I'm still reading through Street Magic (hey, I do have something of a life), and although I haven't playtested anything from it yet, I happened to come across something in my 1st printing edition. If you have any discrepencies that are of nore, please do post them here. Thank you in advance.
On page 127, some of the text has been mis-printed with X'ed boxes. I have written the following;
Street Magic Errata
p.127: The first paragraph shorld start with "FAB III" in boldface, not blocked-out boxes.
The last sentence in the third paragraph sould read "(see Masking, p. 190, SR4)"
Under Guardian Vines, the third paragraph should start with "Black Guardian Vines" in boldface, not blacked-out boxes.
Full Version: Street Magic Errata
| QUOTE (BookWyrm) |
| I'm still reading through Street Magic (hey, I do have something of a life), and although I haven't playtested anything from it yet, I happened to come across something in my 1st printing edition. If you have any discrepencies that are of nore, please do post them here. Thank you in advance. On page 127, some of the text has been mis-printed with X'ed boxes. I have written the following; Street Magic Errata p.127: The first paragraph shorld start with "FAB III" in boldface, not blocked-out boxes. The last sentence in the third paragraph sould read "(see Masking, p. 190, SR4)" Under Guardian Vines, the third paragraph should start with "Black Guardian Vines" in boldface, not blacked-out boxes. |
Mine's got the same mis-print.
All of the copies in the first [and only, at this time] printing do.
If you find any other Eratta, post it here (ala the SR4 Erratta thread). I'll sticky this.
Bull
Bull
On page 176 the Counterstrike power lists as 0.5 PP per level, and it describes how the extra levels work. Each level gives an extra die on top of what the adept gets for successfully defending. However the table on page 186 lists it at a flat cost, not per level.
Linguistics power on page 177 doesn't appear to have any level relavent features, and the cost is given on page 177 as a flat cost. However in the table on page 186 the cost is given as per level.
Quick Draw is out of alphabetical order in the table on page 186.
As linked in the SR4 Erratta thread.
Linguistics power on page 177 doesn't appear to have any level relavent features, and the cost is given on page 177 as a flat cost. However in the table on page 186 the cost is given as per level.
Quick Draw is out of alphabetical order in the table on page 186.
As linked in the SR4 Erratta thread.
The manipulation spell "Aspected Mana Static" is listed on the Spell Table (p. 189) but its description is missing in the new spells section of the Grimoire chapter. (If the errata to this would be to add the spell description, and not to delete the table entry, you'd make a few Dumpshockers rather happy.)
Demonseed Elite has stated on his blog that he feels that his section on warding could have been worded better.
Demonseed Elite has stated on his blog that he feels that his section on warding could have been worded better.
Thanks everyone. Bull, do Sticky this & let's keep it going.
| QUOTE (BookWyrm) |
| Bull, do Sticky this & let's keep it going. |
It's been a Sticky for quite a while now.
Much thanks, Bull.
I was looking over one of my old threads that had been recently subjected to Thread Necromancy, and found this comment from Synner in response to one of my questions:
| QUOTE (synner) | ||
This is a mistake for future errata. Spells do not allow for the independent targeting of implanted cyberware. Unlike a gun or a piece of gear, there is nothing to target but the individual himself (since he’s paid Essence for the cyber and it is now part of him). |
Looking at this a second time, I'm not sure that I agree. This mana illusion spell isn't targeting implants or even metal in general, it's targeting a person. It makes the person percieve the metal they're in contact with as burning hot, and I'm not entirely sure that the "paid essence for and is now a part of the body" line of reasoning lets the metal in the implant count as not metal.
However, because it was flagged as something to be addressed in the Street Magic errata, I'm listing it here.
====================
Another potential errata item from the same thread involves the rules for Geomancy on page 56:
Treat the geomantic ritual as if she were casting a spell with a Force equal to twice the site’s natural background count and with a threshold equal to twice
the site’s background count.
It's not clear from the text whether the threshold should be based off of the site's natural background count, or the site's current background count, an important distinction, considering the effects of spells such as mana static, and metamagics such as cleansing.
In the thread, Synner indicated that any references to background count in Geomancy should be considered to be the site's natural background count, but this should probably be explicitly spelled out, for both the Threshold of the ritual, and the number of months in a row you must repeat the ritual for the Geomancy to take effect.
====================
Also noted was the fact that there are no prices given for Astral Security Biologicals such as Awakened Ivy, GloMoss or the rest.
Here is a previous thread on this topic that strayed somewhat but still has several editing fixes and such. I would recommend a quick read through (it's less than two full pages) for inclusion in any corrections or errata.
