• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

WOIN Official Errata Thread

Criamon

Villager
OK, new problem. My players were looking at the options for increasing casting time in OLD and ran into some confusion: The table suggests that increasing time actually reduces MP cost but the paragraph description for what increasing casting time does indicates that MP costs shouldn't be reduced. Here's a quote from my player's email:

I have read a few spells in the grimoire; and it looks like they are actually subtracting MP from the costs of spells using longer casting times; as the table suggests. Example:

Mind Wipe Compel Person Cost 14 MP; Skills compulsion 6 Casting Time 1 minute Duration 1 day Range touch; Target one humanoid creature You spend a minute modifying the target’s mind, erasing the subject’s memories and knowledge, leaving him with the mind of an infant. The subject is unaware that his mind has been altered. The subject’s memories return at the end of the spell’s duration. Costs 6 MP mindwipe, 3 MP subtle compulsion, 6 MP duration, 1 MP range, –2 MP casting time.

This contradicts the paragraph on p166:

Casting Time (Reduction). Spells normally take 2 actions to cast. By increasing the casting time, you can exceed your normal maximum MP limit—you can reduce the effective MP cost of the spell for the purposes of determining the maximum MP you can use on one spell, but you still need to actually spend the original MP cost. You cannot reduce a spell’s effective MP by more than 50% by increasing the casting time; neither can you reduce it to 0 MP. If interrupted during casting, the spell fails, the time spent is wasted, and the full MP is still expended. To cast a spell faster than 2 actions, you need to take certain exploits, such as Signature Spell.
Both quantum realities can't exist at once! Which is correct?
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Good catch! The "effective MP" phrasing is incorrect; it's the actual MP deducted, but the 50% limit is still correct.
 

Criamon

Villager
I kind of figured it'd be that way. I do have another question (that I think I know the answer to). I'm guessing that you intend that the reduced cost of the spell is what's compared to the MP limit from the MAG attribute, but also I'm wondering if it applies to the Skill-Level limit for paying for enhancements. So if I have a single enhancement spell at 5 PM, can I adjust the casting time to reduce it to 3 MP so the enhancement cost ducks under my skill level (say, divination or something)?

Thanks,

-Chris
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
I kind of figured it'd be that way. I do have another question (that I think I know the answer to). I'm guessing that you intend that the reduced cost of the spell is what's compared to the MP limit from the MAG attribute, but also I'm wondering if it applies to the Skill-Level limit for paying for enhancements. So if I have a single enhancement spell at 5 PM, can I adjust the casting time to reduce it to 3 MP so the enhancement cost ducks under my skill level (say, divination or something)?
Sure. Casting spells slower is easier. :)
 

Criamon

Villager
Sounds good. I'm thinking about a house rule where, for any spell that utilizes multiple enhancements, any "savings" applied to calculating the reduced costs of enhancements (for purposes of figuring out the minimum skill) must be spread out among all enhancements as evenly as possible. So if you have a multi-skill combo spell where there's an enhancement related to each of two skills, you can't pile on the savings so as to only apply to the enhancement related to the weakest skill. Thoughts?
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Sounds good. I'm thinking about a house rule where, for any spell that utilizes multiple enhancements, any "savings" applied to calculating the reduced costs of enhancements (for purposes of figuring out the minimum skill) must be spread out among all enhancements as evenly as possible. So if you have a multi-skill combo spell where there's an enhancement related to each of two skills, you can't pile on the savings so as to only apply to the enhancement related to the weakest skill. Thoughts?
Sounds workable!
 

Firelord

Villager
Questions

Questions about an exploit

Does vampiric touch get limited by the 1 use a day healing limit or does it apply every time it's used?
And does touch of the grave only apply once a round like a combat exploit or is it a permanent increase to nat damage?
 
Last edited:

Maina

Villager
The racebuilding engine says on page 2 that negative attributes can only save -1 points.

The table on page 12 lists the Venetians as having 4 points in attributes. This is only true if you save both -2 points from their -2 LUC. According to the rule on page 2, they spend 5 points on attributes instead (only the maximum of -1 from the -2 LUC). This should make their total cost 19, not 18.

Apologies if I missed something obvious.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Questions about an exploit

Does vampiric touch get limited by the 1 use a day healing limit or does it apply every time it's used?
And does touch of the grave only apply once a round like a combat exploit or is it a permanent increase to nat damage?
Sorry, I didn't see this!

