic magic. That's because this distinctly and clearly places Ritual Magic as a subset of the complement of the set of spells that can be done with Formulaic/Spontaneous Magic.

.

@dc444

Life Boost works fine as a virtue either way

Yes. And the same is true for Cautious Sorcerer (though technically unnecessary here), Method Caster, and Mythic Blood, as well as for learning a spell from Twilight, Verditius magi casting spells, and designing spells with odd R/D/T. The only two that really gives me pause is Mythic Blood and alternative R/D/T. With Mythic Blood losing no Fatigue is very far from losing 1-3 Long-Term Fatigue Levels, and the jump from 0 to 4 is rather abrupt. Of course, Mythic Blood is pretty weak in general so making sure it gets a noticeable boost wouldn't be a bad thing.

.

Here are more items for the errata if Rituals are made a part of Formulaic magic. I'm including the three from above so David can have all the potentially new errata in one place.

p.59: Slow Caster becomes contradictory, as Rituals would now be listed with two different times. The beginning of the second sentence should be changed to "Your non-ritual formulaic spells take two rounds to cast..."

p.81: (This is a whole bunch rather than one.) Many items become contradictory because there would be two sets of rules for Rituals. Some sort of exclusionary statement would be needed. The upper box should probably be labeled "Non-Ritual Formulaic Magic." The third title in the left column should probably be labeled the same "Non-Ritual Formulaic Magic" and its formula "Non-Ritual Formulaic Casting Total." That gets rid of a large portion of the new contradictions. But the paragraphs under that third title need to be edited similarly, probably more simply with things like "these Formulaic spells" rather than "Formulaic spells."

p.94: "Formulaic spells are a major measure of your power because they determine those things you can do easily and predictably." This would be better if changed to something like "Non-Ritual Formulaic spells are a major measure of your power because they determine those things you can do easily and predictably." The reason why is the book has already devoted a large portion of a page to explaining that Ritual Magic is not easy (very tiring) and adding lots of botch dice as well as requiring a stress die (making them less predictable).

p.114: "Ritual spells take longer to cast than formulaic spells and require vis." This would need to be changed to something like "Ritual spells take longer to cast than non-Ritual Formulaic spells and require vis."

p.114: "Formulaic and spontaneous spells may not have Year duration." This would need to be changed to something like "Non-Ritual Formulaic and spontaneous spells may not have Year duration."

p.114: "Formulaic and spontaneous spells may not have Boundary target." This would need to be changed to something like "Non-Ritual Formulaic and spontaneous spells may not have Boundary target."

p.114: "Formulaic and spontaneous spells may not have a level greater than 50." This would need to be changed to something like "Non-Ritual Formulaic and spontaneous spells may not have a level greater than 50."

p.115: The essentially explicit statement that Ritual spells are not a subset of Formulaic spells, "Spells requiring rituals are those that fall outside the categories listed for formulaic and spontaneous spells...," would need to be deleted or changed entirely.

p.160: Wizard's Boost (which I know is receiving changes anyway) says, "This does not allow spontaneous or formulaic spells to reach Year duration or Boundary Target, unless the Wizard’s Boost is a ritual." It should be changed to something like, "This does not allow spontaneous or non-Ritual Formulaic spells to reach Year duration or Boundary Target, unless the Wizard’s Boost is a ritual." Or "This does not allow spontaneous or formulaic spells to reach Year duration or Boundary Target, unless the original spell and Wizard’s Boost are rituals."

p.225: The formula for Formulaic Magic should be changed to something like "Non-Ritual Formulaic Casting Total" to avoid contradictions for Rituals.

If the decision is made to leave Ritual Magic out of Formulaic Magic, this one should be fixed:

p.111: The "Level Guidelines" paragraph should explicitly include Ritual Magic alongside Formulaic Magic and Spontaneous Magic.

