Page 15, Cosmopolitan reads akwardly: "When speaking with a non-player character that also has the Cosmopolitan talent, it is assumed that you each possess enough of each other’s languages in common that you are considered fluent when speaking with one other." I would rewrite as "When speaking with a non-player character that also has the Cosmopolitan talent, it is assumed that you each possess enough of the other’s language or of languages you have in common that you are considered fluent when speaking with one another."
Page 25, "You learned that sometimes a merchant needs to be have two cargoes: one to be seen, and one to pay for the trip." should be "You learned that sometimes a merchant needs to have two cargoes: one to be seen, and one to pay for the trip."
Page 35, "The skill bonuses your character earns from nature add onto the top of those from your character’s archetype, so bonuses to career skills — whether mandatory and elective — can be added those from the prior step." should be "The skill bonuses your character earns from nature go on top of those from your character’s archetype, so bonuses to career skills — whether mandatory and elective — can be added to those from the prior step."
Same page, "though the actual benefits should remain altered." should be "though the actual benefits should remain unaltered."
Page 37, "You have an eye towards the pragmatic" should be "You have an eye for the pragmatic".
Same page, "Slavery, also, is the all-too-common crucible in which hard lessons are earned." should be "Slavery, also, is the all-too-common crucible in which hard lessons are learned."
The Samantha example on page 36 is incorrect. The (first) Discipline talent must be Courageous, since that is the talent at the root of that tree (as chapter 3 reveals). Page 40 repeats the error.
Rewrite of Talents box, page 38:
When the character is granted more than one talent associated with a particular skill, you can decide to leave the second and later talents unselected. At any later point during game play, should you decide you want to choose one of these unselected talents, you can simply add the talent, assuming that for all intents and purposes your character has always had this talent, but never used it (as long as the prerequisites of the talent tree are met). For example, if Samantha had three Discipline talents (see page xx), the first must be Courageous, but she could leave the remaining two unspecified. Should she later pick Jaded, then the last talent could be any one of Iron Will, Healthy Superstition, or Wary.
Page 39, "It was time for you to pick up your belongings and continue on your mentor’s path, continuing that great and respected tradition." reads a little repetitious. Rewrite as "It was time for you to pick up your belongings and continue on your mentor’s path, upholding that great and respected tradition."
Same page, "family-members" should be "family members".
Page 42 and 44: "Pick three skills that are at +3 or more —improved through the steps detailing caste, archetype, nature, education, war story, and customization— and designate them as legendary skills. [...] If your character does not have a total of three skills with bonuses of +3 or higher, you should pick three skills you would like your character to focus on, and designate them as legendary."
It would be easier to state "Pick three skills, starting with those that are at +3 or more —improved through the steps detailing caste, archetype, nature, education, war story, and customization— and designate them as legendary skills. [...]"
Page 44, "Furthermore, the character gains another language for every point of Skill Focus in Linguistics your character possesses." would read better as "Furthermore, the character gains another language for every point of Skill Focus in Linguistics."
Page 45, "jewellery" should be "jewelry" (as repeated three lines below).
Page 49, "These tables are an abbreviated version of the full character creation process, and the results are presented throughout the rest of this chapter." feels weird, since there's merely one page remaining. Rewrite as just "These tables are an abbreviated version of the full character creation process."
Homelands Talents, Of Saddle and Bow, p. 15: Last sentence (“You can also reduce…”). It is not very clear whether the Difficulty reduction on Animal Handling applies only to horses (...and while wielding a bow…) or to all Animal Handling tests, whatever the animal (and whatever weapon you hold...).
Regarding Homelands talents I miss a few things which people in a "Canon Howardian" game should have:
1) Bossonian talent about bows
2) Cimmerian talent about climbing
3) Gunderlander talent about wielding spears/pikes
Reading REH it's pretty clear that Bossonians are natural born archers and Gunderlanders are natural born pikemen, so I GUESS THAT some natural talent with related weapons should be present....but it's not!!!
Why don't we have homelands talents related to bow and Pike/spear for these two very specific ethnics which were SPECIFICALLY described by REH to be natural masters of those two weapons?
I have a problem about how you chose homelands.
I know that it has been answered elsewhere (you put what you thought were the most possible homelands for adventurers)but, really, how can it be that one can create Khitans and not Afghuli, Wazuli or Picts?
As far as I remember we have much more information from REH on AfGhuli, Wazuli and Picts than on Khitans and Iranistani!!
But Iranistan and Khitai are possible homelands in these Core rules while Ghulistan or Pictlands are not...
I know you'll fix this in future sourcebooks, but I thought that their place was here in core, not later in sourcebooks.
But maybe it's just my opinion.
Page 22, second sentence: "These suggest background elements and ask questions that the player can answer, or the player can choose to leave these questions remain unanswered, as desired." The end of this sentence would work better with a slight adjustment, perhaps like "or the player can choose to let these questions remain unanswered, as desired." or "or the player can choose to leave these questions unanswered, as desired."
Page 28, under Glorious Battle: "but you gave better than you got and it was them that routed." The verb rout is something someone does to the other party, so the enemies were routed, it was our hero who routed (them). Try "but you gave better than you got, and it was them that were routed."
Page 29, under Blood-soaked Endeavor: "Seeking to profit from the battle, you searched the nearby tents and left, knowing the enemy would never truly recover." Perhaps I am missing the intent, but you may have meant "you searched the nearby tents and then left, knowing the enemy..." The original wording keeps making me think you were leaving the tents repeatedly, each time knowing they wouldn't recover, like the tents were what brought you to that conclusion, as opposed to the carnage in general that was also outside the tents.
I wrote it somewhere else but I suppose here is the right place. I feel like a miscalculation has been made for the Homeland table. I think the table was created as there was an egal distribution of every number for 2D20. As it's not, the current table create a situation where 9,75% of characters/population are Zamorians and only 4,25% are Aquilonians (8,75% by adding Bossonians and Gunderland). As Aquilonia is stated as the greatest realm, maybe it should not be that way. As the peak of the probability is around 20,5, should'nt Aquilonia be there? May be there's been change along the road to creating this table and it's what caused this. For example, the table suppose we use 2D20 but the example of the page 49 clearly used only one dice.