Vampiric touch, yes. Once per day, as written, although I don't think it would be broken to allow it a bit more often.

Touch of the Grave permanently increases damage.

The racebuilding engine says on page 2 that negative attributes can only save -1 points.

The table on page 12 lists the Venetians as having 4 points in attributes. This is only true if you save both -2 points from their -2 LUC. According to the rule on page 2, they spend 5 points on attributes instead (only the maximum of -1 from the -2 LUC). This should make their total cost 19, not 18.
Good catch!
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
As aa side-note, folks, I'm much more likely to see a question if you start a thread with it, rather than burying it in this errata thread. I usually only look through this thread when I come to compile errata.
 

ammulder

Villager
NEW v1.2:

p212, Ion Weapons: "Half of the damage is applied to the ship's SS, and half is applied to its CPU capacity"
p213, Ion Weapons: "Shields only gain half their normal SOAK vs. an ION weapon, and any damage which gets through reduces CPU, not SS"
 

ruy343

Villager
Really loving the books I just got in the Bundle of Holding! I just have two questions:

In the Modern Core book, page 28, it states that "Humans gain a +1 to any die roll made to shake off a condition". However, in the Action Careers Supplement, Page 10, it says nothing about this in any exploits. Is it supposed to be listed there?

Where do I go to discuss/talk with others about Modern Core stuff? The official website doesn't seem to have dedicated forums for this, since most of it appears to talk about O.L.D. and N.E.W. Is Modern Core not as big of a system for your guys?
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Really loving the books I just got in the Bundle of Holding! I just have two questions:

In the Modern Core book, page 28, it states that "Humans gain a +1 to any die roll made to shake off a condition". However, in the Action Careers Supplement, Page 10, it says nothing about this in any exploits. Is it supposed to be listed there?
Yes that’s a standard human exploit in all three games.

Where do I go to discuss/talk with others about Modern Core stuff? The official website doesn't seem to have dedicated forums for this, since most of it appears to talk about O.L.D. and N.E.W. Is Modern Core not as big of a system for your guys?
There’s just one the one official WOIN forum and you’re already here! :)

Modern was only released about two weeks ago. It’s pretty new!
 

ruy343

Villager
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly!

Shall I let you know about any questions I have for Modern here, or in a separate thread as I read along? I'm really intrigued by the idea of running a more modern-themed game, and I love what you've done in preparing so many usable skills and backgrounds for a modern-themed campaign.

Also, Errata question: the Pained condition says you take 1d6 damage for taking a second action, and 1d6 for any action. That doesn't make a ton of sense. Is it 1d6 per "move" action (just missing a word), is it 1d6 for any action at all (regardless of first or second action), or is it 1d6 for any action, and an additional 2d6 for a second action?
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Separate threads please. This one is for collating errata. :)

Conditions have two levels of effect. The first level is 1d6 for taking a second action. The second level is worse as it’s 1d6 for any action.
 

dekrass

Villager
It seems that the Action Careers chapter isn't updated to v1.2. There are references to the stunned and immobilized conditions in several career exploits. The universal exploits all seem to be the old versions as well.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
It seems that the Action Careers chapter isn't updated to v1.2. There are references to the stunned and immobilized conditions in several career exploits. The universal exploits all seem to be the old versions as well.
Redownload it! You’ll know you have the right file if the character sheet is at the end.
 

dekrass

Villager
NOW has a few holdovers from pre-v1.2.

Pg. 72 says mental defense is determined by INT, LOG, or WIL instead of WIL or CHA.

Pg. 86 the combust weapon trait references a status track.

Pg. 87 the trap weapon trait references the immobilized condition.

Pg.87 the vicious weapon quality seems to assume the old status tracks.

Pg. 143 the forming a luck pool sidebar references the old version of cinematic mode.

Pg. 71 the sidebar for cinematic mode in NOW doesn't have the bit about ignoring skill requirements for high quality gear like NEW does.

Also, I don't see anything about armor skill ranks reducing defense penalties. I don't see that in errata for OLD either, though. So maybe that's just in NEW?
 

Flips

Explorer
OLD Pg.72 in the table it lists Longsword as a Medium weapon, implying it can be used 1 handed, but on Pg. 73 in the description it says it is designed for 2 handed use, which would make it Large. Also the damage in line with 2 handed weapons.
 

Advertisement

Top