Regardless of the decision, it might be good to look again at Cautious Sorcerer (p.40), Life Boost (p.44), Method Caster (p.46), Mythic Blood (p.47), learning a spell from Twilight ("New Spell" on p.89), Verditius Magic's casting tools (p.93), and alternative R/D/T (p.114). In each of these cases an explicit comment about Ritual Magic for clarity would be helpful. None of them technically need errata regardless of the decision, but these are all cases where more clarity would be helpful.

[callen]

@ezzelino

TME p.103, Binding the Mundane Codex: the description claims that a base Individual of Animal is a "quaternion", which I take to mean 8 sheets (given that the spell's limit is 800 sheets at Group +1 size)..
It seems rather small to me, given that a base Individual of Animal is a pony.

I think the description should have no practical limit to the size of the book it binds (I mean, which book is larger than 10 ponies?) and still have that +1 size modifier knocked off from the Level calculation.

Good catch. I was confused with your numbers because the same spell in Covenants is written with different numbers. But that's irrelevant. In the core book on p.116, it specifies that one piece would be an Individual but then Group still handles the full mass, as you've said. I don't know if that means one quaternion or one sheet of parchment should be an Individual (not Base Individual), perhaps and probably either; I'll have to think more. But certainly a book the size of 10 ponies is way more than sufficient as you have pointed out.

For @David_Chart (calling you so this doesn't get lost in all the text) I would like to point out that both this spell (TME p.103, as originally pointed out by ezzelino) and the two in Covenants (p.97) have the same unneeded +1 size. Ezzelino is right that the writer(s) seem to have confused Individuals ("Note that an Individual is a single hair, a single hide, or a single tusk." - ArM5 p.116) and base/basic Individuals ("A basic Individual for Animal is an animal of about the same size as a pony, Size +1 or lower." - ArM5 p.117), and Group uses the latter to determine how much (ArM5 p.113). Also, since two of them have the same name, it would be good to get the two versions of Binding the Mundane Codex to agree with adjustments only for a device v. a spell.

@OneShot

quaternion, which today tends to mean a concept from algebra - a non-commutative extension of the field of complex numbers - used mainly in computer graphics.

Yup. We use them a lot in physics in some spots, though I'm sure there are many more programmers doing graphics.

[David_Chart]

@ezzelino

ArM5 p.40. Affinity with Art explicitly mentions to round all fractions up. Affinity with Ability does not .

I will add that to the errata.

@ezzelino

If that's the case... how about removing from Diedne Magic (ArM5 p.41) the last paragraph:
"You must keep your lineage hidden from the Order, giving you the Major Story Flaw Dark Secret. This is in addition to your normal allowance of Flaws, and does not grant you any points with which to buy Virtues"? This removal would achieve two things.

Removal is too much of a change. Changing the language to allow the choice of a different Story Flaw is probably a good idea, though. (It should be obvious that you still shouldn't take another Story Flaw — the fact that the character has Diedne Magic does not somehow mitigate the chance of the character unduly dominating the saga.)

@callen

For @David_Chart (calling you so this doesn't get lost in all the text) I would like to point out that both this spell (TME p.103, as originally pointed out by ezzelino) and the two in Covenants (p.97) have the same unneeded +1 size. Ezzelino is right that the writer(s) seem to have confused Individuals ("Note that an Individual is a single hair, a single hide, or a single tusk." - ArM5 p.116) and base/basic Individuals

Yes, it seems so. Corrected.

@callen

p.111: The "Level Guidelines" paragraph should explicitly include Ritual Magic alongside Formulaic Magic and Spontaneous Magic.

@callen

If the decision is made to leave Ritual Magic out of Formulaic Magic, this one should be fixed:

p.111: The "Level Guidelines" paragraph should explicitly include Ritual Magic alongside Formulaic Magic and Spontaneous Magic.

I think I'll do this. Thinking back, I am now pretty sure we decided to split Formulaic and Ritual as game terms, to avoid the need to write "non-Ritual Formulaic magic" all the time.