Thanks, Slithery. I'll look it over & add it to my own printing. Maybe someone over at FanPro will notice & post a complete errata.
| QUOTE |
| Maybe someone over at FanPro will notice & post a complete errata. |
Well, two people who do work for FanPro have already posted in these respective threads, so let's hazard a guess that the errata is being worked on.
Excellent.
P 171
[sense] removal spell
4th line, "hat" should be "that"
p187
Spell table
Test description missing the letter "S", possibly more text
[sense] removal spell
4th line, "hat" should be "that"
p187
Spell table
Test description missing the letter "S", possibly more text
P 114
Astral Visibility table indicates under Other Factors
Background Count Inverse of Rating*
Then
* For example, a Rating 7 mana warp confers a -7 visibility penalty, [. . .]
Inverse is the wrong term, the correct term should be opposite.
The inverse of 7 is 1/7, the opposite of 7 is -7.
Astral Visibility table indicates under Other Factors
Background Count Inverse of Rating*
Then
* For example, a Rating 7 mana warp confers a -7 visibility penalty, [. . .]
Inverse is the wrong term, the correct term should be opposite.
The inverse of 7 is 1/7, the opposite of 7 is -7.
p 172
Calm Animal spell, in the description "Calm Pack is are effect" should be "Calm Pack is area effect", or something to that effect.
p 189
Spell Table, Manipulation
Armor spell should have an asterisk next to it, as it is in the BBB.
Calm Animal spell, in the description "Calm Pack is are effect" should be "Calm Pack is area effect", or something to that effect.
p 189
Spell Table, Manipulation
Armor spell should have an asterisk next to it, as it is in the BBB.
I don't know if this is errata or not, but the person who wrote the Ally Spirit rules was mentioning that the way they eventually were printed was wrong, and it may be a good idea to consider fixing them. It wouldn't be the first time that rules were essentially rewritten after the book was published, and at least this time it would be an actual errata and not an errata pretending to be an FAQ. 
The write up about Inhabitation needs some clarification: What attributes, skills, powers, abilities to use for each type of merge could be clearer.
Another interesting point I think was discivered in the word-by-word dissections this forum made of the book was the following, taken from here:
| QUOTE |
| 1) Despite what the designers intended, what is actually stated in the book says that Possession-tradition allies have the Possession power in place of the Materialization Power. This is mainly because the specific rules regarding Possession-tradition mages, stating that they always use Possession instead of Materialization, override the general rule for Ally summoning which give Ally spirits Materialization by default. 2) This breaks with all previous editions, as allies traditionally always got materialization regardless of tradition. This is okay though, as so many other integral details have changed from SR1-3 to SR4 with regards to magic that continuity is no longer an issue (spirit summoning, Object Resistance, the mage/shaman divide, etc). 3) The main objection that remains is that it's not fair to give Possession traditions this one chance at a Materializing ally? So, conversely, does it mean that Materializing traditions should be allowed to get a Possession-based ally? |
More discussion of the enormous balance problems associated with Ally spirits and Blood spirits deep in that thread as well.
(Edit): Also, Allies don't seem to have rules for how they handle Knowledge skills.
| QUOTE (Eyeless Blond @ Oct 27 2006, 12:37 AM) |
| I don't know if this is errata or not, but the person who wrote the Ally Spirit rules was mentioning that the way they eventually were printed was wrong, and it may be a good idea to consider fixing them. It wouldn't be the first time that rules were essentially rewritten after the book was published, and at least this time it would be an actual errata and not an errata pretending to be an FAQ. |
This is not a case for errata since the changes are not "wrong," and in fact they were intentional. The author simply doesn't agree with them and had a different take on it than the developers. That being said at least one vital piece of information did end up missing from the Ally writeup that balances things significantly.
| QUOTE |
| More discussion of the enormous balance problems associated with Ally spirits and Blood spirits deep in that thread as well. |
As mentioned above Ally spirits are missing a small but important cap built into the design process. The Energy Drain (Karma) power will also be recieving a tweak that should correct Blood Spirits too.
| QUOTE |
| Also, Allies don't seem to have rules for how they handle Knowledge skills. |
Currently the text simply makes no distinction between normal and Knowledge skills so you can assume the price is the same. And yes, we did break with the previous tradition that Allies draw from the creator's mind and knowledge at creation.
| QUOTE (Synner) |
| That being said at least one vital piece of information did end up missing from the Ally writeup that balances things significantly. |
Explicitely saying what is that piece of information would help people playing SR4, pending the errata publication
It could be as simple as "Ally spirits cannot have a Force greater than 6," which I guess I could get behind.
