Ritual Typo?

[TomParker]

We just completed our first session and came across something that was confusing. I'm not asking in the GM thread because I'm playing in this and don't want to see anything in there.

Minor spoiler:

We just completed the Fey Abeyance ritual. It lists minimum 1 secondary caster and 4 secondary checks. I couldn't find any exceptions to the Core Rulebook to the requirement that each secondary check is performed by a different secondary caster.

So it seems that as written, the minimum number of secondary casters could not complete this ritual. I am guessing that either the secondary casters should be 4, or there should be an "OR" in the list of secondary checks. It feels like there's an error in there somewhere.

[werewolfpaladin]

Looking at context, I'm guessing there's a missing "or". Since the number of secondary casters is the minimum number and the text says that the NPC asks "as many heroes who can serve as secondary casters to do so while other heroes watch", that seems to indicate a missing "or". Otherwise it would be messy for a variable number of PCs to step in. Also, having four secondary casters would force NPC involvement due to the baseline assumption of 4 PCs.

[TomParker]

That's how we ran it. But the text you quote was what threw us off—if there's only one check, there's no downside to all the PCs being involved. So the "can serve" had us second-guessing the decision.

[werewolfpaladin]

At my table, I'd allow up to three additional secondary casters to make checks, so long as they all make different checks, since there's four skills listed in the Ritual write-up, but that's not something covered in the Ritual rules. Most of rituals have an equivalent number of skills equal to the secondary casters, even when they have options, it's still an obvious list: this or this (frequently "whichever isn't used for the primary"); this; this. The only other situation even similar to this one is a ritual from the blog, Waters of Prediction, which has three secondary casters and a skill list like: this, this, this, or this.

[TomParker]

werewolfpaladin wrote:

The only other situation even similar to this one is a ritual from the blog, Waters of Prediction, which has three secondary casters and a skill list like: this, this, this, or this.

Ah, I hadn't seen that one. So you're reading that as, you can do this with 3 secondary casters choosing any 3 of those skills, or add a 4 secondary caster and roll the 4th skill. That makes perfect sense.

[werewolfpaladin]

That's how I'd run it. Whether that's Rules-As-Intended, I don't know. Rules-As-Written doesn't really cover this scenario. :)