@callen

Regardless of the decision, it might be good to look again at Cautious Sorcerer (p.40), Life Boost (p.44), Method Caster (p.46), Mythic Blood (p.47), learning a spell from Twilight ("New Spell" on p.89), Verditius Magic's casting tools (p.93), and alternative R/D/T (p.114). In each of these cases an explicit comment about Ritual Magic for clarity would be helpful. None of them technically need errata regardless of the decision, but these are all cases where more clarity would be helpful.

I guess so…

Aegis will have to wait for tomorrow.

[callen]

@David_Chart

I think I'll do this. Thinking back, I am now pretty sure we decided to split Formulaic and Ritual as game terms, to avoid the need to write "non-Ritual Formulaic magic" all the time.

Honestly, from both logical and simplicity standpoints there is no real value to putting Ritual Magic within Formulaic Magic, so it doesn't surprise me you went this direction way back when. Just wherever you want something to apply to both, you say so, which was already done a bunch of times. Double checking that short list should be done regardless. Only p.111 now needs fixing, as you've seen. I'm mostly writing this post now to identify a post above where I suggested you might want to make a change and an addition to the glossary, something like these:

Formulaic magic: Spells that have been worked out in detail ahead of time and are relatively simple to cast.

Ritual magic: Spells that have been worked out in detail ahead of time and are relatively difficult to cast.

[OneShot]

@callen

I'm mostly writing this post now to identify a post above where I suggested you might want to make a change and an addition to the glossary, something like these:

Formulaic magic: Spells that have been worked out in detail ahead of time and are relatively simple to cast.

Ritual magic: Spells that have been worked out in detail ahead of time and are relatively difficult to cast.

That won't do. Text like "are relatively simple to cast" and "are relatively difficult to cast" are unclear and have no place in definitions. They mess up a glossary.

Getting one's glossary clear, precise and correct is important.

I suggest the following:

Formulaic magic: Spells that have been worked out in detail ahead of time, to be cast in a few seconds. They have one effect each and constitute the main magical power of most magi.

Yes, formulaic spells can be mastered for fast-casting or ceremonial casting - but they are still worked out for casting in a few seconds.

Ritual magic: Spells worked out ahead of time just like formulaic magic, but taking many minutes or even hours to cast and the expenditure of valuable Vis.

[callen]

Sure, that mostly works. But if you're arguing about clear and precise with my statement, I would drop the second half of your second sentence with "main magical power" (vague, not clear) and "most magi" (vague) for the same reason.

Meanwhile, if you're so insistent on this version of a glossary (which I really do like, but which really does disagree with glossaries I've examined in general), who do you consider a Redcap or a Quaesitor? Are you saying those need errata, too? Maybe "Order of Hermes" does as well?

[OneShot]

@callen

But if you're arguing about clear and precise with my statement, I would drop the second half of your second sentence with "main magical power" (vague, not clear) and "most magi" (vague) for the same reason.

The second part of the first entry is an explanation, AFAICS a needed one. It is by necessity less clear. Best read the how-to I already linked above.

[callen]

@OneShot

The second part of the first entry is an explanation, AFAICS a needed one.

The first half is really valuable. The second half is completely unnecessary. How do you see the second half as being needed?

@OneShot

Best read the how-to I already linked above.

Yes, I know, and I've read it. You might want to reread that link, as it doesn't agree with what you say, just like checking other glossaries found they did not agree with you. First, that link says "should," not "must" contain definitions as well as saying you "can" create definitions after identifying the terms rather than "must." As it's very clearly a suggested option (a good one albeit - I agree with you there), taking this to imply that must be the case in a glossary is merely a logical error. Second, if you do follow the recommendation, you'll see only a definition is suggested; there is no suggestion that it be partly a definition and partly not. I don't know why you keep sending me to things that disagree with you. I really wish glossaries were as you say, as they would be cleaner and make my life easier, but that's just not the case. I think you and I agree it's the ideal case, and I quite happy trying to make something more ideal.

[OneShot]

@callen

How do you see the second half as being needed?