This is going to be a lengthy Errata, if they ever decide to post it
It actually isn't. Besides a few minor spelling and layout fixes, the latest iteration of the Street Magic errata only has about 15 entries—the vast majority of which are one liners. The provisional FAQ is a bit longer, but we're trying to be inclusive.
I've got several things in the pipe in that regard (mostly wrong or unclear wording, and balance issues). I'll guess it will be for the next version.
| QUOTE (Demerzel) |
| P 114 Astral Visibility table indicates under Other Factors Background Count Inverse of Rating* Then * For example, a Rating 7 mana warp confers a -7 visibility penalty, [. . .] Inverse is the wrong term, the correct term should be opposite. The inverse of 7 is 1/7, the opposite of 7 is -7. |
What they really want is the absolute value * -1...
| QUOTE |
| What they really want is the absolute value * -1... |
In Englishh that would be "penalty equal to the magnitude of the background count."
Penalties are always negative, and both +3 and -3 have a magnitude of 3.
-Frank
But my way can be expressed as a concise numerical formula which will fit into the table!
Possible errata but probably not: Was the new Sacrifice power really supposed to drop the former requirement that the victim be restrained, drugged, or otherwise controlled? This makes it much easier (albeit not safer) to use when you can chop at an enemy rather than carry one around with your or have to tack a whack out of yourself or an ally.
Possible errata but probably not: Was the new Sacrifice power really supposed to drop the former requirement that the victim be restrained, drugged, or otherwise controlled? This makes it much easier (albeit not safer) to use when you can chop at an enemy rather than carry one around with your or have to tack a whack out of yourself or an ally.
| QUOTE (Slithery D) | ||
What they really want is the absolute value * -1... |
I think that the intent was to be the opposite. An aura would be eaiser to detect in a mana ebb because it would be bright against a darker background. I imagine it is like seeing a candle's flame. Go outside on a bright sunny day, how well do you see the flame. Go out late at night then what.
| QUOTE (Slithery D) |
| Possible errata but probably not: Was the new Sacrifice power really supposed to drop the former requirement that the victim be restrained, drugged, or otherwise controlled? This makes it much easier (albeit not safer) to use when you can chop at an enemy rather than carry one around with your or have to tack a whack out of yourself or an ally. |
This was intentional.
Yikes.
All right, Synner, so was the fact that self-sacrifice is terribly underpowered intentional as well? Taking 1 physical damage to give you a 1 in 3 chance of taking 1 less stun damage does not seem like a good trade to me.
| QUOTE (PlatonicPimp) |
| All right, Synner, so was the fact that self-sacrifice is terribly underpowered intentional as well? Taking 1 physical damage to give you a 1 in 3 chance of taking 1 less stun damage does not seem like a good trade to me. |
Knife wounds can be healed with healing magic. Drain can not.
Ahh, yes, magical healing. The chance to convert stun damage you might have taken into physical damage you DO take, in order to convert it right back into stun damage you might take when you attempt to heal the wound magically. At the cost of an extra complex action and the time it takes to make the heal spell permanent.
Yes, you'll probably get a small amount of drain damaged saved at the end of that chain. I just question the worth of it. Oh well, I suppose the only people who would use self sacrifice are those who would cut themselves anyway. It's not as bad as I thought at first reading. I thought it gave you extra resistance dice instead of reducing what you resist against.
Yes, you'll probably get a small amount of drain damaged saved at the end of that chain. I just question the worth of it. Oh well, I suppose the only people who would use self sacrifice are those who would cut themselves anyway. It's not as bad as I thought at first reading. I thought it gave you extra resistance dice instead of reducing what you resist against.
Binding a Free Spirit (pg 180)
"The summoning itself confers no services, but no roll is required, and no known magic can prevent it."
But in the next two paragraphs (in the Binding Ritual section)
"During the ritual, the would-be spirit master attempts to assert his will upon the free spirit, and at the end he makes an Opposed Test pitting his Willpower + Binding skill (if any) against the spirit’s Force + Edge.
If the character wins, the free spirit is bound and owes a number of services equal to the victor’s net hits. Such services are invariably one-off commands, uses of the free spirit’s powers, or performing any service possible of an unbound or bound spirit."
"The summoning itself confers no services, but no roll is required, and no known magic can prevent it."
But in the next two paragraphs (in the Binding Ritual section)
"During the ritual, the would-be spirit master attempts to assert his will upon the free spirit, and at the end he makes an Opposed Test pitting his Willpower + Binding skill (if any) against the spirit’s Force + Edge.
