Street Magic Errata (sort of), Post your oddities here. Options

[The Jopp]

It seems that you can take "Latent Awakening" and be a Technomancer at the same time. If you start the game as a technomancer and has Latent Awakening there will be some confusion - and the biggest karma sink in history for SR4.

Probably just an oversight but worth mentioning.

[Serbitar]

- the indirect combat area spells "have to see the target" issue
- manifesting and planes issue (one way spellcasting, dual naturedness and so forth)
- probably the doubling threshold for possession of objects thing
- clarification that wards in wards are considered "layered wards" and are thus not doable


and my personal oppinion that stun damage spells should have more drain than physical dame spells, not less

[Aaron]

[Synner]

How about one thread for actual errata and the other for FAQuestions?

[Serbitar]

[Serbitar]

- Physical Camouflage should be of Type:P not Type:M

[Serbitar]

- in the german version, spirits on remote tasks count towards the bound spirit limit. in the english version, they do not (which is bad).

[hobgoblin]

i could have sworn they do. alltho the wording is very vague...

[RunnerPaul]

This one is an errata candidate for sure:

Last paragraph on p. 87 talks about a sampling of Unique Enchantements described below. However, the next page begins the section on Magical Compounds, no sampling of Unique Enchantments to be found.

[Synner]

[Slithery D]

[Serbitar]

- influence needs a text that it can not be resisted every (force) combat turns (otherwise the spell is useless) but only when confronted with the wrongsness (like written in the text)

- stench should be LOS(A) instead of LOS

@ Synner: Sorry, Im gathering all the magic related inconsistencies here. I see no reason why to restrict that to street magic only if the whole field should be covered (as at least it looks like nobody is going to do a "real" errata/faq for the BBB anytime soon).

[Synner]

[Serbitar]

Hm, ok, got the point. Two quick questions:
Where exactly is the offical website saying that much? I couldnt find that in the news.
Is there any way to post issues to be included in this future FAQ?

[James McMurray]

Go to the Shadowrun website (the English one) and click on FAQ at the top.

[Serbitar]

You mean the red box? Hasnt this box been there since a couple of month now (almost a year)?

[Adam]

[James McMurray]

I don't know how long it's there, but it clearly shows that an SR4 FAQ is in the works.

[Elve]

Page 29: as noted on the Sympathetic Link Modifiers table (p. 2729).
Page 29: by the Symbolic Link Creation table (p. 2729)

[RunnerPaul]

[James McMurray]

There you go then. We've known for over a year that a FAQ is on it's way. :)

[RunnerPaul]

Yeah, but that far out, you might as well say that we've know for a year, that barring a catastrophic loss of sales, that SR5 is on its way sooner or later.

[James McMurray]

Nope. There's been no official promises of SR5. ;)

[Eyeless Blond]

It's inevitable, though, unless Fanpro tanks and FASA, after its disasterous foray into videogaming, decides to discontinue the SR franchise entirely. I doubt *both* of those will happen--at least the first one is fairly unlikely--so it's inevitable. Besides, in about five years or so they'll have to reset the continuity, due to certain very obvious things like Goblinization not happenning on schedule.

In the same way an FAQ is inevitable. I do hope this time it actually is an FAQ instead of a series of unintended semiofficial rules changes. This time around the FAQ writers were actually part of the team that wrote the book, I'm assuming, so it's a lot more likely that they won't contradict themselves, but you never know.

[LilithTaveril]

Eyeless, they've not reset the continuity despite certain very important events not happening in real life. I honestly doubt they're going to do so just because reality doesn't decide to make some game writers correct and suddenly bring magic into the world.