We have the glossary at the beginning of the ArM5 book: so it is read at its beginning as well.
"... and constitute the main magical power of most magi" is correct, and helps the reader understand the following text, including the character examples, better - even if they never see a formulaic spell explained before p.111.

Best compare with (https://www.wikihow.com/Write-a-Glossary):

Keep the definitions simple and reader-friendly. Make sure the definitions are clear and tailored for the average reader. Do not use technical terms to define a term, as this will likely just confuse your reader. You do not want to sound like a dictionary or use language that is overly academic or technical. The definition should explain what the term means in the context of the main text in the simplest terms possible.[4]* For example, you may write a summary for the term “rigging” as: “In this article, I use this term to discuss putting a rig on an oil drum. This term is often used on an oil rig by oil workers.”

So you have the typical scheme: 1st phrase definition, 2nd phrase explanation.

No you don't have to follow it. But it makes your writing easier.

[callen]

@OneShot

is correct, and helps the reader understand the following text, including the character examples, better

I don't disagree that it's useful. That wasn't you're complaint about my version, though. The issue was that I hedged, too much really. Look above at what happened from the existing glossary's inclusion of stuff about magical power. At least one response decided certain, somewhat stereotypically common, character combinations shouldn't be allowed.

I really like your first sentence and a half. You've avoided my hedging without bringing any issue into it. The whole reason you need to start hedging on the last bit is it becomes incorrect if you don't, and then we're left with potential problems like that reading someone had above.

What if yours were adjusted to:

Formulaic magic: Spells that have been worked out in detail ahead of time, to be cast in a few seconds. They have one effect each.

Ritual magic: Spells worked out ahead of time just like formulaic magic, but taking many minutes or even hours to cast and the expenditure of valuable Vis.

Do we really lose anything so valuable there?

Should Ritual Magic have the same note about one effect? I think it still applies, but I'm trying to think through all the spells and guidelines I'm familiar with to see if I can come up with any disagreement.

[ezzelino]

@David_Chart

I think I'll do this. Thinking back, I am now pretty sure we decided to split Formulaic and Ritual as game terms, to avoid the need to write "non-Ritual Formulaic magic" all the time.

@callen

Regardless of the decision, it might be good to look again at Cautious Sorcerer (p.40), Life Boost (p.44), Method Caster (p.46), Mythic Blood (p.47), learning a spell from Twilight ("New Spell" on p.89), Verditius Magic's casting tools (p.93), and alternative R/D/T (p.114). In each of these cases an explicit comment about Ritual Magic for clarity would be helpful. None of them technically need errata regardless of the decision, but these are all cases where more clarity would be helpful.

I guess so…

I would just point out that in all cases above except for Mythic Blood and new RDTs, the text is a "carryover" from previous editions when Rituals were a subset of Formulaic spells. So I think that in all cases save for Mythic Blood the most "conservative" choice in spirit would be to change "formulaic" into "formulaic and ritual" (non-standard RDTs seem particularly appropriate and common for Rituals).

[ezzelino]

Inventive genius (ArM5 p.44) applies "when you invent new spells, craft magic items, and make potions".

This should probably be updated to 5th edition

Which may be less straightforward than it sounds. It probably applies when inventing a Longevity Ritual. It probably also applies when enchanting a familiar, since you can experiment "creating
any magical enchantment (device or familiar)" - ArM5 p.107. Does it apply when inventing a spell from a laboratory text, or "reproducing" an enchantment? How about when attempting to open the Arts of an apprentice who already has supernatural Virtues?

[temprobe]

yeah, I've always read potions as longevity rituals. Btw, creative block (p. 52) also has the same wording.

[Tugdual]

Formulaic magic: Spells that have been worked out in detail ahead of time, and can be cast without preparation. They have one effect each.

Ritual magic: Spells worked out ahead of time just like formulaic magic, but require an elaborate process to cast and the expenditure of valuable Vis.

I'd rather go this way.