If the character wins, the free spirit is bound and owes a number of services equal to the victor’s net hits. Such services are invariably one-off commands, uses of the free spirit’s powers, or performing any service possible of an unbound or bound spirit."
| QUOTE (NightmareX) |
| "The summoning itself confers no services, but no roll is required, and no known magic can prevent it." But in the next two paragraphs (in the Binding Ritual section) |
Read the first line you quoted. I't is the Summoning itself that confers no Services. It says nothing about Binding not granting Services.
Or am I once again misunderstanding what you are getting at?
| QUOTE (PlatonicPimp) |
| Ahh, yes, magical healing. The chance to convert stun damage you might have taken into physical damage you DO take, in order to convert it right back into stun damage you might take when you attempt to heal the wound magically. At the cost of an extra complex action and the time it takes to make the heal spell permanent. |
You might want to consider its usefulness when Overcasting. In which case it becomes: the chance to convert (magically unhealable) physical damage you might have taken into (magically healable) physical damage you DO take, in order to convert it right back into stun damage you might take when you attempt to heal the wound magically.
| QUOTE (Fortune) |
| Read the first line you quoted. I't is the Summoning itself that confers no Services. It says nothing about Binding not granting Services. Or am I once again misunderstanding what you are getting at? |
The way the text is written, it seems like summoning/binding a free spirit is one operation, and from that standpoint the two passages seem contradictory. But, as you noted, if one thinks from the standard SR4 summoning first then bind perspective the contradiction disappears - however, I don't think the text makes that clear. Or maybe its just me
| QUOTE (NightmareX) |
| The way the text is written, it seems like summoning/binding a free spirit is one operation, |
Not intentionally true if so. The summoning requires a use of their true name and allows you to make them sit for your dog and pony show of an attempted binding. But the summoning and binding are very separate. One requires the formula, the other requires a proper Arcanum derived setup. if you don't have the materials on hand for the binding, there is no binding and the spirit just goes on a rampage.
"I bequeath you! I bequeath you!"
-Frank
Hopefully this clarification will be in the errata.
| QUOTE (BookWyrm) |
| Hopefully this clarification will be in the errata. |
Unlikely. This is the sort of thing they address in FAQs, not errata.
Good point, Paul.
Which reminds me.
To FanPro: Any chance of us getting FAQed up before Solstice/Festivus/Christmas/Hanukkah/OtherHolidayInThatTimeFrame?
To FanPro: Any chance of us getting FAQed up before Solstice/Festivus/Christmas/Hanukkah/OtherHolidayInThatTimeFrame?
It would also be nice, if the qualities "Astral Sight" and "Spirit/Spell Knack" could be made, well umm..., reasonably playable.
Because with the current rules, you are only able to play an unaugmented semi-mundane, who can cast one spell / summon one kind of spirit at max. force 2 or simply perceive the astral (which can be achieved by simply making an adept with the same power).
I would suggest that you could either improve your magic-rating at half cost (both BP or Karma), or change the point at which you lose that one magic point due to essence loss (for example below a rating of 4).
Right now, it does not make any sense to take one the qualities mentioned above when creating a PC, so a change of the rules seems to belong into errata from my point of view.
Because with the current rules, you are only able to play an unaugmented semi-mundane, who can cast one spell / summon one kind of spirit at max. force 2 or simply perceive the astral (which can be achieved by simply making an adept with the same power).
I would suggest that you could either improve your magic-rating at half cost (both BP or Karma), or change the point at which you lose that one magic point due to essence loss (for example below a rating of 4).
Right now, it does not make any sense to take one the qualities mentioned above when creating a PC, so a change of the rules seems to belong into errata from my point of view.
edit:
Oops, although this is my first post I didn't intend to make it that special by posting it twice.
Oops, although this is my first post I didn't intend to make it that special by posting it twice.
On page 164 the Metal elemental attack effect is described as having the same modifiers as flechette, which are given as +2DV +2AP impact, which is no longer accurate given the new SR4 errata, it should read else "This attack is similar to flech-
ette ammunition: increase the DV by +2, but
the attacker suffers a +5 AP penalty against
Impact armor. "
ette ammunition: increase the DV by +2, but
the attacker suffers a +5 AP penalty against
Impact armor. "
Thanks, Ranneko. Let's hope we see all this in the proposed Street Magic Errata.
It looks like the new spirits don't have thier Initiatives equal to Reaction + Intuition; rather they seem to add out to (Reaction + Intuition)-2.
What page, yesman?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.