[dc444 (nullsettings)]

The “they have one effect each” only being under the Formulaic Magic entry might lead some to the conclusion that Rituals can have more than one effect per spell. Which I don't think is allowed but if it is it should probably be mentioned.

[David_Chart]

@callen

(p.100) * You can use one effect from one item each round, using the appropriate trigger action for each. You must make any Targeting rolls that are necessary, but do not roll for Fatigue. You use an enchanted device at an Initiative point equal to Qik + Stress Die.

I would be very careful about making any changes to this. I'm not suggesting not to edit it. Just be careful.

How about:

Using Enchanted Devices (p. 100): Replace the first sentence of the sixth bullet point (the last one in the left column) with: "You may perform one trigger action for an enchanted item in a round. In most cases, this will activate one effect, but some items may be designed so that one action activates multiple effects.

[OneShot]

@David_Chart

How about:

Using Enchanted Devices (p. 100): Replace the first sentence of the sixth bullet point (the last one in the left column) with: "You may perform one trigger action for an enchanted item in a round. In most cases, this will activate one effect, but some items may be designed so that one action activates multiple effects.

Wouldn't this leave the issue open, how much time the activation of a subsequent effect takes? This is the occasion now, to do explicitly away with ArM5 mitrailleuses!

EDIT: As we are at it, there is also LoH p.107 box Rego Vim Guidelines explicitly enabling to tie together several wands into a Flambeau MP.

[David_Chart]

@OneShot

Wouldn't this leave the issue open, how much time the activation of a subsequent effect takes? This is the occasion now, to do explicitly away with ArM5 mitrailleuses !

Looks like that would require errata elsewhere, so I'm disinclined to do it. I'm also not sure I see the problem. If a magus wants to invest a large amount of vis in being able to launch 24 Pili of Fire simultaneously, why not?

@ezzelino

Inventive genius (ArM5 p.44) applies " when you invent new spells, craft magic items, and make potions ".

+/-3 to Lab Totals unless you are using a Lab Text.

I'm not convinced the Glossary needs revision. It's a bootloader, which is why it's at the beginning.

[OneShot]

@David_Chart

I'm not convinced the Glossary needs revision. It's a bootloader, which is why it's at the beginning.

Shouldn't you just call it List of Hermetic Words - or such - then? As a glossary of terms it defines and explains those terms later used in the text - and better be precise and correct.

@David_Chart

Looks like that would require errata elsewhere,

I wouldn't know, where. LoH p.107 box Rego Vim Guidelines is a separate issue.

@David_Chart

If a magus wants to invest a large amount of vis in being able to launch 24 Pili of Fire simultaneously, why not?

It is relatively easy, to build a wand (call it a Maxim Wand) which, once triggered, can cast the same effect again automatically and ad infinitum.
You have two effects in it: P providing the payload (e. g. Pilum of Fire) and most simple and cheap L providing the loader (e. g. create a little moonlight with D: Mom on the wand).
L and P have unlimited uses. By ArM5 p.99 Linked Trigger, effect L gets triggered by P, and triggers P again by another Linked Trigger, and on it goes.

The effect L in the wand costs 10 (unlimited uses) +3 (Linked Trigger) +1(some moonlight), the effect P in the wand costs 10 (unlimited uses) +3 (Linked Trigger) +payload cost. Together 27 + the payload cost (20 for Pilum of Fire, 25 for Arc of Fiery Ribbons, ...).
This is quite possible for an elder Flambeau (Maxim), even if both enchantments go into the wand at the same season. With lab texts from Maxim, afterwards many Flambeaus can build their own Maxim Wands.

How often does that Maxim Wand now fire in a round?

[David_Chart]

@OneShot

It is relatively easy, to build a wand (call it a Maxim Wand ) which, once triggered, can cast the same effect again automatically and ad infinitum.

As far as I can see, this wand either fires once, or does not have an off switch.

Thus, it is the sort of thing that I might allow a Fatal Flaw result on the experimentation table to produce, so I'm not sure that it is a problem that needs an explicit note in the rules to block it. Hard cases make bad law, and all that.